04/19/2007 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR6 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 19, 2007
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the office of attorney general.
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 6
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: ELECTED ATTORNEY GENERAL
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CRAWFORD
01/25/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/07 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/15/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/15/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/12/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/12/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/19/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as prime sponsor of HJR 6.
CHARLES E. COLE, Attorney at Law
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As former attorney general, related the
pros and cons of elected versus appointed attorneys general
during the hearing on HJR 6.
BRUCE BOTHELO, Mayor
City & Bureau of Juneau
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testifying as a private citizen who served
as attorney general, offered information and answered questions
during the hearing on HJR 6.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:07:12 AM. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johansen, Johnson, Gruenberg, Doll, and Lynn were present at the
call to order.
HJR 6-CONST. AM: ELECTED ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHAIR LYNN announced that the only order of business was HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6, Proposing amendments to the Constitution
of the State of Alaska relating to the office of attorney
general.
8:07:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, mentioned the discussion regarding HJR 6 held
during the last hearing on the resolution. He reviewed that the
delegates of the Alaska Constitutional Convention chose to have
an appointed attorney general (AG) in order to have a strong
executive branch with no discordance in the administration. He
stated his belief that Alaska has grown up since then, times
have changed, and the state does not need an executive that has
no checks or balances within the administration. He opined that
the AG should not have to serve at the pleasure of the governor,
and the governor should not have the right to fire the AG for
not being in accordance with the governor's wishes. He stated
his belief that the AG should be the people's lawyer.
8:10:28 AM
CHAIR LYNN said there had been a recommendation to consult
previous attorneys general, and he noted that there were two
present to testify today.
8:11:17 AM
CHARLES E. COLE, Attorney at Law, related that he served as
attorney general under former Governor Walter J. Hickel, from
September 1990 to January 1994. He emphasized the importance of
the state's having the most qualified person serving as its
attorney general. He stated that the attorney general of Alaska
has "almost constitutional powers" derived from the common law,
represents the state as a plaintiff and defendant in civil
actions, and is in charge of essentially all felony criminal
prosecutions throughout the state. Furthermore, the attorney
general appoints not only members of the Department of Law, but
also the district attorneys throughout the state. Mr. Cole said
he thinks the attorney general "rises to a level ...
substantially higher than those of ... commissioners."
MR. COLE, in regard to the debate between an appointed attorney
general versus one elected by the people of the state, said,
"It's not an easy decision; I think I come down slightly in
favor of the appointed attorney general." Mr. Cole said there
are some advantages to having an elected AG. First, it is a
"furtherance of the democratic process." Second, the AG, as an
elected officer is essentially free from control from the
executive branch. That said, he pointed out the disadvantages
of the system of electing attorneys general. First, he said,
the most qualified person for the position of attorney general
may not want to run for elective office. The elected AG would
be looking for political campaign contributions, and where those
campaign dollars come from could cause conflicts. Next, he
posited, if an elected attorney general does not do well, it is
more difficult to replace him/her. Often, he noted, an elected
AG has aspirations for a higher elected political office and
"maybe the decisions are less than straight down the line for
what they would otherwise be absent that consideration." Also,
Mr. Cole said it would not "further good representative
government" if an attorney general decided to make a choice
counter to that of the governor. Finally, Mr. Cole warned that
there is a tendency for elected attorneys general to be making
decisions based on political interest.
8:17:04 AM
MR. COLE then talked about the appointment of attorneys general,
which he said can also be problematic. He said whether the
system works depends largely on the governor's decision
regarding who to appoint. He stated, "I took the view that the
attorney general was the attorney for the people of this state
and not ... the lawyer for the governor." He said it is a
problem when the governor tells the AG what to do, and it takes
a great deal of integrity on the part of both parties "in
discharge of the office of the attorney." He offered an example
of conflict. He stated that the governor must respect the AG in
matters of law, while the AG must respect the governor's
political philosophy.
8:22:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked General Cole about the interplay
between the duties and potential conflict of the Office of the
Attorney General and the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.
CHAIR LYNN interjected that he does not want the actions of
previous attorneys general brought into the discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG cited AS 39.52.160(a) and its
corresponding paragraph (2) which read as follows:
(a) A public officer may not represent, advise,
or assist a person in any matter pending before the
administrative unit that the officer serves, if the
representation, advice, or assistance is
(2) without compensation, but rendered to benefit
a personal or financial interest of the public
officer.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Cole, "Would this provide
some contour ... to the limits of the attorney general's
potential conflict if the governor wanted the AG to do something
that was contrary to the public interest but designed solely to
benefit the governor?"
8:25:12 AM
MR. COLE said in the interest of fairness, he would want to
study that statute before remarking on it, rather than giving an
off-the-cuff opinion.
8:25:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted a couple issues that made him
support an appointed AG over an elected one: the campaign
contributions and the promises that would be made along the
campaign trail. He surmised that the elected AG would be
framing public policy in an arena where he/she might be asked to
adjudicate "contrary to those public policies." He asked Mr.
Cole to respond.
MR. COLE said he hopes any candidate for elected AG would have
the good sense to not make any policy commitments. He said
Alaska is a small state, and an AG may experience problems with
conflicts because he/she has dealt with so many people and
companies in the state over the course of time. He added, "I
don't know which side that comes down on - elective or
appointive."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is somewhat sympathetic toward
the idea of an elected AG, having proposed legislation to that
effect some years ago. He asked Mr. Cole if he thinks having a
elected AG would result in a campaign of qualifications and
personality rather than that of public policy.
MR. COLE said he thinks that would be likely. An AG could be
elected for being well known throughout the state, rather than
on his/her ability to serve as AG. He said that's a problem.
If appointed, he surmised there would be a greater likelihood
that the AG would be well-qualified to serve that post. He
added, "And that is not simply on the basis of legal ability and
legal skills, but on the basis of making sound ... policy ... or
political decisions. The person who serves in that position ...
should be not only a well qualified lawyer to make the final
decision regarding matters of ... law affecting the state, but
also ... [to] have a sense of political decisions, as well."
8:29:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG cited AS 39.52.120(a)(3), which read:
(3) use state time, property, equipment, or other
facilities to benefit personal or financial interests;
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then cited AS 39.52.120(a)(5), which
read:
(5) attempt to benefit a personal or financial
interest through coercion of a subordinate or require
another public officer to perform services for the
private benefit of the public officer at any time; or
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Cole if he sees either of
those provisions providing any protection for an AG who might be
asked by the governor to perform an improper service or course
of action.
8:31:03 AM
MR. COLE answered yes. He continued:
That relationship between the attorney general and the
governor in an appointive method just has to be better
than that. ... I think they just have to respect each
other's prerogatives and powers. ... When the
attorney general says, "Look, I mean we just can't do
it and I can't do it in good faith," the governor has
to say, "I accept that," and respect the attorney
general's decision.
MR. COLE said problems with appointed attorneys general are
often focused upon by people other than the governor, for
example, commissioners. The governor has to back up the AG in
that relationship, because it is important that others in the
executive branch don't get the idea that because they appointed
the attorney general, they can tell him/her what to do.
Furthermore, he said, the AG has to be strong enough to stand up
for his/her decisions.
8:33:03 AM
MR. COLE, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, said it is easy to say no in private practice, but
not as easy for an AG.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained he was trying to point out
that most private practice attorneys have had the experience
occur in which the client may not be following the correct legal
or ethical procedure.
MR. COLE said that's true.
CHAIR LYNN commented that legislators also have situations when
they must uphold ethics and refuse to do something.
8:35:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked Mr. Cole to confirm if it is the
responsibility of the attorney general to assign attorneys to
cases that the state will be litigating.
MR. COLE said the answer to that is "somewhat yes." He
explained:
...We always had some problems ... where some ...
department commissioners get assistant attorneys
general assigned to them, and then if you try to take
that ... assistant attorney general over to work on
major litigation, they say, "Well, we're paying for
that assistant attorney general and we don't want him
going."
I always took the position: "I'm sorry about that."
I wanted to select the most qualified lawyers in the
entire department to work on cases of paramount
importance to the state, and ... I know some of the
commissioners didn't like it - and with good reason
... - because of the financial relationship. But I
just thought it's too important to the state not to
have our first tier team working on particular matters
of litigation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked if it would be the prerogative of the
AG to handle the case if he/she so chose, which would mean that
an elected attorney general could select a high profile case to
cover in the best interest of the state, but also in his/her
best interest toward getting reelected.
MR. COLE said that could easily be done; however, if the
attorney general loses the case, it might not be good for
his/her reelection campaign.
8:38:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he never doubted that during Mr.
Cole's term as attorney general, he acted with the state's best
interested at heart. He said if he could be assured that every
appointed AG would be like Attorney General Cole, he would not
be proposing HJR 6. However, he said Mr. Cole has made the
point that any [appointed] attorney general has some loyalty to
the governor, and he restated that the AG should be the people's
top lawyer.
8:40:46 AM
MR. COLE responded with an anecdote about an elected AG in
California who responded to a directive given by Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger by saying, "You forget, governor, I'm elected by
the people and don't take orders from you." He stated, "It just
sort of highlighted ... the ... issues that we have here in the
appointive attorney general situation." He reemphasized that in
order for the method of appointing an AG to work, both he/she
and the governor must have integrity. He said some may call
that risky, but on the other hand, the people get to elect their
governor and rely on him/her to "discharge those
responsibilities with full integrity."
8:43:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES remarked that currently there is a
discussion going on regarding the state's oil, and he said he
believes the state still needs a strong executive branch. He
said the method of electing an AG may result in the state's
having a charming attorney general with little experience as an
attorney. He said he has concern about "politicizing a position
of that magnitude." Regarding the idea of the attorney general
running on a slate with the governor and lieutenant governor, he
said if that AG should quit, then "you're back to having
somebody appointed again." He warned that as soon as the
process becomes political, the state will have entered into an
"area of dynamic over which a lot of people have no control."
He echoed the previous remark that there are a lot of people who
would make fabulous attorneys general but would never run for
political office.
8:48:07 AM
BRUCE BOTHELO, Mayor, City & Bureau of Juneau, specified that he
is testifying as a private citizen who served as attorney
general from January 1994, through December 2002 - not as mayor
of Juneau. He noted that he served as Mr. Cole's deputy
attorney general, and he expressed appreciation for Mr. Cole's
abilities while in office. Mayor Bothelo said he subscribes
fully to virtually every statement that Mr. Cole made, which he
said emphasizes that the issue is not clear-cut one way or
another. He spoke of the tension involved in an AG's telling
the governor when he/she will not back down on an issue.
MAYOR BOTHELO stated that the fundamental issue of whether to
elect the AG or not is related to ones view about the allocation
of power within the executive branch. Generally speaking, he
said, those who support the election of the AG are those who
hold the view that the executive power is too concentrated "in
the governor," that the AG is not a position to exercise
independent judgments on legal matters that affect the executive
branch, and that the position should be one which serves as a
check on the power of the governor. He stated that those who
support the view that an appointed AG makes more sense - as
reflected in the aforementioned constitutional debate - want to
disperse the decisions on policy, including legal policy, to
have an AG who is the voice of the people of the state.
MR. BOTHELO said most states elect their attorneys general; five
states have their governors make the appointment; the state of
Maine has the legislature make the appointment; and the state of
Tennessee has its supreme court select the AG. Many of the
states that have elected officers do so out of concern for not
concentrating power and in order to have accountability. He
offered some historical facts in the formulation of the post of
attorney general in various states.
8:53:36 AM
MAYOR BOTHELO noted that the five states that have their
governors appoint attorneys general - including Alaska - are
also states with recent constitutional reforms. He listed the
common denominators among attorneys general in all states, as
follows: to act as chief legal officer of the state; to be in
control of litigation involving the state; to have the power of
public advocacy; to have the power of issuing opinions to state
agencies; and to be involved in legislative advocacy and
drafting. He said the latter is a key function in Alaska. He
related that most states' attorneys general also have some
criminal law jurisdiction and serve as a function of consumer
protection. He stated that Alaska and Delaware are the only two
states in which criminal jurisdiction is vested in the attorney
general both at the trial and appellate level. He said Delaware
is the only other state in which the AG appoints district
attorneys. He said in some respects, the power of the AG in
Alaska is much greater than in most other states.
8:55:57 AM
MAYOR BOTHELO said there are reasons that speak in favor of an
elected attorney general, including: the sense of more direct
accountability to the people; the ability to stand up to the
governor; and the ability to campaign on legal policies that
otherwise wouldn't generally come up in the course of a
gubernatorial race. Mayor Bothelo said those campaign issues
might include: consumer protection, consumer fraud, and
protection of senior citizens and children.
MR. BOTHELO said there are drawbacks to having an elected AG,
which constitute the reason he has concluded that Alaska's
current system of having a governor-appointed AG is better. For
example, he talked about the battle between attorneys general
and governors of other states. Furthermore, on a practical
note, Mr. Bothelo said there would be a need to restructure how
legal services are rendered. In most states that have an
elected AG, the governor has his/her own legal council and state
agencies prefer to have their own in-house council. He said the
public outreach that is done can be called public relations, and
the staff involved would be concerned about "the politics of the
position." The appointed AG does not spend a lot of time on the
road campaigning, whereas the elected AG has the need to reach
out to constituents across the state.
9:01:03 AM
MAYOR BOTHELO said he thinks that with very few exceptions,
those attorneys general who have been appointed by the governors
of Alaska have served the state well, and most would not have
thought to run for public office.
9:01:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked Mayor Bothelo if he agrees with
the majority of delegates to the Alaska Constitutional
Convention that the crux of the issue is that having an elected
AG along with an elected governor would be a "watering down" [of
the administration].
9:02:07 AM
MAYOR BOTHELO responded:
The answer is yes. Stripped of all others, it is
simply whether it'll be two independent voices within
the executive branch determining policy; one
theoretically limited to legal policy and the other to
more general policy. Unfortunately there's a great
overlap.
MAYOR BOTHELO noted that within the National Association of
Attorneys General, it is a standing joke that AG really stands
for "aspiring governor." He said there is some truth to that,
and he listed some examples.
9:04:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN posited that in the case of an appointed
AG, his/her actions reflect upon the governor who made the
appointment.
MAYOR BOTHELO concurred.
9:04:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL commented that there has been a lot of
attention paid to ethics this year, and, as a result, there has
been a great desire to be transparent - to open closed doors in
politics.
9:05:46 AM
MAYOR BOTHELO, in response to a question from Representative
Doll, said the ability of an AG to do public outreach has some
advantages, but he said he is not sure it would have advantages
with respect to the issue of transparency in ethics. He stated
that he thinks the legislative body has the challenge of
weighing issues of privacy, the public's right to know, and
holding public officials to high standards.
9:07:01 AM
MAYOR BOTHELO, in response to Representative Gruenberg, listed
former attorneys general who became senators or judges.
9:09:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned the names of some attorneys
general in Alaska who had previously or subsequently held
elective offices.
9:10:38 AM
MAYOR BOTHELO, in response to Representative Gruenberg, related
that the experience of elective office hopefully creates a
political antenna to use in appointed office. He said most
governors come to rely on their attorneys general for not only
legal judgment, but also political judgment, because frequently
they overlap. He stated that there are some governors who come
into office not fully appreciating the importance of that
particular relationship. He suggested the same may be true for
attorneys general. That appreciation is sometimes developed
over time.
9:13:11 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked Mayor Bothelo whether or not he thinks an
elected AG should be of the same political party as the
governor.
MAYOR BOTHELO answered that should largely be irrelevant. He
continued:
If the primary purpose is to be a check on the
authority of the governor, I think the political
affiliation itself probably would be of lesser import.
Obviously there is the risk that if they are different
parties or have different political views that there
could be greater conflict. But I would also say,
again, that there are 43 states that are operating on
the basis of an independent, elected attorney general,
and while there are substantial numbers of cases that
highlight ... both real conflicts that sometimes arise
and the mischief that can happen, for the most part
those relationships tend to work out. And that's
because one relies on the corps of professionals
within the departments - whether they're called law or
justice - that are serving on a day-to-day basis the
... agencies of people in the states.
9:14:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked Mayor Bothelo if he would have
become an attorney general if he had had to run for the office.
MAYOR BOTHELO answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he is wondering what kind of effect
[switching to an elected AG] would have on "getting quality
people who just may not be statewide candidate material."
MAYOR BOTHELO reiterated that he thinks most of Alaska's
attorneys general have been outstanding lawyers and human
beings, but few would have run for office. Several of them
would have recognized that they are not people who campaign
well; they were chosen for their abilities as attorneys general.
In response to Chair Lynn, he remarked that serving as AG had
its frustrating moments, but was probably the most satisfying
career experience in his life.
9:18:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that a state employee could not
run for political office, thus Mayor Bothelo, having been deputy
attorney general would not have been able to run for AG if the
elective system had been in place.
MAYOR BOTHELO clarified Representative Gruenberg's remark by
explaining that a state worker may not work for partisan
political office, but may run for nonpartisan office.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Mayor Bothelo had served as
AG under both Republican and Democrat governors. Under the
Cannons of Ethics, he relayed, a person cannot represent both
sides in a litigation, nor can he/she represent one side and
then subsequently shift. He indicated that an AG who serves
under one governor and then another may be placed in that
situation. He asked, "How do you resolve that ethical
situation?"
9:21:15 AM
MAYOR BOTHELO said this situation does not pose an ethical
dilemma, because the client - the State of Alaska - did not
change. The AG's job is to give the best advice possible and to
implement the governor's directives to the extent that they are
consistent with the law. He said on more than one occasion,
both governors for whom he worked made calls with which he
disagreed, but which were legally defensible. He continued:
There are times when the line could be crossed, and
then I think the situation is: you've got to be
prepared to tender your resignation. And former
attorneys general in the state have done that. And I
think it's reflected in part by the fact that there
are relatively few attorneys general who have served
full terms with the governors who appointed them.
9:23:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered a list of the skills and duties
of an AG, and he asked Mayor Bothelo to rank those skills and
duties in order of importance for elected attorneys general and
then for appointed attorneys general.
9:26:13 AM
MAYOR BOTHELO said attorneys general share in common most of the
same objectives. He stated that it is in the interest of both
the elected and appointed AG to ensure the office is well-run
and that services are being provided efficiently and
effectively. He stated, "My sense would be that one of the
areas of distinction is the degree to which work is done behind
the scenes, as opposed to a public setting in the need to create
an aura of public prominence."
MAYOR BOTHELO said successful attorneys general - whether
elected or appointed - usually achieve most of that success in
their works within the executive branch. He indicated that a
large portion of his and Mr. Cole's time as attorneys general
was devoted to issues between state departments and the
executive branch related to oil and gas policy.
MAYOR BOTHELO remarked that the attorneys general he has known
invariably cannot resist the temptation to argue a case in front
of the United States Supreme Court, should the opportunity
arise. He stated, "I think ... attorneys general in Alaska have
had that opportunity several times, and I think our deference
has been to making sure we had the best etiquette in front of
the court to make the case. ... If you're the attorney general
and you've argued the case, of course the risk again is the
outcome, but I used that as ... maybe an anecdotal
differentiation. ... Again, there have been some great
advocates."
9:30:41 AM
MAYOR BOTHELO continued:
But I also know that in one situation, a close friend
of mine ... who was an AG devoted literally months to
preparation, to the exclusion of almost anything else
that was going on in his department. And that, of
course, is the kind of devotion one expects for a case
in front of the [U.S.] Supreme Court, but it is
certainly, I think, a conflict in terms of the
discharge of other responsibilities. Again, that's
just a small fraction of what happens in the normal
course, but ... I think it's illustrative of what I
think would be a somewhat different approach by
elected as opposed to appointed attorneys general.
9:31:36 AM
MAYOR BOTHELO, in response to a question from Representative
Coghill, said for the most part, attorneys general tend to align
on the side of the state - defending state prerogatives in
regulating gaming. He said, "Habeas corpus was an area that
tended to break down - not so much ... [in regard to whether the
AG is] elected versus appointed, but over whether one was
Republican or Democrat." He stated, "Generally speaking, the
National Association of Attorneys General has been very good in
trying to keep a bi-partisan aura about it and focusing on the
prerogatives of the attorney general."
9:34:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that he is interested in the
states' rights issue because he thinks the federal government is
growing and ever more powerful. He added, "So, if I thought for
a moment that an elected attorney general would give us a little
more clout, I'd do it in a heart beat." He asked a question
regarding the independence of an AG and a governor related to
Indian law in Alaska. He continued:
Because I think that it might have the benefit of
bringing more people to the debate. On the other
hand, it might divide the executive branch so much
that you really would not be on their forward
movement. We're so unique in all the rest of the
United States in that regard that it would be -- my
mind just kind of breaks down when I start thinking
about what could come of that. But I know that you've
been involved in it. So, from your perspective, do
you think it's a cleaner way of taking it as a state
policy generally, or do you think that the issue
should be broken up more as a political law decision?
9:35:52 AM
MAYOR BOTHELO responded, "This is one that there's no real
predictor. You've basically got a scenario where you could have
a governor taking ... position A, and the attorney general
taking position B, in an elected situation, or vice a versa.
... You may be satisfied with position A or position B. You may
have a situation where both accept position A or both accept
position B, and you've got to decide. What you are guaranteed
in our system is it'll be either A or B, but it won't be a
situation where they will be divided."
9:37:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that one of the sponsor's
concerns is that an appointed AG may feel beholden to the
governor, whereas an elected AG would be more independent. He
asked Mayor Bothelo for his opinion.
9:38:01 AM
MAYOR BOTHELO responded that he thinks that is a risk; however,
the integrity of both the governor and the AG is what is counted
upon to be able to make and uphold decisions. He offered an
anecdote. He said the approach is to call things as they are,
and he said he thinks for the most part, that is what is
happening in all the departments. Any governor is well-served
by that approach, he said. He related his hope that that same
standard would apply with an elected AG.
9:40:23 AM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
9:40:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 25-
LS0420\A.3, Bullard, 4/17/07, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 5:
Delete "There shall be no limit on the terms of
the attorney general."
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) No person who has been elected attorney
general for two full successive terms shall be again
eligible to hold that office until one full term has
intervened."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL explained that Amendment 1 simply proposes a
term of office.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that in Alaska's past, people
were reluctant to turn away a good attorney general. He said,
"Before I'm willing to vote for this, I think I would want to
review some of that history." He maintained his objection to
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that there are not that many
lawyers in Alaska, and not many are willing to run for public
office; therefore, he said he is reluctant to support Amendment
1.
9:44:32 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Doll and Lynn voted
in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Gruenberg, Coghill,
Johansen, and Johnson voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1
failed by a vote of 2-4.
9:45:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 25-
LS0420\A.2, Bullard, 4/13/07, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 14, following "be":
Delete "elected"
Insert "nominated"
Page 1, line 15, following "law":
Delete "by the qualified voters of the State at
the same time and for the same term as the governor"
Insert "for other elective offices. In the
general election, the votes cast for a candidate for
governor shall be considered as cast also for the
candidate for attorney general running jointly with
the candidates for governor and lieutenant governor.
The candidate whose name appears on the ballot with
that of the successful candidate for governor shall be
elected attorney general"
Page 2, line 7, following "elected":
Insert "in the manner provided by law"
9:45:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON explained that Amendment 2 proposes that
the attorney general be of the same party as the governor and
lieutenant governor and that those three offices run on a slate.
9:46:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated, "If the assertion is we want an
independent attorney general, then it should be, in fact,
independent." He maintained his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL concurred with Representative Coghill. She
stated her belief that "it ... should be nonpartisan."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that his opinion mirrors that
of Representative Coghill.
9:47:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON echoed Representative Roses' previous
comments regarding oil and gas issues and said he thinks there
needs to be an "alignment" in order to face huge companies. If
that alignment is not there, he said, he cannot support HJR 6.
If Amendment 2 is not adopted, he said, he will oppose the
proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "Either you have an independent
attorney general, or you have a very strong governor, and under
this condition I will so oppose the amendment."
CHAIR LYNN said if he were governor, he would want an AG who, if
not in lock-step with his beliefs, at least was in his "same
philosophical ball park." He stated that he would support
Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON withdrew Amendment 2. He explained that
he thinks that is the best move at this point, because he would
rather have "a straight up and down vote" on the proposed
legislation "without this to cloud it." He clarified that he
does not support the election of the attorney general.
9:49:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL reiterated that there is merit to electing
the AG, but that there should be term limits. She said she
would not like to see the legislation voted down without
consideration of those limits. Regarding the issue of whether
or not the best qualified candidate is "the best qualified to
win," she said "this is no exception" [to campaigning for any
other public office]. She said she would like to see the people
of Alaska vote on HJR 6, but not without term limits.
9:50:51 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he would vote to move HJR 6 to the House
Judiciary Standing Committee - the next committee of referral.
9:51:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL appealed to fellow committee members to
hold the resolution, because he said he thinks there is much
discussion yet to be had.
9:52:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to table HJR 6.
CHAIR LYNN stated that he would hold HJR 6.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated, "I'll withdraw my motion, then."
9:53:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested related topics for
legislation.
9:53:30 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HJR 6 was heard and held.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:54:00 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|