Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/11/1995 10:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 11, 1995
10:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice-Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HJR 20:A Resolution relating to unfunded federal mandates and
the Conference of the States.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 132:"An Act repealing the ability of persons seeking an
elective state executive office or a state or a state
or national legislative office to petition for
inclusion of their names on the state general election
ballot; requiring candidates of all political groups
for a state or national legislative office to compete
at the state primary election for the placement on the
general election ballot of the name of the one
candidate from each political group that receives the
greatest number of votes cast; and requiring candidates
of all political groups for state executive office to
compete at the state primary election for the placement
on the general election ballot of the name of the one
candidate for governor from each political group that
receives the greatest number of votes cast and the name
of the one candidate for lieutenant governor from the
same political group that receives the greatest number
of votes cast."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HSTA - 02/11/95
HB 44:"An Act providing that a political use is not an
authorized use of charitable gaming proceeds;
prohibiting the contribution of charitable gaming
proceeds to candidates for certain public offices,
their campaign organizations, or to political groups;
providing that a political group is not a qualified
organization for purposes of charitable gaming;
relating to what is a qualified organization for the
purpose of charitable gaming permitting; and providing
for an effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
WAYNE MALONEY, Legislative Aide
Representative Ramona Barnes
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 403
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 465-3438
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 20
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: 465-4925
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsored HB 132
DAVE KOIVUNIEMI, Acting Director
Division of Elections
4th Floor Court Plaza Building
Juneau,Alaska 99801
Telephone: 465-4611
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 132
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 20
SHORT TITLE: CONFERENCE OF THE STATES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BARNES,Grussendorf,Foster,Mulder
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/23/95 115 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/23/95 115 (H) WTR, STA
01/31/95 (H) WTR AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 408
01/31/95 (H) MINUTE(WTR)
02/01/95 195 (H) WTR RPT 6DP
02/01/95 195 (H) DP: PHILLIPS, WILLIAMS, KUBINA
02/01/95 195 (H) DP: G.DAVIS, MULDER, BARNES
02/01/95 195 (H) FISCAL NOTE (LAA) 2/1/95
02/01/95 195 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 2/1/95
02/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/11/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 132
SHORT TITLE: CANDIDATES FOR STATEWIDE BALLOT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACKIE,Phillips
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/27/95 157 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/27/95 158 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/11/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 44
SHORT TITLE: GAMING PROCEEDS/DEFINE CHARITABLE ORG'NS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,Rokeberg,Porter,Bunde,Green
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 32 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 32 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 32 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
01/19/95 90 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
01/26/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/26/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/10/95 321 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
02/11/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-14, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Committee
meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives James, Ogan, Green, Ivan, Porter
Robinson and Willis. Chair James announced a quorum was present.
HSTA - 02/11/95
HJR 20 - CONFERENCE OF THE STATES
Number 015
WAYNE MALONEY, staff assistant to Representative Barnes, read the
following statement regarding HJR 20:
HJR 20 authorizes the State of Alaska to send an official
delegation to a conference of the states to be held later
this year or in 1996. The conference would be the first
formal meeting of the 50 states since 1786. Delegates from
all 50 states would debate and vote on an action plan
designated to restore the checks and balances between the
states and the federal government guaranteed by the Tenth
Amendment to the Constitution. While this action plan would
not be binding on the federal government, it would be
impossible for Congress or the President to ignore. The
conference would receive national and international media
attention, and action taken would have to be considered by
the federal government. The conference would occur no later
than nine months after a total of 26 states pass resolutions
like the one before you today. Seven states, including
Kentucky, Utah, Arkansas, Delaware, Iowa, Missouri, and
Virginia have already approved this resolution, and it is
under consideration by most of the other states in the union
this year. Under the terms of the resolution, the Governor
and four lawmakers, two from each house, will be voting
delegates on behalf of Alaska at this conference, and if
each of the 50 states sends a delegation as expected there
would be a total of 250 voting members. Congress would be
encouraged to send people to the conference, but members of
Congress would not be permitted to vote. This is a national
initiative, being organized by the Council of State
Governments in Cooperative with the National Conference of
State Legislators and the National Governors' Association.
It enjoys broad bipartisan support from both political
parties and is also backed by the Knowles Administration
here in this state. This resolution is an important step
toward restoring the balances to government envisioned by
the Tenth Amendment, and on behalf of Representative Barnes
I would ask you to pass it from committee today.
Number 070
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Mr. Maloney if he saw any conflict
due to the many Tenth Amendment bills and resolutions that have
been submitted, and whether he saw HJR 20 as a supplement to
these.
MR. MALONEY replied that the other bills assert the states'
rights under the constitution, and that HJR 20 is a more
"friendly" attempt to assert states' rights as well, under the
convention format, which is a gathering of the states to discuss
the pros and cons of an action plan designed to put the states on
a more equal footing with the federal government in terms of
policy.
Number 105
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that Representative Ogan's bill and
those submitted by some others were tailored toward Tenth
Amendment attitudes prevailing in some of the western states, and
asked if HJR 20 would be a supplement to this, or an alternate
course.
MR. MALONEY replied that the convention would be an opportunity
for all 50 states to get together "under extreme media attention"
to debate the issue of states' rights under the Tenth Amendment.
He added though resolutions are important, many states pass them
every year; and this convention would focus media attention and
public debate nationwide on the rights of the states.
Number 146
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN voiced concern that joining with all 50
states would dissipate the energies and the force of the message
given by just the western states.
MR. MALONEY said he didn't see that happening, because the idea
was not to thwart any other attempts but to formulate and present
an action plan in a politically positive way.
Number 185
CHAIR JAMES shared her concerns about HJR 20; the biggest one
being that it looks like a "feel good" solution, a "media hype";
and though the convention is not designed to be a constitutional
convention, she does not necessarily trust what would be done as
a result of five designated representatives determining their own
agenda when they get there, which might differ from what Alaska
as a state might actually want. She also feared that delegates
might return with a directive to petition for a constitutional
amendment or a constitutional convention. The only difference
she sees between HJR 20 and SJR 7 which was passed on the House
floor the previous day, is that HJR 20 proposes a conference of
states; the other one does not. The message has already been
sent via SJR 7. She added that HJR 20 had a fiscal note of
$11,000, and she suspects that is not adequate to cover the cost
of sending five people to a convention of states. She summarized
that HJR 20 seems like just a media exercise and she hesitates to
think that any real solutions will come out of it, but that if it
does pass she will give her support to the delegates.
Number 317
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said he holds the Constitution in high
regard, and there is nothing wrong with it other than the fact
that it is not being interpreted as our forefathers wrote it. He
said he shares the concern that a convention of states could turn
into a constitution convention or a preamble for one.
Number 340
MR. MALONEY said his understanding is that the National
Conference of State Legislators wanted the resolution passed in
identical form by all 50 states; that the resolution could in no
may be construed as a constitutional convention or lead to one,
but rather it is a way to relieve pressure for a constitutional
convention. He read from a handout from former Mayor Tom Fink:
"The legislation that Congress is considering is a big step
forward, but by itself it does not go far enough. The bills
passed by the House and the Senate are quite limited. They only
affect future legislation and leave all existing unfunded
mandates in force. The bill will end up exempting some federal
laws from the unfunded mandates prohibition." He added there is
a $50 million cap in one version of the federal law, and a $100
million cap in the other version of the federal law, meaning
unfunded federal mandates could continue to be passed as long as
they were below that threshold, and unless states actively do
something to take back the rights guaranteed by the Tenth
Amendment they run a risk of losing the ability to exercise those
rights at all.
Number 378
CHAIR JAMES stated that she is a big supporter of process,
because skipping over process leads to dictatorship, but she is
concerned that doing away with every single phased-in unfunded
mandate would cause total collapse. She wondered if the
conference of states is asking for something that is impossible,
and observed that it is a variance of process. She added that
pushing an issue too far can cause a loss of all ground gained.
Number 422
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked what the plan or strategy is
behind HJR 20 and where is it going.
MR. MALONEY replied that page 8 of the document he distributed
from The Council of State Governments outlines what may or may
not be discussed at a conference of states; for example,
strengthening the Tenth Amendment can be discussed, and he read,
"A better strategy would be to focus on process amendments, the
results of which would be much more predictable and would
naturally bring about a better balance of the system over a
number of years. A number of individuals and task forces have
recommended, for example, adding a clause that would put the
states on equal footing with Congress in proposing constitutional
amendments. Another example....would give states the power to
sunset any federal law.....Such a discussion would surely get the
attention of Congress." He added that dialogue regarding various
remedies is healthy, and nothing discussed at a conference of the
states could be acted on without first coming to all
participating states; everything would be just advisory. It
would be the start of a national dialogue on the strength of the
states.
Number 462
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the plan would be a forum to
identify ways to return power to the states through a less
difficult process than the current method available to amend the
constitution.
MR. MALONEY replied that the agenda has not been set.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER observed that it takes a constitutional
amendment to come up with a new way to amend the constitution.
MR. MALONEY said this could be included in the action plan.
Number 487
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN observed that this situation could become an
"Alfonse-Gastone" problem where two baseball players each assumed
the other would catch the fly ball and it dropped between them.
He feared that if Alaska did not focus hard on one plan, the
energies will be confused and the ball will be dropped.
Number 508
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON noted that HJR 20 says 26 states
would have to adopt the resolution, and asked if all 50 states
would be invited.
MR. MALONEY responded yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked if delegates would bring
recommendations back to individual states to be reviewed by each
legislature.
MR. MALONEY said this was correct. He referred to the flow chart
in the committee packets which outlines the process and
guarantees the process does not get out of hand.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS requested this flow chart become part of
the record. A summary of the process outlined in the flow chart
follows:
Step 1:Each state legislature adopts a Resolution of
Participation.
Each legislature appoints a bipartisan delegation of
four legislators and the Governor to attend the
Conference of the States.
Step 2:When a significant majority of states have passed the
Resolution of Participation, the Council of State
Governments will convene bipartisan incorporators
appointed by legislative leadership in the
participating states.
Step 3:The Conference of States is held.
Solutions to restore balance are discussed, refined and
voted upon.
Step 4:The product of the Conference of States is a document,
a new instrument in American democracy called a
"States' Petition."
The States' Petition constitutes the highest form of
communication between the states and Congress.
Step 5:The States' Petition is carried back by delegates to
their respective state legislatures for approval.
States' Petition items which involve constitutional
amendments require approval of a constitutional
majority of state legislators.
Step 6:The States' Petition is presented to Congress.
Ignoring a constitutional majority of states would
signal an arrogance on the part of Congress - an
arrogance the states and the American people would find
intolerable.
Number 588
CHAIR JAMES mentioned the power of the "group think" philosophy
as a deterrent to true consensus, adding that she was concerned
that the momentum of the National Conference of State Legislators
could keep the single voice from being heard.
Number 574
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved an amendment as outlined in 2
paragraphs on page 8 of an opinion from the Law Offices of Peter
D. Lepiscopo, 2635 Camino Del Rio South, San Diego, California,
92108:
RESOLVED that Alaska's participation in any conference of
the states shall in no way be interpreted or construed to be
consent by the state of Alaska to be an application to
Congress under the amendment procedure set forth in Article
V of the Constitution of the United States.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Alaska's participation in any
Conference of the States shall in no way be interpreted or
construed to be for the purpose of amending or proposing
amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the second paragraph would be a
total annihilation of the purpose of the conference.
CHAIR JAMES said she thought the conference was supposed to deal
only with the Tenth Amendment and not constitutional amendments.
MR. MALONEY said he thought it was appropriate to allow the
delegates to discuss whatever they wished to discuss, and that
everything discussed would be brought back to the states. He
added there are a great number of checks and balances in the
process.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the first paragraph is an appropriate
safeguard, but the second one is over-reaching by not allowing
discussion of constitutional amendments by legitimate process
which would gage the feelings of all the states.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said if there is a consensus, he would
withdraw the second paragraph from his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON suggested splitting the question.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS said he shared concerns about getting into
a constitutional convention, but his fears were allayed by Mr.
Maloney's flow chart.
Number 642
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked, once the convention starts, can the
process be stopped by an individual state's not ratifying the
recommendations and not participating in the action plan.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said yes, and that she would feel better if
the process were actually outlined in the resolution. She wanted
to ensure that the majority rules and the minority is heard.
Number 680
MR. MALONEY replied that even if all 50 states voted to ratify
the action plan, it would still be only advisory to Congress. If
only two states ratified it, Congress would still hear the plan.
In either case, Congress would not be compelled to act.
CHAIR JAMES said "we the people" can always petition to amend the
constitution, and that is an action requiring a response from
Congress.
Number 688
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he still had the concern that, for
example, 26 states meet and agree to something different from
what Alaska and other individual states have already sent to
Congress. He asked if this would then send a confusing message.
CHAIR JAMES said there is no answer to this, and she would like
to vote on the amendment.
Tape 95-14, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to divide the question. There were
no objections.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections to the first
paragraph.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS objected to including either paragraph
because there are enough safeguards without them.
CHAIR JAMES called for the vote. On the first paragraph of the
amendment, Representatives James, Ogan, Green, Ivan, Porter, and
Robinson voted yes. Representative Willis voted no. So the
amendment passed.
CHAIR JAMES called for a vote on the second paragraph.
Representatives James, Ogan, Green, and Ivan voted yes.
Representatives Porter, Robinson, and Willis voted no. So the
amendment passed.
Number 063
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted that HJR 20 does not have a Finance
Committee referral, but that it does have a fiscal note, and she
asked what is the procedure.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied that if a bill picks up a fiscal
note during the process, it would receive a Finance Committee
referral, so HJR 20 should get an additional referral to the
Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she thought Chair James should talk
to the Speaker and be sure this happens.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that HJR 20 be passed from committee,
as amended, with attached fiscal note and individual
recommendations.
CHAIR JAMES questioned why the $11,000 fiscal note was so low,
and said she assumed additional funds would come out of the
Governor's operating budget to send delegates to the convention.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed it was too low.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it would probably cost more like
$5,000 for each delegate.
Number 136
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the motion could include a "friendly
amendment" to include a committee memorandum outlining concerns
over the fact the fiscal note is probably not sufficient, and
also recommending a Finance Committee referral.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN agreed to include this as part of his motion.
Number 160
CHAIR JAMES restated the motion: The motion was "to move HJR 20
out of committee as amended, with individual recommendations,
attached fiscal note, and with the recommendation of this
committee that the fiscal note be scrutinized for its sufficiency
and that HJR 20 be given a Finance Committee referral." Hearing
no objection, the bill passed out of committee. She called for a
short break.
Number 177
CHAIR JAMES complimented the committee for having everyone in
attendance on such a sunny day.
HSTA - 02/11/95
HB 132 - CANDIDATES FOR STATEWIDE BALLOT
Number 190
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE, sponsor of House Bill 132, read his
sponsor statement:
I introduced HB 132 to bring parity to the state's election
process. The principle provision of the bill is the
requirement that all candidates for state elective office
must enter the primary election contest.
Currently, any Alaskan citizen eligible for elective office
may bypass the state's primary election and be placed
directly on the general election ballot by a nominating
petition. In my view, this causes two inequities. First,
the voters are denied full knowledge at the onset of all
contestants seeking election to a particular office. Voter
access to financial disclosure information of petition
candidates is delayed until just two months before the
general election. Furthermore, voter exposure to petition
candidates' views and positions on issues of public interest
is many times limited and compressed.
The second inequity is that the petition process provides a
short cut avenue to the general election ballot. It thus
acts as an incentive for citizens to get directly on the
general election ballot, because it saves money and the
campaign scrutiny by the electorate is short. While
independent candidates have occasionally won elective
office, they more often act as spoilers to the competition
between primary election winners. In effect then, the two
ballot, primary-general election system, designed to winnow
the many candidates down to contests between the few, is
subverted. The infusion of petition candidates onto the
general election ballot can make it an election system of
few primary contests transcending into contests among the
many in the general election.
HB 132 would place all candidates before the electorate on
an equal footing. This is accomplished by requiring all
candidates to be in the primary election. Just as the top
vote getter of each political group will move on to the
general election ballot, so too will the top vote getter
among all independent candidates for a particular elective
office. In this manner, the electorate will have an equal
opportunity to view and assess all candidates for an
elective office. And each candidate will be equally
challenged by the election process.
He continued that he was inspired to file this bill, not by any
personalities or individuals, but because of complaints that
allowing candidates to enter the election after the primary
doesn't give voters a chance to get familiar with the candidates,
their Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) reports, or their
campaign fund sources, and that it is confusing to the voters
because they don't see their candidate's name on the ballot in
the primary. He filed the bill with public interest, not
political fallout, in mind. The Speaker of the House is the
bill's co-sponsor, which gives it a nonpartisan approach.
Number 272
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER offered a scenario with a primary ballot
containing two Republicans, two Democrats, one Independent
Republican, two Independent Democrats, one Green, and one AIP.
He asked if, after the primary, the general election ballot would
contain one Republican, one Democrat, the one Independent
Republican who was unopposed, one Independent Democrat, one
Green, and one AIP.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE replied that would be correct, and that is
possible right now. The only changes HB 132 would make is in not
allowing a candidate to bypass the primary and requiring all
candidates to file by June 1. He said he has no desire to
restrict anyone's ability to run for office under any party name
as long as they get enough petition signatures, nor does he want
to rewrite election laws. His aim is to create a level playing
field.
Number 333
CHAIR JAMES pointed out that some candidates do not designate a
party and instead run as a "small" i (for independent). If
several candidates do this, she asked if then only one would
advance to the general election.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE replied this was correct.
CHAIR JAMES said this means that by not choosing a party,
candidates have, by default, chosen a "small" i designation,
which is a very popular choice, and she feared this would
discourage independent candidates from choosing to run as a
"small" i so they could run unopposed. She stated she really
supports this bill, but wants to be sure they aren't eliminating
potential candidates.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE clarified that the purpose of a primary
election is to narrow the scope. Under HB 132, all candidates
filing for office will be told by the Division of Elections that
if they don't declare a party it is possible they will be opposed
in the primary by other undeclared candidates.
Number 400
CHAIR JAMES noted that she has always been politically active and
recognizes the importance of affiliating with a party in order to
get the grassroots support, and the prime purpose of a primary is
for parties to select the candidates they want to support.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE stated that his bill doesn't change this,
it only changes the filing deadline to June 1 instead of August 1
for all candidates.
Number 442
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN observed this bill puts all potential
nonrecognized parties on the same playing field with the
recognized parties and keeps candidates from getting "blind
sided" after the primary because all candidates are known early
on. He supports the bill.
Number 458
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he supports the bill, and asked if a
closed primary would preclude the ability to pass a statute that
any candidate receiving 51 percent in the primary would be
declared the winner.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON cautioned that the primary often draws a
small number of voters, and that would make it possible for a
candidate to get 51 percent of the vote with only one-quarter of
the voters.
Number 482
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE agreed, adding that often in a primary
election, only 18-20 percent of registered voters vote,
especially in rural areas where people are fishing in the summer.
He would be afraid of having the election outcome decided by 51
percent of 18 percent, essentially 9 percent of the registered
voters.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER theorized that the lack of interest in the
primary is because it doesn't affect the selection process very
much, and if voters had to consider all primary candidates
seriously, the turnout would be higher and more people would vote
absentee.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE observed that, more than in any other
state, Alaskans vote for the individual, and statistics show that
if someone votes for a candidate in the primary, he or she will
support that same candidate in the general election. The closed
Republican primary can put Republican candidates at a
disadvantage if they have a low number of votes in the primary.
Number 530
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she would like to see everyone file
in August so the whole process would be shortened, in some future
bill.
CHAIR JAMES agreed that the process is too long and too
expensive, and suggested one general election with a run-off as
opposed to a primary and a general election.
Number 543
DAVID KOIVUNIEMI, acting Director, Division of Elections,
responded to Representative Porter's question by stating that the
constitution requires the Governor and Lt. Governor to be elected
at a general election, even if they got 51 percent of the votes
in the primary, and that maybe it would only require a change in
the names of the election. For the record, he stated that the
Division of Elections has a neutral position on HB 132, and that
it would have no fiscal impact. He pointed out that the bill
could create some interesting combinations during the general
election, for example a candidate for Governor who did not
designate a political party could be teamed with a candidate for
Lt. Governor who also did not designate a party, but the two
could be philosophically and politically opposite. But he stated
that is their choice, and they could avoid it by designating a
political group.
Number 578
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS said he's gone through the process twice as
an Independent, and it is not easy. He said he did not want to
sound self-serving, but he asked Dave to explain the process of
what this bill would require of someone wanting to run as an
Independent.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI answered that he would have to do exactly the same
thing as he currently does, though the filing deadline would
change from August 1 to June 1. He would still have to get
signatures on his petition from one percent of the registered
voters who voted in the last election, but he would appear on the
ballot twice, in the primary and the general elections.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS stated that it would make it easier if he
were required to be on the primary ballot, because people get
confused when they think he is running, but don't see his name on
the primary ballot.
Number 615
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE reiterated that the only difference for an
Independent candidate would be the filing deadline of June 1 and
the appearance on two ballots instead of one, and all candidates
would fall under the same APOC reporting requirements which
serves the best interest of the public.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI said this is true for all legislative candidates,
but candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor each would have to
file a petition. Currently the Governor just designates a Lt.
Governor on the same petition, and this is deleted by HB 132, so
instead of 2,167 signatures on one petition they would have to
get that number on two petitions.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE said he believes this is good because each
candidate should have to be dedicated enough to get these
signatures.
Number 659
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked for an explanation of how the
different parties are categorized, and asked if all unrecognized
parties would be put under the banner of Independents.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE replied no, that only those parties with
the exact same names would be lumped together. This is the same
as current law.
Number 675
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted that although there is a zero
fiscal note the bill has a Finance Committee referral.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE said the bill has an automatic Finance
Committee referral and will have to go there since the bill
creates a major policy change and needs to be scrutinized by the
Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved that HB 132 be moved out of
committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note.
Hearing no objection, the motion passed.
CHAIR JAMES announced the next meeting would be a joint
confirmation hearing Tuesday at 8:00 a.m. with Senate State
Affairs in the House Finance Committee room.
Number 700
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|