Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/02/1998 09:05 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
2 April 1998
9:05 a.m.
TAPES
SFC-98, #109, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Bert Sharp, Co-chair, convened the meeting at
approximately 9:05 a.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-chairman Sharp, Senators Pearce, Donley,
Parnell and Adams were present when the meeting was
convened. Senators Torgerson and Phillips arrived
respectively shortly thereafter.
Also Attending: SENATOR GARY WILKEN; SENATOR LOREN LEMAN;
MIKE POLLEY, staff to Senator Loren Leman; JIM BALDWIN,
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; DAN SPENCER,
Chief Budget Analyst, OMB; DIANE BARRANS, Executive
Director, Post Secondary Education Commission, Department of
Education; and aides to committee members and other members
of the Legislature.
Via Teleconference: DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, Alcohol
Beverage Control Board, Department of Revenue from
Anchorage.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
Co-chair Sharp advised the committee they would pick up
where they left off with SB 233.
SENATE BILL NO. 233
"An Act extending the termination date of the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 233(FIN)
"An Act relating to membership on the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board; extending the termination date
of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; relating to
sales of beer and wine on a golf course or at a
recreational site; relating to notice of alcohol-
related arrests; and providing for an effective date."
Co-chair Sharp noted for the record that a CS had been
adopted, however no amendments had been addressed.
Senator Donley MOVED amendment #1. Senator Parnell
OBJECTED. Senator Donley explained that the amendment dealt
with the issue of whether or not the Alcohol Beverage
Control officers may carry a firearm and clarified that they
may.
Senator Parnell asked if they were currently carrying
firearms and if this was just a question of whether they
can, or was there a specific reason as to why they should be
carrying a firearm. Senator Donley responded that in the
audit the question was raised as to whether they should or
not. The actual personnel doing the job were the ones
asking for the authority to be able to carry a firearm.
Given the places they were asked to go and types of crimes
they were witnessing, Senator Donley felt it a reasonable
request.
Senator Pearce said it was her understanding that two of the
investigators were former police officers, who took this
request to the commission. It was her further understanding
that the auditors felt there was no merit to having
investigators carry firearms. She requested that Mr.
Griffin testify and advise if there had been a specific
incident wherein he feels his investigators were endangered.
Douglas Griffin, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,
Department of Revenue testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. He said there had been some threats and some
investigators had been involved in some confrontational
situations. They had not been fired upon and no one had
been injured with regards to these confrontations. However,
the Board has taken these situations very seriously and they
are looking into them.
Senator Pearce asked if during the investigations they would
be looking into any illegal activities and in dealing with
the owners of the licenses did that mean there were bar
owners in the State that were threatening the inspectors?
Mr. Griffin responded that there had been incidents where
bar owners had acted violent. He said the dilemma they were
faced with was they were charged with enforcing Title 4.
The perception was that it only applied to liquor licensees,
however there were Title 4 violations that could be
committed not only by licensees but also by members of the
general public. For example, someone purchasing alcohol and
providing it to an underage individual. Looking at
identification on a licensed premise was another example he
cited. They were looking at all aspects of safety for their
investigators.
In response to Senator Parnell's earlier question, he said
there was a specific regulation at present, 15 AAC 104.505
(b) adopted by the ABC board in 1981 which says the board's
investigative personnel were not authorized to carry
firearms in the performance of their duties. He said the
board had been trying to amend this specific regulation.
Senator Parnell asked what training ABC officers would
receive. Mr. Griffin said they would have to have
particular firearm training and certification as peace
officers. They could be certified the same as police
officers and would be professional in their job.
Senator Parnell asked if they could guarantee training
before allowing the investigators to carry firearms. Mr.
Griffin assured the committee of this guarantee.
Co-chair Sharp asked if the board's personnel costs would
increase if this were to be authorized? Mr. Griffin
indicated that it was his understanding these individuals
would qualify as a police officer and they would be eligible
for those higher benefits. However, it was not the approach
they were taking. In his investigation of this matter, he
looked at other State employees who had two categories that
allowed the carrying of firearms, yet they are not
considered peace officers and are not eligible for the
twenty-year retirement or other benefits of a police
officer. That was also the same category he agreed upon for
their investigators.
Co-chair Sharp asked if the retirement was at thirty years
rather than twenty? Mr. Griffin indicated that was correct.
Senator Pearce asked about park rangers and fish and game
biologists and noted they not only protected themselves but
also other members of the public against bears and other
animals and wildlife. She felt there were also other
problems with other individuals allowed to carry firearms
and cited the airport security who chased someone twenty
miles down the road to kill them. She doesn't feel we
should give more individuals police powers in the State.
Senator Parnell said he appreciated the need as addressed by
Senator Donley. However, he did have the same concerns as
Co-chair Sharp in taking more employees into a new
retirement system and making them eligible for different pay
ranges and benefits. He did not understand that to be part
of the original bill and asked Senator Donley to clarify the
amendment.
Senator Donley said just because someone was authorized to
carry a firearm did not mean they should be classified into
a peace officer status. It would be up to the
administration and collective bargaining. He also noted
that from the audit illegal gambling and prostitution were
being investigated.
Senator Parnell asked if there was an alternative route as
opposed to the amendment. Senator Donley said the issue was
being studied and the board was considering repealing their
regulation that prohibits their investigators from carrying
firearms. Senator Parnell asked if the regulation were
repealed would it accomplish the same as the amendment?
Senator Donley said yes, if the regulation were repealed.
Senator Parnell asked if they would still need statutory
authority to carry a firearm. Senator Donley felt they
would. It is specified by statute who can do it. But then
again, he said the administration took a very broad
interpretation of their powers by regulations.
Co-chair Sharp noted for the record that Senators Torgerson
and Phillips were now present.
Senator Donley continued that philosophically, these were
trained employees of the State. And it is known that the
State is not going to issue them firearms without the same
level of training they do to police officers. These
individuals are being put into some very dangerous
situations, they are highly trained and many of them are
former police officers. Normal individuals are allowed to
carry weapons. These individuals would be highly trained by
the State and he felt this was a reasonable call.
Mr. Griffin indicated that the next couple of months they
expect a policy making decision. He noted that the ABC
board was concerned for the safety of their employees.
Senator Pearce said she felt it was going in the wrong
direction to license investigators. They can always call
the police if necessary and that's what they should use.
She further indicated that it would be difficult to obtain
prosecutions.
Senator Phillips asked how many states allow their
investigators to carry weapons. Mr. Griffin responded that
approximately thirty-seven states allow this, however he did
not know if it was by statute or regulation.
Senator Torgerson voiced his concern of an individual being
in a bar with a gun. He didn't feel that was ever
appropriate.
Co-chair Sharp said there was an OJBECTION to amendment #1
and asked the Secretary to call the roll. By a roll call
vote of 1 yea (Donley) and 6 nay (Sharp, Pearce, Torgerson,
Adams, Parnell, Phillips) amendment #1 FAILED.
Senator Donley MOVED amendment #2. He said it was in
reference to page seventeen of the audit report. The
Commissioner of Public Safety had delegated powers for
investigating gambling and prostitution to the enforcement
officers of the ABC board and the board had approved that
delegation. The auditors recognized that was probably a
good thing to do, as the current investigators are some of
the most knowledgeable enforcement in the State regarding
these issues. The auditors further point out, however, that
the existing statutes specifically prohibit that delegation,
which is in fact occurring and working well. He said the
amendment would make their current procedure consistent with
statute. He said the audit report pointed out that the
investigating officers are all former police officers.
Senator Pearce requested someone from Department of Revenue
testify however, Co-chair Sharp noted there was no one
signed up nor in attendance.
Senator Torgerson said he was not sure the ABC board
investigates gambling unless it is associated with a bar
having illegal gambling. He said the local police and State
Troopers were available in prior cases and also the
Department of Revenue. He felt this was an over-
characterization of what they do as far as investigating
gambling.
By a roll call vote of 1 yea (Donley) and 6 nay (Sharp,
Pearce, Torgerson, Adams, Parnell, Phillips) the amendment
FAILED.
Senator Donley MOVED amendment #3. He said this amendment
would add two public members to the Alcohol Beverage Control
board. In the audit it was pointed out that the current
balance of three public members to two members from the
industry had been problematic, since the Administration had
failed to appoint a third public member. This created a
two-two deadlock on many occasions as far as taking any
enforcement action. It would be good public policy to have
more public members on the commission to balance out the
conflict industry members may have.
Senator Adams asked Mr. Griffin if the agency support this
and if a fiscal note had been prepared for the addition of
two new public members.
Mr. Griffin said the board had not taken a position on this
amendment. A fiscal note had not been prepared as of yet,
even though there was going to be some fiscal impact. He
felt it would be approximately $5000 for additional travel.
Senator Pearce voiced concern over the additional costs and
whether the size of a board just because a particular
Governor has not filled positions in it in a quick manner.
By a roll call vote of 2 yeas (Donley, Torgerson) and 5 nays
(Sharp, Pearce, Adams, Parnell, Phillips) the amendment
FAILED.
Senator Donley MOVED amendment #4. Senator Adams OBJECTED.
He said that amendments #4 and #5 were basically the same
and asked the sponsor explain any preference. Senator
Donley said that amendment #4 pointed out that in the audit
there had been dissatisfaction with the dual responsibility
of the board and the local governing bodies and no one took
final responsibility for the input from local neighborhoods
about problems with liquor licenses in their neighborhoods.
In clarifying the difference between amendments #4 and #5 he
said #5 would place the super-majority into the ABC board
and not into the local governmental body.
Senator Adams asked Senator Donley which one would be his
preference? Senator Donley said either one would work but
the least controversial would be amendment #5. The
Legislature would be making clear guidelines to the State
agency to take its responsibility considering input from
neighborhoods and people directly impacted by the liquor
licenses. He said his preference would be amendment #5.
In response to a query from Senator Adams, Mr. Griffin said
he had looked at the two amendments. He voiced concern in
giving authority to the advisory board. He thought there
might be a violation of Title 29. He said the board had
been trying to work with community councils to overcome this
problem. Senator Parnell concurred with Senator Donley and
noted they shared one community council. He felt it was not
so much a problem with the ABC board but rather with the
assembly not taking into consideration neighborhood
concerns. Senator Pearce said she shared the same concern
of Mr. Griffin. When her community council sees the word
"alcohol" they vote "no".
Senator Phillips also concurred. He said usually the owner
showed up at the meetings and explained what they wanted to
do. There followed some miscellaneous conversation between
Senators Pearce and Phillips as to the different community
councils.
Co-chair Sharp noted there was still OBJECTION to the
amendment and asked the roll be called. By a roll call vote
of 3 yeas (Donley, Parnell, Phillips) and 4 nays (Sharp,
Pearce, Torgerson, Adams) amendment #4 FAILED>
Senator Donley MOVED amendment #5.
(Tape #109, Side A switched to Side B.)
By a roll call vote of 2 yeas (Donley, Phillips) and 5 nays
(Sharp, Pearce, Torgerson, Adams, Parnell) the amendment
FAILED.
Senator Donley MOVED amendment #6. Senator Pearce OBJECTED
and following a brief explanation of the amendment by
Senator Donley WITHDREW her objection. WITHOUT OBJECTION
amendment #6 was ADOPTED.
Senator Donley MOVED amendment #7. Senator Donley explained
that this was a modified amendment #3. It would still
remain status quo leaving the membership at five members.
Line nine would delete "2" and insert "1". Line thirteen
would delete "3" and insert "4". Section 2 would be
deleted. Senator Pearce OBJECTED and asked for comments by
Mr. Griffin. He said it was difficult to respond to this
and noted the vacancy in public member ship is unfortunate.
He felt the board had dealt with most issues with great
unanimity, especially concerning issues of sanctions against
licensees. He felt the board had listened to neighborhoods
and wanted to be on record in saying that he felt the board
had been very responsive. He told the committee that
whenever there was a tie vote he had the authority to be the
breaking vote.
Senator Torgerson asked when the terms of the two members
engaged in the industry would expire? Mr. Griffin said one
ran until the year 2000 or 2001 and the other expired next
year. Senator Torgerson said he would support the amendment
if a transition clause were included that whenever a vacancy
occurred the public member be appointed. Senator Donley
concurred and moved technical correction to the amendment
that the existing members would serve out their terms and
the drafters put in a new transition clause.
In response to a query from Senator Pearce Mr. Griffin
advised that when he voted to break a tie he always voted
his conscience.
Senator Pearce WITHDREW her objection and WITHOUT OBJECTION
amendment #7 was ADOPTED.
Senator Torgerson MOVED CSSB 233(FIN). Senator Adams
OBJECTED. By a roll call vote of 6 yeas (Sharp, Pearce,
Donley, Torgerson, Parnell, Phillips) and 1 nay (Adams) CSSB
233(FIN) was REPORTED OUT with individual recommendations
and a zero fiscal note from the Department of Revenue, ABC
Board.
Co-chair Sharp called SB 332.
SENATE BILL NO. 332
"An Act relating to the Alaska Student Loan
Corporation."
Senator Pearce advised the bill had been heard last week and
the amendments in the files were a result of that hearing.
She noted that "E" version of the bill had been adopted as a
working draft. The bill was held over so Senator Donley
would have time to prepare some amendments.
Senator Donley advised the committee that he would no be
offering amendments #1. He would like to start with
amendment #3. There was no objection.
Senator Donley MOVED amendment #3. He said this amendment
would allow Alaskan students to borrow more money over the
current $9500 cap for certain types of graduate schools not
offered in Alaska. With the exception of dental and medical
they could borrow up to $15,000/year and dental and medical
would be moved up to $25,000/year.
Senator Gary Wilken was invited to join the committee. He
said he admired Senator Donley's work with the WAMI program.
He knows how difficult it has been, but much needed. He
said he would support the amendment but not the bill. He
noted the student loan program was still trying to get on
its own feet and each year had been lessening their request
for more general fund money. He felt the bill in general
would create more losses for the student loan program. He
said they should concentrate more on making the program
self-sufficient.
Senator Parnell asked what the default rate was, but Senator
Wilken deferred to Diane Barrans.
Diane Barrans, Executive Director, Post Secondary Education
Commission, Department of Education was invited to join the
committee. She said at this time they had not done a data
extraction to really examine what this amendment might do
for graduate students. She said overall the default rate
was at about nineteen percent. She said one of the concerns
of the commission was that it raised the aggregate cap for
not only medical and dental borrowers but also other
graduate students. Looking at the debt load if someone were
to borrow at the increased level, beginning immediate
repayment, the monthly payment on a twenty-year schedule
would be over $900. If there was economic hardship and it
was extended to twenty-five years it would be $850 per
month. She explained the commission would be issuing a
mortgage size loan in an unsecured debt capacity. The risk
extended to the commission was significant.
Senator Parnell felt there was a need to look at the real
value of the dollars at this point in time. He did not feel
they were asking students to do any more that requested from
students ten years ago.
Senator Torgerson asked in relation to income was it any
worse that someone that has borrowed $42,000 and has a $500
payment? Ms. Barrans said she has not really had time to
look at the types of graduate degree programs they would be
funding at the higher levels. She said some may be in the
myriad of substantial incomes, however, some, such as social
work would have very modest incomes. Senator Torgerson
asked if the option were to general fund subsidize the
students and not ask them to borrow more money? Ms. Barrans
referred to her memo of 31 March and 1 April and said she
explained a need for some general fund capitalization. She
said the commission was loaning approximately $80
million/year. She suggested a general fund source for
loans. Senator Torgerson indicated that he preferred the
option of additional money being available to borrow instead
of them coming to the Legislature and creating programs such
as WAMI. He asked what other states did for graduate study
monies? Ms. Barrans said Alaska's program was currently the
most generous graduate program available. Again referring
to her memos, she said there were other loan programs
available, such as Federal and private.
In response to Co-chair Sharp, she noted that because
interest does not start on the ASL until time it is being
paid back many borrowers opted for this program rather than
the Federal program on which interest started at the time of
the award. She further explained that the majority of
graduate students attended schools out-of-state. She said
approximately 400 - 600 borrowers would qualify for the new
increased limits.
Senator Adams said he OBJECTED to amendment #3. He felt it
could be repaired by a new bill.
By a roll call vote of 4 yeas (Pearce, Donley, Torgerson,
Parnell) and 3 nays (Sharp, Adams, Phillips) amendment #3
was ADOPTED.
Senator Donley indicated he would not offer amendment #3.
Senator Pearce MOVED CSSB 332(FIN) and WITHOUT OBJECTION it
was REPORTED OUT with individual recommendations and zero
fiscal note from the Department of Education.
The following verbatim transcript of SJR 42 is incorporated
into the minutes.
Co-chair Sharp called SJR 42.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 42
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to marriage.
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 42(JUD)
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to marriage.
CO-CHAIR SHARP: SJR 42. We have gone through hours and
hours of public hearing with this committee on this bill.
SENATOR PHILLIPS: SJR 42. Do we have any committee
substitute?
CO-CHAIR SHARP: No. A judiciary...
SENATOR PHILLIPS: I would move the judiciary version of SJR
42 with the accompanying one fiscal note.
SENATOR ADAMS: Objection.
CO-CHAIR SHARP: There has been objection.
SENATOR ADAMS: I am looking for the judiciary committee
substitute. Is that in the packet?
SENATOR PHILLIPS: Yeah, it is, Mr. Chairman.
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Beg your pardon?
SENATOR PHILLIPS: Yeah, it should be.
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Judiciary is in here on mine.
SENATOR PHILLIPS: Want to know what the changes are?
(pause on record)
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Is it in your folder?
SENATOR ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, could we go over just the
changes real quick?
CO-CHAIR SHARP: I think every member has the two bills in
front of them.
SENATOR PHILLIPS: Did you want an answer?
SENATOR ADAMS: Yeah, go over the changes, would you?
SENATOR PHILLPS: Oh, O.K. That's what I though you said.
O.K., Mr. Chairman, obviously I'm not an expert on this, but
I can at least try. If you look at the original version it
had article 12, Judiciary put it in article 1. And
Judiciary deleted the original language up to the second
sentence. "The Legislature may, by law, enact judicial
requirements relating to marriage" and inserted "No
provisions of this Constitution may be interpreted to
require the State to recognize or permit marriage between
individuals of the same sex. Additional requirements
related to marriage may be established to the extent
permitted by the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of Alaska." Now, Mr. Chairman,
those are the main changes.
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Senator Donley?
SENATOR DONLEY: As much as I am reluctant...it seems to me
the initial sentence covers pretty much everything that the
entire paragraph covers. I mean it defines what a marriage
is. The constitutional construction clearly, from the
recent State Supreme Court cases, (unintelligible) clearly
indicates that a subsequent amendment cannot be invalidated
by a prior section of the Constitution. So that with just
the first sentence nobody could interpret the Constitution,
any other clause of the State's Constitution overriding that
first sentence which defines a marriage as existing between
one man and one woman. And I don't understand the necessity
of the third sentence, "additional requirements may be
established". Typically the Constitution, where it says,
"additional requirements" it specifies that it be done by
statute or by the Legislature. But this doesn't say. It
just says "additional requirements may be established". It
begs the question by "who" to me. Every other sections of
the Constitution specify "who" shall establish subsequent
provisions.
(Tape SFC-109, Side B changed to SFC-110, Side A at
approximately 10:40 a.m.)
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Senator Leman, could you explain the nature
of the changes between the original bill and the judiciary
version and some of the...did you hear some of Senator
Donley's...?
SENATOR LEMAN: I just stepped in and didn't hear that...
SENATOR DONLEY: Do you want me to...I could
CO-CHAIR SHARP: O.K.
SENATOR LEMAN: I just heard the comments that...I know what
the differences are, but I did not hear his questions.
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Did you hear, Senator Donley?
SENATOR DONLEY: I liked the original version better than
the judiciary version, my first impression. So, why the
changes and why did the judiciary committee think this
version was better?
SENATOR LEMAN: The overall reason is to remove ambiguity in
the future and future challenges. Wanted to make sure that
it's very clear and that's the reason for it. And I'll let
Mr. Polley go through and explain each one in detail.
MR. POLLEY: Thank-you. For the record, my name is Mike
Polley, staff aide to Senator Leman. First, just some
background comments on the genesis of both these proposals.
The first version, here, draft "A", is actually identical to
a version that Legal Services drafted back in 1996, when the
Legislature initially addressed this subject. And, at that
time, one of the proposals being considered was that it
should be in the structure of an amendment to the
Constitution rather than a statute. At that time it was
decided that a statute was sufficient, since there had been
no Court ruling on the subject, saying that any
constitutional rights were implicated. And, so, the
decision was made to abandon that and go with the statute.
So, when we initially introduced the bill, we simply took
the language that had been prepared back in 1996 and
introduced it. Subsequent to that, we consulted with
attorneys who have been involved in the litigation on same
sex marriage in both the State of Hawaii and also the State
of Vermont, which are the only two other states, aside from
Alaska, which are dealing with this issue in their Courts.
Those attorneys reviewed the language of our 1996 draft and
felt that it was inadequate and it could potentially create
some ambiguity. So, if I could turn to the new draft, just
very quickly...the first line, to be valid or recognized in
the State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one
woman. Basically, the term "valid" applies to marriages
that are entered in to in our State, the term "recognized"
would deal with the matter of the potentiality in the future
if another state or foreign jurisdiction were to legalize a
same sex union would Alaska then have to recognize that
marriage. And so, the two verbs there, "valid" and
"recognized" apply to the in-state and out-of-state
questions. And then, "only" is the limiting word and
obviously one man and one woman simply restating what has
always been the law in Alaska.
The second line, "no provision of this Constitution may be
interpreted to require the State to recognize or permit
marriage between individuals of the same sex" is in the
amendment to basically deal with the scenario that if a
Court found a contradiction between the first sentence and
the overall values or vision of the document and shows the
latter. In other words, what we are trying to do is preempt
a situation, such as what occurred in Colorado, where the
voters there actually passed a constitutional amendment
saying that no special preferences could be granted to
people based upon their sexual preference. That was an
amendment to the constitution. The Colorado Supreme Court
actually struck down an amendment to their own constitution
because they found it to be inconsistent with other parts of
the constitution. I realize that legally, that's a hard
concept to digest, that the...we've always thought that any
amendment to the constitution is going to trump other parts
of the constitution. But, at least in the case of
Colorado, an amendment to the constitution did not suffice.
So, the second line, here, we believe is necessary, so that
it states very specifically "no provision of this
Constitution may be interpreted to require that the State
recognize or permit marriages between individuals of the
same sex". In other words, what we're trying to do is
prevent a situation where the Court might find that the
first sentence in the amendment conflicts with due process,
equal protection or some other part of the Constitution that
they would say would override that.
The third sentence, "additional requirements related to
marriage may be established" is basically just to...set in
to address other scenarios because we believe that Judge
Michalski's opinion implicates our statutes far beyond the
narrow question of whether people of the same sex should be
allowed to marry. I mean, what he has found, is a
fundamental constitutional right to choose one's life
partner without setting any parameters on that. And so, in
our mind, that could potentially be invoked to strike on
other parts of our marriage statutes, such as limitations on
consanguinity and also restrictions based on age. So, the
third sentence is just an overall statement that it's
appropriate for the Legislature to act in the area of our
marriage statutes. Anyway, I apologize for the long winded
explanation.
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Senator Donley?
SENATOR DONLEY: But it doesn't say the Legislature and I
think it is pretty consistent throughout the Alaska State
Constitution...if you find the language that appears in the
original resolution, "...the Legislature by law may
enact..." and this one just says, "Additional requirements
may be established...". But it doesn't give the power to
that to anybody specifically.
MR. POLLEY: Through the Chair, Senator Donley, I don't
believe it would do any injury to the amendment if the
committee wanted to insert, after the word "established",
"established by the Legislature to the extent permitted"...
SENATOR DONLEY: Or etcetera.
SENATOR LEMAN: Or worded as we have elsewhere. I believe
we have, Mr. Chairman and Senator Donley, we could say, "The
Legislature may establish additional requirements to the
extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States
and the Constitution of the State of Alaska" or something to
that effect. Too many things we are trying to get to that I
believe are in existing statute are age and blood quantum,
you know, those are things that are in existing statute and
those are legitimate. We don't want to see claims brought
against those types of restrictions that we have in existing
law.
SENATOR DONLEY: Why did the judiciary committee want to add
the caveat, "...may be established to the extent permitted
by the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of Alaska". I mean it just seems
like that's a given. All through the Constitution we see
the Legislature given the power to, as in the original
proposal, make statutes, all of which are tempered by the
fact that they have to be consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and the State Constitution. Now, occasionally,
you may want to specify the standards of the U.S.
Constitution and not the Alaska Constitution and that would
be appropriate but it doesn't mean that the State shouldn't,
but, as long as you are covering both, here, that's the
default. I mean, that's what would be the default factor,
anyhow.
MR. POLLEY: Through the Chair, Senator Donley, the thought
behind adding the term "Constitution of the United States
and Constitution of the State of Alaska" is to address the
concerns some people have expressed that yeah, there have
been some fears, we believe they're unfounded, that this
could lead to other unwarranted restrictions on marriage, as
in the case brought to this committee's attention most
often, you know, that interracial marriage used to not be
allowed, you know, and is this opening the door to setting a
restriction like that. Well, of course, the Supreme Court
has struck down bans on interracial marriage as being
unconstitutional. And so the purpose in having that
language is just to clarify for people, and admittedly it
is...there is a slight redundancy to it, because obviously
the primacy of Federal law exists here, but basically what
this language is trying to do is clarify for people that,
you know, the Legislature is obviously not going to be
getting into areas of reexamining laws interracial marriage.
I mean, that's not the scope of this amendment.
SENATOR PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair?
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Senator Phillips?
SENATOR PHILLIPS: At the hearing on Tuesday night, there
were a few that expressed that concern. It was brought up
at the hearing.
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Senator Parnell?
SENATOR PARNELL: And I agree with Senator Donley to the
extent that it is a little ambiguous unless we insert
something about the "Legislature enacting". And I would
propose an amendment on page one, line nine, before the word
"additional", insert "The Legislature may enact..." and then
strike the words, beginning at line nine, "...may be
established..." so the sentence would read, "The
Legislature may enact additional requirements related to
marriage to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the
United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska."
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Senator Parnell has proposed an amendment,
which would be amendment number one, on line nine,
preceeding...adding to the beginning of the sentence, "the
Legislature may enact additional requirements related to
marriage...", delelting the words "may be established" so
that it would read, "The Legislature may enact additional
requirements r elated to marriage to the extent permitted by
the Constitution..." and so on. Is that correct?
SENATOR PARNELL: Yes.
CO-CHAIR SHARP: That is the amendment and it will be
amendment number one. Any discussion on amendment number
one? Any objection to amendment number one? Amendment
number one has been adopted.
SENATOR ADAMS: Mr. Chairman? Point of order.
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Senator Adams?
SENATOR ADAMS: Wasn't there a motion before that particular
amendment to move out the bill. We're not doing this
particularly properly. There's a motion to move out the
bill. We should have removed that before we went to
amendment number one, Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR PHILLIPS: That's correct.
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Had you moved that? O.K. Senator
Phillips?
SENATOR PHILLIPS: I will just withdraw the motion...
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Senator Phillips has asked to be able to
withdraw his motion to move the bill out of committee. Any
objection? Hearing no objection...Senator Parnell? The
bill has got...
SENATOR PARNELL: O.K., the bill is back before us
and...what became of it? Was my motion ruled out of order?
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Yes.
SENATOR PARNELL: O.K. I'll start over again. My motion is
page one, line nine, before the word "additional" insert the
words, "The Legislature may enact..." and then delete the
words at line nine, page one...beginning at page nine...or
page one, line nine, "may be established"...those three
words should be deleted.
CO-CHAIR SHARP: O.K. Does the Secretary have that
amendment?
MADAME SECRETARY: Yes.
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Which will be amendment number one. Any
objection to that amendment? Amendment number one has been
adopted.
SENATOR PHILLIPS: All right, Mr. Chairman, I'll move
the...I guess it will be the Finance Committee substitute?
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Yes.
SENATOR PHILLIPS: Number SJR 42...
SENATOR ADAMS: Object.
CO-CHAIR SHARP: There has been objection. Senator Adams?
SENATOR ADAMS: May I speak to my...
SENATOR PHILLIPS: (unintelligible)
SENATOR ADAMS: I yield to my collegue.
SENATOR PHILLIPS: With the accompanying three thousand
dollar fiscal note.
CO-CHAIR SHARP: O.K. It has been moved that CSSJR 42(FIN)
be moved out of committee with individual recommendations
and accompanying fiscal note. Senator Adams?
SENATOR ADAMS: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, CSSJR 42, what
it lacks, I believe, it lacks respect and compassion for
people in the State of Alaska. I am a married man, six kids
and a Quaker. And I listened to the testimony from some of
the religious groups. But I believe that before we pass
something like this is that we should wait for the Courts to
take it. I think that many Alaskans, no matter where you
live in rural or urban areas, have been government
infringing on individual rights. And that's basically what
this does. I thought we took a sworn oath of office that we
would protect the Constitution. That every Alaskan should
have equal protection, equal treatment. But we're not doing
it with this piece of legislation. One of the things that
we try to do, is we Legislators...to do, is try to push
morality, I think, on people. None of us...none of the
sixty Legislators are perfect. How many, like myself, can
stand up and say, "Should I push the morality of what I do
on the people of the State of Alaska?" 'Cause I love to
gamble. I play poker once a week. I play cribbage. I go
to the horse races. So, I love to gamble. After one
hundred and twenty-one days I like to drink. But I do not
pass that on to the people. And, as a normal human being,
also, is I do lust for certain things. A new car, and
perhaps something beautiful of the opposite sex. So, there
is nobody that is perfect in the Legislature. Any why are
we trying to pass on morality? I think morality should not
be a Legislative matter and we're trying to do this. And I
think that is wrong. We could beg, also, in different
sections of the statutes, the invasion of privacy. And I
think that's basically what we're trying to do. And I would
ask members, that we should at least wait for a Court
decision on this piece of legislation. I know I might be
the lone wolf in this particular argument but I think it is
the only decent thing to do, is not to pass this.
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Any other committee comments? There has
been objection, please call the roll.
MADAME SECRETARY: Senator Torgerson?
SENATOR TORGERSON: Yes.
MADAME SECRETARY: Senator Parnell?
SENATOR PARNELL: Yes.
MADAME SECRETARY: Senator Donley?
SENATOR DONLEY: Yes.
MADAME SECRETARY: Senator Adams?
SENATOR ADAMS: No.
MADAME SECRETARY: Senator Phillips?
SENATOR PHILLIPS: Yes.
MADAME SECRETARY: Senator Pearce?
SENATOR PEARCE: Yes.
MADAME SECRETARY: Senator Sharp?
CO-CHAIR SHARP: Yes.
MADAME SECRETARY: Six yeas, one nay.
CO-CHAIR SHARP: SJR 42(FIN) with accompanying fiscal notes
moves out of committee on a vote of six yeas and one nay.
End of verbatim transcript, SJR 42.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-chair Sharp adjourned the meeting until 9:00 a.m.
tomorrow.
SFC-98 -1- 4/02/98
SJR 42
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|