Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/23/1998 01:07 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 57 - AMEND US CONSTIT. TO LIMIT FED. COURTS Number 0757 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next item of business would be HJR 57, relating to an amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting federal courts from ordering a state or a political subdivision of a state to increase or impose taxes. As sponsor, Chairman Green called on Jeff Logan to present the resolution. Number 0776 JEFFREY LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State Legislature, explained that HJR 57 requests Congress to prepare and present to the legislatures of all states an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that would prohibit a federal court from ordering a state, or a political subdivision of a state, from increasing or imposing taxes. This is a nationwide effort in response to a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Missouri v. Jenkins, which upheld the right of a federal district court to order a $1.95 property tax increase in Kansas City, Missouri; that tax increase was upheld despite the fact that the Missouri state constitution says that local property taxes may not be raised without a vote of the citizens. MR. LOGAN stated, "This similar language in this resolution first passed the Missouri legislature. It has since passed in 12 legislatures, and I have the names of those if anyone is interested. ... They need 22 more states to meet the 34-state threshold for Congress to act. This language was passed by the Nineteenth Alaska Legislature, in the form of HJR 30. We've been asked to do it again, to keep it current. I can tell you ... that this is also being considered in New Hampshire, Arizona, Wyoming, Utah, Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, Maryland, Indiana, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Illinois, Rhode Island, Florida and Montana." Number 0910 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether these requests to Congress run out. For example, if the 34th state came on-line in 50 years, would this go into effect? MR. LOGAN replied that the opinion of Legislative Legal Services is that there is no time limit. He added, "Congress could always say, in 50 years, that the first two or ten or twenty were stale, but there is nothing from the courts, or from Congress, to say that there is a time limit. On the other side, once Congress does submit something to the states, the last time, with the equal rights amendment, they put a ten-year time limit on it." He said that is still an open question. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked where Congress had put the ten-year time limit. MR. LOGAN replied, "Congress did that when they submitted the equal rights amendment to the states, for approval by the states." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether this was a request from Congress. MR. LOGAN answered, "This was actually requested by the Missouri legislature. There are two legislators in the state of Missouri, one a Democrat and one a Republican, who, after - in their opinion - their constitutional rights were violated, they have asked for help from other states in defending their states rights. So, it's going in to Congress, requesting Congress to act to prepare and present back to the legislatures language for an amendment." Number 1004 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT expressed appreciation for the inclusion of Article V in the committee packets. He stated, "It seems to me that either Congress acts with two-thirds, or we submit with three-quarters. A Can Congress refuse if 34 states urge them to have a convention?" MR. LOGAN replied, "According to the person in Legal I spoke with, once Congress has 34 resolutions from the states, they must act. It's a self-executing provision." Number 1047 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Chairman Green and Mr. Logan whether they had considered the Cleary settlement in light of this constitutional amendment and what impacts that might have. MR. LOGAN replied that no, he had not considered that. Number 1070 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to previous activities in the Lower 48 about school funding. He stated, "Texas comes to mind, where there were some differences in fairness in funding. And I believe the courts intervened and required people to basically be equitable in their funding. This would prevent that, wouldn't it?" MR. LOGAN replied, "I believe so." He explained that this effort is in response to a very similar situation, in Missouri v. Jenkins, which dealt with school funding and differences between conditions in schools in the state of Missouri. Number 1146 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that Arizona had the same type of problem regarding allocation of funds between poorer and more wealthy areas of the state, but also relating to deferred maintenance of school buildings. "So, the courts there directed the legislature to spend money," he said. "But I think it's still an unconstitutional separation of powers at issue, about appropriations. It's all we've got, purse strings." Number 1182 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the mention of equity issues relating to schools in other states. He asked whether the Missouri case is the only one where all other avenues failed and the federal court finally ordered the tax. MR. LOGAN said he didn't know. Number 1199 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested these would be extremely rare situations. But if the federal court came to the conclusion that the only way left to redress a constitutional problem - racial or other inequities - was the tax, this would take that power away; that is its purpose. MR. LOGAN responded, "I believe it would take that power away from the court, but it would still properly rest with the legislature." Number 1240 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how many votes it requires to move this from the state House of Representatives, as it applies to changing the U.S. constitution. CHAIRMAN GREEN said he believes it is a simple majority. He pointed out that it is not to change Alaska's constitution. Number 1298 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that he liked this the first time he voted on it, and he likes it now. He made a motion to move HJR 57 from committee, with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was an objection. Hearing none, he announced that HJR 57 was moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. Number 1346 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked why there is a fiscal note. CHAIRMAN GREEN said it is for printing, for the ballot. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked why this need to go on the ballot, as it doesn't amend Alaska's constitution but only sends a message to Congress. Number 1359 CHAIRMAN GREEN said that is a good question. He observed that the fiscal note was from the Office of the Governor. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested perhaps that office had made a mistake, thinking this was for a state constitutional amendment. CHAIRMAN GREEN said if that was corrected, the resolution wouldn't need to go to the House Finance Committee. Number 1383 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to rescind the action moving HJR 57 out of committee, for the purpose of addressing the fiscal note. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection; there being none, HJR 57 was back before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed it was probably a mistake but suggested checking AS 15.58 to make sure there is no requirement that this go on the ballot. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said it just takes a majority vote, and it is a message. Number 1444 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE advised members that in another committee, they had a fiscal note that was germane but that was also a "huge statement of philosophy," and they had simply moved the bill without attaching the fiscal note. Number 1477 CHAIRMAN GREEN called an at-ease at 1:30 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 1:31 p.m. Number 1480 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move from committee HJR 57 with individual recommendations, but without the fiscal note. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was an objection. There being none, HJR 57, without a fiscal note, moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|