02/08/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB90 | |
| Executive Order 113 | |
| HB94 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 90 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 94 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 8, 2005
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Kurt Olson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 90
"An Act requiring warrants drawn by the Department of
Administration against the state treasury to be negotiable
instruments."
- MOVED HB 90 OUT OF COMMITTEE
EXECUTIVE ORDER 113
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 94
"An Act relating to qualifications of voters, requirements and
procedures regarding independent candidates for President and
Vice-President of the United States, voter registration and
voter registration records, voter registration through a power
of attorney, voter registration using scanned documents, voter
residence, precinct boundary and polling place designation and
modification, recognized political parties, voters unaffiliated
with a political party, early voting, absentee voting,
application for absentee ballots through a power of attorney, or
by scanned documents, ballot design, ballot counting, voting by
mail, voting machines, vote tally systems, initiative,
referendum, recall, and definitions in the Alaska Election Code;
relating to incorporation elections; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 90
SHORT TITLE: STATE TREASURY WARRANTS
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
01/21/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/05 (H) L&C, STA
02/02/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/02/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/02/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/04/05 (H) L&C RPT 5DP
02/04/05 (H) DP: LYNN, KOTT, LEDOUX, GUTTENBERG,
ANDERSON
02/08/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 94
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/21/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/05 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/03/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/03/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/03/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
KIM GARNERO, Director
Division of Finance
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of the
department during the hearing on HB 90.
MICHELLE PREBULA, Cash Manager
Treasury Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of the
division during the hearing on HB 90.
KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the department
during the hearing on EO 113.
LAURA GLASIER, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed a new sectional analysis and
answered questions on behalf of the division, during the hearing
on HB 94.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:02:08 AM. Present at the call
to order were Representatives Gatto, Elkins, Gardner, Gruenberg,
and Seaton. Representative Lynn and Ramras arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 90-STATE TREASURY WARRANTS
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 90, "An Act requiring warrants drawn by the
Department of Administration against the state treasury to be
negotiable instruments."
8:04:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, speaking on behalf of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 90, stated that the
proposed legislation is the same as House Bill 373 from last
year and would codify the supreme court's decision in National
Bank of Alaska v. Univentures 1231 site 824 P.2d 1377 Alaska
1992. The bill would make treasury warrants negotiable
instruments within the meaning of AS 45.03.104(a) in the Uniform
Commercial Code. Representative Gruenberg explained that this
will cure in statute a problem that had to be litigated up to
the supreme court to ensure that treasury warrants were not
dishonored in the technical commercial sense, so that financial
institutions were not left "holding the bag" when people would
negotiate [treasury warrants] and the state would refuse to
honor them.
8:06:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question from
Representative Gardner, said he is not aware of anyone who would
oppose this legislation. He said last year's bill passed
through the House and resided in the Senate Rules Committee,
where, he surmised, time ran out. In response to a comment by
Representative Gatto, he said he hopes the House will pass the
bill and it will make it through the Senate. He said [HB 90] is
good business.
8:07:49 AM
KIM GARNERO, Director, Division of Finance, Department of
Administration, noted that since the supreme court decision the
state has administered its warrants as negotiable instruments,
thus, no administrative changes would be necessary as a result
of HB 90. She offered to answer questions from the committee.
8:08:52 AM
MICHELLE PREBULA, Cash Manager, Treasury Division, Department of
Revenue, in response to a question from Representative Gatto,
provided a brief description of her job and noted that there is
a staff of six, including herself. In response to Chair Seaton
regarding whether anything has been left out of the proposed
legislation, she said she thinks HB 90 will do what the division
wants it to and is a good bill.
8:10:17 AM
MS. GARNERO noted that two years ago the legislature passed
House Bill 109, which changed the warrant clearing process for
stale dated warrants. She said, "This will be the final tweak
necessary for it."
8:10:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that [HB 90] was basically
drafted by the administration.
8:11:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one to
testify, closed public testimony.
8:11:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report HB 90 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 90 was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
^EXECUTIVE ORDER 113
8:12:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON announced that the next order of business
was Executive Order 113.
8:13:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained that the committee would review the
executive order (EO) and, if it disagrees with it, can put forth
a resolution against it. He noted that he does not plan to have
the committee make that decision today.
8:13:53 AM
KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Administration, explained that EO 113 transfers
the duties and responsibilities of the Telecommunications
Information Council (TIC) to the Department of Administration.
He said the council was created in the late 80s and was
comprised of the governor's chair, commissioners of all the
departments, one member each from the House and Senate, and
representatives from the court system, the university, and the
general public. Early in its history, the council met on a
regular basis; however, in recent years it has not met. As a
practical matter, the affairs of the state related to
telecommunications have been handled through the Department of
Administration, Mr. Brooks said, and EO 113 recognizes what
current practice is.
MR. BROOKS said he understands that there is some concern about
the identification of the legislature as a state agency that
would fall under the purview of the Department of
Administration. He said he doesn't think that's the intent of
EO 113. He said the origination of this action came during the
fall of this year; there were regulations that were slated to go
before TIC for review.
MR. BROOKS noted that in the regular course of business, the
department interacts with Pamela Varni, the executive director
in Legislative Affairs Agency, and Curtis Clothier, the manager
of Data Processing in the same agency. He explained that
there's a process that goes through Ms. Varni and the
Legislative Council. He said the committee could choose to
clarify that the legislature is not a state agency under "this
organization." Mr. Brooks offered to answer questions.
MR. BROOKS, in response to a question from Representative Gatto
regarding whether a board that hasn't met for so long should be
dissolved rather than transferred, explained that EO 113 would
not transfer the board itself to the department, just the duties
of the board. He noted that the administration has been active
in working with state agencies. In response to a question from
Chair Seaton, he clarified that EO 113 actually would dissolve
TIC.
MR. BROOKS, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg regarding why this process is being done through an
executive order rather than through legislation, said the
decision to do so was not made by the department.
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one to
testify, closed public testimony.
CHAIR SEATON noted that the committee packet holds two documents
regarding EO 113: a legislative recommendation related to EO
113 and an unnamed House bill that the committee may want to
consider. Both documents ask - should EO 113 be accepted - if
the legislature wants to remove itself from the necessity of
approval. He offered the example that the legislature may want
to update its computers and would have to get approval from the
administration. He said the legislature's only option to remove
itself from the oversight of an agency is to do so through
legislation, because it cannot do so through an executive order.
He clarified that the unnamed bill is labeled, 24-LS0464\A,
Craver, 1/27/05.
8:27:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the legislative
recommendation seems to exclude other agencies as well,
including the Permanent Fund Dividend Corporation and the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). He recommended hearing from
those agencies and finding out whether other agencies have
similar wishes.
8:28:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON responded that if the committee wants to go forward
to "rectify this situation" it must do so through legislation.
He said he would like to get an idea if that is the committee's
wish.
8:29:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks the Legislative Council
and other agencies dealing with the legislature would probably
not want to be "under the executive order." He expressed the
need to address the issue.
8:30:12 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he is not an expert regarding TIC. He
reiterated that he would like some indication from the members
of the committee that they would like to do something with
either the unnamed bill or the legislative recommendation. He
asked if there was anyone on the committee who does not want to
do so. [No committee members voiced objection.] Chair Seaton
told Representative Gruenberg that the current statute could be
added to the packet.
8:31:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS queried whether the committee should also
hear from the judicial branch.
8:31:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that the judicial branch
is already excluded.
8:31:51 AM
MR. BROOKS responded that he thinks that's correct. He said he
thinks the chief justice could choose to appoint someone to TIC.
8:32:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that AS 44.19.506 already deals
with the court system and directs the administrative director of
courts to prepare an information system for the court system
consistent with TIC.
[EO 133 was heard and held.]
HB 94-ELECTIONS
8:33:04 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced the last order of business was HOUSE BILL
NO. 94, "An Act relating to qualifications of voters,
requirements and procedures regarding independent candidates for
President and Vice-President of the United States, voter
registration and voter registration records, voter registration
through a power of attorney, voter registration using scanned
documents, voter residence, precinct boundary and polling place
designation and modification, recognized political parties,
voters unaffiliated with a political party, early voting,
absentee voting, application for absentee ballots through a
power of attorney, or by scanned documents, ballot design,
ballot counting, voting by mail, voting machines, vote tally
systems, initiative, referendum, recall, and definitions in the
Alaska Election Code; relating to incorporation elections; and
providing for an effective date."
8:33:21 AM
LAURA GLASIER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, directed the committee's attention to a new
sectional analysis. She noted that all the highlighted sections
appear just as they were in last year's House Bill 523.
8:35:53 AM
MS. GLASIER, in response to questions from Representative
Gruenberg, reiterated that the highlighted sections would appear
exactly as they were in the old bill. She pointed out which
sections of House Bill 523 were not included: Section 4 became
Senator Guess's Senate Bill 284; Sections 8-11 and 13-15 were
part of House Bill 459 by Representatives Harris and Gara;
Section 50 became Representative McGuire's House Bill 414; and
Section 56 was a report to the legislature due by March 5, 2005,
but was not included.
8:39:39 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Glasier to provide the committee with a
list of those items that were not included.
8:39:45 AM
MS. GLASIER turned to Section 8, regarding Independent
presidential candidates, and offered details. [Sections 1-7 had
previously been reviewed before the committee by Ms. Glasier
during the 2/3/05 House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting.]
8:40:46 AM
MS. GLASIER, in response to a question from Representative
Gatto, explained that current statute doesn't allow for
Independents to run on a ballot, and Section 8 would change
that.
8:41:37 AM
MS. GLASIER directed attention to Section 9, regarding ballot
counting, and noted that the word "assure" was changed to
"ensure". She offered details on Section 10, regarding early
voting. She noted the changes specified in Section 11,
regarding absentee voting by electronic transmission, and
Section 12, regarding absentee voting by mail and electronic
transmission.
8:45:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would be offering an amendment
regarding power of attorney to allow a general power of
attorney. He noted the use of the word "specifically" on page
3, line 8, and language on page 4, lines 16-17, and page 7,
lines 14-16. He said he would be offering an amendment in those
places and any others that specifically authorize another person
to apply for an absentee ballot on behalf of another person.
8:46:45 AM
MS. GLASIER, in response to Representative Gruenberg, said there
is no other language in the bill that specifically requires a
special power of attorney. In response to a question from Chair
Seaton asking if the division has any problem with changing from
a special power of attorney to allowing a general power of
attorney, said the Department of Law suggested "this route."
She indicated that whatever would assist the voters would be
best.
8:47:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if a person would be covered if he/she
didn't know a general power of attorney was sufficient and got a
special power of attorney.
8:48:36 AM
MS. GLASIER offered the following:
This section of statute would allow someone with a
power of attorney -- a case that I can speak to is a
mother who had general power of attorney for her son
who was serving overseas, and she couldn't make a
change to his address or mailing address and he was in
special forces and could not make contact with the
division ... and didn't have access to a voting
officer.
8:49:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG summarized, "So, this would also allow
the person with the power of attorney to register the absent
voter."
8:49:25 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that Representative Lynn wanted to ensure
that the specificity of Representative Gruenberg's [upcoming]
amendment includes a general or specific power of attorney, so
that one would not preclude the other.
8:49:36 AM
MS. GLASIER turned to Section 13, regarding absentee voting by
mail and electronic transmission. In response to a question
from Representative Gatto, she explained that although Sections
11 and 13 look similar, the one deals with AS 15.20.081, while
the other deals with AS 15.20.066.
8:51:28 AM
MS. GLASIER, in response to a question from Representative Gatto
regarding signatures in remote locations, offered examples,
including people who are in remote logging camps and can't get a
witness.
8:52:19 AM
MS. GLASIER returned to the sectional analysis and offered
details on: Section 14, regarding absentee voting by mail and
electronic transmission; Section 15, regarding "by mail" voting;
and Section 16, regarding standards for voting machines.
8:54:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding Section 16, spoke of the
possibility of offering an amendment that would make voting
available in other languages in appropriate areas only -
specifically Yupik and Spanish.
8:55:36 AM
MS. GLASIER addressed Section 17, regarding qualifications for
Independent candidates for President and Vice President, and the
selection of electors.
8:56:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what the rationale was for making a
requirement for Independent candidates that would not be applied
to other candidates.
8:56:26 AM
MS. GLASIER said the idea was not proposed by the committee, but
was formulated during a committee meeting, and she deferred to
Representative Gruenberg for further details.
8:56:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would look into that.
8:57:19 AM
MS. GLASIER, in response to a follow-up question from
Representative Gardner regarding why an Independent candidate
would ever be treated differently, explained that the other
parties have bi-laws filed with the division and have filed in
the state, whereas often Independent candidates aren't from
Alaska.
8:57:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that [last year's House State Affairs
Standing Committee] had decided that this would be a way to
maintain contact with the person.
8:58:34 AM
MS. GLASIER turned to discussion of Section 18, regarding the
interpretation of votes cast, Section 19, regarding duties of
electors, Section 20, regarding petitions and the form of the
applications, and Section 21, regarding petitions and
designation of sponsors.
9:01:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS mentioned a cruise ship ballot initiative
regarding head tax and an investigator that was hired to
validate signatures. He asked how "a change like this" would
"affect that process."
9:02:35 AM
MS. GLASIER indicated that this change wouldn't affect the
process whereby someone checks signatures. She explained, "This
is an internal mechanism for the division when you're doing the
data entry, to have ... two things - a printed name and a date
of birth - helping to ensure that you can qualify that
signature." The bill does not include any provision to
investigate whether all the signatures are true.
9:04:00 AM
MS. GLASIER, in response to a request from Chair Seaton, defined
"sponsor" as the first group of individuals that sign a petition
where law sets out that there shall be at least 100 qualified
voters. She added, "Those are usually considered the sponsors,
and then three are usually named as a committee." This bill
would make no changes as to the number of sponsors required or
committee number.
9:04:43 AM
MS. GLAISER, in response to a question from Chair Seaton, walked
through the application process for a petition and when the date
of birth would be required. She noted that one concern that's
been heard is how it will be possible to discern if people were
actually registered voters when they signed a petition, or if
they were registered only by the time the booklets were
submitted.
9:06:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he respects the division's efforts to
use the "lowest common denominator" to allow people to
participate. Notwithstanding that, he expressed concern that
adding another qualifier may perhaps be adding a chance that
someone may not qualify if they forget to fill out one of them.
He noted that the four qualifiers would be: signature, name,
address, and date of birth, and he asked if someone would be
disqualified if he/she only answered three out of four.
9:07:25 AM
MS. GLASIER said that person would be disqualified; however,
having the date of birth could help identify a person better if,
for example, his/her signature is not recognizable and the
address is barely legible. She added that the division believes
that asking for the date of birth is less intrusive than asking
for a person's social security number.
9:08:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said if it's true that a person who
forgets to include his/her date of birth would be disqualified,
then he shares Representative Ramras's concern.
9:09:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if voting information is private. He
speculated that if the information given on an initiative is
given to someone who is determined to overthrow an initiative,
they would have access to some very private information.
9:10:17 AM
MS. GLASIER said the address, name, and whether the person is
qualified as a signatory is available information. Regarding
date of birth, she said that usually numbers are better than the
written word.
9:11:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he can see why giving date of birth would help
the division qualify more signatures. He also said he could
foresee how someone may see a date on the line above and just
put today's date rather than a date of birth and, thus, be
disqualified. He stated that he is not certain where he would
like to weigh in on this issue, because it's not clear-cut, and
it requires balance. He suggested that the committee think on
the issue until the next meeting.
9:14:00 AM
MS. GLASIER, in response to a question from Representative
Gardner, reiterated that the name, address, and whether or not a
person is qualified, are the only things that the division
releases. In response to a question from Representative Gatto,
she confirmed that that information is released in a report
through the division's database.
9:16:03 AM
MS. GLASIER, in response to further questions from
Representative Gatto regarding the previously mentioned cruise
ship ballot initiative, explained the steps that the division
takes to ensure privacy.
9:17:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS interpreted that the division is trying to
identify real people and eliminate fraud.
9:18:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON said many people's signatures are not legible, thus
the number of identifiers are limited. If a person goofs and
puts his/her mailing address, rather than the required
residential address, that is another qualifier that's lost.
9:18:53 AM
MS. GLASIER noted, "Actually, in current law, we don't even have
the printed name to work with. We get a signature and address
on an application, which does make it difficult for us." The
bill would add both the date of birth and the printed name.
9:19:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked how the division identifies a
duplicate signature.
9:20:01 AM
MS. GLASIER said during the data entry review and process, a
signature will show as duplicate. She said there's no penalty,
because people do forget.
9:21:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked how long it takes to qualify all the
signers for an initiative and what some of the other qualifiers
in other states are.
9:21:23 AM
MS. GLASIER said she is not familiar with the other state's
qualifiers, but she said she believes the division has 60 days
to process a petition.
9:21:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS remarked that the division works hard and
it must take a long time to qualify so many signatures. He
asked what the failure rate is regarding those signatures.
9:22:31 AM
MS. GLASIER said she would have to find out from her staff and
get back to Representative Ramras.
9:23:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that when a person registers to
vote, he/she puts down a variety of identifiers, including the
last four digits of the social security number. He opined that
the policy of state should be to try to count a signature if at
all possible, but he wants to be certain that people don't sign
twice. Representative Gruenberg suggested choosing other forms
of identification.
9:24:48 AM
MS. GLASIER pointed out that the date of birth will always be
consistent, whereas other forms may not be.
9:25:26 AM
MS. GLASIER returned to discussion of the sectional analysis.
She highlighted Section 22, regarding petitions and preparation
of petitions.
9:26:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to page 11, line 4 and noted
that there is an addition of the phrase "the statement of"
before "warning". He said he thinks that's good.
9:27:14 AM
MS. GLASIER turned to Section 23, regarding petitions and
qualifications of circulators; Section 24, regarding petitions
and withdrawing names from petitions; and Section 25, regarding
petitions and certification of circulators.
9:28:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked why anyone who is a resident of the
state should be excluded from signing a petition.
9:29:28 AM
MS. GLASIER said it's a policy call. She offered her
understanding that the reason that a person has the ability to
carry a petition without being registered has to do with the
U.S. Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. American Constitutional
Law Foundation. She said the division's database only includes
registered voters.
9:32:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he has problem with a nonvoter forcing
other people to vote on an issue by passing a petition around.
9:33:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the person who is not qualified to
vote is allowed to go around and ask qualified voters to sign a
petition.
9:34:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said his concern, as one born and raised
in Alaska, is that so many people from outside of the state come
in with petitions.
9:35:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 11, line 19,
of the bill, which read as follows:
(3) a resident of the state as
determined under AS 15.05.020.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would pass around a copy of
that part of statute, if anyone was interested to see it.
9:36:11 AM
MS. GLASIER returned to the sectional analysis and reviewed
Section 26, regarding petitions and the display of proposed law.
She offered details.
9:38:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question from
Representative Gatto regarding language in the bill specifying
that the director shall provide each election board with five
copies of the proposed law being initiated, explained that that
is interpreted as requiring five, but allowing for more than
five.
9:39:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG spoke of regional voting centers in
other states. He explained it's a new concept that lets people
vote anywhere in the city, and it's simple, cheap, and easy for
voters. He noted that Ms. Glasier was smiling in response to
his comments.
9:40:34 AM
MS. GLASIER highlighted Section 27, regarding referendums and
the form of applications, and Section 28, regarding the
referendum and the designation of sponsors.
9:41:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that Section 27 requires that the
three designated sponsors must provide their name, mailing
address, and signatures, while Section 28 requires that the
additional sponsors also provide their date of birth. She asked
for an explanation.
9:42:11 AM
MS. GLASIER clarified that it was just an oversight on her part;
in the printed law, the designated sponsors must also provide
their date of birth.
9:42:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if that should be added to the
language in Section 27, paragraph (4) of the bill.
9:42:56 AM
MS. GLASIER said it could be added; however, the legal drafters
of the bill thought that the way it was written was sufficient.
9:43:28 AM
MS. GLASIER returned to the sectional analysis. She reviewed:
Section 29, regarding referendums and preparation of petitions;
Section 30, regarding referendums and qualifications of
circulators; Section 31, regarding referendums and circulation;
Section 32, regarding referendums and manners of signing and
withdrawing names from petitions; Section 33, regarding
referendums and certification of circulators; and Section 34,
regarding referendums and the display of the act being referred.
9:46:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, referring to his previous discussion of
the number of copies required, opined that it is inconsistent to
say a specific number on one line and mean "at least," while
using the words "at least" before another number on another
line.
9:47:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it's not necessary to make the
language the same, but he wouldn't oppose doing so.
9:47:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN concurred.
9:48:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved Conceptual Amendment 1, to add "at
least" before any required number of copies [found in Sections
26, 34, and 43].
CHAIR SEATON clarified Conceptual Amendment 1.
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Conceptual
Amendment 1. No objections were stated; therefore, Conceptual
Amendment 1 was so ordered.
9:51:31 AM
MS. GLASIER returned to the sectional analysis. She
highlighted: Section 35, regarding recall and the form of the
application; Section 36, regarding the recall and designation of
sponsors; Section 37, regarding the recall and preparation of
petitions; Section 38, regarding the recall and the statement of
warning; Section 39, regarding the qualifications of
circulators; and Section 40, regarding recall and circulation.
9:54:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned the word "penalties" in
Subsection 40 of the sectional analysis.
9:54:33 AM
MS. GLASIER explained that it refers to Section 40, [subsection
(d)], which read as follows:
(d) A person or organization that violates
(b) or (c) of this section is guilty of a class B
misdemeanor.
9:55:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if a person paid a circulator $2,
[when Section 40, subparagraph (b) prohibits accepting payments
greater than $1], would each dollar be a separate offense?
9:56:12 AM
MS. GLASIER said she would defer that question to an attorney.
9:56:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Representative Gruenberg to check and get
back to the committee at the next meeting regarding that
language.
9:57:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he doesn't recall whether class B
misdemeanors have a fine. He noted that normally it is a group
that distributes petitions, and a group would be considered an
organization. Organizations, he continued, are not imprisoned.
He said he would review the issue.
9:58:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said whenever there's a way for someone to
defeat the law, there's someone there to try it.
CHAIR SEATON said, "We really need to look at the two potentials
and what those could lead to - both the individual circulator,
as well as the state."
9:58:26 AM
MS. GLASIER responded, "That would appear in initiative and
referendum sections of law, as well, so any corrections we make,
we want to be inclusive."
[HB 94 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:59:28 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|