Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205

03/27/2018 03:30 PM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
03:32:32 PM Start
03:33:38 PM Confirmation Hearing(s): Alaska Police Standards Council, Alaska Public Office Commission
03:50:42 PM HB44
04:30:01 PM SB186
04:39:56 PM HB138
05:02:35 PM SB210
05:15:00 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Consideration of Governor's Appointees
+ Alaska Public Office Commission TELECONFERENCED
- Anne Helzer
+ Alaska Police Standards Council TELECONFERENCED
- Michael Craig
- Justin Doll
- David Knapp
- Larry "Shane" Nicholson
-- Public Testimony on Appointees --
+ HB 138 MARCH: SOBRIETY AWARENESS MONTH TELECONFERENCED
Moved HB 138 Out of Committee
*+ SB 210 SEAFOOD MISREPRESENTATION ON MENUS TELECONFERENCED
Moved SB 210 Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 44 LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS TELECONFERENCED
Moved SCS CSSSHB 44(STA) Out of Committee
+= SB 186 VOTER REGISTRATION & PFD APP REGISTRATION TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSSB 186(STA) Out of Committee
         HB 44-LEGISLATURE: ETHICS, CONFLICTS, PER DIEM                                                                     
                                                                                                                              
3:50:42 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  MEYER announced  the consideration  of House  Bill 44  (HB                                                               
44). He  noted that the bill  was heard on February  22 and there                                                               
was a Senate committee substitute (CS) for consideration.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:51:07 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR GIESSEL  moved to  adopt the Senate  CS (SCS)  for CSSSHB                                                               
44, version 30-LS0208\N as the working document.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MEYER objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:51:45 PM                                                                                                                    
CHRISTINE   MARASIGAN,  Staff,   Senator   Meyer,  Alaska   State                                                               
Legislature,  Juneau, Alaska,  stated  that the  Senate CS  makes                                                               
some  substantive changes  to  the bill.  She  explained that  it                                                               
takes the  rest of  an initiative  called "The  Alaska Government                                                               
Accountability Act,"  Petition ID:  17AKGA, and puts  it squarely                                                               
into HB 44.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
She specified that there were five ideas in the initiative:                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
   • Declaration of conflict; specifically, if a legislator or                                                                  
     legislator's family has a financial interest of $10,000 or                                                                 
     more.                                                                                                                      
   • Acceptance of de minimis food or non-alcoholic beverage for                                                                
     immediate consumption.                                                                                                     
   • Banning foreign travel.                                                                                                    
   • Eliminating per diem after 121 days.                                                                                       
   • Not allowing foreign corporation or agents.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. MARASIGAN provided the following sectional analysis,                                                                        
pointing out where the "five ideas" are located:                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     In  your CS,  version: N,  sections 1  and 2  are taken                                                                    
     from  the initiative,  it's basically  Section 9;  this                                                                    
     deals   with  the   foreign  corporation   or  national                                                                    
     language, and that's what is in those two sections.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Sections 3, 4 and 5, found  on page 6 of version N, the                                                                    
     Section  3  addresses  the  issue  of  disallowing  any                                                                    
     foreign travel  to be funded  unless a report  is made.                                                                    
     Section  4  deals with  no  per  diem after  120  days.                                                                    
     Section 5 deals with moving expenses.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Section  6, we  have  the mention  of the  nonalcoholic                                                                    
     beverage piece.  The majority of  the rest of  the bill                                                                    
     was  in   your  original  version  R   that  you  heard                                                                    
     previously.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Section 7,  that corresponds to  Section 1  that you've                                                                    
     heard previously about conflict of interest.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Section 8 corresponds to Section 2.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Section 9 corresponds to Section 3.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Section 11 corresponds to section 4.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Section 10 addresses alcoholic beverages.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     The  other major  addition is  having  a new  effective                                                                    
     date, which is found in Section 17.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:55:08 PM                                                                                                                    
She continued as follows:                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Taking this  initiative and  putting it  into statutory                                                                    
     language,  it  takes  some time  simply  because  each,                                                                    
     Department of  Law, the Legislature,  each organization                                                                    
     has  their  way  of  drafting  materials  in  order  to                                                                    
     conform  with  their  material   that  they  have  with                                                                    
     statute  or etcetera.  So,  there  was an  accompanying                                                                    
     legal  memo that  was produced  from Legislative  Legal                                                                    
     that points out  that while this version  N before you,                                                                    
     the CS  you have  adopted is not  absolutely identical,                                                                    
     it is very similar in  that both the initiative and the                                                                    
     bill also raise constitutional issues.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     The memo  also points  out the differences  between the                                                                    
     bill drafted before  you and the initiative  in that it                                                                    
     can be  attributed to drafting styles  that I mentioned                                                                    
     previously but  it is  still substantive;  for example,                                                                    
     one  of little  changes is  that in  the initiative  we                                                                    
     talk about  a de minimis  for food and drink  where the                                                                    
     bill before  you simply states what  we've been abiding                                                                    
     by   in  our   ethics  language   as  $15.   Also,  the                                                                    
     applicability  of   the  initiative's   prohibition  on                                                                    
     campaign  contributions  and  expenditures  by  foreign                                                                    
     influenced corporations, that language  did not meet up                                                                    
     very  well  in the  bill  and  in the  initiative,  and                                                                    
     there's  some issues  with  constitutionality that  the                                                                    
     drafter  then  points out  in  the  legal memo  to  the                                                                    
     committee.  So, having  said that,  the memo  is pretty                                                                    
     clear   that   while   there   are   some   substantive                                                                    
     differences between the bill,  the real differences are                                                                    
     very  few   and  they  amount  to   different  ways  of                                                                    
     addressing   identical   issues.   So,   the   drafters                                                                    
     themselves said  therefore while you can't  predict the                                                                    
     certainty of the outcome of  potential litigation, if a                                                                    
     court were  to apply the  three-part test to  this that                                                                    
     the  bill would  in fact  displace the  initiative from                                                                    
     the election ballet.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     There  were four  areas of  constitutionality that  the                                                                    
     legal memo  addressed. One was the  salary and expenses                                                                    
     of  legislators,  second  was federal  preemption,  the                                                                    
     third was  freedom of speech  and association,  and the                                                                    
     fourth was equal protection.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     I  do have  legislative  attorney Dan  Wayne online  to                                                                    
     answer  any   specific  questions.   Committee  members                                                                    
     should be aware  that this bill has  a further referral                                                                    
     to Senate Judiciary and has  had an additional referral                                                                    
     to Senate Finance.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:58:03 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR MEYER asked Ms. Marasigan to verify that foreign travel is                                                                
not prohibited, but it must be approved as a legislative purpose                                                                
and a report must be filed after a legislator returns.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. MARASIGAN answered correct. She noted that the foreign                                                                      
travel stipulation is in both the bill and the initiative.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MEYER commented on HB 44 and the initiative as follows:                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     I want to  let the committee know HB 44  dealt with the                                                                    
     conflict  issue  which I  thought  did  a good  job  of                                                                    
     defining what a  conflict is, I believe  it is $10,000;                                                                    
     and  then   we  got   thinking  if  that   matches  the                                                                    
     initiative,  let's  look at  the  other  things on  the                                                                    
     initiative and  just see if  we can  combine everything                                                                    
     else into this one bill,  and if so then the initiative                                                                    
     wouldn't need to  go before the voters if  we are close                                                                    
     or close enough to the initiative.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     So, looking at  the other four items in  the five parts                                                                    
     of that  initiative, they  all seem to  be, I  think, a                                                                    
     good  idea as  far as  I was  concerned and  I'm hoping                                                                    
     that the committee does as well,  and I did talk to the                                                                    
     sponsor both  of this bill,  HB 44, and also  I believe                                                                    
     he's  one of  the three  cosponsors on  the initiative,                                                                    
     that's  Representative   Grenn,  I  spoke  to   him  on                                                                    
     Thursday and asked him if he  was okay with this, and I                                                                    
     didn't get answer.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     So, I guess I don't know if  no news is good news or he                                                                    
     hadn't had a chance to talk  to the other two yet; but,                                                                    
     this bill does have two more  committees to go to and I                                                                    
     think   the  biggest   question   right   now  is   the                                                                    
     constitutionality of  the bill  and the  initiative and                                                                    
     so the bill  goes to Judiciary next which  I'm sure the                                                                    
     Judiciary chair will iron that all out.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
He  addressed Mr.  Wayne from  Legislative  Legal and  noted                                                                    
that he  wrote his opinion  making himself clear that  HB 44                                                                    
may be  unconstitutional; however,  he noted that  Mr. Wayne                                                                    
also    believed    that    the    initiative    was    also                                                                    
unconstitutional. He asked Mr. Wayne  how the initiative got                                                                    
approved if the initiative was unconstitutional.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:00:51 PM                                                                                                                    
DAN WAYNE,  Legislative Counsel,  Division of Legal  and Research                                                               
Services, Legislative  Affairs Agency, Alaska  State Legislature,                                                               
Juneau,  Alaska, explained  that the  attorney general's  opinion                                                               
that  accompanied   the  initiative  does  not   talk  about  the                                                               
constitutionality of  the bill  other than  whether it  meets the                                                               
single-subject  requirement in  the constitution.  He added  that                                                               
the  same  requirement  that  it  applies  to  bills  before  the                                                               
Legislature was  addressed in the  document on page 4  that says,                                                               
"The  bill is  not clearly  unconstitutional." He  specified that                                                               
the document  did not certify  that there were  no constitutional                                                               
problems with the bill and continued as follows:                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     They  are not  required to  do that,  they are  just, I                                                                    
     think,  required to  say  whether or  not  the bill  is                                                                    
     clearly  constitutional or  not;  they  said it  wasn't                                                                    
     clearly  unconstitutional, that's  not really  the same                                                                    
     thing as saying that the  bill is constitutional, and I                                                                    
     don't think that they would  disagree that there may be                                                                    
     constitutional issues raised by the initiative.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     One of the parts of  the initiative that we think might                                                                    
     have  constitutionality issues  is  the prohibiting  of                                                                    
     payment  of  legislative  per   diem  after  121  days.                                                                    
     There's  Article 11,  Section  7 that  says that,  "The                                                                    
     initiative shall  not be used  to dedicate  revenues or                                                                    
     make  or  repeal  appropriations."  If  the  initiative                                                                    
     passed  it  could  be   interpreted  as  tantamount  to                                                                    
     repealing an  appropriation, so we  think that  that is                                                                    
     one  constitutional   issue;  now,  that   issue  isn't                                                                    
     presented by  the bill  because the bill  is an  act by                                                                    
     the  Legislature, so  it's not  covered by  Article 11,                                                                    
     Section  7  of  the  constitution,  that  issue  wasn't                                                                    
     raised in  my memo of March  21 because that is  not an                                                                    
     issue with the bill.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:04:44 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. WAYNE continued to address constitutional issues as follows:                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     The constitutional  issues raised in the  bill, there's                                                                    
     Article  2,  Section 7  of  the  constitution, it  says                                                                    
     that,  "Legislators shall  receive annual  salaries and                                                                    
     they may  receive a per  diem allowance." If  this bill                                                                    
     passed or  the initiative  passed, either one,  and the                                                                    
     Legislature  decided  not  to   follow  it,  the  court                                                                    
     probably  wouldn't   intervene,  they  would   say  the                                                                    
     payment of per diem  is an internal legislative matter,                                                                    
     it's a legislative  prerogative, it's "nonjusticiable."                                                                    
     I say  that based on  some past holdings of  the court,                                                                    
     they cited one of them here on page 4 of my memo.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Another  constitutional  issue is  federal  preemption.                                                                    
     The  initiative   creates  something   called  "foreign                                                                    
     influence  corporation" and  defines what  that is  and                                                                    
     says  that, "Any  foreign  influence corporation  can't                                                                    
     donate anything to  a campaign or spend any  money on a                                                                    
     campaign  at all."  Federal law  already prohibits  any                                                                    
     foreign   national  from   contributing,  donating   or                                                                    
     spending  funds in  connection with  federal, state  or                                                                    
     local  elections  either   directly  or  indirectly.  A                                                                    
     contribution  or  expenditure  by  a  foreign-influence                                                                    
     corporation  which  is  defined  as one  that  takes  a                                                                    
     certain amount  of money from a  foreign national might                                                                    
     be  the  same  thing  as  an  indirect  expenditure  or                                                                    
     contribution  by  a  foreign nationals,  it's  probably                                                                    
     already covered by federal law  and so a state law that                                                                    
     does the same  thing might be preempted  by the federal                                                                    
     law, especially  if it conflicts  with the  federal law                                                                    
     and  that's  probably  one   of  the  main  substantive                                                                    
     differences  between the  bill, the  draft in  front of                                                                    
     you today,  and the initiative. The  initiative doesn't                                                                    
     limit   the   application   of  the   restrictions   on                                                                    
     expenditures  and  contributions  by  foreign-influence                                                                    
     corporations, the  bill does, it  says that in  a state                                                                    
     election  the  prohibition  on those  expenditures  and                                                                    
     contributions only  applies if it's allowed  by federal                                                                    
     law.  So, it  tries  to reconcile  that  the state  and                                                                    
     federal law  says that  if there  isn't a  conflict and                                                                    
     that's why  when they  drafted it,  I added  instead of                                                                    
     creating a new law section  like the initiative does. I                                                                    
     added  the language  to existing  law that  already had                                                                    
     some  of that  reconciliation  language in  it to  deal                                                                    
     with  contributions   by  foreign  nationals.   So,  it                                                                    
     addresses  the  same issue  which  is  a concern  about                                                                    
     campaign  contributions  or  expenditures  by  foreign-                                                                    
     influenced  corporations,  but  it addresses  it  in  a                                                                    
     slightly different  way and  also in  a way  that takes                                                                    
     care of part of a concern about federal preemption.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:08:49 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. WAYNE continued to address constitutional issues as follows:                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Under  "possible constitutional  issues" are  listed on                                                                    
     pages 6  and 7 of my  memo. The first one  was "freedom                                                                    
     of speech  in association" because it  is a fundamental                                                                    
     right   to  be   able  to   speak  out   and  to   make                                                                    
     contributions  and so  forth.  The  court looks  really                                                                    
     carefully whether or not the  action taken goes too far                                                                    
     in addressing  the government's concern.  So, as  I had                                                                    
     written on page  7, it says that the  bill's sections 1                                                                    
     and 2  have to do  with spending  by foreign-influenced                                                                    
     corporations might  go so  far that  a court  would say                                                                    
     that  they are  not sufficiently  narrowly tailored  to                                                                    
     the  state's interest  in protecting  its processes  of                                                                    
     self-government  because  it limits  all  expenditures,                                                                    
     even a  penny would be  limited. There's also  an equal                                                                    
     protection  concern;  again,   the  attorney  general's                                                                    
     opinion  as  I've read  it  doesn't  say there  are  no                                                                    
     constitutional concerns with  the initiative, just that                                                                    
     the  initiative is  not clearly  unconstitutional, it's                                                                    
     not a  slam dunk in  their opinion, so that's  why they                                                                    
     recommended certification.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:10:42 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  MEYER  asked Mr.  Wayne  how  a  foreign  corporation   is                                                               
defined.  He  asked  if  Apple Computer  would  be  considered  a                                                               
foreign-controlled  corporation if  people  outside  of the  U.S.                                                               
owned 10 percent  of its stock. If so, Apple  would be prohibited                                                               
from giving money to a political action committee (PAC).                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WAYNE replied  that both  HB  44 and  the initiative  define                                                               
"foreign  corporations." He  conceded that  the definition  for a                                                               
foreign-influenced  corporation is  long,  but  in summary,  "Any                                                               
corporation would be foreign influenced  if a foreign national or                                                               
foreign owner  holds, owns,  controls or  has direct  or indirect                                                               
beneficial  ownership of  equity or  voting shares  in an  amount                                                               
equal to  or greater  than five percent  of all  corporate voting                                                               
shares  outstanding or  all corporate  equity."  He continued  as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     There  are two  other ways  that something  could be  a                                                                    
     foreign-influenced corporation  also could be,  "Two or                                                                    
     more  foreign  nationals  or foreign  owners  combined,                                                                    
     holds,  owns,  controls  or  have  direct  or  indirect                                                                    
     beneficial ownership  or equity or voting  shares in an                                                                    
     amount  equal to  or  greater than  20  percent of  all                                                                    
     corporate  voting shares  outstanding or  all corporate                                                                    
     equity,  or   a  foreign  national  or   foreign  owner                                                                    
     participates  directly   or  indirectly   in  decisions                                                                    
     relating to covered  expenditures or contributions;" in                                                                    
     other words,  directly or  indirectly they  are somehow                                                                    
     involved in  the deciding  whether to  or how  to spend                                                                    
     money  on a  campaign.  So, it's  really a  super-broad                                                                    
     definition and one wonders how  it could be enforced. I                                                                    
     suppose you  could look at every  single corporation to                                                                    
     see if they  are on the date the  contribution was made                                                                    
     if  they   fit  into   one  of  these   three  possible                                                                    
     categories, it  might take some doing,  but that's what                                                                    
     the initiative does, and we put it into the bill.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MEYER concurred  with Mr. Wayne that figuring  out who owns                                                               
what  shares  that  equated  to  more than  5  percent  would  be                                                               
difficult.  He asked  if it  was his  opinion that  inserting the                                                               
initiative  into HB  44 would  be close  enough to  not need  the                                                               
initiative on the ballot.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:14:38 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. WAYNE answered yes. He explained as follows:                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     I looked at the three-part  test, it was articulated in                                                                    
     Warren v.  Boucher, that 1975  case cited in  the memo,                                                                    
     and then  it is was elaborated  on 30 years later  in a                                                                    
     2005 case,  and it seemed  to me like those  cases make                                                                    
     it clear that  the Legislature has some  leeway in what                                                                    
     it  can  do   as  long  as  it   stays  within  certain                                                                    
     boundaries  that   the  court  will  consider   a  bill                                                                    
     substantially  similar for  the purposes  of displacing                                                                    
     the initiative from the ballot  if it meets that three-                                                                    
     part test  and one of  the parts that it  addresses the                                                                    
     same  general  concerns  that   are  addressed  in  the                                                                    
     initiative, and this bill certainly  does that; but, it                                                                    
     doesn't have to  be addressed in exactly  the same way.                                                                    
     I  think that  a bill  going even  further afield  than                                                                    
     this one  does could  probably still meet  those tests,                                                                    
     this one sticks pretty close.  A lot of the differences                                                                    
     are  just   in  style;  for  example,   combining  some                                                                    
     language with  a current statute instead  of creating a                                                                    
     whole  new statute,  putting  the substantive  changes,                                                                    
     putting that  limitation on how  the foreign-influenced                                                                    
     corporation provision  would work  in order  to address                                                                    
     the preemption issue is something  that the court would                                                                    
     say,  "Well  this was,  you  know,  done to  address  a                                                                    
     constitutional issue  and not to frustrate  the purpose                                                                    
     of  the initiative  makers," and  that's another  thing                                                                    
     that they  look for, is  the bill  just some kind  of a                                                                    
     sneak attack on  the initiative and I  don't think that                                                                    
     a court would  say that this bill is a  sneak attack on                                                                    
     the  initiative,   it  addresses   the  same   kind  of                                                                    
     concerns, does it a little  bit differently, I think in                                                                    
     some extent  probably does it  a little bit  better and                                                                    
     so it is substantially the same.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR WILSON commented that he  was not sure why the Department                                                               
of Law  and the Office of  the Lieutenant Governor did  not raise                                                               
more questions  after having Mr. Wayne's  review regarding issues                                                               
and problems. He said he  was concerned and questioned whether he                                                               
could provide his support due to the issues he noted.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  MEYER asked  Assistant Attorney  General Libby  Bakalar to                                                               
address the committee's constitutional  questions regarding HB 44                                                               
and the initiative.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:18:07 PM                                                                                                                    
LIBBY BAKALAR, Assistant Attorney  General, Civil Division, Labor                                                               
&  State  Affairs  Section, Alaska  Department  of  Law,  Juneau,                                                               
Alaska, commented on HB 44 as follows:                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     I  did   author  that   attorney  general   opinion  on                                                                    
     "17AKGA,"   the  process   to   determine  whether   an                                                                    
     initiative  is   certified  as   to  see   whether  the                                                                    
     initiative complies  with Article 11, Section  7 of the                                                                    
     Alaska Constitution.  That means there are  four things                                                                    
     we  are allowed  to look  at: whether  a bill  makes an                                                                    
     appropriation, whether the bill  makes local or special                                                                    
     legislation,  whether it  creates rules  of court,  and                                                                    
     there is  one other that  I can't  think of off  of the                                                                    
     top of my  head right now; but, there may  very well be                                                                    
     constitutional  infirmities  with  an  initiative  bill                                                                    
     down  the  line, the  supreme  court  says we  are  not                                                                    
     supposed  to   look  at  that   stuff  in   advance  of                                                                    
     certification.  The  only  things  we  are  allowed  to                                                                    
     consider   when  we   certify  or   don't  certify   an                                                                    
     initiative  is   whether  Article  11,  Section   7  is                                                                    
     violated. So, this initiative bill  did not violate any                                                                    
     of  that.  So,  that's  the  basis  of  the  lieutenant                                                                    
     governor's  certification of  the  ballot measure.  So,                                                                    
     it's not that these issues  have not been identified or                                                                    
     looked at,  it's just that  we are not  permitted under                                                                    
     case  law to  deny  certification of  a ballot  measure                                                                    
     that  does  not  present  a  "Section  7,  Article  11"                                                                    
     problem.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
4:19:21 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR MEYER asked if an initiative is legal until it is                                                                         
challenged.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR COGHILL added that he was going to remind Ms. Bakalar                                                                   
that she was referring to the single-subject rule.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. BAKALAR replied as follows:                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     That's the  fifth one, actually.  There's a  fourth one                                                                    
     that  I'm  not   thinking  of,  appropriations,  local-                                                                    
     special, rules  of court, one  more that I  can't think                                                                    
     of, and the  single-subject rule which is  the Croft v.                                                                    
     Parnell  case,  but  in  any  event,  it  is  extremely                                                                    
     limited.  There are  many initiative  bills that  raise                                                                    
     potential  due   process  concerns,   contract  issues,                                                                    
     takings  issues, equal  protection problems,  those are                                                                    
     not things that  we are permitted to look  at under the                                                                    
     case  law  when  we  certify   a  measure,  that's  not                                                                    
     appropriate for pre-election review.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MEYER said he appreciated Ms. Bakalar's explanation.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:20:08 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR WILSON commented as follows:                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     I guess  that question  would be on  the single-subject                                                                    
     in an appropriation that Mr. Wayne has in his memo.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. BAKALAR replied as follows:                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     The  single-subject issue  was  looked at  specifically                                                                    
     related  to Section  9  of that  bill.  I'm going  from                                                                    
     memory here,  Section 9 of  the bill was the  part that                                                                    
     dealt  with  campaign finance  that  was  a little  bit                                                                    
     divergent  from  the other  sections  of  the bill.  We                                                                    
     concluded that  given the broad  scope under  which the                                                                    
     supreme court reviewed single-subject,  that it met the                                                                    
     single-subject requirement. So, that's  the one area in                                                                    
     the case law  that is developed around what  we look at                                                                    
     pre-election and that's the Croft v. Parnell case.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if the constitutionality would only be                                                                    
settled by "taking it to court."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. BAKALAR answered as follows:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Yes, other parts  of the initiative's constitutionality                                                                    
     would have  to be litigated in  an as-applied challenge                                                                    
     or  perhaps  a facial  challenge  but  some form  of  a                                                                    
     challenge  that   actually  looked   at  constitutional                                                                    
     issues  in the  bill post-enactment.  Initiatives don't                                                                    
     get the same vetting  that legislation does because the                                                                    
     supreme court  has said that  prior to an  election all                                                                    
     we are allowed to look  at, all the lieutenant governor                                                                    
     or  a municipal  clerk,  for example,  is permitted  to                                                                    
     look at is these four or five areas.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR GIESSEL asked her to  address how the "salmon initiative"                                                               
is being challenged in court prior to passage.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. BAKALAR  specified that "17FSH2" was  denied certification by                                                               
the lieutenant governor as follows:                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     It   is  our   position   that   that  ballot   measure                                                                    
     unconstitutionally    violates    the    appropriations                                                                    
     restriction  in  Article 11,  Section  7;  so, it  does                                                                    
     violate   one  of   the  four   core  restrictions   of                                                                    
     enactments  by initiative.  The constitution  says that                                                                    
     an  initiative cannot  make an  appropriation, make  or                                                                    
     repeal  an appropriation,  we  think  "17FSH2" does  do                                                                    
     that.  We recommended  against certifying  the measure,                                                                    
     that was  litigated, a trial-court  judge ruled  in the                                                                    
     sponsor's favor and now the state appealed.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MEYER  noted that Senator  Coghill may have a  question. He                                                               
asked  if he  wanted  to wait  until  the bill  is  heard in  the                                                               
Senator Judiciary Committee.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR COGHILL answered yes.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  MEYER thanked  Ms. Bakalar  for her  testimony. He  stated                                                               
that he had learned a lot  in the committee meeting. He asked Mr.                                                               
Johnston  if  he  had  any  feedback  from  Representative  Grenn                                                               
regarding combining the initiative into HB 44                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
4:23:12 PM                                                                                                                    
RYAN   JOHNSTON,  Staff,   Representative  Grenn,   Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, replied as follows:                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Representative  Grenn has  been trying  to work  to get                                                                    
     into communication  with the  other members,  trying to                                                                    
     get a  consensus. Again,  he's been  very busy,  and he                                                                    
     apologizes for the  delay. In my capacity  to speak for                                                                    
       him, he thinks this is a good avenue to go forward                                                                       
      with since the chair brought the motion forward, but                                                                      
     he hasn't heard back from the initiative yet.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MEYER  asked who the  other two sponsors of  the initiative                                                               
are.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. JOHNSTON replied that he did not know.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MEYER  stated that  he thought the  other two  sponsors are                                                               
Bonnie Jack and Representative Kreiss-Tompkins.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. JOHNSTON answered correct.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  MEYER  summarized  that the  committee  had  taken  public                                                               
testimony. He inquired if HB 44 had fiscal notes.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
4:24:49 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:26:15 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR MEYER called  the committee back to order  and commented as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     The fiscal notes  will be forthcoming with  the new CS,                                                                    
     but it's similar  to the original HB 44  which had zero                                                                    
     fiscal  notes.   Since  we  have  modified   this  bill                                                                    
     somewhat, there  will also  have to  be a  title change                                                                    
     resolution.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:26:42 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR GIESSEL moved  to report SCS CSSSHB  44(STA), version 30-                                                               
LS0208\N  from  committee  with  individual  recommendations  and                                                               
attached zero fiscal note.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
She  also made  a motion  to adopt  the forthcoming  title change                                                               
resolution. [Title  change resolution SCR  19 was read  the first                                                               
time on  3/29/18 and held  on the  Secretarys  desk until  it was                                                               
taken up on final passage on 5/8/18.]                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR MEYER  announced that without  objection, SCS  CSHB 44(STA)                                                               
and  forthcoming title  change resolution  was reported  from the                                                               
Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                                        

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
APOC Alaska Public Office Commission HELZER.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
Confirmation Hearing
Police Standards Council DOLL.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
Confirmation Hearing
Police Standards Council KNAPP.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
Confirmation Hearing
Police Standards Council NICHOLSON.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
Confirmation Hearing
Police Standards Council CRAIG.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
Confirmation Hearing
HB 138 Version D.PDF SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
HB 138
HB 138 Sponsor Statement.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
HB 138
HB 138 Sectional Analysis .pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
HB 138
HB 138 Legislative Research History of Sobriety Awareness Month in Alaska.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
HB 138
HB 138 Letter of Support Set Free Alaska (1).pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
HB 138
HB 138 Support Resolutions and Letters.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
HB 138
HB 138 Fiscal Note.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
HB 138
SB 210 Sponsor Statement.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
SB 210
SB 210 Version D.PDF SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
SB 210
SB 210 Sectional Analysis.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
SB 210
SB 210 Supporting Doc 1 Oceana Study 2015 Press Release Mislabeling Salmon.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
SB 210
SB 210 Supporting Doc 2 Oceana Study 2015 Fact Sheet Mislabeling Salmon.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
SB 210
SB 210 Supporting Doc 3 Oceana Study 2015 Full Report Mislabeling Salmon.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
SB 210
SB 210 Supporting Doc 4 Mislabeled Fish a National Problem - Boston Globe (2013).pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
SB 210
SB 210 Supporting Doc 5 Bait and switch - UCLA Study (2017).pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
SB 210
SB 210 Supporting Doc 6 Seafood Fraud is Literally Everywhere - Eater (2016).pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
SB 210
SB 210 Supporting Doc 7 Mislabeled Foods Find Their Way to Dinner Tables - NYT (2012).pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
SB 210
SB 210 Supporting Doc 8 Letter of Support - United Fishermen of Alaska (March 2018).pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
SB 210
SB 210 Fiscal Note.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
SB 210
CSSB 186 Version D.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
SB 186
CSHB 44 Version N.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
HB 44
CSHB 44 Legal Memo 3.21.18.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
HB 44
CSSB 186 Amendment DOE 3.27.2018.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
SB 186
HB 138 Support American College of Emergency Physicians.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
HB 138
HB 138 Support email.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
HB 138
HB 138 Support John Green.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
HB 138
HB 138 Support Letter Chugach Alaska Corporation.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
HB 138
HB 138 Support Letter Eklutna Fallen Up.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
HB 138
HB 138 Support Email Kelly Marre.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
HB 138
HB 138 Sobriety Awareness Month Presentation.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
HB 138
HB 138 Alcohol and Drug Abuse Research in AK Summary.pdf SSTA 3/27/2018 3:30:00 PM
HB 138