Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/01/1999 01:04 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 3 - CONST. AM: WILDLIFE INITIATIVES Number 029 CO-CHAIR OGAN again brought before the committee House Joint Resolution No. 3, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiatives regarding natural resources belonging to the state. He asked Tamara Cook to brief the committee on whether this could be interpreted by the supreme court as a revision, rather than as an amendment. Number 054 TAMARA COOK, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, told members that last year before the election a suit was brought involving three proposed constitutional amendments that the legislature was seeking to have placed on the general ballot. Of those three, the supreme court ordered that one not appear on the ballot; that the second one appear on the ballot as written; and that the third one partially appear on the ballot, with the last sentence deleted. MS. COOK said the basis for this decision was a distinction that the supreme court found between the power of the legislature to suggest an amendment to the constitution and the notion that a revision must be accomplished in a constitutional convention. The court issued its ruling in time for the election ballots to be prepared. Also at the time it issued what it designated as a preliminary opinion, and the court indicated that a full opinion would be following; however, that has not come out yet. Ms. Cook stated, "So, the obvious question that we're confronted with here in the legislature is how to distinguish between an acceptable constitutional amendment, which the legislature has the power to propose, and a change that is so broad that it would be deemed by the court to be a revision of the constitution and therefore available only at a constitutional convention." Number 087 MS. COOK told members the court basically said that changes that are few, simple and independent can be considered amendments. In addition, there are factors it would look at. First is whether the proposal is simple to express and understand. Second is whether it is complete within itself. Ms. Cook explained, "By that, I think the court means, 'Is there an either actual or implied change to other sections in the constitution that will result from the proposal in front of the court?'" A third factor is whether it relates to only one subject; Ms. Cook said it is interesting that the court appears to have adopted a single- subject test, which already applies to statutes but now seems to apply on the constitutional amendment level. The last factor is whether it substantially affects numerous sections of the constitution. MS. COOK said although the court looks at those factors, it was very careful to say it would decide whether something is an amendment or a revision on a case-by-case basis. She noted that the court described a revision as being "a change that is sweeping." Ms. Cook stated, "So, I suppose the court has left itself open the possibility to determine that even a very simple change could be so sweeping from a practical effect - or a change in policy might be so significant - that perhaps a court would find even a very simple constitutional change that met the four guidelines as still being sweeping in scope because of its effect. And that's basically all we know right now. We don't have the final opinion. We don't have any other case law. It's the first time it's come up in our jurisdiction in this state; it has come up in some other states, but it's hard to know how much of the reasoning in those other cases our court will accept or rely on." MS. COOK told members, "With respect to the proposal that you have before you in this committee, it appears that this one meets the four criteria. It ought to be acceptable as an amendment - a proposed amendment - under the factors that the court articulated. It leaves out that one little question about whether changing the power of initiative, in itself, from a policy point of view, is so sweeping a change that it would be a revision. But from all that I know from this preliminary opinion, the resolution that you're considering now would probably survive as a potential proposed amendment." Number 175 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, sponsor of HJR 3, noted that there had been some reaction to the resolution suggesting it would be an "anti-anti-development initiative." He pointed out that the sword cuts both ways, however, so that if people in a particular district wanted to present an initiative that allowed some additional hunting of wolves or oil drilling, for example, it would have to meet this criteria. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to a handout titled, "Initiatives Appearing on the Ballot in Alaska." He noted that the same-day airborne hunting initiative in 1996 did not achieve a two-thirds' majority either for or against it. Similarly, two-thirds of the voters did not reject the recent wolf snaring issue. Representative Bunde suggested that HJR 3 would increase public participation because the bar is raised, and it would certainly increase the amount of information disseminated, hopefully raising it to a more factual level. Number 237 CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Patti Swenson to provide a brief overview of how different states deal with this type of wildlife initiative. PATTI SWENSON, Legislative Assistant to Representative Con Bunde, Alaska State Legislature, referred to the third-from-last page in the handout. She told members that Utah seems to have the most recently passed legislation relating to wildlife initiatives, which passed by 56.1 percent of the vote. Utah's law is very similar to Alaska's, and it is the one upon which Alaska's was modeled. CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Utah's law had been challenged in court. Number 280 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that challenge has not, to his knowledge, been initiated, although it is anticipated. He noted that the attempt to limit access to the initiative process by having more stringent requirements for the signature gatherers was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as an infringement upon the "right of political speech." Number 320 JOEL BENNETT came forward to testify in opposition to HJR 3. He specified that he was speaking on his own behalf, but he informed members he had served on the Board of Game for 14 years and had been co-chair of the successful initiative effort on Proposition 3 in 1996. Mr. Bennett indicated he believes that initiative was the genesis for HJR 3, which he opposes. He referred to the extensive discussion at the constitutional convention, then said, "We've been a state now for a lot of years with this provision in place, and I don't see why it's necessary to change it." He reminded members that of the two wildlife initiatives since 1995, one passed and one failed. He said the public is more than able to take the facts, digest them, and thoroughly examine these important matters. MR. BENNETT agreed there could be some improvements in the initiative process, saying there has been legitimate criticism about how signatures are gathered, for example, as well as about some of the fine-tuning of the process. He concluded by cautioning that taking such a broad-based step as HJR 3 to essentially restrict an important part of this state's democratic process is a big mistake. Number 385 CO-CHAIR OGAN, acknowledging Mr. Bennett's part in putting together the same-day airborne hunting initiative, stated his belief that people had thought they were voting on shooting wolves from airplanes, which was not the case. He pointed out the wording of the initiative was even misleading. MR. BENNETT said that wasn't the intent, stating that there are some built-in protections in the process, including an explanation set in front of the voters that is a fair description of what the initiative does. He stated, "I think in that case, to us it was clear what that initiative did. It was a contentious issue; it always has been for the state. So naturally there'd be people who would construe it differently." In addition to built-in protections, Mr. Bennett said the people are smart enough to read these things and understand what they mean, and that if there are drafting defects, so be it, it is part of the process that the constitutional convention members recognized as perhaps a trade-off for that check and balance. He mentioned the gravity of changing something like a basic constitutional provision. Number 489 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES read from Article VIII, Section 2, General Authority, which says the legislature shall provide for the utilization, development and conservation of all natural resources. She said it seems the management of Alaska's resources is beginning to take place through the initiative process. She stated her belief that the legislature has the sole authority under the constitution for management of Alaska's fish, wildlife, and other replenishable resources, but that the legislature chooses to delegate some of that responsibility to the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game. Representative Barnes asked Mr. Bennett whether, as a former Board of Game member, it doesn't worry him that the authority could be "initiated away," for example, causing potential biological problems. Number 468 MR. BENNETT responded to Representative Barnes that he understands her point of view, but that the legislature delegates to the Board of Game, which adopts regulations that the legislature can repeal. An initiative can be passed, but it can be amended by the legislature, and it can be repealed by the legislature after two years. These are protections built into that provision. Mr. Bennett said he just doesn't see the initiative provision as being destructive to [Article] VIII, which clearly enumerates that power, because the initiative article also gives a separate ability of the people to make a change; that can exist for a short period of time or be amended by the legislature. Ultimately, the legislature still retains the authority to affect anything passed by initiative, or any regulation passed by the Board of Game. Number 489 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES replied that prior to the A.L.I.V.E. court decision, the legislature was allowed to overturn a regulation by a simple resolution. Since then, she had never known the legislature to pass legislation overturning a regulation, although she suggested hundreds should have been overturned. Number 510 MR. BENNETT expressed his belief that the two initiatives under discussion did not involve allocation, especially the one he had worked on, which dealt with a method, not an allocation. He added that in that sense it is less like management than would be a strict allocation of resources. Number 538 JOHNNY GRAMES testified via teleconference from Anchorage, saying he has been an environmentalist in Alaska since he was born here. He told members that initiative, referendum and recall are safety valves to representative democracy, as they are direct action by the people. He reminded members that they had been elected by a majority of the same voters that vote on these initiatives. Mr. Grames indicated that when someone tries to get an appointment on the Board of Game, this committee "trashes" that person if he or she is an environmentalist, so that the Board of Game doesn't reflect all of the citizens and voters of Alaska. He said that is one cause of initiatives like the one that committee members apparently find so offensive. He concluded by saying he believes HJR 3 sets a very dangerous precedent. Number 566 CO-CHAIR OGAN asked if anyone else wished to testify, then requested that committee members bone up on the "revision versus amendment" issue, noting that he would make material available to any members who had not yet received it. He stated the belief that if HJR 3 passes, it will be challenged, and he advised members of his intention of moving the resolution from committee eventually, after thoughtful consideration. [HJR 3 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|