Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/03/2001 03:55 PM Senate STA
| 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
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBURG, bill sponsor, described the bill as a
simple bill that needs caution because it is repealing a citizen's
initiative that was passed by voters several years ago.
On February 28, 2001, in Cook v. Gralike, the United States Supreme
Court found that the scarlet letter or gold star type term limit
pledges placed next to candidates names were unconstitutional as it
related to members of the United States Congress and Senate and
based on the election clause theory. The court did not specifically
take up freedom of speech in terms of this type of pledge being
unconstitutional but the concurring opinion of Justices Rehnquist
and O'Connor did bring that issue forward indicating they believe
any term limit pledge would be an abridgement of freedom of speech.
"Since the Alaska Statutes are so similar to those of Cook v.
Gralike, this United States Supreme Court ruling suggests that our
statutes are unconstitutional. This bill will repeal these
unconstitutional statutes."
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked whether the Supreme Court strikes down the
state provision.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBURG said it just spoke to the congressional
provisions. It didn't take up freedom of speech but the concurring
opinion did. The Idaho Supreme Court and a federal district court
in South Dakota both found these labels affect free speech.
There is a supporting letter from former Attorney General John
Havelock in the committee packets. He has been asked to challenge
this on a state level but he would prefer to have the legislature
enact the bill.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said the third page of the legislative counsel
memo talks about severability. The application of the Supreme Court
case probably renders half of the sections in the Alaska Statutes
moot. It's now a question of whether a state challenge would affect
the rest.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBURG agreed that the legal theory, as expressed
in Gralike and other case law, would strongly support that
position.
SENATOR PHILLIPS gave a recap.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said certainly the Supreme Court has ruled on
the congressional delegation but the question is still out on the
state portion.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said he doesn't believe in term limits but this
was a citizen's initiative that was approved by the voters and he's
reluctant to go against their wishes unless the state supreme court
rules under the Cook v. Gralike ruling.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBURG pointed out the Idaho Supreme Court ruling.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT confirmed that was a state supreme court ruling
on a state statute.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked whether the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) was now challenging it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBURG responded they were planning to but would
rather have the bill pass then there wouldn't be the need for the
challenge.
Because of the specific way the Alaska statute is drafted and the
type of term limit pledge that must be taken, it makes a very
strong case against it because if you deviate from the drafters'
proposal you are breaking the term limit pledge. If he supports an
eight year term limit in one body and a four year term in another
that's a total of 12 years. State statute says eight years within a
period of 16 years and he doesn't agree with that. Putting a
scarlet letter next to his name on the ballot is an abridgement of
his free speech; it's also compromising the fundamental right of
voting.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he supported the language proposing a term
limit and for him "it's a close call." He understands Senator
Phillips reluctance to change a voter initiative but the
constitution specifically says the legislature may modify a voter
initiative within two years.
It is also bothersome because this is electioneering at the polling
place.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBURG stated the Idaho case said this effectively
grants the candidate a state endorsement.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT commented it would be nice if there were a
clear decision from the Alaska Supreme Court.
He asked for further testimony. No one came forward.
There was no prepared CS and no amendments from committee members.
There was a zero fiscal note.
He asked for the will of the committee.
SENATOR DAVIS moved HB 189 and zero fiscal note from committee with
individual recommendations. There was no objection.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|