Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
02/05/2020 01:45 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR15 | |
| HB133 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 15-CONST. AM: VOTES NEEDED FOR VETO OVERRIDE
1:51:36 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to actions upon
veto.
1:52:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS, Alaska State
Legislature, as prime sponsor, introduced HJR 15. He introduced
his intern, Josiah Nash.
1:52:30 PM
JOSIAH NASH, Intern, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, presented HJR 15 on behalf of
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, prime sponsor. He stated that
HJR 15 proposes a constitutional amendment that would lower the
veto vote threshold for appropriation bills from three-fourths
of legislators, which is 45 votes, to two-thirds, which is 40
votes. He stated that currently vetoes of non-appropriation
bills in Alaska require two-thirds of legislators for an
override. He explained that HJR 15 creates a uniform veto
override vote threshold, for both appropriation and non-
appropriation bills. He stated that Alaska's veto vote
threshold for appropriation bills is disproportionate to every
other U.S. state and territory. Alaska is the only state
requiring three-fourths of legislators; every other state has a
two-thirds, three-fifths, or simple majority vote threshold. He
explained that 38 states have a two-thirds vote threshold, 6
states have a three-fifths vote threshold, and 5 states have a
simple majority vote threshold.
1:54:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated that HJR 15 is a simple
resolution. He expressed that he thinks the previous year's
budget process was traumatic for most legislators and Alaskans.
He stated that the veto power of the governor of Alaska is, for
all intents and purposes, unilateral, only requiring 25 percent
of legislators' support for a veto to go through. He asserted
his belief that it is important to keep in mind that "this is a
blade that goes both ways." He gave as an example a
hypothetical future governor, who is a strong environmentalist,
that wants to end mining in Alaska. He stated that in this
hypothetical situation, the governor could achieve an end to
mining in Alaska by vetoing out the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), Division of Mining, Land, and Water (DMLW) with
only 25 percent of legislators' support. He stated that the
effective policy making power associated with a line item veto
is profound, and he thinks the separation of powers is slightly
unbalanced in Alaska. He expressed that he thinks this topic is
worth keeping in mind for broader consideration. He added that
he thinks having different override thresholds, for policy bills
and appropriation bills, creates a non-uniform complexity. As
an example, he referenced a line item veto by Governor Tony
Knowles in the 1990s regarding a transfer of land to a
university. He explained that Governor Knowles asserted that
this was an appropriation, whereas the legislature asserted it
was not an appropriation. The legislature did not have the
required three-fourths vote for an override, but it would've had
a two-thirds vote. Ultimately, this case went to the Alaska
Supreme Court, which could have been eliminated by a uniform
threshold for all veto override votes.
1:57:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the Alaska Supreme Court
provided an answer to the case during Governor Knowles'
administration, as she doesn't think there has been much
ambiguity regarding the veto override vote threshold since then.
1:57:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that he thinks the Alaska
Supreme Court answered the question as to whether or not land
transfers constitute appropriation, but he doesn't think a
comprehensive delineation has been issued by the Alaska Supreme
Court in terms of what is and is not an appropriation. He added
that he thinks it is worth noting that there have been very few
veto overrides attempted; mostly the legislature knows that it
cannot get the required three-fourths vote to accomplish an
override. He stated that he thinks, since Alaska's statehood,
there have only been six or seven successful veto overrides. He
expressed that nearly every time the governor wins, while the
legislature loses because of such a high threshold.
1:58:21 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the six or seven overrides referenced
earlier were finance overrides, and he asked whether
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins has any indication of how many
times there have been overrides of legislative matters subject
to the two-thirds override threshold.
1:58:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS replied that he does not know but
would like to find out. He clarified that he was mistaken, and
only five vetoes have been overridden since Alaska's statehood,
approximately one per decade.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for clarification that these were five vetoes
that required the three-fourths threshold.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated that that is correct.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for clarification on how the Alaska Supreme
Court ruled regarding the land issue.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS replied that the Alaska Supreme
Court ruled that land did not constitute appropriation;
therefore, Governor Knowles' veto was overridden because it fell
under the two-thirds vote threshold.
1:59:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that he noticed in the
presentation it was pointed out that Alaska is unique. He
remarked that typically this is viewed as a positive thing. He
said he expected to have heard some discussion regarding why
Alaska chose to be unique during the establishment of its
constitution, the silence on which he finds to be notable. He
asked whether Representative Kreiss-Tomkins could enlighten the
committee as to why Alaska chose to be unique.
2:00:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that he could "create
some noise on the matter." He said that through review of the
minutes from the constitutional convention, he saw that this
very question was considered. He explained that there were two
camps of delegates; the camp that proposed a three-fourths
threshold desired to form a strong as possible executive office,
which is a theme that can be seen throughout the constitution.
He pointed out that the attorney general and all constitutional
officers are appointed by the governor and not elected
positions. He expressed that this creates the strongest
executive office of all 50 U.S. states. He stated that the
other camp of delegates highlighted the fact that it would be
unrealistic for the three-fourths veto vote to ever be achieved,
and this requirement would effectively hand the governor a semi-
unilateral budget veto power. This camp of delegates sought out
a more moderate balance of power. He expressed that after
seeing a track record of so many unsuccessful veto overrides
over the past half a century, it might make sense to bring the
balance of power between the executive and legislative branches
in Alaska more in line with that of other U.S. states.
2:01:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Representative Kreiss-Tomkins
mentioned it has only been six or seven times the legislature
has reached the threshold for a veto override.
2:02:06 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that the testimony was that it was five
times the vote threshold was reached.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Representative Kreiss-Tomkins
whether he could offer the committee the number of vetoes
attempted, that were not overridden.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Eastman to clarify whether he
was asking how many times the legislature met and attempted to
override and failed, or asking the "total number of vetoes that
were done, each line item counting as one veto, and out of the
total number of vetoes of Alaska history was a veto overridden?"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that he is looking for an answer to
how many times there have been appropriation vetoes, and how
many of those vetoes the legislature has attempted to override.
2:03:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated that he does not know how
many times the governor has vetoed an appropriation since
Alaska's statehood, but he can see how that would be helpful to
the conversation and he will try to have an answer by the next
hearing. He stated that the legislature has attempted to
override a veto, and failed, 16 times since Alaska's statehood;
therefore, 5 out of 16 veto overrides have failed. He expressed
that he thinks it is important to bear in mind that an attempt
to override a veto, given a joint session and all of the
procedure involved, takes a lot of energy, and it seems quite
clear that the legislature doesn't even attempt to override
vetoes it sees as hopeless.
2:04:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether a high override threshold of
three-fourths is meant to protect the rights of not only the
governor, but the rights of the minority as well. She expressed
that she doesn't see much of a difference between the three-
fourths requirement for a veto override, and the three-fourths
requirement for the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBR),
which it is not considered to be in need of change.
2:05:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that the issue of two-
thirds versus three-fourths is more abstract in terms of the
balance between majority and minority. He expressed that it is
a great question to consider and expressed that more than half
of his time working in the legislature has been spent in the
minority and not the majority. He stated that although he is
currently in the majority, he is very aware that roles can flip,
and that it is foolish to make short term decisions which are
beneficial for only one side. He stated that he believes this
proposal does not unduly infringe on the rights of the minority.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS gave an example of a veto override
from a couple of weeks prior, in which a veto override could not
muster the two-thirds required vote. He said that even if this
constitutional amendment were adopted, and Alaska's override
threshold was in line with the rest of other U.S. states, the
override vote would have failed, and the minority would still
have expressed its will. He expressed that even though he does
not agree with the minority's perspective on policies in the
veto override vote from a couple of weeks before, he respects
the outcome. He said that the other 49 states in the U.S. all
have minority caucuses, whereas Alaska has a unique minority
which is less empowered than those in other states. He said
that he thinks there is a better balance struck in the other
states between the executive and legislative offices and, by
extension, the minority caucuses and the legislature.
2:08:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS addressed the other side of
Representative LeDoux's question, regarding the CBR. He
expressed that he thinks taking funds out of the CBR is, in a
way, an additive action, whereas vetoing an action of the
legislature is a subtractive one. He explained that he thinks
it makes sense to have a higher threshold to take money out of a
bank, than it does to have a high threshold to preserve a
decision made by the legislature. He expressed that he thinks
if the legislature were to use a three-fourths vote as the gold
standard for a balance of power between majority and minority,
in a hypothetical situation, it follows that the veto override
threshold for policy bills should increase from two-thirds to
three-fourths. He said that he thinks a historical look at the
balance of power between the majority and minority throughout
Alaska's statehood shows that it is statistically uncommon to
see minority caucuses smaller than one-third, which would not
have the power to be relevant in a veto override vote.
2:10:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for clarification on the example
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins gave regarding the CBR and taking
money from the bank.
2:10:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS replied that he would try to
explain the distinction in another way. He stated that the
power of the legislature to draw funds from the CBR is relevant,
necessary, and frequently used to balance the budget. He said
that because there is a general fund and other revenue coming to
the state annually, it should be possible to balance the budget
without CBR revenue. He added that if the minority doesn't want
to grant the three-fourths vote to approve the withdrawal of
funds from the CBR, the results shouldn't be catastrophic in a
way that disrupts operations. He expressed that a line item
veto is different because it allows entire programs to be
terminated; the stakes are considerably higher than those of the
CBR. He pointed out that several programs could be ended
tomorrow by line item vetoes to their budgets, including: the
Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS), the Alaska State Council on
the Arts (ASCA), and the Division of Mining, Land, and Water
(DMLW). He expressed that the power of a line item veto is far
greater than the ability to take money from a savings account.
He explained that he sees it as a matter of proportionality; the
ramifications of being denied access to the CBR funds, by a
three-fourths override vote requirement, do not carry the same
weight as the consequences of a three-fourths override vote
requirement for a line item veto that can potentially eliminate
entire state programs. He summarized that given what is at
stake with a line item veto override vote, perhaps it does not
make sense to have a threshold that is as high as that of the
vote requirement for the CBR.
2:12:44 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN expressed that considering the current discussion,
it seems to him that the question of a three-fourths vote
requirement to draw funds from the CBR is quintessentially a
question of legislative function. He explained that the power
of appropriation, under the constitution, is exclusive to the
legislature; the governor cannot appropriate any funds,
regardless of whether he wants to or not. He said the three-
fourths requirement for how the legislature appropriates funds
is a way for the legislature to restrict its own power. The
governor could line item veto what the legislature withdraws
from the CBR, but he/she can't make the decision to appropriate
it. He stated that in contrast, the question of overriding a
veto is a question of the power relationship between the
executive branch and the legislative branch.
2:14:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HJR 15.
2:14:32 PM
CRIS EICHENLAUB testified in opposition to HJR 15. He expressed
that he thinks special interest groups have currently taken over
Alaska. He said that he feels HJR 15 circumvents the will of
the people by changing the constitution. He explained that it
seems to him like special interest groups are trying to change
the rules in order to get one over on the majority. He
expressed that the House, as constructed, does not represent the
will of the people. He stated that he thinks the Senate has
also taken power from the Senators who represented the people's
voice. He said that he thinks HJR 15 intends to take power from
the governor, who was elected by the people and represents their
will. He summarized that essentially, he wants to see a
government that is of, by, and for the people.
2:16:18 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HJR 15.
2:16:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Representative Kreiss-Tomkins why
HJR 15 includes a change to the threshold for new tax bills,
which wasn't discussed in his presentation.
2:17:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that the discussion on
the threshold change for new tax bills was omitted because it
has not ever been a factor in Alaska's statehood; all five of
the successful veto override votes have been related to
appropriation items. He expressed that Alaska seems to have a
history of failing to enact revenue bills to begin with, much
less allow them to be vetoed. He said that it makes sense to
have a uniform threshold more in line with many other states.
He asked the committee to consider the question: What is it
that makes Alaska so exceptional as to have the highest override
threshold in the entire country for appropriation and revenue
bills?
2:18:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Representative Kreiss-Tomkins
whether both issues addressed in HJR 15 are equally important to
him. He expressed that he thinks the resolution might have a
better chance of passing, in the current political environment,
if he were to choose one or the other. He said if the increase
to taxes were dropped, there might be less opposition, at least
from his district.
2:18:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that he is willing to be
flexible; given the political history, appropriation vetoes are
likely to be far more relevant in the future than revenue bills.
He stated that as an observer of Alaska's politics, if a revenue
bill manages to make it across the finish line from the
legislature "it's probably going to be pretty shot up, and
limping, and dragging a leg, and maybe two votes over a simple
majority." He said that at that point, if the revenue bill gets
vetoed, it will likely be dead regardless of whether there is a
two-thirds or three-fourths vote requirement. He reiterated
that he is willing to be flexible and open to the possibility of
changes to the resolution, if it will engender a broader base of
support. He summarized that from an academic constitutional
perspective, a uniform vote threshold seems cleaner, simpler,
more straightforward, and makes sense.
2:20:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that if a revenue measure came up that was
a modification of oil and gas taxes, the public perception and
desire for the governor to have a stronger veto authority would
be different than if it were an income tax modification. He
predicted that some of Representative Eastman's constituents
wouldn't be opposed to a two-thirds override for an oil and gas
tax bill but would probably prefer a three-fourths override for
an income tax bill.
2:21:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked that Chair Claman made an
important distinction about constituencies. He reiterated a
concern raised earlier by Representative LeDoux, and he said
that HJR 15 wouldn't change the governor's power to line-item
veto, it would only change the ability of a minority vote to
affect the outcome of an override vote. He said that he is
sensitive to the fact that that is where the main issue lies.
2:22:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS remarked that he would dispute
this characterization but acknowledges that this is the way
Representative Eastman views HJR 15. He expressed that the
bottom line is that the governor is the one who puts ink on the
paper of a budget bill, and it becomes the legislature's
decision to either sustain the governor's decision or override
it. He said that the legislature is secondary to the governor's
decision, and the legislature ultimately becomes a referendum on
the governor's will. He expressed that he sees the veto power
as an executive power and the legislature as "the tail on the
dog," but he understands what Representative Eastman is saying.
2:23:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that he thinks personality should
be taken out of this discussion entirely and the focus should be
on what the balance of power should look like in the structure
of government between the legislative, executive, and judiciary
branches. He said that in 1997 the legislature overrode
Governor Knowles' veto of the parent notification bill on
abortion. He expressed that he imagines the legislature was
very glad this was not an appropriation bill and they could
reach the two-thirds limit. He added that if there were an
appropriation bill to fund Planned Parenthood, there would be
many people happy for a two-thirds vote on an appropriation
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed that he thinks it is important to
think larger than specific issues, such as ferries and abortion,
and focus on what is a fundamentally fair and balanced
threshold, which would represent the will of the majority of
Alaskans. He remarked, "It's easy to think about how you want
the council shaped if you have the king in place that you want.
But then, when you don't have the king that you want, you think,
'Oh, I wish that we'd never messed with that.'" He expressed
that he could see uniformity being very desirable, depending on
the issue, on both appropriation and non-appropriation bills.
He summarized that he appreciates the sponsor bringing HJR 15
forward and thinks it presents an important discussion.
2:25:39 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HJR 15 would be held over for
further review.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR 15 v. M 1.21.2020.PDF |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Sponsor Statement 1.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Sectional Analysis v. M 1.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Supporting Document - NCSL Table 1.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Presentation 2.5.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HJR 15 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 1.29.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HB 133 v. M 2.3.2020.PDF |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Sponsor Statement 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Sectional Analysis v. M 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - One-Sheeter 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - Carey Case 4.22.2019.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Areas 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - Questions and Answers 2.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Supporting Document - DJJ Letter 5.13.19.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 PowerPoint Presentation 2.4.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |
| HB 133 Fiscal Note DHSS-PS 1.16.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 133 |