Legislature(2025 - 2026)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/04/2025 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 | |
| Presentation: Andvsa- Alaska's Support for Those Experiencing Sexual and Domestic Violence | |
| SB40 | |
| SJR10 | |
| SJR6 | |
| SCR1 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 40 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SCR 1-ART. II, SEC. 16, CONST: VETO RECON
4:45:12 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1 Relating to
the procedure that the Thirty-Fourth Alaska State Legislature
will use to reconsider bills and items vetoed by the governor.
4:45:37 PM
SENATOR MATT CLAMAN, District H, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of SCR 1, introduced his legislation:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 relates to Article II,
Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution, which is the
section that governs the legislature's "action upon
veto," to use the formal title of the section.
This resolution originated in January of 2024,
following the Governor's veto of $87 million in public
education funding from the FY 24 budget in June of
nd
2023. Upon convening the second session of the 32
legislature, the House of Representatives voted not to
convene a joint session to consider overriding that
veto. It has been the Legislature's general practice
for each chamber to vote on whether or not to convene
a joint session to consider overriding a veto. The
Alaska Constitution, however, lays out a different,
straightforward procedure.
Legal research often ends in ambiguous and unclear
territory, where there is no one correct
interpretation of a statute or constitutional
provision, and advocates might reasonably argue either
side.
With regard to Legislative procedure following a veto,
however, there is only one sensible answer. Here,
there is complete consistency between the explicit
language of the constitution, the constitutional
convention minutes explaining the intent of the
framers, and the rules and practices adopted by the
very first legislature, which included some people who
had been delegates to the constitutional convention,
who therefore had a unique understanding of what the
framers intended the legislature to do in response to
a veto.
4:47:28 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN continued with the introduction of SCR 1:
Article II, Section 16 of the Constitution, states
explicitly: "Upon receipt of a veto message during a
regular session of the legislature, the legislature
shall meet immediately in joint session and reconsider
passage of the vetoed bill or item."
Later sentences address what happens if the
legislature is not in session when the Governor vetoes
a bill. They provide that, if that legislature
reconvenes in either a regular or special session, the
legislature shall reconsider the vetoed bill in joint
session no later than the fifth day after reconvening.
This language was the result of a 1976 amendment to
the Alaska Constitution.
The constitutional language requires the legislature
to meet in joint session. There is no discretion to
refuse to meet.
Further, the constitution requires the joint session
to be held promptly "immediately" if the legislature
is in session when the Governor delivers a veto and
"within five days of reconvening" if the legislature
is not in session when the Governor delivers the veto.
The only question is what exactly does "immediately"
mean. There is no definitive answer to that question
but the constitutional language and the
constitutional convention minutes suggest some
guidelines.
At one extreme, the framers did not intend to require
both houses to literally drop everything and move
immediately into joint session. But the framers meant
the legislature to hold that joint session promptly,
without undue delay. The first legislature, dealing
with the first vetoes, met in joint session on the
same day the Governor delivered the vetoes.
An outside limit for what could be considered prompt
enough to meet the spirit of the constitutional
requirement of "immediately" is suggested by the five-
day limit for meeting in joint session if the
legislature has adjourned and needs to reconvene for
the next regular or special session.
4:49:40 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN continued with the introduction of SCR 1:
The last point I want to make is that all of this
analysis is consistent with this legislature's current
Uniform Rule 45. This is the rule titled "Vetoed
Bills." It provides that, after the governor returns
a vetoed bill with his objections to the house of
origin while the legislature is in session, that house
shall note the veto message in its journal and then
"the other house is promptly requested to meet in
joint session to reconsider passage of the vetoed bill
or item."
If the legislature is not in session when Governor
delivers the veto, Rule 45 tracks the constitution and
states that the Legislature must consider the bill in
joint session within five days of that legislature's
reconvening in a regular or special session.
I understand that in the recent past, the legislature
sometimes has turned to Uniform Rule 51, rather than
Rule 45, for procedures on responding to a veto. That
is a mistake. Rule 51 is a general rule on joint
sessions and it provides for how a joint session may
be called by agreement of the presiding officer of
both houses or by a majority of one house.
It is well accepted in law that a more specific rule
controls over a general rule, which is why it is a
mistake to be guided by the general rule on calling a
joint session instead of the very specific rule Rule
45 which is written precisely to define the
legislature's required procedure in response to a
vetoed bill.
The legislature has taken different approaches in the
past about how to proceed following a governor's veto.
Alaskans deserve to have predictability and certainty
regarding the process to override a veto. SCR 13 will
establish consistency and clarity for all Alaskans and
ensure that the legislature carefully considers all
vetoes moving forward. The resolution addresses how we
address reconsideration of the governor's vetoes under
Article II, Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution.
4:52:01 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI opened invited and public testimony on SCR 1.
4:52:15 PM
DOUG GARDNER, representing self, Olympia, Washington, testified
by invitation on SCR 1 and stated that he can't predict how the
Supreme Court would rule, but he opined there's a strong
likelihood the Supreme Court would interpret "shall immediately"
to mean immediate action, as defined in the legislative drafting
manual and reflected in 1959 constitutional convention minutes.
The intent was for both chambers to meet in joint session
promptly after a veto to consider an override. He stated that
this differs from today's Uniform Rule 51 process, which allows
either chamber to block a joint session. The framers of the 1959
constitutional convention minutes wanted to ensure legislators
who supported a bill would have a chance to amend or revive a
bill post-veto, rather than have a bill die due to inaction. He
said his memo (available on the documents page) covers this in
more detail. He stated his belief that the 1959 Senate Rules
Committee ruling, authored by constitutional delegates
themselves, carries significant weight and affirms this
interpretation. He said that precedent has eroded over time,
what he called a "legislative procedural migration" but the
original intent was clear. He stated that after researching and
reviewing the historical context and precedent, it's his opinion
that a court would likely rule that the legislature is obligated
to meet in joint session immediately after a veto, as originally
intended.
5:00:40 PM
ED MARTIN, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified with
concerns on SCR 1 and stated that the Constitution clearly says
"shall immediately," and ignoring that is a failure to uphold
the oath of office. This isn't just about one issue, it's
happening across all levels of government. He said he's tired of
officials sitting back while the Constitution is sidestepped. He
stated that there doesn't need to be more clarification and the
law is clear. He said it's time to honor the oath, follow the
Constitution, and act before trust is lost completely.
5:03:09 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI closed invited and public testimony on SCR 1.
5:03:17 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI held SCR 1 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SCR 1 Version A.pdf |
SSTA 3/4/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SCR 1 |
| SCR 1 Version A Sponsor Statement 1.29.2025.pdf |
SSTA 3/4/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SCR 1 |
| SCR 1 Supporting Document- Senate Majority Counsel Memo with Exhibits 3.11.2024.pdf |
SSTA 3/4/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SCR 1 |
| SCR 1 Supporting Document - S. Orlansky memo to D. Gardner 03.21.2024.pdf |
SSTA 3/4/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SCR 1 |
| SCR 1 Supporting Document - Alaska Constitution, Article II Section 16.pdf |
SSTA 3/4/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SCR 1 |
| SSA Alaska's support for those experiencing sexual and domestic violence.pdf |
SSTA 3/4/2025 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SCR1-LEG-SESS-03-03-2025.pdf |
SSTA 3/4/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SCR 1 |