02/07/2002 08:08 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 7, 2002
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 213
"An Act relating to initiative and referendum petitions; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 213 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to initiative and referendum petitions.
- MOVED HJR 25 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 314
"An Act relating to service in the peace corps as an allowable
absence from the state for purposes of eligibility for permanent
fund dividends; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 213
SHORT TITLE:INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)WILLIAMS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/26/01 0729 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/26/01 0729 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/24/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/24/01 (H) Bill Postponed
04/26/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/26/01 (H) Heard & Held
04/26/01 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/26/01 1257 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILSON
04/28/01 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/28/01 (H) <Bill Postponed>
02/07/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 25
SHORT TITLE:CONST AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)WILLIAMS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/26/01 0728 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/26/01 0728 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/24/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/24/01 (H) Bill Postponed
04/26/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/26/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/26/01 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/26/01 1256 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILSON
04/28/01 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/28/01 (H) <Bill Postponed>
02/07/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 314
SHORT TITLE:PFD ELIGIBILITY FOR PEACE CORP VOLUNTEERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MCGUIRE, DAVIES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1957 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/02
01/14/02 1957 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1957 (H) STA, FIN
01/28/02 2086 (H) JOINT PRIME SPONSOR ADDED:
DAVIES
02/07/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
RANDY RUARO, Staff
to Representative William K. "Bill" Williams
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 515
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative
Williams, sponsor of HB 213 and HJR 25.
SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate
Alaska Conservation Voters
PO Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in opposition to HB 213 [and HJR 25].
RANDY REUDRICH
1515 West 13th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 213.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist
Central Office
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
PO Box 110017
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0017
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 213 and HJR 25.
DAVID MOORE, Director
United Campus Ministry (UCM)
University of Alaska, Fairbanks
4042 Dunlap
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of 26 Peace Corps
volunteers from Alaska, in particular, Denny and Lisa Wells,
regarding HB 314.
FRANCIS McLAUGHLIN, Peace Corps Volunteer
1167 Park Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 314.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-7, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:08 a.m. Representatives James,
Fate, Crawford, and Coghill were present at the call to order.
Representatives Stevens, Wilson, and Hayes arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 213-INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
[Contains discussion pertaining to HJR 25]
Number 0042
CHAIR COGHILL announced the first order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 213, "An Act relating to initiative and referendum
petitions; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0136
RANDY RUARO, Staff to Representative William K. "Bill" Williams,
Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 213 on behalf of the
sponsor, Representative Williams. He told the committee the
proposed legislation would require the following change
regarding the initiative process: that signatures of 7 percent
of those who voted in the preceding general election in 30 of
the 40 House districts must be obtained to get an initiative on
the ballot. The requirement would guarantee that before a
statewide initiative is on the ballot, there is some majority
showing of statewide support, which he said the sponsor believes
is good public policy.
MR. RUARO addressed comments in opposition, from the last public
hearing. The first was that the [proposed legislation] would
destroy the initiative process. He said the sponsor disagrees
and notes that out of 23 states that do have the initiative
process, the clear majority have adopted some form of geographic
signature requirement similar to those in [HB 213]. He noted
that the sponsor believes that Alaska should join Arkansas,
Florida, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Utah, and Wyoming in adopting "similar"
requirements. Mr. Ruaro noted that the Washington State
Legislature is considering legislation to impose geographic
requirements, and if both Washington and Alaska enact
legislation, only 8 out of the 23 states with the initiative
process wouldn't have some type of geographic requirement.
MR. RUARO, regarding a second comment in opposition which stated
that the legislation would take away the initiative process from
the average individual, said the sponsor disagrees and notes
that whether an initiative drive is successful or not depends
more on the subject matter of the initiative than the wealth, or
lack of wealth, of its sponsor; an initiative that people are
interested in will gather support. He also noted that many
House districts are compact in urban areas, so initiative
sponsors could satisfy a large part of the [proposed]
requirement by focusing on those areas, "but just not focusing
solely on those areas."
MR. RUARO reported that the number of initiatives making it to
the ballot has increased by 100 percent. He mentioned a
comparison of the 1980-1989 period to the 1990-2000 period, and
he added that there will probably be four initiatives on this
year's ballot.
Number 0460
MR. RUARO referred to the last column of a one-page spreadsheet
[included in the committee packet and entitled, "Status of
Active Petitions: 2002 Election"], which shows the average
number of signatures per month that sponsors were able to gather
for upcoming initiatives that will be on a ballot. In the case
of the [All-Alaskan] Gasline initiative, he noted, the total
signatures reached 10,500 per month. Only 28,782 total
signatures are required to get an initiative on the ballot, he
pointed out; therefore, "it appears that initiative sponsors are
able to gather pretty significant amounts of signatures in a
rapid amount of time."
MR. RUARO concluded that before the [proposed] legislation would
become effective, it would have to be approved by the voters.
He commented, "It seems a bit odd that the opponents of this
bill, who are supporters of having issues decided by direct
vote, would be opposed to allowing the voters to decide this
issue." In response to a request for clarification, Mr. Ruaro
indicated the bill had been heard late in the previous session
[2001].
Number 0600
CHAIR COGHILL stated his view that part of the "urban-rural
divide" could be answered by allowing this type of a division
for petition gathering.
Number 0662
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she supports this constitutional
amendment [proposed by HJR 25] and was present when arguments
were being made that "this was just really eating into the
ability of people to have an initiative." She mentioned
[Alaska's] scattered population. She said she was surprised by
the list of all the other states with geographic issues. She
mentioned the attempts made to find out how all the various
places around the state feel about issues. She said she has
always described Alaska as five separate states - not only
geographically, but also philosophically. It is unfair, she
opined, when most of the population is in the Railbelt, to
expect that the Railbelt will carry everything and "no one else
has a voice." She indicated that [areas with fewer voters] only
get to vote if the initiative is on the ballot, and "never get
their voice in there in the beginning."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned people who do have money. She
said she thought legislation had been passed that "makes these
people tell where they get their money when they're supporting
an initiative." She said that had been another problem in the
past, because people didn't really have to say where their money
was coming from when they were supporting an initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES also mentioned a couple of initiatives that
she'd found painful and didn't think necessarily represented
rural Alaska: the initiative regarding [wolf] snaring, which
was finally "won," but with a lot of money and cooperative
efforts of people with interests in hunting and fishing; and the
initiative regarding billboards, which she said she thought was
fraught with what she considered misleading advertising.
Number 0936
CHAIR COGHILL agreed that initiatives do become an advertising
issue. He mentioned trying to "get something up on an issue
that everybody can weigh in on" and have something that is
publicly driven.
Number 0958
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he feels that if people don't agree
with an issue that comes up in the referendum process, this will
limit debate and getting those issues out in the open, because
it will be much more difficult to get those issues on the
ballot.
Number 1054
SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate, Alaska Conservation
Voters (ACV), told the committee ACV doesn't believe either [HB
213] or the proposed amendment to the constitution [HJR 25] will
achieve its desired goals. She cautioned, as Representative
Crawford had pointed out, that it would be "a marked
disincentive" for people to bring initiatives. She suggested
that rather than creating a more equitable system, this is an
attempt to limit the initiative process. Ms. Schrader said she
thought [the committee] would find that voters don't want the
initiative process limited.
Number 1140
MS. SCHRADER referred to the results of a poll conducted by Ivan
Moore [included in the committee packet and entitled, "Executive
Summary"]. The basic question during the poll, she explained,
was whether the people polled wanted the initiative process
limited in any way. She reported that 75 percent responded no.
MS. SCHRADER said she thinks the results coincide with the
results seen on Ballot Measure 1 last year, a measure to limit
the initiative process [by] restricting its use for any wildlife
issues. She noted the following percentages of voters who voted
against [Ballot Measure 1] and which district they were in: 76
percent in District 2, 71 percent in District 6, 66 percent in
District 22, 56 percent in District 30, and 59 percent in
District 32.
MS. SCHRADER suggested this isn't a matter of whether to kill
wolves or not; rather, it is, "Do the citizens of Alaska want
their initiative process limited, which is exactly what this
bill does." Statewide, taking into account all of the rural
districts, Ballot Measure 1 was defeated by 65 percent of the
voters, she said. She predicted this measure would be turned
down again, should it get to the ballot.
Number 1249
MS. SCHRADER said she thinks that sends a clear message to the
legislature that "this is perceived by most voters as our check
on all of you." She continued as follows:
It is our way of creating some laws that we have
asked, perhaps in the past, the legislature to take up
and they have preferred not to. It is our check under
the referendum process to perhaps overturn laws that
we have not been happy with the legislature making.
As you all know, we do have the right, in the couple
years after [a] ballot measure has passed, to rescind
it or alter it. So, it's a part of the checks and
balance[s].
And the information that I tried to present to you
today simply shows that most Alaskans want to protect
the initiative process, and I think most Alaskans will
view these measures ... very directly, as a effort to
limit their process.
Number 1330
RANDY REUDRICH, testifying via teleconference, specified that as
an individual, he believes all Alaskans participate in all
phases of the state's activities. He said he tends to think
this particular bill might enhance the participation of all
Alaskans in the initiative and referendum process, "rather than
allowing it to be, essentially, a very limited number of people,
in a few stores, signing petitions."
MR. REUDRICH said he'd initially been going to speak on behalf
of the Republican Party, as chairman, but noted that the
Republican Party has never taken a specific stance on
initiatives. He clarified that "there is no prior, recent, or
longstanding indication of a Republican Party's position on
initiatives, nor this particular matter."
Number 1440
CHAIR COGHILL, referring to the 7-percent issue on page 2, line
1, and again in Section C, lines 14-16, asked [Mr. Ruaro] how he
arrived at that number.
Number 1500
MR. RUARO said he thinks what occurred was that the sponsor
[made comparisons with] some of the other states [that have
geographic requirements] and the number is "about in the middle
of what's required in other states." He said he believes "it
goes as high as 11 percent in Wyoming, and then ranges downward
to 5 percent."
CHAIR COGHILL surmised that the committee needs to look - as
part of the policy discussion - at whether the number will be
representative of a particular area, "because once they get over
that bar, then it moves forward." He said, "When we get to the
constitutionality of it, I'm going to kind of force that
discussion into the [House] Judiciary [Standing] Committee."
Number 1570
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Gail Fenumiai what the existing rules
are.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist, Central Office,
Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor,
explained that the current initiative procedure requires 10
percent of the total votes cast in the preceding general
election, from two-thirds of the House districts; there is no
percentage per House district. She noted that two-thirds of the
House districts equates to 27 House districts that need to be
represented. In response to a further question from
Representative James, she said:
There are three people who complete an initiative
application [and] are known as the initiative
committee - the three primary sponsors of the
committee. They are then responsible for getting ...
that original hundred signatures, which is required to
get an application certified, which then leads to
getting the booklet [printed] and being able to gather
signatures. And the prime sponsors gather additional
sponsors to be petition circulators. But there is no
requirement for a circulator to be in every House
district. The petition booklets are given to whoever
is interested in circulating the petition.
Number 1692
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to last year's discussion and
mentioned a comparison of how many rural districts and urban
districts there are. She recalled that using two-thirds could
almost eliminate all rural districts, whereas using three-
quarters would include at least a few. Pointing out Alaska's
uniqueness, she mentioned that the people in the Anchorage area
comprise half of the voters in the state and have fewer
districts; therefore, it is easy to get around Anchorage to "get
two-thirds," whereas many rural areas are missed.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested that many of those people may not
know much about an initiative before going to the polls, because
nobody's been talking about it and none of their neighbors are
involved. "And that's the whole issue that I think that
Representative Williams is trying to address, and why I
supported this," she remarked. Representative James asked if
Ms. Fenumiai believes this [proposed legislation] would indeed
discourage the initiative process.
Number 1787
MS. FENUMIAI noted that it was probably outside the scope of her
authority to comment on that. She then referred to a printout
showing how many signatures, per district, prior initiative
petitions have garnered; she offered to make it available to the
committee. She suggested it might answer some of Representative
James's questions regarding where the signatures come from,
because the printout identifies Districts 1 through 40 and how
many signatures were gathered on each initiative, "as they were
processed by the division," up through last year. She noted
that statistics for this year were not available.
Number 1947
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Ms. Fenumiai to confirm that 27
districts were involved in the last referendum.
MS. FENUMIAI clarified that there needs to be at least a
signature from 27 of the 40 districts to make up the 10 percent
statewide.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said changing from two-thirds to three-
fourths might sound like a lot, but would only be three more
districts; she noted that it would not take a "horrendous effort
to get that done." She added that she thought having input from
three more areas would be wonderful.
Number 2016
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD offered that three more districts is not
such a problem; however, having 7 percent of the people in that
district [who have voted in the preceding general election] is a
problem. He continued, "Had we had to clear this hurdle to get
the initiative on the ballot for the minimum wage, it would have
been much more difficult and much more expensive for us to get
that." He postulated that this [proposed legislation] is just a
way to keep issues off the ballot that the legislature has not
seen fit to discuss or pass. He cited the minimum-wage
initiative as an example.
Number 2062
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she took [Representative
Crawford's remarks] as "a negative to my interest in this." She
said she has "no interest in necessarily keeping things off the
ballot." She said her intent was that all of the people of
Alaska have the opportunity to participate.
Number 2100
MR. RUARO alluded to the minimum-wage initiative. He said it
looked as though 6,100 signatures a month had been collected,
beginning April, 2001 - a "pretty good rate in a short period of
time." Although [HB 213] might require those involved to spend
additional time and effort, Mr. Ruaro said he does not think it
would block the initiative from making it onto the ballot.
Number 2142
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD responded, "We did get a lot of
signatures, because a lot of people worked really hard to get
those signatures; I spent a lot of time out collecting
signatures for that minimum-wage petition." He noted that in
Wyoming, for example, one can take a camper or motor home and
"go park in front of their neighborhood, or community store" to
get the signatures. Having to go to the Aleutians, to Barrow,
and then to Ketchikan and Wrangell is much more difficult. He
added, "We would have had to have gone to much more expense to
get something like the minimum-wage petition on the ballot.
That's the difference."
Number 2195
CHAIR COGHILL recognized that Representative Crawford had a
conflict in this, since he did participate in an initiative, and
that he was well aware of the issue. He asked, "At what point
do those who are hard to reach get disenfranchised from the
process?" He said, "We take great expense getting voting
machines to them. We should try to make sure that they're
included in the discussion in things that come up for referendum
or initiative." He asked members what they would like to do
with [the bill].
Number 2242
REPRESENTATIVE FATE indicated he would like to move HB 213 [out
of committee with individual recommendations and the attached
zero fiscal note].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, hearing no objection, announced that HB
213 was moved out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HJR 25-CONST AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
[Contains discussion of HB 213]
Number 2263
CHAIR COGHILL announced the next order of business, HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION NO. 25, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the State of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum
petitions.
Number 2275
RANDY RUARO, Staff to Representative William K. "Bill" Williams,
Alaska State Legislature, presented HJR 25 on behalf of
Representative Williams, sponsor. Mr. Ruaro described HJR 25 as
companion legislation to HB 213. He explained that a
constitutional amendment would be required in order to change
the language relating to initiatives. He said, "HJR [25] tracks
HB 213 in the changes that it makes to the initiative process."
Number 2300
CHAIR COGHILL noted that [page 1] line 8 of the resolution says
"at least ten per cent of those who voted", whereas HB 213
indicates 7 percent.
MR. RUARO said he thought it was probably a drafting error. He
stated his belief that the 10 percent was "prior language."
Number 2332
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist, Central Office,
Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor,
clarified that 10 percent is the total number of signatures
throughout the whole state; that would not change. The change,
she specified, is the 7 percent per district. Regarding the
fiscal note, she said it is the division's standard fiscal note
for ballot measures; it represents the cost of putting a page in
the official election pamphlet.
Number 2406
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked what 7 percent of the most recent
election would be for each district.
MR. RUARO said he did not know.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES offered his belief that those figures are
important to the present discussion.
Number 2450
MS. FENUMIAI indicated she had just completed a spreadsheet that
shows the number of votes per House district in the 2000 general
election and what 7 percent of that would equate to. She
offered a copy to the committee.
Number 2457
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated she thought it was approximately
15,675 residents, but that number would not [represent] all
voters, and "they don't all vote." She clarified that the issue
is in regard to people who vote.
Number 2510
CHAIR COGHILL asked [Ms. Fenumiai] and Mr. Ruaro if they had
anything further to add to the discussion; he commented that as
he understood it, it would be pretty much the same testimony [as
they had given for HB 213].
MR. RUARO said, "That's correct."
Number 2540
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES noted that some people may not know what
district they are in. He then said, "I actually think this is a
real good idea, and I support it. But this just seems like this
is really going to be quite cumbersome to actually getting
signatures." He explained that a person could think he/she had
collected so many signatures in one district, when those
signatures were actually from another district.
Number 2581
MR. RUARO referred to his own House district and said he wasn't
familiar with the problem referred to by Representative Hayes.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES offered that in the more populated areas -
Anchorage, the Matanuska Valley, and Fairbanks, for example -
"folks are all over." Logistically, he said, "this is a lot
harder than I was giving it credit for."
MR. RUARO noted that the person gathering signatures would have
to ask where [the signer] is from. He said substantially more
signatures than are required are often collected, which provides
"some cover" when gathering initiatives.
Number 2658
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that 15 of the 24 referendums in her
district [of Wrangell] had signatures fewer than 100, with many
ranging between 27-56; she said she was shocked by that. She
said she thinks if the effort were made to come down to her
district, then it would have a better say. She noted that 7
percent of all her constituents would be 500. Furthermore,
[Wrangell] is not well represented in regard to petitions.
Number 2722
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, regarding Representative Hayes' concern,
reiterated Mr. Ruaro's comment that extra signatures are
obtained in case of someone's being listed twice, or not even
being registered [to vote], for example. She suggested the
petition gatherer could ask the person where that person votes
and then look it up on a list, to see which district that person
[lives] in.
Number 2782
MS. FENUMIAI explained how the division verifies signatures:
Currently, when the booklets are filed with the
division and it appears ... on the initial count that
they have enough signatures to qualify, the division
goes page by page, line by line, and enters the
information as it's entered into the petition booklet:
social security number, if the voter provided that; a
voter number; the name of the voter; residence
address; and city of the voter is necessary.
There's no preliminary determination made as to what
district they're from. Each night we run a batch
program that qualifies signatures based on the
information entered for that day and the next day; we
get a breakdown.
MS. FENUMIAI, in response to a question by Chair Coghill, said
currently a residence [address] is required. She said the
petition committee would probably need to make some other
procedural changes, such as asking, "Who's your representative,"
which would tell which district the person [lives] in. She
referred to the sheets regarding the number of signatures per
district and said:
If you looked in, I'm just going to say, Districts 10-
28, ... they're not equal; ... they vary just a little
bit. And I know Anchorage is a big concern, because
Anchorage contains Districts 10 through - and Mat-Su -
28. And so, you don't know who you're getting
signatures from. But it appears that ... they get a
fair representation in all the petitions that are
done.
Number 2870
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Ms. Fenumiai if she was implying or
saying that the figures are run regularly, so that people
collecting signatures will know when they are short and won't be
"blindsided" when they turn in their papers and have missed one
district, for example.
MS. FENUMIAI answered no. She said the signature verification
is not done until the petition is filed with the division;
therefore, [the people collecting the signatures] don't know if
they are short [on signatures] within a particular district
until [the division] is finished with its verification.
Historically, she noted, there has always been at least one
signature from all 40 districts, and no petition has missed the
27 out of 40 districts.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS offered his understanding that the new
threshold would be a percentage of each district.
MS. FENUMIAI concurred.
Number 2914
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if there is any editorial oversight on
the wording of a petition with regard to its purpose.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that there are parameters in statute
regarding what an initiative cannot do and parameters that say
it has to follow the form of a proposed bill. Before the
application gets to the petition-booklet phase, it is reviewed
by the Department of Law to determine whether it meets the scope
of the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE clarified his prior question. He defined
editorial oversight as looking at the way that words are put
together so that the correct meaning comes out.
MS. FENUMIAI said to her knowledge, that is not done. She
added, "There is a joint effort done when the ballot summary is
proposed to put in the initiative petition booklets, and when
the ballot language is drafted for the ballot, as well."
Number 2980
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the ballot language comes from the
Division of Elections.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that that [language] is drafted through
the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, with the assistance of
the attorney general.
TAPE 02-07, SIDE B
Number 2990
[Representative James's question was not recorded during the
tape change.]
MS. FENUMIAI replied, "That, perhaps, is with the ballot
language itself. I think maybe Representative Fate was talking
about the whole proposed bill." She mentioned the drafting of
the bill and making sure "it doesn't go ... into territory
that's restricted by the initiative process."
Number 2970
CHAIR COGHILL said it is also true that the language which ends
up on the ballot becomes significant "on both sides," to make
certain that it is not misleading.
Number 2958
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the language of the petition has
to be approved after obtaining the sponsors, but prior to the
acquisition of the signatures.
MS. FENUMIAI said that is correct; it is one requirement of the
application that the proposed bill be attached. The proposed
bill is reviewed to be certain it doesn't "go into something
that the initiative can't do."
Number 2928
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD offered his belief that there would be
constitutional issues with any type of editorial oversight that
tampers with the drafter's original petition language, if that
wording was legal to begin with. He said the originator of the
ballot would have worked to get certain language on the ballot.
CHAIR COGHILL agreed, but said that "political spin is always
finding a place to land."
Number 2873
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said usually "editorial oversight" isn't to
change the intent or meaning of the original writing;
conversely, it is to make sure the intent is clear. He referred
to the aforementioned remarks of Representative James that the
legislature is an example of one area where editorial oversight
is at least implied.
Number 2835
CHAIR COGHILL stated his belief that the Division of Elections
has "gone overboard," not only regarding election pamphlets, but
also in making sure that "it does fit the petition" and
therefore isn't a problem. He suggested there could be
discussion regarding the lieutenant governor and political
power, because that is a political office.
Number 2784
MR. RUARO said he thought the discussion had been a good one,
with admitted pros and cons. He offered the sponsor's belief
that the better policy choice is to have some statewide support
for the initiative process.
Number 2768
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that 7 percent from each district
is really the big change. She said she didn't know what the
proper percentage was, but suggested it could be addressed in
the House Judiciary Standing Committee. She remarked, "I think
that if there's anything we need to look at to see if we've got
the right number, it's the 7 percent; but I can tell you that I
am not happy to have it just be one, at this time." She said it
should be something relevant to the total number of available
voters in a district.
Number 2709
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD indicated that for him, there is some
silver lining in this legislation. He noted that he has not
liked some petitions that have been put on the ballot in the
past. He said:
This would, I believe, keep somebody like Uwe Kalenka
from putting some of the things that he puts on the
ballot; [it] would keep his initiatives off the
ballot. So, that's not so bad, but I really believe
that he has the right to put those things on the
ballot, because I believe that I have the right to put
something that I like on the ballot. So, I wanted to
fight this morning for his right to do it, because
it's also my right.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he believed he'd used "this issue"
fairly effectively in the last election, when, he indicated, the
Republican majority was trying to limit people's right to
petition regarding the wildlife initiative. He said he believes
"this is one of those briar patches that I might be able to use
again in the next election."
CHAIR COGHILL told Representative Crawford he was veering off
the topic.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD concluded, "Well, this is a briar patch
that you might not want to throw me in."
Number 2631
REPRESENTATIVE FATE objected and stated, "This is a forum for a
policy on an issue; it's not a debate on campaigns."
CHAIR COGHILL said that unfortunately when any issue is
discussed, campaign is an "underriding" issue; therefore, he
said he wanted to allow some latitude for that discussion. He
indicated that it was certainly not his intention to allow the
House State Affairs Standing Committee [be used] to impugn
anybody who is a petition gatherer. He asked, "How do we make
the process more representative of the people of Alaska?"
Number 2598
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she thinks people have the right to
petition, and that she was not there to take that right away.
The problem, she stated, is that there must be cosigners. She
noted two [considerations in getting an issue on the ballot]:
first, ascertain that enough people want the issue on the
ballot; and second, ensure that [voters faced with the
initiative] are fully informed of the issue. She opined that it
does not matter where somebody lives. Everyone needs to have
the same opportunity to participate and to be well informed.
She stated her belief that "we" have been leaving some people
out.
Number 2515
CHAIR COGHILL said the whole discussion regarding representative
government and majority rule must work hand in hand.
Furthermore, Chair Coghill said he thinks "this is probably a
good discussion on that."
Number 2499
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report [HJR 25] out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES objected.
Number 2463
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fate, James,
Stevens, Wilson, and Coghill voted to move the resolution from
committee. Representatives Crawford and Hayes voted against it.
Therefore, HJR 25 was moved out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
HB 314-PFD ELIGIBILITY FOR PEACE CORP VOLUNTEERS
Number 2400
CHAIR COGHILL brought before the committee HOUSE BILL NO. 314,
"An Act relating to service in the peace corps as an allowable
absence from the state for purposes of eligibility for permanent
fund dividends; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR COGHILL clarified that the sponsor of the bill
[Representative McGuire] could not be present; therefore, he
asked that testimony be heard.
Number 2380
DAVID MOORE, Director, United Campus Ministry (UCM), University
of Alaska Fairbanks, testified via teleconference on behalf of
the 26 Peace Corps volunteers from Alaska. He told the
committee he was testifying specifically for Denny and Lisa
Wells, two people involved in UCM between 1994-1998 and
currently serving the Peace Corps in Thailand.
MR. MOORE said he'd recently read an article in the Fairbanks
Daily News-Miner about Peace Corps volunteers acting as
diplomats. He commented that he'd found it interesting that in
the article U.S. Senators, as well as both Republican and
Democrat Representatives, talked about the benefit of Peace
Corps volunteering - "how it had helped them, as well as ... the
individuals they had worked with in their country, as well as
the good things they had brought back to our country."
MR. MOORE noted that the article also said more than 7,000
volunteers are deployed today. He commented that the word
"deploy" is usually used as a military term. He indicated
President [George W.] Bush wants to double that number and
nearly double the Peace Corps budget over the next five years,
from $275 million to $475 million. Mr. Moore stated his belief
that it is important in [today's] world that Alaska support its
residents who want to show the world "that we are good-natured."
MR. MOORE stated that "the Peace Corps is entirely made up of
voluntary government service, just like the military." He
opined that Mr. and Ms. Wells are both "sharp" individuals who
chose to serve the nation to make the world a better place,
rather than [make money] in a corporate world. [The next couple
of sentences were indiscernible.]
CHAIR COGHILL asked the witness to move closer to the
microphone.
MR. MOORE said Mr. and Ms. Wells have chosen to serve the state
by corresponding with the second-grade class at Hunter
Elementary School in Fairbanks. He stated his certainty that
when they returned, they would share the gifts they received
from the Thai people: the gift of culture, the gift of
understanding, and the gift of information. He said he had
personally benefited from the stories, knowledge, and insight of
Peace Corps volunteers; he shared his belief that many have
benefited from the Peace Corps program, both abroad and in
Alaska. He concluded, "I believe that we should show our
resident Peace Corps volunteers our support by sharing 8 cents
apiece, so that they might have their rightful dividend."
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Moore to send his testimony in writing
to the committee.
Number 2245
FRANCIS McLAUGHLIN, Peace Corps Volunteer, testifying via
teleconference, read from his testimony [included in the
committee packet], as follows:
I would like thank House members for listening to
public comment about HB 314, which will hopefully
reinclude Peace Corps volunteers for receiving the
[permanent fund] dividend.
I was born in Fairbanks Memorial Hospital in 1977 and
have been a Fairbanks resident all my life. After
graduating from college, I applied and was accepted to
the U.S. Peace Corps. I did not find out where the
Peace Corps would send me until three months before I
left for my post. The Peace Corps placed me in a town
in the Central Highlands of Guatemala. I was the only
non-Guatemalan and English-speaking person living in
Santiago Sacatepaquez. I was the only person that the
people of that town will probably ever meet from
Alaska. I lived in a one-room house with a tin roof.
I shared my bathroom - a latrine - with sixteen other
people. My town only had access to water for about
three hours a day.
While living in Santiago, I successfully organized the
community to build a tree nursery, which has since
produced over 8,000 new avocado trees for the town.
All of the trees ... are planted in fields surrounding
the town, and some are already producing fruit. I
lived as the people did and worked with them side by
side. It was a very rewarding experience for me, and
I hope that the work I did will help the people of
Santiago. I know that I will never forget them and
that they will never forget ... me.
During my first year in Santiago, I joined the town
soccer team. My neighbor and fellow teammate thought
that it would be funny if he told the people in town
that I played professional soccer in the U.S., even
though it wasn't true. Well, the entire town showed
up at our first soccer game to see if I was really as
good ... as they had said. My reputation was
confirmed when I scored a left-footed shot, placed
perfectly in the lower-right corner of the goal,
within the first five minutes of the first game.
Unfortunately, that was the only goal I scored the
entire season.
I am sad to say that when I left Fairbanks to become a
Peace Corps volunteer in Guatemala, I was penalized.
While serving two years and four months in Guatemala,
I was ineligible to receive the [permanent fund]
dividend for two years in a row. I worked very hard
while working with the Peace Corps to be a good
representative of my family, my community, my state,
and my country, and to serve rural Mayan people in
Santiago. I should not have lost my dividend for
being a Peace Corps volunteer.
Everyone can come up with a good reason why they need
the dividend, and I am no different. I have four ...
years of Alaska student loans to pay off, and the
interest on these loans has continued to accrue while
I was a volunteer. I was allowed to defer the
principle of my Alaska student loan, but not the
interest. So, my debt has grown while I was working
and earning next to nothing as a Peace Corps volunteer
in Guatemala.
Why are the Peace Corps volunteers and Olympic
athletes from Alaska penalized for representing their
state while working abroad? I know that Alaskans, my
neighbors here in Fairbanks and elsewhere throughout
the state, value public service and do not believe
that Peace Corps volunteers and Olympic athletes
should be penalized for the job that ... we do. I
believe that Peace Corps volunteers and Olympic
athletes should receive the dividend, and those who
have already been stripped of the dividend, like me,
should be given it back, retroactively. The amount of
money that this would be is very small, because there
are very few Peace Corps volunteers and Olympic
athletes from Alaska. Believe me, they are deserving
of the dividend and need it, also.
MR. McLAUGHLIN said he supported HB 314, but would like to see
Olympic athletes and - as soon as the President defines them -
Freedom Corps volunteers [included] as well. He added that he
would like Peace Corps volunteers and Olympic athletes who were
ineligible over the past three years to receive [retroactive
payment of those missed permanent fund dividends].
Number 1994
CHAIR COGHILL requested that the witness fax his written
testimony. He said Mr. McLaughlin brings an interesting point
to the committee regarding the need to [include] more people; he
said Mr. McLaughlin had made a compelling argument "for one
other group." He noted that the bill would be discussed when
Representative McGuire, sponsor, was available. [HB 314 was
held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1938
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:16
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|