Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/29/1999 01:40 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 29, 1999
1:40 P.M.
TAPE HFC 99 - 55, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 99 - 55, Side 2.
TAPE HFC 99 - 56, Side 1.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:40 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Foster
Co-Chair Mulder Representative Grussendorf
Vice Chair Bunde Representative Kohring
Representative Austerman Representative G. Davis
Representative J. Davies Representative Williams
Representative Moses was not present for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
George Utermohle, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency; Lorali Meier, Staff,
Representative Scott Ogan; Joel Bennett, Coalition Which
Sponsored Proposition #3, Juneau.
TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE
Anchorage
Michele Keck; Patrick Wright, President, Scientific
Management of Alaska's Resource Treasures (SMART).
Fairbanks
Pete Buist, Alaska Trappers Association; Joe Mattie, Board
of Directors, Alaska Trappers Association, Fairbanks
Advisory Committee; Sean McGuire; Holly Carroll; Celia
Hunter; Larry Paquin.
Homer
Jim Levine.
Matsu
Rod Arno, Alaska Outdoor Council.
SUMMARY
HB 45 An Act relating to initiative and referendum
petitions; and providing for an effective date.
HB 45 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HJR 3 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to initiatives regarding
natural resources belonging to the state.
HJR 3 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HJR 7 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to initiative and
referendum petitions.
HJR 7 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HJR 25 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to a petition for an
initiative or referendum regarding fish or
wildlife.
HJR 25 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
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.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE stated that the purpose of the
proposed amendment would be to raise the bar for the passage
of all natural resource ballot initiatives. HJR 3 would
require a natural resource initiative to obtain a two-thirds
vote in order to pass. Raising the bar for management of
resources would encourage that scientific data, both pro and
con, become available to the public on issues.
Representative Bunde wanted to see that resource management
be well reasoned and based on sound scientific principles.
He recommended that Alaska should try to avoid the
proliferation on initiatives that have plagued other states
and that we maintain access to natural resources.
Recently, the Alaska Supreme Court in the Brooks vs. Wright
case, Opinion No. 5066, January 15, 1999, found that the
legislature does not have exclusive law-making powers over
natural resources and that management of the State's natural
resources could be an appropriate subject for an initiative.
Representative Bunde pointed out that Alaska's historic
voter turnout is not a good credit reflection. The number
of people that vote in an election is relatively small in
comparison to the number of registered voters. HJR 3 would
prevent resource management from being dictated by the
"majority of the moment".
Representative Bunde believed that Alaskans can not properly
maintain resources if they do not participate in the
process. He emphasized that Alaska is an "Owner State" and
should have a stake in assuring that a clear majority
manages resources.
Representative Austerman pointed out that when the fish
initiative was placed before voters' two years ago, it was
"thrown out" by the Courts indicating that the "initiative
process" would not be the best avenue from which to allocate
resources. Representative Bunde noted that the case which
he had referenced was the wolf snaring initiative. The
Supreme Court stipulated that the Legislature does not have
the sole authority in the management of resources.
GEORGE UTERMOHLE, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL AND RESEARCH
SERVICES, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY, referenced the fish
initiative case, Helen vs. Palmer, in which, the Supreme
Court stated that the constitutional provision prohibited
initiatives dealing with the subject of appropriations.
That was applicable to the initiative which attempted to
provide a preference for an allocation of fishery resources.
In the purpose of that constituitonal prohibition against
initiatives, the Court found that the State had sufficient
interest in ownership of the fish and game resources, that
the allocation or granting of a preference to that fisheries
resource would be an appropriation and was therefore,
prohibited by the Constitution.
During the deliberations on that initiative, the Court
raised the issue that it could be prohibited by the
provisions of Article 8, stating that the "Legislature
'shall' provide for the conservation, utilization and
development of the resources of the State". That was the
issue litigated in the Brooks vs. Wright case. The Court
found that indeed, fish and game matters were proper
subjects for initiatives and could be addressed by the
people.
Mr. Utermohle commented that the Brooks vs. Wright case did
not disturb the decision in the fish initiative case,
stating that fish and game initiatives which involve
appropriations were not appropriate to change, however, the
Legislature could deal with other fish and game issues.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if that meant that the Courts
had left the concern of whether "methods and means" would
rise to the level of appropriation. Mr. Utermohle replied
that had been the issue before the Court in the Brooks vs.
Wright case.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that since 1960,
there has been twenty-nine initiatives. Of those, only five
addressed the area of natural resources. He pointed out
that most of those initiatives were defeated. It appears
that voters have been able to track initiatives and that
they have voted according to their conscience.
Representative Bunde pointed out that in other states, there
has been a growing number of initiatives and that the
passage of even one "bad" could negatively affect the
allocation of resources.
Representative J. Davies commented that the Court case
clarified that those allocations are clearly off limits.
The Courts have stipulated that certain allocations such as
means and methods would be okay. The uncertainty stems from
combining the mixture of the two. Representative Bunde
corrected his previous statement commenting that he should
have used the term "management".
Co-Chair Therriault inquired why the resolution had not used
the two-thirds bar to the list of restrictions.
Representative Bunde did not believe that the public would
support the two-thirds bar. If an initiative was to happen,
it should be reflective of the majority of citizens. He
added that he was concerned with an all resource harvest and
that should be managed on a scientific basis, not as a
popularity contest.
Representative Grussendorf asked if there was a way in which
the problem could be addressed so that citizens would not
feel disenfranchised. Mr. Utermohle explained that the
Constitution provides for an initiative and for the
Legislature to provide for an amendment to the Constitution.
It would be within the scope of the Legislature to make an
amendment to this effect. He advised that the power of the
Legislature is restricted to making an amendment to the
Constitution. That provision would make a "sweeping change"
to the Constitution and would be considered a revision. At
present, there is no basis to determine whether or not
prohibiting people from voting on matters such as a natural
resource initiative would be considered by the Courts to
constitute a revision.
Representative Bunde pointed out that the Alaska Supreme
Court outlined four items in the Brooks vs. Wright case and
that HJR 3 meets that criteria. He questioned at what point
would this become a "sweeping change". Representative Bunde
argued that the proposal would not require a constitutional
convention.
HJR 3 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 45
"An Act relating to initiative and referendum
petitions; and providing for an effective date."
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum
petitions.
REPRESENTATIIVE BILL WILLIAMS stated that HJR 7 and its
companion measure HB 45, were introduced to ensure statewide
support of an issue prior to it being put before the voters.
The legislation would require signatures from 10% of those
who voted in the preceding general election in at least 75%
of the house districts for a question to reach the ballot.
It would require signatures from 10% of the total number of
voters in the prior election.
Representative Williams noted, currently, because of the
population dispersal, initiative sponsors could easily
gather the required signatures from a single area of the
State. The current system does not require a statewide
perspective in determining which topics will appear on the
ballot as amendments to State law.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified the manner in which the two
pieces of legislation would work together. He pointed out
that signing up for the signature process would be 10% of
the past and previous vote and that those voters would
represent 3/4 of the House election districts. He argued
that such a system could be "extra" complicated.
Representative Grussendorf suggested that HJR 7 had the
greatest merit of the three resolutions before the
Committee's consideration, however, he voiced concerned with
the 10% calculation. Representative Williams advised that
he had originally recommended 15%, and that in the House
State Affairs Committee, it was changed to 10%.
Representative J. Davies spoke to the significance of the
proposed increase. He questioned how large the bar would
need to be to require 10% in each of the 3/4 (30) voting
districts. He emphasized that it would be a substantial
change and questioned if it could wipe out the referendum-
initiative process. Representative Williams referenced the
handout "Districts" in member's packets, which illustrates
how many voters turned out in the last election and what the
10% percentage amount would be for each district. [Copy on
File].
Representative Williams believed that telecommunications
would make it easier to access the signatures.
Representative J. Davies explained that a person would need
to be "physically" in each district to collect the
signatures. He reemphasized how large of a change this
would be. Representative J. Davies suggested that lowering
the percentage would make it easier than implementing it in
electoral districts. He believed that there could be better
ways to assure a more broad base input.
Co-Chair Therriault wondered if during the initial
constitutional debate, it had been envisioned that the 2/3
count would be taken from one or two districts, or had it
been intended that the count would be evenly distributed
throughout the State. Representative Williams explained
that the problem had arisen as communication resources
available today were not understood at that time. Co-Chair
Therriault asked what prompted the determination to move
from 2/3 to 3/4 and, additionally, add the 10% to each
district. Representative Williams stated that it would
provide a better statewide perspective.
(Tape Change HFC 99 - 55, Side 2).
Co-Chair Therriault inquired if most initiatives acquiring
signatures were currently being taken in Anchorage.
Representative Grussendorf suggested that this legislation
could create problems for the "grass root" ideas which would
not have the financial resources needed to wage a petition
throughout the State. Co-Chair Therriault agreed,
commenting that a well-financed group would be able to
better place an initiative because of their resources.
Representative Foster referenced back-up material from the
original Constitutional Convention at which time, present
day rural concerns were addressed. He emphasized that
material, when written, was protective of the Bush areas.
[Copy on File].
Representative Bunde asked if HJR 7 would meet the criteria
established in Brooks vs. Wright case. Mr. Utermohle stated
that he had not been involved in the drafting of
Representative William's resolution and was not familiar
with the issues underlining it. However, he believed that
it would not constitute a revision.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the resolution was
specific to the initiative process. Representative J.
Davies disagreed, reiterating that it was making a "sweeping
change" to the current procedure. The process before had no
limitation on the percentage of votes taken per district.
HB 45 and HJR 7 were HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to a petition for an initiative or
referendum regarding fish or wildlife.
LORLI MEIER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, stated that
HJR 25 would bar fish or wildlife issues from the initiative
process.
Ms. Meier continued, the Constitution of the State of Alaska
clearly states that the Legislature is the authoritative
body to manage fish and game. The Legislature can, however,
delegate that authority to a board. The Boards of Game and
Fisheries were created as an extension of that management
body.
Ms. Meier noted that there is no constitutional restriction
on the ability of the Alaska Legislature to propose an
amendment to the Alaska Constitution that would alter,
restrict, or even prohibit the use of the initiative by the
people to enact laws relating to fish and game.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that during the
Constitutional Convention, it was clearly stated that there
were items which were not to be included.
Representative Grussendorf voiced opposition to the
resolution. He emphasized that any information is as good
as the Board that represents it.
Representative J. Davies added that there are times when the
fish and game board becomes heavily representative of a
small segment of society. He pointed out that only 15% of
the Alaskan population have hunting licenses. That is a
small number of residents and that often times the
scientific issue is not the entire debate. Representative
J. Davies emphasized that there are other valuable resources
in addition to science that constitutes decisions made.
Representative Bunde questioned if the four criteria used in
the Brooks vs. Wright case could be addressed in the
proposed resolution. Mr. Utermohle advised that this
amendment did not seem to broach any issues or boundaries
established by that case.
HJR 25 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
TESTIMONY VIA TELECONFERENCE
PETER BUIST, ALASKA TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION, FAIRBANKS, spoke
in support of HJR 25 and HB 45. He spoke of the hardships
resulting from last year's campaigning against animal right
extremists and their well funded attempt to vie an Alaskan
right for their own political purposes. He stressed that
the Alaska Trappers do not have the funds to address such an
attack every two years. Mr. Buist urged the Committee's
favorable support of the legislation.
JOE MATTIE, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALASKA TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION,
FAIRBANKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, FAIRBANKS, echoed the
sentiments voiced by Mr. Buist. He stated that he favored
HJR 25, however, would support the other two resolutions in
principle.
MICHELE KECK, ANCHORAGE, stated that she considered herself
an expert on the petition "signature gathering process".
She voiced concern with the proposed changes to the public
process and changing the signature requirements at the
beginning of the process. She stressed that the signature
gathering process is already difficult. Initiatives, which
have made it through the process, have only been able to
make it through with outside financial help. The signature
requirement takes the initiative process out of the hands of
the Alaskan voters and more into the hands of outside
interests.
Ms. Keck stated that she understood Representative
Williams's intent with the signature process being more
representational of a larger group of citizens. However,
she believed that the outcome would make it impossible for
everyone and that 10% was too high. In order to guarantee
that there are enough valid signatures, it is important to
gather more than 10%. Ms. Keck suggested that no more than
2% from each district would be more reasonable.
Ms. Keck concluded that it has become much more difficult to
gather signatures. If distribution were to be tightened, it
should be taken from another area or everyone will become
barred from the initiative process.
PATRICK WRIGHT, PRESIDENT, SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT OF ALASKAS
RESOURCES TREASURES (SMART), ANCHORAGE, noted that SMART was
dedicated to sound management of fish and wildlife
resources. Mr. Wright voiced support of HJR 25, which would
provide for an amendment to the Alaska Constitution, Article
11, Section 7, for the utilization and development in
conservation of fish and wildlife resources. He suggested
that HJR 25 could clarify findings from the Brooks vs.
Wright case.
JIM LEVINE, SELF, HOMER, advised that he felt strongly
regarding the initiative process which the founding fathers
of the Constitution provided to the citizens of Alaska.
Passage of any of the proposed constitutional amendments
would eliminate the initiative process as a voice for the
average Alaskan. The process is now difficult and if it
were to be made more difficult, only groups with unlimited
funds would be able to get an initiative on the ballot. Mr.
Levine stressed that a democracy can not succeed if the
citizens can not petition their government and enact laws
they deem necessary. He urged Committee members not to pass
any of the proposed resolutions.
ROD ARNO, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, MATSU, voiced support for
HJR 25. He noted that the main concern was with fish and
wildlife management. Restrictions within the resolution
would address two points:
? It would continue to legitimize the board process
that is currently in play; and
? It would allow the board and the Department to
fulfill the constitutional mandate for fish and
game management.
He stressed that HJR 25 would not disenfranchise the public
process. That process is codified into law in the
Administrative Procedures Act, Section 44.62.210. The
public process is clearly available to all groups of
Alaskans who wish to participate in addressing issues.
(Tape Change HFC 99- 56, Side 1).
JOEL BENNETT, COALITION WHICH SPONSORED PROPOSITION #3,
JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to HJR 25 and HJR 3, and HJR 7
in its current form.
He emphasized that the initiative process is very difficult.
Most people are trying to color the process by saying that
it is engineered throughout the State with influence and
money. Mr. Bennett noted that the effort on Proposition 3
was basically an in State effort. There was an in State
group which was committed to the method change addressed
within the initiative. He emphasized that it was not an
anti-hunting initiative.
Mr. Bennett advised that the proposed legislation is an
effort by special interest groups who lost that initiative
campaign to try to now attack the future right of the public
to engage in the initiative process. He emphasized that
this is not a broad base citizen effort to make meaningful
changes to the initiative process. Mr. Bennett argued that
this effort is a direct assault from special interest groups
who did not like the results from 1996 vote. The public
does have the ability to discriminate and does have the
mental capacity to recognize whether media is distorted or
not.
Mr. Bennett reiterated that Proposition 3 was not an anti-
hunting movement. Mr. Bennett agreed that Representative
Williams had provided good information, however, the 10%
number would be unreasonably high and suggested that a lower
number would work better. The percentage should be
calculated in the context of a larger forum including
consideration of the ramifications of changing the basic
ground rules.
Mr. Bennett hoped that the voters would reject the proposed
bills if they passed from Committee. He requested that
there be "intent" to make the process better, rather than to
"destroy" the current process.
Representative Foster agreed that the people could
discriminate under the initiatives, however, criticized the
passage of the resolution requiring that government to use
English as the first language, which has been hurtful to the
Bush people. He commented that he has received more angry
correspondence from his district on that concern than on a
combination of all other issues during his tenure.
Representative Bunde responded to criticism made by Mr.
Bennett regarding media representation on the same day air
borne initiative. Representative Bunde clarified that he
had been referring to the bill board initiative issue.
SEAN MCGUIRE, SELF, FAIRBANKS, spoke against the proposed
resolutions to change the initiative process. He pointed
out that the initiative process was established by our
Founding Fathers. He strongly criticized the Republican
majority making possible law from money received from
special interest groups.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that the three pieces of
legislation before the Committee were resolutions and would
not take affect without a 50% vote of approval by the
people. One of the resolutions does have a bill
accompanying it that would make modifications to statute if
the resolution was passed.
HOLLY CARROLL, SELF, FAIRBANKS, stated that the HJR 3
sponsor statement contradicted HJR 25 intent. One statement
suggests that it is the right of the Legislature to govern
the resources and the other indicates the opposite. Ms.
Carroll asked which is correct. She agreed that media
campaigns do become distorted and that issue had not been
addressed. All concerns of any kind are subject to
popularity contests. She believed that all the proposed
resolutions would be establishing a bad precedence. Ms.
Carroll urged that the "people" not be taken out of the
process.
CELIA HUNTER, SELF, FAIRBANKS, stated that the proposals
which had been submitted were designed to deter the general
public from making use of the initiative and referendum
processes. She stated that these attempts to amend the
Alaska State Constitution are a misuse of legislative
powers. If passage of these initiatives were made, it would
be undermining the basic fundamental operations of
democracy. Ms. Hunter submitted that the increase of voter
signatures from 2/3 to 3/4 would definitely eliminate
initiative efforts.
Ms. Hunter found these proposals, with a number of other
proposals by the present majority party members, to be an
"undermining" of the democratic process of government. She
suggested that the present situation represents an
aggravated presence of power hunger by the majority of
Republicans. She continued that by eliminating the accepted
tradition of Committee membership make-up has deprived
voters of fair representation. Ms. Hunter asked that the
Committee veto all four proposals.
Representative Austerman disagreed with the previous
speaker's comments regarding the Republican majority as
"pushing" passage of the proposed resolutions. He
ascertained that what is "good for some is not always good
for all".
LARRY PAQUIN, SELF, FAIRBANKS, stated that when an elected
representative takes away or restricts the constitutional
entitlement and democratic right of the people to represent,
it should not be taken lightly. He asked the motivation of
those trying to mute the voice of the people on the
initiative process?
In closing, Representative Bunde advised that special
interest groups had not backed HJR 3. He added that the
intent of the legislation would be to give the public
continued support to speak through the initiative process.
The public has the right to put issues before the voters
that must be passed by 50% majority plus 1. HJR 3 would put
an issue before the voters which would need to be passed by
a vote. Representative Bunde believed that the issue was
worthy of consideration and that the public would continue
to have the final say.
Public comment on the proposed legislation was closed for
the day.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 P.M.
H.F.C. 8 3/29/99
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|