Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/26/1998 08:08 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 26, 1998
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ivan Ivan, Vice Chairman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 275(STA)
"An Act specifying time periods for making, soliciting, or
accepting campaign contributions to candidates for state office;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 275(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 377
"An Act relating to filling a vacancy in the office of United
States senator or in an office in the state legislature."
- MOVED HB 377 OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 275
SHORT TITLE: FUND RAISING: GOV; LT. GOV; & CANDIDATES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MILLER, Pearce
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/04/98 2393 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/04/98 2393 (S) STATE AFFAIRS
02/10/98 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/10/98 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/17/98 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/18/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/18/98 2561 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP NEW TITLE
02/18/98 2561 (S) DP: GREEN, MILLER, WARD
02/18/98 2561 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (ADM)
02/19/98 2575 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/19/98
02/19/98 2578 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/19/98 2578 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/19/98 2579 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
02/19/98 2579 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 275(STA)
02/19/98 2579 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
02/19/98 2579 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
02/19/98 2579 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
02/20/98 2597 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
02/20/98 2598 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/20/98 2389 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/20/98 2389 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
02/24/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/24/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/26/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 377
SHORT TITLE: FILLING LEGISLATIVE VACANCIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HODGINS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/04/98 2217 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/04/98 2218 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
02/19/98 (H) STA AT 9:05 AM CAPITOL 102
02/19/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/26/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR MIKE MILLER
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 107
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3733
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of CSSB 275(STA).
PORTIA PARKER, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Mike Miller
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 107
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4711
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSSB 275(STA).
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 508
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3892
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSSB 275(STA).
GEORGE MARTIN
P.O. Box 2920
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-5731
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against CSSB 275(STA).
AL J. TURNINSKY, JR.
P.O. Box 789
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
Telephone: (907) 822-5060
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSSB 275(STA)
SUSIE BARNETT, Professional Assistant
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
P.O. Box 101468
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-1468
Telephone: (907) 258-8172
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding CSSB 275(STA).
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 377.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-26, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:08 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Dyson, Elton, Hodgins and
Vezey. Representative Berkowitz arrived at 8:12.
CSSB 275(STA) - FUND RAISING: GOV; LT. GOV; & CANDIDATES
Number 0038
CHAIR JAMES announced the committee would address CSSB 275(STA),
"An Act specifying time periods for making, soliciting, or
accepting campaign contributions to candidates for state office;
and providing for an effective date," sponsored by Senator Mike
Miller.
SENATOR MIKE MILLER came before the committee. He noted there was
a previous hearing on the legislation. He said he would answer
questions the committee may have.
Number 0066
CHAIR JAMES pointed out at the last meeting on SB 275, there was an
amendment on the table by Representative Berkowitz.
SENATOR MILLER referred to the proposed amendment and said it would
allow everybody to fund-raise during the legislative session. He
said he believes that it flies in the face of the voter initiative
that would have been on the ballot last year. He said by adopting
the amendment it allows the perception of, "Now there goes the
legislature again, feathering their own nest, allowing them to
raise money during session." The committee knows that is not the
case, but that will be the perception.
Number 0174
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY indicated a problem he has is people who
aren't in a public office are being restricted. He said if it
related to just incumbents, he wouldn't have any problems at all.
It goes beyond incumbents and addresses challengers.
Representative Vezey asked if there isn't some way to leave
challengers out.
SENATOR MILLER replied that there certainly is the ability to do
that. He said, "That particular amendment would find some tough
(indisc.) over on the Senate side and we'd probably end up
(indisc.)."
Number 0391
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON referred to discussion, in the previous
hearing on CSSB 275(STA), relating to what an unintended
consequence is and asked Senator Miller what kind of an amendment
he thinks is needed. He said because the legislation changes
language says "for election or reelction of state of office," this
would allow a sitting legislator during the legislative session to
collect money for a municipal office. For example, he could have
held a fund-raiser during the legislative session if he had filed
a letter of intent to run for mayor of Juneau in the October
municipal election. Representative Elton said he couldn't have
done it last year, but if CSSB 275(STA) becomes law, he could do it
next year.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said it seems to him that either that
unintended consequence needs to be corrected or correct the title
of the bill. The title of the bill speaks only to contributions to
candidates for state office when, in fact, one of the consequences
of the bill (indisc.) a municipal office. He said he would be
interested in Senator Miller's view on whether or not he would like
to allow the prohibition of raising funds, by a sitting legislator,
who runs for municipal office or whether he would want to open that
door.
Number 0507
SENATOR MILLER said part of the problem is because of the patchwork
of laws regarding municipal elections around the state. A good
example is the Municipality of Anchorage has their election in
April. Not allowing a legislator to raise funds if a legislator
wants to run for the assembly, is hard to envision. Under that
provision, there is no way that they would have the option to even
raise money to run for that office. He pointed out that if all the
city elections were held in November, it might be something to look
at. He said, "The way the patchwork of elections around the state
right now, I think by not allowing a legislator to raise money if
he wants to run for the mayor of Anchorage, with their election in
April, you have potentially excluded that person from running for
the mayor of Anchorage." Senator Miller said he doesn't think that
we would necessarily want that as a consequence either.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Senator Miller, if the bill is left as
it is, is a title amendment needed.
Number 0652
SENATOR MILLER indicated he would let Ms. Parker of his staff
respond as she has been working with the drafter of the
legislation.
PORTIA PARKER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Mike Miller, Alaska
State Legislature, came before the committee. She said that the
issue hadn't been brought to her attention until the previous day,
by the drafter, that it may pose a problem. She indicated the
drafter hadn't even thought about it. The drafter said it may be
a concern and is looking into the issue further to see if it may
pose a problem. She said, "Because it specifies state office,
(indisc.) indirectly by changing the language here, it does affect
the ability to fund-raise for municipal and federal offices."
Number 0734
CHAIR JAMES she would like the committee to address the amendment
then the committee could get into the specifics of the bill.
Number 0760
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Representative Berkowitz, author of
the amendment, what he believes the amendment accomplishes.
Number 0778
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ responded that the amendment narrows
the scope from all state offices to just state legislature. Those
who are in the legislature can't raise funds for legislative races
as opposed to making a ban on the statewide offices. He referred
to testimony by Wayne Anthony Ross about the playing field changing
and said he thinks that pressures are different in a statewide
office and you need to raise money differently. He indicated the
amendment eliminates a problem he sees with the legislation which
is it makes running for a statewide office the purview of those who
have a lot of personal wealth or those who have stockpiled a lot of
money for a campaign.
Number 0849
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said it just makes the fund-raising ban for
legislators only. He asked if that isn't the current situation.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded that a legislator who is running
for a statewide office can't raise money. The amendment would
allow Senator Taylor to raise money for his race for governor.
Currently, he can't raise money.
Number 0889
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to when the bill was being drafted
and asked what the thinking was in not including the statewide
offices in the ban on fund-raising.
Number 0900
SENATOR MILLER noted Senator Donley was in attendance and he did a
lot of the work relating to that particular issue. He said he
believes that they were trying to deal with the specific issue
which was the initiative that would have appeared on the ballot.
At that time that initiative did not deal with the Administrative
Branch.
Number 0941
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY came before the committee. He said Senator
Miller's comments are correct, but it even goes further than that.
He said, "As we were working on the legislation, we started with
the initiative document. Of course it wasn't written by our
drafters, but it didn't have the benefit of the revisor of
statutes. We realized that a lot of those things in the (indisc.)
initiative conflicted with the existing law and other sections of
the statute. A perfect example of that was with the ethics law,
which allowed legislators to raise money for a congressional or
non-legislative race during the legislative session. That was the
existing ethics law. When the specific proposal came through the
committee process that was contained in the initiative, some of us
asked the people who were shepherding the new campaign finance law
through, 'What about this conflict with the existing law? It looks
like it's in conflict.' And we were told exactly (indisc.) done.
Mr. Miles (ph), who was the staff in charge of it, was charged with
going and finding out the answer to that question, came back and
told us that this wouldn't supersede the existing law to be able to
continue - the existing scheme would continue, even though this
said that which seemed problematic to me, but in the rush to get
that project done, we never went back and changed it. Basically on
the (indisc.) of staff that they had checked this out and it
wouldn't conflict with the existing status quo. Subsequently, the
attorney general issued an opinion, after it was all done, that it
did conflict with the existing status quo. And under the theory of
law that a prior law can be overruled by a subsequent law even
though it's specifically in conflict you can follow the most recent
one - the more restrictive one now was banned. And that clearly
was not the intent of the legislature at the time because it was
going through the committee process. We asked that question and we
were given a different (indisc.) answer for (indisc.) finally
determined by the attorney general."
Number 1063
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY referred to the campaign finance reform
legislation that was passed last year and said everybody just
abandoned common sense and their sense of constitutional value and
enacted a "populous" piece of legislation. Now they sit in a
position of trying to put a fix on an extremely broken piece of
legislation and there is nothing they can do that is going to make
it good. Representative Vezey said as much as he doesn't like this
legislation, the relative conduct of the Governor's office of
raising money during the legislative session is deplorable to him
and it is extremely sensitive to most Alaskans. Representative
Vezey said, "The issue here is very simple. Do we condone the
chief executive, the most powerful office in the United States
outside of the presidency, to raise funds when the legislature is
in session and when other elected official are prohibited from
raising funds or not? Is there another alternative?"
Number 1164
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS stated, "While I may not have a
conflict of interest in this Administration, I might have in other
Administrations. It's probably wise for all of us to declare a
conflict of interest on the off chance that some of the money that
the Governor is raising gets into legislative campaigns at a future
date."
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was an objection to the amendment.
Number 1181
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS objected. He noted he had at the last
hearing on the measure.
Number 1191
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "What we're having here is sort of
a philosophical objection with political overtones. And political
overtones here are -- it seems to me that no one wants the Governor
to raise money because he's a Democrat which is part of the way the
game gets played. But the philosophical problem I have with this
is what we are doing is we're saying that people who don't have the
resources to run for state offices personally, they're not going to
be allowed to raise money. It becomes part of the question of free
speech that we're talking about, part of the question of delivering
a message to the general public. You know I've disagreed with
Wayne Ross many times in the court room politically, but he is
dead-on when he says the Governor has bully pulpit. Robin Taylor
has a pulpit to (indisc.), John Lindauer has a lot of personal
wealth. Those resources enable him to get out and convey a
political message - a political speech that he can't do if he or
someone like him runs in the future because they don't have the
access to the money because we're closing that door down. And to
me, that's fundamentally unfair. It's not only unfair to the
candidate, but it's unfair to the general electorate because
they're only hearing the voices that have public pulpits already or
else have a lot of personal wealth."
Number 1268
SENATOR MILLER said, "Then this is the wrong amendment to deal with
that issue. If that's the issue we want to deal with (indisc.) the
amendment, I would (indisc.) Representative Dyson -- where it opens
it up to non-incumbents by giving incumbents more power to raise
money is not the direction to go if you want to solve that problem
(indisc.)."
Number 1293
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that is only part of the objection.
The other part of the objection is that the non-incumbent who is
wealthy has an advantage over the non-incumbent who isn't wealthy.
The whole point of political speech is to get political discourse
going. He said, "If we say 'political discourse,' it (indisc.) the
purview of those who have the resources to buy a television, to buy
a radio, to do mass mailings out of their own pocket. What we're
saying is that people who have less money or who aren't able to use
those (indisc.) don't have the same access to the political
process. I don't think that's the message you want to convey. Now
this amendment is not a perfect thing, this is not a perfect bill.
You got to die before you find perfection. We're just trying to
get some measure of equity here and I think the more equitable
solution is to open up the process rather than constricting."
Number 1341
CHAIRMAN JAMES said it is Representative Dyson's suggestion that
what we do is only restrict incumbents and not challengers. She
said nothing can be done about the fact that people have money.
Representative James referred to the campaign finance legislation
passed last year that gave the people with money a much bigger
place than they ever had before. She stated that was because you
can't stop them from using their own money, and course we all pay
for the price when the public seems to think that we're not
ethical. She said, "Your argument that you were giving for
supporting this bill, you could give the same argument for the
other amendment that Representative Dyson would like to see because
it does the same thing. The only thing different is that your
amendment would let the Governor raise funds and Dyson's would not,
but it would let Wayne Ross raise money which is what I thought you
were principally trying to get to with this amendment."
Number 1411
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he understands Representative Dyson's
amendment to be a ban on the incumbent. He said, "Assuming that a
different Administration, which there will be one day - probably
not as soon as folks on the other side of the of the table would
like, but there will be. I think it leaves an incumbent in an
unfair position vis- -vis a wealthy opponent. Because the wealthy
opponent can (indisc.) all day long and not give the incumbent an
opportunity to respond. You know, I don't like the fact that we
have to raise money to run for office. We could do some kind of a
scheme where the state paid for campaigns. That's not where we
want to go. So the only real practical alternative is to open this
up as much as possible. And I think, Madam Chair, you have said it
many times. The antidote is disclosure. So by constricting the
process, I don't see how we're advancing political discourse."
Number 1478
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he will vote for the amendment because it
makes an incremental improvement. If there is another amendment
introduced that make a bigger incremental improvement, he'd
probably vote for that also.
SENATOR MILLER said the bill would have come forward even if there
was a Republican governor because there is a perception that
politics is corrupt and they know it's not. He said, "We know that
everybody down here are hardworking individuals that are trying to
do the best for the state and whatever we could do to correct that
perception that politics is corrupt, we should do it. And quite
frankly, with the current structure that we have out there, this
should go forward whether we have a Republican governor or a
Democrat governor. Because it's, in my opinion, it gives the - the
public more confidence than what we can in the structure that we
have." Senator Miller said he agrees with Representative Berkowitz
disclosure being the way to go, he certainly looks forward to the
introduction of his bill reviewing (indisc.) Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC) and going forward in that direction.
Number 1558
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said if Representative Berkowitz introduces
legislation to repeal the APOC and open up the (indisc.), he would
co-sponsor it.
Number 1573
SENATOR DONLEY pointed out that there is more to the bill than just
the campaign fund-raising aspect, there is the ethics aspect. He
said, "It may seem like this might be a balancing under campaign
fund-raising aspects which I disagree with also, but clearly if you
go the ethics aspect, the proposal that came from the Senate is the
right thing to do. There is no distinction, that I can see
logically, between the public policy that's served by not allowing
people to accept contributions (indisc.), and allowing lobbyists or
interest groups to come forward and say, 'We're going to give money
to your opponent next week if you don't vote a certain way on the
bill.' It's the same problem - same ethical problem that's going
to be (indisc.). And by allowing people outside the legislature to
fund raise while the legislature is in session, the opponents of
individual (indisc.) can have that same exact ethical problem
occurring as we have tried to prevent with this status quo this
long. Frankly, that seems like a very dangerous situation to get
into also."
CHAIR JAMES indicated the committee is ready to vote on the
amendment.
Number 1650
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Elton and Berkowitz
voted in favor the amendment. Representatives Hodgins, Vezey,
Dyson and James voted against the amendment. So the amendment
failed to be adopted.
Number 1654
CHAIR JAMES indicated she is still concerned about the title and
municipal issues. She said, "I'm concerned about that issue
because if we need to do that title change - if we do need to do a
title change to effect that one issue, what is your understanding
of that Senator Miller?"
Number 1696
SENATOR MILLER said he isn't sure if it needs a title change or
not. He noted he had just found out the previous day about the
issue.
CHAIR JAMES said, "Is there any way that you could call now and
find out a definitive answer. Here's my concern is that I'm
willing to put this bill out, as it is, if we have the votes.
However, my preference would be have it be just the incumbents, but
I don't want you to have to split it to a conference committee if
you don't want to do that because this bill, if it passes or not,
is - the timing is the most important part of the bill. And so the
longer we don't do the bill, the more it doesn't have any effect
for this campaign year. So if it's going to have to have a title
change and have to go -- we still have to go to the House floor and
by that time if a title change is determined to be needed, then
we're going to have to have a conference anyway. I believe it's
the attitude of this committee that they would rather have it only
effect incumbents."
Number 1760
MS. PARKER indicated the drafter has said there is a potential
problem.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "I guess my concern is that if we have
trouble in this committee on that issue, it still has to go to the
House floor. And, you know, I think that if you want the bill that
we need to make it as palatable as possible in that respect. And
we're going to hear testimony on that issue."
Number 1797
SENATOR MILLER responded, "If you wanted to imply to an incumbent,
you could probably do a (indisc.). I think you could probably do
it without a title change. And quite frankly, there is no law that
has ever been thrown out of the state, that I know of, on the
challenge of the title of what they said it was in the bill. And
actually we had researched that a couple of years ago. I mean it's
certainly a policy call of this committee and, you know, it'll be
a policy call on the floor. When it gets to the floor the body may
believe it should apply to everybody."
Number 1822
CHAIR JAMES said the way the bill is written, she doesn't believe
the title is a problem. If it does have an indirect effect on
municipal candidates, then it may.
Number 1837
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated that in the course of discussion
with the attorney, he did discuss the problem with the title. He
said he thinks that the characterization that Ms. Parker made on
the questions that the committee had is the same characterization
of the discussion that the attorney had with him. He stated he
believes it is an open question. Representative Elton said his
preference would be that the committee resolve that question before
the bill is moved out of committee.
CHAIR JAMES explained her concern is that if there is a potential
glitch, what will it do to the bill as it moves forward. She said
for the purpose of the bill, timing is extremely important.
Number 1899
SENATOR MILLER said, "Well I think you have brought up two issues.
I think the one issue if you want to deal with only incumbents, I
do not believe that you have a title problem. On the other one,
the campaign of fund-raising for a municipal election - if you
wanted to deal with that, you very well may have a title problem.
I'm not sure. But I still think you may have a problem with the
way the elections are in Anchorage and Anchorage is half the
population of the state." Senator Miller said he would like the
bill to move, but it is certainly the purview of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he understands there would be a title
problem if the language is in the current form. He said the title
doesn't reflect the changes to municipal elections that occur under
the current language. He stated his understanding from the
conversation with the attorney is there would be a title problem if
the bill passes the way it is currently written.
Number 1951
CHAIR JAMES indicated it was her understanding that if the
committee didn't include "municipal offices," then there would be
a title problem. She asked if that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said that isn't correct. What the present
language does is change the rules for municipal elections. It
changes the campaign finance rule for municipal elections. So that
change may require a different title. He said, "If we adopt an
amendment that would maintain the status quo, prohibiting sitting
legislators from raising money for municipal office - if we adopted
an amendment like that then we probably wouldn't have."
Number 1986
CHAIR JAMES asked where the language is in the bill that affects
municipal candidates.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred the committee to page 1, line 7, and
the new language that says, "for election or reelection to state
office..."
Number 1999
MS. PARKER said, "I've gone over this several times about trying to
explain this so I could understand it when he was explaining it to
me because I didn't get it either because it's an indirect -- it's
not contained in the content of the bill, but because of the effect
it has by changing the language that's in current statute. So the
only people it effects are sitting legislators who are incumbents
who, right now, are prohibited from fund-raising for filing for any
office, whether it's federal, municipal or state - only
legislators. If under this because you say only when you're filing
for election or reelection to state office, that opens up that you
can begin raising money for federal or municipal offices. So it
effects -- immediately it'll effect someone like Jim Duncan who
filed for Congress. That will change so now he could start raising
money when this became effective because for that indirect change
in how it effects people who can fund raise is how they think there
is a potential problem because we only mention state office that
it's (indisc.) for office, then it would be all inclusive."
CHAIR JAMES asked, "Do we care that it does that?"
MS. PARKER responded that she doesn't.
Number 2067
CHAIR JAMES said because Senator Duncan is running for federal
office, he could fund-raise and anyone who is in the legislature
and runs for the mayor of Anchorage could fund-raise.
MS. PARKER responded, "That's correct because they have not filed
for election or reelection to a state office."
CHAIR JAMES said the decision is do we want that to happen. She
said if it is, then the committee shouldn't amend the bill and a
title change wouldn't be needed.
Number 2076
MS. PARKER said the potential that there could be a title problem
has to do with what is currently contained in the bill.
Number 2085
SENATOR MILLER said, "It's the word 'state.' It could be a
potential. However, if it goes forward somebody would have to
challenge it and like I stated before, I know of no law in the
state of Alaska that has been thrown out because of a title."
Number 2097
CHAIR JAMES asked what the will of the committee was.
Number 2119
GEORGE MARTIN testified from Kenai. He said SB 275, overall, is
just bad legislation. It's his right to free speech that will be
infringed on if the legislation becomes law. Mr. Martin pointed
out that United States Supreme Court has held, in several rulings,
that political donations and free speech are one and the same. The
original basis for similar legislation applying to state House and
Senate seats were (indisc.) on the basis that it was in the
public's interest to prevent elected officials from using the power
of their office to improperly raise money for reelection - to
protect the public from weak legislators that might use their
position to offer undue influence to raise money. He said that we
are moving beyond that to a position to anybody who runs for public
office during the legislative session. He said, "You're getting
into a different ballpark. I may be choosing to support someone
who is just 'Joe Blow' out here on the street - helping him to get
ready to run for a Senate seat or Governor or whatever. he is
being put into a position where he can't raise any money and I'm
being put into a position where I cannot support him at this point
in time. The level playing field scenario is all fine and dandy,
but I don't think it'll sell in court. I think you're going to
wind up with the whole thing thrown out with the - the baby would
be thrown out with the bath water. So I would really ask you folks
to reconsider this bill in its entirety. I would certainly
recommend, at the very least, if you amend it to exclude those
folks who are not now holding a public office. Because if you
don't it will get challenged, there will be at the very least a
temporary injunction placed against this and you're going to be
right back where you started. It will not have any effect. I
really would appreciate your consideration on it. Thank you."
Number 2229
AL J. TURNINSKY, JR., testified via teleconference from Glennallen.
He indicated he has submitted his written testimony to the
committee and doesn't have anything more to add.
Number 2236
CHAIR JAMES indicated there were no other witnesses to testify and
closed the public hearing on CSSB 275(STA).
Number 2241
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he had an amendment to offer: on page 3,
delete line 24. He said that the playing field is being changed in
the middle of the game which has a direct effect on Wayne Anthony
Ross who is running for Governor. Mr. Ross filed for Governor
under the current rules and he is the person who is most at risk
with the passage of the legislation. Representative Elton stated
that it is fine to say that this is a good idea, but he believes it
is wrong to say that it is a good idea to do it right now. The rug
is being pulled out from under somebody who has every right to run
as (indic.) and campaign for Governor.
Number 2300
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected to the amendment. He stated the
person who is most impacted is the incumbent Governor. Other
people are impacted but nobody is impacted as much as the incumbent
Governor.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz and Elton
voted in favor of the amendment. Representative Dyson, Vezey,
Hodgins and James voted against the amendment. So the amendment
failed to be adopted.
Number 2347
CHAIR JAMES noted that was Amendment 2.
Number 2349
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated he had another amendment on page 1,
line 7, after the word "for" insert "election to municipal office
or". And then on lines 9 through 13, delete the changes and retain
the original language. Representative Elton said the amendment
would have two net effects. He said, "The first effect is we
maintain the prohibition where the sitting legislator cannot,
during a legislative session, raise money for municipal office.
And I think that resolves the title problem that we were discussing
earlier. The second effect of this is that it maintains the
prohibition on fund-raising during any special session. I mean the
change in the language from line 8 through line 13 essentially
opens the door a little bit on fund-raising during a special
session because any special session that isn't held between the end
of the session and mid-May and the last week or two of May, the
prohibition would still be there. Right now we have a prohibition
on any special session. This would allow fund-raising as long as
the election is 90 days out even if there is a special session. So
assuming that the primary is at the end of August, you would be
able raise, during a special session, 90 days up in front of the
primary and the general election. Then in early November you'd be
able to raise - fund-raise (indisc.)."
Number 2448
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected to Representative Elton's amendment.
He said, "I have never been able to conscience the concept that we
allow the governor of the state of Alaska to determine whether or
not candidates for legislative office can raise political
contributions. I think that prohibition is totally unconscionable
and I have...."
TAPE 98-26, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY continued, "...that grant of power to the
Governor by this body is absolutely unconscionable and this bill
seeks to revoke that so I think...."
Number 0022
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he understands Representative Vezey's
objection. He said he would point out that every four years, the
Governor would also (indisc.) his ability to raise money under that
provision also because this bill widens it to cover gubernatorial
races. A special session would also prohibit his or her ability to
raise money during a special session also. He noted that would be
if the special session is during a gubernatorial election year.
Number 0041
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY indicated he doesn't accept Representative
Elton's statement.
Number 0057
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to page 3, line 24, Section 3, and
asked if it would be legal to amend it to say, "This Act takes
effect immediately under AS 01.10.070(c), and May 15, 1998, for
non-incumbents of state office." He asked if there could be a
staggered enactment.
Number 0089
SENATOR DONLEY responded, "My guess is (indisc.) well (indisc.)
that you can't have a split effective date and discriminate between
office holders and non-office holders, then how can you have a
limitation to discriminate between office holders and non-office
holders."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he agrees it is a problem because you
wind up with some kind of disparity.
Number 0118
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he would like to point out that he thinks
that it gets back to a problem that Senator Donley discussed
earlier that there is a flip side to this. If there is a
perception problem, you're not just prohibiting the ability of
somebody to give you money. He said, "You're also giving a
potential contributor the right to go to someone and say, 'I'm
going to give money to somebody else.' And so I think the problem
may not just be a legal problem if we want to open that door."
Number 0139
CHAIR JAMES said, "Representative Elton, I don't think that we have
any control at all over what somebody comes in and tells us they're
going to do if we don't vote for something. The issue is do we
listen to them. That's the issue. It is not the threat. Anybody
can threaten use for what they want to do. The only thing that's
unethical is if we yield to it and it benefits us in some way. So
I don't think that is the problem."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he is reiterating somebody else's problem
and is not stating his problem, but he believes there is a
perception problem.
Number 0176
SENATOR DONLEY said he thinks that existing law that says some
people can raise money and other people can't raise money is
constitutionally suspect. He stated he doesn't know the answer,
but he thinks that under existing law where you have a difference
between two citizens - one can run for office and raise money, and
one running for office who can't, is very suspect under the First
Amendment.
Number 0197
MS. PARKER referred to representative Elton's amendment and said
there would be several other problems. The first is the change on
line 7. The bill allows sitting incumbents to fund-raise for
federal offices. It doesn't address fund-raising during session.
It addresses part of it, but it doesn't address federal. Ms.
Parker referred to the potential abuse of the Governor to call a
special session three weeks before an election is certainly a big
concern. Ms. Parker referred to a third problem of when there may
be a special election. She pointed out the last time there was a
special election, it was held in April for a legislative office.
She said they wouldn't be allowed to fund-raise at all because they
both would be candidates for a state office.
Number 0243
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "The allegation is that somebody can not
raise money for federal office right now. My understanding is
they...."
MS. PARKER stated, "According to APOC, yesterday they told me they
cannot if they are a sitting legislator."
Number 0259
SENATOR DONLEY said, "Because of the difference between the
campaign finance law and the ethics law that's why -- you've got
two parallel laws going on which could be creating a dichotomy
which is one of the advantages of the Senate version 275. It makes
it uniform law - the difference between ethics and campaign.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS questioned why the committee is talking
about federal office. He asked if it is in the bill.
Number 0275
CHAIR JAMES indicated it is not in the bill, but it is implied.
She said she would rule that the discussion of federal office is
certainly applicable, particularly since there is a Senator running
for federal office.
Number 0287
SUSIE BARNETT, Professional Assistant, Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, testified via teleconference from Anchorage.
She informed the committee federal law supersedes the ethics law in
this case. She noted she has researched it. There is case law
from Georgia that allows those running for federal office to fund-
raise during session.
Number 0307
MS. PARKER stated that according to APOC, they still have to file
for office under 15.13.100.
CHAIR JAMES said the committee is getting away from discussion on
the amendment. She suggested the committee deal with the
amendment. Chair James said there was an objection to the
amendment and asked for a roll call vote.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what the amendment is.
CHAIR JAMES stated the amendment is on page 1, line 7, after "for"
and before "election" insert "to municipal office or". She also
said between lines 9 and 13, exclude all of the changed language
and go back to the original wording.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Elton and Berkowitz
voted in favor of adopting the amendment. Representatives Hodgins,
Vezey, Dyson and James voted against the amendment. The amendment
failed to be adopted.
CHAIR JAMES informed the committee that she would like a motion to
move the bill out of committee. She said she still has some
concerns the bill might have to go to a conference committee. It
would be her preference that the bill only affected incumbents, but
she will leave that up to Senator Miller.
Number 0386
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he thinks the committee is trying to fix
bad legislation that the courts are going to overturn. He said,
"If you all -- I could be off the horns of the dilemma if you would
allow an amendment which says - at the end of Section 3 it says
'for incumbent and May 15, 1998, for non-incumbents of state
office.' I could move the thing out today and I'm hoping that my
thoughts on this will get clearer as we get further down the road.
And literally, no one has talked to me about this until yesterday."
Number 0450
CHAIR JAMES said there is the perception that incumbents have more
of an advantage and it is a reality. There is no way that you can
deny it. The interest of the public seems to be trying to make a
level playing field. Chair James said if she recalls correctly, it
was intended to let a challenger raise funds during the legislative
process.
SENATOR MILLER said it is within the prerogative of the committee
to make the amendment.
Number 0523
CHAIR JAMES said, "I don't think that in getting to that a
suggestion of an amendment that Representative Dyson has the right
amendment, but I will entertain an amendment that would -- if
somebody could tell me exactly where the language needs to be
changed that this prohibition for funding is purely and simply for
incumbents and not challengers."
Number 0549
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he appreciates what Representative Dyson
is trying to accomplish, but the situation is that we're trying to
take what he would call very unconstitutional law and try to make
it a little more constitutional. He said he doesn't think the
committee is helping that process by throwing in additional serious
constitutional questions.
CHAIR JAMES stated she isn't convinced that making the effective
date different is the way to fix the bill.
Number 0590
SENATOR MILLER said another way to approach the problem is to go
ahead and move the bill out of committee.
CHAIR JAMES indicated it could be addressed in the Rules Committee.
SENATOR MILLER said it could be changed in Rules or on the floor
where there would be a committee of the whole. He noted it would
probably be a couple of days before the bill went to the floor.
Number 0610
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he certainly has no guarantees that
anyone would ever propose such a thing in the Rules Committee.
CHAIR JAMES said Representative Dyson could take it to Rules
himself or it could be done on the floor.
Number 0627
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move the bill out of
committee.
Number 0585
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he believes Representative Dyson's
concerns were legitimate. The question is a legal question
(indisc.) about his amendment are also significant. He stated he
believes it is the responsibility of the committee to answer
questions before the bill is moved.
Number 0647
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "Madam Chair, I think that the
suggestion to move this bill to the next committee - that would
allow us two things. It would allow us to get an answer to the
title question so that we avoid potential problems in the future
and it would allow Representative Dyson to do the legal research
necessary to find out whether (indisc.)."
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said, "There must be a fund-raiser coming up
for the Governor between now and the next meeting."
Number 0668
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move CSSB 275, Version L,
out of the House State Affairs Committee with individual
recommendations and the attached fiscal notes.
CHAIR JAMES said, "I'll tell you one reason why we're not going to
hear this on Saturday. We've been here an hour and ten minutes, we
have accomplished very, very little."
Number 0685
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected to moving the bill. He said,
"Maybe it's the fact that I've losing in too many 28 to 12 votes,
but there is a certain amount of cynicism increase (indisc.) after
that. And comments such as the one that Representative Hodgins
just made merely exacerbates that cynicism about this bill. And I
want to commend Representative Vezey for being candid enough to
point out that the one who's truly impacted - one of the people
truly impacted by this bill is the Governor. I mean if this is
truly a legitimate concern, and I understand there is legitimate
philosophical concerns here -- political policy questions, then
don't make an immediate effective date, but that's not what we're
doing. We are -- in attempting to address all the concerns of the
public, we are merely giving them reason to have suspicions about
what we do just by the real process as to how this bill is moving
and the effective date."
Number 0730
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he also objected to the legislation
moving. He said, "My objection is to the comments on how much time
we've spent on this and I think one of the reasons we spent an hour
and ten minutes on this bill is because there have been questions
asked that can't be answered. And I think this is bad form to move
a bill when there is a significant legal question out there. I
think it's bad (indisc.) to move the bill. A member of the
committee has a legal question that may, or may not, effect the
amendment that they want to make. A delay of two days, I doubt
very much it's going to allow any fund-raisers to be held."
Number 0760
SENATOR MILLER said, "I understand that Representative Berkowitz
maybe being a little upset, but at the same time, I believe in the
statement he's (indisc.) my motives for introducing the bill. And
I'm a little bit offended by that. I've been around in this system
long enough to know (indisc.) government. I've sat under a lot of
different administrations here, both Republican and - actually no
Republicans to AIP (Alaskan Independence Party) anyway and a
Democratic. As I stated earlier, this is good public policy no
matter who is in the Governor's chair. I'm a little bit offended
that he (indisc.) my motives for the introduction of this bill to
begin with, but I'm sure that was just (indisc.).
CHAIR JAMES told Representative Dyson if he wishes to make an
amendment, she would allow him to.
Number 0807
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he would offer an amendment that on page
3, line 24, Section 3, to remove the "." and add the words, "for
incumbent and May 15, 1998, for non-incumbent of state offices."
He noted he doesn't know whether it should be "in state offices" or
"of state offices". He suggested, "state office incumbents."
CHAIR JAMES suggested using "for state office who holds a state
office." Chair James said it will be called a conceptual
amendment.
CHAIR JAMES reiterated the conceptual amendment. After "." in
Section 3, line 24, page 3, it should say, "effective immediately
for incumbents", and "effective on May 15, 1998, for candidates for
state office who..."
Number 0888
MS. PARKER said if the effect of the amendment to have it immediate
for incumbents, the language should be, "This Act takes effect
immediately under AS 01.10.070(c) for candidates for re-election --
for elections of state office who are currently serving elective
state office."
Number 0909
CHAIR JAMES stated, "My understanding is that the public want to
have non-incumbents have an up on incumbents and that it would be
my belief that the public would prefer -- they don't want people
running that are -- current candidates to be running. Quite
frankly, those people who are contributing to the Governor's
campaign I think are probably pretty happy about it. Those who
would prefer not to contribute are not happy. It is a problem out
there. I will agree to that, but I think what this does is it only
fixes it for this year and then we're right back to the same thing
where incumbents can't raise during the legislative session. So
for that, that doesn't satisfy my need -- Representative Vezey."
Number 0948
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "The redeeming characteristic of what
we're trying to do here is that we treat everyone equally -- that
we are not creating two classes of citizenship because I don't
think any court in the country, state or federal level, would
uphold. And I'd adhere to that principle. I don't think we have
two classes of citizens here. If we try to set up a bi-class
procedure as who can run for office on what ground, I think at the
very best all we can hope to do is trip and fall into a bottomless
cavern. I just don't know any alternatives we have other than
trying to keep a very level playing field with one class of
citizen."
Number 0998
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said Representative Vezey's point is well
taken. He said what he hopes the amendment will do is eliminate
the problem he has regarding the timing. He referred to Wayne Ross
and said he hopes the amendment eliminates the problem of changing
the rules for him. He said, "It does accomplish -- you know, keeps
the incumbents being subject to using their office for raising
money or being pressured - appear to be pressured to do it. So the
fact that it leaves that two stage thing in place after the
fifteenth of May is a problem. I believe it's going to be
overturned, maybe even before the end of this session by the ACLU
(American Civil Liberties Union) suit which has lots of merit.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he objects to the amendment.
Number 1061
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Elton, Dyson and
Hodgins voted in favor of adopting the amendment. Representatives
Vezey, James and Berkowitz voted against adopting the amendment.
So the conceptual amendment failed to be adopted.
Number 1102
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move CSSB 275, Version L,
out of the House State Affairs Committee with individual
recommendations and with the attached fiscal notes. He said, "I
would certainly accept and agree with Representative Dyson that if
there is some mechanism for doing this in Rules and on the floor,
I would certainly support him in trying to do what he just did with
this amendment."
CHAIR JAMES asked if there is an objection to moving the
legislation.
Number 1130
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He said, "As President Miller
indicated that I didn't change his motives. I also said that I
thought there was legitimate policy questions to this bill and I
appreciated him coming forward. As was said that the perception
with the immediate effective date is that we're playing politics
and I'm going to stand by that statement."
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hodgins, Vezey and
James voted in favor of moving the bill out of committee.
Representatives Elton, Berkowitz and Dyson voted against moving the
bill out of committee. So CSSB 275(STA) failed to move out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 377 - FILLING LEGISLATIVE VACANCIES
Number 1185
CHAIR JAMES announced the committee would hear HB 377, "An Act
relating to filling a vacancy in the office of United States
senator or in an office in the state legislature," sponsored by
Representative Hodgins.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS read the following statement into the
record:
"Basically in the past, vacancies which occurred between normal
election cycles, the political party representing the predecessor
made 'recommendations' for appointment to that seat and the
Governor usually made the appointments from that list of
recommendations.
"House Bill 377 states that the Governor shall make the appointment
from a list of at least three qualified nominees submitted by the
state organization that represents the political party of the
predecessor.
"House Bill 377 ensures that in the event a vacancy occurs in the
United States Senate or in the state legislature, the citizens of
Alaska who elected the predecessor to office, will continue to have
their political philosophy represented by someone of their
choosing."
Number 1243
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated, "This would prohibit, for example,
what happened when Governor Hickel appointed Ted Stevens to the
U.S. Senate in the late 1960s."
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS indicated that is correct.
Number 1278
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said the legislation would allow the state
organization to submit nominees. He asked, "Do we give the state
organizations any official recognition anywhere in the law?"
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said he believes there is a definition of
the political organizations. He noted he doesn't know if it is in
this law or not.
Number 1330
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law, came forward to respond. [Note: Due to a
recording malfunction, some of Mr. Baldwin's response could not be
heard on the tape.] Mr. Baldwin said he believes that this is very
similar to the approach that was taken for a vacancy that occurred
through the primary and the general. He said, "I think it's
attempted to make this -- that scheme - that appointment scheme
applicable to vacancies that occur after the general as well.
That's the way I read it. It would also do away with the
requirement to elect a senatorial vacancy if there is more than two
years remaining on the term. I didn't pick that up from the bill
directly, but I think that's the effect of it -- that requires no
appointment at all."
Number 1431
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he is curious what Representative Hodgins
is trying to accomplish. He stated, "And I too have vivid memories
of when Senator Bennett died and have visions of when Senator
Fahrenkamp died in Fairbanks. It was a (indisc.) left without
representation in the legislature for a period of time -- or in the
Senate (indisc.) case. I'm curious as to what we're trying to
accomplish here."
Number 1473
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS responded, "Basically what we're trying to
accomplish is that if a person is in a certain political party and
is replaced, it must be by that same political party or that same
political -- they must be members of the same political party. In
laymen's terms, it would not allow the Governor to appoint a
Democrat if the seat was held by a Republican in that office for
Senate or U.S. Senate."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he was referring to Section 1 where words
are being added to existing statute.
Number 1525
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS responded, "The wording that would be added
there would identify that person as somebody from the same
political party." He read from Section 1, "under (b) of this
section, an individual," and said under "(b)" of this section, it
would become the same political party.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY questioned what the significance is of the
words, "after the vacancy occurs,".
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS responded that within 30 days after the
vacancy occurs, that is to shorten up the time limit. He said, "If
you have felt, in the past, that the appointment has not been made
in a timely manner unless people..."
Number 1574
CHAIR JAMES interjected, "It does say in here - it does already
without the change in the law that within 30 days -- when a vacancy
occurs within 30 days, the Governor within 30 days shall appoint.
Now this just says 30 days after the vacancy occurs. Is that just
to make it more clear? It already says when a vacancy occurs."
Number 1596
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS pointed out that the bill was drafted by
Legislative Legal and if it is confusing, he wouldn't have a
problem with removing the language.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY responded that it is confusing, but there is
usually a reason for words and he fails the see the reasoning.
Number 1649
MR. BALDWIN said he would like to point at what he believes is a
legal issue. He stated, "This is merely a process that is in
existing law for appointments that (indisc.) occur between the
primary and the general. A vacancy that occurs after the general
are a little bit different situation, although I think a legal
problem is shared in these sections. And probably what you
remember about the Don Bennett vacancy - Senator Bennett's vacancy
was that for awhile there, there was a lawsuit pending in Fairbanks
where there was a disagreement between the Governor and the
District Committee. Under existing law, there is no role for the
District Committee. It's silent as to how he appoints, but the
practice has always been -- the custom has always been that the
governor goes to the District Committee and solicits from them
suggested persons to appoint. At times, there have been
disagreements between the Governor and the committee. I mean I
don't think that there has been a disagreement, that I know of,
about the party that should be appointed -- whether the person is
from the party or not, but there have been disagreements as to the
individuals that's being put forth by the District Committees. We
have got to litigation at one point and it was over the provision
in the law that required confirmation by less than the full house
of the legislature, which is a very odd provision. And the
language that's being borrowed on here, which is between the
primary and the general election vacancy situation occurred when
you're talking about a vacancy -- an election that provides for the
party nomination where the role of the district is probably more
relevant to being involved in the appointment process. What the
constitution says is that appointments to fill vacancies should be
provided by law, and if nothing is provided in law, then the
Governor shall appoint. So the constitution gives the legislature
an expressed grant of power in this area. But since the time that
the constitution was written and the time that the provision was
approved, which deals with between primary situations, we've had a
case in the state Alive Voluntary which dealt with how the
legislature must process its business. I'm sure you've probably
had Alive Voluntary (indisc.) before. What it says is that the
legislature can't give in to a smaller group of itself lawmaking
powers. And if this confirmation is a lawmaking type power, the
argument goes you can't convey it on a caucus of the legislature.
That is the argument that then Governor Cowper made in Fairbanks
concerning the appointment process and the role that was attempting
to be made by -- what would happen there is the Governor didn't
like the name. The legislature took up the name and proceeded to
confirm them or indicated intentions to and we were blocking it.
As these things typically do, there was an accommodation and the
Governor got the name that he wanted and the District Committee was
satisfied with the compromise and the lawsuit didn't mature."
Number 1901
CHAIR JAMES said she remembers that situation well. The political
party was supposed to put up three names and they put one name up
three times.
MR. BALDWIN stated he just wanted to point out that he thinks that
legal issue still exists with this language and it exists in
existing law for a little bit different situation.
Number 1930
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he remembers that situation very
differently. He explained existing law is very clear that the
party will nominate and the Governor will appoint.
MR. BALDWIN said the existing law is silent on that point. He
said, "I think that's what this bill is attempting to do is to make
it (indisc.). That's where the confusion has been, Representative
Vezey. People have confused the post general vacancy situation
with the vacancy that occurs between the primary and the general.
The law for a vacancy that occurs between the primary and the
general very clearly provides that the District Committees have a
role in the appointment process. But existing law, they've been
getting it confused, but the practice has been that when there is
a post general vacancy in an office that can be filled by
appointment, that there has been the complications, but at times
there has been difficulties because there has been different
philosophies involved."
Number 2080
CHAIR JAMES said she didn't remember the lawsuit specifically
having anything to do with the legislature's power to do this or
giving themselves the power to do this. She said what she recalls
is if three names are supposed to be put up, there has to be three
separate names as opposed to one name three times. When the
Governor refused to take the one name three times and refused to
put that name forward to the legislature, then the net result was
they put up another name.
MR. BALDWIN said, "We also raised the other confirmation issue."
CHAIR JAMES questioned what the result of that was.
MR. BALDWIN responded, "Everybody walked away from it."
CHAIR JAMES said that is still unchallenged and there is no closure
on that.
MR. BALDWIN stated that there is no closure on that issue. He
said, "There could be a problem even with this plan because I've
seen situations where even though you present three names, the
Governor -- what happens if he doesn't like those names? What
happens if he doesn't appoint?"
CHAIR JAMES said she doesn't know whether the Governor has the
ultimate power and she doesn't know what the constitution says on
that.
MR. BALDWIN said, "The framework of how you want to go about doing
it I think is the policy question for this committee and the
legislature. I would point out the legal problem which is I think
the confirmation aspect of this which would have a minority caucus
or a majority caucus having a share in the appointment power. And
I think that the Alive Voluntary case of this is you can't hand
that kind of power to less than a full group of the legislature."
Number 2158
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that he had stepped out of the room
for a moment. He asked Mr. Baldwin to comment on the law that
allows a portion of the legislature to confirm an appointment.
MR. BALDWIN stated, "I obtain my reasoning from the State v. Alive
Voluntary case."
CHAIR JAMES said, "It is a separation of powers issue where they
threw out the ability of the legislature to annul a regulation by
a simple resolution because there was no ability for the Governor
to override -- to do that."
MR. BALDWIN said, "Also involved in that case was the power of the
Regulation Review Committee to vote to -- had been given some
power. So what that case held, Representative Vezey, was that the
legislature can't bootstrap power - can't transfer its power to
less than a full body. That's how I read that case and it's not on
point with this situation, but I think it provides guidance."
Number 2270
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he doesn't see the comparison as we're
talking separation of powers. He explained he sees very clear
differences in the approval process for appointment and the
lawmaking process.
MR. BALDWIN said, "We have another case in Alaska, Granyard v.
Hammond which said that -- that dealt with the confirmation with
the legislature by statute attempted deputy directors subject to
confirmation, and the court issued a decision saying that only in
those places where it is specifically authorized in the legislature
to participate in the appointment power. Now I will give you that
the constitution says that the legislature may prescribe, by law,
the appointment process. The constitution says that. So that's
pretty heavy weight authority there that would have to be resolved
(indisc.). But the question is, 'Does this constitutional
provision give the legislature, by law, the power to give itself a
share in the appointment followed by confirmation?' I think that,
as you slightly identified, a question of proposition and one that
may be prone to litigation. And my role here I think it's to tell
you that there are issues like that that are present in this bill."
TAPE 98-27, SIDE A
Number 0049
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked how strongly the sponsor of bill feels
about the language.
Number 0081
CHAIR JAMES called for a brief at ease. She called the meeting
back to order and asked if there were any further comments.
Number 0088
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said, "This bill would just simply fill a --
change a precedence into a law. We've always had the assumption
that the Governor is going to appoint and would appoint somebody
from the same political party and this would, indeed, put it into
law that you would actually have to."
Number 0128
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made a motion to move HB 377 out of committee
with individual recommendations and with the attached zero fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 377 moved out of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee.
CSSB 275(STA) - FUND RAISING: GOV; LT. GOV; & CANDIDATES
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "I would like to move to reconsider my
vote on CSSB 275(STA)."
Number 0155
CHAIR JAMES stated there is a motion to reconsider the vote on CSSB
275(STA). She asked if there is an objection to the motion. There
being no objection, the bill was before the committee again.
Number 0210
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "Representatives Elton and Berkowitz, I
have asked the Chair to move to reconsider the vote on SB 275 and
there wasn't an objection to that."
CHAIR JAMES stated, "And so now the bill is on the table before us
to be moved." She asked if there was an objection.
Number 0234
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hodgins, Vezey, Dyson
and James voted in favor of moving the bill. Representatives Elton
and Berkowitz voted against moving the bill. So CSSB 275(STA)
moved out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0359
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee at
9:46 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|