Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
04/11/2019 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 | |
| SB100 | |
| SB80 | |
| SB32 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 80-INITIATIVE SEVERABILITY
3:48:39 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 80, "An Act relating to
proposing and enacting laws by initiative."
3:48:50 PM
SENATOR CHRIS BIRCH, Bill Sponsor, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, read the following sponsor statement:
SB 80 seeks to ensure ballot initiative language that
appears before voters at the ballot box is the same as
the language circulated during the signature-gathering
phase and to restore the legislature's important role
in the initiative process.
Alaska's constitution details a very important right
of our residents - the right to enact legislation
through the voter initiative process. The legislature
also has the right to enact legislation substantially
the same as the proposed initiative thus removing it
from the ballot.
Per our constitution, some issues are off-limits for
ballot initiatives and initiatives can only cover one
subject. But while a cursory legal review of language
occurs before the Lieutenant Governor's certification,
it has sometimes been the case that further review
finds constitutional concerns with proposed language.
In those cases, a party can file a lawsuit to force
the issue through the court system. This can happen
simultaneous to the circulation of signature booklets.
Under current law, if a court determines that language
in a proposed initiative is unconstitutional and/or
severed, an amended version of the language can appear
before voters. This results in voters seeing a
different initiative than the one they supported with
their signatures. Furthermore, if the courts
revise/sever the language after the legislative review
process, they deny the legislature its right to review
the initiative as revised. The net effect of a court's
severance is that an initiative can move forward to
the voters that is substantially different than the
initial version reviewed by the legislature.
SB 80 would rectify this situation. Under this bill,
if a court determines that language in a proposed
initiative is unconstitutional or severed, the
Lieutenant Governor must reject the entire initiative
petition and prohibit it from appearing on the ballot.
Voters should be assured that language on the ballot
has not changed from the language in the petition
booklets supported with voter signatures and further,
restores the legislature's right to review and enact
substantially similar legislation to stop an
initiative from moving forward.
SENATOR BIRCH noted that Eric Fjelstad, who assisted with the
bill, was online.
3:51:57 PM
KIM SKIPPER, Staff, Senator Chris Birch, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said the bill is a single section.
Section 1 amends AS 15.45.240 by adding the following
subsection:
(b) The provisions of an initiative are not severable
after being circulated under AS 15.45.110. An initiative
petition may not contain a severability clause. If a court
finds a provision of an initiative petition
unconstitutional during a review under (a) of this section,
the court shall order the lieutenant governor to reject the
entire initiative petition and prohibit the placement of
the initiative on the ballot.
CHAIR SHOWER advised that the committee is discussing the
possibility of changes and those are forthcoming. After public
testimony, he will see if those changes are available.
3:53:20 PM
At ease
3:54:14 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and opened public testimony
on SB 80.
3:54:36 PM
LARRY BARSUKOFF, Director of Operations, Alaska Policy Forum,
Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of SB 80. He said the
right of Alaska voters to directly participate in the
legislative process is to be cherished and protected. Voters
must have an absolute guarantee of the integrity of the ballot
initiative process. Since 1988, a loophole has expanded and is
now used when ballot initiative groups rely on the Alaska
Supreme Court to act as a legal editor of ballot initiatives.
Language that may not pass constitutional muster is included in
petition booklets. These groups know that the Supreme Court will
remove the offending language later. This violates the integrity
of the ballot initiative process. Voters casting their ballots
for or against an initiative should know absolutely that the
ballot language was exactly the same as what was presented for
signatures.
MR. BARSUKOFF said that a further effect of the loophole is the
legislature can be stripped of its role to counterbalance the
system. The legislature has the right to enact legislation
substantially the same as proposed in initiatives, thus removing
those initiatives from the ballot. When initiative language is
stricken or changed by the court, the legislature can lose its
ability to provide oversight of the process. To prohibit the
ability of a court and unelected judges to pick, choose, and
delete language in a ballot initiative would require authors of
an initiative to more carefully vet their language and would
keep judges out of the business of crafting legislation. Not
imposing a prohibition of severability robs the legislature of
its right and mandate to act as a check on the initiative
process by enacting legislation similar to a ballot initiative.
Not imposing a prohibition of severability robs Alaska's voters
of the assurance that the language on the ballot when they vote
is the same as the language they supported during the signature
gathering. It would be a good policy for this technicality to be
addressed.
3:57:26 PM
BETHANY MARCUM, Executive Director, Alaska Policy Forum,
Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of SB 80. She said the
state is fortunate to have a constitutionally-enshrined ballot
initiative process. Not all states trust their citizens to
participate directly in the legislative process. In order for
the ballot initiative process to continue to have value for
future generations of Alaskans, it is imperative to ensure the
integrity of the process is ensured. A loophole was created by
past Supreme Court decision that allows the court to tamper with
initiative language. While the intention may be good, the result
can be that the words which voters see on their ballots may be
different than the language that was displayed to them and other
voters who earlier signed the petition booklets. Alaska
experienced this in 2018 with Ballot Measure 1. It is an
injustice to Alaskan voters when the words they approve for a
ballot are changed by unelected judges. Another effect of the
loophole is that the legislature can be stripped of its role to
act as a counterbalance in the ballot initiative process. The
legislature has the right to enact legislation substantially the
same as proposed in an initiative, thus removing the initiative
from the ballot. When the court changes or strikes initiative
language, the legislature effectively loses it ability to
provide oversight over this process.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she understands the concept of the bill,
which is that judges should not be able to amend initiatives,
but the problem she has is that she hasn't liked numerous court
decisions. The court has struck down numerous laws that
legislators have worked on diligently. She understands that the
bill would not allow the court to amend, but it seems to
increase their power to kill initiatives. She has seen the
courts often use one little phrase in the constitution without
looking at the constitution globally. For example, the
constitution says people can enjoy their rewards of their
industry, but it also allows the government to tax, so it can be
in conflict. She said she doesn't want the court to do what it
did with the marriage law when it was as clear as day that
marriage was between one man and one woman. She asked if this
increases the power of the courts.
MS. MARCUM said she didn't believe so because so many ballot
initiatives already involve a lawsuit and the courts must rule
on them. The solution to what she is discussing is SJR 3 that
Senator Shower has introduced and some sort of judicial reform.
4:01:49 PM
MARLEANNA HALL, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
for Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of SB 80.
She said she had submitted a letter of support for SB 80 and
wanted to share additional points about why SB 80 is needed. The
voters have the ability to participate in the legislative
process by passing law or overturning law through the ballot
measure process. Voters can support initiatives by writing them,
signing onto them, and voting for them. Throughout these actions
the language should remain unchanged once a voter signs in
support. SB 80 would remove the court's ability to sever the
language, thereby leaving that language intact. As the law is
currently written, rather than ensuring that the ballot
initiative language passes legal and constitutional muster
before being presented to voters, they are concerned that groups
will rely on Alaska's courts for legal editing services. SB 80
will send a message to proponents that the language of the
initiative must be carefully drafted to ensure it is
constitutional.
4:03:46 PM
ALBERT FOGLE, Vice President, Alaska State Chamber, Anchorage,
Alaska, testified in support of SB 80. He said SB 80 is needed
to retain the integrity of the signature-gathering process for a
ballot measure. Once the voters sign their names to specific
ballot measure language, their support should be applied only to
the exact language to which they lent their names. If any court
decides to alter or remove language from the initiative, it
cannot be assumed that voter support remains. If a court severs
language from a proposed ballot measure, it should be mandatory
that initiative proponents go back and ask voters to support the
revised language that will actually appear on the ballot. They
applaud their effort to correct a deficiency that has been
overlooked with the ballot initiative process. SB 80 will result
in fewer protracted legal battles once 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 should result in
more carefully crafted ballot measures being proposed at the
outset, which means a smoother, more predictable process for all
parties.
4:05:57 PM
ERIC FJELSTAD, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 80. He said he is an attorney who has worked
with ballot measure initiatives for the past ten years.
Testimony has focused on three things. First is truth in
advertising. When voters sign a pamphlet, that language should
not change. Second is the constitutional issue. The constitution
puts power with the legislature as the last stop on initiatives.
There is the ability to cut off an initiative by enacting
something substantially similar. That is an important safeguard.
Last fall with the salmon initiative, the court struck major
provisions of the initiative and then sent that on to voters.
The key takeaway is that the modified version was different than
what the legislature looked at initially. He would argue that
the dynamics are entirely different after something has been
modified by the court. If the bad portions of an initiative are
removed, the odds go up that the legislature would take action,
so this matters. This is a balance of power issue between the
legislature and the courts. It is the rightful place of the
legislature to make it clear that this is their prerogative and
not the courts. He sees this as an apolitical issue that would
apply equally to any ballot measure. The last point is that the
court's last ruling will encourage all sorts of bad behavior
with initiative proponents. There is no reason to worry about
overreach or the constitutionality of the draft because the
courts will step in at the end. SB 80 restores the balance of
powers as the architects of the constitution intended.
4:08:50 PM
CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on SB 80.
4:08:58 PM
At ease
4:10:52 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting. He asked if the committee
members had any questions.
4:11:23 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if the purpose is to restrict the total
numbers of ballot measures that go before the voters because the
legislators can do it. He asked how many ballot measures in the
last ten years have gone before the voters.
SENATOR BIRCH clarified that the intent is not to restrict the
number of ballot measures. The intent is that if the courts
rewrite a ballot measure that signatures had been gathered for,
if the language is substantially changed and severed by the
courts, the process should start over. The language should be
constitutional from the get-go.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how many ballot measures had gone before
voters in the last ten years.
SENATOR BIRCH said his office would get the answer.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked Senator Birch what the term
"substantially" means to him in the context of changing or
severing language in a ballot initiative.
SENATOR BIRCH replied that the severability would relate to the
constitutional aspects. If the language is revised to make the
ballot question constitutional, then the ballot measure changes
substantially from what people signed.
SENATOR KAWASAKI said the use of severability clauses are
common. They are in almost every bill. He asked why is it
necessary to remove severability clauses from laws that would
appear before the people vs. laws that would appear before the
legislature.
SENATOR BIRCH said the issue is the effort, energy, and
initiative it takes to prepare a properly constructed ballot
measure and gather those signatures. It needs to be done right
the first time.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how often an initiative is later
challenged.
SENATOR BIRCH said he would follow up with the answers.
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he wonders about the generation of the
bill and what effect this will have on a fundamental
constitutional right of initiative and referendum. He has
questions around those. On the timeline, he asked if they looked
at changing the timeline to address the problem, for example,
the total numbers of days for the lieutenant governor to certify
and the number of days the petitioners have after. He asked if
they looked at a way that would be more amenable to the
petitioners.
SENATOR BIRCH said that once the signature gathering begins, the
expectation would be that the document has been constitutionally
vetted. The content should not change substantially between the
signature-gathering phase and what is on the ballot.
4:15:37 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked how many initiatives have been changed
after the vetting process and before the voting process.
SENATOR BIRCH said he would follow up with the information.
SENATOR COGHILL said the concept is right, but these are
questions that need to be addressed to get to the finish line.
One of the most recent initiatives had a change with a
constitutional tweak so it's easy to demonstrate why this needs
to be fixed. The legislature also has the same restrictions.
Some of their laws have been slapped down by the courts. They
are still on the books but are invalid. It is a good concept,
but it's necessary that background information.
4:17:53 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if the court has to be very specific
about why it is striking down an initiative as opposed to making
a general reference to the constitution.
SENATOR BIRCH deferred the question to Mr. Fjelstad.
4:18:33 PM
MR. FJELSTAD said the court would identify a specific
constitutional provision. Last fall, the court found that
multiple provisions of Ballot Measure 1 violated the
appropriations clause and those were severed from the
initiative. The remainder moved forward. Regarding how many
times this has come up, he thought it was just a handful, less
than five.
SENATOR REINBOLD said that's helpful, but sometimes the court
looks at different clauses in the constitution, like it did with
marriage between a man and a woman. She asked him if the court
has to look at the constitution globally or if they can strike
the measure down based on one clause.
MR. FJELSTAD said the court primarily would focus on the
arguments the parties make rather than finding authority on its
own. If a clause is struck down, the court would have to
identify the specific constitutional provision for doing so.
SENATOR REINBOLD commented that it seems that the court should
have to look at the constitution globally rather than just a
little provision because almost anything can be argued with each
and every clause in the constitution.
MR. FJELSTAD said there is no hard and fast rule but if the
parties argue three constitutional provisions, generally the
court will look at those three and not everything else.
4:21:25 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said she absolutely supports the initiative
process and thinks it is brilliant in the constitution. She
wants to make the courts to look at the constitution globally.
So many times, they have struck down some awesome things because
of a little clause. "I don't want to increase the power of the
courts at all. That is not the intention. I think they are way
too powerful as it is right now. The power should really belong
with the people," she said. As long as the courts must specify
why they strike things down, the concept is good.
SENATOR MICCICHE clarified that the section of law only deals
with initiatives, not referendums.
MR. FJELSTAD agreed.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he supports this and sees it as completely
nonpartisan. He related his personal experience gathering
signatures on parental consent. He'd rather have known it was
unconstitutional in advance instead of wasting time waiting for
a ruling. Referencing the fish initiative process, if he were
running an initiative today, he would shoot for the moon. He
would go for most extreme stance and let the courts fix it for
him, which is what occurred. He is a huge supporter of the
initiative process. When folks feel the legislature is not doing
its job, they have the ability to make law and to repeal laws
through the referendum process. This puts more pressure on the
courts to determine constitutionality in advance so that perhaps
people on either side can come back with something likely
constitutional, collect signatures, and put it on the ballot. It
is a time saver. It is the right thing to do. It avoids the
courts rewriting initiatives differently from what was proposed.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she was out there collecting signatures
when it was freezing cold. She was ticked off when it was struck
down. She reiterated Senator Micciche's comments.
4:25:21 PM
At ease
4:28:03 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting.
4:28:55 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report SB 80, Version U, from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
4:29:14 PM
CHAIR SHOWER found no objection and SB 80 moved from the Senate
State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SSTA OFFICIAL AGENDA MEMO.pdf |
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
agenda |
| SB 80 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 Version U.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 Letter of Support Alaska Chamber.pdf |
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 - Letter of Support - RDC.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 - Letter of Support - Alliance Board of Directors.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 - Letter of Support.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 - Fiscal Note - GOV.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |
| SB 100 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 100 |
| SB 100 Ver. A.PDF |
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 100 |
| SB 100 Letter of Support - Crews.pdf |
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 100 |
| SB 100 Letter of Support - Collins.pdf |
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 100 |
| SB 100 Letter of Support - Aspelund.pdf |
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 100 |
| SB 100 AVTEC Dormitory in Seward.pdf |
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 100 |
| SB 32 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB32 - Version A.pdf |
SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - Classification and Sentencing Highilghts.pdf |
SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - Classification and Sentencing Sectional.pdf |
SFIN 4/24/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 PM SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - FN#1 - DPS.pdf |
SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - FN#2 - DOL.pdf |
SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - FN#5 - DHSS.pdf |
SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - FN#6 - DOC.pdf |
SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - FN - DOA - Public Advocacy.pdf |
SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - FN - DOA - Public Defender Agency.pdf |
SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - FN - Court System.pdf |
SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB91-GOA Bills Matrix 2-22-19 - DRAFT STA CS.pdf |
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - Committee Questions.pdf |
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| CS for SB 32 - Ver. U.pdf |
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 - Leg. Legal Memo.pdf |
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |