Legislature(1999 - 2000)

04/12/1999 01:55 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
         HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                   April 12, 1999                                                                                               
                     1:55 p.m.                                                                                                  
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                                 
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman                                                                                              
Representative Joe Green                                                                                                        
Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                                                                  
Representative Jeannette James                                                                                                  
Representative Lisa Murkowski                                                                                                   
Representative Eric Croft                                                                                                       
Representative Beth Kerttula                                                                                                    
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                  
All members present                                                                                                             
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                              
HOUSE BILL NO. 79                                                                                                               
"An Act relating to letters of credit under the Uniform Commercial                                                              
Code; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                     
     - MOVED HB 79 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                             
HOUSE BILL NO. 151                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to revocation and reinstatement of the driver's                                                                
license of a person at least 14 but not yet 21 years of age."                                                                   
     - HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE                                                                                 
SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 99(FIN)                                                                         
"An Act to clarify the meaning of 'decennial census of the United                                                               
States' in art. VI, Constitution of the State of Alaska, to prevent                                                             
discrimination in the redistricting of the house of representatives                                                             
and the senate, and to prohibit expenditures of public funds for                                                                
population surveys or sampling for certain purposes relating to                                                                 
legislative redistricting without an appropriation."                                                                            
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 99(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                  
HOUSE BILL NO. 43                                                                                                               
"An Act relating to police training surcharges imposed for                                                                      
violations of municipal ordinances."                                                                                            
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                  
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19                                                                                                 
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska                                                               
requiring legislative confirmation of the appointed members of the                                                              
judicial council.                                                                                                               
     - BILL HEARING CANCELED                                                                                                    
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 30                                                                                                 
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska                                                                 
repealing provisions relating to the constitutional budget reserve                                                              
fund and providing that the balance in the fund be deposited into                                                               
the budget reserve fund established by statute.                                                                                 
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                                                  
(* First public hearing)                                                                                                        
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                                 
BILL: HB  79                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE:  LETTERS OF CREDIT                                                                        
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST                                                                                         
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 2/03/99       132     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 2/03/99       133     (H)  LABOR AND COMMERCE, JUDICIARY                                                                       
 2/26/99               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                          
 2/26/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 2/26/99               (H)  MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                         
 3/03/99               (H)  L&C AT  3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                          
 3/03/99               (H)  MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                              
 3/03/99               (H)  MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                         
 3/05/99       360     (H)  L&C RPT  5DP                                                                                        
 3/05/99       360     (H)  DP:  ROKEBERG, HALCRO, HARRIS,                                                                      
 3/05/99       360     (H)  MURKOWSKI                                                                                           
 3/05/99       361     (H)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                                                                             
 4/07/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/07/99               (H)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 4/12/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
BILL: HB 151                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: REVOCATION OF MINOR DRIVER'S LICENSE                                                                               
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOTT, Austerman                                                                                  
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 3/22/99       531     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 3/22/99       531     (H)  JUD                                                                                                 
 3/24/99       562     (H)  COSPONSOR(S): AUSTERMAN                                                                             
 3/29/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 3/29/99               (H)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 4/07/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/07/99               (H)  TABLED                                                                                              
 4/07/99               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 4/08/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/08/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 4/09/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/09/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 4/12/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
BILL: SB  99                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: REDISTRICTING BOARD/CENSUS FIGURES                                                                                 
SPONSOR(S): RULES                                                                                                               
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 3/11/99       476     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 3/11/99       476     (S)  JUD                                                                                                 
 3/17/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ 211                                                                           
 3/17/99               (S)  MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                              
 3/17/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 3/18/99       599     (S)  JUD RPT      3DP 1NR                                                                                
 3/18/99       599     (S)  DP: TAYLOR, TORGERSON, DONLEY; NR:                                                                  
 3/18/99       599     (S)  FISCAL NOTE (LAW)                                                                                   
 3/18/99       599     (S)  ADDITIONAL REFERRAL TO FIN                                                                          
 3/22/99               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 3/22/99               (S)  MOVED COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE (FIN) FROM                                                               
 3/22/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 3/22/99       631     (S)  FIN RPT  COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE 6DP                                                                   
                           1NR NEW TITLE                                                                                        
 3/22/99       632     (S)  DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS,                                                                   
 3/22/99       632     (S)  DONLEY, WILKEN; NR: ADAMS                                                                           
 3/22/99       632     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW/S.FIN)                                                                        
 3/23/99               (S)  RLS AT 10:50 AM FAHRENKAMP 203                                                                      
 3/23/99               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 3/25/99       682     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 3/25/99                                                                  
 3/25/99       685     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 3/25/99       685     (S)  FIN  COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE ADOPTED                                                                   
                            UNAN CONSENT                                                                                        
 3/25/99       685     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                                                                      
 3/25/99       685     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 99(FIN)                                                                   
 3/25/99       686     (S)  PASSED Y14 N5 A1                                                                                    
 3/25/99       687     (S)  ELLIS  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                                                                    
 3/26/99       704     (S)  RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                                                                        
 3/26/99       704     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                  
 3/29/99       598     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 3/29/99       598     (H)  JUD                                                                                                 
 4/09/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 4/09/99               (H)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 4/12/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                                
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant                                                                                              
   to Representative Norm Rokeberg                                                                                              
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 24                                                                                                       
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-4968                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 79.                                                                       
L.S. (JERRY) KURTZ, JR., Member                                                                                                 
National Conference of Commissioners                                                                                            
   on Uniform State Laws                                                                                                        
1050 Beech Lane                                                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                                                                         
Telephone:  (907) 258-6051                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.                                                                              
ARTHUR H. PETERSON, Uniform Law Commissioner                                                                                    
   for Alaska                                                                                                                   
350 North Franklin Street                                                                                                       
Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                                                                            
Telephone:  (907) 586-4000                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.                                                                              
PET CRANDALL, Representative                                                                                                    
Alaska Bankers Association                                                                                                      
123 Seward Street                                                                                                               
Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                                                                            
Telephone:  (907) 586-3324                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 79.                                                                              
LINDA WRIGHT                                                                                                                    
P.O. Box 105                                                                                                                    
Soldotna, Alaska 99669                                                                                                          
Telephone:  (907) 262-9694                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.                                                                                        
MARTHA HODSON, Member                                                                                                           
Guardian for Family Rights                                                                                                      
P.O. Box 3687                                                                                                                   
Soldotna, Alaska 99669                                                                                                          
Telephone:  (907) 260-9156                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.                                                                                        
LINDA JOHNSON, Legal Advisor                                                                                                    
Anchorage Youth Court                                                                                                           
P.O. Box 102735                                                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska 99510                                                                                                         
Telephone:  (907) 274-5986                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.                                                                                        
ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                   
Legal Services Section-Juneau                                                                                                   
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law                                                                                                               
P.O. Box 110300                                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 465-3428                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.                                                                                        
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer                                                                                     
Youth Corrections                                                                                                               
Division of Family and Youth Services                                                                                           
Department of Health and Social Services                                                                                        
P.O. Box 110630                                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 465-2212                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.                                                                                        
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant                                                                                         
   to Representative Pete Kott                                                                                                  
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 118                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-3777                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.                                                                                        
KEVIN HYDE                                                                                                                      
P.O. Box 105                                                                                                                    
Soldotna, Alaska 99669                                                                                                          
Telephone:  (907) 262-4889                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 151.                                                                                        
TOM MOFFATT, Legislative Assistant                                                                                              
   to Senator Tim Kelly                                                                                                         
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 101                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-3822                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 99.                                                                                           
KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Assistant                                                                                            
   to Representative Joseph Green                                                                                               
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 214                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-4931                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 99.                                                                                         
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                       
Governmental Affairs Section                                                                                                    
Civil Division                                                                                                                  
Department of Law                                                                                                               
P.O. Box 110300                                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 465-3600                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 99.                                                                                         
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                                
TAPE 99-28, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                
meeting to order at 1:55 p.m.  Members present at the call to order                                                             
were Representatives Kott, Green, James, Murkowski, Croft and                                                                   
Kerttula.  Representative Rokeberg arrived at 2:40 p.m.                                                                         
HB 79 - UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE:  LETTERS OF CREDIT                                                                             
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is HB 79, "An                                                               
Act relating to letters of credit under the Uniform Commercial                                                                  
Code; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                     
Number 0049                                                                                                                     
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norm Rokeberg,                                                             
Alaska State Legislature, stated that the House Labor and Commerce                                                              
Standing Committee introduced HB 79 at the request of the uniform                                                               
law commissioners for Alaska.  Article 5 of the Uniform Commercial                                                              
Code (UCC) needs to be revised to reflect changes in technology and                                                             
business practices.  The National Conference of Commissioners on                                                                
Uniform State Laws in 1995 proposed the revisions.  As of January,                                                              
39 other jurisdictions have adopted them.  In order for Alaska to                                                               
keep up with developments in commercial law and letters of credit,                                                              
it needs to adopt this bill as well.  She noted that Mr. Art                                                                    
Peterson, a uniform law commissioner for Alaska, is here to answer                                                              
any technical questions.                                                                                                        
Number 0180                                                                                                                     
[THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT L.S. (JERRY) KURTZ' TESTIMONY IS                                                                      
INTERMITTENTLY AUDIBLE.]                                                                                                        
L.S. (JERRY) KURTZ, JR., Member, National Conference of                                                                         
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, testified via teleconference                                                               
from Anchorage.  He is a retired attorney, and has represented both                                                             
sides of letters of credit.  Alaska has had the old version, or                                                                 
existing version, of UCC Article 5 for almost 40 years.  It works                                                               
well and there has been very little litigation under it.  The new                                                               
one simply embellishes it to catch up with technology and perhaps                                                               
make a little bit of a better balance between debtors and                                                                       
Number 0347                                                                                                                     
ARTHUR H. PETERSON, Uniform Law Commissioner for Alaska, came                                                                   
before the committee to testify.  He is also an attorney with the                                                               
law offices of Dillon and Findley.  He noted that Pete Crandall, a                                                              
banker, is in the audience to answer any banking questions.  The                                                                
basic thrust of the bill is to recognize what is going on in the                                                                
area of commercial law with letters of credit.  The UCC Article 5                                                               
was drafted in the 1940's and 1950's, and the concepts were based                                                               
on the thinking of that time.  Clearly, a lot has been done in the                                                              
intervening decades, such as the use of computers, E-mail, fax                                                                  
machines, etc.  In addition, Alaska hasn't had a lot of litigation,                                                             
but there has been conflicting court decisions amongst the various                                                              
states.  The bill would resolve those inconsistencies and                                                                       
facilitate the modern way of doing business.  It is a major                                                                     
industry.  As of 1989, it was a $200-billion business.  He is sure                                                              
that the figure is considerably higher today.                                                                                   
Number 0562                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT said this particular issue has been before the                                                                    
legislature a few times, but this seems to be the most pervasive                                                                
change.  He asked Mr. Peterson whether this is something that has                                                               
been agreed to nationally.                                                                                                      
MR. PETERSON replied yes.  This bill is a product of the National                                                               
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, as was the                                                                   
original UCC.  The conference continually works on various articles                                                             
in order to update them.  Thirty-nine states have already enacted                                                               
this amendment to the UCC, so Alaska had better get with it.  This                                                              
was before the legislature last year.  It passed the House, but got                                                             
stopped in the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee for some unknown                                                             
Number 0674                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to a list of states that have adopted                                                             
the amendment, and asked Mr. Peterson whether Texas has adopted it                                                              
yet.  Texas is listed under "Introductions in 1999".                                                                            
MR. PETERSON replied he is not sure how fast they operate in Texas.                                                             
They could very well have passed it by this time.                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said some of the states that haven't passed                                                                
this amendment - Pennsylvania, New York, Louisiana and Texas - are                                                              
pretty well-known for their financial institutions.  He asked Mr.                                                               
Peterson what is the hold up for them.                                                                                          
Number 0719                                                                                                                     
MR. PETERSON replied New York, where guidance and leadership is                                                                 
looked at for commercial law matters, has a system where all                                                                    
revisions to uniform acts have to go through a section of the bar                                                               
association which causes delays.  He has not heard of any                                                                       
opposition, however.  He can't comment on Louisiana, other than                                                                 
that they are under a civil law approach which is a little bit                                                                  
different than the common law approach.  They have adopted most of                                                              
the UCC; he just doesn't know where they stand on Article 5.  He                                                                
can't imagine that they wouldn't adopt it because a good bit of it                                                              
deals with international trade.                                                                                                 
Number 0827                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he is wondering why Alaska should "get on                                                             
board" quickly when one of the largest financial states will                                                                    
probably be the last to "get on board."                                                                                         
Number 0860                                                                                                                     
MR. PETERSON pointed out that California, Illinois and all of the                                                               
Northwestern states have already enacted the amendment.  He would                                                               
not worry because New York is not on the list; they will be there.                                                              
Number 0924                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said if Wyoming, Nebraska or Montana were not                                                              
on the list that would be one thing.  He just noticed that some of                                                              
the states, that he expected to see, were not on the list.  It's                                                                
not a major issue; he was just wondering if there was a reason.                                                                 
Number 0940                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he would expect that New York, Texas or Florida,                                                             
for example, would be interested in this issue since it is an                                                                   
important tool used in international trade.  He asked Mr. Peterson                                                              
what would be the consequence of not passing this measure this                                                                  
Number 0970                                                                                                                     
MR. PETERSON replied the state would fall behind in using letters                                                               
of credit for Alaskans dealing in international trade.  There would                                                             
be no advantage to lag behind.  He asked, Would National Bank of                                                                
Alaska or First National Bank of Anchorage fall apart?  He replied,                                                             
no.  Providing for this would benefit and facilitate commerce.  As                                                              
far as he can tell, there would be no disadvantage to any                                                                       
particular identifiable group by enacting this.  In addition, a                                                                 
hold up in Texas or Florida could be that their bar associations                                                                
want to tinker with a certain aspect.  He doesn't have that                                                                     
information, however.                                                                                                           
Number 1079                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Kurtz, Jr. whether he heard him say                                                              
that there would be a shift between creditor and debtor.                                                                        
[THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT L.S. (JERRY) KURTZ' TESTIMONY IS                                                                      
INTERMITTENTLY AUDIBLE.]                                                                                                        
MR. KURTZ, JR. replied Representative Croft heard him correctly.                                                                
He referred to Section 10(b) of the bill which specifically spells                                                              
out a reasonable time to respond to a presentation of a letter of                                                               
credit.  One problem that has persisted for many years is that the                                                              
occasional irresponsible financial institution would sit on a                                                                   
letter rather than acting on it thereby putting a business person                                                               
in a very difficult situation.  Nothing in the bill really changes                                                              
the balance, except that it makes it easier for the banks and                                                                   
borrowers to utilize what Mr. Peterson was talking to.  He referred                                                             
to page 3, line 7, of the bill - "document" - and noted when the                                                                
law was put into effect throughout the country in the 1960's,                                                                   
everybody envisioned a tightly sealed letter of credit going from                                                               
one destination to another, but now with the expansion of faxes and                                                             
E-mail this provision brings letters of credit into the same age as                                                             
what the financial institutions have been in for years now when                                                                 
handling checks, for example.                                                                                                   
Number 1276                                                                                                                     
PET CRANDALL, Representative, Alaska Bankers Association, came                                                                  
before the committee to testify.  He also works for the National                                                                
Bank of Alaska.  They both support HB 79.  The UCC for letters of                                                               
credit spells out the responsibilities of the parties between                                                                   
commerce transactions.  The disadvantage in not passing updating                                                                
legislation is dealing with a state that has thereby opening up                                                                 
gaps for attorneys to refute a transaction of some type.  The state                                                             
has existed with the current UCC, and there haven't been that many                                                              
disputes, but the players need to be on the same common playing                                                                 
field.  He declared that the states that haven't passed a revision                                                              
yet will join the effort as time goes on.  He pointed our that even                                                             
though New York has not, huge states like California and Delaware                                                               
have.  The more states on board, the playing field becomes much                                                                 
more compatible and protects the rights of both buyers and sellers.                                                             
Number 1391                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Kurtz, Jr. whether he is aware                                                               
of the hold up in New York and whether it is a fact, as Mr.                                                                     
Peterson indicated, that they have to go through their bar                                                                      
association in order to pass uniform type of legislation.                                                                       
Number 1420                                                                                                                     
[THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT L.S. (JERRY) KURTZ' TESTIMONY IS                                                                      
INTERMITTENTLY AUDIBLE.]                                                                                                        
MR. KURTZ, JR. replied he doesn't know any more than Mr. Peterson.                                                              
He has frequently seen New York lag behind other states in respect                                                              
to the commercial code.  He pointed out that Texas and Louisiana                                                                
are the only two states west of the Mississippi River that have not                                                             
updated their commercial codes, except for Alaska.                                                                              
Number 1451                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the current AS 45.05.104 and noted                                                             
that letters of credit need to be signed, but a telegram will                                                                   
suffice, if a signature cannot be gotten.  The new AS 45.05.104                                                                 
allows the parties to have an agreement or use standard industry                                                                
practices.  If it was strictly construed to a signature, there must                                                             
be ways other than the actual delivery of a document to do this,                                                                
otherwise it wouldn't have worked very well.  Allowing for                                                                      
agreements or standard industry practices is one example of what is                                                             
trying to be fixed.                                                                                                             
Number 1505                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted, when the bill was heard in the                                                                  
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, the testimony                                                                      
indicated that there is a need to stay on top of things, and that                                                               
there is not a reason to delay moving it through this year.  She                                                                
said, "We need to get on board."                                                                                                
Number 1536                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI made a motion to move HB 79 from the                                                                   
committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal                                                               
note(s).  There being no objection, HB 79 was so moved from the                                                                 
House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                             
HB 151 - REVOCATION OF MINOR DRIVER'S LICENSE                                                                                   
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HB 151, "An                                                               
Act relating to revocation and reinstatement of the driver's                                                                    
license of a person at least 14 but not yet 21 years of age."                                                                   
Number 1570                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated there is a committee substitute for HB 151,                                                             
1-LS049\S, Ford, 4/12/99.  It basically gives the youth court some                                                              
authority to hear cases involving possession of alcoholic beverages                                                             
in violation of AS 04.16.050.  It provides the department the                                                                   
opportunity to use the youth courts.  It was recently brought to                                                                
his attention to also include consumption.                                                                                      
Number 1608                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that the title changed, and asked                                                                
Chairman Kott whether there have been changes to any sections                                                                   
regarding possession.                                                                                                           
CHAIRMAN KOTT replied no.  The title changed to make it tighter.                                                                
Number 1636                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt the committee                                                                       
substitute for HB 151 (1-LS0492\S, Ford, 4/12/99).  There being no                                                              
objection, it was so moved.                                                                                                     
Number 1658                                                                                                                     
[THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT LINDA WRIGHT'S TESTIMONY IS                                                                           
INTERMITTENTLY AUDIBLE.]                                                                                                        
LINDA WRIGHT testified via teleconference from Kenai.  She still                                                                
wonders whether the young people are getting their due process                                                                  
rights.  When HB 21 and HB 299 were heard, it was assured that the                                                              
hearing would allow for due process rights.  She doesn't feel that                                                              
is the case, however.  Young adults and minors are being forced to                                                              
provide the only evidence that can be used against them.  In fact,                                                              
the language in AS 28.15.184(g) indicates that hearings shall be                                                                
"limited" to the issues of whether the person possessed or used a                                                               
controlled substance.  She asked, "And, if a person should miss the                                                             
seven-day deadline, can we assume they don't need or warrant their                                                              
due process rights?"  She replied, "No, we can't."  She hopes that                                                              
the legislators will confer to the people who have and continue to                                                              
be injured by this unfair law, and together come up with something                                                              
that is both fair and constitutional.                                                                                           
Number 1758                                                                                                                     
[THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT MARTHA HODSON'S TESTIMONY IS                                                                          
INTERMITTENTLY AUDIBLE.]                                                                                                        
MARTHA HODSON, Member, Guardian for Family Rights, testified via                                                                
teleconference from Kenai.  She referred to her daughters of which                                                              
one didn't get her driver's license until she was 21.  Her son will                                                             
be close to 30 years old before getting his driver's license.  She                                                              
has a problem with that.  She doesn't agree with them drinking, but                                                             
they have graduated from high school and can vote for "you all."                                                                
Her son was charged with the possession of a can chewing tobacco at                                                             
19 years of age.  She admitted that she bought it for him and she                                                               
admitted that to the judge.  She reiterated she doesn't like them                                                               
drinking and driving.  Something needs to be done to restore the                                                                
right of teenagers to talk to an attorney.  Something needs to be                                                               
done about the law to control them before the age of 21, but the                                                                
DMV [Division of Motor Vehicles] should not have that much power                                                                
after the age of 21.  The courts should have that power.                                                                        
Number 1914                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that the committee substitute would                                                                   
eliminate the term "consecutive" and insert the term "concurrent."                                                              
He is not sure how anybody could be picked up with the "Use It,                                                                 
Lose It" law with a can of chewing tobacco, unless it has been                                                                  
laced with "some good stuff."                                                                                                   
Number 1935                                                                                                                     
LINDA JOHNSON, Legal Advisor, Anchorage Youth Court, testified via                                                              
teleconference from Anchorage.  She thanked the committee for                                                                   
considering alcohol consumption and possession cases as good for                                                                
the youth courts.  The wording, however, includes it under the                                                                  
Department of Health and Social Services when it does not handle                                                                
violations, which is what a consumption of the possession of                                                                    
alcohol is.  It gives the department a viewpoint.  According to the                                                             
McLaughlin Youth Center, they do not have the resources to take on                                                              
the alcohol cases.  She encouraged the committee members to                                                                     
consider amending that section to include language of jurisdiction                                                              
for referrals.  In addition, curfew and tobacco cases are also                                                                  
violations, and she encouraged the committee members to include                                                                 
them as well.                                                                                                                   
Number 2040                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced he is in receipt of a document from Ms.                                                                 
Johnson indicating those suggestions.                                                                                           
Number 2049                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Ms. Johnson whether community work                                                               
service in terms of a penalty or fine would be handled by the youth                                                             
MS. JOHNSON replied the Anchorage board of directors do not want to                                                             
take on alcohol cases, but the other youth courts around the state                                                              
want to.  She thinks as soon as the statute is fixed and is in                                                                  
compliance with the courts then the Anchorage board of directors                                                                
will change its mind.  A standard penalty would be a certain amount                                                             
of community work service between 5 to 15 hours, a mandatory essay                                                              
of 500 to 3,000 words, and an alcohol class.  The Anchorage Youth                                                               
Court currently uses a youth intervention program from the                                                                      
Volunteers of America organization.  Other types of classes would                                                               
be anger management or any other specific class depending on what                                                               
happened during the arrest.                                                                                                     
Number 2124                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Ms. Johnson whether the Anchorage                                                                
board of directors doesn't want to take on alcohol cases simply                                                                 
because of the jurisdiction issue, or is there something else                                                                   
contributing to the reluctance.                                                                                                 
MS. JOHNSON replied it is mostly the problem with the new court                                                                 
opinion that just came down.  The board doesn't want the Anchorage                                                              
Youth Court itself to simply be a monitoring agency.  The board                                                                 
wants it to have a real effect.  The board is afraid that there                                                                 
would be very little incentive for someone to follow through with                                                               
a youth court penalty the way it is written now.  The board doesn't                                                             
know how to change that at the time, however.                                                                                   
Number 2172                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said, in recognition of the increase in                                                                
the number of revocations of those under 21 years of age for                                                                    
possession or consumption, she asked Ms. Johnson what this would do                                                             
to the youth court's workload.  In other words, is it prepared to                                                               
take on an increase like this?                                                                                                  
MS. JOHNSON replied it has considered the possible workload.                                                                    
According to a district attorney in Anchorage, he receives no more                                                              
than 300 cases per year.  Currently, the Anchorage Youth Court                                                                  
takes between 450 to 550 cases per year, but they are at the                                                                    
misdemeanor and felony levels.  The Anchorage Youth Court would                                                                 
have to restructure its system.  There is a limited amount of                                                                   
student members to draw from to make up a court.  It would probably                                                             
be structured more like traffic court and a little less like                                                                    
superior court.                                                                                                                 
Number 2220                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Johnson whether the penalties would be on                                                               
a case-by-case basis.                                                                                                           
MS. JOHNSON replied the court is run on a case-by-case basis.  It                                                               
would depend on the mitigators or aggravators.  The judges would                                                                
have to be questioned, but the referring authority would be able to                                                             
make recommendations on each case.                                                                                              
Number 2265                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Johnson what the costs are associated with                                                              
an alcohol rehabilitation program.                                                                                              
MS. JOHNSON replied the one that the Anchorage Youth Court                                                                      
currently uses is $125.  It satisfies DMV's requirement, so a                                                                   
person can "kill two birds with one stone."                                                                                     
Number 2280                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Johnson how often the Anchorage Youth Court                                                             
MS. JOHNSON replied, currently, it has cases two to three days per                                                              
Number 2287                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Johnson whether it's awkward for a person                                                               
to appear in youth court who is 21 plus years of age.                                                                           
MS. JOHNSON replied, currently, the Anchorage Youth Court does not                                                              
take anybody who is 18 years old or older.  She doesn't think even                                                              
with alcohol cases youth courts would want to take 18-, 19-, or                                                                 
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Johnson whether that would require a                                                                    
specification in statute.                                                                                                       
MS. JOHNSON replied yes.                                                                                                        
Number 2340                                                                                                                     
ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services                                                                   
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, came before                                                               
the committee to testify.  The Department of Health and Social                                                                  
Services would not be the referring agency to the youth courts.  It                                                             
would probably have to be the local police departments.  There                                                                  
would have to be a requirement to develop some sort of standards of                                                             
referral, if the wording is "may" rather than "shall".  In                                                                      
addition, unless consumption is added, the minor consumption law                                                                
would probably have to be revised for subsections to be charged                                                                 
under, so that a police officer could cite a person with a                                                                      
particular violation of possession rather than consumption.  It                                                                 
would be easier than having some sort of fact-finding after the                                                                 
fact as to whether or not a person was cited for having a beer in                                                               
his hand or on his person.  She suggested requiring the chief                                                                   
administrative officer of the Alaska Police Standards Council to                                                                
develop standards for what cases should go to the youth courts.                                                                 
She cited age as an example.                                                                                                    
TAPE 99-28, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer, Youth Corrections,                                                                 
Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of Health and                                                                 
Social Services, came before the committee to testify.  The                                                                     
department does not have the authority over alcohol violation                                                                   
cases.  The wording needs to be changed so that the youth courts                                                                
can get these cases from the referring entities.                                                                                
Number 0023                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the committee recognizes its error.                                                                          
Number 0029                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Buttcane whether the Department                                                              
of Health and Social Services is involved with the alcohol course                                                               
that the youth courts send people to.                                                                                           
MR. BUTTCANE replied the course referenced by Ms. Johnson is                                                                    
approved by the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, and is                                                                   
recognized by the Division of Motor Vehicles.  In that sense the                                                                
department is connected to that program.                                                                                        
Number 0062                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Buttcane whether that program is                                                             
geared towards adults or underage drinkers.                                                                                     
MR. BUTTCANE replied that program is an alcohol information                                                                     
program.  There isn't a formal screening process like in the adult                                                              
system.  There are provisions for a juvenile alcohol safety action                                                              
program, but it has not been funded.                                                                                            
Number 0116                                                                                                                     
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete                                                                  
Kott, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to                                                                    
testify.  He stated that the language under the committee                                                                       
substitute is not within the purview of the department.  That can                                                               
be changed.  It was the intent to empower youth courts to hear                                                                  
minor-in-possession cases.  It was the original intent for the "Use                                                             
It, Lose It" law to come into compliance with its catch-name.  It                                                               
was also the original intent to address some of the convoluted                                                                  
fact-patterns surrounding possession by running it concurrently                                                                 
rather than consecutively, so that kids had a chance to ameliorate                                                              
their behavior.                                                                                                                 
MR. WINCHELL further stated that there are two court cases                                                                      
involving the "Use It, Lose It" law:  Jada Quinn and Nina Storm v.                                                              
State and Rexford v. State.  The Storm case was a two-two split.                                                                
It is not binding, only persuasive, and there were some good                                                                    
arguments from the superior court.  The two young adults involved                                                               
- Jada Quinn and Nina Storm - were in a campground outside of                                                                   
Anchorage.  They disclosed to the police that they had taken some                                                               
sips of beer and empty beer cans were lying around.  They were 20                                                               
years old and were given a breath alcohol test.  They blew .003 and                                                             
.006, respectively.  They were not around a vehicle, so the court                                                               
worked through whether the revocation was punitive in nature or                                                                 
remedial.  The court got into an analysis of the nexus between the                                                              
time of drinking and its relation to a vehicle.  In Rexford v.                                                                  
State, a young man's driver's license was revoked before bringing                                                               
about the criminal charge.  His attorney argued double jeopardy.                                                                
In other words, the taking of a driver's license is punitive in                                                                 
nature, so the criminal action is double jeopardy.  The court held                                                              
that an administrative license revocation is not punishment for                                                                 
double jeopardy purposes.  However, the court upheld that for due                                                               
process there might be a punishment involved.                                                                                   
Number 0293                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the committee substitute                                                                  
speaks to the issues raised by the two court cases.                                                                             
MR. WINCHELL replied no, but in side-meetings these kinds of                                                                    
questions have been raised.                                                                                                     
Number 0315                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there is a split in the courts now and                                                             
for a change the legislature could give the courts guidance.                                                                    
Number 0328                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated, when the original bill was passed,                                                                 
former-Representative Cynthia Toohey indicated that it was an                                                                   
attempt to go beyond the mere facts associated with a vehicle, but                                                              
to punish teenagers for drinking before their time.  That seemed                                                                
like a good idea, but it hasn't been all that effective in cutting                                                              
out consumption.  It has been more damaging toward the need of                                                                  
people.  If that is the case, the concept needs to be reviewed.                                                                 
Maybe, there is another avenue to pursue.                                                                                       
Number 0374                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she saw a different level of complaint                                                                
between a minor drinking and driving and a minor drinking.  They                                                                
are two different issues, and she wasn't willing to have the same                                                               
deterrent/penalty for them both.                                                                                                
Number 0403                                                                                                                     
MR. WINCHELL stated, in response to a comment made by                                                                           
Representative Rokeberg last week regarding the criminality of                                                                  
children by coming down so draconian, the bill does not seek to                                                                 
address any consumption issues.  It says, if a person uses alcohol                                                              
underage, it is against the law and a strong policy against that is                                                             
needed - the loss of one's driver's license.                                                                                    
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted the committee substitute does not address that;                                                             
it only gives the youth courts the opportunity to hear cases                                                                    
involving possession.                                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Chairman Kott whether a person can                                                                
still lose a driver's license for possession without driving.                                                                   
CHAIRMAN KOTT replied yes.  That is one of the main issues that                                                                 
this committee needs to address.                                                                                                
Number 0445                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to an example whereby a                                                                        
19-year-old lost his driver's license because he was in an area                                                                 
where liquor was being served and his job because he didn't have a                                                              
license.  He is living on his own and has a learning disability.                                                                
It was a series of stupid events that the law caused which should                                                               
not have happened in the first place.                                                                                           
Number 0482                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Winchell, if a nexus is tied between the                                                                
use of alcohol and driving followed by a revocation, what effect                                                                
would that have on cases that have been thrown out by the courts,                                                               
but the revocation still stood.                                                                                                 
Number 0522                                                                                                                     
MR. WINCHELL replied these are two different standards.  The                                                                    
administrative revocation, when a police officer has probable cause                                                             
to suspect consumption or possession, it is the same criminal law.                                                              
A license will be revoked within seven days and a person has the                                                                
right to appeal it.  Pragmatically speaking, kids don't want their                                                              
parents to find out and are letting the appeals slide.  According                                                               
to the DMV, the standard goes up for those who appeal.  However,                                                                
having done several probable cause hearings, the officer's reasons                                                              
are stated and deferred to which establishes a higher standard.                                                                 
The criminal standard is higher, but this is a noncriminal                                                                      
violation under the current law.  If a nexus is tied to a vehicle,                                                              
a driver's license would not be lost, unless there is probable                                                                  
cause to suspect that somehow a person's drinking activity was tied                                                             
to a vehicle.  If a person is out camping and consuming or                                                                      
possessing alcohol and no vehicle is around, it would be difficult                                                              
to establish probable cause.  Arguably, a nexus could be tied to                                                                
surrounding or leaning up against a running car, for example.                                                                   
Number 0607                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Winchell whether the cases that have been                                                               
tossed out by the courts would be minimal.                                                                                      
MR. WINCHELL replied a higher burden could still not be met in a                                                                
criminal case of possessing or consuming.  However, by a probable                                                               
cause standard, and even a clear and convincing standard at the                                                                 
appeals level, drinking has to be established around a car.  He                                                                 
said, "Kids aren't walking down the street after taking a sip of                                                                
beer and a police nabbing them and saying, 'Hey, I smell alcohol on                                                             
your breath.'  And, then writing in their report the standard three                                                             
sentences, you know:  bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and slightly                                                              
gazed.  So, they've got their probable cause."  It would be a                                                                   
little bit more difficult to charge and take their driver's                                                                     
licenses away.                                                                                                                  
Number 0647                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Winchell how a minor, who is                                                                 
consuming, is tied to a car who says he has a designated driver.                                                                
Is he tied to the car because it is registered to his parents?                                                                  
MR. WINCHELL replied he doesn't know, but if he was a prosecutor he                                                             
would argue there is a nexus to the vehicle because it is about to                                                              
drive somebody somewhere.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she can see this becoming a slippery                                                              
Number 0705                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said it is absolutely wrong for children                                                                   
underage to be drinking.  It is important that they understand the                                                              
seriousness of drinking and driving.  The problem is, teenagers                                                                 
have a real good understanding of what's fair and not fair.  They                                                               
know about penalties, but if somebody else does something and                                                                   
doesn't get penalized, they can see the unfairness.  And, it                                                                    
doesn't take much for teenagers to become rebellious for unfair                                                                 
treatment.  It seems that this should be done so that there are                                                                 
steps along the way along with a real intensive campaign in the                                                                 
schools.  They need to understand that if they drink at all, they                                                               
could lose their driver's licence, even if they don't have one yet.                                                             
Number 0809                                                                                                                     
MR. WINCHELL said the original "Use It, Lose It" law said, if a                                                                 
person consumes alcohol, that person will lose his driver's                                                                     
license.  The issue now is using it at all or using it around a                                                                 
car.  If it is not used around a car, a person would be put before                                                              
the purview of the youth courts.                                                                                                
Number 0854                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, having listened to this and others                                                                
dealing with it, he has concluded that he would not be comfortable                                                              
supporting anything less than a real bright line of consuming while                                                             
driving or being a passenger with an open container inside the car.                                                             
The Storm case says that the provisions of existing Alaska law do                                                               
not require that a minor be operating or even be in close proximity                                                             
to a motorized vehicle.  He thinks the law should be repealed.                                                                  
Number 0952                                                                                                                     
KEVIN HYDE testified via teleconference from Kenai.  He likes                                                                   
Representative Rokeberg's idea.  This is what he has been after,                                                                
not because he wants children to be consuming alcoholic beverages                                                               
or participating in the use of drugs, but for fairness.  He would                                                               
like to see this process recriminalized and returned to the courts.                                                             
He said, give the courts the opportunity to be more flexible with                                                               
treatments for second offenders.  Blanket situations is why there                                                               
are young people who are 18-19 years old and they can't drive until                                                             
they are 40 years old.  A judge can make other decisions, can make                                                              
other referrals to different agencies, and can REPRESENTATIVE                                                                   
BERKOWITZmore creative with punishments.                                                                                        
Number 1026                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT assigned the bill to a subcommittee consisting of                                                                 
Representative Rokeberg as chair, Croft and himself.  The                                                                       
subcommittee is to consider the nexus of providing the youth courts                                                             
to hear both consumption and possession of alcohol related cases.                                                               
That may be more effective than recriminalizing the use of alcohol                                                              
SENATE CSSB 99(FIN) - REDISTRICTING BOARD/CENSUS FIGURES                                                                        
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is Senate CSSB
99(FIN), "An Act to clarify the meaning of 'decennial census of the                                                             
United States' in art. VI, Constitution of the State of Alaska, to                                                              
prevent discrimination in the redistricting of the house of                                                                     
representatives and the senate, and to prohibit expenditures of                                                                 
public funds for population surveys or sampling for certain                                                                     
purposes relating to legislative redistricting without an                                                                       
Number 1132                                                                                                                     
TOM MOFFATT, Legislative Assistant to Senator Tim Kelly, Alaska                                                                 
State Legislature, came before the committee and read the following                                                             
sponsor statement into the record:                                                                                              
     This legislation was introduced to end discrimination                                                                      
     against members of the Armed Forces in legislative                                                                         
     redistricting and insure that future redistricting plans                                                                   
     are based on census figures derived from an actual count                                                                   
     of every Alaskan.                                                                                                          
     Senate Bill 99 will eliminate confusion by placing in our                                                                  
     statutes clear answers to two major questions as we                                                                        
     prepare for the United States census in the year 2000 and                                                                  
     the subsequent redrawing of legislative district                                                                           
     boundaries.  This legislation will end the discriminatory                                                                  
     practices of previous redistricting boards and direct                                                                      
     that census numbers derived from estimates or adjustments                                                                  
     based on statistical sampling will not be used to redraw                                                                   
     district lines.                                                                                                            
     The 1959 Alaska Constitution directed that only the                                                                        
     'civilian' population be considered when the boundaries                                                                    
     for State House and State Senate districts were drawn.                                                                     
     During the 1960's, reapportionment boards ignored the                                                                      
     presence of members of the Armed Services completely,                                                                      
     while later boards assigned various percentage values to                                                                   
     service members.                                                                                                           
     In 1970, each soldier, sailor, airman, marine and coast                                                                    
     guardsman in Alaska was counted as 11 percent of a                                                                         
     resident, while in the 1980 redistricting they were                                                                        
     counted as 35 percent of other Alaskans.  That's even                                                                      
     worse discrimination than used before the Civil War when                                                                   
     slaves were counted at only 60 percent of a person for                                                                     
     congressional reapportionment.  The redistricting board                                                                    
     of 1990 was the only one to count members of the military                                                                  
     equally with other residents.                                                                                              
     Today, Alaskans recognize that occupational                                                                                
     discrimination is just as wrong as discrimination based                                                                    
     on race, religion, sex, age, color, or national origin                                                                     
     and that is why the voters removed the word 'civilian'                                                                     
     from the Alaska Constitution at the most recent 1998                                                                       
     election.  But, court decisions from old legal challenges                                                                  
     to previous redistricting boards might still be used as                                                                    
     an excuse to undercount our neighbors in the military.                                                                     
     Senate Bill 99 will establish a statutory bar to future                                                                    
     redistricting discrimination and insure the men and women                                                                  
     serving here in our Armed Forces will not be treated as                                                                    
     second-class Alaskans.                                                                                                     
     Senate Bill 99 will also clarify questions regarding                                                                       
     which numbers from the United States Bureau of the Census                                                                  
     will be used by future redistricting boards to                                                                             
     reapportion Alaska's Legislature.                                                                                          
     Some people have actively arguing that statistical                                                                         
     sampling and estimates replace the actual head count of                                                                    
     every American in the decennial census.  Earlier this                                                                      
     year, the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited the use of                                                                         
     adjusted or estimated figures in reapportioning the seats                                                                  
     of the U.S. House of Representatives among the states.                                                                     
     But that decision left the door open for the Census                                                                        
     Bureau to develop figures through sampling and estimates                                                                   
     and make them available to the states along with the                                                                       
     results of the traditional count.  This bill will close                                                                    
     that door in Alaska for purposes of legislative                                                                            
     If the Census Bureau's report of the decennial census                                                                      
     includes more than one set of figures for Alaska, SB 99                                                                    
     will facilitate the work of the redistricting board and                                                                    
     avoid litigation over the plan they produce.  Senate Bill                                                                  
     99 would prohibit them from using any numbers produced by                                                                  
     estimates or sampling adjustments and directs them to use                                                                  
     only the results of the actual count of Alaska's                                                                           
     population, just as the nation has been doing for the                                                                      
     past 210 years.                                                                                                            
MR. MOFFATT added Senator Kelly understands that there is a                                                                     
proposed House committee substitute and he thinks it is just fine.                                                              
Number 1411                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated there is a proposed House committee                                                                     
substitute for the committee substitute for SB 99, 1-LS0380\S,                                                                  
Kurtz, 4/10/99.  He noted the change is on page 3.  It provides a                                                               
qualified voter the opportunity to bring a challenge against the                                                                
redistricting board to the superior court.                                                                                      
Number 1440                                                                                                                     
KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joseph                                                                   
Green, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to                                                                   
testify.  He indicated there is also a grammatical change.  The                                                                 
proposed committee substitute adds the word "and" to page 2, line                                                               
Number 1493                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt the proposed House                                                                  
committee substitute for committee substitute for SB 99,                                                                        
1-LS0380\S, Kurtz, 4/10/99.  There being no objection, it was so                                                                
MR. JARDELL explained the changes instill an insurance of bringing                                                              
an action against using discriminatory practice or sampling                                                                     
numbers.  It also makes current statutory language comply with the                                                              
constitutional amendment passed last year.  The constitutional                                                                  
amendment required independent counsel for the board, and the                                                                   
current statutes say that the attorney general's office shall                                                                   
represent the state in all matters.  It also brings in the concept                                                              
that by the time the board is constituted there isn't enough time                                                               
to do the needed preparations to ensure that a fair and unbiased                                                                
redistricting is completed.  The compilation of geographical and                                                                
cultural information takes an enormous amount of time.  In                                                                      
recognizing that, the proposed House committee substitute gives the                                                             
authority to the Alaska Legislative Council to come up and work                                                                 
with the Administration on developing data bases, budgets and                                                                   
accounting systems - the details that will have to be in place for                                                              
the board to draft a fair and unbiased redistricting proposal.                                                                  
Number 1695                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Jardell whether the legislative council                                                                 
would be the funding source for the redistricting board.                                                                        
MR. JARDELL replied it is assumed that the legislative council                                                                  
would be the funding source.  It would be within its power to go to                                                             
supplemental appropriations.  It would have the ultimate                                                                        
responsibility to ensure that it gets done.                                                                                     
Number 1731                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the state is behind the curve on data                                                                 
gathering.  This would be an avenue to get the train rolling, but                                                               
problems could arise that would be beyond the authority of the                                                                  
Number 1771                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Article VI, section 3, of the                                                                  
state constitution, and asked Mr. Jardell whether the bill attempts                                                             
to define what the legislature thinks the people meant when they                                                                
enacted the amendment to the constitution.                                                                                      
MR. JARDELL replied Representative Croft's question refers to the                                                               
original Senate bill and deferred it to the sponsor.  In working on                                                             
the constitutional amendment and looking at the situation created                                                               
by the Clinton Administration since the amendment was passed, the                                                               
only requirement is that a census be completed for apportionment.                                                               
It doesn't speak to redistricting.  He said, "Now, with--my                                                                     
understanding of this is that what they're attempting to do is come                                                             
in and say, well, you can't just come up with numbers for some                                                                  
other reason whether it be for federal funding or any other reason                                                              
and say--slap a (indisc.) and say this is the official one.  The                                                                
one that is referenced in the United State's Constitution is the                                                                
one that they were intending  to reference, and that this does, you                                                             
know, speak to that and express the will of the legislature, if it                                                              
does pass."                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Jardell how is the will of the                                                                   
legislature relevant to this.                                                                                                   
MR. JARDELL replied that is his understanding of what the sponsor                                                               
in the Senate is trying to accomplish, and deferred the question to                                                             
the sponsor's representative.                                                                                                   
Number 1959                                                                                                                     
MR. MOFFATT stated, when the amendment to the constitution was                                                                  
passed, nobody envisioned that the official decennial census would                                                              
be anything other than that which has been in effect for 210 years.                                                             
The legislature can always seek to make things clearer, to make                                                                 
suggestions, and to make laws.  The members of the Senate Judiciary                                                             
Standing Committee consider this appropriate.                                                                                   
Number 2031                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said it is not the legislature's place to                                                                  
interpret the constitution.  That is for another branch of                                                                      
government.  What role does the legislature have in telling the                                                                 
people what they meant when enacting the constitution or a                                                                      
constitutional amendment?  According to his reading of the case                                                                 
law, the legislature has almost no role in that, and properly so.                                                               
It is not what the legislature meant when putting the words before                                                              
the people, but what the people meant when they passed it.                                                                      
Usually, the courts look at what the Official Election Pamphlet                                                                 
said, what the voters heard, and what information was available to                                                              
them.  When this issue has been tried, it has been uniformly                                                                    
rejected for a legislature to attempt to interpret the constitution                                                             
or tell the people what they say it has to mean.                                                                                
Number 2135                                                                                                                     
MR. MOFFATT stated, obviously, this is a matter for a philosophical                                                             
debate.  He doubts that the voters had any information in the                                                                   
pamphlet that the official decennial census of the United States                                                                
would be anything other than the traditional head count for the                                                                 
purposes of reapportionment.  That is how it has invariably been                                                                
done.  The concept behind the original bill was because the use of                                                              
samplings or surveys in Alaska have been used for purposes of                                                                   
discrimination, specifically against the military.  This bill                                                                   
mainly seeks to do what the legislature can do to prevent                                                                       
discrimination, to prevent people being counted for less than a                                                                 
whole person for purposes of voting or representation.  He said, 10                                                             
year olds don't vote, but they are represented.  The homeless may                                                               
not be registered to vote, but they are represented, as well as                                                                 
those who suffer disabilities.  The legislature has a proper                                                                    
function in trying to be of every assistance to make sure that                                                                  
discrimination does not occur, and that the actual numbers are                                                                  
used, not just speculative ones.  The courts may determine                                                                      
differently, but the legislature is a policy making body and has                                                                
every right to do its best.                                                                                                     
Number 2395                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Jardell to clarify Section 4(d).                                                             
She can't imagine that the council independently would have the                                                                 
expertise to develop a computerized system of what the board would                                                              
TAPE 99-29, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
MR. JARDELL said it takes an enormous amount of time to work                                                                    
through any computer system.  This provision is attempting to have                                                              
the council work with those who have experience, such as Kathryn                                                                
Lizik with the Department of Labor and other experts to choose a                                                                
system, to put it in place, and to start working on it in order to                                                              
make sure it will operate when the board sits down and starts to                                                                
draw a redistricting plan.  The idea is not to have the council                                                                 
develop a system itself, but to make sure that one gets developed.                                                              
Number 0088                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Jardell whether that would be                                                                
through a contractor, for example.                                                                                              
MR. JARDELL replied it certainly could be through a contractor.                                                                 
It would be up to the council.  The intent is that it gets done on                                                              
Number 0121                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the council would not develop the software                                                                   
itself, but it would ensure that there is a vendor out there to                                                                 
provide the information needed, such as mapping.  There are                                                                     
probably a half dozen vendors out there now that have the resources                                                             
available to help.                                                                                                              
MR. JARDELL noted there are about a half dozen systems designed                                                                 
solely for redistricting at this time.  It's a matter of finding                                                                
out which one would be best for Alaska because it has some                                                                      
geographical problems that aren't considered in some of the                                                                     
programs for the Lower 48.  It's a matter of making a decision to                                                               
purchase or lease a program, and making sure that it is up and                                                                  
running when the board needs to sit down and use it.                                                                            
Number 0224                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT offered a technical amendment to change the language                                                              
to read, "responsible for the development of a computerized system"                                                             
[Section 4(d)].  There being no objection, it was so adopted.                                                                   
Number 0300                                                                                                                     
MR. JARDELL stated the intent of the sponsor of the proposed House                                                              
committee substitute is not to step on the toes of the Senate Rules                                                             
Standing Committee.  It is really to make sure that the job gets                                                                
done; to make sure that everything is completed; and to make sure                                                               
that all the tools are available for the board in an honest, fair                                                               
and unbiased condition.                                                                                                         
Number 0369                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Jardell whether he is testifying to                                                              
the intent of the Senate Rules Standing Committee.  Is that                                                                     
committee the sponsor of the committee substitute?                                                                              
MR. JARDELL replied the sponsor of the committee substitute is                                                                  
Representative Green.  He is testifying on Representative Green's                                                               
Number 0397                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that he dropped by the U.S. Census                                                               
Bureau when he was in Washington D.C. and was reassured of the                                                                  
enormous amount of preparation.  The bureau said that the state is                                                              
probably late.  A state needs to gear up immediately which is why                                                               
the committee substitute was prepared.  The states needs to have an                                                             
impartial organization and the council seems to be that                                                                         
organization because it doesn't consider one side or the other.  He                                                             
noted that at least it could get things started.  The idea is to                                                                
gain as much data as possible, and to check out the programs.  The                                                              
nuances would be done by the board.                                                                                             
Number 0492                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Jardell how much would it cost                                                               
to do what the proposed House committee substitute is suggesting.                                                               
MR. JARDELL replied it would cost anywhere from $50,000 to $2                                                                   
million.  There would also be costs for litigation, support                                                                     
services and contracting fees.  There is a lot of room to add on                                                                
incidental costs.                                                                                                               
Number 0576                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT commented the cost for software is anywhere from                                                                  
$3,000 to $150,000 per unit depending on the services associated                                                                
with it.  The figure of $50,000 is probably on the low end when                                                                 
looking at personnel, meetings, office space, length of time from                                                               
start to finish, and support staff.  The figure is probably closer                                                              
to $1 million.                                                                                                                  
Number 0675                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted the technical portion is probably closer                                                             
to $100,000.  That doesn't include any litigation expenses.                                                                     
Number 0700                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked what is happening with the process                                                               
now.  In other words, if this wasn't done, where would it put the                                                               
state when it comes to the year 2000 census?                                                                                    
Number 0734                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT replied there would have to be a supplemental                                                                     
appropriation probably from the legislature's and the Department of                                                             
Labor's budget for the software.                                                                                                
Number 0754                                                                                                                     
MR. JARDELL replied it's a good question.  It speaks to the reason                                                              
for the proposed House committee substitute.  No one knows what                                                                 
would happen.  No one is taking the responsibility at this time to                                                              
get the ball rolling.  It is a state-federal program and most every                                                             
state is participating.  Kathryn Lizik from the Department of Labor                                                             
has been working to designate different geographical features into                                                              
blocks to be used to collect data from.  In towns and                                                                           
municipalities, the blocks are mostly the area of a city block, but                                                             
there are a lot of blocks for a state with a very small population.                                                             
There is no plan once she is finished with that.  The Division of                                                               
Elections [Office of Lieutenant Governor], and the Department of                                                                
Labor have indicated that they aren't doing anything.                                                                           
Number 0868                                                                                                                     
MR. MOFFATT added that he was tangentially involved with the 1970                                                               
and 1980 reapportionment.  The boards were operating in 1969 and                                                                
1979, respectively.  Here, the board will not be constituted until                                                              
the year 2000.  "So, we're behind the eight ball in the substantive                                                             
loss to catch up."                                                                                                              
Number 0929                                                                                                                     
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs                                                                 
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, came before the                                                                     
committee to testify.  He said a "severability" clause in a bill                                                                
makes him nervous.  The drafter, obviously, was concerned that                                                                  
something in the bill may be found to be unconstitutional.  At                                                                  
least, that's what he did as a bill drafter for the legislature                                                                 
several years ago.  He is involved in the preclearance activity on                                                              
voting laws to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).  He is,                                                                    
therefore, concerned how the state will be positioned for the next                                                              
reapportionment.  In the last election, the people voted on a                                                                   
process for a redistricting board composed of the three branches of                                                             
government, under the theory that the balance would lead to a                                                                   
fairer process.  That's how it was presented to the people, and he                                                              
believes that the people accepted and believed that.  He is                                                                     
concerned, therefore, to see one branch tipping that balance in the                                                             
approach taken.  "Now, you and I know that if you can control how                                                               
a board is staffed and the kind of computer equipment that it uses,                                                             
any kind of data that it considers, you have a big leg up over how                                                              
that board functions."  That is how the other two entities involved                                                             
would view it.  This is a partisan political process, and the aim                                                               
of the constitutional amendment was to try to get away from that.                                                               
He is concerned purely from a nonpartisan approach.  And, having to                                                             
be involved in the preclearance and litigation of this, he is                                                                   
concerned that a line is being crossed.  He has discussed with Mr.                                                              
Kevin Jardell the need for a task force including a three-branch                                                                
effort.  Therefore, he was disappointed to see this type of                                                                     
approach.  Maybe, Mr. Jardell is trying to get there somehow, but                                                               
is this the type of process that was intended with the                                                                          
constitutional amendment? he asked.  He noted that there is a group                                                             
within the Administration.  It is set to meet tomorrow.  The                                                                    
committee will hear from the departments involved in this area that                                                             
the big problem is money.  The Administration has given it a lot of                                                             
thought in terms of cost and computer systems, but it realizes it                                                               
can't do it on its own.  The legislature will have to appropriate                                                               
money.  There is a need to get things going, but he questions the                                                               
approach of placing it entirely within the legislative council.                                                                 
Number 1264                                                                                                                     
MR. BALDWIN further stated that he is also concerned about the                                                                  
sampling numbers.  He was the losing party in the Hickel v. Cowper                                                              
case, which tried to define the terms of the constitutional budget                                                              
reserve fund in terms of appropriations.  The Department of Law                                                                 
said that there was no problem in passing a statute interpreting                                                                
and making the constitution specific.  The supreme court reminded                                                               
the department, however, that was its job to interpret the                                                                      
constitution and to make it specific.  The legislature could do                                                                 
things of that nature, but it would be given only some weight.                                                                  
That is the approach being taken here - trying to define the terms                                                              
of a recently passed constitutional amendment as to what the                                                                    
legislature meant by the relying "relying on the U.S. census."  The                                                             
census plans to give the state two sets of numbers which is a                                                                   
problem in terms of litigation and for any number purposes.  He has                                                             
talked to a lot of people with technical knowledge within the                                                                   
Administration and they don't know how the numbers will turn out.                                                               
Who will be the winner?  Who will be the loser?  As a result, the                                                               
Administration doesn't know what to do about them.  They might be                                                               
good for some programs and might not be good for others, but the                                                                
underlying motive is to try and get a more accurate census number.                                                              
They are not intended to dilute anybody's voting lines.  He                                                                     
reiterated the Administration doesn't know whether to support or                                                                
oppose sampling numbers.  The legislators have to look at that too                                                              
in terms of partisan politics and districts and what they mean for                                                              
each district.  It really is a national political issue involving                                                               
whether Montana will lose a seat or New York will gain a seat.  It                                                              
really has no relevance to Alaska with one congressman and a state                                                              
that is largely rural.                                                                                                          
Number 1422                                                                                                                     
MR. BALDWIN further stated the Administration couldn't do a                                                                     
military survey without an appropriation.  A survey is very                                                                     
expensive.  It was the intent last year with HJR 44 not to do a                                                                 
military survey.  But, if the Administration goes to preclear this                                                              
with the U.S. Department of Justice, it may well ask the state to                                                               
prove that there is no discriminatory effect.  He wondered how the                                                              
state would do that without a military survey.  It has the power to                                                             
do that under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  If that is the                                                               
case, the Administration will be back asking for money.  In                                                                     
addition, he sees that the preclearance would be done by the person                                                             
hired as the independent legal counsel to the board.  The current                                                               
regulation says that the chief legal officer for the state does the                                                             
preclearance.  He doesn't know how that would square with DOJ                                                                   
regulations.  He doesn't know if that is totally baring.  He would                                                              
be relieved to be out of the preclearance game on this one because                                                              
it will be hot and heavy.  That concern needs to be considered.                                                                 
Number 1599                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out, that at an overview made before the                                                                  
committee by Kathryn Lizik [Department of Labor], he indicated he                                                               
was going to forward to the Speaker of the House a letter                                                                       
suggesting an ad hoc committee consisting of one person from the                                                                
House and Senate, two people from the Administration, and one                                                                   
person from the Department of Law.  That committee would meet on a                                                              
periodic basis, so that everybody knew what was going on.  He has                                                               
also had three conversations with the Department of Labor                                                                       
indicating that as well, but at this point the "left hand is out                                                                
here and the right hand is out here, and vice versa."                                                                           
Number 1650                                                                                                                     
MR. JARDELL noted that Representative Green has contacted the                                                                   
Administration on several occasions, and that he has spoken with                                                                
them as well on many occasions.  They are still waiting for a                                                                   
return phone call to convey the point person.  The bill speaks to                                                               
the need to do something, and it speaks to the importance of acting                                                             
on it, given the time left in the session.                                                                                      
MR. JARDELL further noted that DOJ regulations say, "or other                                                                   
authorized person."  According to Representative Green's office and                                                             
Legislative Legal and Research Services [Legislative Affairs                                                                    
Agency], the "other authorized person" would be in line with the                                                                
type of position in the bill.                                                                                                   
MR. JARDELL further stated, in referencing partisanship, the                                                                    
importance of ensuring that the adequate tools are provided far                                                                 
outweigh any speculation of partisanship.  It is recognized that                                                                
this has to get done, but nobody is doing anything about it, which                                                              
is why the bill is here.                                                                                                        
Number 1758                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Jardell to discuss the severability                                                              
clause in the bill.                                                                                                             
MR. JARDELL replied the severability clause is in the bill because                                                              
there is doubt about what the courts would do.  But, because the                                                                
importance of this is so high, if a portion is found                                                                            
unconstitutional that's fine and it should be knocked out.  The                                                                 
assurance of the tools that are necessary is the reason for the                                                                 
severability clause.                                                                                                            
Number 1796                                                                                                                     
MR. MOFFATT stated the Senate Finance Standing Committee rejected                                                               
the $100,000 fiscal note for military surveys that Mr. Baldwin                                                                  
referenced.  "This bill, that the Senate Rules Committee has                                                                    
sponsored was passed overwhelmingly in the Senate, specifically                                                                 
sets forth that we don't want anything more to do with surveys,                                                                 
particularly with the military.  We want things to remain the same                                                              
as they were in 1990.  No discounting or discrimination against the                                                             
military or any other Alaskan, and the numbers in 1990 the Justice                                                              
Department cleared nondiscrimination.  It cleared and okayed that                                                               
we don't use surveys and statistical tinkering.  The only reason                                                                
that those samples have ever been used in the past in Alaska is to                                                              
discriminate.  The Justice Department has already cleared the                                                                   
procedure of using the census figures for head count - the                                                                      
enumeration that has been used for 210 years.  We don't need to                                                                 
spend $100,000 to come up with any other justification.  The census                                                             
of 2000 will be (indisc.) there and that's all the numbers that the                                                             
Department of Law or anybody else needs to justify a fair and                                                                   
equitable reapportionment or redistricting.  And, the use of any                                                                
surveys, I think, even might jeopardize our case.  Thank you."                                                                  
Number 1874                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated the current federal administration                                                                  
would favor some sort of statistical analysis because, in very high                                                             
concentrations of minorities, it's extremely difficult to get a                                                                 
true head count.  In Alaska it's just about the opposite.  A                                                                    
village count is very simple because everybody knows everybody.                                                                 
The only problem would be Anchorage which is broken down by small                                                               
blocks.  A true nose count in Alaska makes a whole lot more sense                                                               
than trying to do some sort of projection that is envisioned for                                                                
large metropolitan areas with extreme numbers of varying types of                                                               
minorities.  The Census Bureau has said for allocation of                                                                       
legislators at the federal level the actual head count will be                                                                  
used, and is leaving the individual states to determine how they                                                                
will do it.  "We're just saying, if it's good there, it should be                                                               
good all the way around."                                                                                                       
Number 1953                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT closed the meeting to public testimony.                                                                           
Number 1977                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move the proposed House                                                                   
committee substitute for committee substitute for SB 99,                                                                        
1-LS0380\S, Kurtz, 4/10/99, from the committee with individual                                                                  
recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s).                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected.  He remembers the arguments clearly                                                              
on HJR 44, and the civilian versus military issue.  The                                                                         
discrimination that is being discussed has long been a dead letter                                                              
in the constitution.  The word "civilian" hasn't been used in the                                                               
constitution for decades.  It was not appropriate to take out the                                                               
word "resident" and the question is whether or not the state should                                                             
be counting residents or nonresidents.  Most people would think                                                                 
that the state would want to count the residents for                                                                            
reapportionment purposes.  "We may have a significant amount of a                                                               
population that it--the federal government will tell us very little                                                             
about that is nonresident.  There are various procedures to figure                                                              
out whether they're residents or nonresidents, and we're being                                                                  
prohibited from using those.  I think it's just plain silly to                                                                  
count people who don't reside here.  It--and I think it's purely                                                                
for partisan purposes on--on calculation on how they might vote                                                                 
that we're counting nonresidents in our apportionment.  I was also                                                              
here for the discussion of--of--of what we'd specifically would say                                                             
in the reapportionment division to tie it to a very specific                                                                    
number, and I remember very clearly then Representative, now                                                                    
Speaker Porter saying we want--we wanted to be absolutely clear,                                                                
let's tie it to a number that will be put out - the official                                                                    
decennial census of the United States.  And, that's exactly what he                                                             
wrote and was passed.  The new Article 6, section 3 says,                                                                       
'reapportionment shall be based upon the population within each                                                                 
House and Senate district as reported by the official decennial                                                                 
census of the United States.'  Now, oops we find out we don't like                                                              
the official decennial census of the United States, that over 200                                                               
years how we understand the best way to get an accurate count can                                                               
develop, and in fact it's been shown over and over mathematically                                                               
that for various reasons, sampling gives you a better number,  If                                                               
done right, it is--it is irrefutable on good numbers that with                                                                  
enough--with proper sampling can get you a better number than                                                                   
trying to count every single person.  1, 2, 3, oh did I get Bill?                                                               
I'm up to a million three.  That--so, we are now trying to fix the                                                              
fact that we were overly precise then.  We wanted to be precise and                                                             
have a number.  I remember Representative Porter saying it would                                                                
not be open to debate.  It really isn't.  But--but, for again                                                                   
partisan political reasons we don't like the number that we tied                                                                
ourselves to just a year ago and so we're gonna attempt to change                                                               
it.  Attempt, I say, because I don't think we have the power to do                                                              
this.  The Hickel v. Cowper opinion is very clear that what the                                                                 
twenty-first legislature  has to say about what the twentieth                                                                   
legislature meant in putting before the public an amendment to the                                                              
constitution that they for their own reasons approved just ain't                                                                
particularly relevant.  You know, some of us served then, not all                                                               
of us, but us saying what they meant, more importantly proposing                                                                
something that the people approved is just not our place in                                                                     
the--with three branches of government.  We're suppose to have                                                                  
checks and balances on each other and interpreting the constitution                                                             
is the classic role of the judiciary.  It's why they were put there                                                             
200 years ago - to defend the minority against the majority, and to                                                             
depend the legislature--the people against the legislature trying                                                               
to go in certain areas.  This is the problematic area that I think                                                              
may--that's such a close vote on that constitutional amendment.                                                                 
People were legitimately worried about what we would do, we the                                                                 
legislature, if we were involved in something that was so important                                                             
to us writing our own district lines.  And, here we're trying to                                                                
get more and more involved.  We're threatening funding on                                                                       
positions, we're cutting off, we're trying to get in...To describe                                                              
the leg. council as an impartial body, particularly with the                                                                    
history over the last two years of what is has done, strains                                                                    
(indisc.).  This is a partisan group trying to get in--much                                                                     
involved in this area as they can and luckily we have very little                                                               
that we can't do.  We're buying ourselves a lawsuit to say what we                                                              
can read in the statutes.  We're trying to define what other people                                                             
did and what other people approved.  But, more importantly we're                                                                
just more and more getting into an area that we know it is so                                                                   
important to us we can't be trusted with it.  It's so important to                                                              
us that we cannot resist the urge to play partisan games with.                                                                  
It's also the reason that there was such trouble--there was such                                                                
worry about bringing the judiciary in.  We're gonna put a case                                                                  
before the supreme court that says we've defined it one way were we                                                             
right?  And, the chief justice and four others are gonna vote on                                                                
that and then the chief justice is gonna appoint a person to                                                                    
implement that.  On this, on any number of--of judicial reviews it                                                              
is troubling on the same separation of power argument to have that                                                              
judicial officer involved.  The heart of SB 99 to me is exactly                                                                 
what Mr. Moffatt ended with.  We want things to say the same as                                                                 
they were in 1990.  The 1990 census did an excellent job of                                                                     
gerrymandering this state in--tilted towards a Republican majority,                                                             
and it is a desire that it stay that way.  This is why we shouldn't                                                             
be involved in this process at all.  And I object for all the                                                                   
Number 2264                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she agrees with a lot of what                                                                         
Representative Croft said.  However, the legislature consistently                                                               
tries to make, in other areas, laws that are criticized as                                                                      
unconstitutional.  She believes that the court didn't make a                                                                    
decision based on the intent of her last constitutional amendment                                                               
to the constitutional budget reserve fund or based on what she, as                                                              
a voter, said it was.  The court read every single word and their                                                               
basic meanings.  She believes it is necessary to have legislation                                                               
that describes what the legislature's intent.  She certainly wants                                                              
to have everyone counted, but if "you don't count them where                                                                    
they're residing, where are you gonna count them?  And, people                                                                  
should all be counted."                                                                                                         
Number 2351                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated there isn't anybody at this table                                                               
or in this room that doesn't agree something needs to be started.                                                               
Personally, she would have preferred an approach suggested by Mr.                                                               
Baldwin and Chairman Kott - a task force comprised of members from                                                              
the Administration and legislature, so that there isn't an                                                                      
appearance of bias or partisanship.  She is not convinced that this                                                             
is a perfect approach, but it is better than the alternative -                                                                  
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed that this is not a perfect approach.  A task                                                               
force could have been formed, but it wouldn't have had any power to                                                             
appropriate money.                                                                                                              
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a roll call vote.  Representatives Green,                                                              
James, Murkowski and Kott voted in favor of the motion.                                                                         
Representative Croft voted against the motion.  The motion passed                                                               
with a vote of 4-1.  The HCS CSSB 99(JUD), was so moved from the                                                                
House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                             
Number 2444                                                                                                                     
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee                                                                  
meeting at 4:15 p.m.                                                                                                            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects