Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120

02/10/2020 01:00 PM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
*+ HB 201 DEFENSE OF PUB. OFFICER: ETHICS COMPLAINT TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+= HJR 15 CONST. AM: VOTES NEEDED FOR VETO OVERRIDE TELECONFERENCED
Moved HJR 15 Out of Committee
+= HB 133 JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT TELECONFERENCED
Moved HB 133 Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
        HJR 15-CONST. AM: VOTES NEEDED FOR VETO OVERRIDE                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:50:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  JOINT RESOLUTION  NO. 15,  Proposing an  amendment to  the                                                               
Constitution  of the  State of  Alaska relating  to actions  upon                                                               
veto.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:50:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN   stated  that   Legislative  Legal   Services  has                                                               
permission to  make any technical  and conforming changes  to HJR
15.  He  added that his office had received  one amendment to the                                                               
resolution.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:51:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  moved to  adopt Amendment 1,  labeled 31-                                                               
LS0862\M.1, Wallace, 2/6/20, which read as follows:                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 13:                                                                                                           
          Delete "fifth"                                                                                                        
          Insert "third [FIFTH]"                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
          Page 1, line 15:                                                                                                      
          Delete "fifth"                                                                                                        
          Insert "third" [FIFTH]                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:51:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:51:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN explained  that Amendment  1 would  lower                                                               
the time requirement,  proposed under HJR 15 for  a veto override                                                               
vote,  from five  days  to  three days.    He  explained that  it                                                               
occurred to  him that five  days is a long  time to try  and keep                                                               
upwards of sixty legislators together  in one place, and having a                                                               
lower  veto override  vote  threshold should  make  it easier  to                                                               
gather the votes and require less time.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:53:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX remarked  that  the work  of a  legislator                                                               
takes place  over the course  of 90 to  120 days, and  similar to                                                               
other  work  situations, it  should  be  assumed that  without  a                                                               
compelling reason to be absent,  legislators should be present at                                                               
the  place of  their  employment; therefore,  she  doesn't see  a                                                               
difference as  to whether the  time frame  is five days  or three                                                               
days.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:54:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   STUTES    remarked   that   she    agreed   with                                                               
Representative LeDoux; a legislator  should remain present during                                                               
the legislative  session, as it  is his/her place  of employment.                                                               
She  remarked that  she does  not  think that  three days  allows                                                               
enough time to gather and  discuss whether there is potential for                                                               
an override.   She explained  that just this session,  there were                                                               
five days  to come together  for an override and  the legislature                                                               
was  barely able  to make  it by  the fifth  day; therefore,  she                                                               
remarked that  she thinks it  would be inappropriate to  cut that                                                               
time down to three days.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:55:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining  there was no further discussion                                                               
on Amendment 1, asked whether the objection was maintained.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:55:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES stated that the objection was maintained.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:55:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN   commented  that  he  agrees   with  the                                                               
comments from Representatives LeDoux and  Stutes.  He stated that                                                               
he  does not  see a  reason to  change the  constitution at  this                                                               
point.   He said that if  this were a recurring  issue, which had                                                               
been  discussed   previously,  he   thinks  it  might   be  worth                                                               
considering; however, he thinks HJR  15 was intended to address a                                                               
political situation with a particular governor.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:55:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN   asked  Representative  Eastman  whether   he  was                                                               
speaking to Amendment 1 of this resolution.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied that  he was speaking to Amendment                                                               
1.   He stated  that if the  route of making  it easier  and more                                                               
streamlined to override vetoes is  not being taken, then he would                                                               
be inclined to withdraw the amendment.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:56:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Amendment 1.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:56:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated  that she does not  think that there                                                               
is any need  to change the constitution.  She  expressed that she                                                               
thinks  HJR 15  is the  result of  an unhappiness  about the  way                                                               
recent veto overrides  went, but she thinks that  there would not                                                               
have been a  different outcome even if HJR 15  had been in effect                                                               
during the  veto overrides.   She summarized  that she  would not                                                               
get in the way of HJR 15  advancing, but she is not thrilled with                                                               
the proposed joint resolution.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:57:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated that in  comparison to the rest of                                                               
the U.S.  states, she  finds it  amazing that  Alaska has  such a                                                               
high  veto override  vote threshold.   She  remarked that  Alaska                                                               
considers itself  special, but she  doesn't think that  Alaska is                                                               
so unique as to require  the three-fourths vote that it currently                                                               
does  for an  override, when  two-thirds would  be a  substantial                                                               
enough hurdle to  overcome.  She expressed that  for that reason,                                                               
she is in support of HJR 15.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:58:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES stated that  she agrees with Representative                                                               
Drummond and she thinks that  a three-fourths vote threshold is a                                                               
high  bar   to  achieve.     She  said   that  she   agreed  with                                                               
Representative LeDoux and  even if it had been  a two-thirds veto                                                               
override vote requirement in the  recent vote, the override would                                                               
have failed; however,  she disagreed with the  statement that HJR
15 is only a reaction to  this specific administration.  She said                                                               
that she  thinks this specific  instance brought the issue  of an                                                               
incredibly high vote  requirement to the surface, and  she was in                                                               
support of HJR 15.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:58:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated  that he thinks HJR 15  might be an                                                               
elegant solution  in search of a  problem.  He explained  that if                                                               
the problem is that it is too  hard to raise revenue bills to get                                                               
past governors,  then he  thinks this would  be a  good solution;                                                               
however, he remarked that he  has not heard much discussion about                                                               
this being  the problem, and he  has not heard this  issue raised                                                               
prior to the most recent veto  override vote.  He summarized that                                                               
he thinks  the next election  would be  a better solution  to the                                                               
problem than changing the constitution.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:59:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SHAW   stated  that  he  would   like  to  mirror                                                               
Representative LeDoux's comments, in  that a lower vote threshold                                                               
would not have  made a difference.  He said  he understands where                                                               
Representative Stutes is  coming from, but it is  hard to balance                                                               
against the  loss of the  voice of the minority,  considering the                                                               
threshold as  is, and stated that  he is probably not  in support                                                               
of HJR 15.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:00:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that he  thinks HJR 15 "has a journey"                                                               
and, like Representative LeDoux, he  would not stop the bill from                                                               
further discussion.   He expressed  that he wanted to  learn more                                                               
about the  long-term policy impacts  of the resolution, as  he is                                                               
interested in a  just and fair process that does  not look at the                                                               
situation  considering  any  one   personality  or  one  specific                                                               
governor.   He  added  that  he thinks  it  is worth  considering                                                               
whether  Alaska would  be  better served  with  a different  vote                                                               
threshold  over the  course of  several decades.   He  summarized                                                               
that he  supports HJR 15 moving  out of committee and  will watch                                                               
it on  its journey  but does  not know whether  it is  the proper                                                               
course of  action yet.   He stated  that he appreciated  the bill                                                               
sponsor bringing the issue to the committee's attention.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:01:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  commented that when he  served as the Mayor  of the                                                               
City of Anchorage,  there was a point in time  in which he vetoed                                                               
a  funding bill  that was  bothersome  to much  of the  Anchorage                                                               
Assembly.  He expressed that he does  not see this as an issue of                                                               
trying to protect the minority, and  said he was reminded that it                                                               
is important to build coalitions and  work with other people.  He                                                               
explained that  he had spoken  with the members of  the Anchorage                                                               
Assembly to see  whether he had the numbers to  support the veto,                                                               
before he  attempted to exercise a  veto authority as mayor.   He                                                               
expressed that  he did not  think it  was good politics  to think                                                               
that he lived in a world alone.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that he  thinks a two-thirds override vote                                                               
threshold encourages the governor to  spend time working with the                                                               
legislature  to build  the kind  of coalition  that an  effective                                                               
governor needs  to do  his/her job  well.   He expressed  that he                                                               
thinks that  having the  highest veto  override threshold  in the                                                               
country,  as Alaska  does, encourages  a governor  to think  that                                                               
he/she is  a king/queen  and that  he/she does  not need  to work                                                               
with the legislature  to find a room for  consensus and negotiate                                                               
in good faith to make the  government work better.  He summarized                                                               
that he supports  passage of HJR 15 and, until  he sees something                                                               
that changes  his perspective,  he expects  to support  it moving                                                               
forward.  He expressed that giving  this option to the voters and                                                               
having a meaningful  debate would give voters  the opportunity to                                                               
make a  reasonable decision  about whether  they want  a governor                                                               
with  the authority  on finances  similar  to a  king/queen or  a                                                               
governor who will  work with a broad cross section  of the public                                                               
as he/she was elected to do.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:03:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to report  HJR 15 out of committee with                                                               
individual  recommendations  and  the accompanying  fiscal  note.                                                               
There  being no  objection, HJR  15 was  reported from  the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 201 v. U 2.10.2020.PDF HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 201
HB 201 Sponsor Statement 2.10.2020.pdf HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 201
HJR 15 v. M 1.21.2020.PDF HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM
HJR 15
HJR 15 Sponsor Statement 1.21.2020.pdf HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM
HJR 15
HJR 15 Sectional Analysis v. M 1.21.2020.pdf HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM
HJR 15
HJR 15 Supporting Document - NCSL Table 1.21.2020.pdf HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HSTA 1/23/2020 3:00:00 PM
HJR 15
HJR 15 Presentation 2.5.2020.pdf HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HJR 15
HJR 15 Testimony HJUD Received by 2.7.2020.pdf HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HJR 15
HJR 15 v. M Amendment #1 HJUD 2.10.2020.pdf HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HJR 15
HJR 15 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 1.29.2020.pdf HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HJR 15
HJR 15 v. M Amendment #1 HJUD (Withdrawn) 2.10.2020.pdf HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HJR 15
HB 133 v. M 2.3.2020.PDF HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 133
HB 133 Sponsor Statement 2.3.2020.pdf HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 133
HB 133 Sectional Analysis v. M 2.3.2020.pdf HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 133
HB 133 Supporting Document - One-Sheeter 2.3.2020.pdf HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 133
HB 133 Supporting Document - Carey Case 4.22.2019.pdf HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 133
HB 133 Supporting Document - Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Areas 2.3.2020.pdf HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 133
HB 133 Supporting Document - Questions and Answers 2.3.2020.pdf HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 133
HB 133 Supporting Document - DJJ Letter 5.13.19.pdf HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 133
HB 133 PowerPoint Presentation 2.4.2020.pdf HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 133
HB 133 Memo to HJUD 2.6.2020.pdf HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 133
HB 133 Fiscal Note DHSS-PS 1.16.2020.pdf HJUD 2/5/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/7/2020 1:45:00 PM
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM
HB 133