HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE March 29, 1999 1:40 P.M. TAPE HFC 99 - 55, Side 1. TAPE HFC 99 - 55, Side 2. TAPE HFC 99 - 56, Side 1. CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee meeting to order at 1:40 P.M. PRESENT Co-Chair Therriault Representative Foster Co-Chair Mulder Representative Grussendorf Vice Chair Bunde Representative Kohring Representative Austerman Representative G. Davis Representative J. Davies Representative Williams Representative Moses was not present for the meeting. ALSO PRESENT George Utermohle, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency; Lorali Meier, Staff, Representative Scott Ogan; Joel Bennett, Coalition Which Sponsored Proposition #3, Juneau. TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE Anchorage Michele Keck; Patrick Wright, President, Scientific Management of Alaska's Resource Treasures (SMART). Fairbanks Pete Buist, Alaska Trappers Association; Joe Mattie, Board of Directors, Alaska Trappers Association, Fairbanks Advisory Committee; Sean McGuire; Holly Carroll; Celia Hunter; Larry Paquin. Homer Jim Levine. Matsu Rod Arno, Alaska Outdoor Council. SUMMARY HB 45 An Act relating to initiative and referendum petitions; and providing for an effective date. HB 45 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. HJR 3 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiatives regarding natural resources belonging to the state. HJR 3 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. HJR 7 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum petitions. HJR 7 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. HJR 25 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to a petition for an initiative or referendum regarding fish or wildlife. HJR 25 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiatives regarding natural resources belonging to the state. REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE stated that the purpose of the proposed amendment would be to raise the bar for the passage of all natural resource ballot initiatives. HJR 3 would require a natural resource initiative to obtain a two-thirds vote in order to pass. Raising the bar for management of resources would encourage that scientific data, both pro and con, become available to the public on issues. Representative Bunde wanted to see that resource management be well reasoned and based on sound scientific principles. He recommended that Alaska should try to avoid the proliferation on initiatives that have plagued other states and that we maintain access to natural resources. Recently, the Alaska Supreme Court in the Brooks vs. Wright case, Opinion No. 5066, January 15, 1999, found that the legislature does not have exclusive law-making powers over natural resources and that management of the State's natural resources could be an appropriate subject for an initiative. Representative Bunde pointed out that Alaska's historic voter turnout is not a good credit reflection. The number of people that vote in an election is relatively small in comparison to the number of registered voters. HJR 3 would prevent resource management from being dictated by the "majority of the moment". Representative Bunde believed that Alaskans can not properly maintain resources if they do not participate in the process. He emphasized that Alaska is an "Owner State" and should have a stake in assuring that a clear majority manages resources. Representative Austerman pointed out that when the fish initiative was placed before voters' two years ago, it was "thrown out" by the Courts indicating that the "initiative process" would not be the best avenue from which to allocate resources. Representative Bunde noted that the case which he had referenced was the wolf snaring initiative. The Supreme Court stipulated that the Legislature does not have the sole authority in the management of resources. GEORGE UTERMOHLE, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY, referenced the fish initiative case, Helen vs. Palmer, in which, the Supreme Court stated that the constitutional provision prohibited initiatives dealing with the subject of appropriations. That was applicable to the initiative which attempted to provide a preference for an allocation of fishery resources. In the purpose of that constituitonal prohibition against initiatives, the Court found that the State had sufficient interest in ownership of the fish and game resources, that the allocation or granting of a preference to that fisheries resource would be an appropriation and was therefore, prohibited by the Constitution. During the deliberations on that initiative, the Court raised the issue that it could be prohibited by the provisions of Article 8, stating that the "Legislature 'shall' provide for the conservation, utilization and development of the resources of the State". That was the issue litigated in the Brooks vs. Wright case. The Court found that indeed, fish and game matters were proper subjects for initiatives and could be addressed by the people. Mr. Utermohle commented that the Brooks vs. Wright case did not disturb the decision in the fish initiative case, stating that fish and game initiatives which involve appropriations were not appropriate to change, however, the Legislature could deal with other fish and game issues. Co-Chair Therriault questioned if that meant that the Courts had left the concern of whether "methods and means" would rise to the level of appropriation. Mr. Utermohle replied that had been the issue before the Court in the Brooks vs. Wright case. Representative Grussendorf pointed out that since 1960, there has been twenty-nine initiatives. Of those, only five addressed the area of natural resources. He pointed out that most of those initiatives were defeated. It appears that voters have been able to track initiatives and that they have voted according to their conscience. Representative Bunde pointed out that in other states, there has been a growing number of initiatives and that the passage of even one "bad" could negatively affect the allocation of resources. Representative J. Davies commented that the Court case clarified that those allocations are clearly off limits. The Courts have stipulated that certain allocations such as means and methods would be okay. The uncertainty stems from combining the mixture of the two. Representative Bunde corrected his previous statement commenting that he should have used the term "management". Co-Chair Therriault inquired why the resolution had not used the two-thirds bar to the list of restrictions. Representative Bunde did not believe that the public would support the two-thirds bar. If an initiative was to happen, it should be reflective of the majority of citizens. He added that he was concerned with an all resource harvest and that should be managed on a scientific basis, not as a popularity contest. Representative Grussendorf asked if there was a way in which the problem could be addressed so that citizens would not feel disenfranchised. Mr. Utermohle explained that the Constitution provides for an initiative and for the Legislature to provide for an amendment to the Constitution. It would be within the scope of the Legislature to make an amendment to this effect. He advised that the power of the Legislature is restricted to making an amendment to the Constitution. That provision would make a "sweeping change" to the Constitution and would be considered a revision. At present, there is no basis to determine whether or not prohibiting people from voting on matters such as a natural resource initiative would be considered by the Courts to constitute a revision. Representative Bunde pointed out that the Alaska Supreme Court outlined four items in the Brooks vs. Wright case and that HJR 3 meets that criteria. He questioned at what point would this become a "sweeping change". Representative Bunde argued that the proposal would not require a constitutional convention. HJR 3 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. HOUSE BILL NO. 45 "An Act relating to initiative and referendum petitions; and providing for an effective date." HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum petitions. REPRESENTATIIVE BILL WILLIAMS stated that HJR 7 and its companion measure HB 45, were introduced to ensure statewide support of an issue prior to it being put before the voters. The legislation would require signatures from 10% of those who voted in the preceding general election in at least 75% of the house districts for a question to reach the ballot. It would require signatures from 10% of the total number of voters in the prior election. Representative Williams noted, currently, because of the population dispersal, initiative sponsors could easily gather the required signatures from a single area of the State. The current system does not require a statewide perspective in determining which topics will appear on the ballot as amendments to State law. Co-Chair Therriault clarified the manner in which the two pieces of legislation would work together. He pointed out that signing up for the signature process would be 10% of the past and previous vote and that those voters would represent 3/4 of the House election districts. He argued that such a system could be "extra" complicated. Representative Grussendorf suggested that HJR 7 had the greatest merit of the three resolutions before the Committee's consideration, however, he voiced concerned with the 10% calculation. Representative Williams advised that he had originally recommended 15%, and that in the House State Affairs Committee, it was changed to 10%. Representative J. Davies spoke to the significance of the proposed increase. He questioned how large the bar would need to be to require 10% in each of the 3/4 (30) voting districts. He emphasized that it would be a substantial change and questioned if it could wipe out the referendum- initiative process. Representative Williams referenced the handout "Districts" in member's packets, which illustrates how many voters turned out in the last election and what the 10% percentage amount would be for each district. [Copy on File]. Representative Williams believed that telecommunications would make it easier to access the signatures. Representative J. Davies explained that a person would need to be "physically" in each district to collect the signatures. He reemphasized how large of a change this would be. Representative J. Davies suggested that lowering the percentage would make it easier than implementing it in electoral districts. He believed that there could be better ways to assure a more broad base input. Co-Chair Therriault wondered if during the initial constitutional debate, it had been envisioned that the 2/3 count would be taken from one or two districts, or had it been intended that the count would be evenly distributed throughout the State. Representative Williams explained that the problem had arisen as communication resources available today were not understood at that time. Co-Chair Therriault asked what prompted the determination to move from 2/3 to 3/4 and, additionally, add the 10% to each district. Representative Williams stated that it would provide a better statewide perspective. (Tape Change HFC 99 - 55, Side 2). Co-Chair Therriault inquired if most initiatives acquiring signatures were currently being taken in Anchorage. Representative Grussendorf suggested that this legislation could create problems for the "grass root" ideas which would not have the financial resources needed to wage a petition throughout the State. Co-Chair Therriault agreed, commenting that a well-financed group would be able to better place an initiative because of their resources. Representative Foster referenced back-up material from the original Constitutional Convention at which time, present day rural concerns were addressed. He emphasized that material, when written, was protective of the Bush areas. [Copy on File]. Representative Bunde asked if HJR 7 would meet the criteria established in Brooks vs. Wright case. Mr. Utermohle stated that he had not been involved in the drafting of Representative William's resolution and was not familiar with the issues underlining it. However, he believed that it would not constitute a revision. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the resolution was specific to the initiative process. Representative J. Davies disagreed, reiterating that it was making a "sweeping change" to the current procedure. The process before had no limitation on the percentage of votes taken per district. HB 45 and HJR 7 were HELD in Committee for further consideration. HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to a petition for an initiative or referendum regarding fish or wildlife. LORLI MEIER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, stated that HJR 25 would bar fish or wildlife issues from the initiative process. Ms. Meier continued, the Constitution of the State of Alaska clearly states that the Legislature is the authoritative body to manage fish and game. The Legislature can, however, delegate that authority to a board. The Boards of Game and Fisheries were created as an extension of that management body. Ms. Meier noted that there is no constitutional restriction on the ability of the Alaska Legislature to propose an amendment to the Alaska Constitution that would alter, restrict, or even prohibit the use of the initiative by the people to enact laws relating to fish and game. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that during the Constitutional Convention, it was clearly stated that there were items which were not to be included. Representative Grussendorf voiced opposition to the resolution. He emphasized that any information is as good as the Board that represents it. Representative J. Davies added that there are times when the fish and game board becomes heavily representative of a small segment of society. He pointed out that only 15% of the Alaskan population have hunting licenses. That is a small number of residents and that often times the scientific issue is not the entire debate. Representative J. Davies emphasized that there are other valuable resources in addition to science that constitutes decisions made. Representative Bunde questioned if the four criteria used in the Brooks vs. Wright case could be addressed in the proposed resolution. Mr. Utermohle advised that this amendment did not seem to broach any issues or boundaries established by that case. HJR 25 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. TESTIMONY VIA TELECONFERENCE PETER BUIST, ALASKA TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION, FAIRBANKS, spoke in support of HJR 25 and HB 45. He spoke of the hardships resulting from last year's campaigning against animal right extremists and their well funded attempt to vie an Alaskan right for their own political purposes. He stressed that the Alaska Trappers do not have the funds to address such an attack every two years. Mr. Buist urged the Committee's favorable support of the legislation. JOE MATTIE, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALASKA TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION, FAIRBANKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, FAIRBANKS, echoed the sentiments voiced by Mr. Buist. He stated that he favored HJR 25, however, would support the other two resolutions in principle. MICHELE KECK, ANCHORAGE, stated that she considered herself an expert on the petition "signature gathering process". She voiced concern with the proposed changes to the public process and changing the signature requirements at the beginning of the process. She stressed that the signature gathering process is already difficult. Initiatives, which have made it through the process, have only been able to make it through with outside financial help. The signature requirement takes the initiative process out of the hands of the Alaskan voters and more into the hands of outside interests. Ms. Keck stated that she understood Representative Williams's intent with the signature process being more representational of a larger group of citizens. However, she believed that the outcome would make it impossible for everyone and that 10% was too high. In order to guarantee that there are enough valid signatures, it is important to gather more than 10%. Ms. Keck suggested that no more than 2% from each district would be more reasonable. Ms. Keck concluded that it has become much more difficult to gather signatures. If distribution were to be tightened, it should be taken from another area or everyone will become barred from the initiative process. PATRICK WRIGHT, PRESIDENT, SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT OF ALASKAS RESOURCES TREASURES (SMART), ANCHORAGE, noted that SMART was dedicated to sound management of fish and wildlife resources. Mr. Wright voiced support of HJR 25, which would provide for an amendment to the Alaska Constitution, Article 11, Section 7, for the utilization and development in conservation of fish and wildlife resources. He suggested that HJR 25 could clarify findings from the Brooks vs. Wright case. JIM LEVINE, SELF, HOMER, advised that he felt strongly regarding the initiative process which the founding fathers of the Constitution provided to the citizens of Alaska. Passage of any of the proposed constitutional amendments would eliminate the initiative process as a voice for the average Alaskan. The process is now difficult and if it were to be made more difficult, only groups with unlimited funds would be able to get an initiative on the ballot. Mr. Levine stressed that a democracy can not succeed if the citizens can not petition their government and enact laws they deem necessary. He urged Committee members not to pass any of the proposed resolutions. ROD ARNO, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, MATSU, voiced support for HJR 25. He noted that the main concern was with fish and wildlife management. Restrictions within the resolution would address two points: ? It would continue to legitimize the board process that is currently in play; and ? It would allow the board and the Department to fulfill the constitutional mandate for fish and game management. He stressed that HJR 25 would not disenfranchise the public process. That process is codified into law in the Administrative Procedures Act, Section 44.62.210. The public process is clearly available to all groups of Alaskans who wish to participate in addressing issues. (Tape Change HFC 99- 56, Side 1). JOEL BENNETT, COALITION WHICH SPONSORED PROPOSITION #3, JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to HJR 25 and HJR 3, and HJR 7 in its current form. He emphasized that the initiative process is very difficult. Most people are trying to color the process by saying that it is engineered throughout the State with influence and money. Mr. Bennett noted that the effort on Proposition 3 was basically an in State effort. There was an in State group which was committed to the method change addressed within the initiative. He emphasized that it was not an anti-hunting initiative. Mr. Bennett advised that the proposed legislation is an effort by special interest groups who lost that initiative campaign to try to now attack the future right of the public to engage in the initiative process. He emphasized that this is not a broad base citizen effort to make meaningful changes to the initiative process. Mr. Bennett argued that this effort is a direct assault from special interest groups who did not like the results from 1996 vote. The public does have the ability to discriminate and does have the mental capacity to recognize whether media is distorted or not. Mr. Bennett reiterated that Proposition 3 was not an anti- hunting movement. Mr. Bennett agreed that Representative Williams had provided good information, however, the 10% number would be unreasonably high and suggested that a lower number would work better. The percentage should be calculated in the context of a larger forum including consideration of the ramifications of changing the basic ground rules. Mr. Bennett hoped that the voters would reject the proposed bills if they passed from Committee. He requested that there be "intent" to make the process better, rather than to "destroy" the current process. Representative Foster agreed that the people could discriminate under the initiatives, however, criticized the passage of the resolution requiring that government to use English as the first language, which has been hurtful to the Bush people. He commented that he has received more angry correspondence from his district on that concern than on a combination of all other issues during his tenure. Representative Bunde responded to criticism made by Mr. Bennett regarding media representation on the same day air borne initiative. Representative Bunde clarified that he had been referring to the bill board initiative issue. SEAN MCGUIRE, SELF, FAIRBANKS, spoke against the proposed resolutions to change the initiative process. He pointed out that the initiative process was established by our Founding Fathers. He strongly criticized the Republican majority making possible law from money received from special interest groups. Co-Chair Therriault clarified that the three pieces of legislation before the Committee were resolutions and would not take affect without a 50% vote of approval by the people. One of the resolutions does have a bill accompanying it that would make modifications to statute if the resolution was passed. HOLLY CARROLL, SELF, FAIRBANKS, stated that the HJR 3 sponsor statement contradicted HJR 25 intent. One statement suggests that it is the right of the Legislature to govern the resources and the other indicates the opposite. Ms. Carroll asked which is correct. She agreed that media campaigns do become distorted and that issue had not been addressed. All concerns of any kind are subject to popularity contests. She believed that all the proposed resolutions would be establishing a bad precedence. Ms. Carroll urged that the "people" not be taken out of the process. CELIA HUNTER, SELF, FAIRBANKS, stated that the proposals which had been submitted were designed to deter the general public from making use of the initiative and referendum processes. She stated that these attempts to amend the Alaska State Constitution are a misuse of legislative powers. If passage of these initiatives were made, it would be undermining the basic fundamental operations of democracy. Ms. Hunter submitted that the increase of voter signatures from 2/3 to 3/4 would definitely eliminate initiative efforts. Ms. Hunter found these proposals, with a number of other proposals by the present majority party members, to be an "undermining" of the democratic process of government. She suggested that the present situation represents an aggravated presence of power hunger by the majority of Republicans. She continued that by eliminating the accepted tradition of Committee membership make-up has deprived voters of fair representation. Ms. Hunter asked that the Committee veto all four proposals. Representative Austerman disagreed with the previous speaker's comments regarding the Republican majority as "pushing" passage of the proposed resolutions. He ascertained that what is "good for some is not always good for all". LARRY PAQUIN, SELF, FAIRBANKS, stated that when an elected representative takes away or restricts the constitutional entitlement and democratic right of the people to represent, it should not be taken lightly. He asked the motivation of those trying to mute the voice of the people on the initiative process? In closing, Representative Bunde advised that special interest groups had not backed HJR 3. He added that the intent of the legislation would be to give the public continued support to speak through the initiative process. The public has the right to put issues before the voters that must be passed by 50% majority plus 1. HJR 3 would put an issue before the voters which would need to be passed by a vote. Representative Bunde believed that the issue was worthy of consideration and that the public would continue to have the final say. Public comment on the proposed legislation was closed for the day. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:30 P.M. H.F.C. 8 3/29/99