02/03/2004 08:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 3, 2004
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 414
"An Act relating to filling the vacancy in the office of United
States Senator, and to the definition of 'political party.'"
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 319
"An Act relating to the disposal of state land by lottery; and
relating to the disposal, including sale or lease, of remote
recreational cabin sites."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 241
"An Act relating to optional exemptions from municipal property
taxes on residential property."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 297
"An Act relating to wildfires and other natural disasters."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 414
SHORT TITLE: U.S.SENATE VACANCY/DEF OF POLITICAL PARTY
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
01/28/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/04 (H) STA, JUD
02/03/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 319
SHORT TITLE: REMOTE REC.CABIN SITE SALES/LOTTERY SALE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) FATE
05/14/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/14/03 (H) STA, RES, FIN
01/13/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/13/04 (H) Heard & Held
01/13/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 241
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CHENAULT
04/04/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/04/03 (H) CRA, STA
05/06/03 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
05/06/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
05/08/03 (H) CRA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124
05/08/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee
05/08/03 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
05/12/03 (H) CRA RPT 3DP 1NR
05/12/03 (H) DP: KOTT, WOLF, MORGAN; NR: CISSNA
01/13/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/13/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
01/20/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/20/04 (H) Heard & Held
01/20/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/27/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/27/04 (H) Heard & Held
01/27/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE LESIL McGUIRE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 414.
LEONARD JONES, Special Assistant
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed questions regarding the fiscal
notes, during the hearing on HB 414.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGH FATE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor, presented HB 319 and answered
questions.
JIM POUND, Staff
to Representative Hugh Fate
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 319 on
behalf of Representative Fate, sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-11, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Representatives Holm,
Seaton, Coghill, Lynn, Berkowitz, and Weyhrauch were present at
the call to order. Representative Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 414-U.S.SENATE VACANCY/DEF OF POLITICAL PARTY
[Contains brief discussion of HB 307 and SB 166.]
Number 0180
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 414, "An Act relating to filling the vacancy in
the office of United States Senator, and to the definition of
'political party.'"
Number 0200
REPRESENTATIVE LESIL McGUIRE, Alaska State Legislature, as
sponsor, turned to page 2, [lines 4-9], which read as follows:
*Sec.3. AS 15.40.200 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.40.200. Requirements of party petition.
Petitions for the nomination of candidates of
political parties shall state in substance that the
party desires and intends to support the named
candidate for the office of United States senator or
United States representative, as appropriate, at the
special election and requests that the name of the
candidate nominated be placed on the ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE indicated this is in response to an
opinion issued by Superior Court Judge John Reese on November 3,
2003. She explained that Alaska State law says that a person
has to receive 3 percent in a gubernatorial election to be
considered a third party, or has to have received the requisite
amount of signatures that would have qualified for that
percentage.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE noted that an "odd thing" happened in
2002: Diane Benson, a member of the Green Party, failed to
gather 3 percent of the vote, and yet she was the gubernatorial
candidate. Representative McGuire also noted that there were
two other people running for U.S. Senate and U.S. Congress who
both garnered over 6 percent [of the vote] "on the Green Party."
She continued as follows:
Rightfully, I think, Jim Sykes filed suit, and
basically said that his party's rights were being
infringed and that, because they had received 6
percent in both of the other elections, ... it seemed
arbitrary to make the gubernatorial election ... [the]
election by which you had to have 3 percent.
So, Judge Reese agreed. And he came back and he said,
"I enjoin any kind of the state law going into
effect," meaning if the state law went into effect as
it currently reads, Jim Sykes would not be allowed to
... file as a candidate or appear on the ballot as the
United States Senate candidate for the Green Party....
And so, the court agreed, as I said before, and Judge
Reese said basically, "It's enjoined until the
legislature takes action, or at least through 2004."
Number 0450
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE stated that it is obviously the job of
the House Judiciary Standing Committee to respond. She named
the following three ways in which the 3 percent can be garnered:
a gubernatorial election, a U.S. Senate election, and a U.S.
House election.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said [the proposed legislation] would
allow for a "snapshot in time" to be taken every two years, to
decide whether or not there is still interest and still "the
participation by that third party." She said:
We all understand the point: we basically have a two-
party system in Alaska - the same as we do in [the
rest of] the United States of America - and we don't
want seven, eight, nine, ten third-party candidates
the way they do in England, for example, cluttering up
the ballot and, in some people's opinion, incurring an
extra cost.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE clarified that "we" want to know if
there's really a coordinated effort behind [a] party - that
people are still making a meaningful effort to contribute to it,
to vote for it, and to be a part of it. She opined that [HB
414] is a good change to Alaska state law. She added, "I hope
it stays this way forever, because I think we finally found a
way to fix it."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said the decision was made to stick with
the 3 percent threshold the way it has always been, because "we
didn't have evidence or rationale for raising it or lowering
it."
Number 0580
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE turned to how a U.S. Senator is chosen
for Alaska. She paraphrased from the 17th Amendment to the
United States Constitution, regarding Senate seat vacancies.
She emphasized, "I think this clearly shows that the initiative
is probably not going to be upheld." She mentioned an
initiative with language identical to HB 414, which she said is
currently under a legal challenge; the attorney general has
challenged it based upon the 17th Amendment. She noted that the
Trust the People group has responded, and "so we're awaiting
that."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said that HB 414 is an attempt to
solidify the law in "this" area. She noted that there are
currently over 50,000 in the state who believe that "this is the
right thing to do." She added, "Those were the 50,000 that
signed it, and then, of that, there were at least 28,000 that
were certified - that were not duplicates, and that ... checked
out." She told the committee that this bill is a product of
talking to her constituents, her party members, and the "other"
party members. She stated the following:
I think that the public doesn't understand this method
of picking a United States Senator very well. What
they understand is elections; they understand
democracy and the ability to get out and vote. It's
interesting to note that most of them don't realize
that the history of appointing a Senator has, in fact,
been a precedent; it has been the way that we've done
business, going back to statehood.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE turned to the issue of whether party
affiliation comes into play. She explained that, up until 1967,
a governor would appoint someone to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy
who was of the same party as the person who created that
vacancy. She noted that the law was changed that year, which
made it possible for then Governor Walter Hickel to appoint
[Republican] Ted Stevens to fill the vacancy of Democrat Bob
Bartlett in 1968.
Number 0929
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE mentioned HB 307, which stipulated that
the governor could appoint somebody to fill the vacated seat
only if that seat had been vacated within 2.5 years, "toward the
end of that person's term." She explained, for example, that if
a Senator passes away with five years left in a term, that
Senate seat would require a special election to fill. She
remarked that [HB 307] bifurcated the issue between a special
election model and an appointment model. She indicated that
Governor Knowles vetoed [the bill]; however, the legislature
overrode the veto, and HB 307 became law.
Number 1052
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said the Twenty-Second Alaska State
Legislature "came back with" SB 166, which imposed a 5-day
waiting period, "which I think we all understand allowed Senator
Murkowski to pick his replacement."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE mentioned again a group called Trust the
People. She noted that both Representative Harry Crawford and
Representative Eric Croft are spokespeople "on the issue." That
group began gathering signatures to place an initiative on the
ballot to allow for a special election in the case of a vacancy
for the United States Senate seat. Representative McGuire
offered her belief that [that effort] was successful, but
acknowledged that there is a legal challenge that has been
brought by the attorney general of the State of Alaska and
"responded to by trusted people, so it's in legal flux." [In a
subsequent meeting, a representative from the Division of
Elections clarified that the process had not been completed and,
therefore, couldn't be certified by the Lieutenant Governor.]
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE stated that the second half of the bill
has to be [addressed], because it would be "irresponsible for us
not to." She opined that the judicial branch of the government
is rightfully reaching out to the policy making branch of the
government to ask it to reconsider "the way this is done." She
told the committee members that if they know of a better way to
address this issue, or if they think that responding to Judge
Reese's opinion is wrong, she is willing to take suggestions.
With respect to the first half of the bill, regarding [filling]
a United States Senator vacancy, she said she welcomes the
debate regarding whether there should be a special election for
the entire amount [of the term] versus the 2.5 years now
stipulated.
Number 1205
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified for the record that
Representative David Guttenberg was also [involved with the
initiative issue].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative McGuire why she is
introducing a bill to fill the vacancy in a U.S. Senator seat,
when there's already one in the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE replied that she doesn't think it's a
secret that the majority makes the policies in the legislature,
whether that majority be Republican or Democrat. "In fact," she
added, "it's our obligation." She told Representative
Berkowitz, "You spend a lot of time standing up on the floor
criticizing that - rightfully so." She opined that the majority
should be the driving engine and the policy-making body. She
noted that it is often the case that a minority bill will be
introduced and will "sit right where it is first referred to in
a committee." She added, "And I don't think that's a secret."
Number 1263
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that Representative Berkowitz has
introduced a bill that is related to this issue. However,
Representative McGuire had requested a hearing on [HB 414]. He
told Representative Berkowitz that if he wants his bill heard in
conjunction with [HB 414] that can be done.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said that [being] the chair of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee is a unique role, and she said she
thinks there is "a place to respond to these types of things."
She noted that the difference in her bill [compared to
Representative Berkowitz's] is that it incorporates a response
to Judge Reese's opinion.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE recalled another bill introduced by
Representative Harry Crawford, which she collaborated on. She
continued as follows:
We ultimately realized that, for political reasons -
particularly with respect to the other body - ... it
would probably be politically expedient to have the
majority person bring that bill across. [It's] no
different than if the Democrats were in control on the
other side, we might rethink how we do that. It's of
no offense to you, and maybe I could just say great
minds think alike.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded that he wishes Representative
McGuire would have spoken with him before introducing [HB 414].
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE, in response to questions by
Representative Berkowitz, confirmed that she has had opportunity
to speak with [representatives of] Trust the People and their
position on HB 414 is one of support. She noted that both
Representatives Crawford and Croft have expressed concern with
the bill's legal challenge. She indicated that it would require
money. She said she thinks the 17th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution presents real challenges. She noted that
Representative Crawford has said that he would have signed on as
a co-sponsor, but the proposed legislation is a House Judiciary
Standing Committee bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that Representative McGuire had
previously said that there are opinions that the challenge based
on the 17th Amendment will be upheld. He asked for the sources
of those opinions.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE, in response to that and a follow-up
question by Representative Berkowitz, clarified that she had not
been citing an opinion but rather was offering an informal
opinion.
Number 1435
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE, in response to a question by
Representative Gruenberg, confirmed that she doesn't have any
other formal legal opinion. She indicated that there is a
saying regarding what a fool a person would be to predict [the
rulings of a judge]. She stated that she admires that
Representatives Crawford and Croft are able to look beyond the
politics of [the issue] and say they really believe that "this
is the right way of doing it."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Representative McGuire doesn't
think that Representatives Crawford and Croft also support the
idea that a law like this should be able to be passed by
initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said she has not discussed [that question
with Representatives Crawford and Croft], but she stated that
she would assume so. In response to a follow-up question by
Representative Gruenberg, she confirmed that she supports the
initiative process. She noted that it is primarily a product of
the west coast and newer legislatures. For example, she
remarked that Oregon has had more initiatives and referendums
passed than any other state.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Representative McGuire if she
believes that "the people" should have the right by initiative
to select the methods of filling in interim vacancies in the
office of the U.S. Senator. He clarified, "I'm talking about
not as a judge, but as a policy maker."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE responded that she has to take into
account the law when she makes policy. She indicated that the
17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution couldn't be clearer with
respect to who has the authority; therefore, she would not feel
comfortable saying that the initiative would be "the way to do
it."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if she believes the legislature
could give the people the right to make this choice by an
initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE replied that she thinks that could be
done through a constitutional amendment, and she suggested
perhaps that is something that Representative Gruenberg wants to
consider.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is talking about "a simple
legislation." He asked, "Don't you agree that the legislature
could simply pass a law that ... could delegate to the people
the authority to fill the office by an initiative process?"
Number 1263
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH interjected that he understands the philosophic
debate regarding this issue. He offered his understanding that
Representative Bill Williams would have some initiative-related
"things" coming up on the floor soon.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that his questions "go to"
the possibility of an amendment to the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said she doesn't know what powers the
legislature really can delegate. She offered her understanding,
for example, that [the legislature] cannot delegate the power to
appropriate.
Number 1800
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he appreciates Representative
McGuire's bringing [HB 414] forward. He stated that he thinks
if [the committee] agrees that it's good public policy, than it
should go forward with it.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to the subject of certification of
third parties. He noted that the term [limits] for governor,
U.S. Representative, and U.S. Senator are [not the same]. He
offered an example whereby there is an election in which only
the Representative is up for election and the third party does
not get 3 percent at that election; however, every four years
there is a gubernatorial election where "they might get 3
percent...." He asked, "What is the certification process ...
either at the four-year or the six-year election for the U.S.
Senate or for the governor, if the two-year election is between
those and the third party does not get 3 percent at that time?"
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE responded that the short answer is "they
wouldn't be certified." She indicated that [recertification
would be allowed]. She invited Representative Seaton to
"envision the scenario that we had before," in which "a third
party would have to wait a full four years before even being
considered again." She concluded, "And so, one of the nice
things is, yeah, they might not be considered, ... as a result
of that election, but in the next two years, hopefully they
would get it."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked, under the scenario "as outlined in
the bill," if a third party doesn't have a candidate for the
U.S. Representative election, "are they then decertified?"
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE responded that that is an interesting
question. She said she doesn't know the answer, but will find
out.
Number 1925
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative McGuire if she
thinks it's good public policy for the voters to be able to fill
vacancies in the U.S. Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE answered yes; however, she stated that a
lot of times there are things she thinks are good public policy
that are unconstitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative McGuire why, if
she thinks it's good public policy, she voted against it "when
the amendment was in front of the entire legislature a couple of
years ago."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE responded that a person in the
legislature is bound to grow and change his/her opinion. She
said, "When it was first presented to me, I don't think I ever
felt comfortable with it ... because I didn't really understand
it very well." In the end, she revealed, she struggled with
"how you would fill that vacancy between the time in which the
person left and the special election occurred." She stated that
it's something that still troubles her, and she said she thinks
both the initiative and the language in [HB 414] could be
improved.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE noted a problem is that Alaska is a small
state and the U.S. Senate is the place in which Alaska derives
most of its power. She warned that a very real situation could
occur where Alaska could be without representation for three
months while waiting for a special election. She said, "I was
persuaded by that, and I'm still persuaded by it ..., but I
think that there is a way that you can do both, and I'm hoping
that the great minds of the legislature can come together to do
that."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said that her constituents let her know
when she is wrong about an issue. She stated that they have
said they would like the ability, through a special election, to
be "able to weigh in." They feel, she related, that that is
"the more democratic way of selecting [a] U.S. Senator." She
indicated that [her constituents] think it's her job to figure
out what to do in the mean time with the vacancy.
Number 2081
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative McGuire if she
thinks the Republicans were wrong to turn down the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE responded that she can't speak for all
Republicans. She added, "You're famous for doing that."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ interjected, "Well, you spoke for me
and all Democrats...."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE told Representative Berkowitz that she
doesn't want to quibble with him. She opined, "I think we all
understand the chip that's on your shoulder today." She said
she's sorry that Representative Berkowitz has not asked for a
hearing for his bill from Chair Weyhrauch. She stated her
assumption that if he cared that much about [his] bill, he would
have done so.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded as follows:
Representative McGuire, it's not about my bill. It's
about getting you to do the right thing. It's about
respecting the right of 50,000 Alaskans who attempted
to go to the ballot and vote on this. It's about
whether the legislature even retains the moral
authority to vote on this issue now that 50,000
Alaskans have picked it up. It's about the cynical
manipulation of the internal legislative political
process to circumvent the will of the people. That's
what my outrage is about. And I think it's a
consistent pattern where this issue's concerned. Let
the people vote. Quit trying to steal their
authority.
Number 2150
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked, "Representative Berkowitz, do you
think doing the right thing is potentially allowing the whole
issue to go away on account of a legal challenge?" She added,
"So that the process has never, in fact, changed at all." She
said what ends up happening is "we end up right back where we
were before."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH intervened.
Number 2170
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that several years ago, an
initiative regarding minimum wage was going to be on the ballot.
He said the legislature "trumped that" by passing a similar
bill. If a law passes by initiative, there's a prohibition
against the legislature changing that [law] for several years.
He offered his understanding that there cannot constitutionally
be such a prohibition if the legislature passes a bill, because
"we" can't bind future legislature. What the legislature did,
he continued, was to trump the initiative and then repeal part
of the bill the next year. That, he concluded, "clearly
thwarted what might have been the will of the people." He added
that he doesn't think that was good public policy.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his concern that if something
were to happen [to Alaska's current U.S. Senator], and "we
passed this law through this legislature," the next legislature
could then "undo it in the next two years." Conversely, he
noted that if "it were done by initiative," it would have "a
much greater permanence." He said, "And I see that as being
potentially a significant difference with the exact bill - but
the way it's enacted. Don't you?"
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE responded that she thinks there are
problems "with that." She said there have been instances where
the legislature has incorporated the substance of an initiative
into law and come back and changed [that law]. She said she
thinks "you give your word and ... you stay true to it." On
that note, she told the committee that Representative Crawford
had asked her if she was introducing the bill so that she could
come back later and change it. She said her response was to
give him her word that that was not the reason she was
introducing the bill and that she defends "this."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE opined that those who put the initiative
process into the Alaska State Constitution must have envisioned
a legislative role. She explained that an initiative cannot
appear on a ballot until after a full legislative session has
met. She explained as follows:
That requirement really can only be in there for one
reason, and that is the idea that we still are a
representative democracy - not a direct democracy. We
envision a role of direct democracy, but the
representative democracy is still there. And so, that
gives an opportunity for the legislature to consider
those things that have been certified as initiatives.
Number 2403
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE opined, "I think that, as a legislature,
when you have that many people speaking on a subject, if you
don't come back and pay attention to it and try to incorporate
it into policy, you're not doing your job."
Number 2424
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that he thinks the voter has the
ultimate say on "who it is that is sitting here doing this."
Number 2454
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Representative McGuire if she
would support a provision in the bill stating that "this portion
of the bill, at least" would not be amended for two years, for
example. He noted that this legislature can't bind the next,
but it can state its policy, thereby making a promise by the
body.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE replied that she would support that.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he does not know whether he would support
that; he said he has never heard of such a precedence.
Number 2786
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he is confused. He offered his
understanding that it has been proposed that the people who
speak at the polls have less right to create policy in Alaska,
by virtue of their representation, than the people who speak
with an initiative. He asked for an explanation of "what road
we're going down, in terms of whether or not we're trying to
negate the ability of all legislatures to function at all." He
offered an example of how segregation would have been affected
[if it had been decided by initiative].
Number 2650
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said this subject is a difficult one that
many legal minds have reflected on, particularly in the last 20
years. Initiatives, she said, have been used to move the
legislature in the right direction. Notwithstanding that, she
remarked that any initiative process, if carried too far, could
meet with disastrous results. She indicated that she thinks
[the initiative process] has been used appropriately in Alaska.
She said, "Where you started to see the dialogue in the
beginning, I could see certain individuals trying to create this
dichotomy - you're either for it or against it. I don't see it
that way."
Number 2786
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated he is still concerned with whether or
not [the legislature] is making decisions because they are the
right decisions to make.
Number 2825
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ recalled three other instances that
occurred during his time in the legislature where the Republican
majority has overridden the will of the people: two wolf
initiatives and a medical marijuana initiative. He said, "So
you'll excuse me, Representative Holm and Representative
McGuire, for being a little bit cynical about the ability of
this majority to honor the direction the voters want to take
it."
Number 2854
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to "the Green Party portion of
the bill." He stated, on behalf of the Democratic Party and
possibly the Green Party as well, that other parties, regardless
of who they are, have a right to join together in a partially
open ballot. He asked Representative McGuire if she would
support an amendment that would "allow that to occur."
Number 2926
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE responded that because she wants [HB 414]
to pass, she would not support adding that to the bill. She
said she is not somebody who benefits from a closed primary, so
she can see where it would benefit her; however, she also tries
to support the opinions of the majority. She said, "From a
political perspective, it would make this bill dead in the
water."
Number 2967
LEONARD JONES, Special Assistant, Division of Elections, Office
of the Lieutenant Governor, said he was present in regard to the
fiscal notes.
TAPE 04-11, SIDE B
Number 2982
MR. JONES [told the committee that he has held his position for
just 30 days]. He offered to answer questions.
Number 2966
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred again to page 2, regarding the
issue of timing and recertification when elections are off-
cycle. He clarified that he is trying to ascertain if "this is
going to require every third party to have 3 percent of ... the
U.S. House [of Representatives] election in all those cycles
when there's not one of the other elections occurring." He
added that he wants to know what the division's position would
be if a third party that had garnered 3 percent in a
gubernatorial election, for example, did not file or did not
have a candidate run for the U.S. House [of Representatives].
MR. JONES said he would get back to the committee on that.
Number 2888
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Jones to let the committee
know the following: The cost of primaries, with the possible
intent of doing an amendment that would cause political parties
to pay for their own primaries, if that's what they want to do;
and the cost of collecting and maintaining records about
individuals' political party affiliations. He said, "You've
seen today what happens when partisan politics intrudes. I
think it's hostile to the state's best interest." He noted that
he has been "running a bill" for a number of years to eliminate
political parties and to eliminate the state as a record keeper.
He commented that perhaps Representative McGuire would join him
in this effort. He said he want to know how much [the state]
would save if [it no longer used the political party system].
MR. JONES agreed to accomplish that request.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated his understanding that that would be a
research request on a separate issue, other than [HB 414].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded, "That would fit within the
title."
Number 2805
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that he would like to see the
committee [get the information requested]. He indicated that
whether or not people have the right to "associate and pick
their party affiliate members to represent them" is another
debate. He said [HB 414] certainly is one bill that would allow
those who have standing in the community to be on the ballot.
He added, "So, I'd be in support of that."
Number 2787
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH closed public testimony. He announced that HB
414 was heard and held.
HB 319-REMOTE REC.CABIN SITE SALES/LOTTERY SALE
Number 2761
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 319, "An Act relating to the disposal of state
land by lottery; and relating to the disposal, including sale or
lease, of remote recreational cabin sites."
Number 2750
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt HB 319 for discussion
purposes.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that the motion had been made for
Version H [the original bill version].
Number 2730
REPRESENTATIVE HUGH FATE, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor,
read his sponsor statement [included in the committee packet].
He clarified that, regarding those who will incur the cost of
surveys and appraisals [in the second paragraph], the word
"they" means those who buy the land. He noted that, while not
specified in the sponsor statement, the economic trickle-down
effect could be as much as "four times." He said, "Passage [of
HB 319] will expand the opportunity to satisfy the dream of
Alaskans by allowing them to secure, in fee simple, a favorite
piece of property in a setting that epitomizes the reason that
we live in ... this great state...."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE added that the bill would enhance the
present Department of Natural Resources (DNR) programs, but does
not take the place of them. He said it's a win-win situation;
it not only gives an individual private, peaceable ownership [of
land], but also stimulates local and state economy.
Number 2583
REPRESENTATIVE FATE referred to Article VIII, Section 9, of the
Alaska State Constitution, and indicated that it gives the power
to the legislature to provide the process under which lands may
be sold. He noted that there is also a statute in law that
allows for the sale of these lands. He stated that [HB 319] is
a resource-based economic bill, which is based on fee-simple
ownership - "the title to the land." Currently, he noted, most
of Alaska's land is "nonproductive." Because of that, it is
exempt from local taxation. Most of the land is not an asset to
the state or to an individual. It becomes an asset under fee-
simple ownership. He said he has heard newcomers and old-timers
alike say that they wish they could "have a piece of Alaska."
Number 2452
REPRESENTATIVE FATE offered his understanding that this issue
started out in the Twenty-Second Alaska State Legislature as HB
[233] and was worked on by those in the mining industry, DNR,
and the environmental community. The result of that continued
work is the bill before the committee today, he said, including
some amendments in the committee packet.
Number 2407
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to a page listing issues raised
by the Alaska Conservation Voters [included in the committee
packet]. He said he would like those [issues] addressed.
Number 2215
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to page 3, line 14, [of the bill],
which read as follows:
(e) The space between remote recreational
cabin sites offered under this section may not be less
than 660 feet in any direction.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the intent of the bill is to make
a patchwork of private ownership which is not contiguous. He
asked why there is so much space in between the sites.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied that this started out with a larger
separation to preserve the remoteness of the site. He said DNR
pointed out that that could be problematic. He indicated that
changing from 2.5 acres to 5.0, helps [in platting the land], as
well as provides adjoining acreage. He stated that 660 feet
really provides a more remote site, which is the [aim] of [HB
319].
REPRESENTATIVE FATE listed some types of land that are
available, including land with several lots together. However,
what is not available currently is [land for] a remote cabin
site. He clarified [the bill would provide] that if the state
wants to "select an area, once a nomination is made, ... they
can then select a broader area within that area." He said [the
legislation] doesn't encourage the congestion that sometimes
occurs in a (indisc.) area.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE, in response to a follow-up question by
Representative Seaton, explained that the change to five acres
is in the language of an amendment [still to be] offered.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the same philosophy is being used
in regard to rivers and lakes, [requiring] that the frontage
must be at least 300 feet and not exceed 400 [feet], and that
there must be one quarter mile from another parcel with river
frontage.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE answered that it is the same, "except for
lakes." He explained that the computation regarding lakes was
made based on how much water it takes to safely [land and take
off in a float plane].
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is still trying to get "the
feeling of the distribution of a lot." Regarding the 660-foot
separation, he asked what provision there is for access. For
example, he asked if [the bill] would give provisions for road
building or "anything else."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded that the state would not guarantee
rights of way or fire fighting for a remote site. He mentioned
that there was a tremendous amount of research done on
identifying RS2477s. He stated that these [parcels] are remote
sites and, as such, it would be up to the applicant to provide
the transportation to them, to develop them, and to protect
them. He said the state would be waived from those liabilities.
Number 1948
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what discussion would have to
happen between DNR and the person buying a remote parcel
regarding how that person [stakes out a piece of property].
REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied that in the past, the surveys and
appraisals have been done at a cost to the state; however,
[under this legislation] the people would pay for those surveys
themselves. He noted some exceptions, such as land that is
picked up through lotteries.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the language in the bill
stipulates size of land. He said, for example, if he went out
to nominate a parcel of land and wanted to share a lake with
someone, he would want to ensure that he didn't nullify his
application by "getting ... 20 feet over." He said he is
wondering what the working process is on that nomination,
regarding how much latitude DNR [would have] "to move it," and
what would have to happen, for example, if he has already
"brushed it."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded, "We have added personnel in there
to do that." People may not know, for example, whether their
land is overlaid by a native allotment or whether there's a
military operation area (MOA) on it. There would need to be a
status map made available, so that people can actually look to
see if the land is open for entry.
Number 1664
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if there is any language in the bill
that requires that a configuration [of a parcel of land] be
within certain parameters.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE answered, "On riverbanks and on lakes, yes."
He said he cannot recall a limitation inland. He mentioned 300
feet for shoreline frontage.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if that means a person could have a
pear-shaped small valley, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE surmised that as a practical matter, the
department would probably provide regulations. He offered an
example. He indicated it would limit "the amount of fudging in
the [staking] of ground."
Number 1545
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that "this" calls for 660 feet in
any direction, as well as "a distance from another recreational
cabin site." He offered an example of a house on the Kenai
River that is not certified as a recreational cabin site. He
offered his understanding that the proposed language [of the
bill] wouldn't prevent nominating a piece [of land] on the
riverfront adjoining someone else's house.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that's correct. He said, "Nomination
is not automatic; this still gives the prerogatives to the
commissioner to approve or disapprove that after the nomination.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the land could still border with a
native allotment. He asked if it is correct that "the
distances" are only from recreational sites and not from other
pieces of property.
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Hugh Fate, answered on behalf
of Representative Fate, sponsor. Regarding the example of the
Kenai River cabin, he said it must be in a 660-foot buffer zone.
He stated that he is not really certain, even on the Kenai
River, that there would be a situation where there would be a
remote recreational cabin where there is already a residence.
He surmised that that land would be in private hands already.
Number 1360
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that Caribou Hills and Caribou Lake,
for example, hold both private and state lands, and there are
recreational cabins "all over the Caribou Hills." He explained
that he is trying to figure out whether [HB 319] has a buffer
between "existing," or whether it is "just between recreational
(indisc.)."
Number 1327
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH began discussion of Amendment 1, which read as
follows:
Page 3, line 2:
Delete "12"
Insert "24"
Page 3, line 5, following "private sale":
Insert "under (g) of this section"
Page 3, lines 9 - 12:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) prepare a schedule of land offerings
under this section from lands that were not selected
by the state for mineral values, except for lands
having a proven high mineral potential based on a
geophysical survey or geological evaluation completed
not more than 15 years before the offering, and
identify the parcels for disposal each year; and"
Page 3, lines 21 - 30:
Delete all material and insert:
"(g) A person may nominate a parcel for disposal under
this section and request a right of first refusal. If
the commissioner accepts the nomination of a parcel
for disposal, the commissioner may also provide for
disposal of additional parcels in the surrounding
area, subject to (d)(1) and (f) of this section."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that Amendment 1 would delete [subsection]
(g) on page 3 entirely. He asked if that [decision to delete
subsection (g)] was based upon the input from the Alaska Miners
Association.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE reiterated that concerns had been expressed
by environmental groups, miners groups, and DNR, and he
indicated that those concerns are addressed [in Amendment 1].
Number 1240
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representative Fate if he would like to
"offer this amendment at this time."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said yes.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected for purposes of discussion.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, in response to remarks by Representative
Gruenberg, clarified that the committee was addressing Amendment
1 in parts, but was not treating those parts as separate
amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE explained the changes that Amendment 1 would
affect.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that the input from the Alaska Miners
Association was in the form of a letter in the committee packet,
dated January 23, 2004.
Number 0989
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that the Alaska Miners
Association makes a good case in its letter for adding "and
geologic evaluation" to the bill. Amendment 1, he noted,
actually adds the phrase "or geological evaluation". He said he
thinks the "or" is better.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned the committee's attention to
page 3, lines 10-11 of the bill, and read the phrase "having a
low mineral potential". He noted that Amendment 1 uses the
words "except for lands having a proven high mineral potential",
which he said "flips it around." He said he feels more
comfortable with the current language in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded that "low mineral potential" can
be [ambiguous]. He suggested it could mean "one color in a pan"
or "ten colors in a pan." He said [the language in Amendment 1]
achieves the same thing through an evaluation. He added that it
also sets some sort of standard of high potential. He
explained, "If it's high potential, then that land sometimes
should not be selected for a remote cabin site." In response to
a request for a definition of "color in a pan," he said that
gold plate itself is "just called a color."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding the word "proven", surmised
that the sponsor is assuming that DNR would, by regulation,
define the term "high proven mineral potential". He said he
does not want it to be a vague delegation that is without
standard. In response to a question by Representative Fate, he
clarified that he wants to know how that phrase will be
administered by the department.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested that someone from DNR could address
that concern later.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said it seems to him that "the nomenclature
'low' is more prone to litigiousness than 'high', which does set
a standard...."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said his question would then focus more
on the word "proven".
Number 0589
MR. POUND stated his assumption that, between the geophysical
and the geological evaluation, there are already established
standards in place. He indicated his understanding that "a
proven high" is almost a technical term in the mineral [world].
Number 0538
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the portion of Amendment 1
that would add language at page 3, lines 9-12 of the bill [text
provided previously]. He noted that the word "except" was used.
He offered his understanding that the [lands] that are "excepted
from this" are those that have high mineral potential, and are
available for remote cabin sites.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE told Representative Seaton that that
language means just the opposite.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON repeated the language in question again.
He said, "So, the exception is for those that have a high
mineral potential from those that were not selected for mineral
value. I don't think that's what we mean, but that's what I
believe it says."
Number 0383
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that the language in question differs a
bit from the language of the Alaska Miners Association. He
added his belief that the drafter of the amendment may have
missed something in the translation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that, with all due respect, he
doesn't think that most judges or lawyers would [interpret] the
language as Representative Seaton did. Instead, they would say
there are two different categories of lands that would not be
available [as land offerings]: one category would be comprised
of lands that have been selected as having mineral values, and
the other would be comprised of lands that have a high mineral
potential. He added that he is not sure he understands the
difference; however, he thinks the drafter was attempting to
exempt both of those.
Number 0248
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said it's not that clear.
Number 0203
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that if Amendment 1 is to be
adopted, he wants that language made clearer.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he would accept a conceptual amendment
for purposes of clarification.
Number 0129
MR. POUND turned to the last portion of Amendment 1, which he
said would allow a first right of refusal to someone who
nominates a parcel [for disposal]. It would be up to "the
commissioner, through the director" to grant that first right of
refusal.
The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:34 a.m.
TAPE 04-12, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. POUND noted that the last portion of Amendment 1 would also
address a need for technical clarification by referencing
[subsection] (d), [paragraph] (1).
Number 0099
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding that this portion
of Amendment [1] would delete the language requiring a person to
provide an affidavit to the commissioner showing at least three
consecutive years of recreational use [of the parcel], and
replace it with language that would allow a person just to
nominate a parcel and request first right of refusal, without
showing any use of the land at all.
MR. POUND said that's correct.
Number 0163
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH gave an example of three different people who
each have visited the same spot, but at different times of the
year. Furthermore, if HB 319 passes, they each could nominate
that parcel for disposal and request a right of first refusal.
He asked how that situation would be dealt with. He asked if
[the commissioner] would just throw up his/her hands and open
the land to public market.
MR. POUND responded that that would certainly be his/her option.
He said it is important to note that all the parcels must
involve a public notice process.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested the possibility that if it is up to
the discretion of the commissioner to grant the right of first
refusal, then somebody might say of [the person who was granted
that right] that he/she had a lobbyist get the commissioner to
grant that right, which might result in litigation over whether
it was a good use of discretion.
MR. POUND replied that the aspect of litigation would be up to
interpretation.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that it happens a lot [that people love
the same parcel of land]. He questioned whether it would be
better [for the commissioner] to say, "We're going to just open
this to a bid," in order to get away from the perception of
unfairness or inside dealing, for example.
Number 0420
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that it's completely discretionary, but
"they can make that decision." He added, "If that situation
arose, then this piece of legislation allows for that."
Number 0455
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked about a possible situation where a
corporation takes kayak trips and uses the same parcel over and
over. He noted that there are places like that - for example,
tent sites.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE answered, "The applicant will determine
that." He clarified that the commissioner will make the
determination based on the application. He indicated that there
are probably ways to make the process a fair one.
Number 0615
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that it's easy to see how growing
ecotourism companies could start staking [land] all over the
place, to the exclusion of the intent of the bill, which he said
he thinks is to allow an individual who has grown up here to
"get a piece of Alaska."
Number 0600
MR. POUND referred to AS 38.05.035, which he said is existing
statute addressing the issue of state land and individuals who
have erected a building on the land and is using the land for
bona fide business purposes for five or more years, either under
a federal permit, or without the need for a permit. He
indicated that there's a separate process for commercial [land
use]. He concluded, "We're not dealing with that particular
statute - it's already in place."
Number 0709
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that [HB 319] does not have a
referral to House Judiciary Standing Committee; therefore, he
suggested that it is within this committee's jurisdiction to
deal with the issue of fairness.
Number 0762
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he sees no limitation on the number
of sites that can be applied for, or that they have to be
applied for by an individual. He said it seems to him that
Princess Tours could solicit from the commissioner every quarter
mile down the river where that company takes tours. He stated
that if the purpose of the bill is to "get it into economic
development hands," then the commissioner would "almost be
directed to grant those." He said that this seems to be allowed
under this proposed legislation, even if it's not the intent of
it. He suggested that the sponsor change that.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied that this is another tool to add to
those the department already uses to dispose of land. He said
the intent of the bill is certainly not to "create individuals
who run around selecting land all over the country." He said he
suspects that that would be looked at askance by the
commissioner.
Number 0939
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said there's nothing that would prohibit someone
from going around and asking to buy the land from other
individuals and then eventually consolidating those sites under
a corporate shell.
MR. POUND said he certainly thinks that the 660-foot buffer
would be a disincentive to a commercial venture. He also noted
that there is language in existing statute regarding
requirements for a buffer anywhere from 50 to 100 feet from the
riverfront.
Number 1029
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he would like the committee to adopt
Amendment 1, and then subsume it into a committee substitute.
Then he would like representatives from DNR to look at the
committee substitute and reevaluate the fiscal note that
accompanied the original bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he would not object to
that, with the understanding that the committee has still not
dealt with his question regarding the proven high mineral
potential.
Number 1101
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the Alaska Miners
Association had mentioned an airstrip in the last part of its
letter. He said he noticed that the sponsor didn't accept that
group's proposal.
MR. POUND said the sponsor felt that a 25-acre lot has the
potential to make it a commercial venture. If said, "If you're
landing an aircraft out there, we'd tend to prefer it be a
floatplane ...."
Number 1200
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that this proposed legislation would give
the private sector access to own land. He asked if there is
already such a program and what the hold-up would be. He said,
"Certainly the legislature has dealt with this ... over and over
...."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE mentioned taking people to see lottery
lands, and those people saying that they wouldn't purchase the
land at any price. He confirmed that programs do exist;
however, even though "you don't select what you would like to
select yourself." The proposed legislation is an effort to get
more land to people who would pay for the surveys. The state
then reaps the harvest of the economy that it's stimulating,
while the individual gets fee-simple ground. He added, "He gets
fee-simple ground before, but a lot of times it's not the kind
of ground that he wanted."
Number 1350
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to adopting
Amendment 1. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Chair Weyhrauch announced that Amendment 1 would be incorporated
into a committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for confirmation that the portion of
the amendment that he had previously expressed concern over
would be rewritten.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH answered, "Conceptually."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE agreed, and he added that [he and his staff]
would continue to work with the Department of Natural Resources.
Number 1400
MR. POUND turned to page 3, line 31, under [subsection] (h),
which read:
(h) A parcel sold under this section may not
exceed two and one-half acres.
MR. POUND proposed [Amendment 2] as follows:
Page 3, line 31
Between "exceed" and "acres"
Delete "two and one-half"
Insert "five"
Number 1460
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2.
There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted.
[HB 319 was heard and held.]
HB 241-MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
Number 1500
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 241, "An Act relating to optional exemptions from
municipal property taxes on residential property."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee members that before them
was the committee substitute (CS) for HB 241, Version 23-
LS0851\D, Cook, 1/22/04.
Number 1521
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved Amendment 1 [to HB 241. Amendment 1
was taken up and clarified in the next meeting].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that [HB 241] was heard and held.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1576
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:58
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|