Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/21/2001 11:24 AM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 189 - REPEAL TERM LIMITS/TERM LIMITS PLEDGES Number 2148 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 189, "An Act repealing statutory provisions relating to term limits and term limit pledges." CHAIR ROKEBERG, speaking on behalf of the House Judiciary Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 189, said he is very pleased with the bill. He explained that it repeals those provisions of Alaska's election law that relate to what he called the "scarlet letter" or the "gold star" that appears on the ballots indicating term limit pledges. "Recently, the United States Supreme Court held that the provisions as they relate to this issue are unconstitutional under the Elections Process provisions delegated to the states by the [U.S.] Constitution," he said. So those provisions that apply to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate as relate to term limits are unconstitutional under the Cook v. Gralike decision [in committee members' packets]. CHAIR ROKEBERG further pointed out that half of the sections from AS 15.15.500 through AS 15.15.535 were found to be unconstitutional according to the attorney general's opinion in 1998, so they have not been enforced. They, too, relate to the congressional members, he said. Number 2239 CHAIR ROKEBERG said he thinks "the overwhelming testimony and logic" is that the Cook v. Gralike case also applies to the state level. He said the Alaska law changed the "scarlet letter," indicating that a candidate did not support term limits, into a "gold star," indicating that the candidate had pledged to support term limits. The Idaho Supreme Court in a December 6, 2000, ruling, found that "gold star" provisions are unconstitutional because they infringe on the fundamental right to vote and that there was no compelling state interest to continue printing them on the ballot. CHAIR ROKEBERG said he takes up [term limits and term limit pledges] "with some trepidation" because the statutes that HB 189 would delete came into state law through the initiative process and represent the will of the majority of the people of Alaska that term limits be applied statutorily. "But what this does is ... broadcast a particular point of view on the election ballot, which I think is sacrosanct, and I think gives ... an ... advantage ... to a particular candidate. And I think that it's a complete abridgment of the right of ... suffrage and free speech." He said he was very disappointed when the lieutenant governor certified the initiative because he felt at the time it was not right. CHAIR ROKEBERG continued: Particularly galling is the fact that I, for my entire political career, have indicated that I believe in the concept of term limits. But I've found that the longer I stay down here [in the legislature], the more I recognize that it takes a certain amount of time even to learn this job, but I do believe that certain people overstay their limits. So I have ... my own idea: the concept that somebody should serve no more than eight years in one house and twelve years altogether consecutively; but that's at variance with the term limit pledge {now in statute]. To be consistent under the state law, you have to agree precisely with the concept that you can only serve eight years in sixteen years. So, therefore, I really take umbrage with this because even though I agree conceptually in the idea, if I don't agree precisely with the dictates of that initiative law, then that makes me the bad guy. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he was very pleased to see the ruling of the United States Supreme Court and the Idaho court. He said that in the House State Affairs Standing Committee (HSTA), there was testimony that the Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU) was going to bring a case on this particular item, and because of this bill, they're going to wait and see if the bill has success in passage. "So ... we can avoid a lawsuit and cluttering our courts up with this issue -- and the expense," he said. Number 2363 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if the committee would be hearing testimony from the AkCLU. CHAIR ROKEBERG said no, and that he seemed to have misplaced the package given to him the other day by Jennifer Rudinger of the AkCLU. He said she had testified at the HSTA meeting, describing the Idaho case in relation to Alaska law. Number 2397 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ prefaced his testimony by saying he is not a supporter of term limits. He said he had couple of points he would like to make about the inefficacy of the term limit pledge. He has noticed that a lot of people take the term limit pledge and then violate it, which seems to him to defeat the purpose of taking the pledge. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ continued: The second thing I would like to point out, and I want to congratulate you for making the point, that it's ridiculous to post someone's political position on the ballot. You know I offered an amendment the other day on the floor that would strike "political position" from the ballot, that is to say, strike someone's political affiliation from the ballot, which is also a form of advertisement, and if the title [of HB 189] was slightly larger here, I would move [to fit that in]. But I appreciate your sentiment, and I think that consistency would show that you would support my position that removal of the term limit pledge would also support removal of party affiliation from the ballots. Number 2445 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that it was an interesting discussion about removing the indication of party. "I guess if I was a member of certain parties, I wouldn't want that on the ballot either," he said. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Representative Ogan if he had any problem with the constitutionality of the repeal proposed by HB 189. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he did not. TAPE 70, SIDE B Number 2475 GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist, Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, came forward to testify. She said: The division does not have any problem with the repeal of this law. The first sections of statute that you mentioned were already not being enforced by the division because they had been deemed unconstitutional and our attorney general had advised that before the Idaho case came out. But the Idaho case said the unconstitutionality of the first sections ... probably would have trickled down and applied to the voluntary term limits sections as well. Number 2464 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER noted that he has not seen anything in the news about this being ruled unconstitutional. "It does concern me a little bit that this was passed by initiative and ... now we're going to make it unlawful," he said. "But I think if the public knew that it was unconstitutional and what we're doing is just correcting that mistake, it would probably be more acceptable." CHAIR ROKEBERG explained that the decision in the Idaho case was a very recent one, handed down February 28, 2001. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if a person who signed the pledge to run for no more than eight years is still bound by that pledge. MS. FENUMIAI said she thinks that if someone had signed a pledge in the 2000 election, the pledge now would be null and void. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER sought further clarification: "I guess my point is, if somebody signed a pledge saying that they would only run for eight years and then they continue for 12 or 14 or 16, there's nothing to stop that, right?" CHAIR ROKEBERG volunteered: As a matter of fact, on that point, Representative Meyer, I had the occasion when this was on the ballot to talk to the author of the initiative, Bob Bell, ... and he told me that I shouldn't be upset because the way the initiative was drafted, the effectiveness wasn't until the effective date of the initiative. So therefore, even though I may have spent a few years already serving, ... the eight-year bell toll didn't start until it became law. CHAIR ROKEBERG said he thinks it is a political issue, "Like I say I support term limits and I'm going to have to live with that if I decide to run in the next election." Number 2369 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to report HB 189 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 189 was reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|