Legislature(2013 - 2014)BUTROVICH 205
03/11/2014 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearings | |
| SB175 | |
| SJR24 | |
| SJR19 | |
| SJR18 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | SB 175 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SJR 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SJR 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SJR 18-FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
9:48:40 AM
CHAIR DYSON announced the consideration of SJR 18.
9:49:39 AM
TYLER BELK, Staff, Senator Dyson, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, stated that Michael Farris will testify before
the committee. He noted that Mr. Farris is the Project Head for
the Convention of States (COS) Project.
9:50:22 AM
MICHAEL FARRIS, Project Head, Convention of States (COS)
Project, Austin, Texas, explained his background as follows:
I am a constitutional attorney. I have argued in the
U.S. Supreme Court and the appellate courts of 13
states, including an Article V case that I litigated
back in late 1970s that spilled over into the early
1980s concerning Equal Rights Amendment and the
extension of time that Congress gave to that
amendment.
MR. FARRIS explained his COS involvement as follows:
I began being involved in this project because I am
convinced that Washington, D.C. is broken and will
never restrain its own power, the debt is the "tip of
the iceberg." Federal spending, federal regulation,
the federal mandates that come against the states I
believe violate the principals of self-government
where the state legislators are ordered to the bidding
of Congress other than the bidding of their
constituents when federal money is dangled out in
front of you in a coercive fashion. Presidents of all
parties are legislating through executive orders and
through regulatory actions that are not passed in the
appropriate fashion under the Constitution. I think
that the low ranking of the opinion polls of Congress
being in single digits these days is a general
assessment of the American public that Washington,
D.C. is broken and something needs to be done. The
Founders gave us that something in Article V. George
Mason insisted that there would be a day where the
federal government would overstep its bounds and when
that happened, there needed to be a way for the states
to unilaterally purpose amendments that the states
would then ratify to curtail the power of the federal
government and that is what this resolution does.
There are other Article V ideas out there that are
good ideas, I don't think they go far enough. The
balance budget amendment is a good idea, but that
controls simply the debt-mechanism, it does not
control spending, it does not control many of the
other things that I have just addressed. If we think
that freedom is going to survive without stopping the
structural problems in Washington D.C., I think we are
guessing and hoping for our future in a way that is
not justified. I think we really need to ensure that
we preserve the freedom of this country by taking
decisive action for the states to effectively take
away the misuse of power for the federal government
and return it to the people and to the states.
9:53:17 AM
MR. FARRIS addressed arguments against the COS as follows:
Most of the arguments that I have seen raised against
COS concern the possibility that there would be a
convention that would disobey the call and go on to
consider other matters. There are so many check and
balances into the system that make that, frankly,
impossible if we have any kind of semblance of
political reality in our assessments; because, at the
end of the day, 38 state legislatures have to ratify
anything that comes out of a convention.
There are three steps of the process, 34 states by
simple majority in both houses of the states have to
file an application on the same topic. Then at the
convention itself, it is one-state-one-vote. The
legislators appoint the delegates to the convention
and 26 states would have to approve the precise
language on any of the topics that are germane under
the applications that the states have written. Then
the language of the proposed amendments that come out,
if 6 amendments come out, just like the Bill of Rights
were sent out as a package of 12 and only 10 were
ratified by 1791, the states could pick 1-6 of the
amendments to ratify, but 38 state legislatures, by a
simple majority vote in both houses, would then have
to ratify any of the amendments that come forward. So,
a lot of checks and balances, a lot of safety in here,
but we've got to get started. Georgia was the first
state to approve this resolution, last week we've had
the Alabama House approve it, and we are moving in a
handful of other states, we expect a good number of
states next legislative session. My guess is that four
or five states, and hopefully one of those will be
Alaska, will approve it in this legislative session.
We are hoping that that this will be done in two or
three legislative terms. `
9:55:20 AM
CHAIR DYSON noted that Mr. Farris mentioned that some number of
states have to make application. He asked if SJR 18 is an
application.
MR. FARRIS answered yes. He stated that SJR 18 is the correct
legislative-vehicle to make the application.
CHAIR DYSON recalled that over 20 years ago, Alaska's
legislature did pass something calling for an Article V
Convention. He asked what the time limit was for the state's
applications.
MR. FARRIS answered that there is not a time limit. He noted
that one of the Bill of Rights proposed in 1789 was actually
ratified in the 1990s. He pointed out that an application is
good in perpetuity unless a legislature puts a time limit or
rescinds their application. He explained that there have been
over 400 applications in the history of the republic from 49
states. There has never been a COS because there have never been
two thirds of the states agreeing on a subject matter. He
asserted that either COS will be done in the next few years or
it is not going to happen.
9:57:07 AM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that he could live with SJR 18 if
limitations were not set on the resolution and a broad COS was
called. He remarked that he did not believe 38 states are going
to agree. He asserted that COS should not be limited. He asked
that a resolution be passed that said "Requesting the United
States Congress to call a Convention of States for the purposes
of making changes to the Constitution." He asserted that a
broader resolution would get more states onboard.
MR. FARRIS replied that Senator Wielechowski's suggestion is
theoretically possible, but 34 states would have to purpose a
general amending convention. He explained that there are three
ways COS can be purposed as follows:
1. General Convention.
2. Topical Convention: the same as what the
Convention of States Project is proposing.
3. Amendment Convention: focuses on a particular
amendment like a balanced budget.
He asserted that there is not the political will to get to
4 states, let alone 38 states for a general convention. He
said there is a lot of angst in the country about changing
the Bill of Rights and provisions. He set forth that there
should be one convention on a limited topic so that
everyone can see that the procedures are safe and
confidence is built in the process. He stated that the
chances of anybody doing a wide open COS are essentially
zero.
10:00:53 AM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI remarked that the reason the COS Project is
running into problems was due to the need for a three quarter
vote. He set forth that a broader call forces compromises. He
said he would like to see a provision overturning Citizens
United due to campaign contributions being out of control and
special interest groups being out of control. He noted that he
will propose amendments on the Senate Floor that are against
Citizens United and for equal rights for women. He suggested
that narrowing COS makes it more difficult for states to agree.
MR. FARRIS answered that he understands Senator Wielechowski's
point of view, but noted that if Alaska does something that is
idiosyncratic in character by writing up its own things, then
Alaska has a moral obligation to go out and organize a process
to build the same kind of momentum in 34 states. He pointed out
that the current process for COS requires two thirds and not
three fourths. He specified that three fourths is required for
ratification. He said the amendments Senator Wielechowski
suggested would be viewed as effectively a way to kill the
process because there is no constituency to build the approach
and no one is out organizing for the approach. He set forth that
Alaska would effectively pass a resolution that has no force and
effect, the end result will do no one any good if amendments are
added. He explained that the intent is to do something good by
trying to stop the abuse of power in Washington, D.C. He
conceded that maybe everything cannot be solved in the initial
time around for COS, but some things can be solved. He said
something has to be done about debt, spending, and regulation.
CHAIR DYSON noted that one of the big pushbacks will often be
seen is on the concept of a "Runaway COS."
10:03:58 AM
JENNIE GRIMWOOD, President, Eagle Forum-Alaska, Cordova, Alaska,
stated that Eagle Forum opposes SJR 18. She noted that SJR 18's
objectives are on balanced budgets and term limits. She pointed
out that other groups are proposing amendments and the Eagle
Forum questioned whether the Constitution should be opened for
uncertain change for COS. She pointed out that the possibility
for bigger states to control COS. She summarized that any
restrictions set on the delegates in advance may violate Article
V and claims that COS can be controlled are misleading.
10:06:55 AM
SENATOR COGHILL noted his support for SJR 18 due to the need to
challenge the federal government. He asked if the imposed checks
and balances on COS are sufficient to keep the convention from
throwing off the Constitution.
MR. GRIMWOOD answered that no one knows because a COS has not
been done since the 1700s.
SENATOR COGHILL stated that he is less fearful, but noted his
respect for the Eagle Forum. He set forth that the lengthy COS
process has a steep hill to climb and some pretty good checks
are in place. He asked the Eagle Forum to reconsider the checks
that have been put into place.
10:09:13 AM
DAVID EICHLER, representing himself, North Pole, Alaska, stated
that he did not agree with the Eagle Forum's position and was
available for questions.
10:10:17 AM
CHARLES KACPROWICZ, National Director, Citizen Initiatives,
Pine, North Carolina, stated that his organization is an
advocate for Article V, single issue amendment conventions. He
noted that Citizen Initiatives is working on balanced budget,
sovereignty and state rights, and the countermand amendments. He
noted that he has been involved in the battle for Article V
amendments for 41 years. He addressed the balanced budget
amendment and noted that 23 states continue to have active
applications. He claimed that the climb for a balanced budget
amendment continues to be uphill due to misinformation. He set
forth that state delegates sent to COS will act as ambassadors
and not free agents with license to do anything they want. He
explained that Citizen Initiatives is opposed to the COS Project
call for COS because it is too broad with two or three broad
sweeping topics. He set forth that Article V is not a
Constitutional Convention and its purpose is restrictive for the
purpose of proposing amendments. He asserted that state
legislatures, under Article V, are sovereign bodies and are in
charge as the forth rank of government. He asserted that the
state legislatures are the key to seeing the nation turn around.
10:22:18 AM
MIKE COONS, Director-Alaska, Citizen Initiatives, Palmer, AK,
said he supports the proper use of Article V in the U.S.
Constitution. He set forth that SJR 18 is on track, but has many
issues. He posed questions should SJR 18 pass as follows:
1. Who is going to write the amendments that come
from the subject topics?
2. Will those amendments be written by the
Legislature prior to COS?
3. Who is the deliberative body, the Legislature or
delegates?
4. Will there be written instructions that make a
convention a republican convention with one-
state-one-vote?
5. Will the delegates be bound to the Legislature?
He noted that previous calls in the nation's history have
been single issue amendments. He asserted that issues must
be resolved prior to passing SJR 18. He said Citizen
Initiatives has calls for specific, single issue amendments
that the Legislature would pre-approve with a delegate
resolution that would ensure one-state-one-vote, making COS
safe, predictable, and ultimately providing for an
excellent chance of ratification.
10:25:39 AM
CHAIR DYSON announced that public hearing is closed.
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report from committee SJR 18, labeled
28-LS1284\N with zero fiscal note and individual
recommendations.
CHAIR DYSON asked if there was objection.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that he was not going to object, but
noted that he may run some amendments on the Senate Floor.
CHAIR DYSON explained that SJR 18 was the exact parallel with
the resolution that was going through the House. He stated that
his intention was to only begin the process and add Alaska to
the queue of the states that were calling for COS. He set forth
that the information that he has seen is that there is a
significant process where the subject of the call will get
narrowed down to something of which there will be 34 states with
a careful delineation of what is the scope of COS with limits on
selection, responsibilities, and remedies for delegates.
10:27:39 AM
CHAIR DYSON announced that seeing no objection, SJR 18 is passed
from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.