Legislature(1995 - 1996)

04/29/1996 02:00 PM House JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         April 29, 1996                                        
                           2:00 p.m.                                           
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Brian Porter, Chairman                                         
 Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman                                       
 Representative Con Bunde                                                      
 Representative Al Vezey                                                       
 Representative Cynthia Toohey                                                 
 Representative David Finkelstein                                              
 Representative Bettye Davis                                                   
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 All members present                                                           
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31(FIN)                                    
 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska             
 relating to voter approval of amendments of the Alaska Statehood              
 Act affecting an interest of the State of Alaska under that Act.              
      - PASSED CSSJR 31(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                  
 CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 264(JUD)                                               
 "An Act limiting the authority of courts to suspend the imposition            
 of sentence in criminal cases."                                               
      - PASSED CSSB 264(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                  
 "An Act providing for an advisory vote on the issue of capital                
      - PASSED CSSSSB 52(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                 
 (* First public hearing)                                                      
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  SJR 31                                                             
 SHORT TITLE: AK STATEHOOD ACT AMENDMENTS                                      
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PEARCE, Taylor, R.Phillips, Green, Miller,             
 Torgerson, Leman, Kelly, Sharp, Halford                                       
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 12/29/95      2054    (S)   PREFILE RELEASED - 12/29/95                       
 01/08/96      2054    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/08/96      2054    (S)   JUD, FIN                                          
 02/02/96              (S)   JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 02/05/96              (S)   JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 02/05/96              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/07/96              (S)   JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 02/07/96              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/07/96              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/13/96      2403    (S)   JUD RPT  CS  3DP 2DNP  SAME TITLE                 
 02/13/96      2403    (S)   FISCAL NOTE TO CS (GOV)                           
 02/13/96      2403    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO CS (GOV)                      
 02/22/96              (S)   FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 02/22/96              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                       
 03/13/96              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                       
 03/14/96      2734    (S)   FIN RPT  CS  5DP 2NR   NEW TITLE                  
 03/14/96      2734    (S)   PREVIOUS FN (GOV)                                 
 03/14/96      2734    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN (GOV)                            
 03/18/96              (S)   RLS AT 12:20 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 03/18/96              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 04/22/96      3414    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR & 2NR  4/22/96                  
 04/22/96      3427    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/22/96      3428    (S)   FIN  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 04/22/96      3428    (S)   ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FAILED Y12 N8            
 04/22/96      3428    (S)   THIRD READING 4/23 CALENDAR                       
 04/22/96      3428    (S)   COSPONSOR:  TAYLOR                                
 04/23/96      3476    (S)   HELD TO 4/24/96 CALENDAR                          
 04/24/96      3537    (S)   HELD TO 4/25/96 CALENDAR                          
 04/25/96      3570    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSJR 31(FIN)                
 04/25/96      3571    (S)   PASSED Y20 N-                                     
 04/25/96      3580    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/26/96      4032    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/26/96      4032    (H)   JUDICIARY                                         
 04/29/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  SB 264                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD, Taylor, Green, Donley, Kelly, Leman           
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 02/07/96      2324    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/07/96      2324    (S)   JUD, FIN                                          
 04/12/96              (S)   JUD AT  4:05 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 04/12/96              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 04/15/96      3239    (S)   JUD RPT  CS  3DP 1NR   SAME TITLE                 
 04/15/96      3239    (S)   INDETERMINATE FN TO CS (COURT)                    
 04/22/96      3433    (S)   FIN REFERRAL WAIVED                               
 04/24/96              (S)   RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 04/24/96              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 04/24/96      3491    (S)   RULES TO CAL & 1 NR    4/24/96                    
 04/24/96      3525    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/24/96      3525    (S)   JUD  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 04/24/96      3525    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT            
 04/24/96      3525    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 264(JUD)                
 04/24/96      3525    (S)   PASSED Y20 N-                                     
 04/24/96      3539    (S)   COSPONSOR:  KELLY                                 
 04/24/96      3525    (S)   Rieger  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                 
 04/25/96      3574    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                 
 04/25/96      3575    (S)   COSPONSOR(S):  LEMAN                              
 04/25/96      3575    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y19 N1                  
 04/25/96      3581    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/26/96      4034    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/26/96      4034    (H)   JUDICIARY                                         
 04/29/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  SB  52                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR, Pearce; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Rokeberg,            
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 01/25/95        83    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/25/95        83    (S)   JUD, FIN                                          
 02/09/95       222    (S)   SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS           
 02/09/95       222    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/09/95       222    (S)   JUD, FIN                                          
 02/07/96              (S)   JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 02/07/96              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/06/96              (S)   JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 03/06/96              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/12/96      2706    (S)   JUD RPT  CS  3DP 1DNP     NEW TITLE               
 03/12/96      2707    (S)   FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (GOV)                      
 03/26/96              (S)   FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 03/28/96      2939    (S)   FIN RPT  4DP 2NR  (JUD) CS                        
 03/28/96      2939    (S)   ZERO FNS (DPS, COURT)                             
 03/28/96      2939    (S)   PREVIOUS FN (GOV)                                 
 03/29/96              (S)   RLS AT 12:05 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 03/29/96              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 04/09/96      3092    (S)   RULES RPT  3CAL 2NR   4/9/96                      
 04/09/96      3093    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/09/96      3093    (S)   JUD  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 04/09/96      3093    (S)   ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y11 N5 E4            
 04/09/96      3094    (S)   THIRD READING 4/10 CALENDAR                       
 04/10/96      3123    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSSSB 52(JUD)               
 04/10/96      3124    (S)   MOTION TO RETURN TO 2ND RDG FOR AM 1              
 04/10/96      3124    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1  Y14 N6                 
 04/10/96      3124    (S)   AM NO  1     FAILED  Y9 N11                       
 04/10/96      3125    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                    
 04/10/96      3126    (S)   PASSED Y12 N8                                     
 04/10/96      3126    (S)   DUNCAN  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                 
 04/11/96      3175    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/12/96      3689    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/12/96      3689    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                
 04/15/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 04/15/96              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 04/15/96      3784    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG                        
 04/17/96              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 04/22/96              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 STEPHANIE SZYMANSKI, Administrative Assistant                                 
   to Senator Drue Pearce                                                      
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 111                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4993                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Gave sponsor statement for CSSJR 31(FIN).                
 KELLY HUBER, Legislative Assistant                                            
   to Senator Rick Halford                                                     
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 508                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4958                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Gave sponsor statement for CSSB 264(JUD).                
 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General                                    
 Criminal Division                                                             
 Department of Law                                                             
 P.O. Box 110300                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3428                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSSB 264(JUD).                              
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 96-59, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER called the House Judiciary Committee meeting            
 to order at 2:00 p.m.  Members present at the call to order were              
 Representatives Green, Bunde, Vezey, Davis and Finkelstein.                   
 CSSJR 31(FIN) - AK STATEHOOD ACT AMENDMENTS                                 
 Number 075                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced the first order of business would be                
 CSSJR 31(FIN), "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the             
 State of Alaska relating to voter approval of amendments of the               
 Alaska Statehood Act affecting an interest of the State of Alaska             
 under that Act," sponsored by Senator Drue Pearce                             
 Number 122                                                                    
 STEPHANIE SZYMANSKI, Administrative Assistant to Senator Pearce,              
 came before the committee.  She explained Senator Pearce has been             
 closely associated with the efforts of the legislature in                     
 attempting to get Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife               
 refuge (ANWR) for responsible oil and gas exploration and                     
 development.  As part of that debate a question has come forward,             
 which they are attempting to answer by this constitutional                    
 amendment.  When Congress passed the statehood compact and the                
 people of the state of Alaska voted to accept statehood, there was            
 an open question of what has to happen for Alaska to accept any               
 amendment to the statehood compact.  Obviously, there has to be               
 some action taken to accept the amendment whether it is at the                
 legislative level, by law or by taking to a vote of the people,               
 since it took a vote of the people to accept this statehood                   
 compact.  A previous legislature, back in the early 1970s attempted           
 to answer the question by passing a law AS 01.10.110, which reads,            
 "No amendment which affects an interest of the state under the                
 Alaska Statehood Action is effective as to the state unless                   
 approved by law enacted by the legislature or the people of the               
 MS. SZYMANSKI explained that the 1976 legislature did attempt to              
 answer the question; however, it has been mentioned by legislators            
 and people of the state concerned that we should have never have              
 just let the legislature alone accept the change to the compact,              
 instead it should always go to the vote of the people.  She said              
 SJR 31 proposes to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot,              
 this November, which would add language to our constitution a                 
 requirement that in order to accept a change of the statehood                 
 compact, that act would only become effective after the legislature           
 passed a resolution putting a question on the ballot, a majority of           
 the registered voters in Alaska voted in the affirmative.  SJR 31             
 is intended to lay out a clear method which will direct future                
 legislatures as to the proper method to make any decision                     
 concerning the change to the statehood compact.                               
 Number 302                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "Would it be correct that the question under            
 this bill if it were law, that we could ask would be specifically             
 the issue that was discussed in the sponsor statement.  For                   
 example, the 90 percent return to Alaska versus the 50/50 at ANWR.            
 Would we be able to put that specific question as relates only to             
 ANWR on the ballot as opposed to having to change the entire 90               
 percent to 50/50 statewide?"                                                  
 MS. SZYMANSKI explained it is the intent of the sponsor that this             
 November, the question would be to amend the constitution requiring           
 that later if you would like to amend the statehood compact, that             
 would go before the people on that issue or any other issue.  It is           
 not the sponsor's intent that language of that nature be added this           
 Number 378                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said he understands that, but his question is, "If            
 ultimately that question were formed in a resolution to go on to              
 the ballot in a few years, could we frame it so that it would only            
 apply to ANWR - the geographic boundaries of ANWR as opposed to               
 having to change the 90 percent relation - the 90 percent return in           
 other areas of the state?"                                                    
 MS. SZYMANSKI said "yes."  She said she believes that there is a              
 resolution in the Senate, sponsored by Senator Adams, that deals              
 with that specifically.                                                       
 Number 432                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to move CSSJR 31(FIN) out of           
 the House Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations.                
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY objected to the motion.  He said he speaks            
 in objection to this proposed constitutional amendment because a              
 ballot initiative is not a good forum for debate for political                
 intercourse.  It is up or down, it is worded one way, it passes, it           
 fails.  Representative Vezey said he believes that if you're going            
 to change a contract between two parties that there is a                      
 negotiation process that must occur and the ballot initiative does            
 not allow that process to occur.  He said he thinks that the                  
 elected officials of the state of Alaska are perfectly capable of             
 responding to the wish and will of the people of the state of                 
 Alaska and their best interest without putting a measure directly             
 to them for a vote.  He said he doesn't support the resolution                
 although he doesn't have an objection to it being moved out of                
 Number 523                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN indicated he also has mixed                  
 feelings, but he thinks the reason the resolution is necessary is             
 because the concept is that you have to have a change in the                  
 constitution if it is changed in the statehood compact as that is             
 where it incorporated into state law.  He said you can't have a               
 constitutional amendment without a vote of the people.                        
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he understands the concern and it is a              
 well taken point, but this is multiple step process.  First, we               
 have to have the resolution from the legislature and that would               
 certainly be an area that (indisc.) debate in the process and the             
 negotiating.  Once you have arrived at the negotiating, it is his             
 view that this would simply be a ratification of whatever was                 
 achieved at the legislative level.  If it were something of less              
 magnitude than changing the statehood compact, he would say, "Just            
 let us do it."  When it gets to that level, perhaps the public                
 needs to be more directly involved.                                           
 Number 622                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY withdrew his objection.                                  
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was any other objection to moving              
 the bill.  Hearing none, CSSJR 31(FIN) was moved out of the House             
 Judiciary Committee.                                                          
 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced the next order of business would be CSSB
 264(JUD), "An Act limiting the authority of courts to suspend the             
 imposition of sentence in criminal cases."                                    
 KELLY HUBER, Legislative Assistant, to Senator Rick Halford, came             
 forward to address the committee.  She said SB 264 limits the                 
 authority of courts to suspend the imposition of sentence.  This              
 bill deals directly with AS 11.41. which are crimes against a                 
 person on a first time conviction.  Ms. Huber said in the Senate              
 Judiciary Committee regarding the first time conviction where they            
 removed "misdemeanors" for the first time.  It would only be felony           
 convictions on the first time.  The misdemeanors were put in for a            
 second felony.  So if it is a misdemeanor and it is a second                  
 offense, the SIS (suspension of imposition of sentence) would take            
 effect or if it was a felony for the second time.  She stated it is           
 a very straight forward bill and deals with AS 11.41.                         
 Number 736                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked that the Department of Law state             
 their position for the record.                                                
 Number 780                                                                    
 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division                 
 Department of Law, came before the committee.  She said the                   
 committee aide had just raised a question which she needs to                  
 familiarize herself with, which is that sexual abuse of a minor in            
 the fourth degree may be a misdemeanor.  She said she had thought             
 Ms. Huber was correct when she said all the misdemeanors had been             
 removed from the first time.....  Ms. Carpeneti said there is a               
 misdemeanor which is sexual abuse of a minor in the fourth degree.            
 She explained the change was made in the Senate Judiciary Committee           
 and there wasn't a hearing on the changes.  She informed the                  
 committee members that assault in the fourth degree is 230,                   
 reckless endangerment is 240 and those are both A misdemeanors.               
 Custodial interference is 330.  She said those are removed from the           
 prohibition of a SIS for the first conviction.  Ms. Carpeneti noted           
 the Department of Law doesn't have a problem with the bill.                   
 Number 868                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said for the record, "SIS is to law enforcement are           
 not what you want to hear coming out of the sentencing judge and it           
 has been, in the past, on some accessions a defendant who is                  
 convicted gets an SIS and then the next time they get before the              
 court they get what we call an `SSIS' - serious suspension of                 
 imposition of sentencing."  Chairman Porter said what the bill                
 provides is that people who have harmed others should not be                  
 considered for an SIS.                                                        
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was further testimony.  There being            
 none, he asked what the wish of the committee was.                            
 Number 989                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to move CSSB 264(JUD)             
 out of committee with zero fiscal notes and individual                        
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none,               
 CSSB 264(JUD) moved out of the House Judiciary Committee.                     
 Number 1030                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to bring up, for                           
 reconsideration, the committee's failure to adopt SB 52.                      
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN referred to the 24-hour rule on noticing           
 a bill to be heard and questioned how the meeting was noticed.                
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said in anticipating that something like this was             
 a possibility, he checked with Legislative Legal.  This kind of               
 thing has occurred repeatedly and to their knowledge, there is no             
 rule that precludes a motion to rescind from being considered any             
 time the committee is actively open for business.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he wouldn't disagree with that.  He           
 said if that motion was successful, the next motion is the one that           
 (indisc.) assume we would have to know the (indisc.).                         
 CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated Legislative Legal informed him that the             
 motion to rescind automatically brings that motion back before the            
 committee.  Even without the 24-hour rule, it is not a requirement            
 to notice it.                                                                 
 Number 1119                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said in the sense of good government and           
 open meetings, it seems to him that the committee ought to notice             
 the bill because at the previous hearing on the measure, the room             
 was completely full and there was a lot of testimony via                      
 teleconference.  He said many people in the state would be very               
 interested and the committee should give a 24-hour notice.                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said he believes the rules provide that once the              
 motion is made he doesn't have any basis for not acting on it.  It            
 does bring the other motion before the committee.  Chairman Porter            
 said he acknowledges that is an option that the committee could               
 consider, but he doesn't think the motion is a great surprise to              
 the public.  He said he read about it in two papers and really                
 doesn't think it is great surprise.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the principle behind this is to let           
 people know what is going on with government.  This would become              
 the 24-second rule.                                                           
 CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated he was told that the motion would not be            
 a violation of the rules.                                                     
 Number 1209                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said Representative Finkelstein's point is               
 well taken and he wouldn't make an attempt to circumvent good                 
 government or previous notification.  He said if he had thought               
 that this would have been open for additional testimony, he would             
 be supporting Representative Finkelstein's position of noticing the           
 bill, but he doesn't anticipate there will be additional testimony.           
 Representative Bunde said he doesn't see a great purpose is served            
 by waiting 24 hours.                                                          
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said during the public hearing, everyone wishing              
 testify did testify.  He said he will presume there is an objection           
 to the motion to rescind and asked for a roll call vote on the                
 motion to rescind.  He noted a "yes" vote will bring the vote on              
 moving SB 52 back before the committee.                                       
 Number 1239                                                                   
 A roll call vote was taken.  Representatives Bunde, Vezey, Green              
 and Porter voted in favor of the motion.  Representatives Toohey,             
 B. Davis and Finkelstein voted against the motion.  So SB 52 was              
 back before the House Judiciary Committee.                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said the motion in front of the committee is the              
 motion to move, with individual recommendations, SB 52.                       
 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS objected.                                         
 Number 1320                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN appealed to Representative Bunde to hold           
 off on the motion until the following day or until another meeting            
 is held.  He said he feels like there is a public process issue               
 that would be better served so that people are aware that there is            
 a decision to be made regarding the bill to be up for                         
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated the scheduling of meetings is the                 
 chairman's prerogative.  He said he would restate his previous                
 comments that there wouldn't be additional testimony taken and he             
 doesn't see the public process being inhibited.                               
 Number 1357                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said she would like to state her reasons for            
 opposing the bill.  She referred to putting a referendum or an                
 advisory vote the ballot saying every child shall have a pony, and            
 questioned what the outcome of that would be.  The outcome would be           
 of cost.  Nobody is telling you what the pony will cost to feed,              
 where it will be housed, how the veterinarian bill will be paid               
 that comes with this pony.  Representative Toohey said to put a               
 question like this on the ballot is absolutely irresponsible                  
 because everybody is going to say, "Yes, I believe in the death               
 penalty."  But when it costs anywhere from $5 million to $15                  
 million for the appeals of these death penalties, this state can't            
 afford that.  She said she thinks this is the wrong approach and              
 she is totally opposed to having this advisory vote.                          
 Number 1417                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN concurred with Representative Toohey's             
 comments.  He said another example is if you favor increasing the             
 dividends to $1,500 from what they currently are, how will people             
 vote on that.  He said these issues are more complicated.  You'd              
 have to say, "Would you favor increasing the dividend to $1,500 or            
 making the following cuts in education or making the following                
 changes..."  Representative Finkelstein said that is not what this            
 is.  This has one alternative there as it doesn't explain the                 
 implications of the alternative and is doesn't present the other              
 alternatives as well.                                                         
 Number 1455                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he is very much still opposed to the                
 death penalty.  He said Representatives Toohey and Finkelstein have           
 indicated at least one of the reasons why he is opposed to it.  The           
 cost differential is, in itself, enough to veto it if people are              
 aware of it.  Representative Green said it has been shown in other            
 states that it is not a deterrent to violent crime.  There is                 
 always the possibility of executing the wrong person.  He said he             
 has very strong moral opposition to this.  He indicated he has                
 heard that there is an opportunity that juries may not find                   
 somebody on trial guilty if the prosecution is seeking the death              
 penalty because of a deep seeded moral objection to that.  So it is           
 possible that a guilty person may go free.  He said he is torn                
 between that and the fact that he swore an oath that he would, to             
 the best of his ability, represent the people in District 10.                 
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he did a survey of those people in                  
 District 10 and found it was very similar to the state survey.  He            
 said the question was, "Do you support the death penalty?"  In                
 District 10, 66 percent of the people said, "Yes."  Representative            
 Green said those people were then asked the question, "Are you                
 aware that it is two and a half times more expensive to put someone           
 on death row with all the appeals that are available as it is to              
 incarcerate that person for life without possibility of parole?"              
 He said 11 percent changed their mind.  That still left 55 percent            
 of District 10 in favor of the death penalty and 25 percent very              
 opposed to the death penalty.  If you add that 11 percent, it would           
 make it 36 percent.  There was about 8 percent of the people who              
 just didn't want to make the decision.                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said his problem is that being torn between              
 his moral values and his very justifiable reasons opposing the                
 death penalty and his obligation to support the views of his                  
 constituents, he feels that voting against moving the bill from               
 committee is in effect a veto.  Representative Green said he is               
 opposed to putting anybody to death, other than in self defense or            
 in the defense of another person or as an act of war to defend your           
 country.  He said he certainly separates the advisory vote on                 
 whether or not there should be a death penalty with a jury that the           
 person would be tried by, whether or not he would be tried under              
 the death penalty, and then the opportunity for appeal as opposed             
 to putting to death an unborn child who has no opportunity to                 
 appeal.  He said while he doesn't like death of any kind, he                  
 certainly sees that there is a difference there.  Representative              
 Green stated that if this bill does pass out of the House Judiciary           
 Committee, he will vote "No" on the House floor and will try to               
 educate people that he does not like the death penalty.  He said he           
 would suggest that anyone, including the governor, who is ever put            
 in this position of a veto would seriously consider what the will             
 of the people is since we live in a democracy.                                
 Number 1709                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that what the committee is voting on           
 is an advisory vote as to whether it should go before the people.             
 He said that is the main reason he is unequivocally supporting it.            
 The committee has heard testimony that the opponents of the death             
 penalty are not well financed and they have difficulty advertising            
 their side of the picture to the public.  By putting this on the              
 ballot, it will become part of the debate that is the electorial              
 process.  It will give this subject a forum on talk radio, the                
 press, etc.  He said he believes we are doing society a favor by              
 bringing this out in the public forum, largely at public expense,             
 for discussion.  Representative Vezey said people who are working             
 to oppose the implementation of the death penalty simply don't have           
 the resources to spread their message out to the public.                      
 Representative Vezey said for that reason, he is going to support             
 the bill in committee and on the floor.                                       
 Number 1766                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said his concerns were echoed earlier and he             
 would like the entire House to have an opportunity to vote on this            
 issue.  He explained that in his mind, there is a vast difference             
 between a vote in the committee and on the House floor and the                
 institution of a death penalty.  He said there is certainly concern           
 about innocent people being subjected to the death penalty, but it            
 always comes back to him that virtually 100 percent of the victims            
 are innocent while the percentage may not always be as great for              
 the perpetrators.                                                             
 Number 1822                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said she believes that the committee shouldn't           
 be taking the bill up at this time.  She said she will definitely             
 vote against it.  Sometimes the committee members have to make a              
 hard decision as to how they will vote based on what constituents             
 might have said or what the members think is in the best interest             
 of the state.  She referred to her colleague that said he is going            
 to base his vote strictly on the fact that he did a survey the                
 results were that 55 percent said they'd support it.  She said that           
 it is not necessarily a reason to vote to move the bill from the              
 committee.  Representative Davis said, "I know if it gets on the              
 ballot, it is an advisory vote, but what I see is happening here              
 this is an election year, they know they couldn't get the bill                
 through so we come out with an advisory vote putting something on             
 the ballot to make people think that they're gunna get something              
 that they're not gunna get in the first place.  What all seven of             
 us know here - that's not gunna happen.  And so what we're doing is           
 fooling the public and regardless of how we look at it, that's all            
 it amount to - that we are doing this because it is an election               
 year and we want to fool the public that we are doing their                   
 business."  Representative Davis stated that as an elected                    
 official, the legislature has to make those kinds of choices also.            
 Every time someone says they want something, it might not be in the           
 best interest to have it.  She said she knows there are the votes             
 to move the bill from committee so she isn't going to try to stop             
 anybody from changing their minds because she doesn't have the                
 power to do that.  She said the bill is wrong and if it is brought            
 to the floor for a vote, she hopes there are the votes to vote it             
 down.  Representative Davis it is a waste of time to bring it to              
 the floor.                                                                    
 Number 1966                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he doesn't think the committee is             
 going to solve the problems society has with violence by using more           
 violence.  He discussed a comment made regarding and advisory vote            
 during an Anchorage caucus.                                                   
 Number 2016                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said he was asked when they were hearing both of              
 the bills against the implementation of the death penalty why he              
 would vote for SB 52 and not HB 481.  He said he is currently                 
 opposed to the death penalty because he recognizes, having been in            
 the business, that there are so many dollars that are going to be             
 available to be spent for criminal justice.  There is debate but              
 not much disagreement that there is a heck of a lot of cost                   
 associated with the death penalty from the beginning to the                   
 execution of sentence.  He said it is usually about ten years and             
 it costs more than it does to put people away for the rest of their           
 lives.  He said he thinks that is the reason that the death penalty           
 cannot show itself as any kind of a deterrent.  By the time it is             
 put into effect, most everyone except perhaps the family of the               
 victims, have forgotten what the crime was.  Chairman Porter said             
 it may be time to look at a public vote based on the fact that                
 Congress has passed a bill that limits the amount of appeals at the           
 federal level that people on death row have.  Hopefully, the                  
 constitutionality of those provisions will be determined within the           
 next year and by that time, we could take a look at whether or not            
 there is some applicability to those principles at a state level.             
 He said maybe we could get down to a point of not spending twice as           
 much money and have a provision that has a chance of being                    
 effective and being a deterrent and actually doing what it is that            
 those kinds of severe sentences are supposed to do which is to be             
 a ultimate deterrent to crime.                                                
 Number 2161                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for a roll call vote in moving CSSSSB 52(JUD)           
 out of committee.  Representatives Toohey, Davis and Finkelstein              
 voted against moving the bill.  Representatives Vezey, Green, Bunde           
 and Porter voted in favor of moving the bill.  So CSSSSB 52(JUD)              
 moved out of the House Judiciary Committee.                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the House Judiciary Committee meeting at            
 2:37 p.m.                                                                     

Document Name Date/Time Subjects