Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/29/1999 01:40 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
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.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|