Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/10/2014 05:00 PM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB138 | |
| Presentation by Enalytica: | |
| SJR21 | |
| SB191 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SJR 21 | ||
| = | SB 138 | ||
| = | SB 191 | ||
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska to increase the number of members on the
judicial council and relating to the initial terms of
new members appointed to the judicial council.
6:17:54 PM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for SJR 21, Work Draft 28-LS1364\O (Wallace
3/10/14) as a working document. There being NO OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
HEATHER SHADDUCK, STAFF, SENATOR PETE KELLY, explained the
change in the new CS and related that it could be found on
page 2 on lines 1 and 2. She explained that the original
version of the bill stated that the judicial council shall
act by a concurrence of a majority of its members who were
participating in a vote; this had been changed in the
current CS to say that the judicial council shall act by a
majority vote of a quorum of at least seven members. She
added that this was the only change in the new version of
the bill.
6:19:21 PM
Co-Chair Kelly thought that the Alaska State Constitution
was a very fine document, but like all things worldly it
was not perfect. He offered that one of the things that the
founding fathers of the constitution had gotten wrong was
the judicial council wrong; their desire was to de-
politicize it, but he felt that had not occurred. He
recalled testimony that had indicated that it was very rare
that the people's will as represented through non-public
members on the judicial council was overridden; it was a
rare occurrence. He clarified that four times in the last
two years, public member who were appointed by the governor
and confirmed by the legislature had been overridden by
attorney members of the council who not confirmed by the
legislature or appointed by any elected officials in the
state; furthermore, the Supreme Court Justice, who was the
tie break in these situations, would usually side with the
attorney members to forward nominations to the governor. He
noted that attorney members of the council had great power,
but were not required to go through a confirmation hearing
like other state board and councils. He thought something
needed to be addressed in the constitution to prevent a tie
from happening where public members were being overruled by
people who had never stood before the public for
confirmation.
Co-Chair Kelly related that the resolution would increase
the number of public members to six and keep three attorney
members; it would also increase the required quorum to 7.
Hew related that the addition of public members and the
quorum of 7, there would never be a scenario where the
public was against the attorneys and the justice had to
break a tie against the people. He added that in Article 4,
Section 8 of the state's constitution, it stated that
appointments to the council should be made with due
consideration to area representation and without regard to
political affiliation. He offered that the problem was that
there had been no real way to represent vast areas of the
state with so few members and thought that the addition of
the members would give the council a shot at regional
diversity. He assumed that members had their packets a list
of the public and non-public members of the council. He
requested a brief AT EASE.
6:24:12 PM
AT EASE
6:24:24 PM
RECONVENED
6:24:29 PM
Co-Chair Kelly noted that the state constitution stated
that there shall be regional diversity on the judicial
council. He noted that the attorney members were mostly
from Juneau, Ketchikan, Fairbanks, and anchorage and there
were never any rural members; there were a few non-attorney
rural members, but the last two instances of that was in
1987 and 1916 before that. He did not think that anyone was
trying to keep rural members off the judicial council, but
that naturally, most of the attorney members would be from
urban areas. He asserted that with the current number of
members on the council, it could not maintain the regional
diversity that the constitution called for.
Co-Chair Meyer observed that there was a small fiscal note
attached to the bill that was associated with having a
larger judicial council.
6:26:25 PM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to REPORT CSSJR 21 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
6:26:42 PM
Co-Chair Meyer questioned which version of the legislation
Co-Chair Kelly had moved.
6:26:49 PM
AT EASE
6:27:38 PM
RECONVENED
6:27:45 PM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to REPORT CSSJR 21 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
6:28:07 PM
CSSJR(FIN) 21 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with previously published fiscal
impact note: FN1(GOV) and with a fiscal impact note from
the Alaska Court System.
6:28:11 PM
AT EASE
6:29:19 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SFIN, enalytica, Mar 5.pdf |
SFIN 3/10/2014 5:00:00 PM |
SB 138 |
| SJR21 work draft version O.pdf |
SFIN 3/10/2014 5:00:00 PM |
SJR 21 |
| CS SB191 work draft version N.pdf |
SFIN 3/10/2014 5:00:00 PM |
SB 191 |