Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
02/15/2023 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR2 | |
| HB38|| HJR2 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 38-APPROPRIATION LIMIT; GOV BUDGET
HJR 2-CONST. AM: APPROP LIMIT
2:03:39 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 38, "An Act relating to an appropriation limit;
relating to the budget responsibilities of the governor; and
providing for an effective date" and HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO.
2, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to an appropriation limit.
2:03:56 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:03 p.m. to 2:07 p.m.
2:07:04 PM
CHAIR VANCE asked the bill sponsor to highlight key differences
between HB 38 and HJR 2.
2:07:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILL STAPP, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 38, indicated that the main structural difference
between the two proposals was the percentages, adding that the
statutory limit was set at 11.5 percent. Further, conditional
language was included in HB 38, which tied it to HJR 2,
effectively making it so one could not properly function without
the other.
2:08:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the bill sponsor to contrast the
constitutional limit against the statutory limit of 11.5
percent.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP responded that the constitutional limit, as
proposed, was 14 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why the statutory limit was set at
11.5 percent, as opposed to keeping it consistent with the
constitutional limit of 14 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP deferred to his staff, Mr. Aoto.
2:09:32 PM
BERNARD AOTO, Staff, Representative Will Stapp, Alaska State
Legislature, said the 11.5 percent was calculated based on
spending habits as exhibited by the legislature in the late
1970s prior to the oil boom of the 1980s and the constitutional
cap, as provided in 1983.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the governor's [FY 24]
budget proposal would fall underneath the statutory limit
proposed in HB 38.
MR. AOTO stated that the governor's proposed budget would breach
the statutory limit. He added that the legislature would have
the ability breach the statutory limit, as long as
appropriations remained underneath the constitutional limit. He
noted that neither HB 38 nor HJR 2 would impact the FY 24
budget, as both were intertwined, and the constitutional
provision required a vote of the people to go into effect.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which HB 38
passed the legislature sooner than HJR 2. He sought to confirm
that the statutory limit would not go into effect until the
constitutional provision was enacted.
MR. AOTO answered yes.
2:11:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked whether the statutory limit included
exceptions related to the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
(AMHTA).
MR. AOTO acknowledged that the exceptions differed between HJR 2
and HB 38; however, he shared his belief that the exceptions
"were supposed to match." He remarked, "the mental health
funds, as an exception in one, are meant to keep it in line with
the other."
REPRESENTATIVE GROH requested a more extensive explanation.
2:12:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inquired about the vote threshold required
to surpass the statutory spending cap.
MR. AOTO shared his understanding that a two-thirds vote of the
legislative body was needed to override the statutory limit. He
reiterated that because HB 38 was tied to the constitutional
limit provided in HJR 2, the statutory limit would not be
effective until the constitutional provision was voted on by
Alaskans and subsequently enacted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY questioned why the statutory limit was tied
to the constitutional limit.
MR. AOTO stated that the constitutional limit served as an
enforcement mechanism, as the legislature had the ability to
override the statutory spending limit with a two-thirds vote.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY expressed confusion as to the vote threshold
required to surpass the proposed statutory spending limit.
MR. AOTO deferred to Ms. Marx.
2:16:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP asked Representative Gray to rephrase the
question.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inquired about the vote count required to
surpass the statutory limit. Additionally, he asked whether the
constitutional limit could be surpassed with a vote of the
legislature.
MR. AOTO shared his understanding that the constitutional
[limit] could not be surpassed by the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY remarked:
Correct me if I'm wrong, if we just had the statutory
11.5 percent we would just need 21 votes to
override, but if we put the constitutional amendment
in place, there's language that states that we would
need two-thirds to override that 11.5 percent. We
can't go above 14 percent but we could go above 11.5
percent with a two-thirds vote; however, without that
constitutional amendment, we could override that 11.5
percent with 21 [votes].
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP clarified that Representative Gray's
summation was not entirely accurate. He reminded the committee
that if HJR 2 did not pass, the statutory limit would cease to
exist due to the conditional language in the bill.
CHAIR VANCE asked Ms. Marx to speak to the vote thresholds
required to surpass a statutory spending limit and a
constitutional spending limit.
2:18:54 PM
MARIE MARX, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, LAA, clarified
that the legislature could not exceed the constitutional limit,
as the state constitution was binding on all the people of
Alaska, including the legislature.
CHAIR VANCE inquired about the repercussions for exceeding the
constitutional limit.
MS. MARX speculated that the action would be subject to
litigation and resolved through the courts.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether there had been instances of historical
action against the legislature for similar scenarios.
MS. MARX did not know that answer with regard to the
appropriation limit. She referenced the 2020 lawsuit pertaining
to the RPL process [Eric Forrer v. State of Alaska], in which a
citizen asserted that using RPLs to allocate certain federal
funds was unconstitutional and could only be done with an act of
the legislature. She added that there were other recent
instances, in addition to the aforementioned case, of citizens
suing the legislature for unconstitutional actions.
2:21:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked how the courts had responded in
the past to the violation of an appropriation statute.
MS. MARX stated that the statutory limit was not binding in
regard to legislative spending. She stressed that, per the
state constitution, the legislature had the absolute power of
appropriation, which could not be limited by statutory
authority. She reiterated that constitutionally, the
legislature was not bound by statutory appropriation limits.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER inferred that the courts would likely
rule in the legislature's favor if a citizen were to sue the
state for violating the statutory appropriation limit.
2:24:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the two-thirds vote that
Mr. Aoto had referenced earlier. He questioned the mechanism by
which the legislature could violate statute with a two-thirds
vote.
MR. AOTO stated that he had misspoken.
2:24:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH pointed out that there was a provision in
HJR 2 that allowed for an affirmative vote of two-thirds of each
legislative body to appropriate an additional amount for capitol
improvements. He asked whether that had been the point of
confusion.
MR. AOTO remarked, "In all honesty, the entire line of
questioning was very confusing."
2:25:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared his understanding that unless the
legislature could come up with an affirmative two-thirds vote of
both bodies to pass a constitutional amendment, any spending
limit would not be enforced by the courts against the
legislature. Effectively, the legislature could spend as much
as it wanted, he surmised. He asked whether that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP remarked, "All the more reason to have a
constitutional spending limit to have some sort of restraint on
individuals."
MR. AOTO confirmed that Representative Eastman's summation was
accurate. He pointed out that the legislature had breached the
existing statutory spending limit several times in recent years;
however, the current constitutional limit had not been
surpassed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that it would be extremely
difficult to breach the existing constitutional spending limit.
2:27:23 PM
CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on HB 38; after ascertaining
that no one wished to testify online or in person, she closed
public testimony. She announced that HB 38 and HJR 2 would be
held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR 2 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 2 |
| HJR 2 - v.A.PDF |
HJUD 2/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 2 |
| HJR 2 - Fiscal Note - DOE.pdf |
HJUD 2/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 2 |
| HB 38 - Leg Memo FPWG.pdf |
HJUD 2/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 38 |
| HB 38 - Leg Memo PFD.pdf |
HJUD 2/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 38 |
| HB 38 - Fiscal Note - OMB.pdf |
HJUD 2/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 38 |
| HB 38 - HJR 2 Presentation 1.25.23.pdf |
HJUD 1/27/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 38 HJR 2 |
| HB 38 - HJR 2 Research Appropriation Limit Data.pdf |
HJUD 1/27/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 38 HJR 2 |
| HB 38 - HJR 2 Research GDP information 1.25.23.pdf |
HJUD 1/27/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 38 HJR 2 |
| HB 38 - HJR 2 Reserach AG Opinion from 1983 1.25.23.pdf |
HJUD 1/27/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 38 HJR 2 |