Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
02/21/2006 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SJR 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 21, 2006
8:37 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ralph Seekins, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Hollis French
Senator Gretchen Guess
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members were present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20
Proposing an amendment to the section of the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to marriage.
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SJR 20
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
02/14/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/06 (S) JUD, FIN
02/16/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/16/06 (S) <Pending Referral>
02/21/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
Kevin Clarkson, Attorney
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented and answered questions on SJR 20
Steve Click
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Cheryl Humme
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Rick Solie
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 20
Chuck O'Connell
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Andrea Doll
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Mary Graham
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Peter Nakamura
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Joan Hamilton
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Jeri Museth
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Jane Schlitter
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Brandon Maitlen
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:37:12 AM. Present were Senators
Gene Therriault, Gretchen Guess, Charlie Huggins, and Chair
Ralph Seekins.
SJR 20-CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE
8:37:51 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS announced SJR 20 to be up for consideration.
KEVIN CLARKSON, attorney, introduced himself as a past legal
counsel for the Alaska State Legislature in 1998 and one of the
drafters of the amendment to Article 1, Section 25 of the
Constitution of the State of Alaska [AS 25.05.013].
He reported the history behind SJR 20 was because of a challenge
to the ratification of the Marriage Amendment. In response to a
decision by the Superior Court in Anchorage in a case called
(indisc) versus the Bureau of Vital Statistics [Feb 28, 1998],
the Superior Court ruled that a person has the right to choose
their mate. This ruling included the right to marry a person of
the same sex. The plaintiff in that case sought marriage as a
doorway to the benefits and privileges attached to the
relationship, Mr. Clarkson said.
8:39:04 AM
The plaintiff argued there were 115 privileges and benefits
created by Alaska law that were attached only to the married
relationship of a man and a woman. Once married, the Superior
Court noted, the state provides benefits to spouses and
dependants. The original pretenses of the proposed Marriage
Amendment of 1998 were, "To be valid or recognized by the state,
a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman."
8:42:41 AM
MR. CLARKSON advised the committee that the primary impetus for
SJR 20 was the "ACLU versus the State of Alaska" litigation. In
that case the plaintiffs argued for a separation of marriage
status from marriage benefits as a way to seek another doorway
to compensation benefits. The Superior Court of Alaska ruled
that the Marriage Amendment did not constitutionally bar
domestic partnership benefits, literally telling the people of
Alaska that they voted in favor of rights of benefits to
unmarried, same-sex couples.
8:44:52 AM
[Due to difficulty in hearing the testimony of Mr. Clarkson,
Senator Guess asked for a faxed copy of his testimony.]
8:46:52 AM
MR. CLARKSON hypothesized that the implication of "ACLU versus
the State of Alaska" will cause an equal protection claim and
mandate private employers to provide domestic partnership
benefits for their workforce.
8:49:13 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Clarkson whether the language of
SJR 20 was adopted from language tested in other state's courts.
MR. CLARKSON said yes. It is similar to an amendment that is
pending in California.
SENATOR THERRIAULT expressed interest in receiving information
regarding the issue where the courts have weighed in.
MR. CLARKSON said he was unaware of any court that has ever
thrown out an amendment that was passed by the Legislature and
ratified by the people.
SENATOR THERRIAULT clarified he was looking for any deliberation
where the courts have decided whether the language as proposed
in SJR 20 was considered internally inconsistent. He said Alaska
privacy law is very strong but often contended.
8:51:51 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Clarkson whether he is aware of a
proposed federal amendment that is briefer than what is
currently on the table in SJR 20.
MR. CLARKSON said yes.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Clarkson whether he could give a reason
as to why the federal amendment language was so brief in terms
of the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities and effects of
marriage.
MR. CLARKSON responded he would have to refer to the list of 115
rights and privileges listed in the (indisc) litigation.
CHAIR SEEKINS informed Mr. Clarkson that people contacting his
office believed their vote on the marriage amendment was also
intended to limit the rights and benefits of marriage to same-
sex unions. He asked whether the drafters of that amendment
meant to contain within the marriage union the rights and
benefits of marriage.
8:56:20 AM
MR. CLARKSON reiterated his earlier testimony and suggested
Chair Seekins' constituents were right in that the recent
amendment should have addressed the issue once and for all. He
said the Marriage Amendment, which the Legislature passed and
the people ratified, presupposed that marriage and the
accompanying benefits were exclusively linked. He said the state
argued that the only avenue available for unmarried people was
legislation properly enacted by the Legislature.
8:59:04 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said the people wish to be given the opportunity
to vote on the issue.
MR. CLARKSON pointed out that the Legislature is empowered to
give the people the opportunity to amend the Constitution.
CHAIR SEEKINS said in viewing the ACLU opinion, one thing the
Alaska Supreme Court said is "We must give effect to every word,
phrase and clause of the Alaska Constitution." He asked whether
passing of SJR 20 would confine the 115 marriage benefits to
opposite-sex married couples.
MR. CLARKSON said yes.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Clarkson whether SJR 20 could be
effectively challenged.
MR. CLARKSON said there might be a challenge but not an
effective one.
9:03:00 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS claimed he heard several opinions on the topic
over the weekend. He asked whether SJR 20 would affect dependent
relationships and preclude dependents from being protected on an
insurance policy.
9:06:24 AM
MR. CLARKSON did not know. Currently there are many
relationships that do not receive the equivalent benefits that
married couples do. He said SJR 20 would preserve the status
quo.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether SJR 20 would preclude collective
bargaining units from offering extended benefits.
MR. CLARKSON said no. He said private companies would not be
affected. He said Alaska Communications Systems (ACS) currently
extends benefits to same-sex partners and that SJR 20 would not
change that.
SENATOR GUESS disagreed and said ACS does not offer benefits to
domestic partners.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that the University of Alaska offers
domestic partner benefits but that the employee has to meet
several hurdles. He asked whether the proposed legislation would
invalidate their policy.
MR. CLARKSON did not know.
9:08:13 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said the intent was not to bar any collective
bargaining unit from bargaining for domestic partnership
benefits. He called for public testimony.
9:09:24 AM
CHUCK O'CONNELL testified in opposition to SJR 20. He said since
statehood the State of Alaska has always recognized equal pay
for equal work. The contents of SJR 20 would take the state
backwards in terms of progress. He accused the legislators of
attempting to limit the Alaska State Constitution, which they
once swore to uphold. He said that violated Article 1, Section
15, which prohibits the Legislature from making a law granting
special privileges for immunity. He said he also sees the
resolution as an infringement on Section 22, which is the right
to privacy.
MR. O'CONNELL said he has a 30-year history with collective
bargaining and he felt SJR 20 would change the benefits from a
mandatory subject of bargaining to a permissive subject of
bargaining.
9:12:32 AM
MR. O'CONNELL asked the committee to reconsider the resolution.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. O'Connell to explain what he meant by
equal pay for equal work.
MR. O'CONNELL explained that benefits are part of the
compensation package and make up part of the pay for the work.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. O'Connell whether he believes there is a
compensation disparity for employees who have fewer dependents
and therefore less insurance coverage than an employee with a
large family.
MR. O'CONNELL said no. Similarly, an employee who has a serious
illness would not necessarily receive more compensation than
another.
CHAIR SEEKINS added SJR 20 is not an example of the Legislature
creating law. The final vote would be with the people.
9:16:15 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT commented that a legislative committee
considering a change to the Alaska State Constitution was not
unconstitutional nor was it a breach of the duty of legislators.
SENATOR GUESS stated for the record that committee bills are not
put in by the entire committee; a majority member puts them in.
She explained that she does not support the resolution, nor was
she consulted on it.
CHAIR SEEKINS clarified the resolution was placed in the
committee by request.
Testimony at timestamp 19:19:00 was unintelligible. Chair
Seekins asked the LIO to work on the feed. The committee
returned to the Fairbanks LIO at 9:38:00.
9:20:57 AM
STEVE CLICK, retired teacher, testified against SJR 20. He is
currently living with his domestic partner in California. Under
California state law, gays receive many, but not all, of the
rights and responsibilities of marriage because of federal
legislation. The amendment to the Alaska State Constitution
would affect many families and children. One goal of the
government should be stability of and respect for all families.
He took issue of a reference to the "gay lifestyle." He said his
lifestyle is one of family, community service, longtime member
of the Kiwanis Club, and taxpayer.
He questioned how his relationship would adversely affect the
civil rights and privileges of others. He suggested the Alaska
State Constitution should be written to include protection of
minority groups of people. He urged the committee to vote
against SJR 20.
9:24:10 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Click whether he thought the people of
the State of Alaska would vote for the amendment.
MR. CLICK said if the information were correctly disseminated to
the people, it would not pass.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether he thought the people of Alaska
should have the right to vote on the issue.
MR. CLICK referred to a recent vote in California where the
people passed a marriage law that the governor vetoed. There are
currently cases in both the California Supreme Court as well as
in the lower courts. He contended that there are times when the
Legislature must overrule the popular vote in favor of doing the
right thing.
9:27:28 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked Mr. Click his opinion of how far the
bounds of society norm could be stretched.
MR. CLICK said the world is constantly changing and society
changes from moment to moment. He urged the committee members to
be more accepting of others with different beliefs.
9:31:32 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS expressed support for letting the people of
Alaska vote on the issue.
MR. CLICK responded the civil rights of all citizens must be
held up even if the majority votes against a group.
CHAIR SEEKINS questioned whether the recent Alaska Supreme Court
ruling, in effect, negated AS 25.15.013. He asked Mr. Click
whether he agreed that Alaskan citizens, not the courts, had the
responsibility of creating laws.
9:36:31 AM
MR. CLICK said he partly agreed with that. He reiterated his
earlier statements that it is the responsibility of the state to
protect the civil rights of all its citizens. If the court needs
to step in and do that then that is part of their
responsibility, he said.
9:38:02 AM
BRANDON MAITLEN testified in support of SJR 20. He expressed
support for allowing citizens to vote on the issue.
9:41:01 AM
CHERYL HUMME testified in opposition to SJR 20. She took issue
with Senator Huggins reference that sharing a bond with a same-
sex partner was not normal. She challenged the resolution as
being highly discriminatory.
9:41:51 AM
SENATOR FRENCH joined the committee.
MS. HUMME continued by saying she does not believe the
resolution should go before the people for a vote. She claimed
that scare tactics would be used to persuade voters to support
an amendment.
9:44:34 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked for clarification that Ms. Humme was fearful
of a media campaign.
MS. HUMME agreed.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether she had faith that the people in the
State of Alaska would do the right thing.
MS. HUMME charged that the resolution was about money and that a
fully funded media campaign would distort the issues. She said
she would gladly testify in support of a bill that ensures
medical coverage for every Alaskan.
9:46:02 AM
RICK SOLIE testified in support of SJR 20. He said the majority
of Alaskans, when voting on the Marriage Amendment in 1998,
singled out marriage as a union that gave benefits to society.
He said the recent court decision negates that amendment and the
people should be able to vote on the issue to further clarify
their stance.
9:49:05 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Solie whether he thought the majority of
Alaskans would vote in favor of limiting the benefits of
marriage to a union between a man and a woman.
MR. SOLIE said yes. It is his feeling from speaking with
community members that they would vote in support of a
clarifying amendment.
9:50:57 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS aired surprise at hearing witnesses say they
were opposed to allowing people to vote on the issue. He asked
Mr. Solie whether he shared the same concern.
MR. SOLIE said yes.
9:54:25 AM
JANE SCHLITTLER, retired school nurse and president of the local
Parents, Friends and Family of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)
chapter, testified against SJR 20. She informed the committee
that there are over 500 PFLAG chapters in the United States,
four of which are in Alaska. She said she is tired of having her
children discriminated against and pushed down to second-class
citizenship. She expressed agreement with the recent Alaska
Supreme Court ruling.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Ms. Schlitter whether she thought Alaskan
voters would pass the proposed amendment.
MS. SCHLITTLER said yes. The civil rights movement would not
have progressed if people had been allowed to vote on the issues
of equality.
9:57:03 AM
JOAN HAMILTON testified against the resolution. She agreed that
the amendment, if put before the voters, would be voted in. She
said the people also voted in "English only", which prevented
many Alaskan Natives from participating in Alaskan government
because they couldn't speak English. She questioned the fairness
of that. She said the local government decided her earlier
education for her and since she did not have "refined features"
was forced to attend a "lesser school" and therefore had limited
opportunities.
MS. HAMILTON expressed concern that when legislators do not
agree with an Alaska Supreme Court decision they change the
Constitution. She strongly opposes legislation that treats a
part of the population as second-class citizens and maintained
that the resolution would be anti-progressive.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced a brief recess at 10:01:54 AM.
10:07:38 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS brought the meeting back to order.
10:08:09 AM
ANDREA DOLL testified in opposition to SJR 20. She said as a
teacher she was well acquainted with American history. Our
forefathers came to this country because in their land of
origin, they were a minority and had no rights or protections.
When they had the opportunity to draw up the Constitution of the
United States, they made every effort to protect the rights of
the minority over the abuses, judgments and decrees of the
majority. The same situation exists today, she said. The
majority feels they have the right to impose their morality on
the minority. She referenced Alabama in the 1960s when local
authorities used dogs and fire hoses to keep civil rights
activists from demonstrating. She said if the civil rights
issued had been put forth to the voters back then, it would have
negatively affected the movement. The United States Government
took the higher ground back then and the Alaska State
Legislature should do the same, she stated.
SENATOR HUGGINS advised Ms. Doll that his neighbors and other
people he has talked to tell him they did not intend to vote for
domestic partnership benefits. He said people might be surprised
at the outcome of the public vote. He said he is very supportive
of allowing the people the chance to vote on issues.
10:12:18 AM
SENATOR FRENCH wanted to clarify some points that were raised by
Ms. Doll. He said most people believe that the majority rules
but that is not always true. The Constitution of the United
States of America contains strong anti-majority aspects, written
specifically to protect minority populations.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Ms. Doll whether she has studied government
and whether she knew of a single state that has voted to change
the definition of marriage.
MS. DOLL said she has studied government but does not know of
any state that has voted to change the definition of marriage.
CHAIR SEEKINS said:
But yet, there have been several courts that have used
... where the courts have ruled that defining a
marriage that way violates state constitutional, equal
protection, due process clauses. Is that correct?
MS. DOLL said:
I understand the direction of your question and you're
talking about judicial versus legislature versus
executive powers here and what represents the people.
I believe that is the direction of your question, is
that not right?
CHAIR SEEKINS said:
Basically I'm trying to get at one thing. Is it your
opinion that the courts should legislate or that the
people should speak on matters of this nature?
MS. DOLL said she believes in a system of a higher ground to
justice. She referenced the civil rights movements in the 1960s
and said:
We must rely on the higher natures of our legislators
and our court people. I also regard this body as
having the ability to see the higher, broader field,
to see the future, to see where we must go as a nation
and as a people. Not only within this nation, but the
importance of this tolerance to the climate as a
whole. It is absolutely imperative that we leave our
moral discriminations behind us and embrace humanity.
10:16:22 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Ms. Doll whether it was immoral to define
marriage as between one man and one woman.
MS. DOLL responded that has very little to do with people's
nature and goodness. Forming unions is a personal decision and
it should not be within the power of the state to define it, she
stated.
10:17:13 AM
MARY GRAHAM identified herself as a state employee who took
personal time off to testify on the resolution. She disagreed
with previous testimony that suggested when the people of the
State of Alaska voted on the Marriage Amendment, they also voted
to deny domestic partnership benefits. She said that issue was
only about the word "marriage" being reserved for a union
between one man and one woman. She stated this is not an issue
to put before the majority because it is a function of
government to protect minorities.
10:20:23 AM
MS. GRAHAM said the Legislature set up an unequal system that
said the only way homosexual couples could be compensated the
same as heterosexual couples is to be married, an avenue that is
closed.
SENATOR FRENCH thanked the witness for her presence. He said he
felt the issue was whether it was constitutional to pay gay
employees less, in terms of employee benefits, than their co-
workers who are married.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Ms. Graham how she felt the people would
vote on the issue.
MS. GRAHAM hoped that reasonable heads would prevail. She said
there is economic discrimination for gay employees who are
domestic partners and also for those raising families. She
stated that people did not vote to treat their neighbors
unequally. Money, mis-information, and the media will become
involved in the ballot question and hate will enter into it. She
said the State of Alaska does not need that.
10:24:13 AM
MS. GRAHAM said there is a point where the government needs to
step up and protect all of the people.
10:24:55 AM
PETER NAKAMURA, retired director of public health for the State
of Alaska, testified that SJR 20 would be used as a weapon that
has already instigated much pain and would continue to do so
against many valued citizens. The resolution comes from the
conclusion of some citizens that a certain lifestyle needs to be
punished. The rights, benefits, and qualities of a same-sex
relationship are denied because they do not conform to the long
accepted definition of marriage as one strictly involving one
man and one woman.
MR. NAKAMURA related his personal experience of having his
family transported from their home in Oregon to a barbed-wire
compound during World War II. He stated that it is not always
the correct solution to allow a public vote on an issue because
of past proven discriminations against a minority group.
10:29:11 AM
Discrimination against African Americans in the South and Native
American rights on traditional lands are only a few of the
examples of situations resolved by official actions and not the
vote of the public. Alaska fishing rights would be significantly
restricted if left to the vote of the public.
MR. NAKAMURA proposed filing SJR 20 into the wastebasket to
avoid promoting greater pain and injury to a group of people who
already suffer from bigotry and discrimination.
10:31:03 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Nakamura his opinion of the current
definition of marriage in the statutes.
MR. NAKAMURA said if the intent is to restrict the rights and
benefits of people who deserve them then the definition is not a
good one.
CHAIR SEEKINS asserted that many people would prefer to vote on
the issue to clarify the intent of the 1998 amendment.
MR. NAKAMURA said there is no reason to meddle with the Alaska
State Constitution.
CHAIR SEEKINS said AS 25.05.013(b) says that a same-sex
relationship may not be recognized as being entitled to the
benefits of marriage.
MR. NAKAMURA said he believes in separation of powers and that
the judicial system is there to make interpretations of the law.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Nakamura whether the people have no
right to challenge a judicial decision.
MR. NAKAMURA emphasized there are times when the rights of some
minorities need be protected. He asserted that many instances of
discrimination would still be happening today were it not for
the Constitution of the United States and the judicial system's
interpretation that has allowed the people to make changes for
the betterment of the people as a whole.
10:35:23 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said Chair Seekins' question brings an issue to
mind. He referred the committee to Page 10 of the Alaska Supreme
Court decision and quoted, "...nor have we been referred to any
legislative history implying that the Marriage Amendment should
be interpreted to deny employment benefits to public employees
of same-sex, domestic partners." He said at least three
attorneys were working on the state government side of the brief
and at least the same on the other side. The search for any
official pronouncement regarding the purpose of the marriage
amendment might be in vain.
SENATOR HUGGINS said he did not share Mr. Nakamura's confidence
in the judicial system. He said the Ninth Circuit is commonly
overruled and perhaps should be broken up because of the rulings
of some judges.
SENATOR GUESS clarified it wasn't "some judges" but the entire
Alaska Supreme Court.
CHAIR SEEKINS speculated about the intent of the people who
voted for the Marriage Amendment. He suggested there was
validity in putting the question on the ballot.
10:40:22 AM
MR. NAKAMURA expressed respect for the intent of the people but
said there are times when there is a need to go beyond that and
do what is right.
10:41:56 AM
JERI MUSETH testified in opposition to SJR 20. She expressed
doubt for swaying the intent of the committee and said she feels
the majority has already made the decision to pass SJR 20 out.
She took issue with the suggestion that the court was
"legislating from the bench," and said they interpreted the
Alaska State Constitution, which correlated to their decision.
She read the definitions of "discrimination" and "prejudice"
from Webster's dictionary.
10:45:44 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS held SJR 20 in committee. There being no further
business to come before the committee, he adjourned the meeting
at 10:48:03 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|