Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
05/03/2007 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR23 | |
| HJR2 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 2-CONST.AM:NO GAMING WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL 8:20:52 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska requiring an affirmative vote of the people before any form of gambling for profit may be authorized in Alaska. 8:21:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, Alaska State Legislature, presented HJR 2 as joint prime sponsor. He reported that only two states do not have legalized forms of gambling for profit. Currently, he said, there is a "third wave of gambling in our nation's history," but "the pendulum has started to swing back." He said an increasing number of states are beginning to realize the ill effects of gambling: suicide, mania, depression, alcohol use, and increased drug rates. He posited that Alaska already has a problem with charitable gaming, and he said he does not want to see gambling expanded any further in Alaska. 8:24:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said there will be an initiative on an upcoming ballot, which promotes "a way to regulate the gambling industry that we have presently." The initiative would allow the existence of a five-member commission appointed by the governor to make the decision whether or not to expand gambling. Representative Crawford said he has heard proponents of the initiative speak, and never has he heard them say the initiative will mean a chance to expand for-profit gambling into Alaska. He stated that he would like to make it difficult for anybody to bring any additional types of gambling into Alaska. CHAIR LYNN commented that it amazes him how gambling bills have surfaced in the past "during the waning hours of the legislative session, with very few committees of referral." 8:26:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE NANCY DAHLSTROM, Alaska State Legislature, testified as joint prime sponsor of HJR 2. She stated that her concern is for society. She said gambling starts out as fun, turns into temptation, and then becomes an addiction. She offered an example of gambling addiction among the senior citizens in Florida. She noted that there is documentation proving that sexual abuse and domestic violence increases in areas [with gambling]. She reported that Alaska is ranked highest in suicide rates and ranks very high in sexual abuse. She relayed that children frequently are the innocent victims of gambling ills. She stated that she cannot sit quietly and let [increased gambling] come into Alaska, because she believes that it will bring "destruction and mass problems to our state." 8:29:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL directed attention to a sentence on page 1, beginning on line 7, which read as follows: Any form of gaming or gambling for profit is prohibited in the State unless that form of gaming or gambling has been authorized by law and ratified by a sixty percent majority vote of the qualified voters of the State who vote on the question. REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked how that would affect someone trying to build a casino, for example. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD responded that an election would have to be held, in which 60 percent of voters would have to approve the casino. REPRESENTATIVE DOLL conjectured that [the 60 percent approval] could apply to many forms of gambling. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said the major concern right now is to prevent electronic gaming, such as video poker, from being introduced into the state. He related that the people who paid for the initiative to be on the ballot are mainly bar owners who want to be able to put video poker and electronic gaming machines in their establishments. He stated that Alaska already has a problem with alcohol consumption and long hours of cold and darkness. People hang out in bars, he said. He concluded, "This would just be one more way to fleece them of even more of their livelihood." 8:30:58 AM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM noted that bingo halls are already allowed by law. She stated that Alaska is unique because of its "Indian land/Indian gaming issue." She said there is one [concern] certainly, which is: "As soon as there's one casino, there will be an opportunity to have 200 casinos." Representative Dahlstrom said some casinos could be built in the midst of neighborhoods with schools. She indicated that gaming can appear to young people as a glamorous pastime, even though it really is not. 8:34:04 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said it seems cumbersome to require a vote on each type of gaming or gambling. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM pointed out that the sentence begins by specifying "Any form". REPRESENTATIVE DOLL suggested omitting, "unless that form of gaming or gambling has been authorized". REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that would mean holding one vote for all time instead of voting each time. He explained that if for some reason the state votes to allow gambling in one community, he does not want to bring it into another community without a vote. 8:35:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN noted that requiring a 60 percent approval raises the bar "from any other question going out in front of the public." REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD revealed that he patterned the requirement after the sales tax amendment in Anchorage, where it takes a 60 percent majority to pass a sales tax. He stated, "I want it to be very difficult, and I want to protect the minority, as well." REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN mentioned Metlakatla, Alaska, and offered his understanding that nothing the state does will affect its status. Furthermore, he said he thinks Metlakatla has some sort of a casino in operation. In response to a remark from Representative Crawford, he recommended that the bill sponsors research that topic, since he said he believes "it's a very, very specific situation there." REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM responded that she thinks Representative Johansen is correct that Metlakatla is totally unique from all other entities in the state. She suggested the need for the sponsors to travel to Metlakatla to find out first hand. 8:38:42 AM CHAIR LYNN said he had been concerned in the past that gambling on the cruise ships could expand to gambling in the state, but he found out from the attorney general that different sets of laws apply. 8:38:56 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his understanding that HJR 2 would not affect Indian gaming. Regarding the voting percentage, he stated that he has a problem "either way" - whether requiring 45 or 60 percent. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD reminded Representative Johnson that it takes a two-thirds majority vote in both houses and a majority vote of the people in order to make changes to the constitution. He said he would like to create the highest hurdle possible with respect to gambling. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON clarified that he agrees with the required three-quarter vote of both houses, but he is concerned about the public vote. He explained, "If you could make it an 80 percent requirement to pass it, I'm not sure I would personally be opposed to that, because I don't want gambling, but philosophically I think the majority rule is where I'm much more comfortable with that." REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said the joint sponsors would ponder that issue. 8:42:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that he will support an anti- gambling bill, but if the resolution is brought before the House proposing a 60 percent vote requirement, he will oppose it. He questioned why, if the real issue is addiction, the legislature has not proposed legislation regarding addiction to alcohol. He said he respects the passion of those who support HJR 2. He stated that he is a person who happens to enjoy gambling, but he is not addicted to it. He concluded, "And so, if we're going to attack addictions, let's attack them all, and not just this one." REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said she would work on the issue of voting percentage requirements. REPRESENTATIVE ROSES directed attention to the language on page 1, line 7, which read, "Any form of gaming or gambling for profit" - emphasizing the words "for profit". He said flipping a coin to see who speaks first is gaming. He noted that a coin is flipped to determine the outcome of a tied vote, which he said is not only gaming, but is definitely for profit. He said he knows that is not the intent of the sponsors, but warned that people can take this legislation to the extreme; therefore, he encouraged the sponsors to make the record as clear as possible. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he will make it as clear as possible that there is a difference between charitable gaming and for-profit gambling. He confirmed that the resolution does not address charitable gaming. 8:46:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM reiterated that the joint sponsors would address the concerns that have been expressed by the committee. 8:46:51 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would like the sponsors to prevent any loopholes, such as a 501(c)(3) - nonprofit - agency deciding to build a casino because it is not a for-profit company. 8:47:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD responded that there are already "a set of rules that have been hashed out over the years," and the intent of the proposed legislation is not to change statute. He said, "What we're doing is talking about the expansion into for- profit gambling." REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON warned that the courts have a way of taking some of the "best-intended rules" and interpreting them in a more literal fashion than the legislature would like. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM promised to consider the matter. 8:48:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that a Major League baseball team is a nonprofit organization, and thus could own a casino under HJR 2. He continued: The determination of what is a nonprofit is [a] legal loophole on a couple levels. First of all, ... if you're looking [at] the federal tax law, you're ceding this whole ... issue to the federal government to make a determination of what qualifies. ... Number two, ... you can really manipulate the bottom line, and if you're talking about gambling for profit, you could do it. And a sharp lawyer and a sharp accountant would set it up so that they never made any profit, ... but the operator could make a lot of money by simply expensing out their expenses. And in fact, that's what's happening with a lot of the gaming that goes on in Anchorage, and those people will just do it to a much greater level, and they're very good at it, and that'll be a huge loophole. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned what "form of gaming" really means. He listed some examples and suggested the need for more clarity. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD reminded Representative Gruenberg that the language read, "Any form of gaming" - and he emphasized the word "Any". He reiterated that the resolution is not in any way proposing to legalize not-for-profit gambling or expand charitable gaming. He said, "We are only trying to close the door on what we don't have right now, which is gambling for profit." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he understands the intent of the resolution, but is simply raising issues of concern. CHAIR LYNN said he would like to move the bill out of committee today and hash out the issues brought forth by Representative Gruenberg in the House Judiciary Standing Committee. 8:53:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to the word "election" on line 14. He said, "The people who wanted to do this could set up a special election at which only a tiny group of people vote." 8:54:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked if a ballot initiative opposing gambling would also require the support of 60 percent of voters in order for it to pass. [REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD shook his head no.] REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he does not think that would apply, because the resolution addresses authorization, not prohibition. 8:54:58 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that the proposed resolution would affect both Article 2 - legislative powers - and Article 10 - local government powers. He indicated the need to clarify the meaning of "charitable purposes" [found on page 1, line 12], because he said a creative lawyer could think of lots of charitable purposes that others would not have thought about. 8:55:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said it seems like there have not been decisions made thus far regarding gambling. He said he is having difficulty believing "that 60 percent would fly." He suggested that a requirement for 50 percent of the voters "could possibly legalize a form of gaming or gambling." He asked: Are you really willing to roll the dice to opening up this entire thing to all the entities that could possibly have gaming based on a majority of this body and the other body, plus 50 percent of whatever vote could be fixed up in a nice tidy little deal? Timing- wise -- I mean you could be opening the state to all kinds of gaming. ... It seems kind of dangerous to me. 8:57:14 AM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said the joint sponsors have their homework cut out for them after hearing the questions from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. She stated that many people believe that this issue was solved many years ago, while others believe it is still wide open. 8:58:23 AM ED MOEGLEIN, Alaska Charitable Nonprofits Organization, testified in favor of HJR 2. He concurred with the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet]. Furthermore, he indicated support of "putting for-profit organizations in competition with nonprofit organizations for their charitable donations that they use." He made the distinction between a charitable nonprofit organization and a nonprofit organization: the former is required through its permit to give away some of its proceeds from pull tabs or bingo to the community or "a community organization effort," while the latter uses its income directly for the operation of its organization. He spoke of the harm that could result from having a gaming commission opening up "a floodgate of opportunities for different types of gambling" and "offering it to for-profit organizations that would be in direct competition with the community organizations that are already serving our community." He concluded, "Those are the two basic reasons why I speak in favor of this resolution." 9:01:05 AM DEBBIE JOSLIN, Eagle Forum Alaska, told the committee that the over 1,100 members of the forum support HJR 2. She said changing the Constitution of the State of Alaska is a serious proposition, but in this case such action is warranted. She stated: The writers of the constitution would agree that the question of whether or not our state should engage in or allow further gaming is a decision that should be made by the owners of the constitution - the people. ... I recognize that our legislature has done a stellar job of holding off the wolves for many years, and I feel like this would take some of the pressure off of the legislature, and I certainly concur that we do not want these decisions to be made by a five- member commission. MS. JOSLIN quoted Warren Buffett - an internationally respected investment expert from Nebraska - as having stated: Addictions produce crime. If you have a large group of people who are addicted to drugs, you'll have more crime. If you have a large group of people who are addicted to gambling, you'll have more crime. People get into impossible situations when they get addicted to something like that. And some people will opt for crime, some will opt for bankruptcy, some may commit suicide. MS. JOSLIN stated that Eagle Forum Alaska's concern is for families and children. She said, "Legalizing addictive behavior does not lessen the addictive nature of the behavior, nor does it provide a safe, controlled environment; that doesn't lessen the crime that's associated with such behavior." MS. JOSLIN stated concern about the 60 percent, saying that she is more comfortable with a simple majority [requirement]. She recommended that the language require the vote to take place at "next general election". She acknowledged the previous comments that more work would be done on the resolution in the House Judiciary Standing Committee, and said she looks forward to testifying before that committee. 9:03:36 AM JIM MINNERY, President, Alaska Family Council, testified in support of HJR 2. He relayed that the council is a statewide public policy group that represents the interest of Alaskans across the state who are concerned about issues related to strengthening and protecting families. He stated that the council "firmly opposes all forms of legalized [gambling] for both moral and pragmatic reasons" and believes that "the net societal effect of our government's embrace of gambling has been disastrous." He praised the joint prime sponsors for their efforts to give Alaskans an opportunity to determine if gambling should be expanded in the state. He opined that the act of gambling is driven by and subsists on greed, and for that reason the practice is "morally bankrupt from its very foundation." He said it is an activity that exploits the vulnerable, the young, the old, and those susceptible to addictive behaviors. Legalized gambling, he relayed, creates gambling addicts and devastates families; it creates dramatic increases in divorce, suicide, bankruptcy, child abuse, and domestic violence. He said the Alaska Family Council believes that it is unconscionable that government supports gambling and that "legalized gambling in all its forms should and must be vigorously opposed." 9:06:49 AM CHAIR LYNN asked Mr. Minnery if he thinks an amendment to the constitution is the best method for addressing the issue. MR. MINNERY replied that he has not seen another alternative. 9:07:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said a constitutional amendment is the only method he knows of that would "trump citizens' initiative during its first two years." He continued: I believe in citizens' initiatives. This initiative that we're fighting right now was never sold as an expansion of gambling; it was always sold as the regulation of what we have now. It's a lie. 9:08:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, in response to a question from Representative Johansen, he said if HJR 2 is passed with a two- thirds majority of both houses, it will be on the November [2007] general election ballot." He said the aforementioned gambling initiative will be on the primary election ballot preceding that. 9:10:07 AM CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony. 9:10:14 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG talked about prior legislation that allowed local communities to authorize or prohibit gambling, and he warned that HJR 2 could take that authorization away. He said some voters will see this issue as a question of who should have the right to decide. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated: In a number of states they permit you to amend the constitution by an initiative; we don't here. The only way you can actually do it is if you call a constitutional convention, which hasn't - thank goodness - ever happened. But this will provide a real precedent for divesting all legislative bodies in a constitutional way of ever weighing in on something. 9:13:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said she thinks the statement of Representative Gruenberg is fact. Furthermore, she said it is a fact that the [current] legislature cannot "tie the hands of any future legislature." 9:13:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated support of HJR 2. He said amending the constitution is a serious issue, and he explained that the reason for all his prior questions is that he wants to "get it right." 9:14:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated, "I don't know about the wisdom of this, but ... at least it's something for the people to think about." He said he thinks legislators and others are concerned about giving legislative power to the gaming commission, which is what the aforementioned initiative would do. He said he does not know if it is wise for this legislature to take a position on the initiative, because "it directly affects the ability of the legislature to legislate a very important issue of public policy." 9:15:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he has given the issue much thought. He reiterated that the legislature cannot repeal a citizens' initiative or effect it until two years have passed. Once a foothold has been established in two years, he said, it will be difficult to undue. He said every year since he has served in the legislature there has been an attempt to spread gambling throughout the state, and he wants to make the bar high [in order to block that spread]. He said he welcomes criticism, but his bottom line is to stop gambling from expanding in Alaska. A constitutional amendment is a way to get that done, he concluded. 9:18:40 AM CHAIR LYNN stated support of HJR 2, although he suggested it may need to be refined. 9:18:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL emphasized her support of HJR 2. She said she would like to see all for-profit gambling prohibited. 9:19:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report HJR 2 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HJR 2 was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|