Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS 519
03/04/2020 09:00 AM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HJR15 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 4, 2020
9:04 a.m.
9:04:14 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Johnston called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Josiah Nash, Intern, Representative Johnathan Kreiss-
Tomkins; Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tompkins, Bill
Sponsor; Megan Wallace, Director, Legislative Legal
Services, Alaska State Legislature.
SUMMARY
HJR 15 CONST. AM: VOTES NEEDED FOR VETO OVERRIDE
HJR was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Johnston reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to actions upon veto.
9:05:16 AM
JOSIAH NASH, INTERN, REPRESENTATIVE JOHNATHAN KREISS-
TOMKINS, presented the bill with a prepared statement. He
noted that the bill had first been introduced by
Representative Johnathan Kreiss-Tomkins the previous April.
This constitutional amendment would lower the veto
override threshold for appropriation bills from three-
fourths of legislators (45 votes) to two-thirds of
legislators (30 votes). Currently vetoes on non-
appropriation bills in Alaska require two-thirds of
legislators to be overridden. HJR 15 creates a uniform
veto override vote threshold for appropriation and
non-appropriation bills. Alaska's threshold is
disproportionate to every other state in the union,
including territories. Alaska is the only state with a
three-fourths override veto threshold, every other
state has a two-thirds, three-fifths, or simple
majority vote threshold.
Mr. Nash pointed to a slide titled "Veto Override
Thresholds in the U.S." (copy on file) and highlighted that
38 states had a two-thirds threshold, 6 states had a three-
fifths threshold, and 5 had a simple majority threshold. He
directed attention to the red dot representing Alaska in
the upper left corner of the slide and noted it was the
only state with a high three-quarter vote threshold.
9:07:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMPKINS, BILL SPONSOR,
elaborated on the introduction. He clarified that the bill
had been introduced prior to any veto actions made by the
governor the previous session. He clarified that the bill
had not originated as a "call and response kind of thing."
He recognized that he had anticipated some of the things
that had come down the pike. He believed it was fairly
clear when thinking about the balance of powers that Alaska
was anomalous from the rest of the nation, which he did not
believe made sense. He added that having asymmetric veto
override thresholds - a two-thirds threshold for policy
bills and a three-quarter threshold for appropriations and
revenue bills - created legal ambiguity because it was
necessary to define what constituted a policy bill versus
an appropriation or revenue bill.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins elaborated it had come home
to roost in the 1990s under Governor Tony Knowles and a
legislature that was by in large at lager heads with the
governor. The legislature had sought to override the
governor on a veto and could only reach the two-thirds
threshold. He elaborated that Governor Knowles had asserted
that the legislation being vetoed was an appropriation bill
and would have a higher veto threshold, while the
legislature asserted it was policy legislation with a lower
threshold. The issue had ultimately gone to the Alaska
Supreme Court. He explained that a non-uniform threshold
was messier and resulted in issues around definitions. He
detailed that a uniform threshold resulted in a cleaner
constitution and veto override process.
9:09:34 AM
Co-Chair Foster asked if the bill sponsor had done any
research to see what the framers of the state constitution
had in mind. He highlighted that by the time Alaska's
constitution went into effect all other states except
Hawaii had theirs in place. He thought it seemed like
Alaska's constitutional framers would have looked to the
other states. He wondered why the framers chose three-
quarter threshold.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins replied that he had reviewed
the minutes from the constitutional convention and there
had been two schools of thought on the issue. He detailed
that the school of thought that prevailed resulting in the
three-quarters override threshold asserted the desire for
the executive to be as strong as possible in Alaska. He
believed it was the same guiding principle that had led to
having all constitutional officers appointed by the
governor including the attorney general and various
commissioners, which was different than many, albeit not
all, other states.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins continued that in terms of
the three-quarter override threshold, the opposing school
of thought in the constitutional convention had argued that
it was such a high threshold that the governor effectively
had unilateral power to veto and never be overridden. He
elaborated that effectively, one-quarter of legislators
representing one-quarter of Alaskans would have power over
three-quarters of legislators and Alaskans. He referenced
the green dots on the slide representing states with a
simple majority override threshold and did not believe that
threshold level made a lot of sense. He noted the states
with a simple majority threshold were all southern states
and he did not know the thinking behind the decision. He
reasoned that having the threshold too far in the opposite
direction did not make a lot of sense either.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins stated it was pretty clear
with over a half century of legislative/executive branch
interaction that the school of thought that suggested the
governor basically had unilateral veto power and that the
three-quarters override threshold was effectively
unattainable, had more or less been proven accurate. He
highlighted that the number of attempts to override vetoes
in Alaska history was scarce and he believed the number of
successful overrides could be counted on one hand. He would
double check on the actual count over the past century.
Co-Chair Foster looked at a handout showing the vote
required to override a veto of selected types of bills
["Table 98-6.22" published by the National Conference of
State Legislatures (copy on file)]. As an example, he
highlighted that Arizona required a three-quarter vote for
an emergency bill and revenue (tax) bills. He thought it
appeared that may be the only three-quarter vote required
on other things. He was interested in the rationale in the
other examples where a three-quarter threshold was
required. He wondered if there were other actions that were
not included on the handout.
9:13:11 AM
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins deferred the question to
Legislative Legal Services.
MEGAN WALLACE, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, ALASKA
STATE LEGISLATURE, asked Co-Chair Foster to repeat the
question.
Co-Chair Foster explained that he was thinking about where
a three-quarter vote was required, whether it was for an
override or any other actions by states. He asked if there
was a theme that led states to set a bar at a certain
level. He used Arizona as an example where a three-quarter
vote was required for an emergency bill or tax bill.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins noted he had misunderstood
and there was no need to call Ms. Wallace forward for the
question. He did not know if there was a theme of the other
examples of the three quarter threshold, but he would
follow up.
Representative Carpenter asked what the outcome had been in
the former Governor Knowles case mentioned by
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins recalled that the
legislature had prevailed in the litigation in the 1990s.
He explained the issue had involved the legislature giving
land to the University for its land grant. He detailed that
Governor Knowles had asserted that giving land to the
University constituted an appropriation and he vetoed the
action. The legislature had sought to override - it had the
two-thirds threshold but could not reach the three-quarter
threshold. The legislature had litigated and had prevailed.
9:15:46 AM
Representative Carpenter asked if Representative Kreiss-
Tompkins had seen any evidence showing that Alaskans wanted
to move away from a three-quarter vote threshold or a
strong governor.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins answered that he assumed
people had varying views. He elaborated that the
legislation almost inevitably had to be colored through
recent history. He believed there had been significant
consternation upon discovery that the override threshold
was high and unattainable in the past year. He explained
that even if the threshold was two-thirds, which was the
most common in most of the country and what Alaska's
constitution provided for with policy bills, the veto
override vote in January would have failed because it did
not meet the two-thirds threshold. He noted there was
active legislation in both bodies [of the legislature]
about the election of the attorney general instead of
appointment of the attorney general. He believed a strong
executive made sense albeit within reason. He thought the
three-quarter threshold was a bit beyond reason in terms of
practicality.
Representative Carpenter remarked that he had not heard
anything about reducing the power of the governor or
adjusting the three-quarter vote prior to the past year. He
wondered if there was feedback or data indicating a desire
by Alaskans to entertain a move that could impact the
state's government for the foreseeable future.
9:18:08 AM
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins believed most Alaskans and
most legislators had probably been unaware of the three-
quarter veto override threshold for appropriations. He
reasoned that the topic did not come up unless the
situation presented itself. He noted that most Alaskans he
had spoken to the previous session had not been aware of
the three-quarter threshold. He believed the same may be
true for people in the legislature. He never had cause to
be familiar with the specific part of the constitution in
his first seven years with the legislature. He stated it
was hard to say whether the public supported a change, but
the issue would go to a vote of the people to decide.
Representative LeBon remarked that the discussion was
interesting because there was a historical perspective
involved. By his reading of the debate in the mid-1950s
when the Alaska territory crafted its state constitution,
there had been a political influence from Congress for
Alaska to have a strong governor and a high veto threshold.
The view had been that Alaska did not have the resources to
support itself. The fear was the state's spending would get
out of control quickly and the state needed an adult in the
room to keep spending down. He believed it was the reason
Alaska was the only state with the three-quarter vote
threshold. He considered whether the three-quarter
threshold was still needed. He noted the issue would be
decided by a vote of the people if the legislation passed
the legislature. He explained that the existing framework
had been used to entice Congress to vote in favor of
statehood. The framers of the constitution had felt that
putting the language in the constitution would help with
the vote.
Representative Wool noted that there were three options
used by other states and Alaska was the only state with a
three-quarter override. He had not been aware that Alaska
was the only state with a three-quarter override. He
recognized that Alaska was one of the newest states other
than Hawaii and Hawaii had a two-thirds threshold across
the board. He highlighted the states with a three-fifths
threshold and noted that with the exception of two states,
all had a three-fifths veto threshold across the board. He
highlighted that Rhode Island had a three-fifths threshold
with everything except an appropriation bill, which had a
two-thirds threshold. Additionally, Ohio had a three-fifths
threshold for everything but an emergency bill. He observed
that HJR 15 would make Alaska's threshold two-thirds across
the board, which would be uniform with other states that
selected one threshold. He asked if the sponsor had
considered a three-fifths threshold.
9:22:13 AM
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins replied that he had not
considered the idea because the state's policy override
threshold was two-thirds and it seemed reasonable to tether
to the state's constitutional precedent. He was not overtly
opposed to the idea and would defer to the will of the
committee and legislature. He returned to a question by
Representative Carpenter and relayed that he believed in a
strong executive within reason, whether he agreed or
disagreed with the executive. He believed three-quarters
was a bit too much. He noted that the three-fifths gave him
a bit of hesitation for that same reason. The primary
reason he had selected two-thirds was because it was
already included in the constitution. He thought that if
asked, prior to the past year, people broadly would have
thought the veto threshold was two-thirds.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins referenced Representative
LeBon's comment and highlighted that one of the pieces that
gave him pause about the three-quarter threshold was the
ability for a veto pen to make policy through appropriation
veto. He elaborated that if there was a governor with
strong perspectives on a particular issue it would require
a supermajority to override the veto. For example, if there
was a governor strongly opposed to mining, the governor
could line item veto funding for the Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Mining, Land, and Water and
effectively put a stop to mining in Alaska. Similarly, if
someone thought that the notion of the municipal share of
commercial fish tax was a bad idea, it could be ended with
an appropriation veto. He believed that keeping in mind the
policy ramifications or the policy making power that
existed through appropriation veto was great. He explained
that the additional context was the impetus of the
legislation.
9:25:13 AM
Co-Chair Foster returned to his earlier question about what
other states may use the three-quarter vote for. He was
reminded of a vote the House had taken the previous day
related to taking funds from the Constitutional Budget
Reserve (CBR). He detailed that any time the legislature
wanted to draw from the CBR (including deficit filling
language, drawing from the CBR, and doing the reverse
sweep), a three-quarter vote was required.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins remarked that it was a good
point. Having been on both sides of CBR votes, he was not
averse to the CBR threshold being three-quarters. He shared
that the concept he kept in mind when thinking about the
veto override threshold versus the supermajority vote
required to draw from the CBR was that hopefully the CBR
was not fully required to maintain the status quo. Instead
of using the CBR to maintain the status quo, a small amount
could be taken from the fund to cover any final extra gap
in the budget. The hope was, the funds would not need to be
taken from the CBR at all; however, recent history had
proven otherwise. He viewed the budget that had initially
been presented to the governor as the status quo or
default. He thought that requiring a three-quarters vote to
sustain the default seemed extraordinary. Whereas, if the
legislature was looking to use funds from savings, which
should not be habitually relied upon, a more extraordinary
or exceptional threshold may be warranted.
9:27:43 AM
Representative Josephson shared that he had looked at the
simple majority states and many had been slave holding
states. For example, before the Civil War there had been
the nullification crisis in the 1830s when John Calhoun
told President Jackson that South Carolina would not comply
with the federal law, which had almost led to war. He
elucidated that those votes were explained by the fear of a
strong executive. He pointed out that the southern states
were also more reluctant to join the union in 1789 because
of fear of a strong presidency.
Co-Chair Johnston asked Mr. Nash to provide a sectional of
the bill.
Mr. Nash reviewed the sectional analysis (copy on file):
Section 1: This section changes the veto override
threshold for appropriations bills from three-fourths
of the membership of the legislature to two-thirds.
Section 2: The section places the amendment on the
ballot in the next general election.
HJR 15 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Johnston reviewed the schedule for the afternoon
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
9:30:14 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|