Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/02/2000 01:36 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Number 2238
HJR 7-CONST AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
HB 45-INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
REPRESENTATIVE WILLLIAMS was in attendance to answer questions.
MS. SANDRA MATTIE, Alaskan Way of Life, Trappers Assn. and Caribou
Calf Protection Program, said she was testifying on HJR 7 and
supports the bill. The ballot initiative process must be preserved
and protected from exploitation. Alaska needs to be protected from
outside interest groups that have an affect on what is placed on
the ballot. There must be opportunities for ballot initiatives
that reflect the desires of all Alaskans. Requiring signatures to
be collected from qualified voters from all Alaskan voting
districts, equal in number to a minimum of 10% to 15% of those who
voted in the preceding general election will ensure this.
MR. JAMES A. CRARY, representing himself, stated the initiative
process is a constitutional right and is a serious matter. He is
against HB 45 because it limits rather than expands the process.
He suggests getting signatures over the internet, not having to
collect signatures in person, placing no cap on the price paid per
signature, reinstating the grace period, and there should be
guaranteed access to malls and other public areas.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Crary if he had reviewed CSHB 45 because
the CS has been amended to incorporate some of decisions from
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S.
182 (1999).
MR. CRARY responded he had not but HB 45 has gone way beyond the
Buckley decision by making the initiative process more restrictive.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if Mr. Crary felt it was appropriate for the
legislature to limit the amount people pay in contributions for
political campaigns.
MR. CRARY responded it is not the same thing, paying for signatures
on an initiative is different than paying for a political campaign.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked Mr. Crary if he knew of any state using
electronic media for collecting signatures on ballot initiatives.
MR. CRARY responded no, but wondered why Alaska did not
take the lead.
Number 1583
MR. AL ANDERS, Alaska Libertarian Party, expressed concern that
limits are put on how much a person can be paid for collecting
signatures. He agreed with Mr. Crary and Representative Williams
that rural areas should be included in the initiative process more
by making it easier for initiatives to be put on the ballot.
Removing the sponsor and making the petition one page--making it
easier to post on the internet and to be faxed--would make the
process more accessible for rural areas.
MR. UWE KALENKA, Alaskans for Property Tax Reform, expressed his
concern about HB 45 restricting the initiative process, and he
asked the committee to reject the bill.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Kalenka if he knew the people of Alaska
would have the opportunity to vote on this initiative.
MR KALENKA responded he knew this, but "why fix something that
isn't broken," and why spend money on this issue if there is not a
problem.
MS. CAROL TORSEN, representing herself, stated she supports HJR 7
in the original form. Due to the high concentration of voters in
Anchorage and Fairbanks, initiatives can be placed on the ballot
without any signatures from the 10 rural house districts of Alaska.
She, therefore, urges the legislature to restore HJR 7 as
originally introduced.
MR. KEN JACOBUS, representing himself, stated he does not believe
wildlife management by the ballot box is proper. He feels wildlife
management should be taken out of the initiative process by letting
people vote on the issue.
MR. JACOBUS feels it is important a circulator sponsor distinction
be recognized. An affidavit of age, residency and citizenship
should not be required because it does not matter who circulates
the petition--getting registered voters to sign is what matters.
MR. JACOBUS recommends that HJR 11 and HB 45 be defeated.
Number 1129
MR. ED EARNHART, representing himself, stated he supports HB 45.
SENATOR TORGERSON moved CSHB 45 from committee with individual
recommendations.
SENATOR ELLIS objected, feeling, though well intentioned by
Representative Williams, this legislation is a step backward in
letting the people petition the government.
Number 389
SENATOR DONLEY asked for a review of CSHB 45.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR answered CSHB 45 is the application of the Buckley
supreme court decision, making the inconsistencies of state law
compliant with federal law.
SENATOR ELLIS responded that Buckley lends itself to a separate
piece of legislation and should not be added to what Representative
Williams is trying to accomplish in his bill.
SENATOR DONLEY commented that Senator Ellis' point was valid, but
he will vote to move CSHB 45 from committee, even though he does
not support the bill, because the changes are consistent with the
federal constitution.
The roll was taken on the motion. Voting yea: SENATOR DONLEY,
SENATOR TORGERSON and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR. Voting nay: SENATOR ELLIS,
and so SCS CSHB 45(JUD) moved from committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|