Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/06/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB273 | |
| HB321 | |
| HJR2 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 273 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 321 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska requiring an affirmative vote of the people
before any form of gambling for profit may be
authorized in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY DAHLSTROM, SPONSOR, advised that some
Alaskans may consider gambling to be a harmless pastime;
however, those costs are underestimated in relationship to
human suffering. HJR 2 would amend the Alaska Constitution
to require an affirmative vote of the people before any form
of gambling for profit can be authorized in Alaska.
Studies have shown that about 2.5 million Americans are
pathological gamblers and another 3 million are problem
gamblers. The compulsive gamblers have high rates of
suicide, depression, mania, alcohol and drug abuse and
arrest rates. According to the American Insurance
Institute, gambling is the main cause of white collar crime
and is the third leading cause of individual bankruptcy in
America. Though the human suffering caused by compulsive
gambling may be borne by a minority of the population, the
overall economic and social costs are shared by all. She
urged support for HJR 2.
3:21:11 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked the definition of gambling for
profit & how that would affect gambling for non-profit. He
questioned if a secondary party could be involved, which he
thought might restrict charitable gaming. Representative
Dahlstrom responded that the resolution does not change
anything already in place.
Vice-Chair Stoltze stated that the language appeared
ambiguous, regarding inclusion of an approval vote by
municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, SPONSOR, advised that
language had been included during the last committee of
referral, for the local option as well.
Vice-Chair Stoltze understood the option, but wanted further
information regarding the intent. Representative Crawford
thought that both were needed. Vice-Chair Stoltze did not
think both were intended; he worried that about the proposed
language was unclear and could become a constitutional
amendment.
Representative Crawford read the referencing language: "A
majority vote of the qualified voters of the State"; the
language following that: "Approved by the municipality". He
believed that language could addresses concerns voiced by
Representative Stoltze.
Vice-Chair Stoltze reiterated his question. He asked if it
was intended for a municipal vote or if it meant that a
local assembly could pass an ordinance or the mayor, an
edict. He recommended another threshold be used.
3:24:19 PM
Representative Dahlstrom explained that in version\M, as
changed in the House Judiciary committee, Line 10, uses the
word "any". She added that the sponsors had worked with
Jerry Luckhaupt at Legislative Legal to draft the language.
Co-Chair Chenault advised that members have the version\K
before them. Representative Dahlstrom explained the
differences in which Line 10, "any" was deleted and the
reason for that deletion, is the insertion of the language:
"The addition of the word 'any' on Line 10, may lead to
unintended consequences. If the Legislature passed a
law allowing for-profit gambling, in any municipality
with a population of one thousand or more, the decision
is ratified by the voters, then it may be legal in
other municipalities".
"Any" was deleted and "each" was inserted. She emphasized
that the intent is that no gambling expansion statewide. If
a municipality chooses to vote on it, each individual
municipality would vote, if they have a voting population
over 1,000.
3:27:18 PM
Representative Crawford added that the legislation requires
a majority vote of the entire State. He inquired if
Representative Stoltze would like to see a majority vote
also within each municipality. Vice-Chair Stoltze demanded
to know what was meant by the language as written.
Representative Crawford thought he had clarified what he
meant. Vice-Chair Stoltze replied what is meant and what
has been said are not in sync, reiterating the ambiguity.
He asked if it was intended that a voter approval
requirement be placed at the local level. Representative
Crawford replied that was the intent. Representative
Dahlstrom agreed. Vice-Chair Stoltze asked what "yes"
meant.
Co-Chair Chenault interjected that the intent of the
constitutional amendment is to have a majority vote of the
citizens of the State to introduce gaming anywhere in the
State. Also, it is intended that municipalities exceeding
on thousand voting residents would have to have a majority
vote within their municipality in order to have it, even
though the citizens of the State said it was allowable.
Representative Dahlstrom affirmed.
3:29:46 PM
Representative Hawker noted consequences associated under
the federal Indian Gaming Act, mandating unrestricted gaming
anywhere and already allows gaming statewide. He asked the
consequences of opening up unrestricted Indian gaming.
Representative Crawford replied that the legislation does
not intend to open up gaming anywhere in the State. If
qualified voters in the State say it is okay to open it up
for profit gaming, could open up an allowance for Indian
gaming.
Representative Hawker inquired about the secondary
qualification and approval by the municipality. He was
curious if there was a conflict between the Indian Gaming
Act and State authority. Representative Crawford explained
that the previous Committee realized that the language could
be vetoed at the local level. He thought it would not
preclude Indian gaming.
3:33:05 PM
Co-Chair Chenault clarified for the record that the bill did
not contain a population requirement as currently written.
Representative Nelson noticed that whenever Committee
members address gaming, Indian gaming is brought up and
becomes the "bogie man". She questioned that heightened
level of concern. Representative Dahlstrom explained that
her concern was with gambling or gaming of any sort,
anyplace in Alaska. The legislation has nothing to do with
race or culture. Anything that already exists, will
continue to be allowed. She worried about the effect for
future generations and the costs to society.
Representative Nelson asked Representative Hawker about his
concern. Representative Hawker apologized if he was seen to
have racist views. He was concerned about the possibility
of establishing a conflict between federal statute and State
Constitutional authority. He thought it could result in
some form of litigation to further clarify the relationship
between the State and the federal government.
Representative Crawford noted urgency for the initiative to
be on the ballot, August 20008. He pointed out that the
initiative would establish a five person gaming commission.
He referenced Page 3, Section 05.18.030, Number 3, which
clarifies that authorization of gaming activities pursuant
to Section 05.18.100. The commission could authorize any
future gaming activities. He stated he opposes gambling
activity on moral and economic grounds and that Alaska can
not absorb for profit gaming, which shrinks the economy and
over the long-term, the social costs keep growing.
3:38:42 PM
Representative Gara asked if it was intended that the
municipalities vote. Representative Crawford explained, it
is intended for any municipality to hold a public vote and
decide upon the issue for their area. Representative Gara
agreed with the comments expressed by Vice-Chair Stoltze,
referencing language on Page 1, Line 9, "ratified by a
majority vote of the qualified voters of the State". He
recommended the language "ratified by a majority vote of the
qualified voters in the municipality", be added,
guaranteeing that it is a public vote.
Representative Gara added that requiring local vote of one
thousand or more is not fair to the smaller municipalities.
He recommended retaining current language including a
uniform rule for all municipalities.
3:40:56 PM
Representative Dahlstrom acknowledged that language would be
acceptable.
Vice-Chair Stoltze understood that the intent was to
substitute the legislative role with the public role on a
State & local level. Representative Dahlstrom said yes.
Vice-Chair Stoltze inquired that once the initiative was on
the ballot, by asking voters approval, could the requirement
be met. Representative Crawford responded that the
initiative sets up a gaming commission. The legislation is
about regulating what currently exists. Vice-Chair Stoltze
understood it was about expanded gambling and did not want
to see the language clouded.
AT EASE: 3:44:06 PM
RECONVENE: 3:44:28 PM
Representative Crawford explained that the people could pass
the initiative and the constitutional amendment, legalizing
the ability for the Commission to set up gambling by passing
the initiative and the Constitutional amendment. He stated
that the amendment would supersede the initiative. The
initiative does not legalize gambling; it legalizes the
ability for the commission to set up gambling and would not
contradict the will of the people.
3:45:31 PM
Representative Dahlstrom advised that following conversation
with Legislative Legal, Mr. Luckhaupt clarified that the
Constitution does supersede statute.
Representative Hawker questioned if "municipality" should be
used rather than "political subdivision". Representative
Gara advised that a statutory definition of municipality
could become imposed. He was not sure but thought that
municipality would be covered by statute, yet, did not know
if municipality was defined anywhere else in the
Constitution. Representative Dahlstrom asked if
municipality could include a political subdivision.
Representative Gara did not know.
3:47:36 PM
Representative Gara asked about moving a conceptual
amendment. Co-Chair Chenault requested that a fully drafted
amendment be prepared for the next Committee meeting.
Representative Dahlstrom offered to work with Co-Chair
Meyer's staff to address the intent.
Representative Gara asked to clarify comments made by Vice-
Chair Stoltze, understanding that he did not intend to
remove the right to vote. He advised that only the
populace, through their own vote, can remove that.
3:50:07 PM
DEBBIE JOSLIN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EAGLE FORUM
ALASKA, testified in support of HJR 2. She concurred with
comments made by Representative Dahlstrom and the ills that
occur with gambling. She recommended that language be added
to Line 10 "approved that even when there is a statewide
vote, municipalities should be allowed to vote independent
of that vote.
3:53:18 PM
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED.
Co-Chair Chenault inquired if a majority vote would be
required at the municipal level. Representative Crawford
commented that initially, a 60% majority vote was required;
however, during the process, language was changed to a
simple majority. He clarified that he preferred the 60%.
HJR 2 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|