Legislature(2023 - 2024)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/16/2024 01:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL 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 | |
| SB174 | |
| SJR20 | |
| SCR13 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 279 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SCR 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SCR 13-ART. II, SEC. 16, CONST:AFFIRM COMPLIANCE 1:51:23 PM CHAIR DUNBAR reconvened the meeting and announced the consideration of SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 13 Relating to the procedure that the Thirty-Third Alaska State Legislature will use to reconsider bills and items vetoed by the governor. This is the second hearing of SCR 13 in the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee. The intention is to look to the will of the committee to report the resolution out. He invited Senator Claman to put himself on the record and make closing remarks. 1:51:53 PM CHAIR CLAMAN said he would answer questions if there were any. He encouraged the committee to move forward with SCR 13. 1:52:09 PM SENATOR BJORKMAN referenced SCR 13 and discussions regarding its interpretation, highlighting that it appears to deviate from decades of legislative practice on when the legislature meets to address veto overrides, especially for budget item vetoes. He questioned why previous testimony stressed the necessity of a joint session and vote after the first year of a legislature, yet there seems to be no similar urgency or requirement in odd years unless a special session is called. He expressed difficulty understanding the consistency between the mandated joint session for budget veto overrides in even years and the more discretionary approach in odd years, seeking clarification on this discrepancy. 1:53:50 PM SENATOR CLAMAN replied that he believed the question had two parts. First, he addressed what occurred between the Constitutional Convention and current practice, noting that the convention minutes, clearly show that the drafters of the Constitution and those who adopted the amendment including the term "immediately" understood it to mean the legislature would meet promptly. He added that in the early legislatures, when the first veto occurred, the rules committee met, conferred, and agreed they needed to act quickly, consistent with the "immediately" language in the Constitution. At some point thereafter legislators stopping reading the language of the Constitution consistently. After the early legislatures, there was a time when [Uniform] Rule 51 was followed instead of [Uniform] Rule 45, even though it is standard legal analysis to apply the more specific rule to the more specific situation. He stated he did not know why the legislators chose not to pay attention to the language of the Constitution or follow the more specific Rule 45. He stated art II, sec. 16 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska was amended in the 1970's to add the five-day period for clarity. The amendment met no meaningful opposition. 1:55:45 PM SENATOR CLAMAN stated his belief that the second question concerns why there is a differing perspective on meeting "immediately" versus meeting within five days between the first regular session and the second regular session. He clarified that a veto alone does not trigger a special session; either the governor must call a session, or the legislature must gather enough votes to convene. Without a special session, there is no event that brings the legislature together to take up the reconsideration. The difference between the first regular session and the second regular session is that legislature does not meet again unless there is a special session. When a new legislature is elected it does not have the authority to reconsider the actions of the prior legislature. He emphasized the constitutional language requiring action within five days when the legislature reconvenes but pointed out that this applies only when the legislature is already meeting again, either in regular or special session. 1:58:43 PM SENATOR BJORKMAN expressed interest in how this legislative body and process, after decades, is now seeking to adopt a novel interpretation of how veto overrides are considered. He suggested it would make more sense to have provisions in practice, if the legislature were forced to consider veto overrides, that would implore the legislature to consider all items vetoed. However, he noted that earlier in the session, some members supported a practice of convening in joint session and gaveling out without addressing or discussing vetoed items, which he argued does not align with public expectations or a desirable outcome. 1:59:55 PM SENATOR BJORKMAN emphasized that the legislature should have the ability to call itself into joint session to consider vetoes and questioned the inconsistency of having a structured process in even years but effectively no process in odd years. He stated that for SJR 13 to gain this support, substantial clarification is needed on why past legislatures deviated from the process outlined in earlier analysis. He concluded by asserting that the legislature must adopt a consistent practice. He opined that the current inconsistency is unlikely to meet public expectations. Therefore, he could not support SJR 13. 2:01:12 PM SENATOR GIESSEL commented that, as a former presiding officer, she observed that for the legislature to call itself into a special sessionnecessary to override a vetoa very high vote count is required. She noted that Uniform Rules specify the vote threshold needed to call a special session. 2:01:53 PM CHAIR CLAMAN stated his recollection that the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote from each body to convene a special session. He noted that Uniform Rules align with the Constitution, which takes precedence. 2:02:23 PM SENATOR GIESSEL stated that a two-thirds vote is challenging to reach. She explained that as a former presiding officer she desired to call [a special session of the legislature] to override some vetoes following a [first session of a two-year legislature] and in collaboration with the Speaker of the House but could not achieve the required votes. She questioned how the legislature could be required to reach the number [of votes] to call a [special session]. She said that negotiating the votes to call a special session often necessitates constraining the scope of items to override. She said this is the practical application of what might be sterilely viewed as an inadequate process. She emphasized that it is extremely hard to get the required vote count to call a special session. 2:03:43 PM CHAIR DUNBAR opined that Senator Bjorkman raised two additional points of interest. First, how it could be that a law was in place all along, but legislators were not following it. He provided an example of a likely unconstitutional statute that was being followed until a recent lawsuit challenged it. He stated that laws are sometimes interpreted incorrectly and found the analysis done by Ms. Orlansky persuasive, indicating that two rules existed and the [less specific] one was followed. He said the second point concerned the odd versus even years of a legislature and that every two years there is a new legislature Each legislature is legally a separate entity under constitutional law even though it may appear to a lay person to be the same. A prior legislature cannot force the next legislature to take up a matter. He opined that although it feels strange, it is the correct legal interpretation under the constitution. He stated he supports SJR 13 and realized he did not think deeply about the issue until it was raised. 2:06:16 PM CHAIR DUNBAR solicited the will of the committee. 2:06:17 PM SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report SCR 13, work order 33-LS1543\B, from committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note(s). 2:06:30 PM SENATOR BJORKMAN objected. 2:06:36 PM CHAIR DUNBAR asked for a roll call vote. A roll call vote was taken. Senators Giessel, Gray-Jackson, and Dunbar voted in favor of reporting SCR 13 from committee and Senator Bjorkman voted against it. The vote was 3:1. CHAIR DUNBAR announced that SCR 13 was reported from committee on a vote of 3 yeas and 1 nays.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJR 20 Senate Community and Regional Affairs CS Version S 4.16.24.pdf |
SCRA 4/16/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 20 |
| SB 174 Senate Community and Regional Affairs CS Version S 4.16.24.pdf |
SCRA 4/16/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 174 |
| SJR 20 Summary of Changes, Version B to Version S 4.16.24.pdf |
SCRA 4/16/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 20 |
| SB 174 Summary of Changes, Version B to Version S 4.16.24.pdf |
SCRA 4/16/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 174 |