03/01/2022 03:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB144 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 1, 2022
3:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Shelley Hughes, Chair
Senator Robert Myers, Vice Chair
Senator David Wilson
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 144
"An Act relating to disaster emergencies."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 144
SHORT TITLE: DISASTER EMERGENCY PROCLAMATIONS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) REINBOLD
01/18/22 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/22
01/18/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/22 (S) CRA, JUD
03/01/22 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR LORA REINBOLD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 144
KELLI TOTH, Staff
Senator Lora Reinbold
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for SB 144.
ALEX FOOTE, Legislative Counsel
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered legal questions during the hearing
on SB 144.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and provided information
during the hearing on SB 144.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:32:50 PM
CHAIR SHELLEY HUGHES called the Senate Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. Present
at the call to order were Senators Myers, Gray-Jackson, Wilson,
and Chair Hughes.
SB 144-DISASTER EMERGENCY PROCLAMATIONS
3:33:39 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 144
"An Act relating to disaster emergencies."
3:35:18 PM
SENATOR LORA REINBOLD, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 144, introduced the bill by reading the sponsor
statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB 144 Disaster Emergencies seeks to restore the
separation of powers between the executive and
legislative branches. During such unprecedented times,
the separation of powers is critical ensuring all
three are involved. During the COVID19 pandemic, the
executive branch took broad latitude declaring
disasters consecutively for the same reason, usurping
the legislature in the process. SB 144 seeks to ensure
when another disaster occurs, if needed beyond 30
days, the legislature is included in the process of
declaring a consecutive disaster.
3:39:08 PM
KELLI TOTH, Staff, Senator Lora Reinbold, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, paraphrased the following sectional
analysis for SB 144:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Section 1: AS18.15.390 is amended to amended adding a
new subsection, Before the department takes
a public health measure, ensures the
legislature approves.
Section 2: AS22.10.020 amended adding a new subsection
the superior court is the court of original
jurisdiction regarding local and state
emergency orders, ensuring expedition of
challenges heard within 72 hours.
Inequality in the applicability or impact
of emergency orders on analogous groups,
situations, and circumstances is grounds
for the superior court to invalidate or
enjoin an emergency order on the basis that
it is not narrowly tailored to serve a
compelling public health service.
Section 3: AS 26.23.020 (c) A Proclamation of disaster
emergency may not remain in effect longer
than 30 days unless extended by the
legislature. A proclamation to declare a
condition of disaster emergency must state
whether the governor proposed to expend
state funds to respond. If the governor
issues a subsequent proclamation that is
substantially similar, the legislature must
affirmatively pass with 2/3 vote approving
adopting a concurrent resolution ratifying
the proclamation of disaster emergency.
Section 4: Adds a new section Emergency orders that
bind, curtail or infringe the rights of
private parties must be narrowly tailored
to serve a compelling public health or
safety purpose. Each emergency order must
be limited in duration, applicability and
scope in order to reduce infringement of
individual liberty. Emergency orders that
infringe on constitutional rights are
limited to seven days unless legislature is
in session and has 15 days to consider and
vote to ratify the order with 2/3
affirmative vote. Or, if during interim,
the governor may call the legislature into
special session to consider and vote on
emergency order. If the seven day
expiration doesn't apply, the 30 day
expiration date applies. Each house may
vote to ratify or terminate the emergency
order, may debate remote debate
electronically or other means to the extent
not prohibited by the presiding officer of
each house. Emergency order means an
emergency order, decree, proclamation,
regulation or other mandate.
Section 5: Adds a new paragraph to read AS 29.20.650
(limitations on emergency orders that
relate to the public.)
Section 6: AS 29.20 is amended adding a new section, a
municipality may issue nonbinding
recommendations and guidelines that do not
include provisions for enforcement or
surveillance. To the extent that a
municipality issues emergency orders the
orders may not infringe constitutional
rights including rights to travel, work,
assemble, and speak, the free exercise of
religion, contract and property rights,
freedom from unreasonable searches and
seizures, and the freedom to purchase
lawful firearms and ammunition.
3:42:20 PM
SENATOR D. WILSON read the text on page 2, lines 8-10:
A proclamation of disaster emergency may not remain in
effect longer than 30 days unless extended by the
legislature by law.
SENATOR D. WILSON then referred to the text on page 2, line 21
that talks about a concurrent resolution. He recalled a legal
memo that said that a concurrent resolution does not have the
same effect as a statute and it does not have the effect of law.
He asked if it would be a problem if the legislature were to
ratify a proclamation of disaster emergency by adopting a
concurrent resolution, given the language on page 2, lines 8-10.
SENATOR REINBOLD deferred the question to Legislative Legal
Services.
3:43:37 PM
ALEX FOOTE, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, responded that Senator Wilson's interpretation was
correct. This would require a new bill.
SENATOR D. WILSON responded that this could be corrected with an
amendment or committee substitute.
3:44:00 PM
CHAIR HUGHES advised that legislatures across the 50 states have
expressed concern about their disaster statutes because [the
COVID 19 pandemic] was the first real test of them over an
extended period. Many legislators realized that governors were
given extensive powers and that some retooling was in order to
rebalance the powers so the legislature could weigh in. She
expressed hope that the provisions in SB 144 would stand up in a
court of law and work for Alaska in the future. She expressed
her belief that an extended public health crisis was not a
consideration when the disaster statutes were written. She
emphasized that any questions she might ask were not intended to
berate the bill; she simply wanted to make sure that it will
work.
CHAIR HUGHES asked Mr. Foote how Section 1 of the bill changes
the current process to extend an emergency disaster proclamation
that lasts longer than 30 days.
3:46:20 PM
MR. FOOTE answered that it addresses the possibility that a
governor could seek additional disaster declarations based on
the same disaster condition. Section 1 explicitly states that
the legislature must approve any extensions.
CHAIR HUGHES observed that a particular public health measure or
requirement was not about a full-on disaster declaration. She
offered her understanding that it would include something like
the Department of Health and Social Services deciding to suspend
certain regulations for telehealth. She asked for confirmation
that Section 1 was not an indication that the legislature would
not have to convene to lift a regulation on telehealth. Rather,
a governor could do that during the 30 days of the disaster
declaration, and after that the regulation would expire unless
the legislature extended the declaration.
3:47:38 PM
MR. FOOTE answered that his understanding was that it would
expire absent express legislative action.
CHAIR HUGHES asked if Section 1 referred to the prohibition
against consecutive orders that are substantially similar.
MR. FOOTE deferred to the sponsor to speak to the intent of
Section 1.
SENATOR REINBOLD yielded the question to Ms. Toth.
3:48:28 PM
MS. TOTH stated that Section 1 says that the legislature must
give its approval before the department takes action on a public
health measure. To the question about whether Section 1 referred
to consecutive orders, she said that is addressed in a 1/31/2021
legal memorandum from Andrew Dunmire with Legislative Legal
Services. She read the following from page 2 of the memo:
Would a court find the governor's successive
declarations to be a violation of AS 26.23.020(c)?
Yes, a court likely would find that the governor's
executive orders declaring new disasters beyond
November 15, 2020, violated AS 26.23.020(c). As
discussed above, that statute gives the legislature,
and only the legislature, authority to extend a
disaster declaration.
3:49:34 PM
CHAIR HUGHES responded that she was seeking clarification about
the application and meaning of Section 1. She posed a
hypothetical example of a governor issuing an order during a 30-
day disaster declaration to deliver clean bottled water to a
community after an earthquake destroyed the potable water
system. She asked for confirmation that Section 1 was not an
indication that the legislature would have to meet in order for
that water to be distributed.
3:50:19 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD answered that Section 1 is referring to
extended disaster declarations. The general intent of the bill
is to prevent the abuse of executive power and increase
legislative sovereignty.
CHAIR HUGHES indicated she was still a little confused.
3:51:39 PM
SENATOR MYERS highlighted that the public health measures that
are mentioned in AS 18.15.390(a) do not have a lot to do with
what happened during the most recent disaster declaration.
Subsection (a) addresses things such as evacuation of an area,
decontamination, and disposal of human remains. He asked the
sponsor how long she thought it would take for the legislature
to convene and vote to authorize those sorts of things.
SENATOR REINBOLD said her reading is that the governor has
emergency powers during the 30-days of the disaster declaration,
but Section 1 clarifies that "unelected bureaucrats" in the
department do not have emergency powers.
3:53:09 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked Mr. Foote if he drafted SB 144.
MR. FOOTE answered no.
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the drafter was available to answer
questions, because Section 1 seems to say the same thing that's
in current law.
MR. FOOTE said he'd check.
SENATOR MYERS commented it would be more straightforward to
repeal AS 18.50.390 entirely, if the legislature has to give its
approval before the governor or department can take any action.
If the powers weren't delegated, the legislature would just need
to pass a bill.
SENATOR REINBOLD reiterated that the goal in Section 1 is to
restrict decision-making to elected officials. Generally, the
bill clarifies that a disaster declaration lasts for just 30
days, and that the legislature must weigh in if there is need
for any subsequent disaster declarations. She added that she was
very receptive to suggestions.
CHAIR HUGHES pointed out that the Disaster Act exists in all 50
states so there can be a quick response in the event of a
catastrophe. She expressed concern that requiring the
legislature to convene for every measure could put Alaskans at
risk.
CHAIR HUGHES asked Mr. Foote if the Alaska Disaster Act statutes
provide that a commissioner who issues a mandate during a
disaster is acting on the governor's behalf.
MR. FOOTE replied that was his understanding; the commissioner
would be acting pursuant to the governor's power under the
Alaska Disaster Act.
CHAIR HUGHES observed that the sponsor's interpretation was
different than Mr. Foote's legal opinion. The sponsor talked
about unelected officials issuing mandates and Mr. Foote's legal
opinion was that the commissioner would be acting under the
authority of the governor. She suggested the sponsor think about
requiring the commissioner to go before the governor for
authorization so the order truly is coming from an elected
official.
3:57:47 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that the ultimate goal was to ensure
that orders come from an elected official and that the
legislature makes the laws. She opined that a lot of legislative
authority was usurped in the last two years and she was trying
to reestablish the legislature's lane. She reiterated that she
was very receptive to suggestions.
CHAIR HUGHES asked the sponsor if she would entertain the idea
of broadening the scope to address all types of disasters, not
just health disasters. For example, it would likely be the
transportation commissioner who would be making decisions after
a catastrophic earthquake.
SENATOR REINBOLD restated that elected officials should make the
decisions; the 30-day period for a disaster declaration should
be maintained; and the legislature should approve subsequent
disasters.
CHAIR HUGHES said more clarification is needed because the bill
appears to require the legislature to convene even during the
30-day period.
4:01:11 PM
SENATOR MYERS pointed out that all commissioners serve at the
pleasure of the governor, and they'd likely be fired if they did
something the governor didn't want them to do.
SENATOR REINBOLD said that's true, but the point is that power
should not be given to "unelected bureaucrats." That's what the
Alaska Supreme Court said and that's why she believes that SB
191 should be a companion to SB 144.
SENATOR MYERS asked whether the intent of the bill was for the
governor to micro-manage the executive branch commissioners.
SENATOR REINBOLD answered that the intent is to ensure that a
commissioner does not get the powers that reside with the
governor.
CHAIR HUGHES asked Ms. Meade to give her thoughts on Section 2.
4:03:25 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, Anchorage,
Alaska, stated that Section 2 would be fairly unique in the
court statutes in that it would require the court to expedite
consideration of challenges to the lawfulness of these emergency
orders. The statement on page 1, lines 12-13 that requires the
court to hear these challenges within 72 hours of being filed
would be challenging for the court to implement and apply. It is
unclear whether they have to be decided or if the court still
has to hold a hearing if all the parties have not fully briefed
the issue. The fact that it says within 72 hours of being filed
presents scheduling challenges. For example, if a challenge is
filed on Friday afternoon, it's not clear how the court would
act on a challenge in a meaningful manner in that timeframe.
CHAIR HUGHES asked if she had clarifying language to suggest.
MS. MEADE answered that she wasn't sure what the goal was, other
than immediate resolution. No other statutes tell the court to
prioritize certain cases at the appellate level, although there
are several rules of appellate procedure about expedited appeals
for things like election redistricting or cases involving
children. She said she may be able to think of language that
says the courts shall handle the challenge in the normal course,
but it would be unusual for the statute to direct the court to
hear a challenge of an order before it hears a children's case
or another type of emergency case.
4:06:11 PM
CHAIR HUGHES acknowledged that child in need of aid (CINA) cases
were high priority and shouldn't be bumped and that some sort of
accommodation should be made for cases that are filed just
before a weekend. With those exceptions in mind, she asked Ms.
Meade to work on suggested language to ensure that these cases
don't drag on for weeks.
4:07:01 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said the 72 hour limit was a place-holder and
she understood that holidays and weekends might need to be
excluded. She then emphasized how important the bill is to
prevent harm and unconstitutional restrictions on Alaskans
during any future disaster declarations. She said she would be
happy to work with Ms. Meade to make Section 2 more workable for
the Court System.
CHAIR HUGHES asked Ms. Meade to describe the strict scrutiny
standard of judicial review and if that was appropriate in this
context. She also solicited any other comments on Section 2 from
the court's perspective.
4:09:09 PM
MS. MEADE explained that strict scrutiny is the test the court
applies when it looks at whether a government action that
discriminated against a protected class (based on race,
religion, or national origin) was acceptable. The government
must have a compelling state interest to take that purportedly
discriminatory action and action must be narrowly tailored to
achieve the result.
4:10:17 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said she believes the strict scrutiny test would be
appropriate when the court is considering government lockdowns
and orders that churches can't meet. She asked Ms. Meade if she
agreed.
4:10:30 PM
MS. MEADE answered that it depends on the challenge, but she
knows that a challenge to the lawfulness of a state order would
cover everything that order might require.
MS. MEADE highlighted an additional concern with Section 2,
which was that it seemed that anybody could file a lawsuit
challenging the lawfulness of a state emergency order, not just
the legislature. She said it's a concern that there would be the
potential for say 50 lawsuits to be filed in in 50 different
courts the day after a declaration, and all of those would need
to be heard within 72 hours.
CHAIR HUGHES asked the sponsor if she would like to respond.
4:12:53 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that anybody can file a lawsuit at
any time, and she believes it would be highly unlikely that 50
lawsuits would be filed immediately.
CHAIR HUGHES asked Ms. Meade if same subject cases could be
combined and heard as one, similar to what happened with the
numerous filings related to redistricting.
MS. MEADE answered that can happen sometimes. She recalled that
in the redistricting case all the parties agreed, they were all
represented by attorneys, and the filings were all in an
Anchorage court. The arguments differed a bit, but they had a
common thread. That may not be the same in a statewide emergency
declaration. Hypothetically, somebody in Sitka could sue about a
vaccine problem, somebody in Palmer could sue about a church
problem, and somebody in Barrow could sue about the inability to
subsistence hunt. She said it would not be possible to combine
such cases from different judicial districts. Further, it was
also possible that some of the parties would be without
representation, which would be much more time-consuming for the
court.
4:16:03 PM
CHAIR HUGHES stated that Alaskans have the right to file
challenges and the committee will be interested in hearing from
Ms. Meade after she has had time to consider how to make Section
2 workable.
4:16:23 PM
SENATOR D. WILSON asked whether something similar to the 72-hour
rule for how to engage that's in Title 47 might work.
4:16:44 PM
MS. MEADE clarified that he was referring to an involuntary
mental commitment under Title 47 and the requirement for the
court to have an initial hearing within 72 hours. She said those
generally are handled by magistrates who work nights and
weekends to handle emergency cases and she'd need to think about
whether a case that, per Section 2, is supposed to be handled in
superior court could be delegated to a magistrate and handled on
an emergency basis. She highlighted that one difference is that
emergency mental commitments typically involve a number of
professionals at the hearings and the hearings under Section 2
probably would not involve parties that do this sort of thing
daily.
SENATOR REINBOLD commented on the profound impact the health
mandates had on people's lives and said she would welcome a
massive number of lawsuits if similar mandates were imposed
during any future disaster declaration.
4:20:02 PM
CHAIR HUGHES turned to Section 3 relating to consecutive
disaster declarations. She asked Mr. Foote whether he agreed
with the sponsor that it was illegal for the governor to issue
consecutive proclamations.
MR. FOOTE answered that he did not agree.
CHAIR HUGHES asked him to elaborate.
MR. FOOTE offered his understanding that the governor's
declarations followed current laws.
CHAIR HUGHES asked if the proclamations were legal because they
related to different COVID strains
MR. FOOTE answered that it is the opinion of his office that
those emergency declarations were lawful under AS 26.23.020.
CHAIR HUGHES expressed surprise because she recalled seeing a
legal opinion that said they were not lawful.
4:21:43 PM
SENATOR D. WILSON asked if that opinion was before or after the
legislature codified those reauthorizations by passing the
Disaster Declaration statute.
MR. FOOTE answered that he didn't know.
4:22:01 PM
CHAIR HUGHES referred to a question and answer in a memo from
Legal Services dated January 30, 2021. It read:
Would a court find the governor's successive
declarations to be a violation of AS 26.23.020(c)?
Yes, a court likely would find that the governor's
executive orders declaring new disasters beyond
November 15, 2020, violated AS 26.23.020(c). As
discussed above, that statute gives the legislature,
and only the legislature, authority to extend a
disaster declaration.
She asked Mr. Foote to forward any additional written opinion to
her office and she would distribute it to the members.
SENATOR REINBOLD added that the legal memo was written by Andrew
Dunmire. She read the answer in full.
4:23:11 PM
SENATOR MYERS agreed with the chair and sponsor that the
Disaster Declarations were illegal under the current statute. He
added that if they were in fact illegal, that should have been
addressed either through a vote of the legislature disapproving
the subsequent declarations or with a lawsuit, but neither
happened. He opined that Section 3 doesn't help because it would
also require a vote of the legislature or a court challenge.
4:24:00 PM
SENATOR D. WILSON commented that the effective date for SB 56
was retroactive so the authorizations were legal once the
legislature passed that bill.
CHAIR HUGHES said she had some question about that because the
declarations were illegal before the bill passed. She asked Mr.
Foote if there was a statutory definition for "substantially
similar."
MR. FOOTE answered not to his knowledge.
CHAIR HUGHES asked if the term was used elsewhere in statute.
MR. FOOTE answered that it is legal language, but his
understanding was it is not used in this context.
CHAIR HUGHES said people argue both ways about whether or not
the various strains of COVID-19 are substantially similar, and
she believes that will need to be sorted out.
CHAIR HUGHES noted the possibility of a disaster overlapping two
governors. She asked Mr. Foote if the bill referred to one
individual governor and if the incoming governor could also
issue a declaration, so there could be two different
declarations for the same emergency disaster. She cited the
COVID-19 health disaster as an example.
MR. FOOTE replied he couldn't answer that without doing some
reading.
CHAIR HUGHES opined that if one governor can't issue multiple
substantially similar emergency proclamations, she didn't think
a new governor should have the ability to issue a repeat
proclamation without legislative approval. She asked the sponsor
if that was her intent.
4:26:53 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD answered yes. She said Section 3 is intended to
prevent the abuse of power; she is not a fan of ex post facto
law; and current law says that a disaster may be declared for 30
days.
CHAIR HUGHES said that the problem is that the capital is
separated from so much of the state that it is difficult for the
legislature to convene. She articulated her wish that the
legislature have the ability to vote electronically. She
acknowledged that it couldn't be written into the bill because
the Uniform Rules would have to be suspended. She asked the
sponsor if she or her staff had looked at what other states have
done when the legislature had to reauthorize something when it
wasn't in session. Specifically, did their uniform rules have to
be suspended or was it done statutorily.
4:29:12 PM
MS. TOTH answered that she would do some research and follow up
with the committee.
CHAIR HUGHES opined that there probably should be a rule in the
Uniform Rules pertaining to disasters. She reminded members that
the Senate voted to suspend the rules during the emergency
disaster, but the House did not.
SENATOR REINBOLD stressed the importance of having the ability
to vote electronically and reiterated her wish that more
lawsuits had been filed challenging the recent emergency health
declarations. She also offered her views on the aspirations and
motives of lawyers in the state. She said she was trying to make
Alaska the freest state in the nation to further an economic
boom.
4:33:48 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said this bill will have long term effects on
future governors and legislatures, and it will impact lives.
It's important to get it right and that means the bill will not
be rushed.
CHAIR HUGHES referred to page 3, line 10 that says:
(1) An emergency order expires in seven days unless
She noted that this new section was talking about an emergency
order that binds, curtails, or infringes the rights of private
parties. She asked Mr. Foote how this differs from the emergency
orders that last for 30 days.
4:35:36 PM
Mr. Foote advised that the governor's power to declare emergency
mandates comes the legislature, so it is within the
legislature's purview to narrow the scope of that power through
legislation such as SB 144. It would be up to the courts to
determine whether the government interest was sufficient to
infringe on individual rights.
4:36:12 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked for examples of measures that would have a
30-day limit and orders that would expire in seven-days.
MR. FOOTE said he would respond to the request in writing.
CHAIR HUGHES asked the sponsor if she could give examples of the
orders that would fall under the 30-day declaration and what
would fall under the seven-day orders.
4:38:02 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD paraphrased all but the first sentence in the
new Sec 26.23.023(c)(1), Limitations on emergency orders that
regulate the public, in Section 4:
... Emergency orders that bind, curtail, or infringe
the rights of private parties must be narrowly
tailored to serve a compelling public health or safety
purpose. Each emergency order must be limited in
duration, applicability, and scope in order to reduce
any infringement of individual liberty. Only the
governor may issue an emergency order that infringes
constitutional rights, including the right to travel,
work, assemble, and speak, the free exercise of
religion, contract and property rights, freedom from
unreasonable searches and seizures, and the freedom to
purchase lawful firearms and ammunition in a
nontrivial manner. Emergency orders that infringe on
constitutional rights are further limited as follows:
(1) An emergency order expires in seven days unless
SENATOR REINBOLD acknowledged that the language in this
subsection needed to be cleaned up but stressed that these
infringements on constitutional rights technically are only
allowed during Marshall Law. She emphasized that the limitation
on attending church has impacted people's right to assemble,
businesses were shut down, people were told who was essential
and who was not, and people lost their livelihoods. She said she
imposed a seven-day limit on these types of emergency orders
because they had such dramatic and life altering consequences.
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that SB 144 is vitally important because
it empowers the legislative branch, gets the courts involved
quickly, and keeps the executive branch in check.
4:40:28 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked the sponsor to provide a list at the next
hearing of the various orders or requirements that were issued
during the past two years and categorize them according to the
30-day and seven-day duration. She commented on the challenge of
assembling the legislature in Juneau on short notice. She asked
the members to comb through the bill before the next meeting,
because emergency declarations need to work for the state, it's
not a partisan issue. The Disaster statutes need to be reworked
because they were written to apply to short-term emergencies,
not over an extended term.
4:42:53 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that she was happy to provide the list
of the 18 mandates and health alerts as examples of how large
and broad they were. She also highlighted that on page 3,
subsection (d) in Section 4 states that each house may vote to
ratify or terminate an emergency order by meeting remotely as
established by or in the absence of the uniform rules. She
acknowledged that the uniform rules needed to be addressed
separately in statute, but SB 144 does address the
applicability. She concluded that it is the legislature's duty
to protect and defend individual liberties and prevent an out-
of-control executive branch.
CHAIR HUGHES held SB 144 in committee.
4:45:15 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Hughes adjourned the Senate Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee meeting at 4:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 144 Sponsor Statement 1.29.22.pdf |
SCRA 3/1/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 144 |
| SB0144A.PDF |
SCRA 3/1/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 144 |
| SB 144 Sectional Analysis 1.29.22.pdf |
SCRA 3/1/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 144 |
| SB 144 Research - Legal Memos Recieved as of 3.1.2022.pdf |
SCRA 3/1/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 144 |
| SB 144 Testimony - Recieved as of 2.28.2022.pdf |
SCRA 3/1/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 144 |