Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/22/2018 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HJR27 | |
| HB310 | |
| HB152 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 310 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 152 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HJR 27-CONST. AM: TERM LIMITS OF LEGISLATORS
3:21:04 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 27, HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to terms of legislators.
3:21:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAM KITO, Alaska State Legislature, relayed that
at the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) this
year, he attended a session on term limits. He offered that the
Alaska State Legislature has been at a crossroads during the
past ten years; it has been operating between a citizen
legislature and a fulltime legislature. He stated that a
citizen legislature is clearly defined as having members with
jobs and careers, experience from outside the legislature, or a
role to play during the Interim giving them experience outside
the professional lawmaking arena. He said that Alaska does not
have many such legislators; the perception is that legislators
do become career politicians.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO relayed that he had a career in engineering
before becoming a legislator; he expected it to last awhile,
then he would do something else before retirement. He relayed
that if he serves on the legislature for twenty years, it
becomes his career, and the ideas he brings to the legislature
are no longer fresh and relevant. He posed the question: "What
would our state look like with a legislature that had a regular
influx of new ideas and fresh interest in the legislative
process?" He said that he concluded that if Alaska is going to
have a citizen legislature, then it must provide an opportunity
for new people to serve.
3:23:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO stated that Alaska does have good turnover
in the legislature: in the Senate the average tenure is about
nine years; in the House the average tenure is slightly over
seven years. He suggested that for a regular infusion [of new
members] and not just a major "switch over", which is typical
after reapportionment, it makes sense to allow an individual the
opportunity to provide public service to Alaska as a legislator,
then step aside and allow a new person with new ideas to serve.
He maintained that his proposed resolution does not constitute a
prohibition on serving. It would allow someone to serve for up
to four terms in the House of Representatives or up to two terms
in the Senate, before either taking a two-year break from the
body in which the person served or switching to the other body.
This would allow for sixteen years of continuous service or
longer if moving from the House to the Senate and back to the
House. He stated that one legislator has done that in the past.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO relayed that the NCSL report on term limits
states that one of the reasons for not having term limits is to
allow legislators to build knowledge and experience. He
questioned why an Alaska legislator, representing about 20,000
residents, needs more experience than a governor, who represents
700,000 Alaskans and administers all the state programs. He
mentioned that the governor is limited to two four-year terms,
or eight years. He said that Alaska has determined that to be
adequate for serving as a governor and asked, "Why then is it
appropriate for a legislator to have significantly longer period
of service?"
3:26:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO continued by saying that other states do
have people who build up seniority and move up the ladder;
however, Alaska generally has a turnover of Senate President and
Speaker of the House every two years; committee chairs generally
turnover every two years; Alaska had a Speaker of the House for
eight years, but it only happened one time. He offered that
Alaska is already operating as if there was a term-limited
legislature; the average length of service is about eight years;
and there is turnover in the committees, which suggests that
knowledge in a committee area does not appear to be as critical
in a state the size of Alaska. He asked, "Why not provide that
opportunity for other Alaskans to participate?" He opined that
the other choice is to not have a full citizen legislature in
which individuals gather their own experiences during the
Interim and bring them "to the table." In that case Alaska
would be considering the possibility of a fulltime legislature,
paying the legislators a fulltime salary, expecting them to do
fulltime work, and having legislators with twenty-plus years in
public service.
3:29:46 PM
CHAIR KREIS-TOMKINS asked for the results of the advisory
question [on term limits] on the 1998 Alaska ballot.
3:30:00 PM
CAITLYN ELLIS, Staff, Representative Sam Kito, Alaska State
Legislature, replied that in the 1998 election, 50.2 percent
voted in support of term limits [Measure 7]; in the 1994
election, almost 63 percent voted in favor of term limits
[Measure 4]; and in the 1996 election, the affirmative vote for
term limits [Measure 4] was 54.5 percent. The earlier two
advisory votes were related to Congressional term limits; the
1998 advisory vote was much closer than those of the earlier
elections.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he advocated for term limits in
the past but was dissuaded because of the seniority of [former]
Alaska U.S. Senator Ted Stevens and the benefits of seniority at
the congressional level. He mentioned that Alaska U.S.
Representative Don Young is now "Dean of the House"; he is
currently the longest serving member of the House of
Representatives. He opined that there are advantages to
seniority at the congressional level; Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) opening [for development] is evidence of that.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH relayed that he is in his second year of
his first term and is one of 15 new members, which represent 25
percent of the 60-member legislature. He said that in any
business, a 25 percent turnover would be significant. He stated
that he is struck by the fact that the voters are doing a good
job of limiting the terms of legislators. He offered that in
respect to legislators having outside employment, he couldn't
agree more. He stated that he was deeply disappointed to be
"drug back" into special session four times under the "heavy
hand" of special session construction. He asserted that such
circumstances decimate any ability to maintain a job or
business. He asked, "Why do we think we need to do a term
limit, if we have a 25 percent turnover in the body?"
3:32:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO acknowledged that there is consistent
turnover in the legislative body but maintained that when he
became a representative, he decided that he did not want to be
there for twenty years, which would discourage a couple
generations of individuals in his community who might want to
participate in the public process at the legislative level. He
offered that if an individual knows that the maximum time a
Representative can be in the House is eight years, he/she could
be accruing experience on the assembly, working on non-profit
boards, all the while knowing that the legislative seat will
change in his/her working lifetime. A person could prepare to
run for office and be ready when the time comes, as opposed to
guessing when the [sitting] Representative will leave office.
He stated that if he is not term-limited and keeps his seat for
twenty years, two to two and a half generations of individuals
in his community who might be wonderful legislators would be
forced to move to a different community to serve as a state
Representative. He maintained that HJR 27 would create a better
pool of potential candidates coming up through the ranks - ones
who will be ready to serve and provide public service - as
opposed interested people who do not have a chance.
3:35:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that he has never been adamantly
opposed to term limits; when he served in local government, term
limits were implemented; he termed out in six years and was
elected to the House of Representatives during his third term.
He mentioned that Representative Kito was addressing two
different issues - career politicians and citizen legislatures.
He said that even if HJR 27 passed, it would not ensure the
state would have citizen legislators. He offered that because
the House districts have elections every two years, the public
has every opportunity to run; nothing prevents those of future
generations from running against a representative every two
years.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP mentioned the power of incumbency and
maintained that while there is some validity to that, there is
also validity in the fact that citizens recognize and value the
experience that a Representative has gained. A Representative
who spends two years on the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee, two years on the House State Affairs Standing
Committee, two years on the House Special Committee on
Education, and two years on the House Finance Committee becomes
very well rounded but then is termed out. He offered that there
is "good and bad" in the proposal. He asked about the length of
time a Senator would be required to "sit out" versus the length
of time a Representative would be required to sit out, if not
deciding to run for the other body. He concluded that the
proposed resolution offers both opportunities and concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO replied that the "sitting out" period is two
years, which would be true for both the House and the Senate.
He reminded the committee that a Senate term in a
reapportionment year is a two-year term; therefore, a Senator
sitting out in 2010 could run for that Senate seat in 2012.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP reiterated his comment about the level of
experience gained. He also mentioned that a legislator who is
in the minority for six to eight years does not have his/her
true "voice" in the legislature, which is another concern.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO replied that his predecessor was in the
minority for fifteen years and never chaired a committee yet
served her constituents very well. He mentioned that Alaska has
many legislators that only serve two, four, or six years; they
are effective; in the State of Alaska, since it is so small, a
freshman majority member can chair a committee; therefore, rapid
learning can occur with little experience. He said in that way
the situation in Alaska is different than in many other states;
people with little experience can be Speaker of the House in
his/her second term or chair of the House Finance Committee in
his/her first term. He maintained that even the shorter serving
legislators are representing their districts as well [as the
longer serving legislators], because they have opportunities to
participate in leadership positions. He added that the intent
of the proposed resolution is to bring new ideas into the
legislature and provide more opportunities for individuals to
prepare for and participate in state service.
3:40:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that he generally supports the
concept of term limits; however, there are pros and cons to it.
He mentioned that it is good to have a healthy amount of
turnover; it is difficult for a legislator to maintain a job
outside of the legislature, especially if session lasts 180-plus
days; and it wouldn't be possible to work at a regular job. He
added that owning one's own business makes it possible.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the average length of service
for those in the Senate - 9.3 years - and those in the House -
7.2 years. He asked for the ranges of lengths of service. He
offered that there are legislators who serve for two to four
years, and those who serve for fourteen years, making the
average seven or eight. There may be many new legislators, but
some are replacing ones who have served many years and retired.
He concluded it is good to have turnover; it exists on its own
with the election cycle; some legislators do "get entrenched"
and will never lose unless they choose not to run. He agreed
that turnover at the leadership level is also good; as
legislators serve longer and "rise to the top," it is good to
have turnovers to bring in different outlooks. He concluded
that under HJR 27, allowing for eight years in the House and
eight years in the Senate, which adds up to sixteen years, would
be a substantial period, and with two years off, time of service
could be longer.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO mentioned that for all serving legislators
since statehood, the terms vary from one year to thirty-two
years.
3:43:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX mentioned that California has term limits,
and she has heard that often a Senator and a Representative will
trade positions back and forth.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO answered that he cannot confirm if that
occurs. He offered that California is one of two states with a
fulltime legislature; consequently, Representatives earn
$100,000 per year and have staffs of 15. He added that the same
is true for New York State. He said that California is
different from Alaska in that each House district represents
500,000 people; getting to know a California district is quite
different from getting to know an Alaska district. He
maintained that after four and a half years, most people in his
district would recognize him as their Representative and could
come up to him to talk; that would not be the case in a state
like California or New York.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX relayed that the point she was making was
that if Representatives and Senators transfer back and forth,
then the idea that the proposed resolution would give new people
options for serving would not be correct. She asked whether
this, in fact, occurs in the California legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO responded that he would attempt to find out
if that is true. He added that his point is that if one is
representing a House district of 500,000 people or a Senate
district of a million people, then it is more likely that the
legislator has only name recognition among his constituents, as
opposed to them understanding who he/she is. He maintained that
in Alaska, the scenario Representative LeDoux described could
happen, but is not likely. He asserted that if he served an
eight-year term in the House, people would be aware of when his
term ended and could prepare to run for that seat in the next
election.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why Representative Kito thought it
would be unlikely in Alaska for a Senator and Representative to
switch back and forth between the legislative seats.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO stated his reasoning as follows: Alaska
districts are much smaller, and the individuals running for
office are better known in their districts. In Alaska,
constituent relations are important. An Anchorage
Representative who returns to the Anchorage caucus, meets and
talks with a considerable number of Anchorage residents who are
politically active in the district. He reiterated that Alaskans
know their representatives better; therefore, the trading of
legislative seats would not be an issue in Alaska.
3:46:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how a small district and
constituents knowing their legislators would prevent the
representative and senator from trading seats, if they both
wanted to keep their jobs. She added that since the legislators
are so well known by their constituents, it would be easier to
trade seats and more likely to happen.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO offered his district as an example: under
HJR 27, when he comes to the end of his eight-year term, there
will be people interested in running for his seat; it could be a
Senator, but nevertheless, it is an open office; people can
express interest in the seat. He maintained that with the
smaller population and an open seat, there is greater potential
for someone to come forward and run for that seat than there
would be for an unknown person in a 500,000-person district. He
added that the latter would be like running for governor [of
Alaska] every four years, then switching off to lieutenant
governor and back. He asserted that California is a "different
animal" than Alaska; Alaska is unique, and this is one of the
areas in which its unique is positive.
3:48:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to page 1, lines 9-10, of HJR 27,
which read, "No person who has served as a representative for
four full or partial successive terms shall again be eligible to
hold that office" and asked the sponsor if he would be willing
to change "that office" to "any office".
REPRESENTATIVE KITO responded that the change could be a policy
call of the legislature; the legislature may only want
individuals to serve for eight years and no longer; some states
have placed a prohibition for serving more than eight years. He
mentioned that in a local election in Alaska, one can sit out
one term and return to service; many people do that; Alaska also
allows its governor to sit out a term and serve again. He
offered that Alaska has not historically supported a total
prohibition.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that his suggestion would retain
the two-year hiatus but disallow transferring from House to
Senate and back to House.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO suggested that disallowing someone to run
for one body or the other constitutes an undue restriction on
that person's civil rights.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK maintained that the language change would
prevent someone from switching back and forth between bodies, as
described by Representative LeDoux. He restated his suggestion:
once someone serves in the legislature for the specified number
of terms, whether it is the House or Senate, he/she must sit out
for two years before serving again.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO asked for confirmation that Representative
Tuck is suggesting a mandatory two years after an eight-year
term before the individual could run for the House or Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO said that would be a policy call of the
legislature. He suggested that there may be some awkwardness
regarding the four-year Senate seats. If someone terms out from
a four-year seat, and it remains a four-year seat, then that
person would not be able to run for that Senate seat but could
run for a House seat after two years off.
3:51:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for clarification of the proposed
resolution: an individual could serve eight years in the house
- four terms - and immediately serve two Senate terms, which
would total sixteen consecutive years in the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO confirmed that as HJR 27 is currently
written, that is correct. An individual can move from one body
to the other, but to run again for the same body, he/she must
take a two-year break.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked how many states have term limits in
their state legislatures.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO responded that currently there are 15 states
with active term limits; the requirements are different from
state to state.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that in a term limit situation,
someone coming to the end of his/her term, knowing that he/she
cannot run for reelection, may legislate differently during
his/her last term - much like a "lame duck" U.S. President. He
added, "That's probably not a bad thing."
REPRESENTATIVE KITO responded that has been argued in both
directions. In a lame duck incumbency situation, a person may
take edgier or more challenging actions - ones that he/she would
not take if facing reelection. In that way it could be
positive. He said that on the other hand, it has been said that
an incumbent does not have to consider a constituent's issues
because in a year's time he/she won't be in office. This would
be a negative outcome. He concluded that sorting out the "pros"
and "cons" of this argument is part of a legislator's job.
3:53:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HJR 27 would be held over.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS commented that uncertainty is a limiting
factor for people who might seek legislative office; not knowing
when the seat will be open can be a handicap; sometimes even
retirements are announced at the last moment; therefore, people
seeking office are not empowered to participate in a fully open
way.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR027 Sponsor Statement 1.19.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 27 |
| HJR027 ver A 1.19.18.PDF |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 27 |
| HJR027 Fiscal Note-LEG-02-16-18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 27 |
| HJR027 Supporting Document- Letter of Support 2.19.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 27 |
| HJR27 Supporting Document-Letter of Support 2.23.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 27 |
| HB310 Sponsor Statement 2.6.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 ver A 2.6.18.PDF |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Fiscal Note DHSS 2.16.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document-Child Marriage in America Executive Summary 2.19.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document-Child Marriage in America 2.6.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document-Minors Married in Alaska 2.6.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document-Tahirih Child Marriage Backgrounder 2.6.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document- Letter from Office of Victim's Rights 2.20.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document- Letters of Support 2.22.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document-ACT Support Letter 2.27.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB152 Sponsor Statement 4.12.17.pdf |
HSTA 1/23/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 1/25/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 152 |
| HB152 ver R 2.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 152 |
| HB152 Fiscal Note DMVA 1.20.18.pdf |
HSTA 1/23/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 1/25/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 152 |
| HB152 Supporting Document-DMVA Letter of Support 4.12.17.pdf |
HSTA 1/23/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 1/25/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 152 |
| HB152 Opposing Document-Letter Lawrence Wood 4.12.17.pdf |
HSTA 1/23/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 1/25/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 152 |
| HB152 Additional Documents-DMVA Letter and bill info 4.12.17.pdf |
HSTA 1/23/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 1/25/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 152 |