Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
04/13/2021 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB23 | |
| SB77 | |
| SB118 | |
| SB120 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 23-INITIATIVE SEVERABILITY
3:37:00 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 23
"An Act relating to proposing and enacting laws by initiative."
SENATOR JOSH REVAK, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 23, summarized that SB 23 seeks to restore an
important check in the initiative process. When individuals sign
an initiative petition, the courts should not be empowered to
decide how much the language on the ballot can differ from the
language in the petition. He said the legislature has a right to
enact substantially similar legislation to replace the
initiative, but it is denied that right if the court severs
provisions of the initiative and it goes directly on the ballot.
3:38:53 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked how this has been a problem in the past.
DIRK CRAFT, Staff, Senator Josh Revak, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, explained that the Alaska Supreme Court has
ruled on a number of occasions that provisions of an initiative
are severable. The most recent was the 2018 salmon initiative.
The court struck a number of provisions after the legislative
review process and the measure went on the ballot.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if he had other examples.
MR. CRAFT cited McAlpine v. University of Alaska in 1988 where
the court severed a spending provision in the initiative.
3:40:09 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if the court has weighed in on the
constitutionality of severability, which statute prohibits.
MR. CRAFT answered that he did not recall the court speaking
directly on severability.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked how many states have severability in
their initiative process.
MR. CRAFT answered that NCSL research indicated that more than
20 states have severability in their initiative language, and
the process is either direct or indirect. Alaska has an indirect
initiative process meaning that the legislature has the final
review before the measure goes to the voters. States that have a
direct initiative process more typically have severability
language, so it is unusual to have both the legislative check
and severability. This can potentially override the legislative
check.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if all the members had the memo from
Legislative Legal Services on this topic.
CHAIR SHOWER confirmed that his office distributed the memo
dated 3/21/21 to all the members.
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he would like the committee to talk about
that opinion that questions the constitutionality of the bill.
CHAIR SHOWER asked the sponsor to comment.
3:42:57 PM
SENATOR REVAK said SB 23 seeks to resolve the situation where a
group could put forward an initiative knowing that it has
unconstitutional provisions and that the court will sever those
provisions before it goes to the voters. The voters may not see
the same language on the ballot that was on the petition they
signed. This bypasses the legislature's check and constitutional
authority under Title 11, Section 4 to enact substantially
similar legislation before an initiative goes to the ballot.
CHAIR SHOWER asked whether he or his staff had discussed this
with Legislative Legal Services and whether their response was
similar to Senator Kawasaki's characterization.
MR. CRAFT replied Legislative Legal Services was waiting for the
sponsor to submit the question in writing before drafting a
formal response. He agreed to distribute the response to members
as soon as possible.
3:45:16 PM
CHAIR SHOWER recalled that a similar issue came up with an
initiative in the last year or two.
MR. CRAFT said he did not recall that.
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he had no problem moving the bill on to
the Judiciary Committee to review the constitutional issues.
CHAIR SHOWER said he looked forward to having the debate in that
committee.
3:46:47 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO said this legislation is important because it
will result in more time and care going into the language that
goes on the initiative petition. That language does matter, and
it should not be different when it appears on the ballot. She
said she was familiar with the memo, but the courts are the
final arbiter as to whether something is constitutional. She
thanked the sponsor for introducing the legislation.
CHAIR SHOWER described it as disingenuous to change the language
in an initiative after people sign. He reiterated that it is
appropriate to look at the constitutional issue in the Judiciary
Committee.
3:49:16 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on SB 23.
3:49:52 PM
KATI CAPOZZI, President/CEO, Alaska Chamber of Commerce,
Anchorage, Alaska, stated that the chamber believes that SB 23
will maintain the integrity of the signature gathering process
for ballot measures. Last year the chamber membership voted to
support the following policy position statement:
Initiative petitions often ask voters to make simple
yes or no decisions about complex issues without
subjecting them to detailed expert analysis or the
opportunity to participate through a public process.
Changes in the initiative process should produce more
transparency and better public policy in a
comprehensive and balanced manner equally benefiting
both voters and the legislative process. As such, we
support SB 23 and the bill sponsor's efforts to
correct a deficiency that has been overlooked in the
ballot measure process. We also believe that SB 23
will result in fewer protracted legal battles once the
ballot measure proponents understand that should any
section of their initiative not pass constitutional
muster, they would be required to revert to the
signature gathering stage of the process. This will
result in more carefully crafted ballot measures being
proposed from the outset, which means a smoother, more
predictable and transparent process for all parties
whether they support or oppose the ballot measure in
question.
3:52:53 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether the chamber would be willing to
put forward a constitutional amendment dealing specifically with
Article 11 Section 7. [Ms. Capozzi was not online to hear the
question and Senator Kawasaki said he would call her and pose
the question.]
3:53:41 PM
BETHANY MARCUM, Alaska Policy Forum, Anchorage, Alaska stated
that Alaska is fortunate to have a constitutionally enshrined
ballot initiative process. This is a valuable right but for it
to have value for future generations of Alaskans, it is
imperative to ensure the integrity of the process. Past Alaska
Supreme Court decisions created a loophole, which allows the
court to sever parts of the initiative language. While removing
an unconstitutional provision may be well intended, the result
is that the words that appear on the ballot may be different
from the language that voters signed on the petition. She said
this is an injustice to Alaskan voters and it strips the
legislature of its right as a counterbalance in the initiative
process. She said it would be good policy for the legislature to
address this by passing SB 23.
3:55:44 PM
MARLEANNA HALL, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
for Alaska (RDC), Willow, Alaska, stated that RTC has reviewed
SB 23 and requests the committee move it along. It will ensure
that the language on an initiative petition remains unchanged
when it appears on the ballot. Initiative proponents would no
longer be able to rely on Alaska's courts to do their legal and
editing services; if the court were to sever provisions from the
initiative petition that voters signed, it would not be passed
along to the ballot box.
3:57:25 PM
CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on SB 23 and solicited a
motion.
3:57:45 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to report SB 23, work order 32-LS0209\A,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s). [The original version of the bill passed from
committee. It was not amended.]
CHAIR SHOWER found no objection and SB 23 was reported from the
Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 23 Support Written Public Testimony.pdf |
SSTA 4/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |