Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
02/06/2006 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB172 | |
| SB132 | |
| HB379 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 373 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 295 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 132 | ||
| = | SB 172 | ||
| = | HB 379 | ||
SB 172 - INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM BALLOT SUMMARY 1:13:59 PM CHAIR MCGUIRE announced that the first order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 172, "An Act relating to the presentation of initiatives and referenda on the ballot." 1:14:09 PM JOE BALASH, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State Legislature, presented SB 172 on behalf of Senator Therriault, sponsor. He said the bill is simple. Current statutes provide that once an initiative petition has been certified, the lieutenant governor is required to prepare a ballot title and summary, which is the same for referenda. He stated that under existing law the ballot title must indicate the general subject of the proposition and may not exceed six words, and the summary must be impartial and not more than 100 words. 1:15:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to adopt a proposed House committee substitute (HCS) for SB 172, version 24-LS0859\P, Kurtz, 2/03/03, as a working document. There being no objection, Version P was before the committee. MR. BALASH said SB 172 speaks to the lieutenant governor's duty of titling and summarizing voter initiatives and referenda. He stated that the current six-word limit for titles is becoming a limitation to increasingly complex initiatives and legislative laws, and he gave an example of recent legislation where the title was a page and a half long. The bill's intent is to provide an accurate description of the issues that are before the voters, he said. He noted that the original Senate version only addressed the number of words in the title, and the current CS addresses the number of words for the summary, which is 100 words for each section. An initiative section is defined as a provision that is different in purpose or subject matter, and a referendum section will be defined by Legislative Legal and Research Services, he added. 1:18:06 PM MR. BALASH relayed that the version of SB 172 that passed the Senate contained a change in the maximum number of words in the title from 6 to 25. The House State Affairs Standing Committee then added provisions limiting the time allowed for the lieutenant governor to prepare the title and summary, but the current lieutenant governor said he had concerns with that, so Senator Therriault agreed to drop those provisions. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked for clarification on Section 3. MR. BALASH told him he was looking at Version X. CHAIR MCGUIRE said there was a time limitation amendment by the House State Affairs Standing Committee, and the lieutenant governor expressed that it may not be enough time to do a good job. The big change in the current version is the removal of the deadline and putting the effective date back in again, she explained. 1:22:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that he is not aware of the problems [the lieutenant governor's office] has with [the time limit provisions]. He said there was care taken to put the amendment in, and he is not inclined to take it out. He said the provision was added because sometimes people challenge the lieutenant governor's wording, "and this has caused a problem on several occasions very recently." He said that a final version [of an initiative or referendum] issued only a short time before the election doesn't allow time for a legal challenge to make certain the law is complied with. "This will make it difficult to challenge what the lieutenant governor does if we don't provide enough time to do it, and it will require the court system to hear these things on an emergency basis, and it will require, sometimes even, the printing of two sets of ballots." He said the lieutenant governor certainly should have the time to prepare initiatives in enough time to allow for people to study them. It is a reasonable request, and the policy of not doing it encourages problematic synopses and titles, he stated. "That is a good public policy to advance, and I have no idea why they don't want to have an adequate judicial review," he said. CHAIR MCGUIRE noted that the time limit is "really the only substantive issue that we're addressing." She said the word- limit aspects of the bill are not under debate, but there may be a desire for a discussion on the effective date. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he did not recall seeing an effective date in the original bill. CHAIR MCGUIRE said it was immediate as it passed the Senate, and the House State Affairs Standing Committee removed that. She said she would like to see an immediate effective date. 1:25:35 PM ANNETTE KREITZER, Chief of Staff, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, said Representative Gruenberg called her with a concern that 30 days may not be enough time, and she told him she would take a look at it. She said it was unfortunate that the amendment was adopted by the House State Affairs Standing Committee to "address the situation that Representative Gruenberg referenced." She said Representative Gruenberg was concerned that someone may sue over the language of an initiative. She stated that the problem with putting a 30-day deadline on the lieutenant governor doesn't solve that problem. "There are people who will sue at any time that it suits them to sue, and so telling us that we have to have our work done 30 days after the legislative session doesn't solve that problem." MS. KREITZER said she spoke with the chair of the House State Affairs Standing Committee and "hashed through this because the committee minutes don't really get to why this amendment was adopted." She said her office does not put a time limit on the Department of Law to provide legal guidance. "We are waiting to see what the legislature does, whether they pass legislation that is similar to an initiative." She said there are several initiatives this year that the legislature may act on. She said her office keeps the Department of Law (DOL) "pretty busy," and doesn't want to keep them any busier with initiatives that may or may not go forward. "So we wait until the end of the session," she relayed. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he sees the problem, but perhaps it can be solved without removing all deadlines. He suggested a deadline for filing a legal challenge. He pointed out that election challenges are limited to a very brief period, "and this is a type of an election challenge." He surmised that Ms. Kreitzer is envisioning a case in which an initiative is trumped by legislation, but he characterized this as a red herring because if a legislative bill trumps the initiative, then the whole point is moot. He then acknowledged that someone might challenge the contention that the bill is the same as the initiative. He said he is not certain how to solve the problem, "but I do think it's a bad idea not to have the process moving along and have the whole thing in a log jam at the very end-- even after the election pamphlet [is] printed." He asked for a suggestion. 1:30:28 PM MS. KREITZER said she doesn't know that there is a problem. She relayed that her office works with opponents and proponents of initiatives monthly. She said the lieutenant governor's website shows that "we could have come into this session with five initiatives having been certified by the lieutenant governor." She said as soon as an initiate is turned in, the staff is working on the language for the petition booklets, which is probably similar to the ballot language. "Although, I'll tell you there are two of them right now that were unhappy to start with." She said one is 05HUNT [An Act prohibiting the shooting of wolves and grizzly bears with the use of aircraft]. "I talked with those folks and they had a concern about the language that the Department of Law had proposed for their initiative." She said she raised the issues with DOL, and the attorney agreed with the initiative sponsors, so the lieutenant governor's office changed the language. Regarding the pesticide initiative, she said, "Their attorney disagrees with the state's attorney." Her office works with the initiative groups all along, she said. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that for an initiative to be on the ballot, it has to be in by the time the legislature convenes. MS. KREITZER said that is true if it is to go on the 2006 general election. She said there are two already on the 2006 primary, which has a different deadline. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that was the previous year, so "in order to get on the ballot for the primary, they have to be in by the odd numbered year, so you have almost two years to deal with that." He said the shortest [timeframe] is for the general election, which need to be in by the second Monday in January, so the staff have 151 days under this legislation to deal with the problem. MS. KREITZER clarified that "when you turn in an initiative you have one year from the time you get your petition booklets to file with the lieutenant governor's office." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said if the lieutenant governor's office is saying it needs enough time, the House State Affairs Standing Committee CS gives the office at least 151 days to "do this." He noted that that is reasonable because it is four and one half months from the election. "And then we give people a reasonable period of time to file their challenge, and then the court system has the time to proceed. That's all we were asking." 1:34:04 PM CHAIR MCGUIRE noted that the chair of the House State Affairs Standing Committee visited her and "removed his desire to see this in here, along with the sponsor of the bill." She said when the committee addressed the issue before it had "this idealized look at it, but when they really sat down and looked at it with the Division of Elections in the lieutenant governor's office, it didn't seem to make sense-the problem that the amendments were addressing really wasn't fixed." She said she didn't disagree with Representative Gruenberg, but that she needed more information. She said 30 days was not enough [time], especially if it is a ballot measure that the legislature wants to trump. She stated that it is a waste of time to give an artificial deadline. The legislation would "have to be married with some kind of limitation on the plaintiff's right to then go ahead and bring the action." She said she does not know what the right amount of time would be, and she does not want to shoot in the dark at figures. Her gut feeling, she offered, is that there isn't a way to fix the complete logjam and the chaos "because zealous advocates on both sides are going to use whatever they have right up to the last minute." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he would be amenable to giving the lieutenant governor 60 plus 30 days, and that would give the courts several months to look at the situation. CHAIR MCGUIRE said she has not been given compelling evidence that "this is a tremendous problem." She suggested moving forward with the three other bills. 1:37:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said there are start and finish deadlines, which are the general and primary elections. He added that "the legal challenge can happen anywhere in that arena, so I think that any person proactive enough to get a petition ...." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is not talking about challenges to the initiative itself, only to the title and the synopsis. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "Then you have to put it in a booklet...and that's where the rub's going to come." He noted that there is a publishing deadline, so "there is a series of deadlines already where the verbiage is going to be vetted very clearly." He added that democracy can be messy, "but everyone gets a bite at the apple." CHAIR MCGUIRE said that her point is that in imposing a deadline for describing the ballot title, "you face the argument about substantial similarity because you may not know what it's going to be yet." The legislature adjourning doesn't mean anything, she noted, and there could be a lot of energy going forward before realizing it is not to be. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the bill does not deal with the [initiative]. CHAIR MCGUIRE said it deals with what is going to be on the ballot itself. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it is the initiative, and the initiative came in its final form no later than the first day of the session. CHAIR MCGUIRE asked, "But will it be on or not?" REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said if it is not on, then it would be a moot point, "but they can certainly draft this anytime from the first day of the session on. And if it's pulled it's pulled." CHAIR MCGUIRE surmised then that Representative Gruenberg's point is to spend the time drafting it no matter what. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said yes. MS. KREITZER said that the lieutenant governor understands that as initiatives become more complex, more words may be necessary to describe them. She said he clearly understands those limit changes, but the language adopted in the House State Affairs Standing Committee was adopted without consulting with his office. She said the office has a web site with initiatives and where they stand. It is a dynamic process, she said, and the lieutenant governor is still in litigation over the cruise ship initiative. She asked what the amendment would do for an initiative that is "still out there." She stated, "The lieutenant governor has been on the other end. Constitutional amendment; definition of marriage. He's been on the other end of telling the lieutenant governor he didn't like her language. We didn't sue," she said. She added that he felt that it was the lieutenant governor's prerogative and it was incumbent on those who supported it to go out and get support for their constitutional amendment. She added that it is a new era where people sue over initiatives, and she does not see an arbitrary deadline as solving that problem. 1:44:25 PM WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director, Division of Elections, said the fiscal impact of increasing the wording in the ballot title is zero but there will be a fiscal impact to increasing the wording of the summary section. She gave an example of an initiative that has 16 sections, which could be summarized with 1,625 words, or 10 times the previous limits. Printing costs, which was $300,000 for the 2004 election, could double, she noted. She added that approximately 800 words will fit on a ballot, so some initiatives would cover two ballots if the lieutenant governor decided to use the maximum number of words allowed in the bill. She said it would increase shipping, mailing, translating and envelope costs. CHAIR MCGUIRE said the fiscal note will be forthcoming. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if the increase will be $300,000 plus the listed postal costs. MS. BREWSTER said yes, and she hasn't factored in the cost of the initiative material that the initiative sponsors use. 1:49:12 PM JOHN SHIVELY, Vice President, Government and Community Relations, Holland America, said he is in support of the CS. He said his company is facing a complex initiative that is nine pages long with a number of sections. He thinks voters should be educated on what they are voting on, and the "whole initiative should be on the ballot," reducing the risk of lawsuits. He said it would be unrealistic and expensive, however. He urged adoption of the CS. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he has major concerns about a provision the [cruise ship] industry requested be added to the bill. He said the industry wants initiatives to use up to 100 words per section. He said the longer the description, the more convoluted it can be, which may deter a voter from signing an initiative. He acknowledged that there may be complex bills requiring further explanation, but "it seems to me you can describe any bill in 100 words." He suggested allowing the lieutenant governor to attach additional material that would give the voter the option to read. Telling the lieutenant governor to give a 1,500-word description that a voter would need to read prior to signing an initiative "causes the mischief of over-information to the point that you are going to deter people from signing the initiative," he surmised. MR. SHIVELY said he disagrees with Representative Gara and suggested that people would write less confusing initiatives if the CS were to pass. He said very few people even read an initiative. "They get a little statement from the person that has the petition book" before deciding to sign, he said, and if Representative Gara is suggesting that voters get confused with too much information, that is not "what democracy is about." REPRESENTATIVE GARA clarified that he wanted to offer voters the information, not withhold it. It would be an optional statement that a voter could choose to read. He noted that he has understood the petitions that he has signed in the past. MR. SHIVELY said he is not as concerned about the petition book itself as he is about the ballot; it is important to have additional explanations for people in the voting booth. 1:55:18 PM CHAIR MCGUIRE closed public testimony, and noted that Version P was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE GARA moved to adopt Amendment 1, which, with handwritten corrections, read [original punctuation provided]: p.1., line 7: Delete "25" Insert "15" p.2., line 1: Delete "25" Insert "15" CHAIR MCGUIRE objected for purposes of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that the voters need enough information to "understand what they're voting on. You can perform mischief by letting the lieutenant governor's office add additional words in a way where they can frankly confuse things for the voters." He said that has happened in recent initiatives causing litigation. He added that he can't think of a recent initiative where the subject can't be described in 15 words. It will be followed by the 100-word statement anyway, he stated, and he gave examples. By allowing 25 words, it will "allow a lieutenant governor who's trying to tank an initiative the ability to obfuscate when they should be clarifying for voters." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the bills in his packet all have more than 15 words in the headings. 1:57:55 PM MR. BALASH noted that what is missing from the committee packets is a comparison of past initiatives with prepared summaries. He said he has two initiatives, both with 29 words as written by the initiative sponsors. He said 25 words are too many in many instances and perhaps too few for others, so rather than err on the side of restrictions, Senator Therriault decided to err on the side of caution by giving the lieutenant governor flexibility. CHAIR MCGUIRE reminded the committee that the lieutenant governor could be with the opposite political party in the future. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said initiative sponsors were never asked to limit themselves to 15 words, which could have easily been done for the aforementioned initiatives. 2:00:13 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representative Gara voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives McGuire, Coghill, Wilson, Kott, Anderson and Gruenberg voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 1-6. 2:00:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 24- LS0859\X.2, Kurtz, 2/3/06, which was edited with handwritten notes to read as follows: Page 1, line 8: Delete "for each section" Page 1, lines 9 - 11: Delete "In this subsection, "section" means a provision of the proposed law that is distinct from other provisions in purpose or subject matter." Page 1, following line 10: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 2. AS 15.45.180 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (c) If the lieutenant governor believes it is necessary for a better understanding by the public of a bill that is the subject of an initiative, the lieutenant governor may prepare an additional analysis that clearly and concisely states the purposes of the proposed initiative. The analysis may not exceed 100 words a section. If, under this subsection, an additional analysis of a bill is prepared, a person circulating the initiative petition for that bill shall advise, both in writing and orally, each voter from whom the person seeks a signature that the additional analysis is available for review by the voter. A circulator shall have the additional analysis available for immediate inspection by the voter when circulating a petition. In this subsection, "section" means a provision of the proposed initiative that is distinct from other provisions in purpose or subject matter." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 1, line 15, through page 2, line 1: Delete "for each section" Page 2, lines 1 - 4: Delete "In this subsection, "section" means each section of the Alaska statutes created, amended, or repealed in the Act, and each section of the Act that does not create or amend codified law." Page 2, line 5: Delete "a new subsection" Insert "new subsections" Page 2, following line 7: Insert a new subsection to read: "(d) If the lieutenant governor believes it is necessary for a better understanding by the public of an Act that is the subject of a referendum, the lieutenant governor may prepare an additional analysis that clearly and concisely states the purposes of the Act. The analysis may not exceed 100 words a section. If an additional analysis of an Act has been prepared, a person circulating the referendum petition for that Act shall advise, both in writing and orally, each voter from whom the person seeks a signature that the additional analysis is available for review by the voter. A circulator shall have the additional analysis available for immediate inspection by the voter when circulating a petition. In this subsection, "section" means each section of the Alaska statutes created, amended, or repealed in the Act, and each section of the Act that does not create or amend codified law." REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected. REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that Amendment 2 addresses the cruise ship industry proposed provision. He said the logical order of discussing a bill is not necessarily the same order as the sections of the bill. The provision will lead to a disjointed description of a bill, he noted. "First you're going to discuss, in a hundred words, a very discrete part of the bill in Section 1, and then a very discrete part of the bill in Section 2," and so on. He said the bill is probably better described as a whole, instead of little pieces of disjointed descriptions on a section-by-section basis, which will be confusing. He further stated that 100 words per section in a 15-section bill is a 1500-word description, and "that's mind- boggling." He said if the lieutenant governor doesn't like an initiative and wants to defeat it, the initiative will be buried in excess words designed to confuse people. He said Amendment 2 states that if there needs to be more than 100 words the circulator shall carry around a sectional attachment. CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if Amendment 2 "removes it from the ballot itself and puts it into the petition that is circulated." REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that the amendment addresses the petition, and he will do a conceptual amendment to deal with the ballot if Amendment 2 passes. He said the ballot should have a comprehensive 100-word description with a more detailed description that followed. He said the ballot shouldn't be written so that the bill title is followed directly by a disjointed sectional analysis. 2:04:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is somewhat sympathetic, and he has never been a big fan of having to read a ballot for a half hour before voting; however, the nature of petitions is becoming more complex. He said he felt that voters did not understand a past billboard vote because of the limited wording. He added "if we're going to allow people to have that access to direct democracy, it has to be with some deliberation, and that means you have to have the information in front of them." He said that was what campaigns were for. He said campaigns give people an idea of what is going to be on the ballot. He noted that "brand new verbiage before you get to the ballot--you will feel that you have been had by your government." He said he would be nervous about not having a summary of a section. "If we're going to go to the people and say you want to change a whole title of your law, then they better get a good shot at it." He concluded that 100 words might represent the changing of 1,000 words in law. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he doesn't disagree with those points, but a 100-word description of the bill should come first. If the lieutenant governor decides the issue is complex, then a section by section explanation can follow, he said, "but you've got to make it readable, and the sectional without a sponsor statement, like we do in our bills ... is not readable." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed but pointed out that there are no sponsor statements on ballots. The description should be read by voters in the election booklet, he said. CHAIR MCGUIRE said, "You hope people do it, but ...". REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said every registered voter gets a pamphlet. 2:08:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA withdrew Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE GARA moved Conceptual Amendment 3, hoping to meld his concerns with Representative Coghill's concerns. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said Conceptual Amendment 3 will be: For both the circulating petition that people read when they're signing the initiative and for the ballot, there shall be a statement of the bill that is up to 100 words, which is just like the current law right now. Following the statement of the bill, if the lieutenant governor determines that the 100 words wasn't enough, there shall be a sectional of up to 100 words per section. REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that, "this way you have in laymen's terms 100 words that describe the bill to people, and then the analysis that goes section by section. If you don't have the laymen's description first, it's going to be very confusing for people in the ballot box and when they're signing." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the title has been expanded to 25 words, which nearly constitutes a summary. "I'm happy that 25 words can get that done," he added. He said he is concerned that a policy statement and then the specifics could weary the voter. CHAIR MCGUIRE remarked that the nice thing about the bill is that it currently says "in not more than 100 words." She said it doesn't have to be 100 words and that goes to the spirit of [conceptual amendment 3]. She stated that it is absolutely critical that people understand what they are voting on, and when she reads a bill she tries to skip the sponsor statement and read what a bill really does because it is easy to gloss over details in the statement. She added that she is comfortable with the proposed change, but she doesn't know how it will play out in reality. She thinks it will be more informative to describe the sections, but she does not have a "burning opposition" to the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that a sponsor statement in a bill could present a one-sided argument, but the law on initiatives and referenda is that it must be objective. The 100-word statement has to be objective. The sponsor of the bill doesn't think the 25-word title is enough, he argued. A lieutenant governor who is trying to play games is going to use 100 words for every section, and that is why a one-time concise statement is necessary, he stated. 2:14:13 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representative Gara and Gruenberg voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 3. Representatives McGuire, Coghill, Wilson, Kott and Anderson voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-5. 2:14:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 4. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that Amendment 4 goes back to the House State Affairs Standing Committee CS with the addition of a requirement that any suit challenging the wording of the ballot title or proposition must be filed within 30 days of being submitted to the director. He said it gives the administration 120 days to prepare the title and the summary. He noted that it is certainly adequate, and it gives another 30 days for a total of 151 days. He said that the people challenging will only have 30 days to file a suit, and it will allow the process to proceed in an orderly fashion without the expense of printing two sets of ballots. He then surmised that he may have caused an inadvertent problem regarding the date the election pamphlet needs to be in. MS. KREITZER recollected that it is July 1 or August 1. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thought it was July 1, which might make his deadlines too long. MS. KREITZER said that is not the only problem with the deadlines. She said there is another deadline for absentee ballots, but she would be willing to work with him to solve the problem. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 4. REPRESENTATIVE GARA moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 5, labeled 24-LS0859\X.1, Kurtz, 2/3/06, as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 1, line 4, following "governor": Insert "shall appoint a ballot proposition committee to prepare" Page 1, line 5: Delete "shall prepare" Insert "[SHALL PREPARE]" Page 1, following line 10: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 2. AS 15.45.180 is amended by adding new subsections to read: (c) The lieutenant governor shall appoint five individuals to the ballot proposition committee, including (1) two proponents of the initiative, at least one of whom must be a member of the initiative committee; (2) two opponents of the initiative; and (3) one individual from a list of three submitted by the chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court. (d) The committee shall submit the ballot title and proposition to the lieutenant governor not later than 30 days after the date of the adjournment of the first regular legislative session convened after the petition is filed. (e) The lieutenant governor shall review the ballot title and proposition prepared under (a) of this section and make any changes necessary to make the proposition true and impartial. Not later than 10 days after receiving the ballot title and proposition from the committee, the lieutenant governor shall complete the review and provide the ballot title and proposition to the director. If the lieutenant governor makes any changes to the ballot title or proposition prepared under (a) of this section, the lieutenant governor shall also provide the director with a written explanation of those changes." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 1, lines 12 - 14: Delete "The lieutenant governor, with the assistance of the attorney general, shall prepare a ballot title and proposition upon determining that the petition is properly filed" Insert "If the petition is properly filed, the lieutenant governor shall appoint a ballot proposition committee to prepare, with the assistance of the attorney general, a ballot title and proposition [THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, SHALL PREPARE A BALLOT TITLE AND PROPOSITION UPON DETERMINING THAT THE PETITION IS PROPERLY FILED]" Page 2, lines 5 - 7: Delete all material and insert: "* Sec. 4. AS 15.45.410 is amended by adding new subsections to read: (c) The lieutenant governor shall appoint five individuals to the ballot proposition committee, including (1) two proponents of the referendum, at least one of whom must be a member of the referendum committee; (2) two opponents of the referendum; and (3) one individual from a list of three submitted by the chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court. (d) The committee shall submit the ballot title and proposition to the lieutenant governor not later than 55 days after the date the petition is filed. (e) The lieutenant governor shall review the ballot title and proposition prepared under (a) of this section and make any changes necessary to make the proposition true and impartial. Not later than five days after receiving the ballot title and proposition from the committee, the lieutenant governor shall complete the review and provide the ballot title and proposition to the director. If the lieutenant governor makes any changes to the ballot title or proposition prepared under (a) of this section, the lieutenant governor shall also provide the director with a written explanation of those changes." REPRESENTATIVE GARA said the original concept was proposed by Senator Elton's office. The amendment addresses times when the lieutenant governor is hostile to a petition, and to prevent a lieutenant governor from confusing voters it requires a committee to draft the language. The committee will consist of two members who support the initiative and two who oppose it and one member appointed by the court, he explained. He said it will hopefully lead to a more objective summary, especially since the legislation before the committee will lead to more mischief by the lieutenant governor's office. The summary will then be reviewed by the lieutenant governor, he said. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she doesn't think the amendment will do anything because the individuals will be appointed by the lieutenant governor. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said the lieutenant governor would be limited in those four appointments, and the court would appoint the fifth person. CHAIR MCGUIRE remarked that the amendment is interesting but it is almost a completely new bill, and she will oppose it because she has not had time to speak with the bill's sponsor. 2:21:48 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representative Gara and Gruenberg voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 5. Representatives McGuire, Coghill, Wilson, Kott and Anderson voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 5 failed by a vote of 2-5. 2:22:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report the proposed House committee substitute (HCS) for SB 172, version 24-LS0859\P, Kurtz, 2/03/03, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Hearing no objections, HCS SB 172(JUD) was reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee. MR. BALASH announced that the fiscal note would be forthcoming.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|