04/15/2019 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR3 | |
| SJR5 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SJR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 15, 2019
1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Shelley Hughes, Chair
Senator Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Senator Mike Shower
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to the membership of the judicial council.
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the Alaska permanent fund and the permanent fund
dividend.
- MOVED CSSJR 5(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
prohibiting the establishment of, or increase to, a state tax
without the approval of the voters of the state; and relating to
the initiative process.
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SJR 3
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: MEMBERSHIP OF JUDICIAL COUNCIL
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) SHOWER
01/16/19 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/19
01/16/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/19 (S) JUD, FIN
04/12/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/12/19 (S) Heard & Held
04/12/19 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/15/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SJR 5
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM.:PERMANENT FUND & DIVIDEND
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/30/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/30/19 (S) STA, JUD, FIN
03/28/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/28/19 (S) Heard & Held
03/28/19 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/02/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/02/19 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/03/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/03/19 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/03/19 (S) JUD AT 6:00 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/03/19 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/04/19 (S) STA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/04/19 (S) Moved CSSJR 5(STA) Out of Committee
04/04/19 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/05/19 (S) STA RPT CS 1DNP 3AM SAME TITLE
04/05/19 (S) AM: SHOWER, MICCICHE, KAWASAKI
04/05/19 (S) DNP: COGHILL
04/08/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/08/19 (S) Heard & Held
04/08/19 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/08/19 (S) JUD AT 6:00 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/08/19 (S) Heard & Held
04/08/19 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/15/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
SCOTT OGAN, Staff
Senator Mike Shower
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of SJR 3,
Senator Mike Shower.
ELEANOR ANDREWS, President & CEO
Andrews Group
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 3.
DAVID LANDRY, representing himself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 3.Testified
in opposition to SJR
ERIC MCCAULUM, representing himself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 3.
JOE MILLER, representing himself
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 3.
CAROL CARMAN, representing herself
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 3.
WES KELLER, representing himself
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 3.
JOHN BIOFF, General Counsel
Kawerak, Inc.
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 3.
LYNETTE CLARK, representing herself
Fox, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 3.
LARRY BARSUKOFF, Director of Operations
Alaska Policy Forum
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SJR 3 in
support of confirmation hearings for appointees to the Alaska
Judicial Council.
WALTER (BUD) CARPENETI, Board Vice President
Justice, Not Politics Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 3.
MIKE BARNHILL, Policy Director
Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SJR 5 on behalf of the
administration.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:34:10 PM
CHAIR SHELLEY HUGHES called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kiehl, Shower, Micciche, Reinbold, and Chair
Hughes.
SJR 3-CONST. AM: MEMBERSHIP OF JUDICIAL COUNCIL
1:34:29 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the first order of business would be
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the membership
of the judicial council.
CHAIR HUGHES made general remarks.
1:35:04 PM
At-ease.
1:40:35 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting. The committee was given an
introduction to SJR 3 on Friday, April 12.
1:42:00 PM
SENATOR SHOWER said some remarks and comments were made at the
last hearing that pivoted from the goal of SJR 3, which relates
to the foundational principles from a constitutional
perspective. He offered his belief that the hearing was "all
about politics." He said he would like to redirect the narrative
to the reason for the resolution.
1:42:49 PM
SCOTT OGAN, Staff, Senator Mike Shower, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, on behalf of the sponsor, stated that 13 of
55 delegates at the constitutional convention were attorneys. He
reviewed a list of consultants who assisted the Alaska
Constitutional Convention. Earnest Bartley, Professor of
Political Science, University of Florida authored a 1958 book,
"Principles and Problems of State and Local Government." Dayton
McKean, Ph.D., professor, University of Colorado, Boulder,
worked with the committee on a legislative article. Vincent
Olstrom, Ph.D., professor, University of Oregon, worked with the
committee on the natural resources article. Weldon Cooper, Ph.D.
professor, Department of Political Science, University of
Virginia, worked with the committee on local government. Sheldon
Elliott, Ph.D., Director, Institute of Judicial Administration,
[New York University School of Law, New York, worked with the
committee on the judicial article. Mr. Elliott authored the 1959
publication "Collected Studies on Judicial Administrations."
He elaborated on Mr. Elliott's background in New York. In May
1958, the League of Women Voters in New York asked the institute
to prepare a new judiciary article for the New York State
Constitution. That plan was for a statewide integrated court
system that was centrally administrated and financed.
MR. OGAN continued to list the consultants. Dr. Kimbrough Own,
professor, Louisiana State University, worked on the committee
on style and drafting. John Bebout, National Municipal League,
New York, worked on the committee on local government article.
Emil J. Sady, Brookings Institution, worked with the secretary
of the Alaska Constitutional Convention on administration and
organization of the records. He characterized the consultants as
a very qualified group.
1:45:20 PM
SENATOR SHOWER referred to some of the counter arguments made by
[Nancy Meade, General Counsel], Alaska Court System, during the
[April 12] hearing on SJR 3. He agreed that the delegates voted
in favor of the constitutional amendment on the Alaska Judicial
Council by a vote of 49-4. Some of the consultants disagreed, as
he stated during the previous hearing, so he will not reiterate
their comments. He said he suspected that the court system would
try to make this about politics. However, [SJR 3] is not about
politics. It would remedy a small foundational flaw in the
structure [of the Alaska Judicial Council], he said. He added
that some states require confirmation of judges and other states
elect judges.
He provided some background for pre-Alaska Constitutional
Convention, that in the early 1900s the burgeoning Alaska
territory saw voting turnout by Alaska Natives on the rise. By
1922, the numbers of Alaska Native population voting were higher
than the non-Native population in the territory. In 1924, the
U.S. Congress conferred citizenship to all non-citizen Indians
born within the territorial limits of the U.S. The Alaska
Territorial Legislature responded by enacting a literacy law
requiring that voters be able to read and write the English
language. It also passed laws limiting the ability of Alaska
Natives to be citizens, participate in the political process, or
enter certain public establishments.
SENATOR SHOWER said that the Constitution of the State of Alaska
also required an English literacy requirement as a qualification
for voting, which was repealed in 1970. Thus, at the time the
Constitution of the State of Alaska was being crafted, Alaska's
indigenous representation was provided solely by one person,
Frank Peratrovich, Klawock. At the time, the Alaska Native
population constituted a significantly higher percentage of the
territory's population, he said.
SENATOR SHOWER said his point is that some groups were
underrepresented with a very small group of experts
participating, but the [indigenous] residents of Alaska were
underrepresented.
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether he would relate that to [SJR 3],
which would require confirmation [of the attorney members] by
the legislature.
SENATOR SHOWER recalled a previous discussion that indicated the
Alaska Constitutional Convention was well represented. However,
the majority of the population was represented by one person. He
offered his belief that this is germane to the discussion. He
wondered what would have happened if the majority of the
delegates had been Alaska Natives. He said it was something to
consider.
CHAIR HUGHES acknowledged one of the sponsor's foundational
points, that power is inherent with the people.
1:49:00 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE remarked that it is easy to get far off topic
during discussions. He asked the sponsor to clarify the reason
the resolution is important and what it solves rather than to
disagree with one of the testifiers.
CHAIR HUGHES acknowledged that some questions arose, so
providing the history is important. She said Ms. Meade, Alaska
Court System, made it clear that [the structure of the selection
process for members of the Alaska Judicial Council] was
intentional and the current question is whether the Alaska
Constitutional Convention [delegates] made a mistake.
1:50:32 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for further clarification on the
resolution. She asked whether the resolution would require
members of the Alaska Judicial Council be confirmed by the
legislature.
SENATOR SHOWER reviewed the composition of the Alaska Judicial
Council and the judicial selection process and responded that
the [short] answer is yes.
1:51:44 PM
SENATOR SHOWER reiterated his intent for SJR 3 is to provide a
"tweak" to the constitutional provisions. He expressed concern
that the testimony given [during a previous hearing on SJR 3]
misstated his goal [with SJR 3] was to select conservative
judges, which he thought "politicized" the discussion. He wanted
the record to reflect that the [Alaska Court System's]
contention is [SJR 3] is about politics. However, he contended
that [his goal] is to correct a small flaw in the constitutional
premise. The Alaska Constitutional Convention set up a system in
which three attorneys and the chief justice of the Alaska
Supreme Court can pick every single judge in Alaska because
those names are sent to the governor to be nominated. He
characterized it as an oligarchy. The court system is one-third
of Alaska government, he said. He offered his belief that the
people have been removed from that process and the system does
not provide a mechanism for votes to be overridden. "If the
seventh tie breaker was not a lawyer or the chief justice,
perhaps there would not be any bias," he said. Only lawyers can
choose from their own pool, comprised of 0.6 of the population,
who will sit on the bench.
He clarified that judges are appointed and not elected. He
acknowledged that after an election cycle, judges are retained.
He said that he has pages of notes that refute the arguments and
points made at the last hearing, but he would not spend any more
time on it. He concluded that SJR 3 would change the system of
selecting judges in Alaska. One argument that was somewhat made
at the last hearing is that legislators cannot divorce
themselves from politics and be objectives [during the
confirmation process], but somehow judges are objective. He said
that everyone is human and influenced by their biases or else
none of us are. It does not only apply to one branch of
government, that it is a two-way street.
1:56:12 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said that it is a two-way street. She would say
[SJR 3] is not about politics but it is about accountability. At
this point accountability is not a factor until judges are up
for retention and [SJR 3] would change it so it applies on "day
one." She thought one interesting point made at the last meeting
is that attorneys are also constituents. She pointed out that
her dad was an attorney and two of her siblings are attorneys.
Although she loves attorneys, they are not a class above other
people. The legislature does not allow other boards and
commissions to appoint their own members and she did not think
the [Alaska Judicial Council] should do so either.
1:57:25 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD pointed out that SJR 3 only changes 15 words.
She said that she would prefer to have judges elected because
they need to be vetted. She offered her belief that there is
substantial political activism from the judicial branch. She
said she supports SJR 3.
SENATOR SHOWER pointed out that lawyers would still select from
lawyers and that would not change. He said that this would add
one last cross check from the voice of the people over the
members of the [Alaska Judicial Council]. It does not pertain to
who is selected to be a judge. He characterized it as a
miniscule step in the process.
1:59:02 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE related his understanding of the mechanics. He
said that three [attorney] names would be forwarded to the
governor, to be confirmed by the legislature [to serve on the
Alaska Judicial Council]. If the legislature failed to confirm
the appointees, the process would start again. He asked for
further clarification on any contingency in place for the Alaska
Judicial Council to operate if it does not have an adequate
number of members.
MR. OGAN said that could be done by statute, although the
resolution is silent. He said it could imply that someone else
could be appointed and wait for the next confirmation hearing.
SENATOR SHOWER said that he has been trying to stay at the
highest level by looking at the foundational change and refrain
from looking at statutes, regulations, and policies at this
point.
2:00:57 PM
CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on SJR 3.
2:01:54 PM
ELEANOR ANDREWS, President & CEO, Andrews Group, Anchorage,
stated her opposition to SJR 3. She said that she previously
served on the Alaska Judicial Council as the lay person. She
also previously served as the commissioner of the Department of
Administration and on the boards for the Chamber of Commerce,
Commonwealth North, and every Anchorage civic organization. She
said that as the lay person on the Alaska Judicial Council, she
had the opportunity to argue with and negotiate with lawyers.
She did not believe the attorney members overpower the non-
attorney members. She said that Governors Murkowski and Knowles
did not pick candidates from the three members selected by the
council. She said groups of legislators threatened members
because someone did not get appointed. She said she has been
threatened during the confirmation process that she would not be
confirmed. She said that the current system provides for
justice, which is what she really cares about. In closing, she
said the system works and is a model system.
2:04:04 PM
DAVID LANDRY, representing himself, Anchorage, stated that he is
a construction contractor in Anchorage and opposes SJR 3. He
recalled that Senator Micciche hit on two things, and the use of
lawyers in the selection process is a wise use of expertise. He
said that limiting that in any way would be a rookie business
move and is not how businesses work. He said that lawyers
provide invaluable expertise. He offered his belief that the
confirmation hearing process would be a political litmus test.
2:05:21 PM
ERIC MCCAULUM, representing himself, Anchorage, stated that he
works for a North Slope supplier and he has worked in
construction and fishing for the last 35 years. He said he is
also the main investor in a company, Triverus [Cleaning &
Environmental Solutions], who was just awarded a multi-million-
dollar contract to supply the aircraft cleaning deck equipment
to the U.S. Navy. He said that the Alaska Judicial Council
process has worked for over 40 years. The chief justice of the
Alaska Supreme Court has been the tiebreaker in less than one
percent of the cases. Alaska had the advantage of reviewing
other states' constitutions and learning from their mistakes.
CHAIR HUGHES stated that the public can submit testimony to
Senate.Judiciary@akleg.gov.
2:07:05 PM
JOE MILLER, representing himself, Fairbanks, spoke in support of
SJR 3. He said he has served as a federal and state magistrate,
an acting district court judge, and a lawyer. He has applied to
be a judge. He said that his wife sat on the Alaska Judicial
Council. He said that lawyers are viewed fairly negatively, and
it is a biased demographic. He said that lawyers constitute a
very small percentage of the population that controls the
outcome of judicial selections. He said beyond the 4-3 vote, it
also extends to the Alaska Judicial Council's staff selection,
and reports generated by the council that constitute an
influential part of the process. He said the judiciary branch is
the branch that the founders feared most. He said that the
legislature needs to take the time to make this change.
2:08:10 PM
CAROL CARMAN, representing herself, Palmer, testified in support
of SJR 3. She agreed with the sponsor that more oversight is
needed. She also echoed Mr. Miller's testimony regarding bias
and politics. She preferred that judges be elected, she said.
2:08:49 PM
WES KELLER, representing himself, Wasilla, testified in support
of SJR 3. He said that this could be the most critical issue on
the docket in the legislature. It is about asserting legislative
powers. He said that SJR 3 will address a potentially fatal flaw
in the Constitution of the State of Alaska. There is an
imbalance of power, he said. He said that SJR 3 will tweak the
constitutional flaw and give the legislature the right to say
no.
2:11:07 PM
JOHN BIOFF, General Counsel, Kawerak, Inc., Nome, said that
Kawerak, Inc. is a regional Native non-profit consortium in the
Bering Strait region and is comprised of 20 federally recognized
tribal governments. The consortium submitted a letter in
opposition to SJR 3 signed by Frank Katchatag, Chair, who served
as the Board of Directors for Kawerak, Inc. The board, comprised
of people, not lawyers, opposes this to ensure that politics
does not enter into the process [of selecting members to serve
on the Alaska Judicial Council]. The committee held discussions
that indicated this is not about politics, but it truly is, he
said. The current process allows subject matter experts, who are
attorneys, to have a say, side-by-side with citizens. The
process is not broken and does not need to be fixed.
2:12:21 PM
LYNETTE CLARK, representing herself, Fox, spoke in support of
SJR 3. She offered her belief that judicial activism present in
the Lower 48 has filtered its way into Alaska's courts. She said
she is one of the people covered by Article I, Section I and II
of the Constitution of the State of Alaska and she would like
her voice honored. She sees this as a way to be better
represented by the legislature.
2:13:42 PM
LARRY BARSUKOFF, Director of Operations, Alaska Policy Forum,
Anchorage, said that he supports legislative confirmation of all
members of the [Alaska] Judicial Council. He considers himself
an informed voter but fully researching the ten or so judges
during a retention vote is not a high priority, so he relies on
the Alaska Judicial Council to do so. He surmised that the
average voter also trusts the judgment of the Alaska Judicial
Council.
He offered his belief that industry insiders have a natural
advantage over members of the public since they are the experts,
and the public tends to rely on industry members. He mentioned
this to show the power of the individual members [of the Alaska
Judicial Council], especially those selected by the Alaska Bar
Association. He said that the founders of the U.S. worked hard
to dilute authority in the same way the authors of the
Constitution of the State of Alaska sought to ensure sovereign
authority remained with the citizens of Alaska.
2:15:27 PM
WALTER (BUD) CARPENETI, Board Vice President, Justice, Not
Politics Alaska, Juneau, spoke in opposition to SJR 3. He said
the sponsor stated that three attorneys and the chief justice
can determine on their own all of the judges, which he took to
mean was the basic statement of the problem. This system has
worked very well for 60 years, so what problem needs to be
fixed, he asked. Former Representative Wes Keller stated that
that there is a potential fatal flaw in the system, he said.
However, every chief justice has been confirmed by a majority of
the statewide voters. He provided factual history to refute that
three attorneys and the chief justice have taken over the power
[on the Alaska Judicial Council]. Since 1984, the [Alaska
Judicial] Council has voted on 1,389 judicial candidates. More
than 80 percent of those votes have been 5-1 or 6-0 because the
council members work well together, he said.
Second, 75, or five percent, of the votes resulted in 3-3 tie
votes. However, 19 of the 75 tie votes had all of the attorneys
on one side and all the non-attorneys on the other side, he
said. In those instances, 75 percent of the time the chief
justice voted to forward the names to the governor. The system
does not seem to be a system that has problems, he said.
MR. CARPENETI agreed that all power resides in the people. He
said that this means that the Constitution of the State of
Alaska can be changed, which is what the committee is currently
debating. He disagreed with follow-up statements that the branch
that is supposed to balance the other branches has no check
itself. "That's just not right," he said. The legislature can
and often does overturn statutory decisions. It has the power of
the purse. The governor has the veto power. The Alaska Bar
Association itself is created by the legislature. The Board of
Governors of the Alaska Bar is comprised of three public
members. The legislature and the governor have a lot of power
over the [Alaska] court system, he said. It is not accurate to
say there is no balance. The question is whether the current
balance should be upset, and he responded that his
recommendation is that it should not.
2:18:44 PM
CHAIR HUGHES, after first determining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on SJR 3.
[SJR 3 was held in committee.]
SJR 5-CONST. AM.:PERMANENT FUND & DIVIDEND
2:19:15 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the final order of business would be
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the Alaska
permanent fund and the permanent fund dividend.
[Before the committee was the CSSJR 5(STA), Version U.]
2:19:48 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 31-
GS1072\A.1, Nauman, 4/2/19.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR KIEHL
TO: CSSJR 5 (STA)
Page 1, line 2, following "dividend":
Insert ", establishing the earnings reserve
account, and relating to appropriations from the
earnings reserve account"
Page 1, lines 9 - 11:
Delete "Except as provided under (b) of this
section, all [ALL] income from the permanent fund
shall be deposited in the general fund unless
otherwise provided by law."
Insert "The earnings reserve account is
established as a separate account in the fund. Income
from the fund shall be deposited into the earnings
reserve account as soon as it is received and may be
invested as authorized for investments of the
principal. Money in the earnings reserve account may
be appropriated only as provided in (b) of this
section [ALL INCOME FROM THE PERMANENT FUND SHALL BE
DEPOSITED IN THE GENERAL FUND UNLESS OTHERWISE
PROVIDED BY LAW]."
Page 1, line 14, through page 2, line 13:
Delete all material and insert:
"(b) Each fiscal year, an amount
(1) equal to one and one-fourth percent of
the average market value of the fund, as calculated in
(c) of this section, shall be transferred from the
earnings reserve account for use in a program of
dividend payments to State residents as provided by
law; and
(2) not to exceed three and three-fourths
percent of the average market value of the fund, as
calculated in (c) of this section, may be appropriated
by the legislature from the earnings reserve account
to the general fund.
(c) For purposes of (b) of this section, the
average market value of the fund is the average market
value of the fund, including the earnings reserve
account, for the first five of the preceding six
fiscal years, including the fiscal year just ended,
computed annually at the end of each fiscal year in
accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, excluding any unrealized gains or losses."
Page 2, lines 16 - 22:
Delete all material and insert:
"Section 30. Permanent Fund Amendments:
Transition. The earnings reserve account established
in the 2020 amendments to the Alaska permanent fund
(art. IX, sec. 15) replaces the existing earnings
reserve account established by law. Money in the
existing earnings reserve account on the effective
date of the 2020 amendments to the Alaska permanent
fund (art. IX, sec. 15) shall be deposited into the
earnings reserve account established by those
amendments."
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR KIEHL explained that Amendment 1 would do two things.
First, it would bring us to a constitutional Percent of Market
Value (POMV). The market value would be calculated based on both
the corpus and the earnings reserve. It uses previously tested
language that sets a five percent maximum market draw, based on
an average of the preceding five years. At the same time, it
would maintain the earnings reserve structure and place it in
the Constitution of the State of Alaska. If Alaska had a series
of bad financial years, it would not allow accessing the corpus
of the permanent fund. While the POMV would be calculated on the
total value, it protects the principal of the permanent fund.
He said that Amendment 1 provides assurances that the permanent
fund is safe from inflation and from overdraw by a future
legislature. It would also place a minimum split between the
funding the permanent fund dividend (PFD) and government
services. Amendment 1 proposes no less than one part for the PFD
and no more than three parts for public services. If the state
did not need the three parts for public services, in years when
oil prices or production was high, more funding could be used
for the PFD and still maintain the current statutory formula. In
this way, the state ensures that the Alaskan voters always have
a PFD they can count on, yet still meet the needs of the public
throughout the services the state provides.
2:22:31 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether it would essentially establish a 25
to 75 split of the POMV draw.
SENATOR KIEHL answered that the PFD would never be less than 25
percent. In further response, he clarified that the historical
statutory formula would be followed under Amendment 1 because 50
percent for dividends is not less than 25 percent.
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that 25 percent shall be
transferred. She asked for further clarification on how the
state could still pay the historical formula.
SENATOR KIEHL referred to lines 18-21 of Amendment 1, which
states that " one and one-fourth percent of the average market
value of the fund ?." Thus, of the five percent draw, one and
one-fourth percent would be constitutionally mandated for the
program of dividend payments. The remaining three and three-
fourths percent of the average market value of the fund may be
appropriated by the legislature, he said. In fact, the
legislature could place 100 percent into PFDs without violating
the Constitution of the State of Alaska. However, the state
could never put less than one and one-fourth percent of the five
percent draw into PFDs.
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that under SJR 5, the
earnings would be transferred to the dividends according to the
historical formula. However, Amendment 1 would only guarantee a
quarter of the draw, which would give the legislature the option
to bring it up to the historical formula. She asked for further
clarification that [SJR 5] would guarantee the historical
formula, but Amendment 1 would not.
SENATOR KIEHL agreed. He said that SJR 5 would lock the
legislature into the way the PFD is calculated whereas Amendment
1 is cleaner and requires 25 percent of the draw to be used for
the PFDs. The governor's version would "tie the legislature's
hands" at 50 percent and the old formula. It creates
difficulties when a need to adjust eligibility occurs, he said.
2:26:29 PM
CHAIR HUGHES referred to page 2, line 2, to subsection (c) of
Amendment 1. She asked whether this would essentially
constitutionalize the POMV and if it is structured similarly to
current statute or if it is different.
SENATOR KIEHL explained that it would create a constitutional
POMV, which is similar in structure since it would consider the
average value of the first five of the preceding six fiscal
years. The value of corpus of the fund and the earnings reserve
would be evaluated. He said the corpus and earnings reserve
split would be maintained in the event of a long string of down
years in the investment markets. He said he thought it was
valuable to not erase the distinctions of the earnings reserve
and corpus of the fund, but to otherwise go to a full POMV.
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the five percent is
arrived at by adding the one and one-fourth and three and three-
fourths percent. She said that this year the draw is set at 5.25
percent, which will drop to five percent. She asked when the
five percent drop is scheduled to occur.
SENATOR KIEHL offered his belief that it would be effective in
2021, since [SJR 5] would go before the voters in 2020.
CHAIR HUGHES said it would align with the statutes.
2:28:30 PM
SENATOR SHOWER expressed concern that the legislature would
likely stick with 25 percent. He suggested that the legislature
is still holding discussions on the POMV so this language might
have unintended consequences. He said he was not necessarily
opposed to the concept being part of the conversation separate
from SJR 5.
CHAIR HUGHES expressed concern that the language is "may"
appropriate, especially since this would not have a spending cap
or appropriation limit.
SENATOR KIEHL pointed out that the Constitution of the State of
Alaska currently does not identify any minimum PFD amount.
Further, the legislature can draw 100 percent of the balance in
the earnings reserve account in a single year. He said he
appreciated that everyone is trying to find the best way to
protect the PFD and where the floor belongs. However, the
history is that there is not currently a requirement to pay a
PFD.
CHAIR HUGHES said that she appreciated that it is an improvement
since the Constitution of the State of Alaska currently does not
mandate a PFD be paid. She said that the committee should look
at achieving the historical formula. She said significant
discussion has been held to protect and constitutionalize the
earnings reserve account because it could erode. She offered her
belief that that discussion is more appropriate for the Senate
Finance Standing Committee.
2:31:52 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether the sponsor of Amendment 1 would
consider an amendment on line 18 for 50 percent.
SENATOR KIEHL said that he thought it was too high, but it is up
to the committee.
2:32:22 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD offered a Conceptual Amendment to Amendment 1,
on lines 18 and 22 to read "2.5 percent."
CHAIR HUGHES restated Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
SENATOR REINBOLD withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1 Amendment 1.
2:33:18 PM
SENATOR SHOWER acknowledged that a number of plans are floating
around. He said he likes the direction it is going but putting a
minimum of a 50 percent split in the Constitution of the State
of Alaska might create unintended consequences. He said he was
not prepared to support Amendment 1. He said that the right
protection for the Alaska Permanent Fund and the PFD will be a
well-thought out battle.
2:35:24 PM
CHAIR HUGHES appreciated the sponsor's willingness to make a
change to the Constitution of the State of Alaska related to the
language in Amendment 1.
2:35:45 PM
MIKE BARNHILL, Policy Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor, Juneau, stated that SJR 5 would amend
the Constitution of the State of Alaska to do two primary
things. First, it would guarantee payment of the permanent fund
dividend (PFD) as set out in statute. Currently, the state has a
statute to address the PFD, but the payment is not guaranteed
because it is subject to appropriation. Amendment 1 would wipe
that purpose out of this resolution, so a statutory formula
would not be guaranteed. Instead, it would be subject to the
legislature making ad hoc decisions every year. The second
purpose of SJR 5 is to give the people the ability to consider
any changes to the statutory formula going forward. This process
allows the legislature to change the formula, but the people
must approve it by a vote. However, that purpose would be
eliminated in Amendment 1. He reiterated that the governor's
purposes are removed so the administration prefers the committee
not adopt it.
2:37:41 PM
CHAIR HUGHES maintained her objection.
2:37:44 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of
Amendment 1 and Senators Micciche, Reinbold, Shower, and Hughes
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a 1:4 vote.
2:38:24 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt Amendment 2, work order 31-
GS1072\U.3, Nauman, 4/15/19.
AMENDMENT 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR MICCICHE
TO: CSJJR 5(STA)
Page 1, line 15:
Delete "a program of"
Page 2, lines 2 - 3:
Delete "An appropriation under Section 13 of this
article is not necessary for a transfer under this
subsection."
Insert "The transfer of income for the payment of
dividends to State residents under this subsection
does not require an appropriation under Section 13 of
this article."
Page 2, line 5:
Delete "program of dividend payments"
Insert "amount transferred for the payment of
dividends"
Page 2, lines 6 - 7:
Delete ", including the amount of the dividend
and eligibility requirements,"
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR MICCICHE said that Amendment 2 was co-authored by
Senator Shower and himself primarily as clean-up language. He
reviewed the language, relating that the first change on page 1,
line 15, read, "Each fiscal year, a portion of the income from
the permanent fund shall be transferred solely for a program of
dividend payments ?.
He referred to Page 2, lines 2-3, which would delete "An
appropriation under Section 13 of this article is not necessary
for a transfer under this subsection." It would replace it with
the language, "The transfer of income for the payment of
dividends to state residents under this subsection does not
require an appropriation under Section 13 of this article."
SENATOR MICCICHE said that under SJR 5, an appropriation would
no longer be necessary. It would simply be a transfer and
Amendment 2 would rearrange the language to reflect the
sponsor's intent.
He referred to page 2 line 5 of SJR 5, which would delete the
language, "program of dividend payments" and change it to
"amount transferred for the payment of dividends." Finally, on
page 2, lines 6-7, Amendment 2 would delete the language ",
including the amount of the dividend and eligibility
requirements." He said that since this language refers to
dividend payments, that it eliminates this section, and goes
right to the language, "shall not take effect unless approved by
the voters ?." He said it would substantively remove eligibility
requirements from [SJR 5], which should be under the purview of
the legislature.
2:40:42 PM
SENATOR SHOWER said that one of the things he was concerned with
was that if people said they had met eligibility for certain
programs within the state, it might be perceived as setting
precedent. The legislature needs to retain the ability to change
eligibility requirements if it decides to "tighten up" the
program. For example, he is eligible for any number of things,
he said.
SENATOR KIEHL asked for clarification on page 2, lines 4-6,
which states that the transfer does not require an
appropriation. He was unsure what law changes the amount that
gets transferred.
SENATOR MICCICHE responded that if [Amendment 2 and the
resolution] were to pass, it would require that a ballot measure
go to the voters to change the constitutional language and the
amount that would be transferred. He said that Amendment 2
supports the original statutory payment in existence as of
December 31, 2018. If that amount is changed, it would go before
the voters. He said that the statutory payment as of December
31, 2018 is in SJR 5 and if the legislature decides to change
it, that amount must go before the voters for approval.
SENATOR KIEHL recalled the legislature had a list of allowable
investments, which is what the state anticipates it can earn on
the fund. He asked whether that would have an effect on the
amount to be transferred and if that would need to go before the
voters.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that in his interpretation, it does
not. He suggested the administration may wish to weigh in, but
this amendment would support the five-year trailing earnings and
the traditional statutory calculation for the permanent fund
dividend (PFD). It would not change how earnings can be
invested.
SENATOR KIEHL appreciated the intent but he expressed concern
whether Amendment 2 would accomplish it.
2:44:13 PM
MR. BARNHILL responded that the investment list statutes were
set out in Title 37, which governed how the Permanent Fund
Corporation invests the assets of the permanent fund. The
program for the permanent fund dividend (PFD) is set out in
Title 43, so it is completely separate. He said that nothing in
SJR 5 relates to issues governed by statute in Title 37.
2:44:58 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said Amendment 2 deletes the word "program."
MR. BARNHILL answered that the program of dividends is in Title
43 and a program of investments is in Title 37. They are
completely separate. He said that to make it patently clear, the
governor does not intend this to touch anything related to the
management of permanent fund assets. In response to Chair
Hughes, he said the administration supports Amendment 2. It
would provide a little cleanup and substantively it eliminates
"dividend and eligibility [requirements]."
2:45:59 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said that the committee held discussions on
eligibility. She offered her belief that the voters are more
concerned about PFD itself and the voters are already eligible
so she did not think Alaskans would mind.
2:46:31 PM
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection.
2:46:36 PM
SENATOR KIEHL remarked that he still has concerns and would like
to work on this question going forward but he will not object to
Amendment 2.
There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:47:02 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt Amendment 3, work order 31-
GS1072\U.4, Nauman, 4/15/19.
AMENDMENT 3
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR MICCICHE
TO: CSJJR 5(STA)
Page 2, line 3, following "subsection.":
Insert "Dividend payments under this subsection
shall be distributed in four equal quarterly payments
over the calendar year."
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR MICCICHE explained that Amendment 3 was brought to him
by Mr. Clem Tillion, who is one of the defenders of the
Permanent Fund. He said that this would distribute dividend
payments in four equal payments. He said that currently about 10
percent of dividends stay in the state. He said that four
smaller payments are more likely to end up in the economy at a
much higher proportion. He offered his belief that it would be
at a lower cost to the state because the remaining dollars will
continue to earn over the course of the year. Finally, he
believes it will reduce some of the more negative behavior that
occurs by a small segment of residents who receive a big check
and often do not use it for what is best for them, their
families, or their communities. He recapped that it would pay
the same amount of the dividend over four quarters.
2:49:14 PM
SENATOR SHOWER said he supports Amendment 3. He echoed the
sponsor's rationale in support of the amendment. He said the
University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research
conducted a study and a big bump in economic impact occurs, but
then it has no effect in the economy. He said a number of
positive aspects could occur if people receive quarterly checks.
He characterized this as a really good thing for the state.
2:51:31 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked how the executive branch would handle child
support or garnishments.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that it would be relatively unchanged.
Most recipients receive their checks by electronic means. He
suggested that some minor administrative costs might be
incurred, but the same garnishments would apply.
2:53:20 PM
MR. BARNHILL said the administration has looked at this in terms
of monthly payments. He related his understanding that the
Permanent Fund Division would have an increased burden, but he
was unsure that it was sufficient enough to warrant setting this
aside since it would result in many benefits. He offered a
friendly amendment to read, shall be distributed in "no less
than" to allow the state the option to go to monthly payments.
He said that the administration was considering a statutory fix
rather than a constitutional one, but it is within the purview
of the committee to decide.
2:54:41 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked if she could assume that the administration
has no objection to Amendment 3.
MR. BARNHILL answered that the administration was neutral on
Amendment 3.
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the administration preferred adding
the language "no less than."
MR. BARNHILL said if the administration chose to distribute
monthly dividends, adding Amendment 3 to the constitution could
prohibit it.
2:55:22 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said that quarterly payments are significantly
different than the minimum basic income concept of monthly
payments. He thought it would get into a "Zuckerberg model,
which is an extremely leftist model" and is one he has a
difficult time supporting. He said that Amendment 3 would break
the PFD into quarterly payments. He said the monthly aspect is
different than his vision.
2:56:05 PM
SENATOR SHOWER reported that the Permanent Fund Division
garnishments always take priority and the process would not
change.
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether this would trigger income tax
withholding. He asked how that would work.
MR. BARNHILL responded that he pleads ignorance.
SENATOR MICCICHE said that withholding is based on the amount
and not on the frequency of distribution. It would remain the
same.
2:57:33 PM
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
2:57:54 PM
CHAIR HUGHES moved to adopt Amendment 4, work order 31-
GS1072\U.1, Nauman, 4/9/19.
AMENDMENT 4
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSJJR 5(STA)
Page 2, line 18:
Delete "Transition."
Insert "Transition; Conditional Effect. (a)"
Page 2, following line 24:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) The 2020 amendments to the Alaska permanent
fund (art. IX, sec. 15) take effect only if, in 2020,
the voters approve an amendment relating to an
appropriation limit (art. IX, sec. 16)."
SENATOR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes.
CHAIR HUGHES said Amendment 4 stems from her concern. She
related a scenario in which oil prices dropped substantially,
and the legislature did not have a spending limit in place but
had set a PFD amount. She said this contingency language would
not add SJR 5 to the Constitution of the State of Alaska unless
SJR 6, which sets the spending limit, was approved by the
voters.
2:59:04 PM
MR. WHITT said that Amendment 4 would tie SJR 5 to the
constitutional spending cap in SJR 6. He referred to the
language on page 2 line 24. He said that if the language in
[Section 1 and 2 of Article IX, Section 15 were to pass without
passage of [the resolution] relating to an appropriation limit,
it would raise a number of constitutional issues. One issue was
to tie an Alaskan's vote on one ballot initiative to another. He
said Chair Hughes wanted to start the conversation and work on a
second approach to address this issue.
3:00:24 PM
CHAIR HUGHES withdrew Amendment 4. She said that she did not
want to set up the legislature on legal issues. She said that
she did not want to put the legislature in the position of
needing to raise taxes to meet the state's obligation. This is
why the spending limit is so crucial.
3:01:03 PM
CHAIR HUGHES moved to adopt Amendment 5, work order 31-
GS1072\U.2, Nauman, 4/15/19.
AMENDMENT 5
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSJJR 5(STA)
Page 1, line 2, following "dividend":
Insert ", relating to an appropriation limit, and
relating to the budget reserve fund"
Page 2, following line 15:
Insert new resolution sections to read:
"* Sec. 3. Article IX, sec. 16, Constitution of the
State of Alaska, is repealed and readopted to read:
Section 16. Appropriation Limit. (a) Except as
provided in (b) of this section, appropriations made
for a fiscal year shall not exceed the average of the
appropriations made in the previous three fiscal years
by more than the average change in inflation in the
previous five fiscal years. In this subsection, the
change in inflation shall be based on the Consumer
Price Index for Anchorage, Alaska, as prescribed by
law. This subsection does not apply to an
appropriation
(1) to the principal of the Alaska
permanent fund and from the Alaska permanent fund
income for the administration of the fund or payment
of permanent fund dividends;
(2) to meet a state of disaster declared by
the governor as prescribed by law;
(3) to pay obligations or spend the
proceeds or revenue of State general obligation bonds
and revenue bonds;
(4) that is a reappropriation of a previous
unobligated appropriation;
(5) that is duplicating the authorization
to expend funds from another appropriation;
(6) from a non-State source in trust for a
specific purpose, including revenues of a public
enterprise or public corporation of the State that
issues revenue bonds; and
(7) of money to a State savings account or
fund that requires a subsequent appropriation from
that account or fund as prescribed by law.
(b) The legislature may appropriate an
additional amount in excess of the appropriation limit
under (a) of this section for capital improvements,
except that the amount for capital improvements made
in excess of the appropriation limit in a fiscal year
shall not exceed ten percent of the total
appropriation limit for that fiscal year.
Appropriations for capital improvements that exceed
the appropriation limit shall not be used in
calculating the appropriation limit in subsequent
fiscal years.
(c) Any unexpended, unobligated, and
unappropriated balance in the general fund at the end
of a fiscal year shall be deposited into the following
funds in the priority order listed:
(1) the permanent fund under Section 15 of
this article in an amount not to exceed fifty-percent
of the income produced from the permanent fund during
the fiscal year just ended;
(2) the budget reserve fund under Section
17 of this article in an amount necessary to bring the
budget reserve fund balance equal to the appropriation
limit for the next fiscal year;
(3) the permanent fund under Section 15 of
this article.
(d) Section 7 of this article does not apply to
deposits made under (c) of this section.
* Sec. 4. Article IX, sec. 17(a), Constitution of
the State of Alaska, is amended to read:
(a) There is established as a separate fund in
the State treasury the budget reserve fund. Except for
money deposited into the permanent fund under Section
15 of this article, all money received by the State
[AFTER JULY 1, 1990], as a result of the termination,
through settlement or otherwise, of an administrative
proceeding or of litigation in a State or federal
court directly involving mineral lease bonuses,
rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, federal
mineral revenue sharing payments or bonuses, or
involving taxes imposed on mineral income, production,
or property, shall be deposited in the budget reserve
fund. Money in the budget reserve fund shall be
invested so as to yield competitive market rates to
the fund. Income of the fund shall be retained in the
fund. Section 7 of this article does not apply to
deposits made to the fund under this subsection. Money
may be appropriated from the fund only as authorized
under (b) [OR (c)] of this section.
* Sec. 5. Article IX, sec. 17(b), Constitution of
the State of Alaska, is amended to read:
(b) If the amount in the general fund available
for appropriation for a fiscal year is less than the
appropriation limit under Section 16 of this article
[AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FOR THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR], an
appropriation may be made from the budget reserve
fund. However, the amount appropriated from the fund
under this subsection may not exceed the amount
necessary, when added to other funds in the general
fund available for appropriation, to provide for total
appropriations equal to the appropriation limit under
section 16 of this article [AMOUNT OF APPROPRIATIONS
MADE IN THE PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEAR FOR THE PREVIOUS
FISCAL YEAR]."
Renumber the following resolution sections
accordingly.
Page 2, lines 16 - 17:
Delete "a new section"
Insert "new sections"
Page 2, following line 24:
Insert new material to read:
"Section 31. Application of Appropriation Limit.
The 2020 amendment limiting appropriation increases
and requiring a portion of the unexpended,
unobligated, and unappropriated balance in the general
fund to go to the permanent fund (art. IX, sec. 15)
applies to appropriations made for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2022, and thereafter.
Section 32. Budget Reserve Fund Transition. The
repeal of Section 17(d) of Article IX in the 2020
amendments eliminates any repayment required under
that subsection through the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2021.
* Sec. 7. Article IX, secs. 17(c) and 17(d),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, are repealed."
Renumber the following resolution section accordingly.
SENATOR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes.
CHAIR HUGHES explained Amendment 5. Since the contingency
language was problematic the Division of Legal Services
suggested this would provide a better solution. It would
essentially take language from SJR 6 and roll it into SJR 5. One
question was how the courts have ruled on the single subject
rule. She said that the courts have not yet had a case related
to a constitutional amendment, but the courts have ruled on
legislative bills. She said that the courts have allowed it for
bills, so long as an overarching general topic exists, such as
state finances. Even though it has not yet been tested, it is
likely to stand up better than the approach taken in Amendment
4.
3:02:08 PM
MR. WHITT agreed that Amendment 5 would take the language in SJR
6, the appropriation limit, in the form that passed out of the
Senate Judiciary Standing Committee and insert the language into
SJR 5, related to the permanent fund and permanent fund
dividend. This would tie both resolutions together.
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the administration
prefers to keep the vehicles separate, since it might be
confusing. However, she believes voters can understand this and
would be concerned about potentially incurring high tax rates in
the future. She offered her belief that voters would appreciate
the resolution and possibly support it.
3:03:13 PM
SENATOR KIEHL recalled that the Legislative Legal Services had
some concerns about SJR 6, in terms of whether it constituted a
constitutional amendment or a revision.
MR. WHITT answered that is correct. He said the committee held
discussions on whether it was a constitutional amendment or a
revision. Ultimately, the governor's position is that the
administration could effectively argue their position on SJR 6.
The administration is prepared to do so. It was the will of the
committee to trust the governor and his position on the
resolution. The committee moved SJR 6 out of committee.
SENATOR KIEHL said it may not have been unanimous. He said that
that the concern does not diminish but would increase by
coupling more constitutional sections and changes to the
legislature's power to appropriate. He said that appropriation
is the fundamental authority of the legislative branch. He said
it begins to look like a significant rewrite. He said that his
concern about a constitutional revision grows rather than
shrinks.
3:05:07 PM
SENATOR SHOWER removed his objection.
3:05:18 PM
SENATOR KIEHL objected.
3:05:28 PM
At-ease.
3:05:41 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting. A roll call vote was taken.
Senators Shower, Micciche, and Hughes voted in favor of
Amendment 5 and Senator Kiehl voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 5 passed by a 3:1 vote.
3:06:20 PM
CHAIR HUGHES restated that on a vote of three yeas, one nay, and
one absent, Amendment 5 was adopted.
3:06:39 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to report SJR 5, work order 31-GS1072/U
as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
There being no objection, CSSJR 5(JUD) was reported from the
Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
3:07:19 PM
At-ease.
3:07:23 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting and reviewed upcoming
committee announcements.
3:09:22 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Hughes adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:09 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJR 3 Version A.PDF |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 3 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR3 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 3 - AJC Att -Non Att vote splits - highlighted.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 3 - Constitutional Convention Minutues about Judiciary_AJC.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 3 - AJC_Court System members and votes info.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 3 - Historical Roster of AJC members.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 3 - Vic Fisher Constitution book exerpts.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 3 Opposition AFL-CIO.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 3 Opposition Former Attorney General.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 3 Opposition Justice not Politics.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 3 Opposition - League of Women Voters of Alaska.pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 3 Opposition Resolution AFN.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 3 Opposition - Vic Fischer.pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 3 - League of Women Voters Opposition Position Statement.pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 3 Opposistion - Kawerak 4-12-19.pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR4 Version U.pdf |
SJUD 4/1/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/3/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/3/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR 4 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/27/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR4 Sectional Analysis Version U.pdf |
SJUD 4/1/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/3/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/3/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR 4 Fiscal Note GOV-DOE.pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/27/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR 4 Fiscal Note GOV-DOE.pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR 4 Fiscal Note - DLWD.pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/26/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR 4 - Legislative Legal Memo.pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| CSSJR 5 Version U.PDF |
SJUD 4/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 5 |
| SJR 5 - CSSJR 5(STA) ver U Sectional 4.8.19.pdf |
SJUD 4/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 5 |
| SJR 5 - CSSJR 5(STA) - Comparison 4.8.19.pdf |
SJUD 4/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 5 |
| Senate State Affairs - SJR 5 Written Testimony uploaded (04-08-19).pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 5 |
| SJR 3 - Alaska Judicial Council vote tally stats by year.pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 5 - Amendment 2 Adopted.pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 5 |
| SJR 5 - Amendment 3 Adopted.pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 5 |
| SJR 5 - Amendment 5 Adopted.pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 5 |
| Statutory $3000 PFD White Paper PFD Working Group 6-27-19 Final.pdf |
SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |