Legislature(2023 - 2024)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/11/2024 01:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SCR13 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SCR 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 11, 2024
1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Forrest Dunbar, Chair
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson
Senator Jesse Bjorkman
Senator Cathy Giessel
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Donald Olson, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 13
Relating to the procedure that the Thirty-Third Alaska State
Legislature will use to reconsider bills and items vetoed by the
governor.
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SCR 13
SHORT TITLE: ART. II, SEC. 16, CONST:AFFIRM COMPLIANCE
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
04/08/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/08/24 (S) CRA
04/08/24 (S) CRA WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, RULE
23
04/11/24 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR MATT CLAMAN, District H
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SCR 13 as Chair of the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
SUSAN ORLANSKY, Attorney
Reeves Amodio LLC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony on SCR 13.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:31:54 PM
CHAIR FORREST DUNBAR called the Senate Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. Present
at the call to order were Senators Gray-Jackson, Bjorkman, and
Chair Dunbar. Senator Giessel arrived immediately thereafter.
SCR 13-ART. II, SEC. 16, CONST:AFFIRM COMPLIANCE
1:32:23 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR announced the consideration of SENATE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION NO. 13 Relating to the procedure that the Thirty-
Third Alaska State Legislature will use to reconsider bills and
items vetoed by the governor.
This is the introductory hearing of SCR 13 in the Senate
Community and Regional Affairs Committee.
CHAIR DUNBAR invited Senator Claman to introduce the resolution.
1:33:01 PM
SENATOR MATT CLAMAN, District H, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, introduced SCR 13 as Chair of the Senate
Judiciary Committee. He explained that it concerns the process
for reconsidering the governor's vetoes under the art. II, sec.
16 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska. He deferred to
Susan Orlansky for opening remarks on SCR 13, noting her
extensive experience as an appellate lawyer. He highlighted that
she has served as counsel in over 200 cases before the Alaska
Court of Appeals and Alaska Supreme Court.
1:33:29 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL joined the meeting.
1:34:10 PM
SUSAN ORLANSKY, Attorney, Reeves Amodio LLC, Anchorage, Alaska,
gave invited testimony on SCR 13. She stated that she has been a
lawyer in Alaska for over 40 years and has conducted legal
research on a variety of issues. She stated that she was asked
by Senator Claman and Mr. Gardner, Senate Majority Counsel, to
conduct research on art. II, sec. 16 of the Constitution of the
State of Alaska, which governs the legislature's action upon a
veto. She explained that she had no preconceptions about this
section of the Constitution but found it to be a straightforward
research project with only one sensible answer regarding how the
provision is supposed to work. This conclusion is supported by
the complete consistency between the explicit language of the
Constitution, the Constitutional Convention minutes explaining
the intent of the framers who wrote the section, and the rules
of practice adopted by the first legislature. She noted that
some members of the first legislature were delegates to the
Constitutional Convention and therefore had a unique
understanding of what the framers intended the legislature to do
in response to a gubernatorial veto.
1:36:20 PM
MS. ORLANSKY said she had no part in drafting SCR 13. She opined
that SCR 13 accurately outlines the history and meaning of art.
II, sec. 16. She highlighted the following key points regarding
the constitutional language and subsequent practice:
• Regular session: The legislature upon receipt of a veto
message shall meet immediately in joint session and
reconsider passage of the veto bill or item.
• Not in session: The legislature shall reconsider the veto
bill in joint session no later than the fifth day after
reconvening in either regular or special session.
• The Constitution requires the legislature to meet in joint
session when a veto is received. There is no discretion to
refuse to meet.
• Uniform Rule 45 provides that after the governor returns a
vetoed bill with his objections to the house of origin
while the legislature is in session, that house shall note
the veto message in the journal, and the other house is
promptly requested to meet in joint session to reconsider
passage of the veto bill or item. If the legislature is not
in session when the veto is delivered, the bill must be
considered in joint session within five days of that
legislature's reconvening in regular or special session.
MS. ORLANSKY opined that if there is anything unclear in the
constitutional language, it is the exact meaning of
"immediately." She stated that the constitutional language and
the Constitutional Convention minutes suggest the framers did
not intend for both houses to drop everything and move literally
immediately into a joint session. Equally clear, however, is
that the framers intended the legislature to hold that joint
session promptly, without undue delay. She provided an example,
noting that the first legislature, dealing with the first vetoes
in the state's history, met in joint session on the same day the
vetoes were delivered. She further stated that an outside limit
for what could be considered prompt enough to meet the spirit of
"immediately" is suggested by the five-day limit for convening
in joint session if the legislature has adjourned and needs to
reconvene for the next regular or special session, allowing
enough time for members to gather from all parts of the state.
1:40:11 PM
MS. ORLANSKY stated that she had heard that, in the recent past,
the legislature turned to Uniform Rule 51 for guidance instead
of Uniform Rule 45. She explained that this was clearly a
mistake because Rule 51 is a general rule on joint sessions,
whereas Rule 45 is specifically written to define the
legislature's required procedure in response to a vetoed bill.
She noted that it is well established in law that a more
specific rule always takes precedence over a general rule. She
concluded that SCR 13 accurately reflects the history, the
intent of the constitutional language, and the framers'
intention regarding the procedure and response to a vetoed bill.
1:41:58 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN commented that Ms. Orlansky framed the focus of
SCR 13 well. He said that on the question of vetoes, the
legislature looked to Uniform Rule 51 to determine the procedure
[for responding to a veto message] and whether there were votes
to call a special session. He opined that a review of the issue
this session led to focus on specific language in the
Constitution, Constitutional Convention discussions at the time
"immediately" was adopted, and the content of Uniform Rule 45.
He stressed the importance of passing SCR 13, as it provides the
proper procedure to follow when the legislature receives a veto
message.
1:43:04 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL said that, as a former presiding officer, she
recalled trying to determine if there were enough votes to
override a veto, which informs the decision to call a special
session.
1:43:32 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR asked what the practical implications of SCR 13 to
the public are.
1:43:50 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN used the recently vetoed education bill as an
example to explain the implications of SCR 13 for the public. He
noted that the education veto message was received in June, and
constituents asked their legislators about the possibility of
overriding the veto. He explained that his response had been,
"I'm not sure we have the votes to call a special session."
Under the plain language of the Constitution, he stated that
communication to constituents would shift to: "There will be a
special session in the first five days when we return to Juneau.
I don't know if the votes are there to override [the veto], but
you can organize to try to get the votes." He emphasized that
while the Constitution requires the legislature to meet in a
joint session, whether there are enough votes to override the
veto remains uncertain. He opined that this represents a
significant change in how legislators interact with
constituents.
1:45:37 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON commented that she is really happy to see
SCR 13, as she knows of the situation mentioned by Senator
Giessel. For clarity she asked, if the governor vetoes a bill in
June, would the legislature need enough votes to call a special
session, or must a meeting on the veto take place right away.
1:46:11 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN replied that if the legislature was not in
session, it would only convene during a special session or upon
returning for the second regular session. He clarified that
there is no requirement to meet solely because there is a veto.
1:46:32 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL noted that SCR 13 includes vetoed "bills and
items," prompting her to think of budget items that are
frequently vetoed. She asked whether requiring the legislature
to meet "immediately" when not in session could pose challenges
for legislators, such as those working on boats.
1:47:15 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR stated his understanding that meeting doesn't occur
until the legislature is back [in session].
1:47:24 PM
MS. ORLANSKY stated that the constitutional provision under
review outlines how the legislature must respond to a vetoed
bill or item during a regular or special session but does not
dictate when, where, or how a special session should be called.
She acknowledged that other rules, which she had not researched
and is not an expert on, govern the process of calling a special
session. She explained that in the first year of a two-year
legislature, if adjourned and no special session occurs during
the summer, the legislature would address a veto within five
days of reconvening in the second year. In the second year, if
adjourned and a veto is issued, a special session must be called
to reconsider the veto; otherwise, there is no opportunity to
override it. She clarified that the bill does not address the
rules for calling a special session or require a session within
five days of receiving a veto but specifies that the legislature
must meet within five days if already in session.
1:49:30 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR opened public testimony on SCR 13; finding none, he
closed public testimony.
1:49:52 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN thanked the committee for hearing the resolution.
1:49:55 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR held SCR 13 in committee.
1:50:19 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Dunbar adjourned the Senate Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee meeting at 1:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SCR 13 version B 4.8.2024.pdf |
SCRA 4/11/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SCR 13 |
| SCR 13 Sponsor Statement version B 4.9.2024.pdf |
SCRA 4/11/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SCR 13 |
| SCR 13 Supporting Document- S. Orlansky Memo 3.21.2024.pdf |
SCRA 4/11/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SCR 13 |
| SCR 13 Supporting Document- Senate Majority Counsel Memo with Exhibits 3.11.2024.pdf |
SCRA 4/11/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SCR 13 |
| SCR13-LEG-SESS-04-11-24.pdf |
SCRA 4/11/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SCR 13 |