02/18/2017 11:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB20 | |
| HCR5 | |
| HB44 | |
| HB13 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 18, 2017
11:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Andy Josephson (alternate)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Chuck Kopp (alternate)
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Scott Kawasaki
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act relating to marriage solemnization; and authorizing
elected public officials in the state to solemnize marriages."
- MOVED CSHB 20(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 5
Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to the membership of the Committee on
Committees.
- MOVED CSHCR 5(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 44
"An Act requiring a legislator to abstain from taking or
withholding official action or exerting official influence that
could benefit or harm an immediate family member or certain
employers; requiring a legislator to request to be excused from
voting in an instance where the legislator may have a financial
conflict of interest; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 13
"An Act prohibiting the expenditure of state or municipal assets
to create a registry based on race or religion."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 20
SHORT TITLE: SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CLAMAN
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) STA, JUD
02/16/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/16/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/16/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/18/17 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HCR 5
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM RULES: COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EASTMAN
02/06/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/17 (H) STA, JUD
02/16/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/16/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/16/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/18/17 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 44
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GRENN
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/13/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) JUD, FIN
01/23/17 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
01/23/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/17 (H) JUD, FIN
01/25/17 (H) STA REPLACES FIN REFERRAL
01/25/17 (H) BILL REPRINTED 1/25/17
01/25/17 (H) JUD WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, RULE
23 FOR SSHB 44
01/25/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/25/17 (H) -- Meeting Postponed to 1/27/17 --
01/27/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/27/17 (H) -- Meeting Rescheduled from 1/25/17 --
01/30/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/30/17 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/03/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/03/17 (H) Moved CSSSHB 44(JUD) Out of Committee
02/03/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/08/17 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 1DP 3DNP 3AM
02/08/17 (H) DP: LEDOUX
02/08/17 (H) DNP: KOPP, EASTMAN, REINBOLD
02/08/17 (H) AM: KREISS-TOMKINS, FANSLER, CLAMAN
02/18/17 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 13
SHORT TITLE: NO ST. FUNDS FOR FEDERAL REGISTRY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) STA, JUD
02/18/17 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SARA PERMAN, Staff
Representative Matt Claman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an amendment to HB 20 on behalf
of Representative Claman, prime sponsor.
DOUG GARDNER, Director
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on Conceptual Amendment
1 to HCR 5.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SSHB 44, as prime sponsor.
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff
Representative Jason Grenn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the sectional analysis for HB 44
and testified during the hearing on SSHB 44 on behalf of
Representative Grenn, prime sponsor.
PAUL KELLY, Staff
Representative Andy Josephson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
13, on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime sponsor.
VALERIE BROOKS
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 13.
ACTION NARRATIVE
11:02:22 AM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 11:02 a.m.
Representatives Tuck, Birch, Johnson, Knopp, Josephson
(alternate), and Kreiss-Tomkins were present at the call to
order.
HB 20-SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS
11:03:47 AM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 20, "An Act relating to marriage
solemnization; and authorizing elected public officials in the
state to solemnize marriages."
11:04:31 AM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 20. After
ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, he
closed public testimony.
11:05:24 AM
SARA PERMAN, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor
of HB 20, noted an amendment had been prepared to address a
concern, expressed during the House State Affairs Standing
Committee's previous hearing of HB 20 on 2/16/17, that the
proposed legislation would require elected officials to
solemnize marriages. She asserted that the amendment
[subsequently moved as Amendment 1], would alleviate that
concern.
11:06:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to report HB 20, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. [The motion was subsequently treated as withdrawn
to address an amendment.]
11:06:50 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 11:07 a.m.
11:07:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 30-
LS0242\A.1, Bruce, 2/17/17], which read:
Page 2, line 1, following "state":
Insert "; nothing in this paragraph requires or
obligates an individual holding an elective public
office in the state to solemnize a marriage"
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
11:07:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he would be voting against HB
20, [as amended]. He offered his belief that HB 20 was
unnecessary legislation, because anyone in the state can buy a
license for $25.
11:08:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to report HB 20, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Knopp, Tuck,
Josephson, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of reporting HB 20,
as amended, out of committee. Representatives Birch and Johnson
voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 20(STA) was reported from the
the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
HCR 5-UNIFORM RULES: COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
11:09:52 AM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 5, Proposing an
amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature
relating to the membership of the Committee on Committees.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HCR 5. After
ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, he
closed public testimony.
11:11:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1,
labeled 30-LS0359\A.1, which read as follows [with hand written
changes]:
Page 1, line 12, following "committee":
Insert "and the Committee on Committees"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP relayed that Conceptual Amendment 1 inserts
"the Committee on Committees" to make that committee subject to
the proportional rule, like the standing committees.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for testimony from Legislative Legal
and Research Services regarding the merit of Conceptual
Amendment 1.
11:13:11 AM
DOUG GARDNER, Director, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, conveyed his understanding that of the intent of
HCR 5 is to make Uniform Rule 1(e) conform to recent practices
by the House. He said that although Uniform Rule 1 provides for
the Speaker of the House to select five members to serve on the
Committee on Committees, membership on the committee has
generally been five majority members and two minority members.
He said that if the intent is to change the committee selection
practice so that seven members are put on the committee, then
the amendment he prepared does that with certainty.
11:15:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP explained that he modified the amendment
drafted by Mr. Gardner by deleting lines 2 and 3, thus leaving
the phrase "at least five members" in Section 1 of HCR 5,
subsection (e), beginning on line 6. He added that the only
change proposed by Conceptual Amendment 1 is the insertion of
"and the Committee on Committees" after the word "committee" on
line 12 of Section 1, subsection (e), of HCR 5.
MR. GARDNER stated that if the proposal before the committee
leaves the membership of the Committee on Committees at five and
makes it subject to proportional representation, then the number
of minority members on the Committee on Committees simply
depends on the size of the minority.
MR. GARDNER offered that under HCR 5, the proportional
representation of the minority could be determined with
certainty; however, there would be no certainty provided as to
the number of members on the Committee on Committees. He
offered that the Speaker of the House could choose to populate
the committee with five, seven, or even nine members. He added
that if flexibility is what the House State Affairs Standing
Committee wants, then HCR 5 and Conceptual Amendment 1 together
would provide that.
11:17:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for confirmation that if there was
less than 25 percent minority status [in the House], then the
majority would not have to recognize anyone from the minority to
be on the Committee on Committees.
MR. GARDNER replied that is correct. He added that once the
size of the minority in the House drops below ten in any given
year, it would not be a legally cognizable minority; therefore,
it would not have membership on the Committee on Committees.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asserted that the Committee on Committees is
such an important committee, because it establishes all other
committees and the membership to those other committees. He
said that traditionally there has been a minimum [minority
representation] of two. He added that he likes Conceptual
Amendment 1, because it follows a structure for five or more and
stays consistent with [standing] committee composition. He
offered that if at some point there is a very small minority in
the House, such as eight or less, he would like a "minimum"
provision so that the Committee on Committees does not just
consist of majority members with the minority having no voice.
He suggested that in this situation, a minimum provision would
be the only opportunity for the minority to have a voice. He
stated support of Conceptual Amendment 1, but said he would like
to see a minimum of two [minority members] on the Committee on
Committees.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Conceptual Amendment 1. There being no further objection,
it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for an at ease to draft an additional
amendment, if the sponsor of HCR 5 is agreeable to having
minimum minority representation [on the Committee on Committees]
regardless of its membership in the House.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that Representative Tuck raised a
valid point. He said that in his research on minority
representation in the House and the Senate going back to 1975,
he found that there were times in which the minority caucus
constituted less than 25 percent of the Senate membership;
therefore, the minority caucus was not an officially recognized
caucus. He said that in a number of those situations, the
presiding officer determined that minority representation would
be included on the Committee on Committees, even though the
Uniform Rules did not require it. He stated his concern that
requiring the Committee on Committees to follow the same
prescription as the standing committees would remove that
flexibility for the presiding officer. He added that if there
was no minority caucus, the presiding officer would not have the
opportunity to recognize minority members but be required to
only recognize members of the majority caucus. He expressed his
concern that the minority inadvertently might be excluded from
the Committee on Committees. He stated that he does not have an
objection to the intent of the amendment suggested by
Representative Tuck.
11:21:51 AM
The committee took a brief at ease at 11:21 p.m.
11:22:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said that to insert a minority member
requirement for the Committee on Committees into Rule 1,
subsection (e), of the Uniform Rules, the minority would have to
be recognized, and a minority would not be recognized if it
constitutes less than 25 percent of the House membership. He
expressed that he didn't know how to craft language to allow the
appointment of a minority member. He suggested that perhaps
language stating the appointment of "a member other than the
majority" would achieve his desired results. He added that he
would coordinate with the bill sponsor on this issue in the next
committee to which HCR 5 is assigned.
11:23:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to report HCR 5, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHCR 5(STA) was
reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 44-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS
11:23:58 AM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 44, "An Act
requiring a legislator to abstain from taking or withholding
official action or exerting official influence that could
benefit or harm an immediate family member or certain employers;
requiring a legislator to request to be excused from voting in
an instance where the legislator may have a financial conflict
of interest; and providing for an effective date." [Before the
committee was CSSSHB 44(JUD).]
11:24:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN, Alaska State Legislature, presented
SSHB 44, as prime sponsor. He stated that the intent of SSHB 44
is to increase transparency within the legislature and allow the
public to see with utmost certainty that conflicts of interest
are taken seriously in Alaska. He asserted that the intent of
SSHB 44 is not to prevent a legislator from voting on an issue,
as legislators are elected to represent their constituents. He
attested that SSHB 44 would neither directly stop a legislator
from voting nor outright disqualify him/her from voting. He
said that SSHB 44 lays out a standard procedure for a legislator
to decide for himself/herself if he/she has a substantial
conflict of interest. He opined that there is always room for
improvement, and legislators can exemplify a higher standard.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN paraphrased from the sponsor statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
SSHB 44 contains provisions to ensure conflicts are
"substantial" before a legislator would be required to
abstain from voting. Any benefit a legislator or a
member of the legislator's immediate family might
receive from supporting a particular piece of
legislation would have to be greater than the benefit
a large group of Alaskans would receive in order to
require abstention. The bill and resolution recognize
the responsibility of legislators to vote, except in
clear cases where the outcome of the vote would result
in substantial personal financial gain. This includes
cases where an immediate family member or a
legislator's employer would receive a large and direct
financial benefit.
11:26:2 8 AM
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Jason Grenn, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Grenn, prime sponsor of
SSHB 44, paraphrased from the sectional analysis, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1: Defines the conflict of interest standards
under which a Legislator may vote on a particular
issue. Conflict is defined as substantial benefit or
harm to the financial interest of the legislator's
immediate family member, the legislator's employer, an
immediate family member's employer, a person with whom
the legislator is negotiating employment, or from whom
the legislator or immediate family member has received
more than $10,000 in income within the last 12 months.
Exceptions to this include those outlined in Section
2, or while participating in public discussion or
debate.
Section 2: A legislator may not vote on a question in
a committee and must request to abstain from voting on
the floor if the legislator or an immediate family
member has a substantial financial interest. A
legislator may vote on an appropriations bill that
meets the requirements of AS 37.07.020(a) or 37.07.100
(Executive Budget Act).
Section 3: Defines "substantially benefit or harm" as
the effect on the person's financial interest being
greater than the effect on the financial interest of a
substantial class of persons to which the person
belongs as a member of a profession, occupation,
industry, or region.
Section 4: Defines "financial interest" as ownership
of an interest or involvement in a business, property
ownership, or relationship that is a source of income
or financial benefit.
Section 5: Provides that this Act only takes effect
upon passage of a resolution amending Uniform Rule
34(b).
Section 6: Provides for an effective date later than
that of the resolution to Uniform Rule 34(b) referred
to in Section 5.
MR. JOHNSTON pointed out the change made by the House Judiciary
Standing Committee, shown on page 2, line [20, of CSSSHB
40(JUD)]: a legislator is required simply to declare a conflict
in committee before voting on a bill, rather than not being able
to vote in committee.
11:29:03 AM
MR. JOHNSTON cited an example of what would be considered a
substantial conflict of interest for a legislator. He described
a situation in which a legislator, voting on major roads in the
Interior, is himself part of the substantial class of persons
who lives in the Interior. He said that if that legislator
votes on proposed legislation that affects a road that accesses
only a parcel of land of which he/she is the sole owner, then
the legislator has a substantial interest in the proposed
legislation. He attested that the legislator's interest is
different from or greater than that of anyone else living in the
Interior, who also could benefit from a road to his/her house.
He said that in this example, under the amendment to AS
24.60.030, subsection (g), proposed under SSHB 44, the
legislator would be required to request an abstention. He noted
that the example he cited is on page 6 of advisory opinion 2004-
02 in the research brief from Legislative Research Services,
titled LRS Report 15.422, included in the committee packet.
11:30:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for the sponsor's perspective on a
voter's role in evaluating the qualifications, merits, and
"business" of the respective candidates and House members. He
noted that candidates for House run for office every two years
and candidates for Senate every four years. He expressed his
concern that SSHB 44 would be "setting aside the voters." He
asserted that through the election process, every candidate's
opponents aptly and capably elucidate the affiliations and
financial interests of that candidate.
11:32:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN asked if Representative Birch was asking
how voters weigh in during a campaign process.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH responded yes. He explained that voters
understand a candidate's employment, such as a union business
agent, a doctor, an engineer, a retail person, or a worker for a
large multinational corporation. He pointed out that all
candidates complete a public official financial disclosure
(POFD) statement exposing their financial interests to the
public. He asserted that there is an election process every two
years, and if the public is validly and reasonably concerned,
the issues are revealed through that process and by virtue of
having an opponent. He expressed his concern that SSHB 44
disenfranchises the 17,000 people that each House member
represents in his/her district.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN maintained that SSHB 44 focuses on
unanticipated legislation. He referred to the example given by
Mr. Johnston about a candidate owning property. He said that
owning that property would not have been made known to the
voters, nor would it be something that a candidate's opponent
would have talked about. He offered that no one would "bring
that to light" during a campaign. He gave an example of the
state constructing a road through that property making the
candidate a millionaire. He said, "Is that something that might
be reflected in a future campaign? Perhaps. Is it something
you should declare as a conflict of interest? Perhaps."
11:33:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN stated that SSHB 44 would give guidelines
on what a substantial financial interest means regarding voting
on proposed legislation and would allow a different process for
those occasions. He opined SSHB 44 would create more
transparency and a way for voters to be made aware of financial
conflicts. He said he is not suggesting that there was anything
hidden from the public before this legislation was introduced,
but that the public be informed of any potential conflicts of
interest as the legislature processes new legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH opined that if a legislator were on the
receiving end of a $1 million benefit because of legislation,
then he is cautiously optimistic that the media and the public
would scrutinize it. He said one of the most substantial issues
for the state currently is the $3 billion budget deficit. He
offered that each legislator has a substantial interest in
resolving that problem, and it will affect each person
differently. He stated that a legislator's duty and obligation
is to his/her individual voters and expressed his concern that a
law will be passed that is "a little muddled around the edges"
with varying ideas for what is "substantial." He opined that a
legislator's constituency would be abandoned through challenges
to a legislator's eligibility to vote on issues because of real
or perceived conflicts. He offered that members do have an
opportunity to announce a conflict on the floor [of the House or
Senate]. He said he had a concern about disenfranchising the
voters that legislators are elected to represent.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN maintained that SSHB 44 would allow the
opportunity for a legislator who declares a conflict to speak to
that conflict before the legislative body, as opposed to "what
happens now with just a lone objection that is not on the
record." He stated that SSHB 44 would allow the legislative
body to "hear out" the conflict and vote on whether the
legislator who has declared a conflict should abstain from
voting. He said that in some states, a legislator with a
conflict is not allowed to vote. He asserted that SSHB 44
allows for a public process and for the legislative body to vote
on the potential conflicts.
11:36:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if there had been a situation that
prompted introduction of SSHB 44.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN responded not at all. He stated that
before he ran for office he was asked to resign from his job
because of a potential conflict of interest. He said that he
did so because he didn't want his campaign to have any sort of
conflict of interest attached to it. He mentioned that 49 other
states handle conflicts of interest differently and allow their
legislators to be seen as transparently as possible. He
asserted that the legislature can always build more trust with
the voters. He said he believes SSHB 44 would help to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH commented that it was unfortunate that
Representative Grenn resigned from his job, since Alaska has a
citizen legislature. He added that hopefully every legislator
has "another life" outside of the purported three months spent
in legislative session.
11:37:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP expressed his concern that the legislators
would "muddy everything up in chambers and everybody is going to
stand up and declare a conflict erring on the side of caution."
He offered the following hypothetical scenario: a proposed
legislation to fund a number of Interior roads is before the
legislature in the capital budget, and the voting member of the
legislature is a construction contractor. He said that although
the project is going out for bid in a public process, and the
floor sessions are public, the contractor, who may or may not
bid on the project, has a conflict of interest. He asked, "Is
that the road we're going to go down ... every single time we
have something coming up here."
MR. JOHNSTON responded that every legislator is required to vote
on the final budget under AS 37.07.020(a). He said that in
Representative Knopp's hypothetical situation, the legislator
could declare his/her conflict of interest again, but the chair
would rule him/her out of order, and the conflict of interest
would not go to a legislative body vote. He added that this
situation was unlike the earlier example, which did not involve
a budgetary vote.
11:39:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked what in the current process avoids
declaring conflicts of interest, and what triggered the
introduction of SSHB 44.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN said he does not have any personal anecdote
to relay, and that the proposed legislation was drafted without
input from anyone within or without the legislature. He
asserted that his staff worked on SSHB 44 independently. He
added that they solely focused on creating transparency so that
the public can trust what the legislators are doing, when there
is a perceived conflict of interest. He added that there is
nothing that happened recently in the legislature prompting him
to introduce the proposed legislation. He said, however, as he
went door to door, his constituents mentioned that they felt
legislators were doing their voters a disservice by not being
more open and transparent. He said some referred to the lack of
transparency as "tarmac disease" - when legislators hit the
tarmac, the constituents "didn't know everything that was
happening." He contended that people were looking for ways to
know exactly "what was happening in Juneau." He said he has
responded that there are cameras everywhere, social media, and
documentation. He attested that the legislature does a very
good job of trying to share everything done in the legislature.
He maintained that anything that can be done to put more on the
public record should be done. He opined that SSHB 44 does that.
11:42:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON opined that currently "this building is
a remarkably partisan building" and offered his belief that if
the public were aware of how partisan it is, they would be
shocked. He mentioned that in the State of Hawaii, there are 25
senators. He said that currently all 25 senators are members of
the Democratic Party. He went on to say that two years ago, 24
of the senators were Democrats and one was a Republican. He
offered the following hypothetical scenario: The one Republican
senator in Hawaii is a pineapple grower with a pineapple farm on
the north shore of the island of Oahu. A Democrat has a
"pineapple bill" and wants a unanimous vote. He is concerned
that the Republican has a conflict of interest and would vote
against his pineapple bill. Representative Josephson suggested
that when the conflict of interest was declared by the
Republican, the 24 Democrats would gang up against the
Republican and find that the declared conflict was substantial;
therefore, the Republican must be recused from voting. He
expressed his concern that a member of the minority would not
get the same objective hearing on a conflict of interest debate
[as a member of the majority]. He asked, "How do you resolve
that?"
MR. JOHNSTON replied that there are many steps leading up to a
legislator needing to recuse himself/herself during a floor
session. He added that SSHB 44 leaves it up to the legislator
to "stand on the floor" and make his/her own declaration of a
conflict and request to abstain. No one can stand on the floor
[of the House or Senate] and "call someone out." He said that
in that scenario, the single minority member could request an
advisory opinion from the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
prior to his/her declaration in the floor session. He offered
that if the committee issued an advisory opinion that the
legislator does not have a conflict, then the legislator can
avoid declaring a conflict during the floor session and would
have that opinion as backup if the majority members filed an
ethics complaint. He concluded that there would be checks and
balances and no super-majority control.
11:46:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON posed a scenario as follows: There is a
district with all pineapple farmers. The people of the district
have elected a pineapple farmer because that person is
representative of the district. She asked if every time a
pineapple bill comes before the legislature, the legislator
would have to declare a conflict and would not be able to vote
on the bill. She said that the people of the district, in
essence, have lost their representation on the issue that most
concerns them.
MR. JOHNSTON said that under SSHB 44, simply being a pineapple
farmer facing a pineapple bill does not constitute a conflict of
interest. He asserted that it is "what's in the bill" that
counts. He offered that if there is a tax on all pineapple
farmers that is the same across the board, then the legislator
would have the right to vote on that bill, because the bill is
affecting the entire class of persons, industry, or region the
same. He said if that pineapple bill only gives a tax incentive
for pineapple farms over 1,000 acres, and that legislator owns
the only pineapple farm over 1,000 acres, then that would
constitute a substantial conflict, which should be declared. He
said that simply being a part of an industry does not constitute
an outright conflict of interest. There must be something in
the proposed legislation that sets that legislator apart from
the rest of the class to constitute a conflict of interest, such
as only he/she would benefit or be harmed by the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed two concerns: in an attempt to
err on the side of caution, most legislators will over-declare;
and in an effort to avoid voting on controversial legislation,
legislators will want to be "conflicted out."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that declaring a conflict of interest
allows a legislator to avoid voting on proposed legislation from
which he/she may personally benefit. He offered that currently
it only takes an objection from one member to override that
declaration in the legislature. Consequently, the legislator is
required to vote on the proposed legislation. He opined that it
is appropriate that the full legislative body decide if a
legislator should vote, rather than just one person. He
asserted that SSHB 44 offers protection for all members of the
legislature, since there are times when a vote may hurt one's
political career and times when a vote may hurt one's private
career. He suggested the following scenario: A legislator is
part owner of a nail salon. A proposed legislation benefits
that nail salon, because it is the only salon that can handle
the training [mentioned in the proposed legislation]. The
legislator may be voting on behalf of the industry, but there is
only one nail salon that can provide the services.
Representative Tuck asked whether that legislator should be able
to vote on that proposed legislation. He opined that SSHB 44 is
an innocent bill, which would allow the full [legislative] body
to decide if a legislator should vote on proposed legislation,
rather than allow one person to decide.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that SSHB 44 would be held over.
HB 13-NO ST. FUNDS FOR FEDERAL REGISTRY
11:51:37 AM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 13, "An Act prohibiting the expenditure
of state or municipal assets to create a registry based on race
or religion."
11:52:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 13, Version 30-LS0147\J, as a work draft.
There being no objection, Version J was before the committee.
11:52:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON presented HB 13, as prime sponsor. He
relayed that he visited the local synagogue eight days ago,
partly because of his faith and partly because it was the
yahrzeit for the late Representative Max Gruenberg, for whom the
committee room is named. He explained that a yahrzeit is an
annual commemoration of a person's death. He said that at that
service, a visiting rabbinical student read the well-known poem
by Pastor Martin Niem?ller, written in response to witnessing
the holocaust. Representative Josephson read the poem, as
follows:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not
speak out because I was not a Socialist. Then they
came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out
because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came
for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was
not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one
left to speak for me.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON went on to say that this poem has been
updated by Rabbi Michael Adam, whose poem was also read during
the yahrzeit. Representative Josephson read Mr. Adam's poem, as
follows:
First they came for the African Americans, and I spoke
up because I am my sister's and brother's keeper. And
then they came for the women, and I spoke up because
women hold a path to sky. And then they came for the
Immigrants, and I spoke up because I remember the
ideals of our democracy. And then they came for the
Muslims, and I spoke up because they are my cousins,
and we are one family. And then they came for the
Native Americans and Mother Earth, and I spoke up
because the blood-soaked land cries and the mountains
weep. They keep coming, we keep rising up.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON commented that this poem was a
remarkably fitting commentary on why he introduced HB 13.
11:55:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to the 1944 U.S. Supreme Court
decision, Toyosaburo Korematsu v. U.S., included in the
committee packet. He mentioned that this decision was still the
"law of the land," albeit very strongly disfavored. He read
from the dissenting opinion by Justice William Francis "Frank"
Murphy, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
I dissent, therefore, from this legalization of
racism. Racial discrimination in any form and in any
degree has no justifiable part whatever in our
democratic way of life. It is unattractive in any
setting but it is utterly revolting among a free
people who have embraced the principles set forth in
the Constitution. All residents of this nation are kin
in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land. Yet
they are primarily and necessarily a part of the new
and distinct civilization of the United States. They
must accordingly be treated at all times as the heirs
of the American experiment and as entitled to all the
rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON went on to say there were three
comparable dissenting opinions in the Toyosaburo Korematsu v.
U.S. decision, written by the three former justices, Murphy,
Roberts, and Jackson. He stated that in this 1944 decision, the
Supreme Court, by what Representative Josephson considered a
remarkable vote of 6-3, gave permission for the U.S. government
to randomly and arbitrarily gather up every Japanese American
and put him/her into concentration camps. Representative
Josephson confirmed that the camps were called concentration
camps, and they were also known as internment camps.
11:57:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said that according to what U.S.
President Donald Trump has indicated to the press, both before
his election and after his election, and what Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson said just last month, the federal government is
considering a registry of certain people based on religion. He
asserted that this statement is not a discussion of the
immigration order which has been enjoined by at least one
appellate court, although the two issues overlap. He asserted
that this issue concerns a registry of people who are presently
naturalized or born Americans. He went on to say that these
people are not travelling Americans, nor are they travelling
tourists; they are just Americans, and the administration has
indicated a desire to register them. He said that his reason
for reading aloud from the Toyosaburo Korematsu v. U.S. decision
was to assert his belief that in critical moments, such as now,
it is important to document for future and present generations
that the Alaska State Legislature "saw this happening" and took
a stand.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said that HB 13 is similar to the
Senate Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for House
Joint Resolution 22(JUD) ("House Joint Resolution 22"), which
passed both houses in the Twenty-Third Alaska State Legislature,
2003-2004. He asserted that House Joint Resolution 22 is a
statement by the legislature about the USA Patriot Act and was
co-sponsored by members of the legislature who are widely
regarded as among the most conservative in the last 20 years -
Senator Dyson, Senator Seekins, Senator Taylor, Senator
Therriault, Senator Ogan, Senator Cowdery and (then)
Representative John Coghill.
11:59:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON paraphrased House Joint Resolution 22
to say that the state and its instrumentalities, or local
governments, is not going to be involved in using state
resources or institutions for the enforcement of federal
immigration matters. He asserted that House Joint Resolution
22, just 18 months after [the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001], is a statement about Alaskans' belief in liberty. He
opined that even though the country was traumatized then, more
than it is now, the legislature "did the right thing" in stating
that it intended to protect individual liberties. He relayed
that under HB 13, the state and its local governments would not
use personnel and financial assets to support a federal
"overreach" effort to create a registry based on race, religion,
ethnicity, or national origin. He attested that the drafters of
HB 13 properly placed the proposed language into the "family of
prohibitions and preclusions" [in AS. 44.99.040], which
specifies those activities in which the state government has
decided it will not participate. Among them are prohibitions on
enforcing federal laws on our Second Amendment privileges or on
anything that generally would violate the due process of Alaska
citizens.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asserted that the reason he referenced
the poems from religious scholars is that if there is a
registry, he wants future generations, who are writing
dissertations 100 years from now, to have a statement of fact
that says the Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature "caught that
moment" before Alaskans participated in something they would
regret. He cited the treatment of American Indians, Japanese
Americans, and African Americans as examples of that in history.
He emphasized that this statement of fact would demonstrate that
we caught ourselves, not at a moment of great stress as right
after [the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001], but 15-16
years later, when the legislature could calmly say that this is
government overreach. He offered that if there is any belief
that there is no need for the proposed legislation, he would be
happy to cite the media reports of what the President and the
secretary of state have said - that indeed they would consider a
registry of minority religion members.
12:03:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said that he appreciates the hysteria that
has prompted HB 13, but asked if House Joint Resolution 22
doesn't already reasonably and appropriately reflect the
legislature's position, and HB 13 would be redundant. He
offered that he agreed conceptually with HB 13. He suggested,
however, that the federal government collects information from
everyone in the country for the census every ten years.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON expressed his belief that HB 13 would
not be redundant. He said that House Joint Resolution 22
reflects the Twenty-Third Alaska State Legislature, 2003-2004,
and not the current legislature. He stated that this is the
first time in his lifetime where an executive officer at the
highest level of government and his secretary of state have
stated that they are considering registering people. He opined
that it is worthwhile for the State of Alaska to say, as a
matter of law, it won't participate in such a registry. He
added that if the federal government chooses to create a
registry, then that is up to the federal government, but under
HB 13, Alaska would not be committing any "muscle" to that
effort.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if Representative Josephson has
received any indication that Governor Bill Walker, a state
agency, or any governing body within the state is contemplating
participating in a registry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON replied no, but offered that
legislation was passed stipulating that Alaska would not
participate in the enforcement of federal gun laws, when there
was no evidence that the state was going to enforce federal gun
laws and no gun laws were imposed by the federal government for
the state to enforce. He opined that there is nothing wrong
with acting prophylactically. He stated that he didn't know the
capacity of the federal government to compel deputizing.
12:07:09 PM
PAUL KELLY, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime
sponsor of HB 13, relayed that the Toyosaburo Korematsu v. U.S.
decision was included in the bill packet to demonstrate that
Toyosaburo Korematsu had to go to the U.S. Supreme Court; the
case lasted 2 1/2 years; and in the end, he lost. He said, "If
we cut this off before it starts, then there's no need for
judicial remedy and for somebody to have to wait 2 1/2 years for
justice."
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered that since federal overreach comes
with federal dollars, HB 13 wouldn't prevent a registry, but
would just prevent the state from participating in a registry
using state assets. He suggested that the federal government
could themselves set up an office and create a registry within
the state. He asked if federal funds, funneled to the state for
such an effort, would be considered state assets. He stated
that the intent of HB 13 is to prevent a registry, but HB 13
specifically would prevent the state from participating in a
registry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that is correct. He added
that HB 13 refers plainly to state or municipal agencies and the
use of their power and treasure. He relayed a comment by Chief
Justice Antonin Scalia stating that Toyosaburo Korematsu v. U.S.
was clearly a wrong decision, but Mr. Scalia was not convinced
that the courts would ultimately stop it. Representative
Josephson relayed that the President's power is at its greatest
in regard to the country's borders. He added that the U.S.
Supreme Court usually defers very extensively to the executive
branch on defensive security measures. He went on to say that
what was offensive about what was proposed by the current
administration before the election, after the election, and
after the inauguration does not involve just the borders, but
people presently living in the United States and carrying
passports. He expressed his belief that the legislature would
do well by just saying "we caught you, and we Alaskans believe
in our liberty, and we're not going to participate in this." He
cited AS 44.99.040(b), which states that "asset" means funds,
facilities, equipment, services, or other resources of a state
or municipal agency. He asserted that under HB 13, neither the
state nor the municipalities will be able to access these assets
for a registry. He added that if the federal government wants
to set up an office and do a "Korematsu," it will not be through
[the State of] Alaska's assistance.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that the proposed legislation is
similar to House Continuing Resolution 8, passed in the Twenty-
Seventh Alaska State Legislature, 2011-2012. He relayed that
the 2011 resolution opposed the procedures and invasive actions
of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), but nothing
could be done to stop TSA from "setting up shop" in Alaska's
airports. He reiterated that the legislature can prevent the
federal government from using the state's facilities.
12:12:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH suggested that there may be unintended
consequences, and he gave as an example a person using "blood
quantum" to determine that he/she is a Native American artist.
He asked if there are any registries currently maintained by the
state or an instrumentality of the state relating to someone
being Native American or qualifying for a benefit based on a
status that relates to race, religion, ethnicity, or national
origin.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that he would research that
question. He asserted that HB 13 would establish intent and
would be placed in a statute considered to be a "quintessential
push-back" on federal overreach. He said that the statute
addresses the right to keep and bear arms, the right to due
process, and possibly even the [federal REAL ID Act of 2005].
12:14:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH mentioned the REAL ID deadline of June 6,
2017, as the date that a driver's license would not be enough
[to access military bases and federal facilities]. He
reiterated that he appreciates the intent of HB 13 and the offer
for additional research to ensure there are no unintended
consequences.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to Representative Birch's question
as to whether anyone was contemplating doing what HB 13 would
prevent and asserted that HB 13 would prevent anyone from
contemplating it. He opined that one of Alaska's problems with
the federal government is that Alaska is always reacting to it
rather than taking a proactive approach. He cited the reactions
of the legislature to the federal REAL ID Act of 2005 as a good
example of trying to protect the residents of Alaska from the
invasiveness of federal overreach provisions.
12:15:48 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 13.
12:16:16 PM
VALERIE BROOKS identified herself as a public-school educator
and testified that she supports HB 13. She said that she would
support even further measures allowing for sanctuary cities and
campuses to protect Alaska's most vulnerable families and
students, as they come under attack merely due to where they are
from or how they worship. She went on to say that she has
witnessed very real fear in her students and in her co-workers,
who are impacted by the proposed executive order, the current
deportations under way, and the proposed registry that has been
discussed for months by persons now in positions of authority at
the federal level. She asserted that HB 13 would not be
redundant, because it deals with current proposals and
activities. She added that she appreciates that Representative
Josephson has spoken about the duty that Alaskans have to each
other. She said that we are all humans and deserving of respect
and safety, whether documented or undocumented. She urged the
committee to support HB 13 and to resist any attempts to create
or support a registry based on race, religion, ethnicity, or
nationality.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony on HB 13.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 13 would be held over.
12:19:16 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 12:19
p.m.