Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/08/1999 08:05 AM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
April 8, 1999
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Andrew Halcro, Co-Chairman
Representative John Harris, Co-Chairman
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 23
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the community development fund, the permanent fund, and
the budget reserve fund.
- HEARD AND HELD
*HOUSE BILL NO. 155
"An Act relating to municipal assembly forms of representation and
apportionment."
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 23
SHORT TITLE: COMMUNITY DEVELOP FUND/PFD/BUD RESERVE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DAVIS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/05/99 366 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/05/99 366 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
4/08/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 155
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY APPORTIONMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) SMALLEY, Davis, Phillips
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/24/99 555 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/24/99 555 (H) CRA, JUD
3/29/99 606 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAVIS
4/07/99 679 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS
4/08/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 513
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2693
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as Sponsor of HJR 23.
DEB DAVIDSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant
for Representative Davis
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 513
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2693
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HJR 23.
TAMARA COOK, Director
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Telephone: (907) 3867
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HJR 23 and HB 155.
KEVIN RITCHIE
Alaska Municipal League
217 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1325
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 23.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 428
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3779
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 155.
LINDA MURPHY, Borough Clerk
Kenai Peninsula Borough
144 North Binkley Street
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-4441
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged passage of HB 155.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-23, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN called the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Halcro, Harris, Murkowski
and Dyson. Representatives Morgan, Joule and Kookesh arrived at
8:10 a.m.
HJR 23 - COMMUNITY DEVELOP FUND/PFD/BUD RESERVE
Number 0030
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO announced that the first order of business
before the committee would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 23,
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the community development fund, the permanent fund, and
the budget reserve fund.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS, Sponsor of HJR 23, Alaska State Legislature,
noted that House Finance has zeroed out municipal assistance, safe
communities, and revenue sharing. There are efforts to determine
if there is money available to place in that account, but it does
not look good. This resolution, HJR 23, creates an endowment for
safe communities and revenue sharing to all municipalities in the
state. The endowment would be created with a $750 million deposit
from the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBR) which would be
placed into an account which would draw interest. Payments would
be made to municipalities each year from the earnings of that
account.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS expressed the desire for this account to grow
in order for municipalities to become less dependent on state
government. He explained that to help the account grow, HJR 23
would take two percent of the earnings of the permanent fund each
year for 20 years. A spreadsheet in the committee packet
illustrates the impact of that on the permanent fund dividend. The
endowment would replace municipal assistance and revenue sharing
payments from the general fund which is the current practice.
Number 0354
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that prior to this hearing
Representative Davis had mentioned that the Alaska Municipal League
(AML) is supportive of this. She inquired as to whether AML had
reviewed HJR 23 specifically.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied yes. He noted that this legislation
was submitted in the last legislature in which the endowment was
called the community dividend fund which has been changed to the
community development fund. Representative Davis said that he
spoke with AML last fall in Fairbanks which had already determined
that the name change should occur. The AML, per their brochures,
has given this a high priority for their organization.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out the ever present concern that
if the permanent fund is not utilized specifically for a public
purpose there would be federal tax implications. Would the two
percent of earnings alleviate the concerns regarding the
possibility of federal tax implications on the fund?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS commented that there have been discussions
that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has reviewed how Alaska has
spent the earnings of the permanent dividend fund. There were also
hearings in Washington, D.C. regarding flat-based taxes and
changing the entire IRS structure. However, all that discussion
dwindled. Representative Davis said he did not know what the IRS
is thinking.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO pointed out that Representative Davis' proposal
calls for an initial deposit of $750 million from the CBR which
would take effect 30 days after the general election, if approved
in the year 2000.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he believed that to be correct.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO inquired as to what would happen if there is not
$750 million in the CBR; from where would the funding come?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated that he was convinced that by the end
of this session, $750 million would still be in the CBR. He
believed the balance of the CBR was currently at $3.5 million.
Representative Davis did not want to spend down the large amounts
such as this unless the funds offset other expenses which would be
the case here.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked if the community development fund would be
entrusted to someone to invest.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS acknowledged that there are many questions
that relate to details regarding the administration of this
proposal. Those details have been left open. Representative Davis
hoped that AML would develop a group to develop the details and
regulations of this proposal. The current formula for distribution
of funds for safe communities and revenue sharing is complicated.
He envisioned that the AML and the Department of Community &
Regional Affairs (DCRA) would work out the details.
Number 0845
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS inquired as to whether HJR 23 would fall under
the proposed All-Alaska Plan.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that it had not been considered in the
All-Alaska Plan.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS referred to Section 18(b) which states that,
"Section 13 of this article does not apply to distributions under
this subsection." He asked why Section 13 does not apply.
DEB DAVIDSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant for
Representative Davis, Alaska State Legislature, explained that
Section 13 of the constitution deals with the requirements
regarding appropriations and that appropriations cannot force
future legislatures to do this. Ms. Davidson said, "So, by saying
that Section 13 of the constitution does not apply, it then allows
the prior section to say that that income will automatically go to
the local governments based on whatever statutes are implemented to
layout how that works." The legislature normally has the power to
determine the amount of any appropriation. By not applying Section
13, the legislature would appropriate whatever the income is and
that amount would automatically be distributed.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS stated, "Then Section 7 under dedicated
funds--I'm going to guess that having this as a constitutional
amendment, it binds all legislatures from now on as long as the
constitutional amendment stays in effect. Then Section 7 under
dedicated funds, then where does it play into that because the
constitution also says that the state may not dedicate funds?"
Number 1080
MS. DAVIDSON noted that since dedicated funds are prohibited in
statute the community development fund would be created in the
constitution as was the permanent fund. When the permanent fund
was created it was allowed to be a dedicated fund, but it was not
exempted from expenditures which is Section 13 that allows the
legislature the ability to spend the income in any manner desired.
The community development fund would be created as a dedicated
fund, but it is exempted from the expenditures section in order to
further specify that all of the income will go to a specific
purpose and will not be lowered.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH referred to Section 18(b) which only refers
to organized boroughs and cities. That would leave out many rural
communities.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS informed the committee that the intent is to
be similar to the existing municipal assistance and revenue sharing
in order to include all groups currently included.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH wanted to ensure, for the record, that the
language is understood to include those to which Representative
Davis alluded. Representative Kookesh said that if the language of
HJR 23 is followed to the letter of the law, it would make him
uncomfortable.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that it was his understanding that all
those recipients of the existing safe communities and revenue
sharing funds are probably acknowledged under Title 29 as
recognized state municipalities. Representative Davis understood
Representative Kookesh's concern and agreed closer scrutiny could
occur.
Number 1344
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE inquired as to whether dissolved communities
or unincorporated communities would be excluded under HJR 23.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated that he believed state law prohibits
the distribution of funds to organizations not recognized under
state law. He agreed that the language probably needs to be
clarified. Perhaps, someone from the Department of Law could
clarify the language. Representative Davis reiterated his intent
to include all municipalities currently under the municipal
assistance and revenue sharing provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON commented that the House Community & Regional
Affairs Standing Committee began a year ago to attempt to make it
easier for small communities to organize under state law in order
to have a mechanism for the distribution of these type programs.
He noted that not much progress has been made in that area.
Representative Dyson said that DCRA desperately attempts to get
funds to communities that have chosen not to organize under state
law. More should be done to address the problem.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS referred to Section 2 of Tamara Cook's opinion
which is included in the packet. He asked if the two percent taken
from the permanent fund earnings each year until the year 2020
would be placed into the $750 million that created the fund.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied yes and clarified that the two percent
would be placed in the principle of the endowment.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if that was on top of the interest accrued
on the $750 million.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied yes and clarified that it would be the
interest that accrued on the amount remaining in the fund after
annual distributions. Representative Davis stated that was a
concern. As previously indicated, Representative Davis wants to
see the principle grow which would probably require that 100
percent of the earnings would not be distributed each year. He
reiterated that would be left up to those who would benefit from
working out the details of the proposal.
Number 1655
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if Representative Davis envisioned
the AML and DCRA being involved in the investment of the fund.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS informed the committee that his intention was
for AML and DCRA to select the investment organization whether that
investment organization be the Permanent Fund Corporation or the
Department of Revenue.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO pointed out that if another agency administers
the fund, then there would be a management fee. Would the
management fee be paid from the fund itself?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that the management fee would be paid
from the earnings from the fund which is the current practice in
the Permanent Fund Corporation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that the next committee of referral for
HJR 23 is the House Judiciary Committee. Representative Joule
suggested that the House Judiciary Committee could address the
issue of discrimination. The constitution prohibits
discrimination, although by statute discrimination is allowed to
occur by not sharing fiscal resources with certain communities on
the basis that the community is not a municipality under state
code.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH commented that those in rural areas do what
works with regard to their government. Furthermore, Representative
Kookesh emphasized that those in rural areas are Alaskan residents.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO reiterated the concern with the language in
subsection (b) of HJR 23 which only refers to organized boroughs
and cities; where does this leave unorganized boroughs, communities
and villages. Co-Chairman Halcro understood Representative Davis'
intent was to mirror the distribution of the current municipal
revenue sharing assistance.
Number 1944
TAMARA COOK, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, recalled that there was no mechanism in
HJR 23 to distribute money to unorganized areas of the state. This
is a municipal funding source. The current revenue sharing and
municipal assistance statutes also provide the bulk of their money
to organized municipalities. However, there is a small grant that
is made under revenue sharing to unincorporated communities.
Additionally, some money is distributed to volunteer fire
departments which are not in organized areas.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH commented that Ms. Cook's statements seem
different than the sponsor's stated intent. He understood
Representative Davis' intent to be that HJR 23 would follow the
current municipal aide guidelines used to distribute funds from the
state to municipalities. Representative Kookesh reiterated his
concern that the language is very narrow, specifying only organized
boroughs and cities. Representative Kookesh expressed the need to
ensure that all municipalities under the current system be included
as the sponsor indicated was the intent. Representative Kookesh
noted that the sponsor had indicated the willingness to work with
the language to convey the aforementioned intent.
MS. COOK stated that there would not be any drafting difficulty
expanding this. As a constitutional provision, there is not much
detail in the amendment, which leaves the legislature open to
develop how the money would be distributed on a formula basis. As
drafted, distributions to unincorporated areas are not allowed.
Ms. Cook said that a slight expansion of the language is all that
is necessary to allow distribution to unincorporated communities.
Therefore, the legislature would be allowed to do what is currently
done under revenue sharing and municipal assistance. Ms. Cook
reiterated that as drafted HJR 23 would only apply to organized
municipalities under the state laws not those municipalities
organized under federal law. She noted that if the phrase, "and to
unincorporated communities" was included in HJR 23, the legislature
would be left to define that term. Ms. Cook acknowledged that the
definition of unincorporated community could be included in HJR 23,
but if that definition is included in the constitution there is no
flexibility as the state grows.
Number 2180
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO inquired as to how the distribution of current
municipal revenue sharing assistance is determined.
MS. COOK noted that the municipal revenue sharing statutes
typically refer to a collection of statutes of which a large
portion goes through the tax equalization formula. The tax
equalization formula is based on local tax effort and population.
Therefore, a municipality which taxes itself per capita higher than
another actually can come out ahead under the tax equalization
formula. Another portion of those collective statutes provide
municipal assistance for road maintenance which is based on the
number of miles of road a municipality maintains. There is also a
portion of statute that takes into account the number of hospital
beds. The municipal assistance program, which is outside of
revenue sharing, is a system that is more closely based on
population.
Number 2289
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked how the sponsor would envision that the
community development fund would be distributed.
MS. DAVIDSON said that the sponsor recognized that there are a
number of ways distribution could be determined. Therefore, he
preferred developing the fund and leaving the determination of how
best to distribute the fund up to the legislature. She believed
that Representative Davis discussed a type of population
distribution or a combination of population and land mass. Ms.
Davidson informed the committee that Representative Davis was
concerned that the actual distribution formula could become more of
an issue than whether the fund itself was a good idea. Therefore,
the legislation was set up to allow the legislature to determine
the best way to distribute the fund.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE inquired as to how many communities would not
be eligible to participate in the fund created by HJR 23.
MS. DAVIDSON offered to provide him with that information, but she
did not have a specific number at this time. Further, she pointed
out that there are several unincorporated communities that are
within a borough. While the community itself may not receive
actual funds, the funds the borough receives would take into
account that the community is within the borough. She reiterated
that she did not have an exact number of the unincorporated
communities, but she offered to inquire with DCRA on this matter.
Number 2432
KEVIN RITCHIE, Alaska Municipal League, informed the committee that
the AML has discussed this issue several times with the various
groups interested in a long-term financial plan for the state which
would allow a permanent revenue sharing process between the state
and its municipalities. Mr. Ritchie stated that the community
development concept has been a part of AML's platform and
therefore, AML is interested in working with this and other ideas
to provide long-term support for all municipal governments. He
acknowledged that the general fund is a major issue with a
long-term financial plan. Originally, statehood was based on a
sharing of natural resource revenues because the Congress and the
people of Alaska did not feel that everyone could support
themselves on local taxes alone. Mr. Ritchie indicated that this
legislation is a furtherance of that concept.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO announced that HJR 23 would be held. He
encouraged clarification in the following areas: identification of
the administrator and investor of the fund, tighter language
regarding organized and unorganized boroughs, and projected
distribution. Co-Chairman Halcro expressed concern that leaving
the disbursement of the fund up to future legislatures would result
in the short changing of some communities.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if Co-Chairman Halcro was suggesting
that language defining the distribution process be included in
HJR 23 or is the desire just to have that information on the
record.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO agreed that he wanted the information on the
record. As Ms. Cook indicated, this is a constitutional amendment
and should not be cluttered with specifics which would not provide
flexibility to changes in the future.
MS. DAVIDSON said that she would be happy to do that. She
reiterated that this amendment was crafted following the creation
of the permanent fund. It is envisioned that, as with the
permanent fund, the voters approve the fund and in the following
years statutes would be enacted regarding who would invest the
fund, how the fund would be invested, and how the fund would be
distributed. She noted that the first distribution is restricted
for the first two years in order to allow adequate time for the
legislature to enact the statutes. Subsequent changes to the
statutes would be done through the amendment.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO stated that he would be more comfortable passing
HJR 23 out of committee with the knowledge of how the fund would be
distributed as well as ensuring the aforementioned concerns are
addressed.
HB 155 - MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY APPORTIONMENT
Number 2765
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO announced that the final order of business
before the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 155, "An Act relating
to municipal assembly forms of representation and apportionment."
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY, Sponsor of HB 155, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that HB 155 would allow borough governments
and municipalities to have the state reapportionment plan in place
before the borough draws up its election districts. This would
eliminate confusion for voters with regard to what precinct the
voter belongs. He informed the committee that the committee packet
includes a letter from the Alaska Municipal League. Representative
Smalley said, "...it says that if there's a determination that
existing apportionment fails to meet standards set forth in Alaskan
statute, the assembly must adopt an ordinance providing
reapportionment and present it to the voters within six months of
its determination under that statute." He pointed out that it is
practically impossible for the Kenai Peninsula Borough to develop
and adopt the state precinct lines since the new lines are unknown,
yet by law the borough's plan must be in place. Therefore, it
would seem appropriate to require the assembly to adopt its
reapportionment plan and bring it to the voters after the state's
plan has been approved and put in place.
LINDA MURPHY, Borough Clerk, Kenai Peninsula Borough, testified via
teleconference from Kenai. She explained that municipalities with
districted seats on the assembly and city council must determine
whether existing apportionment meets state standards within two
months of receiving the federal decennial census. If the
determination is that the city is malapportioned, the assembly must
go before the voters with a reapportionment plan within six months.
At that time, there is no way to know what the state plan will be.
Ms. Murphy pointed out that often, the assembly districts are set
by the then current precinct lines which are changed by the state
within one to two years. Currently, the Kenai Peninsula Borough
has one precinct which has portions of four different assembly
seats which causes much confusion for qualifying the candidates for
those assembly seats.
TAPE 99-23, SIDE B
MS. MURPHY informed the committee that there could be three
different ballot types; one with no assembly seat, and then two
different ballot types with different assembly seats. Furthermore,
confusion is caused in the borough office with absentee ballot
requests by mail. This would simplify the process and reduce costs
since fewer ballot types would have to be produced. Ms. Murphy
also felt that the possibility of a contest of an election based on
a voter potentially receiving an incorrect ballot would be reduced.
In conclusion, Ms. Murphy urged passage of HB 155.
Number 2900
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS indicated that state reapportionment laws are
different than municipality and borough reapportionment. For
example, the state must take into account such things as ethnic
diversity during reapportionment. Co-Chairman Harris noted that
portions of Anchorage are represented into areas within the
borough, but not located within Anchorage itself.
MS. MURPHY said that she was not qualified to speak on the state's
reapportionment requirements. She reiterated that she is
interested in knowing where the state draws its precinct lines in
order that borough apportionment can follow the state precinct
lines as closely as possible which lessens confusion at the polls.
In response to Representative Murkowski, Ms. Murphy informed the
committee that she has been the Kenai Peninsula Borough Clerk for
the past two years, prior to that she was the City of Seward Clerk
for 17 years.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI expressed interest in whether Ms. Murphy
was in the clerk's office during the last census and if so, were
there problems or confusion.
MS. MURPHY specified that she was the clerk in Seward during the
last census. Seward does not have districted seats, but is part of
the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Ms. Murphy was aware of the problems
the borough was having due to the joint elections meetings with all
the clerk's in the borough. The borough was having difficulties
establishing a plan without knowing what the state's plan would be.
Number 2744
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS stated that HB 155 would effect all communities
that have more than one Representative or Senator in their district
as well as multiple assembly or council members. How would HB 155
effect areas such as Fairbanks or Anchorage? Such areas have more
House and Senate districts and members than assembly districts and
members.
MS. MURPHY clarified that HB 155 would not have any impact on
Senate or House seats, that is dealt with in the state's
reapportionment plan. Furthermore, the Fairbanks Northstar Borough
would not be effected because that borough does not have districted
seats. Ms. Murphy explained that HB 155 would allow those areas
with districted seats, such as the Kenai Peninsula Borough and the
Municipality of Anchorage, to base the plan on state precinct lines
when possible. She acknowledged that there may be times the state
precinct lines could not be followed, however there would be the
opportunity to have a better plan than now.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS believed that this tries to mirror the state
precinct lines. He was unsure as to whether HB 155 would require
following the state precinct lines or merely provides that as an
option.
MS. MURPHY specified that HB 155 merely provides the option of
following state precinct lines. This would allow the knowledge of
the state precinct lines during the borough planning process.
Additionally, HB 155 would allow the borough to offer the voters a
new plan if an approved state plan was set aside for some reason
and state precinct lines change. Currently, the borough can only
go to the voters following a census or any time apportionment is
found not to meet those standards specified in state statute.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON understood that the desire is to allow borough
redistricting after the state has reapportioned. He informed the
committee that he had sat on a local assembly and had his seat
sued.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to page 2, lines 24 through 26
which states, "The assembly may provide, by ordinance, for a change
in an existing apportionment of the assembly whenever a final state
redistricting plan is changed as a result of federal or court
action." Is there an opportunity to change it after the adoption
of a final plan and is there the possibility of court action
subsequent to that?
Number 2448
TAMARA COOK, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, informed the committee that as a
drafter she had a dilemma. The request was to set up a system
which would enable an assembly to become reapportioned only after
the state was reapportioned which is technically impossible. Ms.
Cook explained that Sections 1 and 2 of HB 155 refer to the final
state redistricting plan adopted under the constitution.
Currently, the amended constitution requires that after a federal
census, members be appointed to a reapportionment board within 30
days. After the board members are appointed, the board has 90 days
in which to declare the final state plan. She explained that
existing law directs assemblies to start this process,
reapportionment, two months after a census. With regard to the
constitutional provisions, the assembly action has been delayed by
two more months under HB 155. Once there is a state final plan,
the Department of Justice reviews the plan. The Department of
Justice must respond to the state within about 90 days, but the
response can be a request for more information. There is no
specific time period in which the state must gather its information
in which to justify its plan. Once the state has provided its
justification, there is another period in which the Department of
Justice must act. Therefore, the state must deal with an uncertain
length of federal justice review. Only after that review, can the
question of an individual litigate occur.
MS. COOK explained that she created a system in which the assembly
responds to the final plan adopted by the redistricting commission
without considering the appeal process which could be another two
years. Therefore, the assembly has four months within which to
respond to the federal census. At that time, the state proposal is
known. Ms. Cook emphasized that the assembly has the option to
consider the state final plan, but there is no requirement to do
so.
MS. COOK stated that the change in Section 3 accommodates the
possibility of the state plan being thrown out in court or by a
decision of the Department of Justice review. Another layer of
flexibility is provided to the assembly. If the assembly has
chosen to follow the state plan, and the state plan is then thrown
out or adjusted, the assembly may elect to provide a different
assembly apportionment plan in an effort to follow the revised
state plan. She reiterated that this is merely an option.
Currently, the assembly has the power to present a new plan any
time the assembly determines the current plan is out of
apportionment. However, the current system does not allow the
assembly to present a new plan when there is a determination that
the plan is in apportionment, although not practical. There is
also the consideration of a new plan per voter petition. Ms. Cook
clarified that Section 3 of
HB 155 provides an additional reason, that the state plan has
changed, for the assembly to provide a new plan. In response to
Representative Murkowski, Ms. Cook specified that the only thing
mandatory is that an assembly determination must be provided within
about four months.
Number 2138
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS moved that HB 155 be reported from committee
with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community & Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:10 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|