Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
05/10/2021 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB11 | |
| SB31 | |
| SB7 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 11 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 31-PROHIBITING BINDING CAUCUSES
1:40:05 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 31, "An Act relating to binding
votes by or for a legislator under the Legislative Ethics Act."
[CSSB 31(STA) was before the committee. This is the first
hearing on the bill.]
1:40:49 PM
SENATOR SHOWER, speaking as sponsor, paraphrased the sponsor
statement [Original punctuation provided]:
SB 31 addresses the ethics statute and bans the
practice commonly known as a "binding caucus." The
tradition of the binding caucus in the Alaska State
Legislature has been used to suppress the voice of the
people, the use of coercion and enticements to
manipulate the actions and votes of their elected
Representative or Senator. The caucuses are formed
with the enticement of perks of being a majority
member, including but not limited to influence within
the organization, chairmanships of important
committees, better office space, more staff to help
you be effective. All of these are not nefarious on
their face, but as applied in the binding caucus, they
are exchanged for the participating Representative(s)
or Senator(s) vote on key issues such as the budget.
1:41:57 PM
AS 24.60.039(g)(1) "Caucus" means a group of
legislators that share a political philosophy or have
a common goal or who organize as a group. Ultimately
it is a caucus of ideas. Because it does not state the
use of coercion or enticements are not prohibited
should not be misconstrued that it is permissible,
especially since these two activities are prohibited
for private citizens under Alaska criminal statutes.
1:42:23 PM
SENATOR SHOWER continued to paraphrase the sponsor
statement [Original punctuation provided]:
Where the nefarious intent creeps in is the quid-pro-
quo required to join the club. In exchange for the
"enticement" of the associated perks, under a binding
caucus, a legislator is expected to blindly vote for a
budget before it exists and has never seen that a
small group of "leadership" members supports. It has
also been used as an arbitrary tool for supporting any
floor vote the presiding officer decides is a
"procedural vote."
SENATOR SHOWER related his own experience with binding
caucus requirements.
1:44:25 PM
Control of legislators through a binding caucus
consolidates power into a tiny group of legislators,
those in leadership, the presiding officer, the
majority leader, the rules chair, the finance co-
chairs. When a caucus member capitulates to the
pressure, their constituents are compromised. When a
caucus member is "disciplined," it also
disenfranchises that elected official that the voters
put into the majority party.
This practice is only accepted in the State of Alaska.
The sponsor contacted a Senator from 49 other states,
and all but one stated they do not use or permit the
practice of a binding caucus in their state.
SENATOR SHOWER related several scenarios from other states.
1:48:11 PM
Public pressure has forced the Senate to not organize
under the binding caucus. It's time to codify this
unethical practice of forcing legislators to vote
against their conscience, and ultimately their
constituents. If the 49 other states in the union can
do business without a binding caucus and coercion to
pass legislation, Alaska can too.
1:48:19 PM
SENATOR SHOWER offered his view that the rest of the country
operates without binding caucuses so he believes it will work
here.
1:49:10 PM
SENATOR SHOWER provided the sectional analysis for SB 31. He
read [Original punctuation provided}:
Section 1; Adds the definition of a "caucus" and
"legislative body to the guidelines of the open
meetings Act under the legislatures ethics code.
Section 2; Creates the ethics violation of binding
another legislator to commit their vote on any matter
that may come before the legislature. Clarifies that
voting for selecting an officer or leader of a
legislative body is an allowable practice. It also
clarifies that running an informal poll, aka as a
"chit sheet," is an allowable practice.
1:49:40 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that forming minority and majority caucuses
also would determine staff levels. He asked if it is ethical to
form caucuses if members are disenfranchised.
SENATOR SHOWER pointed out the caucus of the whole includes
everyone. He acknowledged that members in the majority have
control, that the legislature has had a majority and minority,
which are formed by ideology rather than by party. This system
has worked. However, Alaska has an extra, binding rule. He
offered his view that using the binding rule to punish
legislators over a vote is not how the power structure has been
used. He agreed it could be argued that minority members are
disenfranchised but they are not punished. He said the goal is
to avoid the ability to influence someone's vote.
SENATOR HUGHES said that what occurred actually gave majority
members fewer committee assignments. It eliminated their access
to legal advice from majority staff, including access to oil and
gas staff expertise, and a voice at the table since members were
ignored. She agreed that staff assignments relate to committee
assignments. However, minority members were listened to, had the
freedom to vote and had more resources. She offered her belief
that the retribution went beyond the basics given to minority
members.
1:54:16 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND offered his view that the public sends a majority
to the legislature through their collective votes. The majority
controls the body, organizes the body as opposed to the binding
caucus exerting control over its members.
1:54:54 PM
SENATOR SHOWER added that he is not concerned about the broader
power structure the legislature uses via Uniform Rules and
Mason's Manual. However, he witnessed power being wielded by a
very small group who used it to coerce others by requiring a
binding vote. He said the Senate leadership told members on July
29, 2019, that voting against the caucus would result in them
being stripped of their committee chair and committee
membership. He said the legislature should not require
representatives of the people to vote against the will of their
constituencies.
1:56:25 PM
SENATOR KIEHL offered his view that the system he described was
a parliamentary system. Voters elect individuals to represent
them. He said he appreciated the sponsor's description of how
the legislature organizes. If a legislator does not agree with
the philosophy or organizing principles, the person will be
treated as the sponsor suggested. It has happened that it
sometimes puts the person in a group that it is less than 25
percent of the body. If so, under the Uniform Rules, it would
affect the legislator's staffing, office space and privileges,
he said. Those legislators would not have access to Legislative
Legal Services, and their own oil and gas person, but he did not
think of it as coercion.
1:58:04 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to the bill. He related his understanding
that a legislator may not commit or bind another legislator to
vote. He suggested this language will leave the possibility of
offering perks such as additional staff or a bigger office.
However, it does not affect legislators while organizing the
legislature. He asked if the sponsor would like to add language
to address that timeframe.
SENATOR SHOWER said he did not wish to expand the bill to take
on the whole structure. He did not have any issue with
leadership roles or committee chair agreements. He said his
issue was the binding caucus. He was not sure how to address
organizing principles in this bill. He pointed out that it is a
felony to bribe a politician to vote in a certain way, although
that is effectively what happened. He said that there is nothing
wrong with procedural votes, but he is opposed to them being
wielded as political weapons.
2:01:45 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said he is not a fan of binding caucuses, that he
did not join one. He said that each presiding officer polls its
members to determine if the legislature should call itself into
special session. He asked if this informal poll was covered in
the bill.
SENATOR SHOWER responded that polling or informal discussions
were acceptable since it allows leadership to obtain a sense of
support similar to a legislator using a chit sheet to assess
support for a bill. He said that since it would not affect
someone's vote on the floor, it was irrelevant. He maintained
his concern about binding caucus actions.
2:04:03 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked how to make this effective and prevent a
situation in which members in a caucus meeting are told that
this is a key vote. For example, leadership could take an
informal poll and watch to see who votes against it.
SENATOR SHOWER responded that some states indicated they have a
binding rule on procedural votes but none included budget votes
as procedural ones. He envisioned the speaker or president might
not like the vote but they cannot take away a legislator's
chairmanship or staff.
2:06:50 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said he just got lost. If a presiding officer or
leadership team develops a reputation for taking some action,
everyone will know that something will be done afterward.
SENATOR SHOWER said the difference is the binding rule. He was
unsure how to intervene in politics.
2:08:14 PM
SENATOR MYERS recalled debating the Open Meetings Act by adding
in a penalty provision. He wondered who will enforce SB 11
without a penalty provision in the bill.
SENATOR SHOWER answered that if the statutes codified that
binding rules were prohibited, it would give the legislator
standing to sue. He suggested it was possible to change the
Uniform Rules. Currently, there is not any recourse, he said. He
said he would like to keep the bill simple. SB 11 would make it
illegal. He said that he is open to suggestions.
2:10:38 PM
SENATOR HUGHES referred to language on line 8 that states that a
legislator "may not commit." She said legislators may go to town
halls and inform constituents how they will vote on an issue.
She asked whether "commit" should be defined. She wondered if it
could be problematic, even in debate on the floor.
SENATOR SHOWER answered that this language will specifically
limit the restrictions to legislators and would not pertain to
constituents.
2:12:44 PM
SENATOR HUGHES suggested that the omission of commas may take
care of the concern. She suggested that Legislative Legal
Services could clarify if this language could be interpreted in
another way.
SENATOR SHOWER stated his intent for the bill was to address the
binding caucus that allows legislators to punish other
legislators.
2:14:14 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 31 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 11 Legal Memo.pdf |
SJUD 5/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 11 |