Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
02/02/2022 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 | |
| SB119 | |
| HB155 | |
| HB3 | |
| SB31 | |
| SB129 | |
| SB118 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 31-PROHIBITING BINDING CAUCUSES
2:04:08 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."
[The committee substitute (CS) for SB 31(STA) was before the
committee. SB 31 was previously heard on May 10, 2021.]
2:04:31 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated that he introduced SB 31 because he and
several legislators suffered painful experiences in this body.
He explained that the Alaska legislature has a binding caucus
rule. Members who wish to join a caucus must agree to vote for
all budgets and procedural rulings by the presiding officer or
be punished. He said procedural votes can be used to shut down
political opponents. For example, he said he was punished for
his debate speech when he chose to represent his constituents
instead of the caucus or leadership team. He argued that this
happened even though freedom of speech is a protected right.
SENATOR SHOWER related that Alaska statutes established felony
penalties for anyone who causes an elected official to vote for
something or to withhold their vote. Surprisingly, Alaska has
had a binding caucus for decades, which does not make sense to
him since legislators should only be accountable to their
constituents.
SENATOR SHOWER said he spoke to legislators in every state about
his experience with the binding caucus, except one state that
responded by email. He found that every legislator thought
binding caucuses were unconstitutional or objectionable. He
wondered if Alaska's system was unethical, immoral, or illegal.
He recalled that Mississippi or Missouri's oath of office states
that "they will not vote for or against" certain things. He said
he believes that the binding caucus forces legislators to make a
choice, even a wrong choice, if they must vote against their
constituents to fulfill the binding caucus. He introduced SB 31
so legislators could not be coerced into agreeing to vote in
exchange for something. Instead, Alaska will operate as other
states do. It would codify in statute that binding caucuses are
prohibited, and legislators cannot be forced into these
agreements.
2:09:58 PM
SENATOR HUGHES recalled from a previous hearing on SB 31 that
violations would be considered violations against the Ethic's
Act. Since the language states "may not commit or bind," she
asked if this meant legislators who joined a caucus were binding
other legislators. She wondered whether there could be multiple
Ethic's Act violations occurring, and if so, what penalties
would apply for legislators joining a caucus.
SENATOR SHOWER said he initially thought the bill should impose
a felony since penalties for bribery or coercion of a public
official in Alaska are felonies. He characterized the
repercussions for not adhering to the binding caucus as
stressful. Not only did it affect legislators, but staff could
lose their positions since leadership allots personal and
committee staff. Furthermore, the legislature cannot bind a
future legislature, yet binding caucuses bind legislators. He
offered his view that a bad person could abuse that power.
Although he is not locked into specific penalties, he thought
consequences should be imposed, and he was open to the
committee's suggestions.
2:12:27 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked for the current penalties related to
violations of the ethics statutes to help determine the penalty
provisions in SB 31.
2:12:57 PM
SENATOR SHOWER said he was unsure. He noted that he had
encountered some resistance to imposing a felony or other
criminal penalty. Others thought it might hamper the
legislature's ability to conduct business. Further, the courts
have ruled that the legislature does not need to follow the
statutes. He emphasized the importance of having some penalty;
otherwise, he thought people would continue to require binding
caucuses.
2:13:58 PM
SENATOR HUGHES expressed an interest in the short answer on
punishment for violating the Ethics Act.
2:14:18 PM
At ease
2:21:51 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.
2:15:23 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said he was torn because he was not a fan of
binding caucuses and did not join one. He indicated he would
like a deeper understanding of the binding caucus. He wondered
if it meant that Senator X could not speak to the Senate State
Affairs Standing Committee chair and say that if their amendment
passed, they would vote for it on the floor, but if not, they
would vote no. He asked whether that would be illegal.
SENATOR SHOWER offered his view that what he described was
already illegal.
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that that was not the
case since his scenario discussed the policy implication of an
amendment regarding where a member stands on a piece of
legislation.
2:16:27 PM
SENATOR SHOWER posited that this was splitting hairs.
CHAIR HOLLAND agreed.
SENATOR SHOWER offered to research it further. He agreed that
Senator Kiehl's scenario would not apply. He stated that the
bill does not limit discussion between members on bills since
bills do not fall under binding caucuses. Instead, binding
caucuses are limited to budget appropriations and procedural
votes on the floor.
2:17:24 PM
SENATOR KIEHL was unsure that the language on page 1, lines 8-10
related to a binding caucus. He turned to violations. He agreed
that a handshake in advance of session about voting for the
budget or on a procedural motion would be a violation under this
bill. He asked about consequences afterwards that are
understood. He related that in other states, the understanding
is implicit that if a majority member votes against the budget,
and there wasn't a handshake, repercussions would still occur.
For example, these member's offices will be moved across the
street, and some staff will get pink slips. It just happens that
way. He asked how SB 31 will work if tradition determines the
outcome.
2:18:48 PM
SENATOR SHOWER acknowledged that unintended consequences could
happen. He said one thing he was attempting was to prevent the
formation of a caucus. He admitted it isn't possible to stop
humans from bad behavior. For example, murder is outlawed, yet
people are routinely murdered. However, he spoke against having
an organization that dictates how someone must vote. He
explained that SB 31 would ban binding caucuses for
organizational purposes, making it more difficult for a Senate
President or Rules Chair to punish a senator since leadership
would need to garner enough votes to expel or punish the
senator. Currently, the Senate President can make those
decisions, and legislators who join a binding caucus but do not
adhere to procedural votes or vote for the budget have no
recourse.
2:21:59 PM
SENATOR HUGHES stated that during the at-ease, the committee
agreed to have an attorney answer questions, including
identifying penalties for violations of the Ethics Act at a
subsequent hearing.
2:22:55 PM
SENATOR SHOWER solicited questions from members. He expressed a
willingness to work with members on the bill.
2:23:31 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND opened public testimony on SB 31.
2:23:59 PM
MIKE COONS, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, spoke in support
of SB 31 because a binding caucus disenfranchised the voters in
his district. He stated that Senators Shower, Hughes, and
Reinbold's constituents had their voices suppressed due to the
binding caucus. As a result, tens of thousands of voices in the
community were not heard. He offered his support for SB 31. It
reminded him of the reaction when a bill was before the
legislature that allowed for concealed carry weapons. Some
people thought it would create the Wild West, but it has not.
Some arguments for retaining a binding caucus were cohesiveness
when passing the budget or a procedural vote because otherwise,
Alaska would be like the Wild West. However, that hasn't
happened. He said the current Senate does not have a binding
caucus, and while dissent and disagreement occur, people are not
silenced by a binding caucus. The House majority has a binding
caucus, and he has heard some members fear they will lose their
leadership positions if they don't abide by the caucus. He
offered his view that the Senate was exemplary. He stated that
SB 31 would create a clear means for all members to vote their
consciences and support their constituents without anyone
punishing them. He offered his support for establishing penalty
provisions, and if the legislature decided to institute felony
penalties, violators could be indicted and prosecuted.
2:27:51 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND closed public testimony on SB 31.
2:28:00 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 31 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 119 Sponsor's Statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 119 |
| SB 119 Sectional Final.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 119 |
| SB 31 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 31 |
| SB 31 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 31 |
| HB 3 Amendment (SJUD).pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| SB 129 SJUD Amendment O.3.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 129 |
| SB 129 SJUD Amendment O.4.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 129 |
| SB 129 SJUD Amendment O.2.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 129 |
| SJC - SB 119 Testimony, 2022-2-1.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 119 |
| HB 3 Public Testimony.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| SB 119 SJUD Public Testimony through 2.12.22.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 119 |