04/06/2006 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB438 | |
| SB250 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 476 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 250 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 438 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 6, 2006
8:07 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
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 438
"An Act relating to initiative, referendum, and recall
petitions; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 250
"An Act extending the termination date of the Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; and eliminating statutory
references to the network on domestic violence and sexual
assault."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 476
"An Act relating to the use of electronically generated
ballots."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 438
SHORT TITLE: INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, RECALL PETITIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAMRAS
02/08/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/06 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/09/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/09/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/14/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/14/06 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/16/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/16/06 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/04/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/04/06 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/06/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 250
SHORT TITLE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/SEXUAL ASSAULT COUNCIL
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEG BUDGET & AUDIT
01/26/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/06 (S) HES, FIN
02/17/06 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/17/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/17/06 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/22/06 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/22/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/22/06 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/01/06 (S) HES WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE,RULE
23
03/03/06 (S) HES AT 2:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/03/06 (S) Moved SB 250 Out of Committee
03/03/06 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/06/06 (S) HES RPT 1DP 2NR 2AM
03/06/06 (S) DP: DYSON
03/06/06 (S) NR: WILKEN, GREEN
03/06/06 (S) AM: ELTON, OLSON
03/14/06 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/14/06 (S) Moved SB 250 Out of Committee
03/14/06 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/15/06 (S) FIN RPT 3DP 3NR
03/15/06 (S) DP: WILKEN, GREEN, BUNDE
03/15/06 (S) NR: HOFFMAN, OLSON, STEDMAN
03/27/06 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/27/06 (S) VERSION: SB 250
03/28/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/28/06 (H) STA, FIN
04/06/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
DEE HUBBARD
Sterling, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself during the
hearing on HB 438.
MYRL THOMPSON
Susitna Valley
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 438.
JANE PIERSON, Staff
to Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative
Ramras, sponsor of HB 438.
ANNETTE KREITZER, Chief of Staff
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered suggestions and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 438.
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 438.
W. TOM MAHER, Staff
to the Legislative Budget & Audit Committee
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 250 on behalf of the Senate
Rules Committee, sponsor by request of the Legislative Budget &
Audit Committee.
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Legislative Agencies & Offices
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information during the hearing on
SB 250.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:07:55 AM. Representatives
Gatto, Elkins, Lynn, Ramras, Gardner, and Seaton were present at
the call to order. Representative Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 438-INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, RECALL PETITIONS
8:08:56 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 438, "An Act relating to initiative, referendum,
and recall petitions; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR SEATON [reopened] public testimony.
8:10:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 24-LS1344\R, Kurtz, 4/3/06, as a work
draft. There being no objection, Version R was before the
committee.
8:11:00 AM
DEE HUBBARD, testifying on behalf of herself, stated that there
are parts of the bill that are acceptable and parts she finds
offensive. She offered her understanding that presently the
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) does not become involved
with the initiative, referendum, or recall process until after
the document has been certified for the ballot. She said
Section 1 would require APOC to get involved immediately, once
someone has turned in a document. She questioned why APOC
should be required to get involved, when the Division of
Elections is already involved up until the time that the
document is certified for the ballot. She stated that she does
not want APOC to be used as police.
8:12:06 AM
MS. HUBBARD directed attention to page 2, line 27, which states
that in order for a person to qualify to circulate a petition
booklet, he/she "shall be":
(4) not registered to vote in any other
state.
MS. HUBBARD questioned why that language exists. She said the
same stipulation also appears on page 4, line 28, [relating to
the requirement for an affidavit].
MS. HUBBARD directed attention to the phrase "100 miles", shown
within the language on page 3, [lines 3-5], which read as
follows:
for each day that the circulator travels more than 100
miles from the circulator's home in the course of
circulating the petition
MS. HUBBARD said she would like it clarified whether that means
100 miles one way or round trip.
8:13:26 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked that Ms. Hubbard list all her questions and
concerns without waiting for a response. He said the committee
would address those issues during committee discussion.
8:13:37 AM
MS. HUBBARD brought focus to page 3, line 18, which would make
a circulator who violates Section 2, subsections (b) or (c),
guilty of a misdemeanor. Ms. Hubbard stressed her opposition to
that. She stated, "I think that's going to cool off a lot of
people from even thinking about wanting to do an initiative,
referendum, or recall. She indicated that legislators pay civil
fines, but don't face jail, thus, why would a resident who is
"trying to do something that they believe is good" face jail?
She added, "And it may not be through any fault of their own."
MS. HUBBARD turned to page 6, lines 11-13, which read as
follows:
(5) a certification by each member of the
recall committee, under penalty of perjury, that the
facts alleged in the application are true to the best
of the member's knowledge.
MS. HUBBARD said, "Here's another case of me being thrown in
jail because I believe facts that I think are true, and I do a
recall, and now someone comes and tries to intimidate me to get
me charged with perjury." She asked, "Why are we doing this to
each other. We've had, what, one recall in this state, and now
all of a sudden we're going to be facing jail for perjury? I
just don't like that at all."
MS. HUBBARD complimented the bill sponsor for including the
definitions of "corruption", "incompetence", "lack of fitness",
and "neglect of duties" on page 6, lines 14-25. She suggested
rephrasing the definition of "corruption" by adding the
following language, on page 6, line 17, after "AS 15.45.470":
that is either misuse of public office for private
gain or abuse of public power for personal gain
MS. HUBBARD stated that she would like Section 3 removed from
the bill and to have the duties described in Section 1 be given
to the Division of Elections [rather than APOC].
8:17:44 AM
MS. HUBBARD concluded, "We've already had our powers of ...
initiative and referendum somewhat taken away from us by a vote
of the people. Why do we have to go through more problems?"
8:18:40 AM
MS. HUBBARD, in response to a question from Representative
Ramras, said she has never served as a signature collector.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked, "Is it fair to say, then, you're
not familiar with the amount of cheating and the violation of
the law that already goes on with collectors?"
8:19:01 AM
MS. HUBBARD replied that Representative Ramras' statement is
broad. She said, "I've signed petitions, and I haven't noticed
anything going on when I have signed a petition. So, I don't
know."
8:19:45 AM
MYRL THOMPSON, testifying on behalf of himself, directed
attention to a letter in the committee packet, [dated 3/17/06],
from David W. Marquez, Attorney General, Department of Law,
explaining that the reason he did not address the issue of
recalls is because the sponsor had - during the last hearing on
HB 438 - stated his intent to remove the portions of the bill
related to recall. Mr. Thompson observed that Version R still
contains language about recalls, in Sections 3 and 4 - [Section
4] addressing the more contentious issue of definitions [of
"corruption", "incompetence", "lack of fitness", and "neglect of
duties"].
MR. THOMPSON said he was in the Alaska Superior Court the day
the summary judgment was made on the issue of [the definitions].
He explained that then Representative Scott Ogan had challenged
"these four reasons for recall," saying they needed to be more
specific, with better definitions. The court ruled that [the
definitions] were fine the way they were. He continued:
... The reason for that was if a citizen can go on his
own judgment for the election of a public official to
office, ... his judgment on the definitions [is] just
as good to remove that official from office. ... It
has never happened; actually only one has made it to
the ballot.
So, by not having that case law or even that question
answered by the Department of Law, I think it is doing
the people of Alaska a great injustice when it comes
to the definitions that are under Section 4 of this
bill.
Also argued in court and upheld was the fact that if
you ... set the hurdle too high by adding definitions
that make it just too difficult for the average
citizen to recall a ... [legislator], than that is
going against the spirit of the law to begin with and
the constitutional right to recall a person from
office.
8:22:24 AM
MR. THOMPSON suggested bringing in the summary judgment for the
bill record or, ultimately, to strike Sections 3 and 4 from HB
438. Mr. Thompson concurred with Ms. Hubbard's testimony that
penalizing citizens of the state connected to initiatives,
recalls, and referendums is "damping the public spirit," and he
suggested that is "the exact wrong way to go when it comes to
this type of stuff."
8:23:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned how striking the definitions in
Section 4 would effect any frivolous complaints that may be
made.
8:23:52 AM
MR. THOMPSON clarified that he is asking that the definitions
that are proposed in the bill be stricken. He stated, "The four
reasons for recall have been state law since about 1960," and
there has been only 1 recall effort that made it to the ballot
in 48 years, and "it wasn't frivolous."
8:25:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO touched on the issue of deciding how to
weigh the value of a complaint.
8:26:13 AM
MR. THOMPSON assured Representative Gatto that frivolous cases
"will be picked out of the system." He described the
complicated and lengthy process of conducting a recall.
8:28:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, in response to Ms. Hubbard's previous
criticism of the language on page 6, [lines 11-13], regarding
"penalty of perjury", told Ms. Hubbard to consider that the
defense for any member of a recall committee would be in the
language at the end of the sentence, which read as follows:
"are true to the best of the member's knowledge."
8:29:27 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one else to
testify, closed public testimony.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:30:13 AM to 8:31:11 AM.
8:31:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved Conceptual Amendment 1, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 2 line 26 and line 27
Delete all material in (3) and (4)
8:31:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected for discussion purposes.
8:31:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON said there is a memorandum in the committee packet
from Legislative Legal and Research Services, which identifies
the constitutional grounds on which the courts have looked at
residency. He mentioned the right of free speech.
8:33:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said most of his efforts in the bill are
borne from his experience in collecting signatures and seeing
much abuse of the system. He compared some professional
signature collectors as those who are like carnival workers and
follow the money. He said he objects to people from out of
state coming to Alaska, registering to vote, and acting like
citizens of Alaska in order to collect signatures. He offered
examples.
8:36:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS described types of collectors, those from
out of state and those true Alaskans who are passionate about
collecting. He shared an anecdote about a local signature
collector.
8:39:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS talked about a signature collector from
out of state who asked him if he would be giving him "the bump"
- an additional administrative fee offered when those needing
signatures collected get more desperate. Representative Ramras
said he was upset at being asked to cheat on rules by someone
who was telling him that cheating has happened during previous
referendums. For that reason, he objected to Amendment 1.
8:40:43 AM
JANE PIERSON, Staff to Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Ramras, sponsor,
offered her understanding that the legal opinions to which Chair
Seaton had just referred do not relate to being a resident of
another state, but to not being registered to vote in another
state. She cited AS 15.02.020. She said that there have
"already been rulings that you don't have to be registered to
vote to carry a petition," only to sign one.
8:41:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON mentioned a legal opinion that states that under
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182
(1999), a state cannot require a signature gatherer to be a
registered voter of that state. Chair Seaton said it may be
possible to require the signature gatherer to meet the
requirement for a 30-day residency.
8:42:25 AM
ANNETTE KREITZER, Chief of Staff, Office of the Lieutenant
Governor, said the language in Amendment 1 is broad. She
suggested that the committee amend Amendment 1 so that it only
[removes the "not registered to vote in any other state"
requirement of Section 2, paragraph (4)], since it may be
unconstitutional.
8:43:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON cited Section 2, paragraph (3), which read:
(3) a resident of the state as determined
under AS 15.05.020; and
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Kreitzer if that is current language.
8:43:26 AM
MS. KREITZER clarified as follows:
The current law is that to circulate a petition
booklet, a person shall be a citizen of the U.S., 18
years of age, or older, and a resident of the state as
determined under [AS] 15.05.020.
8:44:08 AM
MS. KREITZER, in response to a comment by Representative Gatto,
stated her understanding that when a person moves to another
state with the intent to register to vote in that new state,
he/she is required to notify the previous state.
8:44:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked what would happen if that same person
had no intent of ever voting in Alaska, but became a resident of
the state.
8:45:13 AM
MS. KREITZER explained:
What will happen is, I think, over time - because of
the national motor/voter law - in Alaska it takes
about 8 years of [inactivity] and several notices
mailed to your last known address. And then
eventually you get put on an inactive list, and then
eventually after that you get purged. And I would
imagine that's what would happen on the California
voter rolls.
8:45:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Kreitzer to confirm that the requirement
for residency in AS 15.05.020 has nothing to do with "being a
voter or not a voter ... either in Alaska or any other state."
8:45:54 AM
MS. KREITZER answered that's correct. In response to a follow-
up comment from Chair Seaton, she said she had been corrected by
Ms. Pierson, and cited AS 15.05.020 [paragraph (6)], which read
as follows:
(6) A person loses residence in this state if the
person votes in another state's election, either in
person or by absentee ballot, and will not be eligible
to vote in this state until again qualifying under AS
15.05.010.
MS. KREITZER stated:
But we don't see ... a problem ... in keeping that as
a ... residency requirement under ... [AS] 15.05.020.
I can say that pretty strongly. We've discussed this
internally - about requirements - and the only issue
the Department of Law has raised in our conversations
with the sponsor has been on this topic of requiring
people to not be registered to vote in any other
state.
8:47:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if a distinction is being made
between "registered to vote" and "having voted" in establishing
a circulator's privileges in Alaska. He explained, "I mean you
could be registered to vote in California, never having voted.
Is that different than having voted with regard to this
position?"
8:47:30 AM
MS. KREITZER said Representative Gatto is beginning to get into
distinctions that she cannot answer. She said she is relying on
the Department of Law's opinion about this section of the bill
and the issues that have been raised with the sponsor.
8:47:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he is willing to amend Conceptual Amendment 1
to exclude [paragraph](4).
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he has no objection to that.
8:48:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she objects to that idea. She
offered her understanding that a person is a resident of the
state if he/she states that intention, but loses that state
residency if he/she votes in another state. However, when a
person moves to Alaska, he/she has to wait 30 days before
qualifying to vote. She continued:
Our legislature here just voted to spend $3 million to
pay an out-of-state firm to contact voters and
influence the vote of Congressional delegates on the
[Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)] issue. Now,
we're paying an Oregon firm to go to the home district
of somebody in Ohio to try to change their vote in
Washington D.C., and ... we apparently think that
that's perfectly all right. So, I don't understand
how we would then object to having somebody ... from
out of state come up and work on our issues here.
8:50:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS responded as follows:
I agree with you 100 percent, Representative Gardner.
If you're comfortable with having professionals
influence in-state matters, then ... we should
maintain these provisions, because that's what's going
to happen here in the state of Alaska. That is what
the legislature ... directed is that ... we should go
do that. And so, if you want that same relationship
to exist between circulators and citizens...
8:51:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she thinks the heart of the entire
issue is the effect of money in the political process and the
fact that people can pay someone to do the collecting that they
themselves don't want to do. She said, "If we as a society say
that it's acceptable to have large sums of money influencing
outcomes of elections, I don't see why we should draw the line
and say that that can't happen in initiatives."
8:52:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted differences between lobbying and
signature gathering. In response to a question from
Representative Gardner, he said, "I really haven't had many
lobbyists come to my office asking me to sign a piece of paper."
The committee took an at-ease from 8:52:59 AM to 8:55:46 AM.
8:56:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she thinks it is clear that during
the circulation of a petition, even a person who is registered
to vote elsewhere can still be an Alaska resident. She recapped
her previous comments regarding the emphasis of money in
politics.
CHAIR SEATON moved an amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1, to
delete "line 26 and" from Conceptual Amendment 1.
8:58:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected.
CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee that [Amendment 1] is
conceptual. He clarified that the amendment to Conceptual
Amendment 1 would also delete "(3) and", which would leave
Conceptual Amendment 1 to read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 2 line 27
Delete all material in (4)
8:59:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said he supports the amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 1.
9:00:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER removed her objection to the amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 1 [previously stated when the idea for the
amendment was discussed, but before the amendment was moved by
Chair Seaton].
9:00:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO explained that he had objected in order to
clarify that only a single item would be deleted: "not
registered to vote in any other state". He stated, "I believe
you agreed to that, Representative Ramras supported it, so I
withdraw my objection at this point."
CHAIR SEATON announced that the amendment to Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:00:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Conceptual
Amendment 1, [as amended].
9:03:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON, in response to a request from Representatives
Gatto and Gardner to clarify the action taken by the committee
thus far, explained that if Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended,
is adopted, the only language that will have been deleted from
Version R is, "(4) not registered to vote in any other state.",
and the language remaining will be that on page 2, lines 22-26,
which would read as follows:
Sec. 15.45.001. Qualifications of circulator. To
circulate a petition booklet, a person shall be
(1) a citizen of the United States;
(2) 18 years of age or older;
(3) a resident of the state as determined
under AS 15.05.020.
9:04:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he does not think a person can
legally be a resident of Alaska while still being registered
legally to vote in another state. He asked Ms. Kreitzer, "If
you move out of the state and become a resident of another
state, as a matter of law you have to tell the registrar of
voters in the first state that you're no longer a resident. And
if you do vote you're illegal, are you not?"
9:05:16 AM
MS. KREITZER responded that Representative Gruenberg is
"treading dangerously close" to Representative Gatto's previous
question. She stated that Alaska has a variety of definitions
for residency, depending on whether it pertains to obtaining a
fish and game license, applying for a permanent fund dividend
(PFD), or qualifying to vote. She said statute sets out what is
required for residency with regard to voting. She concluded,
"All I can tell you is that a person loses residence in this
state if the person votes in another state's election."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "So, you're saying that it would
depend upon the law of the state you came from?"
MS. KREITZER replied that she is not an attorney and is
therefore unwilling to offer further response on the matter. In
response to a follow-up question from Representative Gruenberg,
she said she does not know if there is a federal law on the
subject.
9:07:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked again if there was any objection to
Conceptual Amendment 1, [as amended]. There being no objection,
it was so ordered. He reviewed once more how the language read
with the adoption of the amendment.
9:08:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed that he had thought the purpose
of the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1 had been to keep
paragraph (4) from being deleted by Conceptual Amendment 1, thus
leaving it in the bill.
CHAIR SEATON confirmed with his staff that the action the
committee took had followed his intent, which was the opposite
of what Representative Gatto was saying and was: to delete
paragraph (3) through the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1,
thereby leaving paragraph (3) in the bill, not paragraph (4).
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS said it seems the committee is beating a
dead horse because it must wait to hear from the Department of
Law, so he suggested moving on.
CHAIR SEATON responded, "I believe that's where we are; we've
had the amendment."
9:10:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he would eventually like the following
question answered:
Can I be registered to vote in some other state, ...
move to Alaska, buy a house, raise children, send them
to schools, pay taxes, and be a resident of Alaska,
even though I never canceled my registration in any
other state?
9:10:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved Conceptual Amendment 2, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided, with some handwritten changes]:
Page 3 line 3
Delete all material beginning with "recieve" [sic]
through page 3 line 13
Insert
... only receive additional reimbursement for
itemized, direct expenses incurred while circulating a
petition as delineated by regulation."
9:10:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
9:11:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON said the committee had received information that
legally restricting reimbursement for itemized direct expenses
would not "pass muster." He said the idea of Conceptual
Amendment 2 is that the Division of Elections will adopt
regulations specifying what the direct expenses are. The
reimbursement will be for itemized expenses; therefore, it will
not be considered a per diem. He said he believes the amendment
will satisfy the law.
9:12:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS stated that the intent of the $15 a day
limit was actually "to add value for the signature collector,
not to take something away." He added that the original
language was also intended to keep people from "gaming the
system." He asked Chair Seaton what the intent behind
Conceptual Amendment 2 is, and whether it will add value to the
bill.
9:14:04 AM
CHAIR SEATON said one interpretation related to the bill had
been that "pay" was anything received over [the $1 dollar per
signature], which would mean that paying someone for traveling
expenses would be no different than paying for their meals,
which would be illegal payment. He stated, "And that is not the
current interpretation of the division that those are not pay;
pay is what you receive for the gathering of signatures, and ...
reimbursement for actual travel and meal expenses - direct
expenses in gathering [signatures] - that is what this is to
allow, and to clarify for all voters that ... someone can get
their ticket out to Kotzebue paid legally, as well as their
meals and other things."
9:15:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked, "What if I'm collecting signatures
a block from home? Because a part of the reason why we
maintained 100 miles, which is on line 4, was to recognize
people who are driving away from their neighborhood. If we
delete lines 3-13, then if I take a lunch break ... a door over
from my home ..., then I could also submit that as an expense -
and I was going to have lunch anyway that day."
9:16:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON replied:
We're not taking about whether you're going to have a
lunch, but whether it's in relationship to an expense
while you're collecting signatures. And whether
you're 20 miles away from home or 100 miles away from
home, I ... think that we're trying to ... cut too
fine a line here, and I think the intent of the bill
has always been you can't get more than $1 per
signature, and you can't get paid by reimbursement for
actual expenses - the intent is to allow that. If you
want to offer an amendment to the amendment, that's
fine. But that's the intent is to clarify, and also
that by regulation giving the authority to the
division to specify what are direct expenses.
9:17:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his support of [Conceptual]
Amendment 2, [at which point his previously stated objection to
Conceptual Amendment 2 was treated as removed]. He noted the
use of the word "delineated" in Conceptual Amendment 2, and he
asked Ms. Kreitzer if the phrase normally used is, "as set forth
in regulations".
MS. KREITZER indicated yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved an amendment to Conceptual
Amendment 2, to delete "delineated by" and insert "set forth
in".
9:18:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that he would accept that as a friendly
amendment. He asked if there was any objection [to the
amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2]. There being none, he
announced that the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2 was
adopted.
9:18:48 AM
MS. KREITZER directed attention to a footnote on page 2 of a
12/23/05 memorandum [included in the committee packet] from Mike
Barnhill, Assistant Attorney General, to Whitney Brewster,
Director, Division of Elections. The footnote read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
To date there has been no attempt to describe
precisely what expenses are at issue. We assume that
only standard expenses are at issue here, such as
travel expenses, food and lodging.
MS. KREITZER continued:
I believe that's what I'm hearing the committee say:
They who would participate would be covered by
regulations promulgated by the division, and [those
expenses] would be travel expenses, food, and lodging.
9:19:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON confirmed that his intent is that the phrase
"direct expenses" mean travel, food, and lodging.
9:20:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recommended using language from the
footnote in the bill, as a point of clarification.
9:21:38 AM
MS. KREITZER said she will leave that up to the bill sponsor.
9:21:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt [Amendment 2] to
Conceptual Amendment 2, to insert ", such as travel expenses,
food, and lodging," after "direct expenses".
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS told Representative Gruenberg that is a
good amendment.
9:22:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to [Amendment 2]
to Conceptual Amendment 2. There being none, it was so ordered.
9:23:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any further objection to
Conceptual Amendment 2, [as amended]. There being no objection,
it was so ordered.
9:23:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved Conceptual Amendment 3, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 4 line 28
Delete all material in section (9)
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Conceptual
Amendment 3. There being none, Conceptual Amendment 3 was
adopted.
9:24:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON mentioned issues raised by a former testifier
regarding a portion of the bill related to penalties [page 6,
lines 11-13].
9:24:31 AM
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), responded to questions from Chair Seaton as
follows:
The campaign disclosure law, the lobbying law, and the
financial disclosure laws for both legislators and
public officials all contain sections that give APOC
the authority - and actually require APOC - to assess
civil penalties for reports that are filed late or are
incomplete. We assess those civil penalties in
accordance with the statute and regulation, and we
collect them. And then they ... go to the general
fund - always.
... I should say that whenever there's ... an
administrative process for assessing a civil penalty,
I believe that you need to also include the
opportunity for appeal at the administrative process,
as well, which APOC has through regulation. I ...
understand that the Division of Elections is not
familiar with assessing civil penalties. However,
giving us this section of their law to enforce and
assess civil penalties will be very costly to my
agency. This is not an area of law in which we
currently regulate. ... This is like Anchorage asking
us to collect the parking tickets. ... We're going to
have to promulgate regulations; we're going to have to
have staff that liaisons with the Division of
Elections, because we have no idea who the petition
carriers are. This is not an area of law in which we
... have regulatory authority. However, we are
familiar with the process of collecting civil
penalties.
9:27:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4, as
follows:
On page 2, lines 18-19:
Delete all language
9:27:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected [for discussion purposes]. He
said:
This is an amendment to AS 15.13.030. The only thing
you're doing is adding lines 18 and 19. I think the
amendment should be to strike Section 1 of the bill.
9:28:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the effect of Conceptual Amendment 4
would be to delete all the proposed new language to already
existing statute [as shown in Section 1 of the bill]; therefore,
Representative Gruenberg's amendment to Amendment 4 would be
simply to delete Section 1.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS stated his acceptance of the amendment to
Amendment 4.
CHAIR SEATON announced, "That was accepted as a friendly
amendment." [The amendment to Conceptual Amendment 4 was
treated as adopted.]
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Amendment 4 [as
amended], which he reviewed would delete Section 1, beginning on
page 1, line 4, through page 2, line 19. There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 4, as amended, was adopted.
9:28:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 5, as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 5, Line 7. Delete "prepare" and insert "provide
to the committee"
Page 5, Line 11. Delete "prepare" and insert "provide
to the committee"
Page 4, Line 13. Delete "prepare and insert "provide
to the committee"
9:29:12 AM
MS. PIERSON explained that the Division of Elections does not
prepare fiscal notes, but they will be responsible for providing
them to the committee.
9:29:39 AM
MS. KREITZER confirmed that the Office of the Lieutenant
Governor does not prepare fiscal notes, and thus, she said she
supports the amendment.
9:30:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Conceptual
Amendment 5. There being none, Conceptual Amendment 5 was
adopted.
9:30:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to [subsection (e)], on page 5,
[lines 22-25], which read as follows:
(e) A committee aggrieved by a cost estimate
prepared under this section may bring an action in the
superior court to have the cost estimate reviewed
within 30 days after the date on which the lieutenant
governor, or, in the case of a recall petition, the
director notifies the committee of the completion of
the cost estimate.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER remarked that going to court is a costly
and time-consuming process. She asked Ms. Kreitzer if there is
a way to dispute a cost estimate, short of going to court.
9:31:12 AM
MS. KREITZER answered that the language to which Representative
Gardner referred is presently law, and it would be the
legislature's purview to make a change to that law. She said
the Office of the Lieutenant Governor does not have an opinion
on the subject.
9:32:25 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 6, as follows:
On page 3, lines 22-27:
Delete subsection (f).
CHAIR SEATON reviewed the language that would be deleted, which
read as follows:
(f) In determining the sufficiency of a petition,
the lieutenant governor, or in the case of a recall
petition, the director, may not count subscriptions on
a petition
(1) circulated by a circulator who is not in
compliance with (b) of this section; or
(2) by an initiative, referendum, or recall
committee that is not in compliance with the
requirements of AS 15.13.
CHAIR SEATON, regarding the reference to subsection (b),
reminded the committee that subsection (b) addresses the
reimbursement rate.
9:33:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected. He said he is concerned about
the person who, in good faith, was willing to sign a petition,
and then had his/her name disqualified based on the circulator's
error.
9:34:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON assured Representative Gatto that the purpose of
the amendment is to [protect the signatures in the event of a
challenge related to the circulator].
9:34:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO removed his objection.
9:34:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS objected. He said the heart of the bill
is the intent to prevent cheating. He stated that the nature of
the bill is not to be punitive toward the people signing
petitions, but to be mindful of the people circulating those
petitions, who "are often times parasites on the system." He
continued:
A lot of rules are around the ballot box, and a lot of
rules are around voter registration, and what we're
doing is relaxing the rules around petitions,
initiatives, referendums, and recalls. And I'm just
suggesting that we should maintain the same degree of
stringency around this particular part of the process,
because ... it's being abused, and it's being hijacked
by people that don't live here that are manipulating
our system.
9:36:49 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the bill would still contain
[subsection (d)], which would make the person or organization
who violates (b) or (c) [of Section 2] guilty of a misdemeanor.
9:37:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested that Representative Ramras,
rather than thinking of the circulators as parasitic, may
consider them as "small business folks trying to make a living
in an unusual way."
9:37:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed focus back to Conceptual Amendment 6.
9:38:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Representative Ramras if it would be
satisfactory or insufficient "if we could cure the problem by
saying that whatever gain was had by the circulator had to be
returned, as well as the misdemeanor violation."
9:38:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS responded, "We just took that right away
by removing Section 1 of the bill." He expounded further on the
issue of balance.
9:39:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out another instance where the bill would
impose a fine, in [Section 2, subsection (e)], which read as
follows:
(e) A person who pays a circulator and a
circulator who receives compensation other than that
permitted under (b) of this section are liable to the
state for a civil fine of $1 for each signature
gathered by the circulator on a petition.
9:39:28 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner, Gruenberg,
and Seaton voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 6.
Representatives Lynn, Ramras, Gatto, and Elkins voted against
it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 6 failed by a vote of 3-4.
9:40:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, regarding [subsection (e), text provided
previously], asked, "Are each of them liable? ... Against whom
would the fine be assessed?" She also asked, "If I'm doing work
for somebody, and the rate is a certain amount, and they pay me
an incorrect amount, ... is that my fault if the amount is
wrong, if I've turned in the paperwork and it's incorrectly
calculated?"
9:40:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS responded that the two parties involved
would be the petition sponsor and the petition circulator. One
example of dishonesty in petition gathering, he said, would be a
person who got people to sign by making them believe he/she was
acting as a circulator out of conviction, only to fill in the
name of the paying sponsor after all the signatures were
collected.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS suggested adding the word "knowingly" on
page 2, line 19, so that the language would be: "A person who
knowingly pays a circulator and a circulator who knowingly
receives compensation other than that permitted under (b) of
this section". He mentioned an initiative by Representatives
Croft, Crawford, and Guttenberg, and said, "I watched people
play and prey on their initiative in the same manner they did
ours, and it wasn't the people that were signing it."
9:43:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she would still like an answer to
her question.
9:43:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG proffered that the answer to
Representative Gardner's question is that "they each could be
fined a dollar," because the word "and" is used.
9:44:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, in response to Representative Ramras'
comments, said she thinks most people who sign a petition don't
know or care what the sponsor's name is, nor do they know or
care why the circulator has chosen to stand on the corner. She
stated that it is the issue that determines whether a person
signs, or not.
9:44:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG cited AS 15.45.580 [(a)], which read:
Sec. 15.45.580. Circulation; prohibitions.
(a) The petitions may be circulated only in
person throughout the state or senate or house
district represented by the official sought to be
recalled.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said during a prior hearing of the
bill, there had been discussion as to whether a circulator could
only collect a signature within the boundaries of the district.
The feeling of the committee, he recollected, was that a
circulator should be able to collect the signature anywhere, as
long as it was the signature of a person who [resides] in the
district of the elected official who was being recalled.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS, in response to a question from Chair
Seaton, said he would entertain an amendment related to this
issue.
9:46:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the bill drafter, Katheryn L.
Kurtz, was going to fix that language in the latest draft, but
did not do so. He directed attention to page 6, [line 27], and
said, "[AS] 15.45.580 is still repealed; she didn't cure the
problem."
9:46:29 AM
MS. PIERSON confirmed that "the problem has not been cured."
9:46:54 AM
MS. KREITZER explained that "many things that were spread out
... have now been consolidated." She directed attention to the
bottom of page 2, line 28, which addresses AS 15.45.003,
circulation and prohibitions. She said, "That used to say, "A
petition may be circulated only in person in the state", and
there used to be another line there that said, "or in the case
of a recall it can only be circulated in the district". She
stated, "And so, by deleting that I believe we have already
cured the problem."
9:48:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG acknowledged Ms. Kreitzer's comments,
but said he would like the language to say "a little more than
that." He explained that he would like the bill to specify that
"the only people who can sign the recall petition are residents
in the effected district." He explained, "I'm not concerned
about where the signature is obtained; I'm concerned about who
it's obtained from."
9:48:56 AM
MS. KREITZER said she doesn't have her statute book with her,
but she had thought that elsewhere in statute it is explicit
that, in the event of a recall, the only people who can sign are
the people who live in the district [of the person being
recalled].
9:49:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER shared that in her experience she has
found that a lot of people really don't know in which district
they live. She said she can envision people signing a petition
from a district that is not theirs. She stated her assumption
that if that were to happen, there would be no penalty other
than that the signature would not count.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said his intent is that the signature
would not count.
9:50:14 AM
MS. PIERSON told Representative Gruenberg she believes he is
"correct in eliminating [AS] 15.44.580." She read
[subsection(a), text provided previously].
9:50:49 AM
CHAIR SEATON suggested:
Why don't we just offer a conceptual amendment that
... the drafter will draft language specifying that
the petition signatures for a recall shall be by a
person registered to vote in a district, but they
don't have to be collected physically from within the
district.
9:51:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that he wants the language
somewhere in the bill to specify that the only signatures that
will be counted in a recall are those from registered voters in
the affected district.
9:51:36 AM
MS. KREITZER suggested that the issue could be addressed in the
next committee of referral, the House Judiciary Standing
Committee, which would give her time to research the issue.
9:51:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed.
9:52:13 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he would send notes to the House Judiciary
Standing Committee regarding the testimony heard by the House
State Affairs Standing Committee.
9:52:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to the definitions
on page 6. He said it seems that often, definitions "depend
upon the circumstances in the case." He talked about a legal
tome called, "Words and Phrases," which addresses the issue of
how definitions are used in the event of litigation. He noted
that the Ogan Is So Gone recall wound up in litigation, and he
stated that a recall only winds up in litigation if somebody
challenges the grounds for the recall. He said the judge in the
case stated that the policy is that recalls are broadly
construed to preserve the rights of the people to participate.
CHAIR SEATON asked Representative Gruenberg if he intended to
offer an amendment.
9:54:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded, "I'm going to move to strike
Section 4."
CHAIR SEATON announced his intent to hold over HB 438 and deal
with the issue at another time.
9:54:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she would like to see a copy of the
arguments made during the Ogan v. Division of Elections case.
She asked Ms. Kreitzer if she has a copy available.
9:54:39 AM
[MS. KREITZER nodded.]
[HB 438 was heard and held.]
9:55:05 AM
SB 250-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/SEXUAL ASSAULT COUNCIL
9:55:12 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was
SENATE BILL NO. 250, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; and
eliminating statutory references to the network on domestic
violence and sexual assault."
9:55:25 AM
W. TOM MAHER, Staff to the Legislative Budget & Audit Committee,
Alaska State Legislature, presented SB 250 on behalf of the
Senate Rules Committee, sponsor by request of the Legislative
Budget & Audit Committee. He noted that Senator Gene Therriault
is the chair of the Legislative Budget & Audit committee. He
noted that last year, through statute, the mandatory sunset time
period was changed from four years to eight years. He
explained, "As the sunset process has matured, we're looking
less at eliminating these entities than measuring their
effectiveness and performance." He continued as follows:
In this sunset review, [the Division of Legislative
Audit] concluded that the Council on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault continues to provide a public need
and is operating in the public interest. Page 7 of
the [audit] report [included in the committee packet]
has those conclusions. Accordingly in the bill,
Section 3 extends the sunset date for the council from
June 30, 2006, to June 30, 2014.
The audit also, on page 9, addresses some ongoing
operational concerns that include staff turnover and
the failure of the council to address two of its
statutory mandates regarding working with the
Department of Education & Early Development and school
districts on curricula for the cause, prevention, and
treatment of domestic violence and sexual assault, and
also a lack of coordination with the Department of
Health & Social Services on the delivery of services
to the victims of domestic assault by health care
facilities and other providers. These are ongoing
issues with the council, and in its response, the
council says they are working to resolve them. The
committee may want the council director to update them
on their progress.
MR. MAHER said Sections 1 and 2 of the bill address another
recommendation directed at the legislature, which is shown on
page 11 of the report. He said the auditor recommends that the
legislature amend the council statutes related to the
appointment of council members. He relayed that the council is
comprised of seven members, three of whom are appointed by the
governor, and four of whom are designated in statute to be
department heads, one each, from the Department of Law, the
Department of Education & Early Childhood Development, the
Department of Health & Social Services, and the Department of
Public Safety. Current law requires the Network on Domestic
Violence & Sexual Assault, a nonprofit corporation, to submit a
list of recommended candidates to the governor for appointment
when a vacancy occurs on the council. Further, he noted,
statute requires that the governor fill any unexpired term of a
council member after consultation with the network. Mr. Maher
stated, "Since the network annually receives a grant from the
council for a legal and advocacy project, and the appearance of
conflict exists when a council member reviews, evaluates, and
approves, and monitors a grant to the same nonprofit
organization that may have been responsible for recommending
that individual - the appointee to the council - we feel a
conflict exists." The proposed legislation would delete both
statutory references that produce this conflict, he said.
MR. MAHER pointed out that there is a zero fiscal note with the
bill, which is produced by the Department of Public Safety. He
reviewed that funds for the council are already included in the
governor's fiscal year 2007 (FY 07) proposed operating budget;
therefore, there would be no additional fiscal impact "due to
the extension of the council."
9:59:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he thinks everyone on the committee would
agree that the issue of domestic violence and sexual assault is
of primary significance within Alaska. Regarding the function
of the council, he stated, "Our responsibility is not only to
maintain things, but [also to] make sure that we were working on
them in an effective manner." He said he would like to hear
testifiers' opinions relating to the council's plan and whether
or not the existing mechanism is effective.
10:01:01 AM
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Legislative Agencies & Offices, stated her understanding that it
was in the early 1990s that the mission of the council was
significantly expanded, and with that expansion the staff also
increased. Ms. Davidson said the audit done revealed two
functions of the council - originally highlighted about four
years ago during the last audit - that "still hadn't been
resolved yet." She said, as Mr. Maher indicated, those two
functions were the coordination with the schools and the
Department of Health & Social Services. She stated, "When staff
are churning, it does make it more difficult to get things
accomplished." She concluded, "As the council tries to address
those issues, we hope and expect that they are going to take on
these statutorily mandated items and start dealing with those."
10:03:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested that Barbara Mason, the Executive
Director of the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault,
provide for the committee the council's action plan, meeting
agenda, and council member attendance and minutes of past
meetings.
[SB 250 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:04:30 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|