Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/16/1996 03:31 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
January 16, 1996
3:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bert Sharp, Chairman
Senator Randy Phillips, Vice-Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Dave Donley
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Jim Duncan
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 24
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the transmittal of bills after passage, enactment of
bills without the governor's signature, to vetoes, and to
consideration by the legislature of vetoed bills.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SJR 24 - No previous senate committee action.
WITNESS REGISTER
Jim Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law, Governmental Affairs Section
P.O. Box 110300, Juneau, AK 99811-0300¶(907)465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SJR 24
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-1, SIDE A
SJR 24 CHANGE TIMING OF VETO OVERRIDE
Number 001
CHAIRMAN SHARP called the Senate State Affairs Committee to order
at 3:31 p.m. and brought up SJR 24 as the only order of business
before the committee. The chairman asked Senator Donley, prime
sponsor of SJR 24 to give the committee a review of the
legislation.
Number 015
SENATOR DONLEY stated that SJR 24 proposes changes to the Alaska
State Constitution regarding the transmittal of bill documents, how
vetoes work, and how special sessions would be called to deal with
vetoes. Senator Donley informed the committee he has been working
on this subject for about the last six years. He thinks there
should be set time limits for transmitting passed legislation, and
that not having specific lengths of time by which legislation must
be transmitted has been an area of abuse by presiding officers.
Everyone would be better served if there were specific guidelines
in the Constitution addressing that area.
Number 045
SENATOR DONLEY related details of SJR 24, which are contained in
the Sponsor's Statement and SJR 24. SJR 24 would also require the
executive branch to provide specific reasons for vetoing
legislation.
Number 060
SENATOR DONLEY informed the committee of the timelines and
conditions set forth by SJR 24 for addressing vetoes.
Number 140
SENATOR DONLEY stated that currently, the conditions set forth for
having a special session to address vetoed legislation are
ambiguous. SJR 24 would help clear up that ambiguity.
Number 190
SENATOR DONLEY thinks a clarification could be made to SJR 24 if,
in Section 4, the language on page 3, line 11 was changed from " A
bill becomes law if," to "A bill unsigned by the Governor becomes
law if,".
SENATOR DONLEY thinks SJR 24 would technically clean up some
ambiguities in the Constitution.
Number 208
SENATOR LEMAN concurred with Senator Donley regarding some past
abuses which were enabled by ambiguities in the Constitution.
Senator Leman wondered why SJR 24 excluded Sunday from the count of
days in most instances, excepting the portion of the resolution
stating the legislature shall meet in joint session on the fifth
day following receipt of the veto message. He wondered if that was
an intentional omission. Senator Leman also wondered if it would
be better to say, "within five days", instead of "on the fifth
day".
Number 230
SENATOR DONLEY explained that the resolution specifies the fifth
day because of the way the Constitution is currently written. He
suggested that Senator Leman's concerns could possibly be addressed
in legislative intent. The Constitution currently specifies "Bills
vetoed after adjournment of the second regular session shall be
reconsidered...no later than the fifth day...", which is
interpreted to mean the legislature is not required to meet.
Senator Donley wants to convey his opinion that the legislature
should always meet when legislation is vetoed.
Number 250
SENATOR LEMAN agreed that it should be mandatory to meet to
consider vetoes, but he would like to see the flexibility to meet
at any time within that five-day period.
Number 260
SENATOR DONLEY stated he would like to work with Senator Leman on
a solution to Senator Leman's suggestion.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked Senators Donley and Leman to work on that
issue.
Number 270
CHAIRMAN SHARP also expressed concern over the practicability of
the time-frames set out in SJR 24, particularly with regards to the
duties of Legislative Legal Services. He would like that concern
investigated.
Number 285
SENATOR LEMAN wondered if SJR 24 would impact enrollment of
legislation.
CHAIRMAN SHARP wants clarified how SJR 24 would impact the last
days' crunch of legislation. Legislative Legal Services will be
contacted regarding that question.
Number 310
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked that the Senate Secretary and the
Chief Clerk also be contacted regarding impact on those offices by
SJR 24.
CHAIRMAN SHARP called Mr. Baldwin to testify.
Number 320
JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
Governmental Affairs Section, stated support for the first section
of SJR 24. However, he thinks the legislature should establish the
provisions of Section 1 of SJR 24 in Alaska Statute or the uniform
rules, and not by constitutional amendment. He is concerned that
a constitutional amendment would be too difficult to change, should
it become necessary to do so at a future date. Mr. Baldwin thinks
a constitutional amendment might be to inflexible and burdensome.
Number 350
MR. BALDWIN stated support for the provision requiring the governor
to provide statement of reasons for a veto. He thinks statements
of objection should be comprehensive.
MR. BALDWIN does not think a legislature should reconsider the
vetoed legislation of the previous legislature.
Number 375
MR. BALDWIN's final point was that the executive branch really
likes the current rule giving the executive branch twenty days
after adjournment of the legislature to review legislation. It is
a work-load issue for executive branch staff. Both OMB and the
Department of Law review all the bills for the governor, which is
a time-consuming process.
CHAIRMAN SHARP replied, as he understood it, SJR 24 would give
finality in the second session. A new legislature would not be
reconsidering vetoed legislation passed during the previous
legislature.
Number 390
SENATOR DONLEY added that if there was any question about that, he
would be happy to clarify that it has to be the same legislature
considering vetoes. He also does not have a strong feeling
regarding Section 4. Twenty days is a reasonable request.
Number 400
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked Mr. Baldwin if can supply the
committee with information regarding time limits and veto messages
in other states.
Number 407
MR. BALDWIN replied there is quite a bit of case law in other
states relating to veto messages. He will try to find some
information for the committee.
SENATOR DONLEY recalled cases from other states where the governor
did not provide information, and the case was over whether the veto
was legitimate or not.
MR. BALDWIN added that some of those cases found the veto invalid,
because the information was not there. We have yet to see that
litigation here, but he feels it's coming someday.
Number 419
CHAIRMAN SHARP commented that under Section 3 he would like to see
a finite time by when veto-override consideration has to be made.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked those who wish to do so to work on SJR 24 and
then let the committee know when it is ready for consideration
again. He will contact Legislative Legal Services regarding
practicability of the time frames contained in SJR 24.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked the chairman to also check with the
Senate Secretary's Office and the Chief Clerk's Office regarding
the practicability of the time frames contained in SJR 24.
Number 439
CHAIRMAN SHARP replied he would do so. Hearing no other business
to come before the committee, Chairman Sharp adjourned the Senate
State Affairs Committee meeting at 4:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|