Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/19/2015 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR4|| HJR14 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HCR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 19, 2015
8:32 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Liz Vazquez
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative David Talerico
Representative Max Gruenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Relating to the duties of delegates selected by the legislature
to attend a convention of the states called under art. V,
Constitution of the United States, to consider a countermand
amendment to the Constitution of the United States; establishing
as a joint committee of the legislature the Delegate Credential
Committee and relating to the duties of the committee; providing
for an oath for delegates and alternates to a countermand
amendment convention; providing for a chair and assistant chair
of the state's countermand amendment delegation; providing for
the duties of the chair and assistant chair; providing
instructions for the selection of a convention president; and
providing specific language for the countermand amendment on
which the state's convention delegates are authorized by the
legislature to vote to approve.
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Making application to the United States Congress to call a
convention of the states to propose a countermand amendment to
the Constitution of the United States as provided under art. V,
Constitution of the United States; and urging the legislatures
of the other 49 states to make the same application.
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HCR 4
SHORT TITLE: US COUNTERMAND CONVENTION DELEGATES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HUGHES
02/11/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/11/15 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/19/15 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HJR 14
SHORT TITLE: CALL FOR US COUNTERMAND CONVENTION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HUGHES
02/11/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/11/15 (H) STA, JUD
03/19/15 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE SHIRLEY HUGHES
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced HJR 14 and HCR
4.
STUART KRUEGER, Staff
Representative Shelley Hughes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Highlighted the changes that were made in
Version E of HJR 14 and explained the purpose of HCR 4, on
behalf of Representative Hughes, prime sponsor.
MIKE COONS, National Director/Alaska Director
Citizen Initiatives (CI)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HJR 14 and
HCR 4.
MICHAEL SCHECHTER, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division - Anchorage
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
HJR 14 and HCR 4.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:32:30 AM
VICE CHAIR WES KELLER called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:32 a.m. Representatives Kreiss-
Tomkins, Stutes, Vazquez, and Keller were present at the call to
order.
HCR 4-US COUNTERMAND CONVENTION DELEGATES
HJR 14-CALL FOR US COUNTERMAND CONVENTION
8:32:52 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER announced that the only order of business was
the combined hearing of:
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Relating to the duties of
delegates selected by the legislature to attend a convention of
the states called under art. V, Constitution of the United
States, to consider a countermand amendment to the Constitution
of the United States; establishing as a joint committee of the
legislature the Delegate Credential Committee and relating to
the duties of the committee; providing for an oath for delegates
and alternates to a countermand amendment convention; providing
for a chair and assistant chair of the state's countermand
amendment delegation; providing for the duties of the chair and
assistant chair; providing instructions for the selection of a
convention president; and providing specific language for the
countermand amendment on which the state's convention delegates
are authorized by the legislature to vote to approve.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14, Making application to the United
States Congress to call a convention of the states to propose a
countermand amendment to the Constitution of the United States
as provided under art. V, Constitution of the United States; and
urging the legislatures of the other 49 states to make the same
application.
8:33:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 14, Version 29-LS0249\E, as a work
draft. There being no objection, Version E was before the
committee.
8:34:12 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER stated that the committee was working off [the
original version] of HCR 4. He said he had provided a
compendium entitled, "State Initiation of Constitutional
Amendments: A Guide for Lawyers and Legislative Drafters," by
Robert G. Natelson, which he opined was helpful in understanding
issues related to Article V of the Constitution of the United
States.
8:34:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SHIRLEY HUGHES, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, introduce HJR 14 and HCR 4. She stated that the
proposed legislation would address federal overreach. She
talked about a time in history when the states had more power
than the federal government and being a state legislator was
held in higher regard than being a member of U.S. Congress. She
indicated that the Articles of Confederation had given states
too much power, thus the U.S. Constitution had aimed for a
balance between the state and federal governments.
Representative Hughes questioned "who among us" would disagree
that the federal government had grown too powerful and intruded
into Alaska's affairs too often, which resulted in Alaska facing
barriers to its economic growth. She opined that "we" had come
together across the political spectrum, unified over matters
such as a road [from King Cove to Cold Bay via a section of the
Izembek National Wildlife Refuge], the opening of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and off-shore drilling. She
said the effort to bring about a convention was grassroots, with
no big names or money behind it.
8:38:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES stated that Article 5 in the U.S.
Constitution had never been implemented fully. She indicated
that past efforts to bring about a convention had failed, but
each future effort learned from the past; therefore, she thought
the current effort might be successful. She said "the
countermand piece" was nonpartisan in nature; its intent was to
balance the powers between state and federal government. She
stated that whenever there had been an effort to call a
convention in the past, attorneys were involved, but none of the
past efforts got far enough to be tested in court. She
indicated that the attorney general looked at the proposed
legislation and nothing was found to be problematic. She
further indicated that the convention would address a single
issue. She said there had been opposition letters received from
people outside of Alaska concerned about "the dismantling of the
U.S. Constitution if we were to convene a convention." She said
the proposed legislation would not allow that to happen.
8:40:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES stated that if the U.S. Constitution were
amended, it would give states veto power over certain federal
decisions. She said it would be a "high bar" for that to be
allowed to happen: three-fifths of the states would have to
agree, within an 18-month window, that one item was not within
their best interest. She said that was not likely to happen
often. Further, she noted that it would be addressing issues of
broad appeal. She said HJR 14 was the call to Congress, while
HCR 4 contained instructions to delegates and the precise
structure for the convention to occur, including the language
for the amendment itself.
8:42:01 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER noted that Michael Schechter, assistant
attorney general with the Department of Law was available to
testify, and he spoke again of the aforementioned compendium.
8:42:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES explained that at least 34 states would
need to call for a convention, which was what Alaska would be
doing through passage of the proposed HJR 14, in order for a
convention to convene; a minimum of 26 states would need to
attend the convention, agree on the language, and send it
forward for ratification; and a minimum of 38 states would have
to ratify the language. Once the language was ratified, the
mechanism of veto power for the states would require three-
fifths of the states, which was 30 states, to agree within an
18-month window. If the three-fifths quota was met, that would
make the decision in question coming from Congress null and
void.
8:45:09 AM
STUART KRUEGER, Staff, Representative Shelley Hughes, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Hughes, prime
sponsor, highlighted the changes that were made in Version E of
HJR 14. He cited new language on page 1, lines 9-11, which read
as follows:
WHEREAS the state's right and duty to provide for the
utilization, development, and conservation of natural
resources for the maximum benefit of the people has
been continually infringed on by various federal
agencies; and
MR. KRUEGER explained that the purpose of the language was to
include a wider scope of instances of overreach by federal
agencies and a reference to the powers and responsibilities of
the state, as provided in Article 8, Section 2, of the
Constitution of the State of Alaska.
MR. KRUEGER paraphrased the "BE IT RESOLVED" and two subsequent
"FURTHER RESOLVED" portions of HJR 14, located on page 2, lines
19-29, which read as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED that, under art. V, Constitution
of the United States, the Alaska State Legislature
directs the United States Congress to call a single-
issue convention of the states, called a "countermand
amendment convention," for the sole purpose of
deciding whether the proposed countermand amendment
should be sent back to the state legislatures for
ratification; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State
Legislature directs the United States Congress to
convene the countermand amendment convention within 60
days after the date it receives the 34th call for that
convention from state legislatures; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that this application
constitutes a continuing application in accordance
with art. V, Constitution of the United States, until
at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the several
states have applied for a similar convention of the
states; and be it
8:47:15 AM
MR. KRUEGER explained that HCR 4 would serve as a document to
bind the legislature and its delegates. He said it would
provide "sidebars" establishing what the delegates could do.
Further, it would establish a credentialed joint committee in
the legislature that would select the delegates.
8:47:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ stated that [the language of HCR 4,
beginning on page 1, line 12, through page 2, line 6]
encapsulated that which would be effected under HJR 14 and HCR
4. In particular, she highlighted the list of that which could,
under the proposed legislation, be nullified and repealed, [as
seen on page 2, lines 2-5, of HCR 4], which read as follows:
a federal statute, executive order, judicial decision,
regulatory decision by a federal government agency, or
government mandate imposed on the states by law that
adversely affects the interests of the states
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ opined that the power of the federal
government had been immense over the last several decades. She
said one example of federal power had to do with the example
given in HJR 14, on page 1, lines 7-8: "the federal
government's recent denial of and refusal to work with state
officials on the construction of a lifesaving road from King
Cove to Cold Bay". She said when weather conditions were poor,
people living in King Cove and in need of emergency care could
not get to a hospital. She opined that the denial of the road
was unconscionable and a prime example of federal overreach.
8:51:20 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER ventured that although it seemed like an
insurmountable hurdle to bring about a constitutional
convention, examples such as that which Representative Vazquez
stated, plus "the bludgeoning budget debt that we have in the
U.S.," may override partisanship and drive 38 states to "jump on
board." He said that was why it was important to have
legislation in place and begin the discussion. He emphasized
that the issue was not partisan.
8:52:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES indicated that [Article V] of the
Constitution was put in place for the purpose of checks and
balances; however, it had never really been utilized. She said,
"This mechanism would allow us to do it." She said the
accountability of Congress that would be required by the states
was something that had been missing. She gave an example of
when the mechanism might have been exercised, which was when the
No Child Left Behind Act was put in place. She noted that that
was enacted by a Republican President, but there was not one
state happy with it because the Act did not work. She said she
thought 38 states would have agreed that the Act was not in
their best interest. She emphasized the nonpartisan nature of
the proposed legislation which, she opined, was an important
means by which to keep the federal government from overreaching.
VICE CHAIR KELLER opened public testimony on HJR 14 and HCR 4.
8:54:48 AM
MIKE COONS, National Director/Alaska Director, Citizen
Initiatives (CI), stated that CI was a nonpartisan, grassroots
effort. He said the executive director, Charles Kacprowicz, was
from North Carolina, and coordinators and other members of the
board were from Georgia and Texas. He thanked Representative
Hughes for taking on the legislation.
MR. COONS stated that there are 38 energy-producing states in
the nation, and those states had been impeded by the federal
government for too long. He said the President of the United
States vetoed Congress to stop Keystone and had, through The
Wildness Act, tried "to steal another 22 million acres of
Alaska." He said some of the most "blue" states, such as
Delaware, Maryland, California, and Oregon, have been affected
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the form of
federal overreach, as had areas of Alaska from the Gulf of
Alaska to Barrow. He talked about the increasing numbers of
states that were introducing similar legislation, including nine
states that were filing.
8:57:42 AM
MR. COONS ventured this tool would require a huge learning
curve, and indicated that items to address would be the
Wilderness Act and the Antiquities Act. He said an average of
50 percent of all the states west of the Mississippi was
federally owned land. He said, "We can get west of the
Mississippi, ... maybe except for California and maybe not
Oregon, but we can also pick up the southern states, as well."
He opined that "the anti-Second Amendment" had been going on in
the country for far too long. He said a simple amendment could
repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of
1968, and the [Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of
2013], the latter of which he opined "makes adults over 18 into
children, because they can't own a handgun until they're 21, and
yet they can join the military." He said the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 and the Patriot Act would be other Acts to
address.
8:59:35 AM
MR. COONS offered an example of how a resolution read, by
reading from [a one-page handout included in the committee
packet for HJR 14, which began: "Whereas the Federal Government
passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act..."]. He talked about the
ease of transmitting information and ideas between states
without violating Article I, Section 10, of the U.S.
Constitution.
VICE CHAIR KELLER asked Mr. Coons to review how many states had
"considered this."
MR. COONS answered currently nine states had submitted
applications. He added, "New Mexico has just filed the
application process only, but the other ones are also filing
both."
9:02:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for clarification as to
which state was in the most advanced stage of consideration.
MR. COONS answered North Dakota, which had passed legislation
out of its House that was currently being heard in Senate
committee(s). He indicated his expectation was that the
legislation would pass out of both bodies by the following week.
In response to a follow-up question, he said CI began its effort
in 2014, and increased that effort in 2015, with radio shows,
teleconferences, and traveling representation to many states.
9:04:14 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER asked how many Article V initiatives existed.
MR. COONS recommended articlevcaucus.com, a web site run by
Senator Lundberg of Colorado. Further, he listed other groups,
including: Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force, Convention of
States, Compact for America, and a political action committee
(PAC) in California related to the Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission court decision and the First Amendment. He
said, "We are the only one that has a delegate resolution that
defines the convention; that defines the delegates as
ambassadors to the state legislatures; that defines a
preapproved amendment from each state."
9:05:52 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER asked Michael Schechter whether he thought the
Founding Fathers intended Article V to be "very difficult" or
intended it to be used.
9:06:26 AM
MICHAEL SCHECHTER, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division - Anchorage, Department of Law (DOL),
answered that Article V contained both the regular amendment
process, which had been used 27 times, as well as the convention
process. He said he thought the Founding Fathers intended the
Constitution to be an "overarching document that is amended
carefully and rarely," and that most law would be derived from
Congress, as the legislative branch of government. He said he
did not know that the Founding Fathers intended for the
convention process never to be used, but said it seemed to be at
least "coequal with the congressional institution of ... an
amendment process." Mr. Schechter said the bigger question for
the Department of Law was the issue of whether a constitutional
convention could be limited to a single subject. He said he was
not a constitutional scholar, and the issue was one the country
had not had to act upon; therefore, he said the department did
not know how that question would be resolved. He indicated that
Representative Hughes' and Mr. Coons' belief regarding setting
up sideboards for the delegation and naming the specific
amendments to be considered in a convention in [concurrent]
legislation was "an absolutely valid legal theory"; however, he
stated his belief that the theory that once called a convention
may consider whatever amendments it chose, was equally valid.
He suggested that one possible perception by some regarding
lawyers was that they could always see both sides. He
reiterated that without past history of such a convention, the
country had not "had reason to make a determination one way or
the other"; therefore, this was a realm of the unknown.
9:10:12 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER again spoke of the aforementioned compendium.
He thanked Mr. Schechter.
[HCR 4 and HJR 14 were held over.]
9:10:33 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:10
a.m.