Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/13/2014 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB310 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 310 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 13, 2014
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Shelley Hughes
Representative Doug Isaacson
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Charisse Millett
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 310
"An Act relating to the selection and duties of delegates to a
United States constitutional convention."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 310
SHORT TITLE: U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION DELEGATES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) T.WILSON
02/17/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/14 (H) STA
03/13/14 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented HB 310.
MIKE COONS, Regional Director
Citizen Initiatives
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 310.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:06:28 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:06 a.m. Representatives Keller, Gattis,
Isaacson, Hughes, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Lynn were present at the
call to order.
HB 310-U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION DELEGATES
8:06:33 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the only order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 310, "An Act relating to the selection and duties of
delegates to a United States constitutional convention."
8:07:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 310. She indicated that the proposed
legislation would address the calling of a convention of the
states, based on three issues. She said she had been asked how
she could prevent a runaway convention and how the issue of
delegates could be addressed, and she said HB 310 outlines both
issues.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON said under HB 310, no matter how many
delegates are sent, there would be only one vote for each state.
Further, [the delegates] would not be paid for their service.
The states would direct their delegates in what to do and could
dismiss them for not following the directive.
8:08:38 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if expenses the delegate incurred for hotel and
transportation would be covered.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that that provision was not in
the proposed legislation; however, she said that is something
the committee could consider adding. She then brought attention
to a handout [included in the committee packet], which shows
examples of what other states have done. In response to a
follow-up question from Chair Lynn, she confirmed that the
matter of individual compensation would be up to individual
states. She said the decision could be made at any time. She
pointed out that because HB 310 would not, as currently drafted,
provide for compensation, the result would be a zero fiscal
note. She emphasized that it would be completely up to the
states what the delegates would be allowed to do. She said the
violation penalty for a delegate who did not follow the state's
directive could be a Class C felony. She said she was not sure
the penalty should be so strict, since anyone convicted of a
Class C felony would no longer be allowed to vote. She
emphasized that the process for calling a convention would be
taken seriously, with parameters set.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON brought attention back to the
aforementioned handout, and she pointed out that of the states
listed, South Dakota and West Virginia only appear under the
examples of limitation of authority of delegates, violation
penalties, and compensation, because they do not have
legislation related to delegate qualifications. For those
states that do set out delegate qualifications, she said the
qualifications are similar, especially when establishing what
the states do not want to allow.
8:11:13 AM
CHAIR LYNN expressed concern that the lengthiness of a
convention could preclude anyone who was not independently
wealthy from serving. He opined that the state should not
discriminate in choosing delegates based on how much money they
are able to afford for travel and meals.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON reiterated that the committee could
include language in the proposed bill to allow decisions to be
made at the time of the convention when more details about the
convention would be available.
8:12:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked if the bill sponsor was saying
that language related to compensation could be added to page 2,
line 18, which addresses the instructions that would be given to
delegates.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded, "I think what we might want
to do is take it out and let that be determined at the time. If
we don't address whether they're compensated or not, that would
leave that discretion totally up to the legislature when they're
doing that."
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON directed attention to page 2, line 15,
which read, "(e) Delegates and alternate delegates serve without
compensation." He said that may be taken at face value, and the
legislature may not determine compensation. He said he thinks
"we need to change it somewhere." He directed attention to
language in subsection (c), on page 3, lines [1-3], which read
as follows:
(c) A delegate appointed under AS 15.50.120(a) or (c) who
casts or attempts to cast a vote at a United States
constitutional convention that is not authorized by the
instructions the legislature provided".
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked, "So, is it our intent to, at that
time, allow the legislature to allow any refinements, any
clarifications of the language, because we know that they're not
going to be able to exactly cast a vote?"
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that it would be up to the
legislature to decide how exacting to be and whether to allow
the delegates to have discussions on one topic, but not another.
In response to a question, she said some states have expressed
that they would send two delegates, while others have not stated
how many they would send. She said the decision to compensate a
full per diem may influence how many delegates would be sent.
She said some states plan to send sitting legislators, who
already receive compensation. She said because only one vote
per state would be allowed, it may be too difficult for
delegates to come to a consensus if there are too many of them.
She said she thinks Alaska would send a small number of
delegates, but she wanted to leave that decision up to the
legislature.
8:16:31 AM
CHAIR LYNN ventured that there should be more than one delegate,
so that they could consult with each other.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON concurred. She indicated that it would
behoove the state to have a backup delegate who could be ready
to fly to the convention if the delegate at the convention
committed a violation and was sent home.
8:17:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked if under HB 310, the state could
pass a resolution to allow an added topic of discussion at the
convention.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON confirmed that is correct.
8:18:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER indicated that he would like to delete the
previously cited language of "subsection (e), on line 15, page
2," so that "the compensation question would be unstated rather
than denied."
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON concurred. She stated her belief that
taking the language out would generate a conversation about
reimbursement.
8:20:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON offered his understanding that the
recommendation had been to delete all of [subsection] (e), and
he made a suggestion as follows:
I like the words that you've got on page 3, and just
use that again on page 2, line 15, where we say
"compensation for delegates and alternate delegates
shall be determined by joint resolution under
15.50.130(a)," which basically says: "Before the date
established for convening a United States
constitutional convention, the legislature shall, by
joint resolution, provide instructions", et cetera.
And so, at that time just lump it into that joint
resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked if that would follow the sponsor's
intent.
8:21:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered that would work.
8:21:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON, in response to Chair Lynn, offered a
sectional analysis. She said Section 1(a) states that delegates
and alternate delegates to a constitutional convention would
have to be: qualified voters, residents of the state for at
least three years preceding the appointment, and not members of
the U.S. House of Representatives or Senate. She indicated that
Section 1(b) relates to a joint resolution [appointing and U.S.
Representative or Senator to Alaska as observer of the
constitutional convention], which she noted must be called by a
two-thirds vote in order to happen. Section 1(c) would allow
the legislature to recall and replace delegates or observers by
joint resolution. Section 1(d) sets forth the procedures of a
convention.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON stated that starting on page 2, line
16, the duties of the delegates are listed, including that they
would take an oath of office and could be charged with a felony
if they do not abide by the rules. Subsection (c) states that
under HB 310, a delegate who attempts to cast an unauthorized
vote would be in violation of oath, voided as a delegate, and
immediately removed and replaced. She said she left the felony
language in the bill for the committee to see, but would be fine
with it removed. She opined that a felony might be a harsh
penalty for someone who has made the sacrifice to take part in
the convention; however, it is a serious matter to hold such a
convention to consider a change to the Constitution of the
United States.
8:24:00 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked where most of the language of the bill
originated.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered most of the language came from
the State of Indiana. She pointed to a handout in the committee
packet showing Indiana's legislation. She then related that the
remaining portion of HB 310 contains the language that would
allow the Class C felony as a penalty. She indicated that she
has heard concern from other legislators about not allowing
individuals to determine why they are at a convention, but
instead ensuring that the delegate(s) chosen by the legislature
represent that body's intent. She reminded the committee that
"there has never been one of these called before," and one
reason may be because of the difficulty of change itself. She
talked about federal overreach coming into everyday life, to the
point that her constituents are reaching out to her about the
issue. She indicated that the overreach is not just happening
in terms of resource development and the land owned by the
federal government, but also regarding power plants, how the
land is utilized, and water usage, among other issues. She
said, "So, I think you're going to see a different motivation
that hasn't been there before." She opined that the Founding
Fathers would not have put in place the means to call a
constitutional convention if they had not wanted future
governments to utilize it. At the same time, she emphasized, it
is important for everyone to enter into a convention with the
same intent and with the same parameters set.
8:27:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON offered his understanding that "this is
actually the ... forty-first time a convention of states has
been called." He recounted that prior to the Constitution,
there had been conventions of state, but the Commonwealth of
Virginia was the first to call it a convention of states in
1789. He ventured that what the sponsor was saying was that
none of the previous times have "never resulted in an actual
convention." He said it would be instructive to learn "how did
they in that time deal with those who did not vote?" He
expressed concern with keeping the felony as punishment, because
it could result from an "honest disagreement," and the delegate
would probably serve time in jail, would lose his/her right to
vote, and may have difficulty finding a job. He acknowledged
that it is an important issue, but said he is not sure it
deserves the consequence of calling it a felony.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON reiterated she had no problem with
changing the language to just removing the delegate, but wanted
to show the gamut of possibilities. She said there had not been
a convention of states since "the Article 5 portion has been put
in." She said there have been resolutions that have been passed
on various issues asking for [a convention], but not 34 states
coming together to request one. She concluded, "This is much
different than any other convention that many people have
experienced."
8:30:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS questioned whether there is a penalty for
those who cast electoral votes for President other than they
have been directed.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON said she does not know.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS opined that there should be severe
consequences for someone who represents all Alaska and agrees to
vote for the state but goes "off the reservation."
CHAIR LYNN said he thinks Representative Gattis' question about
penalties related to electoral votes was a good one, and said he
would like to know what the consequences are, because they could
be a guideline.
8:32:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES said she believes it should be a severe
consequence, because it could be one vote that makes a
difference. She noted that other states have the felony penalty
in place. She said she was having trouble picturing how one
delegate "might go off" in voting if there were, for example,
five delegates sent.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded that it would be one vote,
and all five people would be "giving that vote on that."
Therefore, she said it would not be possible to distinguish "who
went off the reservation," because "you couldn't judge it until
the amendment was actually brought forward from that group as
the one vote."
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked if all five delegates would be
punished with a felony for the single unauthorized vote.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered yes, because there would not
be a distinction unless the legislature set up one, for example,
by appointing one of the five as the leader. She said the
legislature might want to determine ahead of time that it would
send only one or two delegates so there would not be the
situation of someone in charge deviating from the plan who "gets
someone to go a different direction."
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES expressed concerned there may be five
delegates and "two totally disagreed, but ... the three went and
voted against, and then the two who weren't in agreement got a
felony." She said that needs to be addressed. She noted that
under HB 310, observers from Congress could be sent, and she
questioned whether there could be some observers from the state
sent, along with one or two delegates from Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON answered as follows:
In most of the documents we've read, for whatever
reason they were sending just one. Now, whether that
is because they're already talking about a lot of
people and there's no limit on how many delegates -
that may have been why the one was there. I don't
think there's a number on alternates, you know, you
might be able to do that versus observers on it, ...
but I think you made a good point that limiting the
number of delegates you have, especially if you want
to keep what happens pretty severe, is a very good
choice to go with.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES concluded that "all of that" would be
decided at the point that the legislature put together a
resolution with instructions. She pointed to language on page
2, beginning on line 10, which read as follows:
(d) If a rule or procedure established by a
constitutional convention called by a two-thirds vote
of the state legislatures under art. V, Constitution
of the United States, is different than the procedure
established under this section, selection of the
delegates shall comply with the rule or procedure
established by the constitutional convention, and the
delegates shall comply with AS 15.50.130.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES next pointed to the language on page 3,
which states that the vote would be voided if the delegate voted
against instructions. She asked, "What would happen if, at the
convention, they would make a rule that said no votes would be
voided? Or could they ... make that rule at the convention?"
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON said she thinks they could make any
rules they want at the convention; however, the delegates would
still be under the rules that were set up for them in Alaska.
If there was a conflict between the two, it could result in
their not being able to do anything at the convention. She
emphasized that the state's instructions would be "first and
foremost."
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES offered her understanding that that is not
what is stated on the aforementioned language on page 2,
beginning on line 10.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded as follows:
Let's just say that we were given a specific
amendment; this amendment was something different that
the convention brought up, and the delegate decided to
say yes when the instruction was no. They would break
what they were sent for. But you're right, I think
that's why the Class C felony is, is because it could
count. The vote could count if they did, and if it
was that vote that got to 34. Again, that's why you
would want to make sure there was something harsh, so
that people knew that if they went down that road what
would happen.
The other portion of it is that if that got passed
because that happened - because that happened to be
the one vote that ... killed it, the scale - those
amendments still have to come back to the state, where
38 would have to ratify it; Alaska would already be a
no at that point, because they had sent a portion of
it. So, I don't think you could void out their vote
on the convention, because you are not in control of
the convention; you're in control of the delegate.
And again, that's why you want to make sure the
delegates are very clear on what can happen if they -
as Representative Gattis said - go "off the
reservation."
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES said it is difficult to imagine how it
would all play out. She questioned whether there should be a
plan in place to remove Alaska from participation if something
happened at the constitutional convention that Alaska did not
support.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON said Alaska could pull out at any
point. She indicated that the main concern is the choosing of
delegates, as well as clarifying that the delegates could go to
the convention with "these amendments, versus these issues."
She said breaking it down to an issue can go a lot further. She
talked about clarity having impact. She cautioned against
[just] pulling out one person from the convention, instead of
replacing the person, because the state would no longer be part
of the discussion. She said there are a lot of "what-ifs," and
she understands the concern is real. She stated, "But at the
same time, sometimes you have to ... take those, to go down that
road, because without it you can't make change."
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES suggested there may be a circumstance in
which Alaska would want to pull out of the convention, if it did
not agree with the course of the convention and its one vote
would make the difference in the two-thirds vote requirement.
She offered her understanding that the sponsor was saying that
Alaska could pull out at any time.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON confirmed Representative Hughes'
understanding was correct. She said a resolution was passed
yesterday that states that Alaska wants to participate in a
convention, if one is called; however, she said Alaska could
choose instead, for any reason, not to participate.
8:44:23 AM
CHAIR LYNN offered his understanding that the original
constitutional convention was closed to the public, and he asked
if a new constitutional convention would be closed to the
public. He asked if anyone outside of official observers and
delegates would be allowed into the convention.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON offered her understanding that the
observers would be officially designated. She said she does not
know if the convention would be open to the public, but ventured
that Congress might determine the parameters. She said there
would be a large number of people coming from the minimum 34
states that would be necessary to have called for the
convention, and other states could send people, as well.
CHAIR LYNN recollected that news of the original constitutional
convention had been "a huge surprise."
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON reiterated that Congress would most
likely decide the level of privacy, not the states. She
expressed dubiousness at the possibility in current times of a
convention being held without the public knowing about it.
8:46:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said there is a huge body of law related
to this issue. He said he worked on a similar bill with Doug
Gardner, a bill drafter in Legislative Legal and Research
Services, and he recommended Mr. Gardner as a source for
answering questions. Further, he said there is an attorney,
[Robert G.] Natelson, who has written a history of conventions.
Representative Keller said [a state] can pull out up to the
point of a ratification, but after that there may be guiding
rules as to whether [a state could pull out], "because of the
work that's gone into it." He said, "The two-thirds just gets
us to a drafting convention, and that is ... the one that we're
guiding here in this process."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he thinks it is appropriate to keep
the language regarding the Class C felony, but he pointed out
that the standard of "knowingly" is a high standard of proof
that is important in criminal law.
8:49:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS indicated that her experience taking part
as a delegate in other types of conventions has shown her that
it is not unusual for alternate delegates to be appointed. She
said the state would tell the delegate what they can and cannot
do, just as electoral delegates are told. She suggested that
the committee may be "worrying about what-ifs that are not there
yet."
8:51:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON, to the sponsor, offered his
understanding that "the questions that you were dealing with
were more in the instructions that a future legislature, by
joint resolution, is going to ... determine," especially in
terms of how changes would be made at the convention. He said
the aforementioned portions of language in the bill, on pages 2
and 3, look contradictory, but the proposed bill would instruct
future legislatures in "how to accommodate that type of a
scenario." He said he was a delegate to a 2004 National
Republican convention, and there were multiple delegates who
chose which one would "pass the vote for the state." He said he
imagines that if that person had gone against the wishes of the
group, he/she "would probably be lynched." That person would
shoulder the most liability in criminal complaint. He ventured
that that would be determined by joint resolution later.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said Ben Franklin and John Adams took
part during the treaty of Paris, and they had to communicate
back to the states and wait for clear instructions. He referred
to Representative Keller's comments and said there is a body of
legal precedent that the committee needs to investigate and,
perhaps, require. He stated, "And so, by intent, I'm saying,
'Let's do it.' I'm agreeing. Let's make sure that this is
incorporated into the discussion of a future legislature when
they make this joint resolution."
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON, regarding observers, noted that even
the Arctic Council has observers who are not geographically
located in the Arctic and are non-voters, which may include
countries such as China and Portugal, for example, who want to
be part of the discussion. He ventured that if members of
Congress are chosen as observers, they may serve as a reference
source to the delegates by giving them professional advice
related to how Congress might receive the proposed amendment to
the constitution. He expressed confidence that a future joint
resolution will refine the purpose of observers and alternate
delegates.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON said the observer also could be a
legislator, who could give advice. She said the proposed
legislation is general on purpose to allow for unforeseen
circumstances to be addressed as they arise. She said limiting
the scope now may result in missing out on a discussion that may
result in the biggest impact for Alaska.
8:56:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES, referring to Representative Keller's
comment about "knowingly" being a high standard of proof for a
felony, pointed out that the person who takes the oath would be
saying he/she would be following the instructions and
authorizations, which she said she thinks "would probably fit
the test for the knowingly." She said if Legislative Legal and
Research Services has a differing opinion on that, she would
like to know.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER remarked that proving "knowingly" might be
difficult, which is why it is a high standard.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES reiterated that when a delegate takes the
oath, he/she is agreeing to follow instructions, so, not
following them would be done knowingly; therefore, even though
"knowingly is a high standard," it would be "clearly shown to be
that they knew what they were doing."
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON said if five delegates are sent, but
just one votes, then the one who votes may be the one who took
the oath; thus, it would be clear on the record who was
responsible for casting the vote. Observers who do not vote
would not have taken the oath. She clarified that the felony
would be attached to taking the oath.
8:58:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON directed attention to the language
beginning on page 2, line 21, which states that both delegates
and alternate delegates would take the oath.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON stated that Representative Isaacson was
correct.
8:59:02 AM
MIKE COONS, Regional Director, Citizen Initiatives, in response
to Chair Lynn, said the Citizen Initiatives in Alaska is a
grassroots organization advocating the proper interstate use of
Article 5 of the Constitution of the United States. He said
state legislators must not abdicate their Article 5 sovereignty
to the delegates at the convention. He said the deliberative
body is the state legislature; it is not the delegates. He
mentioned the felony aspect of HB 310, and noted that the
proposed legislation would have to be signed by the governor.
He questioned if, once a constitutional convention was called
for, a delegate resolution would be created more specific to how
the convention would be run. He asked, "Can we do that just
prior to going to the convention or can that be done in a near
future aspect?"
9:01:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded that the State of Alaska
won't determine what is done at the convention; Congress calls
the convention once there are a minimum of 34 states requesting
a convention. The State of Alaska puts the parameters around
only its delegates.
MR. COONS, referencing Representative Hughes' previous comment
about one state/one vote, stated that Article 5 of the U.S.
Constitution says nothing about that. He continued as follows:
In our resolution, the very first "whereas" is that
Article 5, Section 4, of the Constitution of the
United States guarantees each state a Republican-
formed government that gives each state equal standing
when calling for a federal amendment convention.
Article 5 of the Constitution of the United States
reserves the state legislatures the right to call for
a federal convention with the purpose of proposing
amendments to the United States Constitution when
Congress, court, and executive branch refuse to
address the egregious wrongs suffered by the people.
That puts it one state/one vote. Right now there
really isn't anything that ... does this as far as the
convention.
MR. COONS, in response to the comment of the sponsor, said if
the State of Alaska and a number of other states all draw up a
similar type of resolution where it not only binds the
delegates, as HB 310 would do, but also sets out how the
committees would be done, as well as "a whole series of things,"
then there would be a majority of states going to the
convention; therefore, there would be "a sure and safe aspect,
because that means the vast majority of states that go into that
convention have all said this is the way this convention is
going to be run." Mr. Coons said Congress has no say in that;
once the required number of states call for the convention,
Congress names the date and time, but then is "completely out of
the scope on that."
MR. COONS, regarding the issue of the felony aspect of the bill,
concurred with Representative Keller that "this is basically,
knowingly violating that oath." He offered an example. He
indicated that he had sent out a delegate resolution, which, if
adopted, would be a safe convention for all states. He
indicated that Representative Isaacson had talked about the
ability to do a more general delegate resolution.
MR. COONS said he read HJR 22, which was sponsored by
Representative T. Wilson, and he noted the joint resolution was
a call for a convention of states for topics. He further noted
that during the current meeting, Representative T. Wilson had
said that "these would be amendments that the states would be
sending down ... with the delegates to the convention, not
issues." He questioned how that would work with what already
passed under HJR 22.
9:06:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON said there are two ways of doing it:
tell the delegates what topics to address or, more specifically,
provide amendments already written for the delegates to support
at the convention. She said the amendments would still have to
match the topics; they could not go outside of them. It would
be up to the legislature at the time to decide how specific it
wants to get, she said.
MR. COONS said he would advocate for the amendments, because it
would provide clarity when states come together to work on an
amendment. He said 51 percent have to ratify the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON corrected Mr. Coons by stating that it
would take a two-thirds vote to pass an amendment and a three-
quarters vote to ratify it, so it is higher than 51 percent.
She said she appreciates Mr. Coons' testimony. She requested
that Chair Lynn allow her to incorporate all the tweaks
suggested by the committee into a committee substitute to bring
back before the committee. She said some factors she would like
to mull over would be regarding the number of delegates,
compensation, and the issue brought up by Representative Gattis
about the rules of the Electoral College.
9:09:44 AM
MR. COONS said he would like to see language added reflecting
the aspect of Article 5, Section 4, of the Constitution of the
United States, so that it is clearly stated that each state will
get only one vote at the convention, so that no one can try to
get one vote per delegate.
9:11:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS opined that [HB 310] is the "perfect next
step" following the passage of [HJR 22 on the House floor] the
prior day. She said she thinks the legislature is moving in the
right direction to state that it wants the federal government to
pull back and listen to the states.
9:11:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON thanked the committee and recapped the
concerns the committee had expressed throughout the meeting.
She cautioned not to get so specific that the legislature ties
the hands of future legislatures. She said hopefully the
federal government will see that there is a movement afoot, and
take advantage of the opportunity to make changes before a
convention is called. In response to Chair Lynn, she said she
could have a committee substitute ready by the upcoming Tuesday.
9:13:45 AM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony. In response to
Representative Hughes, he let it be known that he was okay with
committee members communicating with the bill sponsor as further
ideas come to mind for HB 310.
9:14:38 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 310 was held over.
9:14:54 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:15
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB310 v.U.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 310 |
| 02 HB 310 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 310 |
| 03 HB 310 Supporting Document HB 284.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 284 HB 310 |
| 04 HB 310 Supporting Document HJR 17 History, Legislation and Congressional Record.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 310 |
| 05 HB 310 Supporting Document HJR Resolution 22.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 310 |
| 06 HB 310 Supporting Document Indiana Code.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 310 |
| 07 HB 310 Supporting Documents Indiana SB 224.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 310 SB 224 |
| 08 HB310-LEG-SESS-3-10-14.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 310 |