04/06/2009 08:00 AM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB193 | |
| HB186 | |
| HB193 | |
| HB36 | |
| HB186 | |
| HB36 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 6, 2009
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 193
"An Act relating to representation by a legislator or
legislative employee of another person in an administrative
hearing; relating to charity events under the Legislative Ethics
Act; requiring compensation of public members of the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics; exempting certain information
from disclosure requirements of the Legislative Ethics Act;
relating to the selection of alternate members and the
participation of members and alternate members in formal
proceedings of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and
its subcommittees; and defining 'constituent,' 'constituent
service,' 'legislative purpose,' 'nonlegislative purpose,' and
'private benefit' for the purposes of the Legislative Ethics
Act."
- HEARD BUT NOT SCHEDULED; CSHB 193(JUD) WAS REPORTED FROM
COMMITTEE ON 4/3/09
HOUSE BILL NO. 186
"An Act declaring that certain firearms and accessories are
exempt from federal regulation."
- MOVED CSHB 186(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 36
"An Act relating to ballot initiative proposal applications and
to ballot initiatives."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 193
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE ETHICS ACT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
03/18/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/18/09 (H) STA, JUD
03/24/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/24/09 (H) Heard & Held; Assigned to Subcommittee
03/24/09 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/26/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/26/09 (H) Moved CSHB 193(STA) Out of Committee
03/26/09 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/27/09 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 4DP 1AM
03/27/09 (H) DP: JOHNSON, SEATON, WILSON, LYNN
03/27/09 (H) AM: GRUENBERG
03/28/09 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/28/09 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/30/09 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
04/03/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/03/09 (H) Moved CSHB 193(JUD) Out of Committee
04/03/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/06/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 186
SHORT TITLE: AK FIREARMS EXEMPT FROM FED. REGULATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY
03/12/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/12/09 (H) JUD, FIN
04/06/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 36
SHORT TITLE: INITIATIVES: CONTRIBUTIONS/PROCEDURES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JOHANSEN, MILLETT, WILSON
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) STA, JUD
03/25/09 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/25/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/25/09 (H) JUD, FIN
04/06/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 186.
DERECK MILLER, Staff
Representative Mike Kelly
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 186 on
behalf of the sponsor, Representative Kelly.
SCOTT HAMANN
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 186.
STEVE CATALANO
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 186.
REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SSHB 36 as one of the joint prime
sponsors.
SONIA CHRISTENSEN, Staff
Representative Kyle Johansen
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of SSHB 36
on behalf of one if its joint prime sponsors, Representative
Johansen.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 186.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 186.
SONIA CHRISTENSEN, Staff
Representative Kyle Johansen
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of SSHB 36
on behalf of one if its joint prime sponsors, Representative
Johansen.
CHIP THOMA
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SSHB 36, provided
comments and expressed concern with Section 13.
WAYNE STEVENS, President/CEO
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (ASCC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged passage of SSHB 36.
MARK GNADT
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
SSHB 36.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:56 AM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives Ramras, Gatto,
Lynn, and Holmes were present at the call to order.
Representatives Coghill and Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 193 - LEGISLATIVE ETHICS ACT
8:05:19 AM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 193, "An Act relating to representation by a
legislator or legislative employee of another person in an
administrative hearing; relating to charity events under the
Legislative Ethics Act; requiring compensation of public members
of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics; exempting certain
information from disclosure requirements of the Legislative
Ethics Act; relating to the selection of alternate members and
the participation of members and alternate members in formal
proceedings of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and
its subcommittees; and defining 'constituent,' 'constituent
service,' 'legislative purpose,' 'nonlegislative purpose,' and
'private benefit' for the purposes of the Legislative Ethics
Act." [CSHB 193(JUD) had been reported from committee on
4/3/09.]
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that once Representative Gruenberg was
present, he would be [providing the committee with alternative
language to Conceptual Amendment 4, as amended, which was
adopted on 4/3/09].
CHAIR RAMRAS then relayed that HB 193 would be set aside until
later in the meeting.
HB 186 - AK FIREARMS EXEMPT FROM FED. REGULATION
8:06:00 AM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 186, "An Act declaring that certain firearms and
accessories are exempt from federal regulation."
8:06:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 186, Version 26-LS0627\E, Luckhaupt,
4/3/09, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version E was before the committee.
8:07:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
relayed that HB 186 was engendered by a concern that the rights
granted by the Second Amendment be preserved and defended.
Specifically, HB 186 provides that firearms and their
accessories manufactured in and kept in Alaska are not subject
to federal law or federal regulation. In response to a
question, he suggested that firearm and accessory manufacturing
in Alaska might become a growing industry should HB 186 become
law.
8:10:13 AM
DERECK MILLER, Staff, Representative Mike Kelly, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kelly, sponsor,
explained that Section 1 of Version E outlines findings that the
authority for the bill comes from the Second, Ninth, and Tenth
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Section 2 of Version E
adds a new proposed AS 44.99.500(a)-(d) that exempts from
federal law and federal regulation - including registration -
personal firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition that is
manufactured in Alaska and remains in Alaska. Furthermore,
since such firearms, accessories, and ammunition wouldn't be
leaving the state, the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution
would not apply either. Under proposed AS 44.99.500(c),
firearms manufactured in Alaska shall have the words "Made in
Alaska" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the
receiver or frame. Proposed AS 44.99.500(d) contains
definitions of the terms, "firearm accessory", "generic and
insignificant parts", and "manufactured". Section 3 adds an
applicability section to uncodified law stating that AS
44.99.500 would apply to firearms, firearm accessories, and
ammunition manufactured in Alaska after October 1, 2009.
MR. MILLER mentioned that the Montana legislature recently
passed a similar law, and that the Tennessee legislature is also
considering such a law. He noted that due to a separation-of-
powers issue, Version E no longer contains language requiring
the attorney general to defend citizens being prosecuted by the
federal government; that provision had caused the Department of
Law (DOL) concern.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES noted that no state has had this language
on the books long enough for any potential constitutional
problems to be made known. She said she is concerned that
passage of the bill could be setting some citizens up for
problems with the federal government - opening them up to
significant civil and criminal liabilities.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY expressed a preference for reinserting the
aforementioned DOL mandate back into the bill, surmising that
such language would address Representative Holmes's concern. He
acknowledged, though, that removal of that language addressed
the aforementioned separation-of-powers concern. He predicted
that anyone considering starting a business manufacturing
firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition, would
automatically consult with an attorney to ensure that he/she
doesn't run into problems with the federal government.
CHAIR RAMRAS mentioned that he's received word that the fiscal
note from the DOL for Version E would still be indeterminate due
to the bill's potential of engendering litigation.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned whether passage of the bill
could be interpreted to mean that Alaska acknowledges that the
Second Amendment could be overturned.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY offered his belief that the bill is instead
stipulating that the State has the right to regulate firearm
manufacturing in Alaska.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed favor with the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to language on page 2,
lines [11-15], and suggested that an amendment might be in order
to make that provision stronger, perhaps by changing the
language such that it no longer focuses on what was understood
in 1959 when Alaska was admitted to the union. He then noted
that the bill doesn't appear to address the Supremacy Clause of
the U.S. Constitution and whether in this situation a federal
law can still preempt a state law.
MR. MILLER, in response to comments, agreed to research the
issues raised further.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that members' packets contain a
copy of the proposed Tennessee law.
8:23:06 AM
SCOTT HAMANN said he strongly supports HB 186, and offered his
belief that Alaska should protect its citizens from abuse by the
federal government. In conclusion, he urged the committee to
pass HB 186.
8:24:06 AM
STEVE CATALANO said he agrees with Mr. Hamann, adding that
HB 186 speaks directly to his pursuit of happiness. Mr.
Catalano opined that it's time for the State to start supporting
its citizens in their endeavors to pursue happiness.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 186.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:25 a.m. to 8:29 a.m.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that HB 186 [Version E] would be set aside
until later in the meeting.
HB 193 - LEGISLATIVE ETHICS ACT
8:30:12 AM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that as its next order of business, the
committee would return to the hearing on HOUSE BILL NO. 193, "An
Act relating to representation by a legislator or legislative
employee of another person in an administrative hearing;
relating to charity events under the Legislative Ethics Act;
requiring compensation of public members of the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics; exempting certain information from
disclosure requirements of the Legislative Ethics Act; relating
to the selection of alternate members and the participation of
members and alternate members in formal proceedings of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and its subcommittees;
and defining 'constituent,' 'constituent service,' 'legislative
purpose,' 'nonlegislative purpose,' and 'private benefit' for
the purposes of the Legislative Ethics Act." [CSHB 193(JUD) had
been reported from committee on 4/3/09.]
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that [in order to comply with the intent of
Conceptual Amendment 4, as amended, the drafter developed
alternative language for it]:
AS 24.60.060(a) A legislator, [or] legislative
employee, or a public member of the committee may not
knowingly make an unauthorized disclosure of
information that is made confidential by law and that
the person acquired in the course of official duties.
A person who violates this section is subject to a
proceeding under AS 24.60.170 and may be subject o
prosecution under AS 11.56.860 or another law.
CHAIR RAMRAS ascertained that members consented to the
aforementioned alternative language for Conceptual Amendment 4,
as amended, which was adopted on 4/3/09.
[CSHB 193(JUD) had been reported from committee on 4/3/09.]
The committee took an at-ease from 8:32 a.m. to 8:35 a.m.
HB 36 - INITIATIVES: CONTRIBUTIONS/PROCEDURES
8:35:29 AM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 36, "An Act relating to
ballot initiative proposal applications and to ballot
initiatives."
8:36:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as one of the joint prime sponsors of SSHB 36, and noting that
the bill is very similar to legislation passed out of committee
last session, explained that in part SSHB 36 would require
disclosure of funding pertaining to ballot initiatives, and
would require that public hearings be held on proposed ballot
initiatives. The aforementioned disclosure of ballot initiative
funding would occur as close as possible "to the beginning of
the process," he remarked, adding that the required public
meetings would provide a formal process by which voters could
learn about the impacts of proposed ballot initiatives.
8:41:27 AM
SONIA CHRISTENSEN, Staff, Representative Kyle Johansen, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Johansen, one of
SSHB 36's joint prime sponsors, offered her understanding that
[SSHB 36] "pushes back the disclosure, the times when groups
have to disclose, from after language is certified on the ballot
to as soon as they file their language with the lieutenant
governor's office." In response to a question, she explained
that when a group files its language and pays its fee and
presents 100 signatures, the lieutenant governor's office has 60
days to review that language and determine whether it has
constitutional issues; after that review, the lieutenant
governor's office will either print the petition booklets or
deny certification of the [initiative proposal application].
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN added his understanding that the
aforementioned disclosure would happen "as far back as
possible." In response to a question, he said that this would
allow people to know, "from the onset, when money goes into the
system and who's putting the money in the system."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out a discrepancy between the
language in Section 1 and the language in the sectional analysis
as it pertained to Section 1, in that the bill uses the term
"filing" whereas the sectional analysis uses the term
"influencing". He offered his belief that the language of the
bill appears to only apply to those supporting an initiative but
not to those opposing it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said his goal is to have every dollar
given disclosed, regardless of [the contributor's] intent.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the bill is very clear on
that point and thus doesn't need to be changed in that regard.
He then asked the sponsor whether he would approve of narrowing
the title, which he characterized as too broad.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN indicated that he would be amenable to
such a change as long as it maintains his intent to have every
dollar disclosed and provide for the dissemination of
information.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he just doesn't want SSHB 36 to
become a vehicle for "all kinds of stuff we haven't looked at."
8:46:48 AM
MS. CHRISTENSEN offered her understanding that Section 2
provides language conforming to Section 1, and is "requiring
bumping that disclosure deadline back to as soon as the
initiative's been filed." She added, "This is the same with
Section 3." She explained that Section 4 removes initiatives
from the statutory provision currently pertaining to
initiatives, referendums, and recalls, so as to be able to apply
specific disclosure requirements to initiatives.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN added that Section 5 provides for those
specific disclosure requirements for initiatives.
MS. CHRISTENSEN offered her understanding that Section 5 says
that if one contributes $500 or more, or if a group is organized
and spends $500 or more, then disclosure must occur.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that Section 5's proposed
AS 15.13.110(g)(2) doesn't make sense grammatically.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that a drafting error occurred.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN acknowledged that point.
MS. CHRISTENSEN explained that Section 6, in addition to
relocating some of the words in proposed AS 15.13.400(4),
changes the definition of "contribution" to include those
contributions made in support of or in opposition to an
initiative proposal filed with the lieutenant governor; that
Section 7 changes the definition of "expenditure" to include
expenditures made in support of or in opposition to an
initiative proposal filed with the lieutenant governor; and that
Section 8 precludes an initiative from being proposed if,
[during the previous two years,] a substantially similar one
failed to be approved by the voters.
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether Section 8 is constitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN acknowledged that that provision might
be challenged on constitutional grounds; although other states
have such a provision, their constitutions are different from
Alaska's constitution.
CHAIR RAMRAS suggested to the sponsor that he contemplate either
amending such provisions so that they don't raise constitutional
concerns, or deleting them altogether.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN questioned whether legislative bills that
don't pass during a given legislature also ought to be precluded
from being reintroduced in a substantially similar form for [two
sessions].
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN acknowledged that point.
8:55:07 AM
MS. CHRISTENSEN explained that Section 9 requires petition
booklets to include a copy of the entire proposed bill;
currently, if a bill contains 500 words or more, including a
summary is sufficient.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN opined that potential petition signers
should be able to access all of the language in a proposed bill.
MS. CHRISTENSEN explained that Section 10 prohibits signature
gatherers from being paid on a per-signature basis, but doesn't
preclude them from being paid hourly wages, [salaries,] or
bonuses.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether paying signature gatherers
on a per-signature basis has resulted in a problem with fraud in
Alaska.
CHAIR RAMRAS shared his belief that it has not.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN offered his understanding that fraud had
become an issue in other states, and so they'd therefore
established other methods of payment; although the issue has not
yet arisen in Alaska, it seems prudent to make such a change as
well.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed interest in receiving more
documentation regarding the problems that occurred in other
states, and regarding whether a change in the payment
methodology has chilled the initiative process in those states.
9:00:55 AM
MS. CHRISTENSEN explained that members' packets include
information from the National Conference of State Legislatures
(NCSL) regarding fraudulent signature-gathering practices; a
couple of such practices include using carbon paper in such a
way that [signatures] written on one petition transfer to
another petition, or telling signers they have to sign a
petition in three different places, for example, when in reality
they are actually signing three different petitions. In
response to questions, she offered her understanding that the
rationale used in other states has been that if signature
gatherers aren't being paid per signature, they would take more
time explaining the issues to potential signers and wouldn't be
so aggressive. She agreed to research whether the change in
payment methodology has chilled the initiative process in those
states.
CHAIR RAMRAS, remarking on his past experiences with the
initiative process, said he's satisfied that no fraud is
occurring in Alaska, and expressed appreciation for the work the
Division of Elections does.
CHAIR RAMRAS then relayed that SSHB 36 would be set aside until
later in the meeting.
HB 186 - AK FIREARMS EXEMPT FROM FED. REGULATION
9:04:46 AM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that as its next order of business, the
committee would return to the hearing on HOUSE BILL NO. 186, "An
Act declaring that certain firearms and accessories are exempt
from federal regulation." [Before the committee was the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 186, Version 26-
LS0627\E, Luckhaupt, 4/3/09, which had been adopted as the work
draft earlier in the meeting.]
9:05:07 AM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said that
the DOL doesn't have a position on HB 186 and has not had a
chance to study it to the extent that it should be, but realizes
that there may be issues with it.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, again noting that no state has had such a
law on the books long enough for a legal challenge to arise,
reiterated her concern that under the Supremacy Clause of the
U.S. Constitution, a person complying with HB 186 would run
afoul of federal law.
MS. CARPENETI said those are also issues of concern to the DOL.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is concerned about other
possible legal challenges being raised as well. For example,
because there are federal regulations regarding firearm
manufacturing specifications and the care with which such
weapons must be made, passage of HB 186 could result in national
gun manufactures filing civil suit on the grounds that Alaskan
manufacturers, as competitors, have an unfair advantage because
they don't have to comply with the federal regulations. He
asked whether the DOL has considered civil litigation issues as
well as criminal litigation issues.
MS. CARPENETI said the DOL has not done so yet, but acknowledged
that those issues should be considered as well. In response to
questions, she surmised that a constitutional challenge of
HB 186 could take more than a year to resolve.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether under HB 186, a national
firearms manufacturer could come into Alaska and make firearms
that it would otherwise be precluded from making due to federal
regulations.
MS. CARPENETI offered her belief that in a constitutional
challenge, input from such a company would not be helpful to
upholding this proposed law.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he presumes that someone would
first have to be prosecuted in federal court and then he/she
could use the provisions of the bill as an affirmative defense.
MS. CARPENETI concurred. In response to another question, she
offered that as a practical matter, the person being prosecuted
would bear the burden of proving that he/she manufactured the
firearm in Alaska under Alaska law.
9:15:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, to delete the word "understood" from page 2, lines
2 and 12, and anywhere else it occurs, and replace it with the
word "intended", though if a better word can be found by the
drafter, to use it instead.
CHAIR RAMRAS objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
said he had no objection to Conceptual Amendment 1.
CHAIR RAMRAS removed his objection, indicated that there were no
further objections, and announced that Conceptual Amendment 1
was adopted.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:16 a.m. to 9:17 a.m.
9:17:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 186, Version 26-LS0627\E, Luckhaupt,
4/3/09, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying indeterminate fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
He said:
We haven't really had complete vetting of the
constitutional issues and legal opinions, and I see
these being extremely significant and having far-
reaching ramifications that could go well up to the
U.S. Supreme Court. And this could serve as precedent
for all kinds of states asking to be exempted from
federal regulation on everything from firearms to
mosquito spray and cosmetics and food and ... [drugs]
and everything else.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the committee needs
further information on the constitutional issues raised by the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he would like to see all 50 states
seek exemption from federal regulations, predicted that the bill
will be challenged, and acknowledged that as currently written,
the bill would put Alaskan firearm manufacturers at risk.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO offered his belief that the bill sends a
message about overreaching by the federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG predicted that during the course of any
forthcoming constitutional challenge, the court would find that
the committee did not adequately vet the constitutional issues
raised by the bill, and that the legislative record was
insufficient to support passage of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that [a review of the committee
discussion thus far] might make it more difficult for the
legislation to withstand a constitutional challenge.
9:25:39 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill, Gatto,
Lynn, and Ramras voted in favor of the motion to report the
proposed CS for HB 186, Version 26-LS0627\E, Luckhaupt, 4/3/09,
as amended, from committee. Representatives Gruenberg and
Holmes voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 186(JUD) was reported
from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that his "no" vote was based
on his concern regarding an insufficient vetting of the
constitutional issues raised by the bill, not on the merits of
the bill itself.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said "ditto."
[CSHB 186(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.]
HB 36 - INITIATIVES: CONTRIBUTIONS/PROCEDURES
9:26:47 AM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that as its final order of business, the
committee would return to the hearing on SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR
HOUSE BILL NO. 36, "An Act relating to ballot initiative
proposal applications and to ballot initiatives."
9:27:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to information from the
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) provided in
members' packets, asked whether either the bill or current law
addresses the problem of signature gatherers using carbon paper
to fraudulently obtain more signatures.
9:27:57 AM
SONIA CHRISTENSEN, Staff, Representative Kyle Johansen, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Johansen, one of
SSHB 36's joint prime sponsors, offered her understanding that
Section 12 - which pertains to the certification of petition
circulators - addresses that point.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that more research be done on
that issue.
MS. CHRISTENSEN explained that Section 11 would prohibit a
signature gatherer from collecting signatures for more than one
petition at a time. In response to questions, she indicated
that this provision is intended to address the aforementioned
fraudulent practice by signature gatherers of telling a petition
signer he/she needs to sign in several places when really the
signature gatherer is getting the signer to sign several
different petitions without him/her knowing it.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed dissatisfaction with Section 11,
surmising that professional signature gatherers typically handle
more than one petition at a time.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, noting that sometimes two or more
signature gatherers can be found in close proximity to each
other, also expressed dissatisfaction with Section 11.
MS. CHRISTENSEN, acknowledging that [the behavior Section 11 is
intended to address] was difficult to define, relayed that the
sponsor's intent is to have "one place, one time, for one
person."
CHAIR RAMRAS, in response to a comment, pointed out that
signature gatherers in close proximity to each other may not
relieve each other for even short periods of time, because
petition booklets are signed out to specific individuals; such
behavior would constitute fraud under current law.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to the fraudulent use of
carbon paper and remarking that the committee just wants to be
sure that the signer knows what he/she is signing, said he
doesn't think that the language currently in the bill
constitutes the best solution to that problem. He suggested
that perhaps language could be drafted to specifically address
fraudulent signature-gathering practices such as those
previously mentioned.
9:34:10 AM
MS. CHRISTENSEN went on to explain that Section 12 requires the
oath that signature gatherers must now sign to also include a
statement that they haven't solicited signatures for more than
one petition, but to no longer contain language regarding per-
signature payment; the changes proposed by Section 12 are
conforming changes. She relayed that Section 13 requires that
public hearings on initiatives be held in at least 30 house
districts, and includes notice and publication requirements.
Section 14 requires that [a sworn affidavit asserting compliance
with Section 13 - along with acceptable proof - be submitted to
the lieutenant governor]. Section 15 contains conforming
language [as it would pertain to a review of the petition].
Section 16 authorizes the lieutenant governor to disqualify a
petition if the initiative sponsors [fail to comply with the
requirements laid out in Section 13]. Sections 17 and 18 were
inserted at the drafter's request; these sections add a
reference to special elections because, depending on the timing,
initiatives can be on a special election ballot. Section 19
requires that a standing committee of the legislature review
initiatives certified by the governor, but doesn't give the
legislature any power to amend the initiatives; this step would
provide a venue for affected State agencies to voice their
concerns with initiatives.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether a reference to municipal
elections could be added to Sections 17 and 18.
MS. CHRISTENSEN indicated that the sponsor would consider that
point.
9:37:06 AM
CHIP THOMA, after noting that he has been involved with
initiatives for the past 20 years but during the course of that
work has never raised money, disbursed money, or been paid,
relayed information about two past initiatives wherein funds
from outside sources [far exceeded] that of local contributors.
Referring to Section 13, he characterized it as a poison pill
and punitive in that if an initiative sponsor doesn't comply
with it in exactly the right way, the initiative will get thrown
out. He suggested that if public meetings on initiatives are
really desired, then the Division of Elections or the Office of
the Lieutenant Governor should pay for them. He predicted that
what will be found is that the cost of holding such meetings is
quite prohibitive, and opined that such a burden shouldn't be
placed on initiative sponsors, particularly given how low all
the other costs associated with the initiative process generally
are.
9:39:25 AM
WAYNE STEVENS, President/CEO, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
(ASCC), stated:
Alaska's initiative process is increasingly being used
to drive up the costs of doing business in the state,
and, in some cases, to attempt to stop industries from
operating at all. While a functional initiative
process is important in order to give citizens an
opportunity to directly petition their government,
Alaska's current system is [opaque] ... and
susceptible to abuse. For example, individuals and
groups involved in campaigning for or against an
initiative are not required to provide financial
disclosure online; the public may be deprived of
critical information on election day, as hard copy
reporting of last minute donation and expenditures is
typically not available until after the election.
This lack of transparency makes it impossible for the
public to accurately analyze the interests making
arguments for or against any particular initiative.
In recent years, Alaska's resource-based industries
have been targets of numerous, punitive ballot
initiatives. The oil and gas industry faced an
onerous and counterproductive natural gas reserves
tax. The cruise ship industry was struck with a
passenger head tax and new regulatory standards that
are not applied to any other discharger in Alaska.
And most recently, the mining industry battled an
ambiguous initiative financed by undisclosed sources
which many thought was designed to shut down industry
in Alaska.
A more transparent and public process would help
ensure the public was well-informed prior to voting on
a ballot initiative, thereby lowering the risk of
unintended consequences when poorly-understood ballot
initiatives are passed. The [ASCC] ... encourages the
Alaska legislature to pass legislation that at a
minimum establishes a streamlined financial disclosure
system, including disclosure of the first dollar spent
or collected prior to an initiative being formally
certified for the ballot, and online filing so [that]
Alaskans can follow the money from the beginning and
access important information prior to the election.
Secondly, an opportunity for meaningful public
involvement and vetting of proposed initiatives to
increase awareness and ensure the public is well
informed prior to voting - e.g., the required public
hearings in a majority of election districts prior to
petition certification. The cost of initiative
drafting, certifying, and campaigning would likely
increase if the recommended action is [taken]. Such a
scenario may be a double-edged sword for the business
community depending on whether the business was an
initiative sponsor or opponent; however, a well-
informed public is less likely to pass poorly-drafted
initiatives, less-likely to produce unintended
consequences which could mean significant savings to
business in the long run.
MR. STEVENS, in conclusion, said:
[The ASCC} ... urges the legislature to pass ... [SSHB
36] that makes drafting, signature gathering, and
financing of ballot initiatives more transparent for
all Alaskans.
9:42:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether amending the bill such that
it only addressed financial disclosure issues would be
sufficient.
MR. STEVENS characterized that as being a first step in the
right direction.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned whether requiring meetings in
30 house districts - for example, having 2 separate meetings in
Juneau and 25-30 separate meetings in Anchorage and the
Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) area - would be duplicative and
overly expensive compared to just having a single meeting each
in Juneau, Anchorage, and the Mat-Su, for example.
MR. STEVENS offered his belief that if the meetings are held
close to where people reside, more people will attend them.
Regardless that having more meetings might result in extra work
and extra expense, the intent, he surmised, is to ensure that
people have the opportunity to discuss the possible impacts of
ballot initiatives with the sponsors.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked Mr. Stevens whether he would be
opposed to having the bill amended such that it would prohibit
foreign contributions for initiatives.
MR. STEVENS declined to answer.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Stevens whether he would be
amenable to having [Section 17] amended such that it would also
apply to municipal elections. In this way, voters in municipal
elections would also receive election pamphlets informing them
of municipal ballot initiatives.
MR. STEVENS offered his understanding that in Kodiak, election
pamphlets for local elections are provided and include
information about proposed measures. In response to another
question, he said he assumes that Kodiak voters appreciated
receiving those pamphlets.
9:49:45 AM
MARK GNADT relayed that he has collected many signatures, from
Sitka to Barrow, often for initiatives that he's had some hand
in. The initiative process is very valuable, he opined,
offering his belief that generally initiatives in Alaska are
pretty widely debated once they are approved for placement on
the ballot. However, to try to enforce election laws on
something that's not even on the ballot yet is troubling to him,
he remarked; once an initiative has been certified by the
lieutenant governor for placement on the ballot, those
sponsoring or opposing it should have to comply with statutory
disclosure requirements, but not before, because at that point,
an initiative is just an idea. To blur that line could lead to
governmental interference with other rights held by citizens,
and raises the questions, "What are they afraid of?" and "Why
are we trying to make this more difficult?"
MR. GNADT opined that instead, the goal should be to make the
initiative process easier for the public; even just the
signature-gathering phase of the initiative process is already
very hard even without having to then also organize public
meetings. If the intent is to get more information to the
public, then it should be the State's duty make that happen -
the State should take on that cost and burden, rather than the
citizens who are attempting to enact a law that for whatever
reason the legislature didn't.
MR. GNADT, in response to questions, indicated that he is
familiar with one instance wherein a signature gatherer might
have created fraud - that person was thereafter essentially
blackballed as a signature gatherer; that he's worked on four
major initiatives; that he votes; that half of the initiatives
he's worked on were approved by the voters; that instances of
fraud are unlikely to occur in Alaska because potential petition
signers are vigilant in asking questions and perusing the
petition booklets; that although not required, when he gathered
signatures, he provided the full language of the proposed
initiatives; that he supports that provision of the bill; that
potential petition signers generally are not satisfied with just
a summary; and that he's found the per-signature payment
methodology to be a great motivator, much like commission sales.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Gnadt to review Section 10
further.
MR. GNADT agreed to do so.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that SSHB 36 would be held over until the
committee's next meeting, scheduled for later in the day.
10:01:31 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:01 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB186 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 186 |
| 02 CSHB186 version E.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 186 |
| HB36.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2010 1:30:00 PM HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM HJUD 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 OOG FN.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2010 9:00:00 AM HJUD 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 36 |
| 03 HB186 LAW FN.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 186 |
| 03 Sectional for CSHB186 version E.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 186 |
| 04 HB186 version R.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 186 |
| 05 HB186 Backup.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 186 |