04/04/2003 01:10 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 4, 2003
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Tom Anderson, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 212
"An Act relating to trusts, including trust protectors, trustee
advisors, transfers of property in trust, and transfers of trust
interests, and to creditors' claims against property subject to
a power of appointment."
- MOVED CSHB 212(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 177
"An Act relating to concealed handguns."
- MOVED CSSSHB 177(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 31
"An Act relating to initiative and referendum petitions; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to initiative and referendum petitions.
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 212
SHORT TITLE:POWERS OF APPOINTMENTS/TRUSTS/CREDITORS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MCGUIRE, Ogg
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/24/03 0618 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/24/03 0618 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
03/26/03 0652 (H) L&C REFERRAL WAIVED
04/02/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/02/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(JUD)
04/04/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 177
SHORT TITLE:CONCEALED HANDGUNS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STOLTZE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/07/03 0467 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/07/03 0467 (H) STA, JUD
03/14/03 0540 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/14/03 0540 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/14/03 0540 (H) STA, JUD
03/17/03 0567 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAHLSTROM, HOLM
03/24/03 0623 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GATTO
03/27/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/27/03 (H) Moved CSSSHB 177(STA) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(STA)
03/28/03 0689 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ANDERSON
04/02/03 0734 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 3DP 3NR
04/02/03 0734 (H) DP: LYNN, DAHLSTROM,
WEYHRAUCH;
04/02/03 0734 (H) NR: SEATON, GRUENBERG, HOLM
04/02/03 0735 (H) FN1: ZERO(LAW)
04/04/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 31
SHORT TITLE:INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)WILLIAMS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0039 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 0039 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0039 (H) STA, JUD
03/04/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/04/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
03/25/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/25/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(STA)
03/31/03 0703 (H) STA RPT 2DP 4NR
03/31/03 0703 (H) DP: HOLM, WEYHRAUCH; NR:
SEATON,
03/31/03 0703 (H) GRUENBERG, LYNN, DAHLSTROM
03/31/03 0704 (H) FN1: ZERO(GOV)
03/31/03 0704 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
03/31/03 0721 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MEYER
04/04/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 5
SHORT TITLE:CONST AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)WILLIAMS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0025 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 0025 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0025 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/04/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/04/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
03/25/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/25/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(STA)
03/31/03 0703 (H) STA RPT 1DP 5NR
03/31/03 0703 (H) DP: HOLM; NR: SEATON,
GRUENBERG, LYNN,
03/31/03 0703 (H) DAHLSTROM, WEYHRAUCH
03/31/03 0703 (H) FN1: (GOV)
03/31/03 0703 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
03/31/03 0721 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MEYER
04/04/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
STEPHEN E. GREER, Attorney at Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question related to an amendment
to HB 212, Version Q.
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison
Institute for Legislative Action
National Rifle Association of America (NRA)
Sacramento, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of [CSSSHB 177(STA)].
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SSHB 177.
NOEL NAPOLILLI, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC);
Alaska Second Amendment Coalition
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of [CSSSHB 177(STA)].
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 31 and HJR 5.
JAMES PRICE
Nikiski, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 31.
RICHARD H. BISHOP, Chair
Trustee Advisory Board
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 31 and HJR 5.
KAREN BRETZ, Secretary/Treasurer
Alaskans for Efficient Government
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 31 and HJR 5.
LINDA RONAN, Alaska HEMP (Help End Marijuana Prohibition)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 31 and HJR 5.
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director
Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 31 and HJR 5.
VIRGINIA BREEZE, Election Projects Coordinator
Central Office
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Indicated that the division had an
impartial statement regarding [HB 31 and HJR 5].
ALVIN ANDERS, Chairman
Alaska Libertarian Party of Juneau
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 31 and HJR 5,
and suggested an alternative change to the initiative process.
CHERYL JEBE, President
League of Women Voters (LWV) of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered comments during discussion of HB 31
and HJR 5.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-30, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Representatives
McGuire, Anderson, Holm, Ogg, Samuels, Gara, and Gruenberg were
present at the call to order.
HB 212 - POWERS OF APPOINTMENTS/TRUSTS/CREDITORS
Number 0042
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 212, "An Act relating to trusts, including
trust protectors, trustee advisors, transfers of property in
trust, and transfers of trust interests, and to creditors'
claims against property subject to a power of appointment."
[Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 212, Version 23-LS0471\I, Bannister, 4/1/03, which was
adopted as the work draft and amended on 4/2/03.]
Number 0096
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 212, Version 23-LS0471\Q, Bannister,
4/4/03, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version Q
was before the committee.
Number 0129
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee adopt
Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 5, Line 29
Before "affidavit",
Delete "an" and Insert "a sworn"
Number 0157
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that there were no objections. Therefore,
Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 0170
CHAIR McGUIRE moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Section 6. AS 34.40.110
page 6, line 15, add a new section to read:
(8) the assets being transferred into the trust were
not derived from unlawful activities.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Conceptual Amendment 2
[eliminates] laundered money.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM removed his objection.
Number 0229
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that there were no further objections.
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 0239
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 212, Version 23-LS0471\Q, Bannister,
4/4/03, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected to ask if there would be any
testimony today.
CHAIR McGUIRE answered that she wasn't planning to hear
testimony, however she indicated that if there is a specific
question for someone she would allow that.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:16 p.m. to 1:17 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised, then, that with the adoption of
[Amendment 1], the bill would still meet the goal of making
Alaska an attractive place for those entering into trusts.
STEPHEN E. GREER, Attorney at Law, replied yes, and said that
the affidavit is a nice addition to the current statute.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA withdrew his objection.
Number 0370
CHAIR McGUIRE, upon determining that there were no further
objections, announced that CSHB 212(JUD) was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 177 - CONCEALED HANDGUNS
Number 0391
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 177, "An Act relating to
concealed handguns." [Before the committee was CSSSHB
177(STA).]
Number 0427
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison, Institute for Legislative
Action, National Rifle Association of America (NRA), urged the
committee's support of [CSSSHB 177(STA)]. On the surface, this
legislation appears to make a substantive change to Alaska's
law; however, he countered, it simply makes a technical change
that really has no substantive impact. Mr. Judy specified that
the intent of this legislation is to open up the recognition of
Alaska's concealed firearm permits by other states. This
legislation requires that the Department of Public Safety (DPS)
enter into reciprocity agreements, which he understood the new
administration to be working on already. He noted that SSHB 177
was amended in the House State Affairs Standing Committee in
order to clarify that Alaska only has to reciprocate with those
states with which Alaska can legally do so. This legislation
also repeals language that was added to last year's legislation,
SB 242.
MR. JUDY relayed that during the debate on SB 242, there was
concern that certain Alaskans who were denied permits or had
revoked permits might be able to have permits issued in other
states and return to Alaska and carry [a concealed weapon].
Although supporters of SB 242 felt the aforementioned was
unlikely, [the NRA] didn't feel that the amendment would detract
from the intent of SB 242. However, the amendment has provided
a barrier to the recognition of Alaska permits. He noted that
he provided the committee with a list of the states that issue
permits to nonresidents, in order to ease concerns [that those
who were denied permits or had revoked permits might be able to
have permits issued in other states and return to Alaska and
carry a concealed weapon]. He pointed out that those states
issuing permits to nonresidents have issuance criteria
essentially identical to Alaska's criteria. Therefore, he said
it would be extraordinarily unlikely that an Alaskan [who was
denied or had a revoked permit] would be able to obtain a permit
in another state.
MR. JUDY reiterated that this legislation will have no
substantive impact on the State of Alaska, although it will open
the door for the recognition of Alaska permits by other states.
He again urged the committee's support of [CSSSHB 177(STA)].
Number 0648
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that he wanted to ensure that this
legislation doesn't allow the state to recognize the right to
carry a concealed weapon from someone from a state with a lower
standard than Alaska. He asked if the legislation does that.
MR. JUDY said that this legislation makes no change to that.
Under existing law, Alaska already recognizes permits from all
other states. This legislation merely facilitates the
recognition of Alaska permits by other states.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if this legislation lowers Alaska's
standards for issuing a permit to Alaskans or issuing a permit
to a person from another state.
MR. JUDY replied no, and pointed out that under Alaska law, a
nonresident can't apply for an Alaskan permit.
Number 0719
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to line 15 of CSSSHB 177(STA)
and commented, "That was not what we changed in the State
Affairs Committee." He relayed his understanding that the
permittees would be able to carry concealed handguns in both
states. However, the way the language is currently written, it
only allows Alaskans to enter into other states and carry a
[concealed] weapon; the legislation doesn't seem to complete the
reciprocity so that those validly permitted in other states can
carry [a concealed weapon] in Alaska. Therefore, he suggested
changing the language [on line 15] from "in those other states"
to "both states". However, he said he wasn't sure that was
necessary.
MR. JUDY agreed that the language change isn't necessary because
any Alaskan with an Alaska permit can carry in Alaska and
because Alaska law recognizes permit holders from other states.
Therefore, the reason to ensure that these reciprocity
agreements are entered into by the DPS is because some states
require such agreements in order to recognize other states'
permits. This legislation is solely to benefit Alaska citizens,
he opined, and will ensure that Alaskan citizens will be able to
carry [concealed weapons] in as many other states as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that he had asked for
confirmation that there is really a problem, and that he was
given a letter from Louis Beaty, Manager, Crime Records Service
Legal Staff, Texas Department of Public Safety, to Barbara
Bitney dated April 4, 2003.
Number 0878
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that [CSSSHB 177(STA) deals with
an amendment last year that was intended to prevent Alaska from
recognizing the right of people from other states to carry a
concealed weapon if that individual had previously had their
concealed weapon permit revoked in the past. He asked, "By
amending this law, are we not making it alright for people from
other states who have standards for carrying a concealed weapons
that are lower than our standards to then carry them within this
state?"
MR. JUDY replied no, and specified that [CSSSHB 177(STA)] will
have no impact on that. Under existing law, regardless of other
states' standards, their permits are recognized in Alaska.
Looking across the nation, over 40 states issue concealed weapon
permits. Although every law varies, the issuance criteria is
fairly comparable. Mr. Judy emphasized that regardless of the
issuance criteria, the empirical evidence from every state is
the same: concealed weapon permit holders rarely cause any
problem.
Number 1014
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of SSHB 177, echoed Mr. Judy's testimony that this legislation
is a technical amendment rather than a substantive change. As
the Louis Beaty letter describes, Representative Stoltze
remarked, this legislation attempts to remove a technical
barrier in order to allow greater reciprocity. He highlighted
Section 2, which specifies that the [DPS] will continue to move
forward in overcoming these technical barriers and create
reciprocity with other states in order to guarantee the rights
of Alaskan citizens.
Number 1134
NOEL NAPOLILLI, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC); Alaska Second
Amendment Coalition, simply noted the AOC's full support of
[CSSSHB 177(STA)].
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed his understanding that this
legislation would eliminate a provision of law that says a
concealed handgun permit couldn't be obtained in this state if
the individual had previously had a handgun permit revoked in
[another state]. By changing the law, it seems to suggest that
someone from out of state would be allowed to carry a concealed
handgun even if the individual had a concealed handgun permit
revoked or suspended. Why is this a good idea, he asked.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said he didn't believe that the
aforementioned provision actually protected the state, but
instead simply illustrates the danger of making amendments on
the [House] floor. After acknowledging that it is awkward to
remove something from existing law, he opined that the language
shouldn't have been included in the first place.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if eliminating the provision that
prohibits the issuance of a permit to someone who had their
permit revoked would appear to say that it's acceptable to issue
a permit to an individual who previously had a concealed weapons
permit revoked.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE answered that eliminating this provision
recognizes that there are enough protections in Alaska's
existing concealed carry law to prevent such a situation. He
posed a situation in which an individual was denied a permit on
the basis of age, because the individual was too young. He
suggested that Texas is probably more interested in the reasons
individuals are denied or revoked rather than just the mere fact
of the denial or revocation.
Number 1364
CHAIR McGUIRE asked if Representative Stoltze had spoken with
the Texas Department of Public Safety in order to determine
whether this legislation would allow reciprocity between Alaska
and Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE suggested that the letter from Louis
Beaty specifies that [current law] is the major obstacle [in
reciprocity]. He also noted that he has had many conversations
with different levels of bureaucracy and staff of the Texas
Legislature and gathered the same response. He said he
suspected that [Texas] is probably reluctant to just come right
out and say that if Alaska enacts this, then Texas will
automatically approve reciprocity.
CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned Representative Croft's proposal to
eliminate permits altogether and inquired as to why not pursue
that over [CSSSHB 177(STA)].
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE explained that Representative Croft's
proposal doesn't actually eliminate the permits altogether.
Representative Croft's proposal copies a statute from Vermont.
Representative Stoltze said that Representative Croft's
legislation retains the permit in recognition of the need to
have the ability for reciprocity so that Alaskan citizens could
carry their permit in other states. It's not harmful to have
the permit process, he said.
Number 1486
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM opined that if someone doesn't qualify for a
handgun permit in Alaska, they probably wouldn't qualify
elsewhere because Alaska has one of the strictest qualification
standards in the country.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Representative Holm's
statement, opined that someone would be able to qualify
elsewhere if that location had lesser standards than the State
of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM argued that this legislation attempts to
allow reciprocity. Noting that there was a concern that there
would be individuals entering Alaska from states with lesser
qualifying standards, he opined that such can't happen.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said if Alaska has the strictest standards,
then other states have less strict standards, and therefore
doesn't that mean that Alaska will be admitting people who
received permits under lesser standards.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM simply remarked that this legislation
addresses Alaskans going elsewhere to carry, not vice versa.
Number 1583
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report CSSSHB 177(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSSHB 177(STA)
was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 31 - INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
HJR 5 - CONST AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
Number 1583
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that the following bills were the last
order of business: HOUSE BILL NO. 31, "An Act relating to
initiative and referendum petitions; and providing for an
effective date"; and HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5, Proposing an
amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to
initiative and referendum petitions.
Number 1617
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
offered the following opening remarks.
Good afternoon, committee members and Madam Chairman.
I am here today to urge the passage of House Bill 31
and its accompanying ... House Joint Resolution [5].
It's the right of the people to put [an] initiative
... on the ballot and to vote on an important part of
Alaskan democracy. Why is [the legislation] needed?
To make the initiative process truly democratic and
representative of [the] state. As you can see from
statistical data in your committee packets, current
law allows initiative sponsors to get [an] initiative
on [the] statewide ballot with only a token number of
signatures. ...
The NCSL [National Conference on State Legislatures]
has taken a strong stand recommending statewide
support for initiatives before they get on the ballot.
Government in other states has been bogged down and
hamstrung by numerous attempts to govern by initiative
- ... California and Washington. House Bill 31 and
HJR 5 would require petition sponsors to get
signatures equaling at least 7 percent of the number
of voters in the most recent general election in at
least three-quarters of the House districts - 30
districts. This change supports the letter of [the]
spirit of the constitution, and brings more Alaskans
from more parts of the state into the initiative
process. The proposal exports and expands democracy.
... The framers of the [Alaska State] Constitution
crafted an article [in] our constitution allowing
citizens to get initiatives on the ballot, a right
that does not exist in 26 other U.S. states. The
framers of the [Alaska State] Constitution
specifically included [a] geographical-distribution
requirement in order to prevent any one of the areas
of the state from dominating the process. House Bill
31/HJR 5 exports democracy into all areas of the
state. [House Bill 31/House Joint Resolution 5]
changes the signature-gathering requirements to more
[accurately] account for changes in communication and
population (indisc. - voice faded away).
Number 1752
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS concluded:
Of the 24 states that have an initiative process, 13
have some sort of geographic-distribution requirements
for signatures. It is important that Alaska's
initiative process be fair and represent the entire
state, to avoid the kind of undue influence, by
interest groups and local areas, that the framers of
the [Alaska State] Constitution sought to avoid. ...
The bill and the accompanying resolution, if passed by
the legislature, will not change Alaska law. The
decision will be made by the people of Alaska, in [a]
vote on a constitutional amendment in November 2004.
I urge the passage of these two bills.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS added that he would like the House
Judiciary Standing Committee to look into whether there is
actually a need for the resolution changing the constitution, or
whether his goals could be accomplished just by a change to
statute.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Representative Williams whether he has
obtained a legal opinion from Legislative Legal and Research
Services.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said he had, but indicated that he would
trust the findings of the committee with regard to legal issues.
Number 1857
JAMES PRICE said he opposes HB 31 and any attempts to make the
initiative process more difficult or cumbersome for the citizens
of Alaska. He opined that the increase in signature collection
to 7 percent in three-quarters of the House districts will not
foster democratic participation, and will simply make the
initiative process more expensive and difficult for the common
citizens who, he surmised, are the ones that participate in that
process. He suggested that the legislation will give special
interest groups and people with an axe to grind who have money
more influence over the process. He mentioned that he'd
participated in an initiative on the Kenai Peninsula, and
relayed that had his group had to abide by the requirements
proposed in [HB 31/HJR 5], they would have had to gather
signatures across the inlet in Tyonek, across the bay in
Seldovia, and on the other side of the borough in Cooper
Landing; he added that such requirements might have "actually
sunk our boat" because his group didn't have "deep pockets."
MR. PRICE observed that it is very difficult, currently, to
gather 15 percent of the signatures from all the jurisdictions.
He noted that at their local election regarding the private
prison, voter participation was about 39 percent - almost double
that area's past average. He opined that Cornell Companies and
VECO Corporation spent millions of dollars to influence the
legislature and promote a private prison funded with public
money. He said that had there not been the initiative process,
his area would have "had a prison that no one wanted." He
added, "Our borough people told everyone, 'Oh, this is what the
people want; (indisc.) overwhelming support for it,' yet when
the vote came in, we smoked them by a level of three to one, and
they found out that, no, they didn't have the support."
MR. PRICE suggested that an effective alternative would be to
prohibit cities from spending public funds to advance their
interests with regard to local ballot issues. In essence, he
remarked, "they're using taxpayer money to get the citizens that
are at the ballot box." In closing, he said that he adamantly
opposes any changes to the initiative process that make it more
difficult, and he encouraged the committee to respect the
democratic process by voting against this "bad legislation."
Number 2022
RICHARD H. BISHOP, Chair, Trustee Advisory Board, Alaska Outdoor
Council (AOC), said that the AOC strongly supports HB 31 and HJR
5. He went on to say:
I'm a game biologist by training. I retired from
ADF&G [Alaska Department of Fish & Game] in 1989 ...,
after over 20 years' work on game research,
management, and department administration. Since
retirement, I have worked in various capacities,
mostly with the Alaska Outdoor Council on fish and
wildlife resource issues, including several
initiatives. The initiatives aren't a bad tool when
they're used to protect peoples' rights.
Unfortunately, most initiatives are used to restrict
peoples' rights. In my review of the information, I
found ... that even the Founding Fathers of this
country were quite wary of the impact of the
initiative system - or initiatives - on minority
rights.
In general, hunters, fishers, and trappers are a
numerical minority in Alaska. And, in general,
wildlife initiatives in this state, and nationwide,
have promoted restriction of scientifically sound,
lawful hunting, trapping, and sound state wildlife
management. In other words, in addition to the
management, ... many of these initiatives have been
aimed at the minority of hunters, trappers, and
fishers. Representative Williams's bill and
resolution would help defend against the tyranny of
the majority by requiring broader representation of
Alaskan minorities of all kinds, not just hunters and
trappers, in order to put an initiative on the ballot.
So, instead of a bad idea being sold by slick
advertising to a gullible majority who have no stake
in the issue, the idea would have to pass muster with
those whose interests are most affected. House Bill
31 does not ban the use of the initiative process.
What it really says is, if you want to use this method
of making law, you'd better have an idea that helps
people, and not hurts them, or it just won't fly.
Initiatives on wildlife issues, and this is the
principal issue of the Alaska Outdoor Council, are
widely condemned by professional fish and wildlife
biologists in Alaska and across the United States
because they've proven a poor substitute for the legal
framework developed over the last 100 years for
managing fish and game.
Number 2149
MR. BISHOP continued:
With wildlife, it's easy to sell a bad a idea with
great - and, often, misleading - advertising. People
mostly like wildlife, and mostly don't like to bother
checking out the facts. So they react to the
emotional appeal of a ballot campaign. Alaska has an
outstanding legal framework and system for fish and
game management consisting of the local advisory
committees, the Board of Fisheries, the Board of Game,
and the legislature, all working together with the
[Alaska] Department of Fish & Game professionals to do
a good job on management. It's part of our
representational democracy, and it's important to
remember, of course, that that's how our system is set
up, not as a total democracy, but as a
representational democracy.
The initiative process [is] used by anti-hunters and
anti-management interests [as] an end run around this
representational-democracy system. House Bill 31 and
HJR 5 would improve the working climate of this
commendable system. It would be harder to undermine
the system through initiatives that are not based on
sound, scientific management - initiatives that
penalize rather than promote the interests of Alaska's
fishers, hunters, and trappers - through the tyranny
of the majority. Thank you for taking my testimony;
I'd be happy to try to answer any questions the
committee may have.
Number 2245
KAREN BRETZ, Secretary/Treasurer, Alaskans for Efficient
Government, after mentioning that she is also an attorney, noted
that her organization has sponsored several statewide
initiatives. She said:
I have been involved in the initiative process as a
proponent of ballot initiatives and counsel to
litigants involved in the initiative process. One
reason proffered [in] support of this bill and
resolution in the past, and currently, is that it will
ensure that there is statewide support of a proposed
initiative. I am not aware of anything ever
introduced to a legislative committee showing that the
current initiative process is failing us in that
persons living in rural areas are disenfranchised and
that increasing signature requirements is the
solution. In fact, the opposite is true, and HB 31
and HJR 5 will guarantee that people living off the
road system will become disenfranchised from the
initiative process.
The requirement that signatures be collected equal to
10 percent of the voters that voted in the preceding
general election ensures that the proposed initiative
has minimal support. If basic, fairly straightforward
requirements are met, the lieutenant governor places
the initiative on the ballot, and all [Alaskan] voters
have the opportunity to vote on the proposition.
There has been no attempt by proponents of HB 31 and
HJR 5 to show that people in rural Alaska are not
given the opportunity to make their voices heard when
it counts - in the actual election.
I was involved in Proposition 2 [Ballot Measure 2],
the initiative proposing to move the meeting place of
the Alaska [State] Legislature from Juneau to the
Matanuska-Susitna Valley. This proposition was voted
on in the 2002 general election and was soundly
defeated - in districts both on and off the road
system. According to the statistics on the Division
of Elections' web site, Proposition 2 was defeated 10
to 1 in District 1, which is Representative Williams's
district; it was defeated 17 to 1 in District 2, which
includes Sitka, Petersburg, and Wrangell; [and] it was
defeated 2 to 1 in District 37, the Bristol Bay area.
In fact, Proposition 2 only passed in four districts -
not surprisingly, all in [the] Palmer-Wasilla area.
Number 2330
MS. BRETZ went on to say:
There has been no indication that people in the rural
areas did not have the opportunity to make informed
choices at the ballot box based on the limited
information that was made available to them. I
personally collected thousands of signatures for "Prop
2"; I [collected] signatures at the Alaska State Fair
in Palmer, in front of [Fred Meyer] and Kmart in
Anchorage, at the [Ted Stevens] Anchorage
International Airport, and at the Fifth Avenue Mall in
downtown Anchorage. These are some of the best places
in the state to reach out to Alaskans because one
meets voters from across the state. Anchorage is the
state's economic hub, and the state fair, the "big box
stores," the malls, and the airport are places where
people from rural areas come for shopping,
entertainment, and to take care of business.
Although I cannot tell you whether we collected
signatures of 7 percent of the voters in three-fourths
of the house districts, as HB 31 and HJR 5 would
require, I can tell you that we talked to persons and
collected signatures from Angoon to Barrow to Unalaska
and all in between. [House Bill 31 and House Joint
Resolution 5] will disenfranchise people living in
rural Alaska from the initiative process. It is
undeniable that most signatures needed to place an
issue on the ballot can be collected in Anchorage and
its environs by reaching out to places frequented by
people from across the state. It is also undeniable
that a person living in Dillingham cannot collect all
the signatures that he needs to place an issue on the
statewide ballot by staying in Dillingham.
TAPE 03-30, SIDE B
Number 2380
MS. BRETZ continued:
[House Bill 31 and House Joint Resolution 5] will
require [people in Bush Alaska to not] only pay for
plane tickets, lodging, transportation, and meals in
Anchorage, but also [pay for] plane tickets, lodging,
transportation, and meals in Juneau, Fairbanks,
Barrow, Bethel, et cetera, in order to meet the
onerous proposed requirements. Most common citizens
do not have the funds to do this. These additional
requirements will preclude most people in rural Alaska
from getting involved in the initiative process.
Now, when we have increased cause to reflect upon the
individual freedoms, prosperity, and wealth that our
form of government allows us to enjoy - in contrast to
those regimes of Iraq and Afghanistan - ... the
legislature should encourage more Alaskans to
participate in the initiative process. Although the
initiative process has never been instituted on the
federal level, the United States Supreme Court has
commented on it in the case of United Mine Workers of
America v. Illinois State Bar Association, 389 U.S.
427 (1967) ....
MS. BRETZ read from the aforementioned case, which says:
We start with the premise that the rights to peaceably
assemble and to petition for a redress of grievances
are among the most precious of the liberties
safeguarded by the Bill of Rights. These rights,
moreover, are intimately connected, both in origin and
in purpose, with other First Amendment rights of free
speech and free press. "All these, though not
identical, are inseparable." (Citations omitted) The
First Amendment would, however, be a hollow promise if
[it] ever left government free to destroy or erode its
guarantees by indirect restraints so long as no law is
passed that prohibits free speech, press, petition, or
assembly as such.
Number 2324
MS. BRETZ, in conclusion, said:
Restraining the rights of the people of the state of
Alaska from the right to petition the government
through the initiative process is certainly not
Alaskan and, I may also add, is not patriotic. I ask
that the committee vote to not pass this bill and
resolution. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, referring to Ms. Bretz's experience in
putting an initiative on the ballot, asked how much volunteer
time it took to get the required number of signatures and how
much money had to be raised to achieve that goal.
MS. BRETZ said that for Proposition 2, volunteers did 90 percent
of the work and the fundraising, adding that she and Uwe Kalenka
collected approximately 75 percent of the necessary signatures.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Bretz to comment on the issue
of "how the initiative process relates to the balance of power
in the [Alaska] State Constitution."
MS. BRETZ replied:
I believe that the initiative process is there for
people who are dissatisfied with the legislative
process, to make their wishes and desires known. Our
group has approached several legislators about
introducing bills that we thought would be in the best
interest of the state; sometimes things happen,
sometimes not. But we believe that the initiative
process is vital for our democracy, so that the people
- citizens - can make laws on their own. It's often
been called, as I'm sure you're aware, "direct
democracy" - bypassing the legislative process to go
directly to the people.
Number 2186
LINDA RONAN, Alaska HEMP (Help End Marijuana Prohibition), noted
that her group has been trying to put an initiative on the
ballot for years. She remarked that "this is a subject" that is
difficult for legislators to bring up; thus it is easier for
"the people" to bring the issue forward. She noted that the
constitution uses the phrase, "We the People," adding that it is
"the people" who have the right to put initiatives on the ballot
when political leaders are not interested in making changes
regarding certain issues. She posited that the people who don't
have the money to go out to all the villages to gather
signatures still have access to those who live in villages
because those folks do come to the urban centers at some time
during the year. She opined that it would be better to keep the
initiative process as is, and that [the legislation under
discussion] will make the process more difficult because the
proposed signature requirements will be almost impossible to
meet, particularly for controversial issues. She urged the
committee to not pass [HB 31 and HJR 5].
Number 2084
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AkPIRG), indicated that AkPIRG opposes [HB 31
and HJR 5]. He said, "I believe, as has been stated, that
elections are the true form of our democracy, and citizens'
initiatives on those elections are a valuable tool ...." He
opined that [HB 31 and HJR 5] are unnecessary and would unfairly
restrict access to the initiative process. He remarked that the
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) has always done a very
good job in helping citizens keep track of who is spending money
on ballot propositions and elections.
Number 1977
VIRGINIA BREEZE, Election Projects Coordinator, Central Office,
Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, simply
mentioned that the division has "an impartial statement" on the
[legislation under discussion].
Number 1953
ALVIN ANDERS, Chairman, Alaska Libertarian Party of Juneau,
noted that he is a veteran of many initiative campaigns in
Alaska. He went on to say:
I'm here to urge the committee to reject the changes
to the initiative process. It is already extremely
difficult to put initiatives on the ballot. Very few
businesses will allow anyone to circulate a petition
in front of their businesses, especially if the
initiative is at all controversial. The proposed
changes to the initiative process will mean that
circulators will need to not only get signatures equal
to 10 percent of the vote cast in the last election,
but will also have to get signatures equal to 7
percent of the vote cast in three-fourths of the House
districts.
This will have the effect of requiring not one
petition drive, but thirty petition drives, because to
fail to qualify in just one of the required three-
fourths districts will invalidate all the signatures.
So even if 100 percent of the voters in 29 districts
sign a petition, but supporters fall one signature
short in the 30th district, then the initiative fails,
and all voters who would like to vote on the issue are
disenfranchised. Nor is this reform even necessary.
Supporters of making the initiative process more
onerous claim they are proposing these changes so that
all the state is included in the initiative process,
yet they offer no evidence that this is not currently
the case. I argue that, in fact, just the opposite is
true. When an initiative is on the ballot, it is
widely debated statewide.
When legislators pass bills - and, unfortunately, you
pass lots of them - voters rarely, if ever,
participate in the debate on these bills. In fact,
legislators have even claimed that they themselves did
not have time to read every bill before voting on it.
Alaska statewide ballots are not crowded. Moreover,
initiative backers know they need a majority of the
voters to pass the initiative, so they work hard to
win hearts and minds statewide. These changes will
mean the death of citizen initiatives and mean that
only initiatives supported by deep pockets can afford
to make the ballot. This will hardly support
democracy, much less civic participation.
Number 1866
MR. ANDERS continued:
Also, initiatives increase voter turnout. They do
this in two ways. First, they do this by registering
new voters. On New Year's Day, just eight minutes
into the new millennium, I registered a voter who had
not voted since 1972 and who had no intention of ever
again voting. He changed his mind because marijuana
reform would be on the ballot, and his 21-year-old
daughter followed her father's example and registered
for the first time in her life, after having vowed
never to do so. Second, initiatives increase voter
turnout by putting issues on the ballot that are too
hot to handle for the legislature. Tax reform,
defending the Alaska permanent [fund dividend],
medical marijuana, term limits, wildlife issues, [and]
sign restrictions are just some of the issues that
would only have been in the public debate ... thanks
to the initiative process. These changes are not
needed.
Moreover, there is a better way to accomplish the same
goal and save taxpayers money at the same time. Plus,
the change can be done without the need for a
constitutional amendment. By changing the initiative
from a petition booklet of many pages - and printed at
great expense to the taxpayers ... - to a one-page
form that can be posted on a web site and downloaded
by citizens wishing to sign and circulate the
petition. If we do this, we will make the initiative
easier to sign by even voters living in the remotest
parts of Alaska. The added benefit is that the
initiative backers can pay the cost of printing these
petitions.
Number 1811
MR. ANDERS elaborated:
To do this change, we will need to either give up the
circulator affidavit on the last page of petition
booklets, or make it a separate form that needs to be
signed and turned in. I would argue for the former
reform. The circulator affidavit is no longer
necessary because the U.S. Supreme Court no longer
allows petition circulation to be limited to only
registered voters. Since this [U.S.] Supreme Court
ruling, circulator affidavits have only served the
purpose of having circulators swear that to the best
of their knowledge, the person signing the petition
was a registered voter. However, no one is taking our
word for it; instead, the state goes to great expense
to verify that the signers are, indeed, registered
voters.
The initiative has a rich history in Alaska. It plays
a very important role in self-government. It fosters
civic responsibility. It invigorates public debate.
Instead of making the initiative process more
difficult, we should make it easier. Ideally, all
bills should go before the citizens for a vote.
Moreover, Alaska should also allow citizens to use the
initiative process to amend the Alaska [State]
Constitution.
I propose that the legislature reject these proposed
changes. Instead, turn this bill into the requirement
necessary to put a constitutional amendment on the
ballot, add an additional safeguard by requiring the
proposed constitutional amendment to pass twice or to
pass with a super majority. At the very least, the
legislature should embrace democracy and the
democratic process by rejecting this effort to make an
already very difficult initiative process far more
difficult. Then the legislature could go a step
further and take mercy on taxpayers by making
initiatives one page, the cost of the printing of
which is paid by initiative proponents instead of the
taxpayers. As stated earlier, this will make the
initiative process far more accessible to all Alaskans
by facilitating the placement of initiatives on the
Internet where they can easily be downloaded.
Number 1729
MR. ANDERS concluded:
I would like to make two final points. One, the
Alaska Outdoor Counsel, their objection is that the
initiative process will -- that these changes make it
harder for wildlife [issues] to make the ballot.
Well, no one is better funded than ... the
environmental movement, and this is exactly the type
of change that's going to mean that ... [this is] the
only type of initiative - those by well-funded special
interests - that will make the ballot. ...
The last comment here is that I have copies of the ...
type of petition we're talking about, I have lots of
extra copies because the state spends a great deal
money printing these petitions booklets up for us.
Instead of printing these petitions for us, this is an
example of the petition that's done in municipalities,
like this is an Anchorage petition. It's one page.
In Michigan, proponents of putting ... marijuana
reform on the ballot got a 100,000 signatures, all
volunteer, twice - [though] they needed 300,000 - and
they did it because the form could be very easily
downloaded. And with that I'll conclude my remarks
and stand by for any questions.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised that when gathering signatures,
circulators can assume that a certain percentage of signatures
will be invalidated because peoples' signatures can't be read or
because persons signing petitions won't be registered voters.
He asked Mr. Anders how many extra signatures must be gathered
in order that enough are gathered to place an issue on the
ballot.
MR. ANDERS said that generally, he tries to get twice as many
signatures as are required, since many signatures will,
ultimately, be invalidated. He added that most of the
initiatives he has been involved with "run a validity rate of
better than 70 percent." He remarked that although a 7-percent
signature requirement - as is proposed by [HB 31 and HJR 5] -
may not seem like much, circulators would have to strive for
double the number of signatures required in order to be sure
that enough valid signatures were gathered. In response to
further remarks, he explained that in a district for which 7
percent of voters voting in the prior election totaled 220, as a
petition circulator, he would attempt to gather 400-500
signatures.
Number 1564
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that the initiative and referendum
process is very important, and perhaps unique to western states.
She agreed that sometimes the initiative process can be a way of
discharging ideas that, for political reasons, get bogged down
in [other arenas]. She noted, however, that the basic premise
of a representative democracy is that the majority of the people
are represented. She elaborated:
When you look at a state like Alaska, it isn't just
the majority of people from Anchorage, or the majority
of people from Juneau, or the majority of people from
Fairbanks - urban areas; it's the majority of the
state. And we've struggled long and hard in this
legislature to talk about that - the urban/rural
divide, some people call it - to make sure that
villages and other rural communities in this state
have access to water and sewer and power, access to
transportation, and opportunities to education, and so
on.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked how enacting the requirements proposed in HB
31 and HJR 5 could be construed as infringing on democracy.
MR. ANDERS remarked that democracy is furthered when all
Alaskans are given the opportunity to vote directly on an issue
at the polls. In contrast, democracy is not furthered when an
issue is vetoed simply because people didn't get a chance to
sign a petition. He added, "Democracy is voting on issues
directly; it's not signing a petition directly." He continued:
What we want to do is make it as easy for people to
put issues on the ballot as possible, but as hard for
people to violate the rights of individuals through
the initiative process. That's why we have a bill of
rights, that's why it needs to vigorously enforced.
The initiative process should be viewed as an adjunct
of the legislative branch of government. When we were
writing the constitution, communication was very
difficult; [thus] the idea of having citizens vote on
issues, each and every issue individually, would have
just been extremely difficult, if for no other reason
than the high cost of getting information to
everybody.
Number 1329
MR. ANDERS went on to say:
But in smaller communities, like Massachusetts - the
birthplace of our [U.S.] Constitution and the
independence movement - citizens did organize into
town councils where they voted on every issue. And
now we've evolved. With the Internet, we can be
talking with people all over the state,
instantaneously. And so, again, if we want to include
more people in the initiative process, we can do so
very easily by making it one page that the proponents
pay for the printing of themselves [and allowing] the
proponents to put it on the Internet so it can be
downloaded; then the folks in Ketchikan [for example]
could not only sign the petition very easily, but they
can circulate it very easily.
If you want to preserve the sponsor affidavit, it's
just a separate page that the person has to download
and send in as well. Currently, what happens -- these
booklets make it very difficult for ... [volunteer-
initiative] efforts to succeed. Mailing these to
people is very expensive. When a volunteer gets it,
they feel they have to fill it out before they turn it
back in; then mailing it back in is very expensive.
[If] it's one page, if I only want to sign it, I stick
it in an envelope with 37 cents, and it's done. If
[I] want to involve my friends ...
CHAIR McGUIRE interjected to say she [understands] Mr. Anders's
point. She noted that according to Article [XI], Section 3, of
the Alaska State Constitution, a constitutional amendment would
be required to enact Representative William's proposed changes.
In contrast to statements made by Mr. Anders regarding the
difference between voting on an issue and signing a petition,
she opined that because of the aforementioned constitutional
language, voting on an issue is not separate and distinct from
signing a petition. Rather, "it is all one big part of it," she
added. She remarked that although it is inevitable that there
will be some bad ideas brought forth through the initiative
process, signature requirements will ensure that fewer bad ideas
make it to the ballot, so that it can be said that there's
enough support for an idea from the start. She then voiced
support for Mr. Anders's idea regarding [making petitions
available on] the Internet, and suggested that funds should be
spent to ensure that the technology currently available is used
to increase to the entire state's access to the petition
process.
Number 1091
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he agreed with Chair McGuire on that
last point. He opined that with regard to initiatives,
"Anchorage has got to be completely driving the bus; we have to
be cramming things down peoples' throat, so there ought to be
five of us up here that love them because our people are the
ones that -- we're it." He offered the thought that those in
Anchorage have more of a voice in the initiative process than do
those from Barrow or Nome or Ketchikan, for example, even
though, oftentimes, initiatives have an affect on rural areas of
the state. He indicated that he is leaning towards supporting
Representative Williams's proposal.
MR. ANDERS replied:
Anchorage may drive the bus in as much as that's where
the bulk of the population is, so that's where you get
the bulk of your signatures. What drives the bus is
the 10 percent requirement you need, the [20,000-some
or 30,000-some] gross signatures, so you go to your
largest population center. Democracy is voting on
issues directly, and what we want to do is make it
possible for folks in Ketchikan, Unalaska - all over
the state - [to] have what they think is a good idea
put on the ballot. This requirement would mean
they'll have to travel all around the state to do it.
Currently, they can come to Anchorage and get the bulk
of their signatures there and at the Palmer fair, put
their initiative on the ballot, and then, of course,
that doesn't mean it's going to pass. A lot of what
look like really good ideas, just because they made it
on the ballot, didn't pass.
If you look at the [material] that Representative
Williams submitted, you'll see a number of initiatives
that were placed on the ballot that had a lot of
support and had a lot of signatures from around the
state - for example, the tax cap - got soundly
defeated. The medical marijuana initiative didn't get
many signatures around the state but it [did] quite
well. I'd also add that it's extremely difficult to
find places [that] allow you to circulate a petition.
In the case of making marijuana illegal in 1990, ...
Carrs allowed you to set up inside the Eagle River
Carrs to circulate the petition. Well, in trying to
put medical marijuana on the ballot and marijuana ...
decriminalization on the ballot, we were threatened
with arrest in front of federal post offices.
Number 0897
MR. ANDERS continued:
Now, if the right to petition your government doesn't
apply to the federal government, where does it apply?
So, thank God we do have public property like the
Sullivan Arena, the Palmer fair, Tanana Valley fair,
the DMV [Division of Motor Vehicles], the library that
you can get signatures. But imagine, when you go to
these smaller communities, you don't have the
population centers to get those signatures, so you may
have to stay there for weeks to bump into enough
folks. Combine that, and now you have a controversial
initiative that the local authorities don't want to
see on the ballot. And then they put somebody out
there beside you saying, "Hey, don't sign that
marijuana petition" - you're fried. And it can
happen. [When] we were doing the wolf snare petition,
we had a circulator in Fairbanks who was stalked.
And, as a result of her being stalked, we removed the
requirement that circulators had to put their name on
each [indisc. - coughing].
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked, "And we need to continue to make
improvements to that."
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, on Mr. Anders's comments, said, "That
doesn't change the fact that Anchorage has a completely
disproportionate part of the power now." He noted that if
Representative Williams wanted to do a petition, even he would
have to go to Anchorage.
MR. ANDERS pointed out that under the proposed legislation,
Representative Williams would then also have to go to Nome,
Dillingham, and other districts.
Number 0756
CHERYL JEBE, President, League of Women Voters (LWV) of Alaska,
relayed that in 2001, the LWV adopted a resolution supporting
the initiative process, after a study recommended "a formula for
at least 50 signatures in each of two-thirds of the legislative
districts in order to reflect statewide interest in a measure."
She remarked, however, that she is not sure that 7 percent is
the number that should be used. In the discussions ensuing from
the study, the LWV chose 50 signatures because it was decided
that it was important that rural Alaska have more of a say in
the initiatives being put on the ballot. In response to a
question, she noted that another recommendation resulting from
the aforementioned study was to support the [current]
requirement for "a number of valid signatures not less than 10
percent of the total number of votes cast in the preceding
general election."
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON remarked that he could see both sides of
the argument. He mentioned, however, that he supports expanding
the number of districts from which signatures are gathered in
order to achieve a greater representation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM remarked, "We do not have a democracy; we
have a representative republic." He opined that lack of a
democracy ensures that there will not be a tyranny of the
majority. He suggested that changing the initiative process as
proposed by Representative Williams will better protect the
people. Representative Holm then read from a portion of
Delegate Warren A. Taylor's comments from the December 16, 1955,
transcripts of the Alaska Constitutional Convention, which says:
Of course, now we know in some states the exercise of
the initiative and referendum was perhaps warranted by
one act maybe that it be put through. One of them was
in California. The Civil Service Act for state
employees was put through by means of the initiative
measure. The legislature had been importuned for year
after year for civil service status of the employees,
and it was only in that way that they finally got it.
Of course, if the proper safeguards are not put around
the type of legislation that can be initiated by the
people. [sic] As I said before, they can do a lot of
harm. There was one in California that within a year
they found out that it was bankrupting the state, and
they had to get out another initiative and do away
with the first one.
Number 0308
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that it is imperative for [the
legislature] to oversee what happens to the state of Alaska, and
imperative for the people of the state to have some control over
the initiative process. He indicated that he supported
Representative Williams's proposal.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA posited that the framers of the Alaska State
Constitution wanted to give the people of the state a way to
exercise the right of direct democracy, and this resulted in the
current initiative process. He opined that this current
process, as developed by the framers of the Alaska State
Constitution, is a good one. After positing that the framers
considered an unfettered right to initiatives to be a problem,
Representative Gara pointed out that the restrictions discussed
in the aforementioned transcript pertained to "whether or not to
let people vote to spend money," and the decision arrived at was
to not let the initiative process extend to the expenditure of
money. He opined that this is a good limitation. On the issue
of whether to require more signatures from throughout the state
before allowing an initiative on the ballot, he said he
disagrees that such a requirement would be better from a
democratic standpoint.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, likening the initiative process to the
legislative process, noted that legislation does not need to
have the written support of three-quarters of the body;
legislation merely needs to have the support of half of the body
plus one. He opined that the current initiative process is set
up properly. "I don't think you have to prove that you have a
majority before you get your majority," he added. He noted,
however, that he does sympathize with the point raised regarding
the fact that currently, initiative circulators only have to go
to the same larger population centers. But this problem is
cured, he opined, by the fact that an initiative won't pass
unless it is approved by a majority of the voters at the polls.
He warned that making it more burdensome to get signatures, as
proposed by HB 31 and HJR 5, will prevent people from getting
initiatives on the ballot. He suggested that the changes
proposed will increase the cost of getting initiatives on the
ballot; as a result, wealthy people and groups with a lot of
financial resources will still be able to get initiatives on the
ballot, but not average citizens. He indicated that he sides
with the people who oppose [HB 31 and HJR 5] and support keeping
the initiative process as is.
TAPE 03-31, SIDE A
Number 0010
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that the initiative process is
part of the checks and balances to the legislative process.
Using the legislative process as an analogy to the initiative
process, he noted that only one person has to have an idea - in
the form of a piece of legislation - for it to come before the
whole body. He surmised that the same is true for Congress and
other states' legislatures. He offered his view that the
initiative is merely the first step in the process, and
suggested that the question before the committee is how many it
takes to prevent a measure. He suggested that under HB 31 and
HJR 5, "people from one-quarter of the districts could oppose [a
measure]."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that the proposal is not very
representative because it merely says persons have to live in a
district, adding, "those of us who live in districts know that
it's very fortuitous whether you live on one side of the street
or the other." He asked, "Why does it make me more qualified to
oppose a bill just because I live across the street or I happen
to live in a different village?" It's not where one lives, he
added, "we're all Alaskans." If [the committee] really wants to
stop what has been called "the tyranny of the majority," he
suggested, it should not be focusing on the "nominating
portion," as proposed by HB 31 and HJR 5; rather, the committee
should be looking at "enactment," whereby, in order to pass a
measure, people from two-thirds or three-quarters of the
districts would be required to vote for the measure. Another
option for stopping "the tyranny of the majority," he remarked,
would be to require a super majority [of the voters] to vote for
passage of a measure.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that "in talking about
candidates," Stalin said, "Let me control the nominating
process, and you can have the election." "And he did it, didn't
he?" added Representative Gruenberg, because Stalin totally
controlled the nominating process. By the same token, if
talking about democracy, then the people have a right to propose
things, and let "the rest of us vote on it," he remarked,
adding, "let's just get it on the ballot, that's all we're
talking about here, is putting it on the ballot." And if a
measure has no merit, then the people will defeat it at the
ballot. He indicated that he is merely asking that all Alaskans
be allowed to vote on initiatives.
Number 0384
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that the first step in the initiative
process is not the petition stage; it is actually the
application stage, which only requires 100 signatures, which,
she opined, is a fairly minimal standard and easy to achieve.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG mentioned that the people of Greece - which,
at the time of the war between Athens and Sparta, was run as a
true democracy - voted to kill all the admirals when they
returned after having suffered a great defeat to Sparta. He
suggested that "we've moved past that," and that the Founding
Fathers, in establishing the current form of government, were
striving to avoid just such failures of earlier forms of
democracy.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG observed that at the time the framers were
developing the Alaska State Constitution, Alaska was a very
different state. He opined that it would only be healthy to
have petition circulators visit those parts of the state that
have less populations and talk to the people in those areas. He
suggested that HB 31 and HJR 5 will help the legislature
recognize that Alaska is a very large state with people
throughout, and will counterbalance any tendency to provide less
representation to the people who live outside of Alaska's major
metropolitan areas. He indicated that he is considering a
positive vote to move the legislation forward.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS remarked that if the initiative process
were held at the national level, he would not like having other
states, along with just one Alaskan, decide whether to put an
issue affecting Alaska on the ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS agreed that Alaska has a representative
form of government. He indicated that the people of Saxman,
Gustavus, Angoon, and Savoonga should have a chance to voice
their opinion on whether to put an initiative on the ballot.
With regard to the issue of cost, he mentioned Mr. Anders's
comments regarding a petition that could be downloaded and
faxed. He noted that the current signature requirement is 10
percent of the people that voted in the prior general election
and at least one person from each of 27 House districts. He
opined that it would help if more people were involved in the
initiative process. He again asked the committee to research
whether a constitutional amendment is really needed in order to
change the signature requirement.
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that because of Representative
Williams's compelling testimony, she is in favor of supporting
the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in an effort to allay Representative
Samuels's concern that a tyranny could be imposed via the
initiative process, read from Article XI, Section 7, of the
Alaska State Constitution, which says in part: "Restrictions.
The initiative shall not be used to ... enact local or special
legislation."
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that [HB 31 and HJR 5 would be held
over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1195
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|