Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
05/10/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB145 | |
| HJR2 | |
| HB250 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 250 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 2 - CONST.AM:NO GAMING WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL 1:54:55 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be 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. 1:55:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HJR 2, Version 25-LS0257\E, Luckhaupt, 5/9/07, as the working document. There being no objection, Version E was before the committee. 1:56:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as a joint prime sponsor, explained that HJR 2 was introduced because the duties of the legislature were being usurped by a citizens' initiative. That initiative forms a commission, with members appointed by the governor. He informed the committee that those gathering the signatures presented the initiative as one to regulate gambling, but they rarely mentioned that the initiative would expand gambling without a vote of the legislature. Therefore, he [and Representative Dahlstrom] introduced HJR 2. He expressed his horror at the prospect of an appointed commission having the ability to rule without the legislature's consent. Alaska is one of the last two states that hasn't allowed for-profit gambling. Representative Crawford said, "I just absolutely don't want to go down this road without there being a very high bar." REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, speaking as a joint prime sponsor of HJR 2, relayed that she and Representative Crawford have been working on this issue and related issues over the past few years. She related that the two share a passion for this issue due to what happens to any state and the families in it when that state allows gambling. She mentioned the addiction and crime problems related to gambling. She then reminded the committee that Alaska is usually one of the top five states in terms of the rate of suicide, alcoholism, incest, rape, and child abuse. Furthermore, bankruptcies are increasing. The aforementioned have always increased when gambling has been allowed or expanded. Representative Dahlstrom opined that it's not a risk the state should take. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM informed the committee that studies have indicated that for every $1 spent gambling, the cost to society is $3. The societal cost is in terms of funding addiction programs, welfare, and shelters. Furthermore, it's common for the caseload of an area's office of children services and police department to increase. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM emphasized that the most important consideration [with allowing/expanding gambling] is the destruction of families. She acknowledged that not everyone who gambles becomes addicted, but statistics prove that there are more people for which gambling becomes a habit that turns into an addiction. Addictions are something for which society as a whole pays. Representative Dahlstrom clarified that HJR 2 won't affect existing law; it only address a proposal to expand [for- profit] gambling. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS related that he, too, was approached by the gambling initiative folks. He then related that he, too, believes that initiatives usurp the power of the legislature. Referring to the language "all profits" on page 1, line 13, he pointed out that [for-profit and nonprofit] charities both take a profit. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained that this language doesn't change the existing statutes and regulations governing charitable gaming. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM acknowledged that there are some businesses that are bad actors, even in the existing charitable gaming industry. This resolution doesn't address the aforementioned, but perhaps that could be addressed in the future. The intent of charitable gaming is good and is allowed in law. 2:07:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that he wasn't sure that a constitutional amendment could require that the legislature can make a law that has been ratified by 60 percent of [the qualified voters in the state]. In the Alaska Constitution, the language "by law" generally refers to the legislature or initiative. However, this resolution would require the two groups that have the authority to make law agree. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that it's easy to evade this proposed law because a casino could be constructed outside of the municipal borders. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained that for any expansion for any form of gambling there will have to be general election across the state. Furthermore, if the gambling is located in a municipality or borough, there will also have to be a local election. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that he is unclear as to whom the language "approved by the municipality" refers. He questioned whether a city official could provide approval or does there have to be a vote of the city council. The problem with gambling facilities outside of municipal borders could be cured by requiring that gambling facilities have to be in a municipality, and therefore voters would have to approve it. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM related her understanding from the Department of Law (DOL) and others that the language on page 1, lines 10-11, was chosen in an effort to ensure that there will be a statewide and local vote when gambling is considered. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated his point that the election would only occur if the gambling facility was located within the borders of the municipality. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS related his belief that there's a big difference between gaming and gambling, and asked if those terms are defined in statute. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said that the language on page 1, line 7, "Any form of gaming or gambling" was chosen so as not to have to list specific types of games. 2:14:34 PM LEONARD WELLS asked whether a super majority is required for passage of a law at the local election. He then questioned why anything other than a simple majority would be required. If someone is looking to put a gambling facility outside the municipality, would those in the city have a vote since they aren't included in the borough, he asked. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM related that she and Representative Crawford are amenable to discussing [whether the vote has to be a] 60 percent vote in favor. She related the intent for the vote to be held in the area in which the gambling facility is to be located. 2:17:12 PM ED MOEGLEIN, Alaska Charitable Non Profits Organization, informed the committee that the Alaska Charitable Non Profits Organization represents veterans and community service organizations with affiliates throughout the state. He said he's in favor of HJR 2 for the same reasons stated in the sponsor statement and also because [for-profit gambling] would be placed in competition with charitable, community, and veteran service organizations. He opined that some forms of gambling could cause harm to the state's communities as well as the state as a whole. He further opined that it's each Alaskan's right to vote on a gaming or gambling issue. 2:20:05 PM PAMELA SAMASH encouraged the committee to address the situation in which gambling facilities are located outside the city limits. Ms. Samash related her support for HJR 2, which is evidenced in her written testimony included in the committee packet. She encouraged the committee to do what it can to keep gambling out of Alaska or at least make it fair and allow the voters to decide. Gambling is addicting, especially to those with existing addictions. Drawing from her mother's experience, Ms. Samash related that gambling is set up in a manner to allow people to forget the cares of life. The high rate of drug and alcohol abuse and the depression that many deal with in Alaska would leave many in Alaska vulnerable to gambling addiction. She emphasized the need to remember the children of the adults who are gambling because the children "are the first in line to pay the price of gambling" as they are powerless. Ms. Samash said that she is proud that Alaska is one of two states without casinos. 2:24:15 PM CHAIR RAMRAS, upon determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HJR 2. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM reminded the committee that Alaska's population is in the 600,000 range. She then offered the following statistics per 100,000 adults. In a typical county of $100,000 adults, the introduction of class III gambling would create additional societal costs of $14.3 million annually with costs for the social benefits of $4.6 million annually. In counties with class III gambling, approximately 10 percent of crime was due to gambling, which, in counties of 100,000, that means 615 more larcenies, 325 more burglaries, 272 more auto thefts, 10 more rapes, 65 more robberies, and 100 more aggravated assaults. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reminded the committee that most of what has been done over the years has been by a majority vote, and thus he wasn't sure about enshrining the super majority requirement in the constitution. CHAIR RAMRAS related his intention to offer an amendment to delete the language "sixty percent" in order to conform to the constitution. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM characterized that as a friendly amendment. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that perhaps the language on lines 10-11 should be changed to refer to "any municipality where the gaming or gambling may occur" rather than "the municipality, if any, where the gaming or gambling will occur." He then directed attention to the term "only" on page 1, line 13, and reminded the committee that the term is exclusive to all other things. He predicted that using the term "only" could result in specifying that the profits could only be expended for charitable purposes. In response to Representative Dahlstrom, Representative Coghill said he thought the deletion of "only" would be appropriate. 2:28:59 PM CHAIR RAMRAS moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, to delete "sixty percent" from page 1, line 9. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, as follows: Page 1, line 10, following "by": Delete "the" Insert "any" Page 1, line 11: Delete ", if any," Page 1, line 11: Delete "will" Insert "may" There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. 2:30:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, to delete "only" from page 1, line 13. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern that so much money is involved that those who might wish to [open a gambling facility] will scrutinize this resolution. Therefore, he suggested having an attorney who specializes in this review the resolution for possible loopholes that could be exploited. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said that she would be happy to do so, but expressed her desire to move the resolution from committee today. She noted that she is working with several attorneys. 2:33:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HJR 2, Version 25-LS0257\E, Luckhaupt, 5/9/07, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 2(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|