Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/24/2019 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB52 | |
| SB80 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 80-INITIATIVE SEVERABILITY
1:41:41 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the final order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 80, "An Act relating to proposing and enacting
laws by initiative."
1:42:07 PM
CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on SB 80.
1:42:29 PM
KATI CAPOZZI, President and CEO, Alaska State Chamber of
Commerce, Eagle River said that her nonprofit organization was
founded in 1953 to promote a positive business environment in
Alaska. The Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (State Chamber]
represents hundreds of businesses, manufacturers, and local
chambers of commerce across the state. These companies employ
more than 100,000 hard-working Alaskans, she said. The State
Chamber believes that SB 80 is necessary to maintain the
integrity of the signature-gathering process for a ballot
measure.
She explained that once voters sign their names to specific
ballot measure language, their support should be applied only to
the exact language to which they lent their names. If any court
or courts decide to alter or remove language from the
initiative, it cannot be assumed that the voters' support
remains. If a court severs language from a proposed ballot
measure, it should be mandatory that initiative proponents
support the revised language that actually appears on the
ballot.
MS. CAPOZZI said the State Chamber supports SB 80 because it
will correct a deficiency that has been overlooked in the ballot
initiative process. Further, the organization also believes that
this bill will result in fewer protracted legal battles once
ballot-measure proponents understand that if any section of the
initiative does not pass constitutional muster, the proponents
would be required to revert to the signature gathering stage of
the process. Passage of SB 80 should result in more carefully-
crafted-ballot measures at the outset, she said. This would
result in a smoother, more predictable process for all parties,
whether the parties support or oppose the ballot measure in
question.
1:44:22 PM
LAURA BONNER, representing herself, Anchorage, said that she is
a 47-year retiree who strongly opposes SB 80. She offered her
belief that this bill would usurp the peoples' power in the
initiative process. Gathering the number of signatures in all 40
districts to place an initiative on the ballot takes
considerable time, effort, and expense. If SB 80 were to pass,
if even one word was changed, added, or deleted that process
would need to start over. She has signed numerous petitions over
the years, sometimes just because she wanted to see the issue
come before the voters, she said. She said she has seen
legislators support a proposed bill [in committee] but vote
against it on the floor because the bill was amended, or the
legislator obtained more information on the bill. It is the
floor vote that matters in the legislature; likewise, it is a
person's vote during the election that matters in terms of an
initiative. She expressed concern that SB 80 would stifle
Alaskans' constitutional rights. Although she is not an
attorney, she has concerns about potential constitutional issues
related to this bill.
1:46:31 PM
BETHANY MARCUM, Executive Director, Alaska Policy Forum,
Anchorage, said that Alaska is fortunate to have a
constitutionally enshrined ballot initiative process. Not all
states trust their citizens to participate directly in the
legislative process. Most Alaskans would agree this is an
important right. In order for the initiative process to continue
to have value for future generations of Alaskans, it is
imperative that the integrity of the process is ensured.
Currently, a loophole created by past Alaska Supreme Court
decisions allow the courts to tamper with the initiative
language. She related that when the courts remove
unconstitutional provisions, the end result is that the language
voters see on their ballots may be different than the language
in the petition booklet that voters signed. This is what
happened last year with Ballot Initiative 1, she said. She
characterized it as an injustice to voters. Further, the
legislature can be stripped of its role to act as a
counterbalance in the process. The legislature has the right to
pass legislation that is substantially the same as proposed
initiatives, thus removing those initiatives from the ballot.
When courts change the language, the legislature loses its
ability to provide oversight on the process. She urged members
to consider [SB] 80 to rectify this situation.
1:48:40 PM
CHAIR HUGHES after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SB 80.
1:48:48 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referred to a memo with legal analysis from the
Division of Legislative Legal Services, [Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency memo of 4/23/19 from Alpheus Bullard,
Legislative Counsel] as to the constitutionality of SB 80. The
memo cited the rule of construction, in Latin [expression unius
est exclusio alterius" or "the expression of one thing is the
exclusion of another".] In essence, the legal counsel
interpreted that the Constitution of the State of Alaska
provides some limits and strictures on the peoples' ability to
exercise the legislative power directly, but having those limits
and rules in place means that the legislature does not get to do
other limits and rules on the peoples' power, at least not
through statutes. He related a scenario he had with a
constituent who was interested in obtaining a presidential
candidate's tax returns. The Legislative Legal Research answer
was the same, that the U.S. Constitution has a set of
qualifications and the state does not get to add more
qualifications, which is the same principle, he said. He said he
would not hold up the bill today, but he does have concerns.
CHAIR HUGHES said she also reviewed the memo. She asked the
record to reflect her comments, that the restrictions in Article
XI, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and
read, "The initiative shall not be used to dedicate revenues,
make or repeal appropriations, create courts, define the
jurisdiction of courts or prescribe their rules, or enact local
or special legislation.". She said she realizes that those are
restrictions on content and not process.
She referred to the "Law-Making Power" in Article XII" of the
Constitution of the State of Alaska, and read, "As used in this
constitution, the terms 'by law' and 'by the legislature,' or
variations of these terms, are used interchangeably when related
to law-making powers. Unless clearly inapplicable, the law-
making powers assigned to the legislature may be exercised by
the people through the initiative, subject to the limitations of
Article XI."
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether this would create an imbalance
between the initiative and what the people can do. She said that
when the legislature passes a law, and the governor signs it, it
can be appealed in court. The courts can find some sections in a
bill could be found unconstitutional and pulled out, but the
rest of the bill stands. Thus, the legislature's process has
severability. She asserted that SB 80 does not remove that
ability because if an initiative were to pass and become law, 90
days after passage, if challenged, the court could remove parts
that it deems unconstitutional, so the rest of the initiative
would stand. She concluded that these "law-making powers" as
being very balanced. This refers to severability in the process,
she said.
She commented that one benefit is that the people putting forth
initiatives will work harder to create accurate language during
the drafting of initiatives. This would reduce time and effort
spent by the Lieutenant Governor's office and by the Alaska
Court System, she said. She acknowledged that the analogy of the
balance and law-making power is not a perfect analogy. However,
people are signing petitions based on the language that they
believe will be on the ballot. If it is rewritten it could be
likened to her duties, if she were to cosponsor a bill and vote
in favor of it, but the bill is rewritten before the governor
signs it. At that point her name is on a final bill that she
voted for, yet it contains language she does not support.
CHAIR HUGHES characterized [SB 80] as being about the process,
that the severability still stands for the initiative process
after it becomes law. The courts could determine a part of it is
not constitutional, but the rest would stand. She acknowledged
that the Division of Legislative Legal [Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency] does a good job, but she thinks that the
restrictions in the Constitution of the State of Alaska are
content related and that the severability still holds for the
initiative process after it becomes law.
1:55:37 PM
SENATOR CHRIS BIRCH, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau agreed
with the Chair's comments. He said that fundamentally it comes
down to truth in advertising. He said that SB 80 would restore a
check in the "checks and balances" of the constitutional
framers' vision of the initiative process. The intent of the
voters at the signature phase should matter, he said. When
signing the petition, these voters are not giving their support
to a general concept for legislation. The courts should not be
empowered to divine the intent of those who support an
initiative to guess what degree of changes would be permissible.
The legislature has an obligation and right by the Constitution
of the State of Alaska to stop an initiative by enacting
similarly situated legislation. If the courts revise initiatives
after the legislative review process, they deny the legislature
its right to review a revised initiative. He said he would
appreciate the committee's support.
1:57:09 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to report SB 80, work order 31-LS0185\U,
Version U, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR HUGHES found no objection. Therefore, SB 80 was reported
from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Memorandum from Legal Services 4/23/2019.pdf |
SJUD 4/24/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |