Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/22/1999 01:08 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 3 - CONST. AM: WILDLIFE INITIATIVES
HJR 7 - CONST. AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
HJR 25 - CONST. AM: FISH & WILDLIFE INITIATIVES
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN announced the first order of business in
HJR 3, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to initiatives regarding natural resources
belonging to the state; HJR 7, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiative and
referendum petitions; and HJR 25, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to a petition for an
initiative or referendum regarding fish or wildlife.
Number 0131
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Chairman-designee Green whether it is
his intention to move the bills out of committee today.
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN replied yes, unless someone brings it to
his intention that there is a problem with them constitutionally or
legally - the purview of this committee. Whether or not they
should go to the House floor is under the purview of a different
committee.
Number 0177
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated Representative Williams' resolution
[HJR 7] has the most persuasive argument and for that reason he
doesn't think the approach of Representative Bunde (HJR 3) and
Representative Ogan [HJR 25] is right. Under the purview of this
committee, there isn't anything unconstitutional or legally infirm
about the resolutions. It is a policy choice. For those reasons,
he is opposed to HJR 3 and HJR 25; HJR 7 presents a closer call.
Number 0293
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI agrees that Representative Williams'
resolution is very different than Representative Bunde's in terms
of where the bar is set. Representative Williams' resolution talks
about the collection of signatures, while Representative Bunde's
resolution talks about the actual vote. They are two very distinct
resolutions; and, unfortunately, since they were lumped together at
the last hearing they are being viewed as the same.
Number 0367
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated all three resolutions present
significant policy problems. House Joint Resolution 3 and HJR 25
present issues that should be discussed at a constitutional
convention, especially since HJR 25 fully removes something that
the public had been able to do previously. She also has concerns
about HJR 7.
Number 0430
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN asked Representative Kerttula whether she
feels that none of the three resolutions pose a legal problem, but
instead a policy call.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied HJR 3 and HJR 25 may have legal
problems and should be part of a constitutional convention. It
won't be known, however, until the end of the "court case."
Number 0461
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated she is not certain whether the
committee has adopted the proposed committee substitute. It was
indicated in the affirmative that the committee adopted it at the
last hearing.
Number 0505
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move HJR 3 from the
committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal
note(s).
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected. A roll call vote was taken.
Representatives Green, Rokeberg and Murkowski voted in favor of the
motion. Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted against the
motion. The motion failed by a vote of 3-2. House Joint
Resolution 3 failed to move from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
Number 0619
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN called for a brief at-ease at 1:17 p.m. and
called the meeting back to order at 1:26 p.m.
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted the arrival of Representative James.
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted, in failing to pass HJR 3 out of
committee, it is still before the committee. He asked
Representative Croft to explain his objection.
Number 0653
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated he is not positive that the initiative
process is broken. There have been initiatives on the ballots that
he has agreed with and there have been initiatives on the ballots
that he has disagreed with. But, it has generally worked to effect
the will of the people. There isn't a two-thirds voting
requirement of the people for the other provisions and he is not
convinced that it should be a requirement for natural resources.
If there is something broken, it seems to be how an initiative gets
to the ballot rather than requiring a super majority for one
particular area. In addition, he is worried that if all three
resolutions go to the ballot it will be very confusing. If any of
the approaches have merit, it is a permutation of HJR 7. He
maintained his objection.
Number 0743
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA agrees with Representative Croft. She
reiterated she has constitutional concerns about HJR 3 and HJR 25
because they completely remove a right, especially HJR 25, and
there might need to be a constitutional convention rather than an
amendment.
Number 0815
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN indicated the objection is maintained. A
second roll call vote was taken. Representatives Green, Rokeberg,
James and Murkowski voted in favor of the motion. Representatives
Croft and Kerttula voted against the motion. The motion passed by
a vote of 4-2. House Joint Resolution 3 was so moved from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
Number 0857
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated there was quite a bit of testimony
indicating that 10 percent of those who voted in the preceding
general election within each house district would be difficult to
meet. She has empathy with ensuring that the entire state is
involved in the process, but nobody wants to see the process close
down. She offered an amendment to change "10 percent" to "2
percent".
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN objected for discussion purposes.
Number 0925
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES shares the same concern, but 10 percent is too
high and 2 percent is too low. She is not sure what the figure
should be, however. The right number is somewhere between 1 person
from each house district and 10 percent. She would accept
something bigger, but she will not vote for 2 percent. In
addition, it only calls for 30 out of the 40 house districts. The
less difficult districts to travel to could be used to get the
signatures.
Number 1019
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted that the average turnout is about
5,000 per district or lower which would only be 500 signatures. He
is reluctant to allow the current system because it allows the Rail
Belt to have so much influence. The bar should also be high enough
so that the ballots are not cluttered each year with resolutions.
He maintains leaving it at 10 percent.
Number 1145
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI likes Representative Williams' suggestion
of going to all areas of the state. Other states require 8 percent
with a signature gathering period of 90 to 150 days. Although 10
percent may be higher, there is a one-year period to collect
signatures here in Alaska. She is concerned about the outside
organizations that have targeted Alaska as a cheap place to get
something on a ballot. It is not like years ago when everybody in
the neighborhood was packing around a petition. Nowadays, petition
gathers are paid good money and are organized by outside
corporations. She supports HJR 7 and is comfortable with going as
high as 10 percent.
Number 1272
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN called for a brief at-ease at 1:38 p.m. and
called the meeting back to order at 1:40 p.m.
Number 1278
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that this pertains to both initiatives
and referendums which are important rights. He doesn't know how
receptive the public will be on restricting its power to decide
issues via the initiative process and correct the legislature via
the referendum process. The referendum process is an area that the
legislature ought to be very careful before touching, given that it
is the public's last recall on what the legislature does. Maybe,
there ought to be a policy of not touching it. It is not used very
often and when it is, it is obvious that the people feel seriously
that the legislature has erred. He said, "It may not be for us to
tell them how they get that done."
Number 1358
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that referendum is referred to in
Article XI, section 5 of the state constitution, and the resolution
only deals with Article XI, section 3.
Number 1387
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated it is important to recognize that
Alaska has 365 million acres of land with a very small population
of which nearly half lives in the Anchorage Bowl. That calls for
outreach to ensure the folks in the less populated areas are not
left out, even though this might not be a good idea for other
states. Once an initiative is on the ballot and it represents
those in the Anchorage Bowl, it will pass, and the rest of the
votes from the rest of the people will mean nothing. She still
thinks 10 percent is too high, especially since there is a low
voter turnout in some of the rural areas and it will be some time
before there are more people in those areas.
Number 1587
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Representative James what was the
discussion in the House State Affairs Standing Committee regarding
the percentages.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied it was similar to today's discussion,
but there wasn't the same type of public testimony. There was a
motion to make it 5 percent, but it didn't pass. The committee
decided on 10 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Representative James whether the
original bill called for 15 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied yes.
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted that the objection is maintained. A
roll call vote was taken. Representatives Green, Rokeberg and
James voted against the motion. Representatives Murkowski, Croft
and Kerttula voted in favor of the motion. The motion failed by a
vote of 3-3.
Number 1668
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move CSHJR 7(STA) from the
committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal
note(s).
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected. A roll call vote was taken.
Representatives Green, Rokeberg, James and Murkowski voted in favor
of the motion. Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted against
the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-2. The CSHJR 7(STA)
was so moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
Number 1747
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN called for a brief at-ease at 1:50 p.m. and
called the meeting back to order at 1:51 p.m.
Number 1750
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move CSHJR 25(JUD) from
the committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal note(s).
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that there is legitimate concern about
HJR 25, but the people are smart enough to sort it out. The
distinction between the aerial wolf hunt and the wolf snaring
initiatives prove that point. The people were able to see the
difference between prohibiting an act that didn't comport with a
fair chase and protecting a lifestyle choice. He doesn't believe
that taking it off the plate is appropriate.
Number 1825
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated there is no comparison between the two
initiatives because shooting wolves from an airplane was already
illegal. The people couldn't tell the difference. The
advertisements influenced the votes and didn't have anything to do
with reality. To say that the people can sort it out is a good
argument, if there is a level playing field for both sides. The
boards are the best system to manage fish and game, until someone
can come up with a better one. The initiative process is not it.
There are flaws with the initiative process. It doesn't have a
public process. It doesn't have the committees and the testimony
that the legislative process has. She sympathizes with the folks
that want to do something and the legislature simply doesn't listen
to them so they turn to the initiative process. She supports that
as a method of passing statutory law, but the valuable resources
such as fish and game need the public, committee and legislative
processes. "If we want to have a better system of managing fish
and game, then we should statutorily change the management--the
whole management, not just specific management of specific game and
specific fish."
Number 1944
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that this is a representative
democracy and the initiative process is probably the cleanest and
most public oriented part of it because once an initiative is on
the ballot everybody has the right to vote on it. She is concerned
about restricting that process since people in Alaska feel strongly
about natural resource issues. It is also ironic to see the people
who supported "the resolution" that failed coming in to change the
process.
Number 1983
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES understands that this is a representative form
of democracy, but the representative part of government is "out the
window" when going to an initiative because each district loses its
voice when the "water is muddy." Once an initiative is on the
ballot, the votes are in Anchorage. "I don't if you heard that or
not, but that's where they are."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied she heard the testimony.
Number 2029
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG favors HJR 25 because Article VIII, section
2 of the state constitution clearly sets forth the legislature's
responsibility in providing for the utilization, development and
conservation of all natural resources belonging to the state for
the maximum benefit of the people. The power is reserved to the
legislature. He said, "I'm very concerned that the type of
initiatives that have occurred...And, I think the point's well
taken that with enough money and the changing demographics in this
state where people don't have the traditions of hunting and fishing
and gathering that we've had here for years, that we would put in
jeopardy to a very large investment by an outside interest group
that could gradually change our culture. And, I'm not willing to
take that risk entirely. Notwithstanding the sound arguments on
the other hand for the voice of the people. And, Mr. Chairman, I
think that this--if we don't do something it could be the end of
commercial fishing in the state of Alaska. If you look at the
number of commercial fishers versus the growing power and
importance of sport fishery, and I think justifiably so in certain
instances, but if we end up by ballot box animal husbandry and
theological choices, I think we're going to be wronged." He will
vote yes.
Number 2098
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI is concerned that HJR 25 is closer to a
revision of the constitution as opposed to an amendment. It is
completely taking away the ability of the people to vote on fish
and wildlife issues. It takes the state closer to the need for a
constitutional convention. She is not comfortable with that.
Number 2141
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN called for a brief at-ease at 2:00 p.m. and
called the meeting back to order at 2:02 p.m.
Number 2148
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted that Representative Murkowski brings
up a very good point. He referred to a memorandum from Legislative
Legal Services dated March 19, 1999 which states that all three
resolutions are constitutional as a method of eliminating
initiatives, and that they probably won't go to the point that the
state supreme court went to in Bess v. Ulmer.
Number 2212
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated the Bess case affected several parts of
the constitution. She asked what other part of the constitution
would HJR 25 affect.
Number 2233
KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green,
Alaska State Legislature, stated that testimony on Bess v. Ulmer
indicates it is difficult to determine what will be a revision and
what will be an amendment. There were three constitutional
amendments before the Alaska Supreme Court, and it found that two
were amendments and one was a revision. The revision on a scale of
1 to 10 of how much it affects the constitution was a 10. It
affected almost every aspect of the constitution. The four-part
test, the extent that it affects the whole constitution and a
person's understanding of the implications of an amendment, was
laid down in that case.
Number 2299
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Jardell whether any
constitutional amendment with any degree of controversy would be
challenged in court prior to going to the ballot because of the
Bess case as a matter of course.
MR. JARDELL replied it is safe to say that the supreme court could
find factual determinations to make a decision on a challenge. It
is really hard to allow Bess to determine which resolution should
go forward. It is a preliminary case and it will take further case
law to narrow down what is a revision and what is an amendment,
unless the supreme court gives a bright-line test, which is not
expected.
Number 2347
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted the only thing that could dissuade
counsel from introducing lawsuits is the Senate Finance Standing
Committee.
Number 2373
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete
Kott, Alaska State Legislature, stated that the memorandum dated
March 19, 1999 from Legislative Legal Services talks about the
powers enumerated by the legislature and the Bess decision. The
courts have been slicing away at the initiative process in regards
to natural resources, fish, and wildlife for about 20 years now.
They have made inroads. The courts didn't want ballot-box voting
for allocation issues such as fish stocks, mining, natural
resources, etc. The memorandum indicated, based on legal precedent
available in this state, that the legislature has the power to
propose a constitutional amendment that would, if approved by the
people, reduce the power of the people to enact laws relating to
fish and game by initiative.
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted it sounds Draconian.
Number 2451
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move CSHJR 25(JUD) from
the committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal note(s).
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected.
TAPE 99-16, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT continued. There is confusion on the Bess
case because of expansiveness. The prisoners' rights proposed
amendment affected everything. The supreme court eliminated the
sentence that said, "No provision of this constitution may be
interpreted to require the State to recognize or permit marriage
between individuals of the same sex.", in the marriage proposed
amendment. The redistricting proposed amendment affected nine
different provisions of the state constitution, but the supreme
court said it was understandable. Therefore, he is not sure
whether there will be that much trouble with this case. It is not
going to be a huge burden.
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted that the objection is maintained. A
roll call vote was taken. Representatives Green, Rokeberg, James
and Murkowski voted in favor of the motion. Representatives Croft
and Kerttula voted against the motion. The motion passed by a vote
of 4-2. The CSHJR 25(JUD) was so moved from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|