Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/04/1998 01:50 PM House FIN
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 44 Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to redistricting of the legislature. Co-Chair Therriault noted that Work Draft, 0-LS538\I was adopted on 3/3/98. Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on file). Amendment 1 would add "and as may be provided by law" after "section" on page 3, line 3. Representative Davies OBJECTED. Co-Chair Therriault stated that the intent is to clarify that the legislature may add additional clarifications through statute. JIM SOURANT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PORTER observed that Amendment 1 would allow the legislature to provide additional firm guidelines for the chief justice in the process of selecting the five board members. Co-Chair Therriault observed that the Court indicated that it would be more comfortable with greater direction by the legislature. Mr. Sourant agreed. Co-Chair Therriault noted that clarification might pertain to the length of residency or a prohibition against all members being from one political party. Representative Davies stated his objection based on the fact that the other criteria would not be known at the time the question goes on the ballot. He stressed that specific concerns could be addressed in the resolution. Representative Mulder spoke in support of the amendment. He maintained that the intent is to make the process fair and equitable. Co-Chair Therriault noted that geographical balance would be maintained by requiring one member to be appointed from each judicial district. Mr. Sourant emphasized that changes to the Constitution should be minimal. He stated that additional statutory clarification could not be contrary to the Constitution. Representative Davies asked if the language "subject to the provisions of this section" is necessary. Co-Chair Therriault stated that the language clarifies that the Constitution contains some requirements and that additional changes may be placed in law. Representative Davies asserted that Amendment 1 would open the process to political influences. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Mulder, Davis, Foster, Kelly, Kohring, Therriault OPPOSED: Davies, Grussendorf, Hanley Representatives Moses and Martin were absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (6-3). Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy on file). He observed that the amendment clarifies when members of the redistricting board are to be appointed. He observed that the current version would provide that they be appointed between January 1st and 16th of the year following the census. He emphasized that board members have been appointed before the information is actually available. He observed that members could use the time to review court cases and establish procedures. The amendment would provide that board members be appointed by September 1st of the year of the census. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was adopted. Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3 (copy on file). Representative Grussendorf OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion. Co-Chair Therriault noted that Amendment 3 would require members to reside in the judicial district that they are appointed to represent. He added that members would be appointed based on judicial districts in existence on January 1, 1999. In response to a question by Representative Davies, Co-Chair Therriault stated that the provision would retain 5 members on the committee. Geographical representation would be maintained. (Tape Change, HFC 98 -52, Side 1) Representative Davies felt that it would make sense for the board to reflect changes in judicial districts. He spoke in support of one member from each of the judicial district and one member at-large. Co-Chair Therriault spoke against a mechanism that would expand the board. Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that an additional judicial district could result in an even number of members on the board. He observed that the at-large member could come from the new district if another one is created. Representative Davies WITHDREW his objection. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was adopted. Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4 (copy on file). Representative Davies OBJECTED. MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT explained that Amendment 4 would change the effective date from the year 2001 to the year 2000. This change corresponds to the appointment of board members. Co-Chair Therriault clarified that the new mechanism would be before the board when they are appointed in the year 2000. Mr. Tibbles noted that the amendment addresses subsection (b). The amendment would delete the effective date of December 31, 2000. The section would be effective on the date that the lieutenant governor certifies that a majority of the voters have approved the amendment. Section 12 is amended to reflect the year 2000 date. Representative Martin noted that the transitional section is not part of the Constitution. Co-Chair Therriault noted that section 8 on page 4 provides that the current redistribution plan stay in place until the new plan is approved. Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that constitutional amendments are enacted under the provisions of the Constitution. He questioned the need for section 8. Mr. Baldwin clarified that Article XIII of the Constitution provides that amendments are effective 30 days after the certification of the election returns, unless otherwise provided in the amendment. Co-Chair Therriault asked if it would be possible for the Governor to impanel a redistricting board in 1998 or 1999 based on old census information. Mr. Baldwin did not think that a governor could appoint a board based on the prior census. He noted that reapportionment boards have been impaneled before the end of a governor's term. Governor Cowper appointed a board before the end of his term. Governor Hickel discharged the board when he came to office. There must be some dramatic circumstance to do a midterm reapportionment. Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that under the legislation, the chief justice would appoint the board. He noted that the board could not recommend a reapportionment plan until they receive the new census data. In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Mr. Baldwin reiterated his belief that the transitional section provides for a 12-year cycle. He emphasized that the provision encourages litigation to keep the present plan in place for another legislative term. He observed that litigation was not resolved on the 1990 reapportionment until 1994. Co-Chair Hanley summarized that if the transitional language were removed the amendment would take effect under normal constitutional provisions. Mr. Baldwin stressed his concern that section 8 would result in the retention of the current plan for an additional 2 years. Representative Martin pointed out that a governor would need an appropriation to fund a reapportionment board. He observed that the first United States census for the state of Alaska was done in 1990. He maintained that the state of Alaska would not receive census information before September. Mr. Sourant explained that the 2001 effective date was arbitrarily picked. He did not object to changing the effective date. He agreed that reapportionment can only occur once every 10 years unless there is a compelling reason. He did not see any reason for a delayed effective date. Co-Chair Therriault WITHDREW Amendment 4. He MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5, to delete section 11 on page 5, lines 15 - 24. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair Hanley observed that the Constitution states that the reapportionment and redistricting shall be effective for the members of the legislature until after the official reporting of the next decennial census. The new criteria would be sixty days after the adoption and final adjudication of the succeeding redistricting plan. Co-Chair Therriault observed that at the time of the last redistricting, Representative Miller's district had doubled in population while other districts had dropped. He observed that the Representative would not have wanted to see litigation continue the inequity. Co-Chair Hanley summarized that the old system would remain until all litigation were resolved. Representative Davies maintained that the "final plan" on page 3, line 13 refers to the final plan of the redistricting board. He asserted that the language is confusing and that there needs to be a distinction between the final plan of the redistricting board and the existing official plan. Mr. Sourant emphasized the need for a plan to be in place prior to the election. Co-Chair Therriault observed that a temporary new plan would at least redistribute population. Discussion ensued regarding the interpretation of section 8. Mr. Sourant clarified that the sponsor's intent is that the old plan remain in place until the new plan has been resolved. Co-Chair Hanley agreed that "final plan" could be interpreted to mean the new redistricting plan. Representative Martin stressed that the inclination is to prolong the process. Mr. Sourant stated that the language on page 5, lines 15 - 24 would clarify that the "final plan" refers to the plan that is in existence today. Representative Mulder and Co-Chair Hanley agreed that the language implies that the new plan would stay in place until it is replaced by the final official plan. Members concluded that section 8 needed further clarification. Representative Davies spoke in support of retaining the new redistricting plan as a temporary plan until it is replaced by a new adjusted plan. Mr. Sourant stressed that language was added to expedite Supreme Court consideration of litigation relating to the redistricting plan. HCR 44 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|