Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
03/28/2019 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR4 | |
| SJR5 | |
| Public Testimony on Sjr 5 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SJR 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SJR 4-CONST. AM: STATE TAX; INTIATIVE
3:38:42 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of 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.
He advised that the bill was last heard on 3/27/19 when public
testimony was opened and closed. Written testimony may be
submitted to senate.state.affairs@akleg.gov until 6:00 p.m. this
evening. He invited Mr. Milks to the witness table to respond to
the questions that were raised during the first hearing.
3:39:18 PM
BILL MILKS, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Labor
and State Affairs Section, Department of Law, Juneau, said the
first question asked why any new state tax or increase in an
existing state tax would take effect "in a statewide election
held more than one hundred twenty days from enactment of the
proposed law." He explained that one hundred twenty days aligns
with the initiative provision in art XI, sec. 4, of the
Constitution of the State of Alaska.
3:40:48 PM
SENATOR COGHILL related that he asked for the rationale because
he wondered if it was arbitrary. He asked if the fiscal note
would be affected.
MR. MILKS said he didn't believe so.
Mr. MILKS said Senator Coghill also asked if any changes to
existing tax exemptions would trigger a vote. The answer is no,
changing an existing tax would neither create a new tax nor
change a tax rate. He reminded the committee that this
legislation is patterned after the Colorado model and the
Colorado Supreme Court considered a case about exemptions and
held that changing a tax exemption would not trigger a vote.
3:42:13 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the committee.
SENATOR COGHILL suggested Mr. Milks and the committee look into
that a little further because he believes it would be challenged
if changing an exemption increases the tax. For example, "if you
remove an exemption and their tax payment goes up, is that going
to be a rate increase?"
MR. MILKS said he appreciates that but the intent is that
exemptions are not subject to this legislation and therefore do
not trigger a vote.
MR. MILKS turned to Senator Coghill's that asked about special
assessments referred to in art IV, sec. 11, Constitution of the
State of Alaska. He explained that those special assessments are
exceptions from a debt prohibition. The intent is that kind of
special assessment is not covered by this legislation and
therefore would not trigger a vote.
SENATOR COGHILL suggested the next committee of referral explore
that further and get a better definition because it talks about
state or political subdivisions and the pipeline, for example,
has an assessment that's been litigated repeatedly.
3:46:32 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI read: "an initiative can't be used to dedicate
revenues, make or repeal appropriations". He asked what the cure
is for that because it's been used quite often to strike
initiatives from the ballot.
MR. MILKS pointed out that voters have the initiative power on
taxes but not appropriations. He explained that SJR 4 would
create an automatic review process by the legislature and the
voters of any new [state] tax or change in tax rate. The voters
already have the constitutional authority to review a tax passed
by the legislature such as the Senate Bill 21 initiative and
vice versa through the referendum process, he said.
SENATOR KAWASAKI observed that subsection (c) in Section 1 gives
the legislature the power to veto whatever an initiative did.
MR. MILKS agreed and added that an existing constitutional
provision gives the legislature the same authority, but not for
two years.
SENATOR KAWASAKI commented that this would establish another
weird power dynamic between the people and legislature.
CHAIR SHOWER emphasized that this would be further vetted in the
next committee of referral.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked for an explanation of the genesis of the
Colorado law, which is the model for SJR 4.
MR. MILKS responded that Colorado adopted a similar provision
called the Tabor Amendment. It provides that new state taxes
must be reviewed by the voters.
3:51:21 PM
SENATOR COGHILL recalled that Tabor was an initiative to amend
the Constitution of the State of Colorado.
MR. MILKS said he believes that's correct.
SENATOR COGHILL asked how many articles are in the Colorado
constitution.
MR. MILKS said he did not know.
SENATOR COGHILL advised that the Colorado constitution is much
more complex and the Constitution of the State of Alaska has
significant barriers to protect the rights of the people of
Alaska that differ from the Colorado constitution. He suggested
the administration look at the interplay between the two
constitutions because Colorado provides voters much more
prescriptive authority.
MR. MILKS said he'd look at that but he ultimately believes that
the tax restrictions are the same and the Alaska Supreme Court
would look at that and the intent of the legislature as this
legislation goes through the process.
SENATOR COGHILL requested the committee members who are also on
the Judiciary Committee ensure that the language is as clear as
possible so the intent is not open to interpretation.
3:55:01 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked him to clarify his comment about the
barriers in the Alaska constitution to protect the rights of the
people.
SENATOR COGHILL said the barriers he was referring to in the
Alaska constitution are unique among all the states. He
referenced [Article VIII] that treats fish, game, and land
management differently than Colorado or any other state. He
explained that he used the term "barriers" because the
legislature is barred from writing laws that don't respect the
rights of the people.
SENATOR KAWASAKI reiterated his earlier question about the
genesis of the legislation. "Is this something that the
Department of Law boiled down from the state constitution or is
this something that was boiled down from the Colorado
constitution to fit the state Constitution?"
MR. MILKS replied the policy comes from the Colorado legislation
that deals with state tax but the legislation was drafted based
on the Alaska Constitution. For example, the one hundred twenty
day provision is based on the timeframes in the Alaska
constitution.
CHAIR SHOWER asked for clarification that SJR 4 is modeled on
the concept of that provision in the Colorado constitution, but
it is not an exact copy.
MR. MILK confirmed that the concepts are the same but SJR 4 was
drafted to fit the Alaska constitution.
3:59:28 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that in Colorado the second iteration of
the Tabor Amendment dealt with the contracting of state debt. He
asked if the Dunleavy Administration considered that as well.
MR. MILKS replied, "A tax amendment was the Administration's
choice here, not a wholesale following other states approach to
all fiscal issues."
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if there was consideration given to also
limiting the state's ability to collect fees.
MR. MILKS replied SJR 4 was drafted to amend art. IX, sec. 1,
which deals with taxes. It is not intended to include fees.
CHAIR SHOWER cautioned against asking the presenter to give the
Governor's opinion.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if the request for this proposal from the
Administration to the Department of Law included a request to
look at fees and state debt.
MR. MILKS replied the communications between attorneys at the
Department of Law and the Governor are confidential.
4:02:28 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if any special advisors were consulted to
discuss the proposed constitutional amendment and how it would
match state law.
MR. MILKS replied the Department of Law advised the Governor's
Office and drafted a constitutional amendment. The
Administration made the policy decisions. He added, "I'm a
lawyer for the Administration."
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he was trying to find out if the nonprofit
organization, Americans for Prosperity, had any influence over
the constitutional amendment proposed in SJR 4. The organization
is based in Colorado and has advocated for the Tabor Amendment
in other states.
MR. MILKS replied he worked on SJR 4 as a Department of Law
attorney and he believes that the Administration's
representatives have explained that this is one of three
proposed constitutional amendments that reflect the policy of
the Administration.
CHAIR SHOWER said these questions should go to the Governor or
his representatives.
4:04:38 PM
SUZANNE CUNNINGHAM, Legislative Director, Office of the
Governor, Anchorage, stated that no outside organization was
involved in creating or drafting this policy. "It was a concept
he was interested in that he was aware of and we started working
with the Department of Law and how to draft a constitutional
amendment to the Alaska state constitution."
SENATOR REINBOLD asked Senator Kawasaki his intent for asking
the question.
CHAIR SHOWER stopped the line of questioning.
He solicited a motion for the first of the two amendments he
wanted the committee to consider.
4:06:17 PM
SENATOR COGHILL motioned to adopt Amendment 1, work order 31-
GS1070\A.1, Nauman, 3/28/19.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR SHOWER
TO: SJR 4
Page 1, line 13, following "effective":
Insert "on the later of"
Page 1, line 14, following "governor":
Insert "or an effective date provided for by
concurrence of two-thirds of the membership of each
house"
CHAIR SHOWER explained that both amendments clarify language to
ensure the intent is clear. He asked Mr. Milks to comment on the
process and what the clarification does.
4:07:04 PM
MR. MILKS explained that Amendment 1 clarifies the effective
date of a law enacted by the legislature and approved by the
voters. It also provides flexibility for the legislature to set
a different effective date.
SENATOR KAWASAKI questioned the reason for requiring concurrence
of two-thirds of the membership of each house.
MR. MILKS replied that aligns with the effective date in the
Constitution of the State of Alaska.
4:09:55 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if the legislature should be able to
extend the effective date of ninety days after the certification
of the election to accommodate situations where the vote was on
an initiative and it took longer than ninety days to execute the
tax.
MR. MILKS said the ninety day provision is also in subsection
(c) and it aligns with the way an initiative works now.
SENATOR MICCICHE clarified that he was asking about extending
the ninety-day window to enact a very complicated tax law that
the voters approved by initiative. His understanding is it would
likely take longer than ninety days to enact an income tax or a
sales tax.
4:12:12 PM
CORI MILLS, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law, Juneau, said the proposed resolution could be
amended to provide a process to extend that timeline, but the
legislature could also pass a bill to extend the effective date
as it considers approval of an initiative enacted by the voters.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if the same would apply for a bill passed
by the legislature. He clarified that he was supportive of the
amendment, he was just looking at how it would work both ways.
MR. MILLS said the difference is one of timing. Something the
legislature passes is placed on the next statewide ballot and
goes into effect ninety days after that if it's approved.
Anything the voters approve in an election can't be approved by
the legislature until the next session.
SENATOR MICCICHE expressed satisfaction with the answer.
4:14:51 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD highlighted that initiating new or increased
taxes is not an issue in her district.
SENATOR MICCICHE clarified that the intention here is to
responsibly evaluate all the potential effects of the proposed
law.
4:15:34 PM
CHAIR SHOWER removed his objection. Finding no further objection
or discussion, he stated that Amendment 1 passes.
4:16:10 PM
SENATOR COGHILL motioned to adopt Amendment 2, work order 31-
GS1070\A.2, Nauman, 3/28/19.
AMENDMENT 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR SHOWER
TO: SJR 4
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "Any"
Insert "Notwithstanding Section 18 of Article II, a"
Delete "Sections 14 - 18"
Insert "Sections 14 - 17"
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "proposed"
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "proposed"
Page 1, line 15:
Delete "proposed"
CHAIR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes and asked Mr.
Milks to discuss the clarification.
MR. MILKS explained that Amendment 2 clarifies that any law to
amend art. II, secs. 14-17 of the constitution is only effective
on a vote of the people. He described the amendment as further
clarification of a contingency provision. "The legislature is
passing a law, but the law is contingent on a future act and
that future act is the vote of the people."
SENATOR MICCICHE asked why it was important to remove the term
"proposed."
MR. MILKS replied notwithstanding the effective date clause, a
law enacted under art. II, secs 14 and 17, is no longer proposed
law. It is a law with the contingency provision, a vote of the
people.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked, "Can a law become law without passage?"
MR. MILKS replied there are contingency provisions in some of
the bills the legislature passes. This further clarifies that
this is a two-part process. The legislature enacts a law and it
is contingent it its effectiveness.
SENATOR COGHILL directed attention to art. XII, sec. 11, that
deals with law-making powers. These powers generally refer to
the legislature but it also refers to the people through
initiative. He said it's interesting that the legislature could
pass a law that couldn't be ratified and it would therefore
become ineffective. He opined that it's not necessarily a
proposed law, it's a law that needs to be ratified. He admitted
he was looking for a loophole but he didn't find one.
4:20:51 PM
CHAIR SHOWER removed his objection. Finding no further
discussion or objection, he stated that Amendment 2 passes.
CHAIR SHOWER asked for final discussion on SJR 4, as amended.
4:21:22 PM
SENATOR COGHILL expressed concern about the definition of "tax"
and the sliding scale within the tax codes. He said he will look
for clarity on this issue as the legislation moves forward. He
said he'll offer the motion to move the resolution from
committee but he has reservations.
CHAIR SHOWER suggested he provide a list of questions he'd like
to have vetted in the Judiciary Committee.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he, too, will support moving the
resolution along, but his worry is that his conservative
district will be giving up power to less conservative districts
that would be more likely to support a tax they view as
necessary but his district does not support. He opined that when
more control is given to the voters, detailed discussions like
the one today may be lost in the process.
CHAIR SHOWER found no further discussion and solicited a motion.
4:24:31 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report SJR 4, work draft 31-GS1070|A as
amended, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s) and authorization for Legislative Legal
Services to make any appropriate technical and conforming
changes.
4:24:57 PM
CHAIR SHOWER found no objection and CSSJR 4(STA) moved from the
Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SSTA OFFICIAL AGENDA MEMO.pdf |
SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
agenda |
| 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 |
| SJR 4 version A.pdf |
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 |
| SJR 4 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
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 |
| 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 - Amednment #1.pdf |
SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR 4 - Amendment #2.pdf |
SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR 5 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SJUD 4/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 5 |
| SJR 5 version A.pdf |
SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 5 |
| SJR 5 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 5 |
| SJR 5 Fiscal Note GOV-DOE.pdf |
SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 5 |
| Senate State Affairs - SJR 4 Written Testimony uploaded (04-08-19).pdf |
SSTA 3/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |