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. 25
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to a petition for an initiative or
referendum regarding fish or wildlife.
LORLI MEIER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, stated that
HJR 25 would bar fish or wildlife issues from the initiative
process.
Ms. Meier continued, the Constitution of the State of Alaska
clearly states that the Legislature is the authoritative
body to manage fish and game. The Legislature can, however,
delegate that authority to a board. The Boards of Game and
Fisheries were created as an extension of that management
body.
Ms. Meier noted that there is no constitutional restriction
on the ability of the Alaska Legislature to propose an
amendment to the Alaska Constitution that would alter,
restrict, or even prohibit the use of the initiative by the
people to enact laws relating to fish and game.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that during the
Constitutional Convention, it was clearly stated that there
were items which were not to be included.
Representative Grussendorf voiced opposition to the
resolution. He emphasized that any information is as good
as the Board that represents it.
Representative J. Davies added that there are times when the
fish and game board becomes heavily representative of a
small segment of society. He pointed out that only 15% of
the Alaskan population have hunting licenses. That is a
small number of residents and that often times the
scientific issue is not the entire debate. Representative
J. Davies emphasized that there are other valuable resources
in addition to science that constitutes decisions made.
Representative Bunde questioned if the four criteria used in
the Brooks vs. Wright case could be addressed in the
proposed resolution. Mr. Utermohle advised that this
amendment did not seem to broach any issues or boundaries
established by that case.
HJR 25 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
TESTIMONY VIA TELECONFERENCE
PETER BUIST, ALASKA TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION, FAIRBANKS, spoke
in support of HJR 25 and HB 45. He spoke of the hardships
resulting from last year's campaigning against animal right
extremists and their well funded attempt to vie an Alaskan
right for their own political purposes. He stressed that
the Alaska Trappers do not have the funds to address such an
attack every two years. Mr. Buist urged the Committee's
favorable support of the legislation.
JOE MATTIE, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALASKA TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION,
FAIRBANKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, FAIRBANKS, echoed the
sentiments voiced by Mr. Buist. He stated that he favored
HJR 25, however, would support the other two resolutions in
principle.
MICHELE KECK, ANCHORAGE, stated that she considered herself
an expert on the petition "signature gathering process".
She voiced concern with the proposed changes to the public
process and changing the signature requirements at the
beginning of the process. She stressed that the signature
gathering process is already difficult. Initiatives, which
have made it through the process, have only been able to
make it through with outside financial help. The signature
requirement takes the initiative process out of the hands of
the Alaskan voters and more into the hands of outside
interests.
Ms. Keck stated that she understood Representative
Williams's intent with the signature process being more
representational of a larger group of citizens. However,
she believed that the outcome would make it impossible for
everyone and that 10% was too high. In order to guarantee
that there are enough valid signatures, it is important to
gather more than 10%. Ms. Keck suggested that no more than
2% from each district would be more reasonable.
Ms. Keck concluded that it has become much more difficult to
gather signatures. If distribution were to be tightened, it
should be taken from another area or everyone will become
barred from the initiative process.
PATRICK WRIGHT, PRESIDENT, SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT OF ALASKAS
RESOURCES TREASURES (SMART), ANCHORAGE, noted that SMART was
dedicated to sound management of fish and wildlife
resources. Mr. Wright voiced support of HJR 25, which would
provide for an amendment to the Alaska Constitution, Article
11, Section 7, for the utilization and development in
conservation of fish and wildlife resources. He suggested
that HJR 25 could clarify findings from the Brooks vs.
Wright case.
JIM LEVINE, SELF, HOMER, advised that he felt strongly
regarding the initiative process which the founding fathers
of the Constitution provided to the citizens of Alaska.
Passage of any of the proposed constitutional amendments
would eliminate the initiative process as a voice for the
average Alaskan. The process is now difficult and if it
were to be made more difficult, only groups with unlimited
funds would be able to get an initiative on the ballot. Mr.
Levine stressed that a democracy can not succeed if the
citizens can not petition their government and enact laws
they deem necessary. He urged Committee members not to pass
any of the proposed resolutions.
ROD ARNO, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, MATSU, voiced support for
HJR 25. He noted that the main concern was with fish and
wildlife management. Restrictions within the resolution
would address two points:
? It would continue to legitimize the board process
that is currently in play; and
? It would allow the board and the Department to
fulfill the constitutional mandate for fish and
game management.
He stressed that HJR 25 would not disenfranchise the public
process. That process is codified into law in the
Administrative Procedures Act, Section 44.62.210. The
public process is clearly available to all groups of
Alaskans who wish to participate in addressing issues.
(Tape Change HFC 99- 56, Side 1).
JOEL BENNETT, COALITION WHICH SPONSORED PROPOSITION #3,
JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to HJR 25 and HJR 3, and HJR 7
in its current form.
He emphasized that the initiative process is very difficult.
Most people are trying to color the process by saying that
it is engineered throughout the State with influence and
money. Mr. Bennett noted that the effort on Proposition 3
was basically an in State effort. There was an in State
group which was committed to the method change addressed
within the initiative. He emphasized that it was not an
anti-hunting initiative.
Mr. Bennett advised that the proposed legislation is an
effort by special interest groups who lost that initiative
campaign to try to now attack the future right of the public
to engage in the initiative process. He emphasized that
this is not a broad base citizen effort to make meaningful
changes to the initiative process. Mr. Bennett argued that
this effort is a direct assault from special interest groups
who did not like the results from 1996 vote. The public
does have the ability to discriminate and does have the
mental capacity to recognize whether media is distorted or
not.
Mr. Bennett reiterated that Proposition 3 was not an anti-
hunting movement. Mr. Bennett agreed that Representative
Williams had provided good information, however, the 10%
number would be unreasonably high and suggested that a lower
number would work better. The percentage should be
calculated in the context of a larger forum including
consideration of the ramifications of changing the basic
ground rules.
Mr. Bennett hoped that the voters would reject the proposed
bills if they passed from Committee. He requested that
there be "intent" to make the process better, rather than to
"destroy" the current process.
Representative Foster agreed that the people could
discriminate under the initiatives, however, criticized the
passage of the resolution requiring that government to use
English as the first language, which has been hurtful to the
Bush people. He commented that he has received more angry
correspondence from his district on that concern than on a
combination of all other issues during his tenure.
Representative Bunde responded to criticism made by Mr.
Bennett regarding media representation on the same day air
borne initiative. Representative Bunde clarified that he
had been referring to the bill board initiative issue.
SEAN MCGUIRE, SELF, FAIRBANKS, spoke against the proposed
resolutions to change the initiative process. He pointed
out that the initiative process was established by our
Founding Fathers. He strongly criticized the Republican
majority making possible law from money received from
special interest groups.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that the three pieces of
legislation before the Committee were resolutions and would
not take affect without a 50% vote of approval by the
people. One of the resolutions does have a bill
accompanying it that would make modifications to statute if
the resolution was passed.
HOLLY CARROLL, SELF, FAIRBANKS, stated that the HJR 3
sponsor statement contradicted HJR 25 intent. One statement
suggests that it is the right of the Legislature to govern
the resources and the other indicates the opposite. Ms.
Carroll asked which is correct. She agreed that media
campaigns do become distorted and that issue had not been
addressed. All concerns of any kind are subject to
popularity contests. She believed that all the proposed
resolutions would be establishing a bad precedence. Ms.
Carroll urged that the "people" not be taken out of the
process.
CELIA HUNTER, SELF, FAIRBANKS, stated that the proposals
which had been submitted were designed to deter the general
public from making use of the initiative and referendum
processes. She stated that these attempts to amend the
Alaska State Constitution are a misuse of legislative
powers. If passage of these initiatives were made, it would
be undermining the basic fundamental operations of
democracy. Ms. Hunter submitted that the increase of voter
signatures from 2/3 to 3/4 would definitely eliminate
initiative efforts.
Ms. Hunter found these proposals, with a number of other
proposals by the present majority party members, to be an
"undermining" of the democratic process of government. She
suggested that the present situation represents an
aggravated presence of power hunger by the majority of
Republicans. She continued that by eliminating the accepted
tradition of Committee membership make-up has deprived
voters of fair representation. Ms. Hunter asked that the
Committee veto all four proposals.
Representative Austerman disagreed with the previous
speaker's comments regarding the Republican majority as
"pushing" passage of the proposed resolutions. He
ascertained that what is "good for some is not always good
for all".
LARRY PAQUIN, SELF, FAIRBANKS, stated that when an elected
representative takes away or restricts the constitutional
entitlement and democratic right of the people to represent,
it should not be taken lightly. He asked the motivation of
those trying to mute the voice of the people on the
initiative process?
In closing, Representative Bunde advised that special
interest groups had not backed HJR 3. He added that the
intent of the legislation would be to give the public
continued support to speak through the initiative process.
The public has the right to put issues before the voters
that must be passed by 50% majority plus 1. HJR 3 would put
an issue before the voters which would need to be passed by
a vote. Representative Bunde believed that the issue was
worthy of consideration and that the public would continue
to have the final say.
Public comment on the proposed legislation was closed for
the day.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 P.M.
H.F.C. 8 3/29/99
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|