Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/30/2003 03:15 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. 5
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum
petitions.
TIM BARRY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS, stated that
HJR 5 was a resolution to put a constitutional amendment on
the ballot in the fall 2004. The amendment would change the
requirements for getting an initiative on the ballot.
Currently, the constitution requires getting signatures from
at least 10% of the number of people who voted in the most
recent general election statewide. Those signatures must be
from at least 27 of the 40 House districts or 2/3 of the
House districts.
Mr. Barry added that the fiscal note is for $1,500 dollars,
which would be the costs to the Division of Elections for
printing the additional page in the election pamphlet. He
noted that Virginia Breeze from the Division of Elections
was present to answer questions of the Committee.
Mr. Barry advised that because the amendment proposes a
constitutional amendment, it only becomes law if it is
supported by 2/3 + 1 of both Legislative members and is
approved by the majority of voters at the ballot box in
2004. He referenced the letters of support in the packets
and statistical data on the signature petitions from recent
years. The spreadsheets indicate that no hardship for
initiative supporters in the last few years meeting the
requirement for HJR 5.
Representative Croft asked if there were any initiatives in
that past few years that would not have qualified under this
amendment. Mr. Barry replied that information would be
difficult to access. The way that the process is done is
that the Division of Elections counts signatures until they
hit the needed number, 10% statewide and assuring that there
is at least one signature from each of the districts. The
signature gatherers always gather more than are needed. In
most cases, when counted, the requirements of HJR 5 and HB
31 would have been met.
Co-Chair Harris asked if the resolution would require that
10% of those that voted in the preceding general election,
must reside in at least ¾ of the election districts. In
those ¾ election districts, there must be a minimum of 7% in
each. Mr. Barry agreed that was essentially correct and
that it would be a number equal to 7% of the number of
people who voted at the most recent election in that
district. In order to sign the petition, the person would
not have had to vote but would have to be registered.
Co-Chair Harris suggested that the reason for the proposed
legislation was to guarantee that more of the election
districts in the State have at least some representation in
a statewide petition. Mr. Barry noted that it is the
sponsor's intention that democracy, through the initiative
process, be exported to more parts of the State than is
currently happening.
Representative Joule questioned how many districts could be
accessed on the current road system. Mr. Barry did not
know. Representative Joule pointed out that it would be
difficult to get this to rural Alaska, while still being
possible to get to the needed ¾ along the road system. Mr.
Barry explained that the way in which the system works, the
sponsor of the petition makes signature packets. They could
be sent through the mail, with signatures gathered and sent
back. Mr. Barry stated that the Division of Elections has
numbered booklets and that emailing was not possible at
present time.
DICK BISHOP, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ALASKA OUTDOOR
COUNCIL, FAIRBANKS, stated that initiatives are not a bad
tool when used to protect people's rights; however, most
initiatives are used to restrict rights. He noted that the
founding fathers of this country were wary of the impact of
the initiative system on minority rights.
Mr. Bishop commented that hunters, fishers and trappers are
a minority in Alaska. Wildlife initiatives have promoted
restriction of sound, lawful hunting, trapping and wildlife
management.
Mr. Bishop stated that HB 31 would help to defend against
"the tyranny of the majority" by requiring broader
representation of Alaskan minorities in order to put an
initiative on the ballot
Mr. Bishop stressed that HB 31 would not ban the initiative
process. He noted that 26 states now do use this system.
Initiatives on wildlife issues are widely condemned by
professional fish and wildlife biologists in Alaska and
across the nation because they've proven a poor substitute
for the legal framework developed over the last 100 years
for managing fish and game
Mr. Bishop continued that with wildlife, it is easy to sell
bad idea advertising. People mostly like wildlife and don't
want to check out the facts, so they react to the emotional
appeal of a ballot campaign. Alaska has an outstanding
legal framework for fish and game management. HB 31 & HJR
5would improve the working climate of the system.
STEVE CON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ALASKA PUBLIC
INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP AND CONSUMER ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION
(AKPIRG), ANCHORAGE, testified in opposition to the
legislation. He noted that in the past 30 years, his
organization has used the initiative tool. The use has not
involved fish, wildlife or environmental matters but rather
the alliance to set in place campaign finance reform law.
He pointed out that the Legislature had passed the campaign
finance reform law. The Constitutional Convention saw the
initiative process as a critical tool to express the will of
the people and to curb the power of special interests on the
legislative process.
Mr. Con stressed that the initiative tool has worked. He
stated that the legislation should be opposed. If passed it
will make it difficult for individuals except for high-paid
special interest groups to place initiatives on the ballot.
KAREN BRETZ, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY,
ALASKANS FOR EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT, ANCHORAGE, testified in
opposition to the legislation. She noted that she has been
involved in the initiative process as a proponent of ballot
initiatives, a collector of initiative signatures, and
counsel to litigants involved in the initiative process.
Ms. Bretz urged that members not pass HJR 5. She pointed
out that the right to petition the government is guaranteed
in the State constitution and tangentially in the federal
constitution. The net result of HJR 5 will be the curbing
of rights.
HJR 5 will effect outside interests and local people. The
outside interests will always have the funds to get their
issues on the ballot regardless of the roadblocks placed
before them. In contrast, Alaskans would be dissuaded from
participating in direct democracy if it is unreasonably
difficult. Ms. Bretz stressed that the bill will
disproportionately affect Alaskans.
The requirement that initiative sponsors collect signatures
equal in number to 10% of the voters who voted in the prior
general election presents a challenge for Alaskans and
ensures that the proposed initiative would have minimal
support. HJR 5 does not disturb the 10% signature
requirement and will additionally require:
· Sponsors to collect signatures from three quarters
of the house districts; and
· That seven percent of the voters in each of those
districts sign the petition.
Ms. Bretz claimed that HJR 5 would disenfranchise people
living in rural Alaska from participating in the initiative
process.
She added that it is important to reflect upon the
individual freedoms and prosperity that our form of
government allows us. The Legislature should encourage more
Alaskans to participate in the initiative process. Although
the initiative process has never been instituted on the
federal level, the United States Supreme Court commented on
it in the case of United Mine Workers of America vs.
Illinois State Bar Association, 389 U.S. 427 (1967).
Restraining the rights of the people from petitioning the
government through the initiative process is not Alaskan,
nor is patriotic. Ms. Bretz urged members of the Committee
to vote "do not pass" on HJR 5.
LINDA RONAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CHAIR OF THE
BOARD, ALASKA HEMP, ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to the
legislation. She recommended current technology retaining
inclusion by utilizing the Internet. She pointed out that
in her circle, there is not one person interested in this
bill. She stated that the legislation would remove the
people's choice of what is placed on the ballot. That would
not be right. She urged members to vote against HJR 5.
KEN JACOBUS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY, LEGAL
COUNCIL FOR REPUBLICAN PARTY, ANCHORAGE, testified his
opposition to HJR 5, echoing previous comments. He stated
that HJR 5 would have to consist of 31 petitions. There
will need to be a petition for each district plus the same
petition statewide. It would be essential to get the
cushion of signatures in each district. The net result will
be that only well financed petitions will be able to do
this. The ordinary person that wants to petition will not
be able to do so. He claimed that none of the petitions on
the list since 1998 would have gotten on the ballot if this
particular bill were in place.
Mr. Jacobus commented that this legislation will not solve
Dick Bishop's problem. The resolution will result in only
petitions for wildlife and natural resource. Those people
use petitions as fundraisers. The legislation will get rid
of petitions brought forth by the ordinary people.
Mr. Jacobus claimed that if the idea gets on the ballot,
there would be "mud" slug at people that support the "power
grab"; it will not pass. He suggested leaving it alone and
let the people have the power that they have been given
originally under the constitution. When an initiative gets
on the ballot, the people have the right to vote it up or
down.
JED WHITTAKER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE,
understood that there is a fear in Alaska that Anchorage is
becoming a City-State. He noted that HJR 5 was not a good
solution, as it would do away with the 14th Amendment of the
United States Constitution.
Mr. Whittaker disagreed that the fiscal note would amount to
only $1,500 dollars, because there will be many lawsuits
that follow. He pointed out that Co-Chair Williams did not
have a co-sponsor on the resolution.
JIM SYKES, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), GREEN PARTY OF
ALASKA, MAT-SU, echoed sentiments voiced by previous
speakers. He stated that the Committee should not pass HJR
5 and that citizens should be encouraged to participate in
government. HJR 5 places a roadblock to the intended
process. He agreed that the "well funded outside special
interest groups" will have the edge with passage of this
legislation because they have the money to do whatever the
requirements are.
Mr. Sykes questioned the intent of the legislation. He
suggested that more signatures from rural Alaska would not
hold true. There are better methods:
· Making outside contributions toward the initiative
process illegal; and
· Limiting contributions to $500 dollars; requiring
monthly disclosure reports to Alaska Public Officers
Commission (APOC) to find out who is funding the
petition drives.
Mr. Sykes agreed with the $1 dollar per signature charge,
which he thought was reasonable. He spoke to the
distribution reports, indicating that the citizens from
every district have signed the initiatives. He urged that
current law be left alone.
STUART THOMSON, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to the
proposed legislation. He commented on the negative impact
it will have on tourism. He observed the problem for
democracy, is after awhile, selfish special interests always
find a way to abuse or manipulate methodology.
Mr. Thomson advised two things to minimize damage from the
issue:
· Each legislator has a moral, intellectual,
philosophical, and common sense responsibility to
study relevant Alaska constitutional convention
minutes and major Alaska Supreme Court rulings on
the initiative process; and
· If after study of constitutional philosophy, the
modification proposed is still worthy of
consideration, then minimize the impact of the
changes from legislative deliberation and public
input.
Mr. Thomson reminded members of the blessings that come from
freedom.
CHERYL JEBE, PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, JUNEAU,
commented that the League of Women Voters of Alaska supports
the "existing" initiative process and makes the following
recommendations:
· Initiatives should be voted on only at General
Elections, not special or primary elections.
· Support change that requires simplicity and clarity
of the wording of initiative questions with a "yes"
vote to indicate in favor of a measure and a "no"
vote to indicate opposition to a measure.
· Support disclosure on each initiative petition of
the name(s) or group(s) that is paying the gatherer
and how they are paid, such as by signature or by
the hour.
· Support the requirement for not less than 500
qualified voters as sponsors to the prospective
petition with the Lieutenant Governor's office.
· Support the requirement for a number of valid
signatures not less than ten (10%) percent of the
total number of the votes cast in the preceding
general elections.
· Support a formula for at least 50 signatures in each
of two-thirds of the legislative districts in order
to reflect statewide interest in a measure.
· Support the requirement of an attorney general
advisory opinion as to the constitutionality of each
proposed initiative after it has qualified for the
ballot, such opinion to be published in the State
Election Pamphlet.
· Support the existing limit on time for collecting
signatures to one year.
· Support the requirement for a cost analysis to be on
each initiative petition.
· Support the requirement that signature gatherers be
qualified voters of Alaska.
ALVIN ANDERS, SECRETARY, ALASKA LIBERTARIAN PARTY, testified
in opposition to HJR 5. He pointed out that the proposed
changes to the initiative process attempt to fix something
that is not broken. Mr. Anders submitted that the
legislation is not necessary and that HJR 5 is not the best
way to achieve Representative William's goals. There is no
evidence given that the idea contained within an initiative
does not enjoy broad statewide support. Included in the
initiative package are reports showing the distribution of
signatures from the last ten initiatives. In each case,
significant numbers of signatures were gathered from every
district throughout the State. The fact that an initiative
makes it on the ballot in and of its self indicates broad
support. The fact that many citizens from every legislative
district signed these petitions proves not only that the
issues have broad support but also that the initiative
process is working.
Mr. Anders continued, no evidence has been presented that
any initiative has passed that did not have broad support.
In fact most initiatives that pass statewide generally pass
in every district. The one exception was the referendum
dealing with wildlife management. That ballot issue won in
30 of 40 districts and of the ten districts where it lost,
mostly was in Anchorage and Fairbanks.
Mr. Anders pointed out that some people are supporting
making the initiative process more onerous to keep
initiatives off the ballot dealing with wildlife management
issues. He stressed that if one group has the money to
mount expensive initiative drives, it would be the "lovers
of little animals". Since 1976, only one group has been
able to gather the necessary signatures to put a referendum
on the ballot and that group was the people who oppose the
trapping of wolves. If they can raise the money to gather
signatures equivalent to 10% of the vote in 90 days, then
they will still be able to afford to put signatures on the
ballot even if the distribution requirement is raised.
He suggested that the Republicans who support the bill would
find themselves being portrayed as folks who are attacking
the initiative process and even if the proposed changes
pass, wildlife management issues will still make the ballot.
He suggested that there is a better way to accomplish the
goals of making the initiative process more inclusive and
preventing the tyranny of the densely populace areas over
the sparsely populated areas.
· The first goal, making the initiative process more
accessible to all Alaskans could be accomplished
easily by making initiatives one page and posting
them as Adobe Acrobat files on the Division of
Elections website. Currently the State pays for the
cost of printing 500 petition booklets at no charge
for every initiative that the Attorney General
approves for circulation. That money could be put
to much better use.
· Preventing the "supposed tyranny" of the densely
populated areas over the sparsely populated areas,
that could be addressed using a solution practiced
in Switzerland. There cantons can vote to repeal
laws either statewide or within a particular canton.
That option has not yet been tried in Alaska.
Mr. Anders addressed additional points that make the changes
proposed in HJR 5 ill advised. He referenced the report
st
entitled "Initiative and Referendum in the 21 Century" by
the National Conference of State Legislators. (Copy on
File). In that report there are 34 recommendations to
improve the initiative process. Almost every one of these
proposals is already in force in Alaska. The two that are
not are as follows:
· Recommendation 2.2: "The Legislature should provide
for public hearings on the initiative proposals".
· Recommendation 4.3: "The States should require the
drafting of a fiscal impact statement for each
initiative proposal".
Those proposals are not addressed in HJR 5. Moreover, the
report criticizes initiative abuses in most notably
California and Oregon but the solutions that are proposed
are almost all in place in Alaska. One criticism that was
leveled in the report is abuse of the initiative process by
too many initiatives appearing on the ballot, which has not
been a problem in Alaska. Since statehood, only 34
initiatives have appeared on Alaska ballots, which is 34 in
42 years and 21 elections.
TAPE HFC 03 - 71, Side B
Mr. Anders stated that the drafters of our constitution
debated the question of how many signatures needed to be
required and what distribution to require. An amendment was
proposed to require "from each of two-thirds of the election
districts of the State with signatures equaling not less
than 3% of the number of voters casting ballots for Governor
in each district in the preceding general election at which
a governor was elected". That amendment failed 31 to 17.
He asked if the founding fathers and mothers of Alaska
thought 35 from 2/3 of the districts was too onerous a
requirement, why then is the Legislature considering a
requirement more than twice the amount. Mr. Anders urged
that the members of the Legislature honor the drafters of
the Alaska Constitution and vote against HJR 5.
Mr. Anders submitted ideas for improving the initiative
process:
· Remove the restriction of paying only $1 per
signature.
· Extend the time period to allow for the gathering of
signatures.
· Return the thirty-day grace period for initiatives
that fail to gather the necessary signatures within
the allotted time.
· Allow initiative sponsors to submit signatures to
election officials for certification as they are
gathered.
· Make petitions one page and post on the Division of
Elections website.
· Make proponents pay for the cost of their own
printing.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, #23-
LS0202\A.1, Kurtz, 4/29/03. (Copy on File).
Co-Chair Williams OBJECTED.
Representative Croft explained that the amendment addresses
the issue regarding repealing an initiative. The amendment
would insert new language "and the law enacted may not be
repealed by the legislature within two years after the
effective date of the law". He stated that it is a process,
which the Constitutional Convention believed that the
legislature would do and would continue to do.
Mr. Barry responded that Co-Chair Williams, the sponsor, had
been working on this issue for several legislative sessions.
The amendment proposes a different issue from which HJR 5 is
intended to address. The current system has a set of
"checks and balances". Under current law, if the
Legislature wanted to repeal a law, they could do it. In
the event that there were technical problems with the law,
like the one proposed in Amendment #1, it would keep the
Legislature from fixing the "bad law" for two years.
Representative Croft WITHDREW Amendment #1. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was withdrawn.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2 which would
change language on Page 1, Line 11, deleting the "7%" and
inserting "3%".
Co-Chair Williams OBJECTED.
Representative Croft stated that the 7% might be onerous.
He acknowledged that it made sense for it be over 1%. He
agreed that there needs to be something that still allows
initiatives to be done and significant participation from a
lot of districts without making it too burdensome.
Co-Chair Williams noted that the intent of the bill is to
get "more democracy" out to the outline areas. The people
of the State need to be more a part of the initiative
process. He stated that three percent was just not enough.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Stoltze, Croft
OPPOSED: Chenalut, Foster, Hawker, Joule, Meyer,
Williams
Representative Whitaker, Representative Moses and Co-Chair
Harris were not present for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-6).
Representative Joule referenced Line 11, "7% of ¾ of the
districts of those people that voted in the last election".
He asked if the signature of someone that was a registered
voter but did not vote in the last election, would qualify.
Mr. Barry clarified that the person does not have to have
voted in the last election. The 7% number is the number of
signatures needed equal to the number of people that
actually voted in that district in the last election.
Representative Stoltze asked if the district numbers were
determined by reapportionment. Mr. Barry replied that they
were and the most recent numbers were taken from the 2000
election.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HJR 5 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and with the accompanying
fiscal note. Representative Croft OBJECTED.
Representative Croft reiterated that the process currently
is not broken and at this time, there would be a significant
impact to rural Alaska. He maintained that it is important
to be careful when affecting the peoples right to initiative
referendum and recall. These are the "checks" that the
people have on the Legislature and people do not like the
Legislature "messing around" with them. This legislation
will lower the public's esteem even more. The requirements
proposed in the bill of 10% and 7% will make it more
difficult for Alaskans to pass or repeal laws. Doing that
is their right. He reiterated that there is not an
overwhelming problem with current system.
Representative Stoltze indicated his concern with the bill.
Co-Chair Harris inquired how many other states had this type
process on their books. Mr. Barry advised that 26 states
currently use some sort of initiative process.
Co-Chair Harris asked what other states use it to reflect
the will of the public. Mr. Barry replied that the framers
of the U.S. Constitution considered the concept of the
initiative process. Co-Chair Williams interjected that
Washington State uses the initiative process.
Co-Chair Harris noted that he did support the idea in the
past and that he would support it at this time. He
understands the need to make sure that there is some
representation from all precincts around the State to better
reflect the State's will.
Representative Foster spoke to people attempting to
determine what is good for Bush Alaska. He commented on how
the legislation will affect that area. Initiatives have
been "pushed down" by the majority of urban Alaskans for
many years. He thought that the disagreement regarding the
legislation is a "joke" and that the bill would be a "safety
net" for his people.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to move the bill
from Committee.
IN FAVOR: Whitaker, Foster, Hawker, Joule, Meyer,
Stoltze, Harris, Williams
OPPOSED: Chenault, Croft
Representative Moses was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (8-2).
HJR 5 was reported out of Committee with "individual"
recommendations and with fiscal note #1 by the Office of the
Governor.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|