Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/23/2003 01:10 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 31-INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS HJR 5-CONST AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS Number 1612 CHAIR McGUIRE announced the that the committee would next consider HOUSE BILL NO. 31, "An Act relating to initiative and referendum petitions; and providing for an effective date"; and HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum petitions. CHAIR McGUIRE recalled good points made by Representative Gara at the previous hearing with respect to the burden being placed on the initiative process in general and on the people gathering signatures, as well as the effect on costs "and so forth." She also recalled comments by Representatives Samuels and Anderson about proportional representation. She said that was her line of thinking as well, that there is an effort to heal the so- called urban-rural divide in other areas, and that even though it costs more to "reach out to rural areas," [the legislature still does so]; thus perhaps it should be done in this area also. She mentioned previous testimony via teleconference and reminded members that public testimony was still open. Number 1708 ALVIN A. ANDERS, Chair, Alaska Libertarian Party (Juneau); Secretary, Alaska Libertarian Party (Statewide), referred to his previous testimony and said this bill should be opposed because it is unnecessary and doesn't accomplish what its proponents want it to do; the initiative process works fine, helping to increase turnout and voter registration and allowing citizens to decide contentious issues. If the sponsors' real goal is to include more of the state in the initiative process - rather than just having the new requirements act as a "veto" on issues they don't want to see on the ballot - Mr. Anders asserted that the legislation doesn't accomplish what the sponsors want. MR. ANDERS suggested it would be better to make the initiative one page so that it could be posted on the Internet, downloaded as an Adobe Acrobat file, printed, signed, and mailed in. Offering a copy of an initiative petition used in Anchorage and other areas in the state as an example of a one-page form, he assured the committee that it works fine, that citizens' signatures are still checked for voter registration, and that having one page instead of a booklet will make it easier for "folks in the hinterlands" to fill out and mail in without feeling that they have to get 150 signatures in order to turn in their petition booklet. He said that reform could be done without having to do a constitutional amendment. MR. ANDERS said he'd like the committee to vote against the legislation. He suggested that the "very good reform" supported by Ken Jacobus and the Republican Party with regard to instant- runoff voting failed in the 2002 election because voters were already upset with the Republicans for the closed primary and saw the instant-runoff voting as another way that Republicans were trying to seize control of the state. Saying it should have passed, he said that type of reform is the way to go. CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether anyone else wished to testify on HB 31 or HJR 5; hearing no response, she then closed public testimony on both. CHAIR MCGUIRE turned attention specifically to HB 31. She requested a motion. Number 1890 REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved [to adopt the proposed CS for HB 31, Version 23-LS0201\D, Kurtz, 4/7/03, as a work draft]. REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected. Saying he wouldn't talk about his many substantive objections to the bill, he noted, however, that the constitution says all that is required is a certain total of signatures from voters who reside in two-thirds of the districts throughout the state; the bill makes the signature requirement much more difficult, defeating the intent of the [Alaska State] Constitution's framers, to his belief. He suggested the bill would be sent back as clearly being unconstitutional. CHAIR McGUIRE clarified that the motion to adopt the proposed CS was in error. She requested a motion to rescind it. REPRESENTATIVE OGG [moved to rescind his motion]. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 1990 REPRESENTATIVE OGG [moved to report HB 31 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note]. REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected. He requested that Kathryn Kurtz tell the committee what she thinks about the bill's constitutionality. Number 2018 KATHRYN KURTZ, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, drafting attorney for HB 31, offered her sense that the bill adds a requirement for initiative petitions above and beyond what is specified in the constitution; she suggested that without a constitutional amendment, the bill is potentially vulnerable to legal challenge. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Ms. Kurtz, if she were a judge ruling on the information she has, whether she would say it is more likely than not that the bill would be unconstitutional. MS. KURTZ replied, "I would." CHAIR McGUIRE pointed out that HJR 5 proposes an amendment to the constitution for that reason. She expressed appreciation to Ms. Kurtz for her legal memorandum on the subject, and said there is no question that both the statute and the constitution need to be amended [if this law is to be changed]. REPRESENTATIVE GARA maintained his objection. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Samuels, Anderson, Ogg, Holm, and McGuire voted in favor of reporting HB 31 from committee. Representative Gara voted against it. Therefore, HB 31 was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 5-1. Number 2132 REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved to report HJR 5 out of committee [with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note]. REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected. He explained that he'd heard all the points in favor of changing the initiative process, but disagreed. First, he said, this will limit peoples' constitutional rights, which he believes should only occur when there is an incredibly compelling reason to do it; however, he'd heard no such compelling reason. Furthermore, although it isn't the intention of the sponsor or the committee, he said that making it more burdensome to collect signatures will preserve the initiative process only for the wealthiest people who have the staff to go to [30] different districts to gain 500 or 1,000 signatures in each district. REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his belief that perhaps Alaskans' most important right with regard to democracy is the right to take a matter into their own hands and put it on the ballot. With respect to the ability of people who live outside of Anchorage to have initiatives placed on the ballot, he said the current system is fair because no matter how many signatures are obtained from various districts, the question is whether the majority of Alaskans will vote for an initiative at the ballot box. He said that is how democracy works, and that he couldn't support HJR 5. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM offered his belief that the preservation of the rights of one set of people at the expense of another is in jeopardy without passage of this [legislation]. He suggested that Alaska is unique because more than half of the population lives in one area and thus can pass laws that adversely affect rural residents all over the state. He asserted that people in this country have a representative republic, not a democracy. He added, "We try to make sure that the majority cannot act in an unruly manner to subject the minority to its whims." Representative Holm said it isn't unreasonable to require a seat at the table for people whose cultures and lives will be affected by laws or initiatives. He suggested that this [constitutional change] would allow that seat at the table, and that it would be a grave injustice to do otherwise. REPRESENTATIVE OGG concurred with Representative Holm's comments. He also suggested that the movement here is towards exercising democracy in its truest form, since [the proposed constitutional change] will be submitted to the voters. TAPE 03-42, SIDE B Number 2380 REPRESENTATIVE OGG concluded by saying this is a suggestion [to voters] that this is a good direction, and that if they see fit to pass it, they will. If not, the people will have spoken. REPRESENTATIVE GARA acknowledged that as a fair point, and said although [HB 31] takes away peoples' rights without asking their permission, HJR 5 asks their permission before doing so. Nevertheless, he said he thinks [changing the initiative process in this way] is a bad policy for the reasons he'd stated earlier. Number 2297 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Anderson, Ogg, Holm, Samuels, and McGuire voted in favor of reporting HJR 5 from committee. Representative Gara voted against it. Therefore, HJR 5 was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 5-1. [HB 31 was reported from committee earlier by a vote of 5-1.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|