Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
04/05/2013 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR10 | |
| HB173 | |
| HJR10 | |
| HB104 | |
| HB3 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 173 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 104 - ELECTION PROCEDURES; REAA ADVISORY BOARDS
1:21:31 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 104, "An Act relating to election practices and
procedures; relating to the election of an advisory school board
in a regional educational attendance area; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 104(JUD).]
CHAIR KELLER noted that the bill, as amended, was previously
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee, but was
then referred back to the committee for additional amendments.
CHAIR KELLER turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Lynn.
1:23:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 28-GH1983\R.5, Bullard, 4/4/13, which read:
Page 7, line 19:
Delete "second"
Insert "third"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT explained that Amendment 1's proposed
change to Section 19 of the bill was requested because of a
concern that one of the unintended consequences of that
section's proposal to move the date of the primary election from
the fourth Tuesday in August to the second Tuesday in August
would be that ballot initiatives would be voted upon in the
general election rather than in the primary election. This was
not the intent, however, and so Amendment 1 would address this
concern by instead proposing to move the date of the primary
election to the third Tuesday in August.
1:24:14 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Central Office, Division of Elections,
Office of the Lieutenant Governor, concurred that Amendment 1's
proposed change would ensure that ballot initiatives would still
be voted upon in the primary election. In response to questions
and comments, she explained that the division had initially
proposed moving the date of the primary election to the second
Tuesday in August for administrative purposes - seeking two
extra weeks in which to prepare ballots for the general election
- but had not given any consideration to the impact the proposed
change would have on ballot initiatives; assured the committee
that being given even just the one extra week between the
primary election and the general election as proposed under
Amendment 1 would still be helpful to the division; relayed that
statistically, a lot more people vote in the general election
than in the primary election; and acknowledged therefore that
retaining Section 19 as currently written, resulting in ballot
initiatives being voted upon in the general election, could
possibly also result in more people voting on ballot
initiatives.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT shared his belief, however, that only when
voted upon during a primary election is a ballot initiative's
proposed change comprehended by the voters.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed a preference for addressing at
some other time the policy question of whether to require ballot
initiatives to be voted upon in the general election. She
therefore indicated support for Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG - offering his recollection that up
until just a few years ago, ballot initiatives were voted upon
in the general election - indicated a preference for addressing
the policy question now, particularly given that [not adopting
Amendment 1] could result in more people voting on ballot
initiatives, because a lot more people vote in the general
election. He opined that voters in the general election are
indeed capable of comprehending a ballot initiative's proposed
change.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Pruitt, Foster,
LeDoux, and Lynn voted in favor of adopting Amendment 1.
Representative Gruenberg voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4-1.
1:40:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
labeled 28-GH1983\R.4, Bullard, 4/1/13, which read:
Page 1, line 2, following "expenditures;":
Insert "relating to identification requirements
for a communication paid for by a political party;"
Page 3, following line 30:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 7. AS 15.13.090(a) is amended to read:
(a) All communications shall be clearly
identified by the words "paid for by" followed by the
name and address of the person paying for the
communication. In addition, except as provided by (d)
of this section, a person shall clearly
(1) provide the person's address or the
person's principal place of business;
(2) for a person other than an individual
or candidate, include
(A) the name and title of the person's
principal officer;
(B) a statement from the principal officer
approving the communication; and
(C) unless the person is a political party,
identification of the name and city and state of
residence or principal place of business, as
applicable, of each of the person's three largest
contributors under AS 15.13.040(e)(5), if any, during
the 12-month period before the date of the
communication.
* Sec. 8. AS 15.13.090(c) is amended to read:
(c) To satisfy the requirements of (a)(1) of
this section and, if applicable, (a)(2)(C) of this
section, a communication that includes a print or
video component must have the following statement or
statements placed in the communication so as to be
easily discernible; the second statement is not
required if the person paying for the communication
has no contributors or is a political party:
This communication was paid for by (person's name and
city and state of principal place of business). The
top contributors of (person's name) are (the name and
city and state of residence or principal place of
business, as applicable, of the largest contributors
to the person under AS 15.13.090(a)(2)(C)).
* Sec. 9. AS 15.13.090(d) is amended to read:
(d) Notwithstanding the requirements of (a) of
this section, in a communication transmitted through
radio or other audio media and in a communication that
includes an audio component, the following statements
must be read in a manner that is easily heard; the
second statement is not required if the person paying
for the communication has no contributors or is a
political party:
This communication was paid for by (person's name).
The top contributors of (person's name) are (the name
of the largest contributors to the person under
AS 15.13.090(a)(2)(C))."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT indicated that Amendment 2 would exempt
political parties from the existing statutory requirement [in AS
15.13.090] that when paying for a communication, the three
largest contributors shall be identified in the communication.
He offered his understanding that the top two political parties
in Alaska aren't complying with that statutory requirement
anyway, and opined that they shouldn't have to, since the
political party paying for a communication would still be
identified.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed disfavor with Amendment 2's
proposed change because it would result in less disclosure;
Amendment 2 would allow political parties to conceal information
from the voters.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT disagreed.
1:48:03 PM
PAUL DAUPHINAIS, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration (DOA), in
response to questions, offered his understanding that
Amendment 2 would result in political parties being exempted
from the existing statutory requirement that when paying for a
communication, the three largest contributors shall be
identified in the communication. The political party paying for
such a communication, however, would still be statutorily
required to be identified.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, mentioning that he would be conducting
further research, relayed that he would be voting against the
adoption of Amendment 2 at this time.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn, Pruitt,
Foster, and LeDoux voted in favor of adopting Amendment 2.
Representative Gruenberg voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 4-1.
VICE CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 104.
1:52:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to report CSHB 104(JUD), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSHB 104(2d JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 173 Letter of Support-AK Family Medical Care.pdf |
HJUD 4/5/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 173 |
| CSHB 104 (JUD) Amendment R.4.pdf |
HJUD 4/5/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 104 |