Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
02/11/2022 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 | |
| SB23 | |
| SB119 | |
| SB129 | |
| SB118 | |
| SB31 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 118-CMTE ON NULLIFICATION OF FEDERAL LAWS
2:26:59 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 118 "An Act establishing the
committee on nullification of federal laws; and providing a
directive to the lieutenant governor."
[SB 118 was previously heard on 2/2/2022.]
2:27:12 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND noted his intention to take public testimony,
consider any issues, and hold the bill in committee.
2:27:21 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND opened public testimony on SB 118
2:27:41 PM
MIKE COONS, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, spoke in support
of SB 118 because nullification is the basis to countermand
amendments passed by the legislature, as needed. It would give
the new Committee on Nullification of Federal Laws the duty and
authority to review and nullify statutes, regulations, and
executive orders. He opined that this would provide Alaskans
with a means to address federal overreach.
2:28:59 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND closed public testimony on SB 118.
2:29:22 PM
MEGAN WALLACE, Director, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, Juneau, Alaska, introduced herself.
CHAIR HOLLAND stated that several legal questions arose at the
last hearing. He asked for the interplay between federal and
state laws.
MS. WALLACE explained that the supremacy clause of the US
Constitution art. VI states explicitly that the laws of the
federal government shall be the supreme laws of the land. The US
Constitution states that states will follow federal law. The
Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution to the states. The supremacy clause
would trump state law if the federal and state governments
passed laws that conflict. However, if the federal government
has not regulated or passed laws, the Tenth Amendment reserves
to states the right to make laws to address the matter.
2:31:37 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked whether any legal precedent supports a
state's right to nullify a federal law within its borders.
MS. WALLACE responded that she was unaware of any case law that
supports the state legislature's authority to nullify federal
law. The general legal mechanism used to challenge federal laws
is through litigation. Marbury v. Madison essentially
established the federal judicial doctrine that the federal
courts and the US Supreme Court ultimately have the role and
responsibility to decide whether federal laws are
constitutional.
2:32:37 PM
SENATOR SHOWER suggested that the bill sponsor might wish to
respond.
SENATOR LORA REINBOLD, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 118, pointed out that Wyoming, Alabama, and Utah
have set a precedent. She stated that the laws of Congress are
restricted by the US Constitution. She said that in Federalist
No. 33, Alexander Hamilton noted that the supremacy clause
expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the
constitution. She interpreted this to mean the federal
government must "stay in its own lane."
CHAIR HOLLAND asked if the language in SB 118 was modeled after
legislation other states have passed.
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that she would need to consult with
Legislative Legal.
2:34:19 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked if the Alaska legislature has the authority
to tell Alaskans not to abide by federal law or executive order.
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that the US Constitution and Alaska
Constitution protect individual civil liberties. If a federal
law is unconstitutional, the state absolutely must ensure
individual rights are protected. She remarked that members take
an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska. She remarked
that it is the legislature's responsibility to uphold state
sovereignty.
2:35:43 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated that he supports states' rights. He
commented that what works in Alaska does not necessarily work in
other states, such as Florida, New York, or Hawaii. He surmised
the founding fathers never envisioned the tremendous growth of
the federal government or the extent of its law-making that
governs everything. He stated it is valid to limit the federal
government since it has become too big and powerful, usurping
the states' powers. He related he introduced a bill that would
bifurcate the election system to ensure Alaska can operate its
elections in a manner it chooses rather than abide by a plan
devised by bureaucrats or elected officials in Washington DC.
2:37:33 PM
SENATOR HUGHES stated that art. VI is not in conflict with art.
1, sec. 10, which allows states to retain power over anything
that is not granted to the federal government. She suggested
that the committee might want to strengthen the language. She
referred to page 1, lines 11 - 14, and read, "In making its
recommendation, the committee shall consider whether the
statute, regulation, or executive order is outside the scope of
the powers delegated to the federal government in the
Constitution of the United States." She interpreted that means
it is not constitutional to nullify something that the
constitution granted the federal government to govern. However,
if it is an item that was not granted to the federal government,
it falls under the Tenth Amendment and the state should have a
means to nullify it. She related that Ms. Wallace said the usual
method is through litigation, but that doesn't mean it is the
only way. Nothing prohibits a state from asserting a state's
rights. She offered her view that as long as the state doesn't
nullify laws because the legislature doesn't like them or wishes
the federal government had not passed a law, the state can
nullify something that falls within [the Tenth Amendment].
2:40:00 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked if Alaska's legalization of marijuana was an
example of nullification.
2:40:21 PM
MS. WALLACE answered that she did not think Alaska's
legalization of marijuana was nullification. She related her
understanding that nullification was a term used in that a state
has the right to nullify or invalidate federal laws that it
deems unconstitutional. The state marijuana laws did not nullify
or invalidate the federal laws regulating marijuana. As most
members are aware, tension exists between states and the federal
government regarding marijuana. While the federal government has
not enforced the federal laws against marijuana in states that
have legalized marijuana, that tension still exists. She pointed
out that the possibility exists that the federal government
would enforce the federal laws in superiority over state laws.
2:42:00 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND acknowledged he did not think it was an example.
He asked what would happen if Alaska nullified a law, but the
federal government decided to enforce the federal law.
MS. WALLACE expressed concern with the process established in
the bill to nullify federal law. The bill provides for
nullification by concurrent resolution. Alaska Supreme Court
decisions indicate that if the legislature is going to act and
affect people outside the legislative branch, it needs to act by
law. Arguably, if the legislature nullified federal laws, the
bill risks challenge that it does not nullify by law. Second,
suppose the legislature were to attempt to nullify federal law.
In that case, a strong likelihood exists that the federal
government would not recognize that the state has the power to
nullify it. The federal government might continue to execute or
enforce it in Alaska. She offered her view that ultimately that
tension or conflict would end up in court.
2:43:55 PM
SENATOR SHOWER recalled that early on the federal government was
enforcing marijuana laws. He surmised it was less common now
because so many states legalized marijuana, so the federal
government let it go. Although the federal government might want
to enforce the marijuana laws, it has limited resources, so the
Drug Enforcement Agency relies on states and local authorities,
such as troopers to enforce federal law. He said the state could
push back if the federal government attempted to take over
Alaska's elections by refusing to allow them to use Alaska's
election equipment. It would be difficult for the federal
government to create its own system. He concluded that this
approach would avoid the conflict between constitutional powers.
2:45:58 PM
SENATOR KIEHL related one question he posed to the sponsor at
the last hearing was the cost to review each federal law as
proposed by SB 118. He suggested that Congress passes
approximately 2 million words of federal law each year, and
3,000 to 4,000 new regulations each year.
SENATOR REINBOLD reminded members she previously chaired the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee. She suggested that
combining that committee with the Senate Judiciary Committee
would be appropriate. She opined that the committee and the
Legal Services attorney would bring forth ideas.
2:47:58 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said the bill just says upon receipt. He asked if
the sponsor intended that Legislative Legal Services would do
the winnowing of those laws or if citizens would forward them to
the committee.
SENATOR REINBOLD stated the intention of SB 118 was to allow the
committee to set up the process. She said it would be open to
who brings forth the law for review.
2:48:55 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to the federal Real ID Act from 2005. At
one point, the state passed legislation that indicated the state
would not expend state resources to implement the Real ID Act.
He recalled that the law was repealed several years ago. He
asked whether that sponsor envisioned the Real ID Act as a
candidate for nullification.
SENATOR REINBOLD answered yes. She explained that art. 1, sec.
22 of the Alaska Constitution indicates that the privacy of
citizens shall not be infringed. She said it is the
legislature's responsibility.
2:49:59 PM
SENATOR MYERS wondered how nullifying a federal law would affect
the public. He related his understanding that many businesses
were concerned about accessing military bases. He asked what
would happen if the state nullified the Real ID Act and a
contractor submitted a non-Real ID driver's license as
identification to enter a base, but it was rejected.
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that the Department of Defense (DoD) is
under a different jurisdiction. She related that previously she
was allowed to use her passport to access the base.
SENATOR SHOWER responded that the military could restrict access
to bases due to national security concerns. He explained the
process contractors would use. If a person did not have the
Real-ID, the military would obtain their personal identifiers,
vet the person, and issue them a temporary pass to get on base
for events or contractors.
2:52:44 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked whether he could use a non-Real ID at the
airport. He asked whether he would need to call the troopers and
explain the legislature nullified the Real ID Act.
SENATOR REINBOLD answered that when conflicts arise, state
statutes would trump corporation policies. She asked whether the
legislature should allow corporations to set laws. She pointed
out that the supreme law is the US Constitution.
2:54:32 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 118 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 23 Letter of Support - AGC.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 Letter of Support - Alaska Chamber.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 Letter of Support - RDC.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 Letter of Support - CAP.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 Letter of Support - Alliance.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| RDC SB 23 Comment letter 2-11-22.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23 - Letter of Support - APF.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 119 SJUD Amendment G.2.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 119 |
| SB 129 SJUD Amendment O.5.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 129 |
| SB 129 SJUD Amendment O.6 as amended.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 129 |
| SB 23 Public Testimony through 2.12.22.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 118 SJUD Public Testimony.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 118 |