Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/26/2001 08:03 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 213 - INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS [HJR 25 was mentioned briefly during this discussion of HB 213.] Number 0111 CHAIR COGHILL announced that the last order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 213, "An Act relating to initiative and referendum petitions; and providing for an effective date." Number 0118 RANDY RUARO, Staff to Representative Bill Williams, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, explained on behalf of the sponsor that HB 213 and HJR 25 address the initiative process in the State of Alaska, ensuring a broad level of statewide support of an issue prior to that issue being put before the voters. Currently, he said, the sponsor of an initiative can gather all the required signatures from just a few areas of the state; the current system neither requires nor promotes a statewide perspective in determining which topics will appear on the ballot as an initiative. On behalf of Representative Williams, Mr. Ruaro urged the committee to support HB 213. Number 0273 KENNETH P. JACOBUS, Attorney, testifying via teleconference in opposition to HB 213, noted that he has just faxed the committee documents that were submitted last year in response to [HB 45 and HJR 7] from the 21st Legislature, legislation similar to this year's HB 213 and HJR 25 but which, he added, were not as bad as the current legislation. He noted that he has two points to discuss. His first point is that although HB 213 seems like a simple change, it in fact destroys the entire initiative process. He said: It takes one signature requirement that we had before [and] converts it to 31 signature requirements .... [If] you miss one of your signature requirements, your bill will not be on the ballot. What this does is takes the initiative process totally away from the average individual; the only people that will even be able to participate are [those involved in] the well- financed initiatives - the special interest groups who come up to Alaska with their money to get something passed. We don't want to do that. On the second point: ... I don't really see, as an Alaskan Republican, why the Republicans of Alaska should lead the charge to deprive the voters of Alaska of their constitutional rights to initiative. We want to elect a Republican governor at the next election and retain Republican seats in the newly reapportioned legislature. We cannot have a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot which will detract from this and allow our opponents to argue that the Republicans want to deprive the voters of Alaska of their initiative rights. We had this problem last time. It was a good idea to try to take the subject of wildlife out of the initiative process, but we absolutely got roasted on that, and that went down. This particular bill that Representative Williams ... [has] proposed, although he may have good intentions, ... [is] a bad bill, and it should be defeated at this point. The people of Alaska should not have their rights of initiative taken away from them. Number 0512 UWE KALENKA testified via teleconference and said simply that from his perspective, HB 213 is totally unnecessary and is a thinly veiled attempt to deprive the people of their rights of initiative. The electorate will become even more jaded and distrustful of the politicians and the process if this bill is passed into law. "This bill is ill-conceived, ill-advised, and should not be passed into law, period," he concluded. Number 0581 AL ANDERS, Alaska Libertarian Party, testified via teleconference and said that he, too, opposes HB 213. It is already extremely difficult to put initiatives on the ballot, and it can be difficult securing permission to use certain locations for circulating petitions, even in a populated area such as Anchorage. What HB 213 does is change it "from one petition drive to 30 different petition drives because you have to get 7 percent of the signatures in each district." He suggested that instead of making it more difficult to put initiatives on the ballot, the legislature should make it easier. The initiative process is too important to the citizens of Alaska to deprive them of it, and is far more democratic than simply having all issues decided by the legislature, he opined. People don't always have the time to attend legislative hearings, but when an initiative goes on the ballot, people participate. If the goal is to ensure that people from all districts become involved in the initiative process, he said, then the format should be changed from a booklet to a single sheet that could be downloaded off the Internet. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said, "In fairness to the voters, if you want a statewide initiative on a ballot, you should have representation from each part of the state." He said he thinks HB 213 makes perfectly good sense and would be good public policy. MR. ANDERS responded that there is no demonstrated need for HB 213, and that the requirements proposed by it make the initiative process extremely onerous; "it's going to kill the initiative process for citizen activists." He opined that only well-funded environmentalists groups, or other groups who are able to afford it, would be able to put initiatives on the ballot. MR. JACOBUS noted that Randall Patterson, who had to leave the meeting before his name was called, was also opposed to HB 213. Number 0967 JAMES PRICE testified via teleconference and said that he is opposed to HB 213. "I believe that it needlessly dilutes the constitutional powers of the people; I don't think there's been any past problems with any kind of trivial initiatives, and I don't believe that there is a problem that requires a legislative fix or this type of amendment." He opined that the initiative process is a valuable and necessary power wielded by the people of Alaska. He also opined that HB 213 would make ballot initiatives more expensive and difficult to pursue. CHAIR COGHILL announced that HB 213 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|