HCR 1-AMEND UNIFORM RULES: ABSTAIN FROM VOTING  3:37:50 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1, Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature relating to voting and abstention from voting. 3:38:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 30- LS0209\J.6, Gardner, 3/1/17], which read: Page 2, line 6: Delete "a majority of" Insert "three-quarters of" CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that the intent of Amendment 1 is to avoid the possibility of a legislator agreeing to allow a member to abstain from voting to influence the passage of a bill or resolution. She maintained that requiring a three-quarters vote of 30 members instead of a simple majority would make it more likely that members of both the majority and minority would be needed for consent. She added that Amendment 1 would help to avoid the perception that a vote on abstention could be used as a tool to keep a legislator out of the voting process. 3:40:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the sponsor of HCR 1 considers Amendment 1 a friendly or unfriendly amendment. RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Jason Grenn, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Grenn, prime sponsor of HCR 1, stated that 28 states use a vote and 24 of those 28 use a majority vote [to decide abstentions due to conflict of interest]. He said that the use of "majority vote" in HCR 1 was for the sake of continuity, since current statutes require that at the municipal level. 3:41:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked what the procedure was in the four states not using majority vote. MR. JOHNSTON replied that 4 of the 28 states use a two-thirds vote. He confirmed for Representative LeDoux that he is not aware of a three-quarters vote being used in any state. 3:41:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that her intent was not to introduce an unfriendly amendment. 3:41:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed his support for not using a simple majority vote. 3:42:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to adopt conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 to replace "three-quarters vote" with "two-thirds vote". REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that there are very few legislative actions requiring a three-quarters vote. He offered that the only such vote is the one to spend the constitutional budget reserve (CBR). He opined that such a requirement is a very high standard, and a two-thirds vote requirement, such as for effective date clauses and court rulings, is already a high standard. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON removed her objection to conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. There being no further objection, it was so ordered. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to Amendment 1, [as amended]. There being no further objection, it was so ordered. 3:45:04 PM The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:45 p.m. 3:45:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested a conceptual amendment to include a sunset date in the proposed legislation to "take it for a test drive." He asked if inserting a sunset date would be possible with the understanding that the current legislature cannot tell a future legislature "what to do." He asked what the effective date was for the proposed legislation. MR. JOHNSTON replied that as currently written, the proposed legislation would take effect at the beginning of next year's session [the second session of the Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature, 2017-2018], up until the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature, 2019-2020. He stated that through discussions with Legislative Legal and Research Services staff, he learned that inserting a three-year sunset into the proposed legislation would bind the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature, 2019-2020, to adopting Uniform Rule 34(b) outside of the normal procedures of adopting rules prior to the session. He said that technically the proposed legislation has a sunset, which is the start of the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature, 2019-2020. He said that at that point, [the Uniform Rule] could be changed or adopted again for the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature, 2019-2020. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for confirmation that [the Uniform Rule] would be in effect at the beginning of next year's session, and when the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature, 2019-2020, begins, the rule would come before the legislature again for adoption. MR. JOHNSTON confirmed that is correct. MR. WAYNE, in response to Chair Kreiss-Tomkins, stated that to comment on the discussion, he would need to review the requirements for Uniform Rules to expire and be re-adopted. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recommended postponing introduction of the suggested amendment to the 3/7/17 House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting. 3:49:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if she is correct in her belief that the Uniform Rules will remain in effect until re-adopted by the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature, 2019-2020, and all the rules together are adopted by the legislature at the beginning of the session. MR. JOHNSTON said, "That is correct." He stated that there is an automatic sunset date on Uniform Rule 34(b) because it must be re-adopted by the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature, 2019-2020. He expressed his understanding that the legislature can amend a Uniform Rule prior to adoption by the legislature. MR. WAYNE cited Uniform Rule 53, which he said addresses the adoptions and amendments of Uniform Rules. He paraphrased Uniform Rule 53, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: The Uniform Rules of each legislature shall be adopted in joint session by a majority vote of the full membership of each house. Thereafter the Uniform Rules may be amended only by the adoption of a concurrent resolution by a two-thirds vote of the full membership of each house. MR. WAYNE stated that he agreed with Mr. Johnston's explanation. [HCR 1 was held over.]