Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/03/1996 02:23 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 3, 1996
2:23 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bettye Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CURRENT RESOLUTION 30
"Relating to rights of public school students."
- HCR 30 PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 349
"An Act relating to elections; relating to the division of
elections; relating to voter registration procedures; and providing
for an effective date."
- CSHB 349(STA) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL 312
"An Act relating to purchase of an alcoholic beverage from a
package store."
- SB 312 PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 211
"An Act relating to sexual assault; and relating to endangering the
welfare of vulnerable adults and neglect of vulnerable adults."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HCR 30
SHORT TITLE: STUDENT RIGHTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/96 2722 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/96 2722 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/19/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/19/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/21/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/21/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/22/96 3265 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 3DP 2NR 1AM
03/22/96 3265 (H) DP: TOOHEY, ROBINSON, BRICE
03/22/96 3265 (H) NR: ROKEBERG, BUNDE
03/22/96 3265 (H) AM: VEZEY
03/22/96 3266 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
03/22/96 3266 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
04/03/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 349
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATION & VOTER REG'N
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/13/95 2174 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/13/95 2174 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
05/13/95 2174 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
05/13/95 2174 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/28/96 (H) STA AT 8:15 AM CAPITOL 102
03/29/96 3471 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 7DP
03/29/96 3472 (H) DP: JAMES, PORTER, GREEN, IVAN,
ROBINSON
03/29/96 3472 (H) DP: WILLIS, OGAN
03/29/96 3472 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
03/29/96 3472 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
04/03/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 312
SHORT TITLE: LICENSEE BUYING LIQUOR FROM PACKAGE STORE
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/18/96 2775 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/18/96 2775 (S) JUDICIARY
03/25/96 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/26/96 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/26/96 2902 (S) JUD RPT 1DP 4NR
03/26/96 2902 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV)
03/27/96 2924 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR & 1NR 3/27/96
03/27/96 2926 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/27/96 2926 (S) HELD IN SECOND READING
03/28/96 2946 (S) MOVED TO BOTTOM OF CALENDAR
03/28/96 2948 (S) AM NO 1 MOVED BY DONLEY
03/28/96 2948 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y6 N13 E1
03/28/96 2949 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
03/28/96 2949 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 312
03/28/96 2950 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
03/28/96 2950 (S) DONLEY NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
03/29/96 2972 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP TODAY
03/29/96 2973 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/01/96 3508 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/01/96 3508 (H) JUDICIARY
04/03/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
KRISTY TIBBLES, Legislative Aide
Representative Joseph Green
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 30
THOMAS H. DAHL, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 30
MIKE FORD, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 30
DIANE SHRINER, Elections Outreach Coordinator
Division of Elections
P.O. Box 110017
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0017
Telephone: (907) 465-3051
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 349
KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907)465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 349
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant
Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3873
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 312
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-47, SIDE A
Number 017
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER called the House Judiciary committee meeting
to order at 2:23 p.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Bunde, and Toohey. Representatives
Finkelstein and Vezey arrived at their respective times; 2:26 p.m.
and 3:00 p.m. Representative Bettye Davis was absent.
CHAIRMAN PORTER introduced the first bill to be considered as HCR
30 and invited Kristy Tibbles forward to present the sponsor
statement regarding this legislation.
HCR 30 - STUDENT RIGHTS
Number 077
KRISTY TIBBLES, Legislative Aide, Representative Joe Green read the
sponsor statement regarding HCR 30 into the record.
"House Concurrent Resolution 30 was introduced to send a strong
message to students, parents and schools that education and school
safety are top priorities with the 19th Legislature. Education
should be the key concern of a parent sending a child to school,
yet the issue of safety has surpassed this concern. In 1940, the
major problems in public schools identified by teachers were
talking out of turn, chewing gum, making noise in the classroom,
running in the halls, cutting in line, littering, and disobeying
the dress code. Educators now consider the top problems to be
assaults by students on teachers and other students, weapons in
school, racial or ethnic attacks, gang disruptions, shootings and
knifings.
While these problems do not occur as often as they do in schools in
other states, violence in Alaska schools is increasing. For
example, at Bartlett High School in Anchorage a trial policy was
enacted to prevent weapons from being brought to school. The
policy states that all backpacks, book bags, and large purses must
remain in the student's hall lockers from 7:30 a.m. until 2:00 p.m.
School should be a safe haven for learning and our students should
not be burdened with intimidation and fear of violence. Children
are one of the state's most valuable resources for the future
economic and social well-being of the state. This resolution
declares that our children have a right to be provided with a safe,
orderly, and drug free environment in which they can learn, and
that they have a right to high academic standards in order to
prepare them to meet the challenges they will encounter in the
future.
The conditions that allow students to become disenfranchised need
to be identified and reworked. Parents, teachers, and
administrators are taking positive action throughout the state to
address these issues and the passage of HCR 30 would demonstrate
the full support of the Legislature towards these efforts. With
the cooperation of parents, educators, and elected officials, we
can all work together to provide our children the quality education
they need and deserve."
Number 298
THOMAS H. DAHL, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law
testified that they have reviewed HCR 30 and have been in
conversation with Representative Green's staff about some of their
concerns. Even though this is only a resolution and as such does
not have the force of law, the courts have construed resolutions
from legislatures as a demonstration of the intent of the state.
Their concern is that this catalogue of "rights" which are asserted
by the legislature in this resolution and availed to students
implies that if these rights are made available to them, a remedy
is also available. It's a maxim in the law that every right
implies a remedy. The remedy which the Department of Law is
concerned about is that the state is setting itself up as a target
defendant for students which may have some grievance against a
school that might be enumerated in the catalogue of "rights"
included in HCR 30.
MR. DAHL stated that there is a regulation which exists now under
4 AAC 07.010 through .090 and this regulation deals with the rights
and responsibilities of students. It's not nearly as specific as
this resolution. Their preference would be to take some of the
language included in this existing regulation and if the
legislature wants to express it's will to school districts and that
they take responsibility to search for ways by which students might
attain the goals as set forth quite well in the resolution, they
could still do so. He pointed out that there were some clear
objectives and goals in the resolution that were noble and need to
be honored. The department did not want to denigrate the
importance of these goals. Their concern was that the objectives
are couched in terms of "rights" that the state confers, albeit
obliquely through a resolution, upon students and that this "sets"
the state up and possibly school districts up as defendants.
Number 536
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if Mr. Dahl had been in contact with
the attorney which helped his office draft the bill. The reason he
asked this was that it is this attorney's opinion that the
resolution doesn't set the state up as a target for litigation, but
they are sending a strong message of what they would like to see
for schools and their students. Alaska is one of many states that
will enact student rights resolutions and to his knowledge none of
these states have been taken to court thus far.
MR. DAHL said he had not been in contact with their counsel and he
has also not seen the written opinion drafted by this same
attorney.
Number 618
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY thought that a simple solution to
this "rights" problem would be to substitute the word "wish"
instead of "right."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN felt as though this change would make the
resolution so weak that it wouldn't be of any value. He added that
if they could resolve the issue of liability exposure, the
Department of Law has submitted a recommended alternative to this
resolution with very minor alterations. He said he would prefer
the resolution as written, but if this resolution does expose the
state, he said he'd like to see what the Department suggests.
Number 729
MIKE FORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel stated that he had
prepared a written opinion regarding this resolution and the
department's position is that liability doesn't flow from the
passage of a resolution. He said he couldn't tell them that it
isn't possible that a court in the future would use this resolution
as some part of it's decision process, certainly this could happen,
but to say that there is exposure as a result of this resolution is
stretching this point. Liability flows from a number of things, it
flows from statute, court decisions which expand the common law,
but usually it is based on a reasoned analysis of a number of
complex factors.
MR. FORD noted that one question which this resolution raises is
what rights exactly do students have. Do they have the right to a
certain environment? He felt a resolution such as this one did not
expose the legislature or the state to any liability. He felt that
there was a distinct difference of the process between a resolution
being adopted and the adoption of a law. There are reasons for
this difference. There is not the three readings requirement for
a resolution, it doesn't have to be referred to a committee and it
doesn't have to go to the governor. The governor can't veto it.
There are another number of formal steps which someone has to go
through to adopt a law which does not have to be preformed for a
resolution. The legislature passes hundreds of resolutions every
year. To say that these are going to trigger an expansion of the
law in some direction, while at least in this particular case, it
is their opinion that it does not. He understood the concern of
the Department of Law and again he couldn't tell them for certain
that this resolution wouldn't be a part of some expansion of the
law in this direction.
Number 865
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that his first reading of the bill set off
a "siren" in his head that while they have passed hundreds of
resolutions, this was the first one that he has seen which says,
"you citizen have a right," a right which he felt doesn't exist
currently. He said he had concerns about the word "right."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN offered that Chairman Porter had read this
resolution as imparting a right to a student, rather than a
resolution which says the student "should" have this right. This
is all resolutions ever do is suggest this is the desire of the
legislature to do whatever the resolution says, yet no where in any
of the resolutions passed thus far has it imparted or suggested
that the legislature is granting this right. A resolution is just
a position statement and they have no force in law.
Number 965
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that he agreed with Mr. Ford that this
resolution doesn't establish a right as if it were in the
constitution, but what they have in the constitution are state
obligations now for education and if the legislature passes a
resolution it certainly could be used as an indication of
legislative intent on how they think the existing constitutional
rights should be interpreted. Quite frankly, the right to a drug-
free school is an impossible goal in a free society. As much as he
would love this to be true, it is an unreachable goal and he didn't
want to see a school district or the Department of Education in
court trying to defend this position.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that this is exactly what this resolution
will do, it says that "you as part of this legislation would love
to have a drug-free school and to the best of our ability we should
try and encourage that. We may never get there, but that doesn't
make it not a resolution saying that this is the feeling of the
people that are right now manning the Senate and the House of this
state."
CHAIRMAN PORTER said he wouldn't have any objection saying it that
way, but what's written in the resolution is the "right" to these
goals. He said he would be relieved if the word "right" was
completely taken out of the resolution, but in terms of goals,
objectives, etc. that's another thing.
Number 1124
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY mentioned an example of a "patient
rights" document posted in nursing homes.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that if they grant the right to a drug-free
school this might be interpreted to mean unannounced locker
searchers.
MR. FORD said that they could speak in terms of goals, say for
example, a drug-free school, rather than a right.
Number 1200
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that this suggestion ran parallel to the
draft of legislation submitted by the Department of Law, which
addresses "desires", doing away with the word "right."
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said he favored the insertion of the word
responsibilities after the word student on line 2 of the Department
of Law's version, since the student's are responsible for a drug
free school environment as well. A lengthy discussion regarding
changes to this legislation followed.
Number 1284
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN proposed changes to the Department of Law's
version in the first paragraph as noted in the following amendment
as outlined. He said that this language would turn the whole
concept of the intent around which refers to student rights by
deleting the phrase, "with specific attention to standards of" from
the first paragraph and adding the word "including." He suggested
also as part of amendment number 1, the adoption of the Department
of Law's version of this legislation.
Number 1560
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to adopt amendment number 1
based on Representative Green's suggested change as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature encourages all
school districts in Alaska to develop and adopt operating
guidelines and procedures relating to student rights and
responsibilities, including student behavior, treatment, and
discipline. In developing these operating guidelines and
procedures, the school district should consider:
(1) ways to maintain schools that are safe, orderly and drug free;
(2) ways to develop clear discipline codes with fair and
consistently enforced consequences for misbehavior;
(3) ways to make resources available to encourage and maintain a
physically and mentally healthy lifestyle;
(4) ways to create and maintain a learning environment that is
free of violent and chronically disruptive behavior;
(5) ways to develop and encourage courtesy and mutual respect
among students, teachers and staff;
(6) ways to create and maintain classrooms with clearly stated and
rigorous academic standards;
(7) ways to equip and maintain classrooms with all instructional
materials needed to carry out a rigorous academic program;
(8) ways to employ, nurture, and keep teachers who know their
subject matter and how to teach it;
(9) ways to create a learning environment in schools and
classrooms where high grades stand for high achievement and
promotion is earned;
(10) ways to create and maintain schools where the award of a high
school diploma communicates the perception that the student has the
knowledge and skills essential for college or a good job; and
(11) ways to generate and maintain the support of parents, the
community, public officials, and business in a mutual effort to
uphold high standards of conduct and achievement.
There being no objection, amendment number 1 was so moved.
Number 1615
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move amendment number 2 which
entailed deleting the words "the perception" from clause 10 as
noted above and add "and responsibilities" to the title of the
resolution after the word "rights." There being no objection, it
was so moved.
Number 1719
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move House Concurrent
Resolution 30 from committee with individual recommendations and a
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so moved.
HB 349 - ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATION & VOTER REG'N
Number 1744
DIANE SHRINER, Elections Outreach Coordinator, Division of
Elections testified on HB 349. She stated that this legislation
would do two things, the first would be to adjust current state
elections law to assure pre-clearance by the U.S. Justice
Department and it would make further adjustments to meet the
requirements of the National Voter Registration Act. Currently in
Alaska law, there is the perception that the division purges or
take a voter off the active rolls too early, before the time set in
federal law. The other perception, which the division would like
to clear up is that a voter must vote a "counted ballot" to avoid
removal from the rolls, rather than just voting regardless of
whether their ballot is counted or not. The third objective is
that the department presently requires an oath on registration
materials which the federal government no longer requires. They
merely ask for an assertion or a declaration.
MS. SHRINER noted that Kathleen Strasbaugh from the Department of
Law was in attendance. She has been trying to get Alaska's
election laws pre-cleared with the Department of Justice. Ms.
Strasbaugh would be the best person to ask questions of regarding
those particular sections.
MS. SHRINER stated that in State Affairs they took out Section 20
which dealt with voting by personal representative, as well as,
Section 40 which that committee and the Division of Elections
agreed could use more work and study. This section dealt with, by
mail elections, and doesn't show in the current Committee
Substitute. The Division felt as though Ms. Shriner wasn't as
prepared as she should have been to discuss with the State Affairs
Committee why the personal representative section would be helpful
to this legislation and why it's supported by the National and
State Association of Retired Persons. She brought additional
information with her which shows the Judiciary Committee what the
differences are. She noted that changes to the other sections of
the bill primarily are housekeeping measures which better describe
modern ballots, the protection of ballot secrecy, current ballot
tabulation and computer processing in elections to conform with the
way they actually do business. She was forthright with the State
Affairs Committee, she really didn't believe that these are
substantive changes to this legislation other than the two sections
mentioned previously, one of which she would like the Judiciary
Committee to consider returning to the bill.
Number 1968
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN had two questions, one was on
Section 7 and the other was on Section 16. He noted that in
Section 7 he understood the intention of conforming to federal law,
but they were setting up an odd situation where the individual who
votes in local municipal elections and primary elections, but has
a pattern of not voting in general elections would be inactivated.
It seemed that this was unnecessary. It seemed they were moving
from current law that allows any vote, in any election to qualify
someone as a voter, to apparently only allowing people to qualify
to stay on the list with votes in the general election.
Number 2024
KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law
offered that the choice of language was strictly to track the
federal law. The problem with Alaska's past law had to do with the
two years provided and they hoped that by taking two general
elections they'd have a full four year cycle. She didn't see any
difficulty in mentioning all of those elections again, provided
that they covered two full election cycles. Ms. Strasbaugh noted
that one of the problems they discussed in the State Affairs
Committee was that the word "appeared" was too vague. Mr.
Chenoweth from Legislative Legal said he had worked on a way to
deal with this and she provided him some language which defined
this word. Mr. Chenoweth drafted this language for the senate
version of this legislation.
MS. STRASBAUGH continued that the Justice Department wasn't really
suppose to talk about interpreting the National Voter Act, but
instead the Voting Rights Act, however, anything which might be
deemed to inhibit the ability or discourage someone to vote is
subject to their scrutiny. Someone might consider that Alaska's
inactive list does this because someone has to vote under a
question ballot if they are on the inactive list. The federal
government sent the division a long letter with a list of things
which they wanted the state to consider and asked for information
on certain issues. The state then withdrew their request for pre-
clearance. There is a way in the law to purge voters, but they
thought they would get a better pre-clearance if they had a two
general election cycle, which encompasses four years.
Number 2138
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he would work on a suggestion for
Section 7.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE understood that Section 7 dealt with
individuals on the inactive list. The legislation just passed
required that the inactive voter be maintained on a list that goes
to the polls. He asked if they viewed this section as repealing
this.
MS. STRASBAUGH assumed Representative Bunde was referring to HB
211. She didn't read this legislation to accomplish all the
objectives it set out to address. She wanted voters to be on the
active list to get past this problem. She noted that is was too
bad they were kept together in a way, but she didn't see them in
conflict or HB 211 being completely responsive to this concern.
She added that it was a good idea, but she wasn't sure that the way
she read it that it would prevent question voting. If this was
it's intent she said she should probably have another look at it.
The purpose was to make sure someone is not questioned until
they've been through two election cycles.
Number 2203
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE followed up with an additional question. He
noted that current practice is to put someone on an inactive list
after missing one election cycle. HB 211 said that even though
someone was on an inactive list, this list would be available to
candidates and at the polls. He asked Ms. Strasbaugh is she did
not feel that Section 7 would change this policy.
MS. STRASBAUGH said that, no, she felt as though they needed to do
this in order to get by the federal law. She didn't think that
this would help them.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that he didn't think this would meet the
federal laws, he just wanted to make sure that this Section 7
doesn't countermand what they just passed which says that the list
at the polls will contain the inactive voters, as well as, the
active voters.
Number 2238
MS. STRASBAUGH said that this doesn't address whether the register
is at the polls, it doesn't talk about the master register, but her
recollection was that HB 211 addresses some other things about the
register that HB 349 doesn't conflict with. She said that there
could be an interpretative question when they begin to operate, but
she hesitated to say, since she does not do the hands on type of
work to make this determination.
Number 2267
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked about Section 16, on page 7, and
said he understood removing the word "daily" on line 9, but why
would they want to go from 11 days after the election to 16 days
after the election to count ballots. He assumed that this group
doing the state ballot counting review would this to include all
ballots, regular, absentee and question.
MS. SHRINER stated that currently many types of elections, such as
Rural Education Attendance Area (REAA) elections and smaller
elections do not take that long to certify and it's not necessary
to have people beginning to be paid on the eleventh day. They
still have to get all the ballots in and do the processing so it
might just take a few hours or a day near the sixteenth day. To
have these people on the payroll from the eleventh day on doesn't
make any sense. This is for the Review Boards. They won't start
their work any earlier than the eleventh day or any later than 16
days shall continue daily until completed. She noted that this
change was a housekeeping measure.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that he didn't see anything that
would preclude them from doing this in two days and cited the
language.
Number 2373
MS. SHRINER explained that they are not always ready to start on
the eleventh day because ballots are still coming in or there are
only a few to do so there is no need to do this by the eleventh
day. There are other statutes which talk about the requirements to
wait or to allow for ballots to come in. If the ballots are still
coming in they can start on the eleventh even though all the
ballots have not been returned.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that his only concern is that
this precludes them being appointed prior to the eleventh day and
he cited some examples of where this would apply. He also added
that anyone who's been in a close election that goes on forever is
very sensitive to this subject. He noted that there was a separate
statute which addressed those ballots which speak to the validity
of a ballot and said he'd like to hear it. The clause they've been
discussing addresses when the ballot counting review team will
meet.
MS. SHRINER then read a segment from Barbara Whiting's sectional
analysis of this legislation. Ms. Whiting is an elections
coordinator.
"The current statute refers to all elections when specifying that
the State Review Board must convene at least 11 days after an
election. Elections other than primary, general, REAA and Coastal
Resource Service Areas (CRSA) elections, for example, incorporation
or liquor option elections involve usually only one or very few
precincts. Before completing the certification of absentee ballots
the Division of Elections must wait 15 days after an election to
make sure all eligible ballots have been received. In addition,
before certifying an election, the director may wait 15 days to
receive (end of tape)... gives the director the option of having
the state review board to begin no earlier than 11 days and no
later than 16 days after an election."
TAPE 96-47, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. SHRINER said she was not opposed to allow for them to start
this process earlier.
CHAIRMAN PORTER pointed out that this wouldn't get to this issue of
Representative Finkelstein's concerns about getting the results as
soon as possible. They have to wait 16 days for absentee ballots
to return.
Number 035
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that this means that in major
elections, for instance governor's elections, when there are plenty
of materials to be counted that they can start earlier. This would
preclude them from starting on the counting process any earlier.
Right now some absentee results come in three and four days after
the election. His reading of this language is that if they can't
meet, then there wouldn't be any results of this election for 11
days.
CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested language as follows, "the state ballot
counting review shall begin as soon as practicable and no later
than 16 days after an election."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that this will probably change the
fiscal note because the way it exists now is they can't begin until
11 days, now if it's changed to the day after the election, these
people would be on the payroll for 16 days.
CHAIRMAN PORTER disagreed because it says no later than. This
process could start earlier. He also added that the language as
soon as practicable gives them more flexibility.
Number 112
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN suggested not using the word
"practicable," but "shall begin after the election is completed" so
there isn't any issue of someone saying that the process should
have been started earlier. The committee members continued to
hammer out additional language.
Number 171
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move amendment number 1 on
page 7, line 7 that the last two words of this sentence "no
earlier" and the language on line 8 be deleted through and
including the word "election" be deleted and in it's place "as soon
as practicable after the election is completed," be inserted. The
amendment would read as follows:
"The state ballot counting review shall begin as soon as
practicable after the election is completed and shall be continued
until completed."
There being on objection, amendment number 1 passed.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made another language suggestion to the
legislation on page 4, line 4, he would insert before the phrase
"last two general elections," the words "either of."
Number 235
MS. STRASBAUGH conceptually suggested that in order to address the
other concerns Representative Finkelstein had, they could say that
in the preceding four calendar years including the last two general
elections and get rid of the language, "in the last two general
elections." She added that what they need is a four year period,
she didn't see limiting this to the general elections, but to all
other types of elections as well.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN withdrew his previous amendment and
offered Ms. Strasbaugh's suggestion and to change the language to
reflect any type of election in the last four years. The
participants then hammered out reflective language to this effect.
Essentially they would take out the phrase on line 4, page 4, "the
last two general elections" and reinsert the language, "a local,
regional school board, primary, special or general election" and
add to this sentence, "during the last 4 calendar years."
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered as amendment number 2 on page 4,
line 4 as follows:
"...voted or appeared to vote in a local, regional school board,
primary, special, or general election during the last four calendar
years,..."
There being no objection, amendment number 2 was so moved.
Number 463
CHAIRMAN PORTER then referred to Section 20. In the State Affairs
Committee meeting there were two Sections with substantive changes
and Section 20 is one of them. After reviewing this Chairman Porter
stated that this section was not substantive, but just an
efficiency in existing procedure. He said he didn't have a problem
reinserting this section from the original legislation which dealt
with absentee voting by personal representative. There being no
objection to this proposal it was so moved, that the reinsertion of
Section 20 would be reflected as amendment number 3.
Number 585
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move CSHB 349(STA) from the
Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and a zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so moved.
SB 312 - LICENSEE BUYING LIQUOR FROM PACKAGE STORE
Number 636
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant to Robin Taylor testified on SB
312. He stated that this legislation encompassed the re-visitation
of an issue from last year. He read the sponsor statement.
"Senate Bill 312 was introduced to correct an error made in the
drafting of last year's SB 87, an omnibus bill dealing with the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and local option elections.
One provision in SB 87 was intended to stop so-called 'gray market'
goods from entering Alaska without paying the state excise tax.
This language, known as the 'primary source' provision, appeared as
section 11 of last year's legislation.
While the language passed last year does address the gray market
issue, it also has the unintended effect of banning a practice
common among retailers. Bars and restaurants often purchase
alcohol from businesses such as Costco because of better pricing or
from a package store when wholesaler delivery is not on a daily
basis."
MR. AMBROSE used the example of someone operating a bar and they
run out of a particular brand of wine and they send someone out to
a package store to replenish. The legislation passed last year
would prohibit this practice. This was not intended.
"SB 312 amends last year's bill to allow a person holding a
dispensary, restaurant, club or package store license to purchase
from a package store, as long as the package store obtained its
product from a wholesaler.
SB 312 retains the protections against gray market goods while
restoring the ability of bars and restaurants to purchase from
package stores and discount outlets."
Number 738
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY stated that he thought they had addressed
this issue last year.
MR. AMBROSE stated that along with the language adopted in the
Senate Judiciary Committee last year they were given assurances
that this would not have the affect as outlined, but essentially it
does. The interpretation from the ABC Board is that this does
indeed prohibit a dispensary license from purchasing from a package
store.
Number 769
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY recollected a discussion from last year that
it was illegal for a dispensary operator to go to a retail outlet
to buy alcohol and he thought this was changed last year.
MR. AMBROSE stated that the provision adopted last year addressed
only the wholesale license, that they have to buy from a
wholesaler, but it was never intended to restrict only to
wholesalers as long as the product originally came into the state
through wholesale. This would give Alaska their tax money.
Number 850
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move SB 312 from the House
Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal
notes. There being no objection, it was so moved.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the House Judiciary Committee meeting at
3:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|