02/11/2022 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB23 | |
| SB119 | |
| SB129 | |
| SB118 | |
| SB31 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 11, 2022
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Roger Holland, Chair
Senator Mike Shower, Vice Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Robert Myers (via Teams)
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 23
"An Act relating to proposing and enacting laws by initiative."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 119
"An Act relating to oaths of office; and requiring public
officers to read the state constitution, the Declaration of
Independence, and the United States Constitution."
- MOVED CSSB 119(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 129
"An Act relating to information on judicial officers provided in
election pamphlets."
- MOVED CSSB 129(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 118
"An Act establishing the committee on nullification of federal
laws; and providing a directive to the lieutenant governor."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 31
"An Act relating to binding votes by or for a legislator under
the Legislative Ethics Act."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 23
SHORT TITLE: INITIATIVE SEVERABILITY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) REVAK
01/22/21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
01/22/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/21 (S) STA, JUD
03/09/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/09/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/09/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/13/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/13/21 (S) Moved SB 23 Out of Committee
04/13/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/14/21 (S) STA RPT 1DP 1DNP 3NR
04/14/21 (S) NR: SHOWER, REINBOLD, HOLLAND
04/14/21 (S) DP: COSTELLO
04/14/21 (S) DNP: KAWASAKI
04/19/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/19/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/19/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/21/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/21/21 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/09/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/09/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/09/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/11/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 119
SHORT TITLE: OATH OF OFFICE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) REINBOLD
04/07/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/07/21 (S) EDC, JUD, STA, FIN
04/23/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/23/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/23/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
04/28/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/28/21 (S) Moved CSSB 119(EDC) Out of Committee
04/28/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
04/30/21 (S) EDC RPT CS 4DP 1NR SAME TITLE
04/30/21 (S) DP: HOLLAND, HUGHES, STEVENS, MICCICHE
04/30/21 (S) NR: BEGICH
04/30/21 (S) FIN REFERRAL REMOVED
04/30/21 (S) CRA REFERRAL ADDED AFTER EDC
05/11/21 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
05/11/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/13/21 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
05/13/21 (S) Moved CSSB 119(EDC) Out of Committee
05/13/21 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
05/14/21 (S) CRA RPT 1DP 1DNP 2NR
05/14/21 (S) DP: HUGHES
05/14/21 (S) DNP: GRAY-JACKSON
05/14/21 (S) NR: MYERS, WILSON
01/31/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/31/22 (S) Heard & Held
01/31/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/02/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/02/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/02/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/09/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/09/22 (S) <Bill Hearing Postponed to Feb 11>
02/11/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 129
SHORT TITLE: ELECTION PAMPHLET INFORMATION RE: JUDGES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MYERS
04/21/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/21 (S) JUD, STA
05/05/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/05/21 (S) Heard & Held
05/05/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/12/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/12/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
05/14/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/14/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
01/28/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/28/22 (S) Heard & Held
01/28/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
01/31/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/31/22 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
02/02/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/02/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/02/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/09/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/09/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/09/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/11/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 118
SHORT TITLE: CMTE ON NULLIFICATION OF FEDERAL LAWS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) REINBOLD
04/07/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/07/21 (S) STA, JUD
04/13/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/13/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/13/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/04/21 (S) Moved SB 118 Out of Committee
05/04/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/07/21 (S) STA RPT 1DP 4NR
05/07/21 (S) NR: SHOWER, COSTELLO, KAWASAKI, HOLLAND
05/07/21 (S) DP: REINBOLD
05/14/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/14/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/02/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/02/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/02/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/11/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 31
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBITING BINDING CAUCUSES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) SHOWER
01/25/21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
01/25/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/21 (S) STA, JUD
03/18/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/18/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/18/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/04/21 (S) Moved CSSB 31(STA) Out of Committee
05/04/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/07/21 (S) STA RPT CS 2DP 2NR 1AM SAME TITLE
05/07/21 (S) DP: SHOWER, REINBOLD
05/07/21 (S) NR: COSTELLO, HOLLAND
05/07/21 (S) AM: KAWASAKI
05/10/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/10/21 (S) Heard & Held
05/10/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/02/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/02/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/02/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/11/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
KATI CAPPOZI, President;
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Alaska Chamber
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 to provide
transparency and improve public policy to benefit voters and the
ballot initiative process.
REBECCA LOGAN, Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Alaska Support Industry Alliance
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 23 because the
provisions of an initiative should not be severable after being
circulated.
LAURA BONNER, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 23 because it
would usurp people's power in the initiative process.
SENATOR LORA REINBOLD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 119.
ED KING, Staff
Senator Roger Holland
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained Conceptual Amendment 1 to SB 129
on behalf of Senator Holland.
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director
Alaska Judicial Council
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
SB 129.
MIKE COONS, representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 118.
MEGAN WALLACE, Director
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered legal questions during the
discussion of SB 118.
SENATOR LORA REINBOLD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 119.
JERRY ANDERSON, Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Legislative Agencies and Offices
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on legislative ethics
during the discussion on SB 31.
NOAH KLEIN, Legislative Counsel
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Legislature*
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered legal questions during the
discussion of SB 31.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:36 PM
CHAIR ROGER HOLLAND called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Myers (via Teams), Hughes, Shower, Kiehl,
and Chair Holland.
SB 23-INITIATIVE SEVERABILITY
1:34:16 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 23
"An Act relating to proposing and enacting laws by initiative."
[SB 23 was previously heard on 4/19/2021 and 2/9/2022.]
1:34:36 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND opened public testimony on SB 23.
1:35:13 PM
KATI CAPPOZI, President; Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Alaska
Chamber, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that the Alaska Chamber
supports passage of SB 23. The Alaska Chamber was founded in
1953. Its mission is to promote a healthy business environment
in Alaska. The Alaska Chamber represents 700 members and
businesses of all sizes and sectors from across the state. Each
year the Alaska Chamber membership votes on its advocacy agenda.
Ballot measure reform was recently added as an issue of
statewide importance for the business community in Alaska.
MS. CAPPOZI stated that their position of support for ballot
measure reform says, in part, that "changes in the initiative
process should produce more transparency and better public
policy in a comprehensive and balanced manner equally benefiting
both voters and the legislative process."
1:36:08 PM
MS. CAPPOZI related that the Alaska Chamber focused on two
points. First, the Alaska Chamber wanted to ensure transparency
that will benefit Alaskans and ballot measure proponents, and
second, to uphold the constitutional rights and duty of the
legislature. Once Alaskans sign their names to specific ballot
measure language, their support should apply only to the exact
wording in the ballot initiative. If any court or courts decides
to alter or remove language for the initiative, no one can
assume that support remains for the revised language. Likewise,
if the court or courts sever language from a proposed ballot
measure, no one can assume that the ballot measure proponents
themselves will support the new language.
1:36:48 PM
MS. CAPPOZI stated that Alaska's current system threatens all
ballot measure proponents, regardless of the cause or political
affiliation. It restricts groups from an opportunity to go back
to the drawing board if a court or courts alter the language of
the measure they submitted initially. Second, the Alaska Chamber
wants to ensure that the constitutional obligations of the
legislature are upheld. Allowing courts to sever the language of
a proposed law and placing that proposed law on the ballot would
grant the judicial branch the power to write law, which is
expressly limited to the legislative branch or the people by way
of the ballot measure process. This strips the legislature of
its constitutional obligation to review initiatives and, if it
chooses, to enact a law that is considered substantially
similar. The Alaska Chamber supports the passage of SB 23 to
benefit the people of Alaska and ballot measure proponents by
increasing transparency and providing for a clear set of rules.
Further, it provides the express ability to write laws to the
legislature and Alaska's voters.
1:38:03 PM
REBECCA LOGAN, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Alaska Support
Industry Alliance, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in support of SB 23.
She stated that the Alaska Support Industry Alliance (Alliance)
is a 43-year-old trade association representing 500 members and
support companies for oil, gas, and mining. The Alliance has
supported this legislation since the late Senator Birch first
introduced it as Senate Bill 80. The Alliance believes that the
provisions of an initiative should not be severable after being
circulated. The Alliance bases this on the desire to protect the
integrity of the ballot initiative process by ensuring that
voters know that the language on the ballot is precisely the
same as what was presented when they signed the ballot
initiative.
MS. LOGAN said the Alliance also supports prohibiting the court
and unelected judges to amend initiative language, thereby
crafting legislation from the bench. Finally, the Alliance would
like to ensure that ballot initiative language passes legal and
constitutional muster before it's presented to the voters. She
urged members to support this critical legislation.
1:39:40 PM
LAURA BONNER, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SB 23. She stated that she lives in Senator
Revak's district, the same district that the late Senator Birch
represented.
MS. BONNER said that the Alaska Constitution, art. XI, sec. 1
begins with "The people may propose and enact laws by
initiative...." She expressed concern that SB 23 would usurp
people's power in the initiative process. The gathering of
signatures demands substantial time, effort, and expense to
obtain the number of signatures required in all 40 House
districts. If SB 23 passes the legislature, the sponsors tasked
to gather enough signatures must start all over if one word or
sentence is changed, added, or deleted after a judicial review
or court decision.
1:40:33 PM
MS. BONNER stated that she had signed quite a few petitions over
the years. And some of those she signed only because she thought
it should be voted on by the people, or perhaps by the
legislature before the election. She related this was allowed in
Section 4 in the Legislative Legal letter dated April 23, 2019,
regarding Senate Bill 80, which is identical to SB 23.
MS. BONNER highlighted a paragraph at the end of that letter,
which read, "The Court has also described the people's
initiative power as an act of direct democracy guaranteed by our
constitution. However, under SB 80 a person proposing an
initiative would be prohibited from including a severability
provision." Because of this, it could be considered
unconstitutional. She said she believes that is true.
MS. BONNER said the voters' initiative constitutional rights
shouldn't be stifled, and passage of SB 23 would do just that.
She acknowledged that she is not an attorney, but she offered
her view that there may be constitutional issues regarding the
bill.
1:42:34 PM
SENATOR SHOWER welcomed her ideas on how to amend the bill. He
explained that the issue SB 23 addresses is when an initiative
is significantly changed after people initially signed the
petition. When that happens, voters no longer vote on the
initiative they supported.
1:43:14 PM
MS. BONNER responded that what counts is when voters cast their
vote once the initiative is placed on the ballot. She viewed it
as similar to the legislative process when legislators support
or co-sponsor a bill and the bill changes in the committee
process. Legislators can vote against it on the floor. The floor
vote counts just as a vote cast for a ballot proposition that
changed during the initiative process.
1:44:06 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND closed public testimony on SB 23.
1:44:12 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 23 in committee.
SB 119-OATH OF OFFICE
1:44:19 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 119
"An Act relating to oaths of office; and requiring public
officers to read the state constitution, the Declaration of
Independence, and the United States Constitution."
[CSSB 119(EDC) was before the committee.]
CHAIR HOLLAND stated that SB 119 was previously heard on 1/31/22
and 2/2/2022. Public testimony was closed on 2/2/2022.
1:44:37 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 32-
LS0163\G.2.
32-LS0163\G.2
Marx
2/1/22
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HOLLAND
TO: CSSB 119(EDC)
Page 1, line 2:
Delete ", the Declaration of Independence,"
Page 1, line 6:
Delete ", the Declaration of Independence,"
Page 2, line 2:
Delete ", the Declaration of Independence,"
Page 2, lines 7 - 8:
Delete ", the Declaration of Independence,"
Page 2, lines 13 - 14:
Delete ", the Declaration of Independence,"
Page 2, lines 19 - 20:
Delete ", the Declaration of Independence,"
Page 2, lines 25 - 26:
Delete ", the Declaration of Independence,"
Page 3, lines 3 - 4:
Delete ", the Declaration of Independence,"
Page 3, lines 10 - 11:
Delete ", the Declaration of Independence,"
Page 3, lines 17 - 18:
Delete ", the Declaration of Independence,"
Page 3, line 23:
Delete ", the Declaration of Independence,"
SENATOR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes.
1:44:52 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND explained that Amendment 1 would remove references
to the Declaration of Independence since state law requires
public officials to swear an oath to the US Constitution and
Alaska Constitution. However, he said the oath that members take
does not refer to the Declaration of Independence. As Senator
Kiehl pointed out, expanding the required reading list could
open the door to any number of materials that anyone might think
is essential.
1:45:32 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked the sponsor to comment on Amendment 1.
1:45:49 PM
SENATOR LORA REINBOLD, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 119, said that the United States is one nation
under God, and it should soar like an eagle. The US Constitution
provides the most powerful protection for individual liberties.
She said the charter is the mission statement, which is the
Declaration of Independence. The US Constitution provides a set
of bylaws that accompanies the charter. For example, it outlines
due process and how the charter takes place. She opined that the
charter and bylaws are inseparable. She characterized it as two
wings that allow the eagle to fly. She expressed concern that
some justices view the US Constitution as a living document.
However, going back to the mission statement clarifies and
identifies the goals of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
It protects individuals and keeps the judicial branch in its
lane. She said she objects to Amendment 1.
1:47:36 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated his support for Amendment 1 but said he
could go either way.
SENATOR SHOWER maintained his objection.
CHAIR HOLLAND recognized Senator Hughes wished to comment.
1:48:01 PM
SENATOR HUGHES offered her view that tying it into oath is
important. She said she hopes that anyone who steps up to serve
in any elected or appointed position reads and becomes familiar
with the Declaration of Independence. However, she did not think
it fits in SB 119 because the statutes relate to the oath, and
even the short title of the bill is "Oaths of Office." She said
she would stick with the readings actually tied to the oath
itself.
1:49:47 PM
SENATOR MYERS, (via Teams), echoed what Senator Hughes said. He
acknowledged that the Declaration of Independence identifies the
purpose of government, including the life, liberty, and pursuit
of happiness, which is the most well-known language. However,
the vast majority of the Declaration of Independence is a list
of grievances against England. And while that's important
historically, it isn't as important when it comes to taking an
oath. He suggested that other documents that pertain to the
point of government, could include John Locke's Second Treatise
of Government and similar documents. He offered his view that
removing it would help the legislature to narrow the focus to
the oath public officials take.
1:51:19 PM
SENATOR SHOWER maintained his objection.
1:51:33 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Hughes, Myers, Kiehl, and
Holland voted in favor of Amendment 1, and Senator Shower voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 passed by a 4:1 vote.
1:51:20 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD made closing remarks. She offered her view that
it is vitally important when the executive branch and judicial
branch overreach to understand that the US Constitution was put
in place to keep the government "in its lane" and protect
individual liberties. She said she hoped that the bill would
move from the committee.
1:52:55 PM
SENATOR SHOWER moved to report SB 119, work order 32-LS0163\G,
as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR HOLLAND heard no objection, and CSSB 119(JUD) was reported
from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:53:27 PM
At ease
SB 129-ELECTION PAMPHLET INFORMATION RE: JUDGES
1:55:20 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 129 "An Act relating to
information on judicial officers provided in election
pamphlets."
[SB 129 was previously heard on 5/5/21, 1/28/22, 2/2/22, and
2/9/22. Public testimony was opened and closed on 1/28/22.
Amendments 1,2, and 3 were considered on 2/9/22.]
1:56:18 PM
At ease
1:57:38 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.
1:57:51 PM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to adopt Amendment 4, work order 32-
LS0751\O.5.
32-LS0751\O.5
Radford
2/3/22
AMENDMENT 4
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSSB 129(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 2, following line 30:
Insert a new subparagraphs to read:
"(I) a description of previous political
and governmental positions held by the judge,
including any political office held;
(J) a description of the judge's primary
practice areas before appointment, including the
approximate percentage of the judge's pre-appointment
career spent as a trial lawyer;
(K) a description of the types of clients
the judge represented before appointment;"
Page 3, line 1:
Delete "(G), and (H)"
Insert "and (G) - (K)"
Delete ";"
Insert "[SHALL CONTAIN A BRIEF STATEMENT
DESCRIBING EACH PUBLIC REPRIMAND, PUBLIC CENSURE, OR
SUSPENSION RECEIVED BY THE JUDGE UNDER AS 22.30.011(d)
DURING THE PERIOD COVERED IN THE EVALUATION. A
STATEMENT MAY NOT EXCEED 600 WORDS]."
Page 3, lines 2 - 14:
Delete all material.
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.
1:58:02 PM
SENATOR HUGHES explained that Amendment 4 would require a judge
standing for retention to provide the same information for the
voter pamphlet, whether it is their first retention election,
their third, or fourth one. First, the more information a voter
has is helpful. Second, if it is possible to fit the
biographical and performance information for the first retention
election, it should be possible for subsequent ones. She
suggested that doing so would create less confusion for the
voters. Otherwise, voters would review the judges for retention
elections and wonder why specific information was omitted.
Third, she said the jobs, positions, and education that shapes
judges before becoming judges is relevant since what shapes us
remains constant throughout life. For example, childhood
experiences shape a person, and it remains so whether the person
is 25 or 65 years old. Therefore, voters need to consider a
judge's pre-judicial work, whether they held a government or
political position, and the specific area of law the judicial
candidate had practiced. She emphasized that this remains
relevant background information throughout their tenure.
SENATOR HUGHES related a scenario to illustrate this. She
explained that a superior court judge appears on the ballot for
retention election every six years. She highlighted that nearly
30 percent of Alaska's population is new to the state every
election. New voters will not have the background information on
judges on the retention ballot unless it is provided. Further,
she questioned whether the average person would recall prior
judicial retention election information.
2:01:13 PM
SENATOR MYERS, speaking as sponsor, said he appreciated the
spirit in which Amendment 4 was offered, which fits the bill's
spirit. He said his objection to Amendment 4 was more
administrative because the space in the election pamphlet is
limited. He highlighted that the goal was to provide the voters
with information, specifically the most applicable information.
He expressed concern that including personal or professional
endeavors that occurred before the person became a judge might
mean not providing more relevant information. For example, the
description of the continuing legal education acquired, or any
disciplinary proceedings might be relevant to voters. As Ms.
DiPietro mentioned, the council might provide some information
for some judges in the pamphlet but not for others. He said he
hoped that would prompt some voters to go to the Alaska Judicial
Council's website to obtain more information.
2:03:01 PM
SENATOR SHOWER agreed with Senator Hughes' sentiment in
Amendment 4, but pointed out that currently, the bill has a zero
fiscal note. He expressed concern that if the committee pushes
for more information, it will increase the number of pages in
the voter pamphlet, increase the council and division's work,
and increase costs. This concerns him because a Finance
Committee referral might mean the bill would never get a hearing
and could die. He offered his view that the bill in its current
form works. He stated that while this is a good idea, he cannot
support Amendment 4.
CHAIR HOLLAND said he was aligned with Senator Shower. He
offered his view that SB 129 greatly improves the process.
Although Amendment 4 is not a bad idea, he was concerned about
what the changes would cost. He maintained his objection.
SENATOR HUGHES offered her view that the space and cost concerns
were not valid. First, in terms of space, the business and
professional positions held the preceding 10 years would drop
off over time and leave room for the items listed in Amendment
4. Second, nothing in Amendment 4 would trigger a fiscal note.
The judges' information provided to the Division of Elections
and the Alaska Judicial Council (AJC) for the first judicial
retention election fits on one page.
SENATOR HUGHES reiterated that more voter information is better
than less for the sake of new Alaskans and for those who might
not recall information provided at a prior election. She
surmised that AJC does not want earlier political and government
affiliations as part of information. However, she maintained her
view that having information before and throughout the judge's
career was relevant for voters.
2:07:48 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND maintained his objection.
2:08:03 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Hughes voted in favor of
Amendment 4, and Senators Myers, Kiehl, Shower, and Holland
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 4 failed on a 1:4 vote.
CHAIR HOLLAND stated that Amendment 4 failed on a vote of 1 yea
and 4 nays.
2:08:37 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1.
On page 2, lines 21-22 of SB 129, Delete all material
and insert:
"(F) the number of decisions by the judge
that were reviewed and disposed of by a written
decision of an appellate court, the percentage of
issues in those decisions that were affirmed by the
appellate court."
SENATOR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes.
2:08:58 PM
ED KING, Staff, Senator Roger Holland, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, explained Conceptual Amendment 1 on behalf of
Senator Holland. First, he described an amendment the committee
considered at its last meeting. Senator Holland previously
offered and withdrew Amendment 2, work order 32-LS0751\O.6, on
February 9, 2022. The discussion on the current language in
subparagraph (F) highlighted that the courts might not be able
to provide that information. The sponsor of SB 129 expressed
concern that the information in Amendment 2 may be too
voluminous and requested that the second half be removed. The
Alaska Judicial Council considered the request and suggested
using language from Amendment 2. So Conceptual Amendment 1
contains the language in the first half of Amendment 2. He
stated that the sponsor could elaborate more on the effect of
the language in Conceptual Amendment 1.
2:10:05 PM
SENATOR MYERS said he supported the language in Conceptual
Amendment 1, which he viewed as a technical clarification. He
reiterated Mr. King's explanation, adding that his concern with
the previous amendment related to the amount of verbiage AJC
might use to explain affirmance or other performance. He
suggested that perhaps the Judicial Council and the Division of
Elections could provide half a page at the beginning of the
judicial retention section of the election pamphlet explaining
the different ratings and some background information on
affirmance rates. However, he preferred not to address that in
statute.
2:11:29 PM
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council,
Alaska Court System, Anchorage, Alaska, responded that the
Alaska Judicial Council does not have an opinion on the
amendment.
2:11:51 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether the Alaska Judicial Council and the
Division of Elections could provide explanatory information for
judges up for retention election or if it would require
statutory authority for them to do.
MS. DIPIETRO responded that she would need to discuss this with
the Division of Elections since she was unaware of the
constraints the division has on the election pamphlet length or
space. She assured members that the council would explore this
with the division.
2:12:41 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked for any disadvantages voters would have if
Amendment 2 was adopted, and they read the affirmance rate
without having an explanation in the pamphlet. She wondered if
it would mislead the voters.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that AJC always provides the percentage of
decisions affirmed in context. AJC posts a memo on its website,
approximately 10-11 pages in length, providing historical
averages compared to all judges, not just the ones in the voter
pamphlet standing for retention in order to provide context.
This contextual information highlights the significance of the
percentage so voters can determine if a judge is within the
performance range of other judges with similar caseloads or if
they rank lower or higher. AJC has always provided this
information with a significant amount of context. She suggested
that AJC, in consultation with the division, would recommend and
prefers providing any context that fits within the statutory
limit and the division's logistical issue. This information
helps voters to understand what the numbers mean.
2:14:50 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated that voters currently receive substantial
campaign information during the election and are told that the
statutory changes contemplated were easily remedied by educating
the voters. For example, ranked-choice voting is supposedly easy
for voters to understand, but during the committee hearings
members found otherwise. He offered his view that directing
voters to a 10 - 11-page document would not be easier for them.
Amendment 2 would concisely put the judicial performance
information in the voter pamphlet rather than expecting voters
to interpret or distill the data from a 10 - 11-page
explanation.
2:15:46 PM
SENATOR MYERS said AJC currently provides the survey ratings but
not the appeal rates. The survey polls jurors, law enforcement,
and others about judicial performance. He highlighted that the
spirit of the bill was to give voters enough information, not
overwhelm them, or take up too much space in the voter
pamphlets. He stated he intended to omit the affirmance
information. He envisioned that most voters could compare the
judges' affirmance rates and ascertain if one was ranked 15
percent lower. He understood AJC's point that the council would
provide some context. For example, a voter might review the
voter pamphlet for judges up for judicial retention and see that
one judge was 50 percent lower than the others. Although he
understood Ms. DiPietro's point, he believes some context is
provided, and since the pamphlet has space limitations, he would
like to give voters a broader range of information.
2:17:15 PM
SENATOR SHOWER offered his belief that voters won't dig through
a 10-11 page document, so Conceptual Amendment 1 makes sense.
2:17:52 PM
SENATOR HUGHES stated that Conceptual Amendment 1 would remove
the explanation about judicial affirmance rates and replace it
with a percentage. She expressed her preference. She would like
AJC to provide a little explanation to ensure the voters have
enough information. Although she is comfortable with Conceptual
Amendment 1, she would like to hear from Ms. DiPietro after she
consults with the division. She suggested that the sponsor may
need to consider a floor amendment to address this.
2:20:35 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked if the committee should hear from Ms.
DiPietro first.
2:20:42 PM
SENATOR MYERS said he would like to consider it. He related that
this bill has one more committee referral before it heads to the
floor, so it's possible to amend it, if needed. However, he said
he didn't think it would be necessary to do so.
2:21:19 PM
SENATOR HUGHES responded that it works for her. She said she did
not realize that the bill had one more committee of referral.
2:21:37 PM
At ease
2:21:57 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.
2:22:09 PM
SENATOR SHOWER removed his objection.
CHAIR HOLLAND heard no further objection, so Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted.
SENATOR MYERS thanked the committee for its work on the bill. He
stated the goal of the bill is to provide voter education, by
ensuring that voters have additional information on judicial
retention elections.
2:23:04 PM
SENATOR SHOWER moved to report SB 129, work order 32-LS0751\O,
as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR HOLLAND found no objection, and CSSB 129(JUD) was reported
from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:23:28 PM
At ease
SB 118-CMTE ON NULLIFICATION OF FEDERAL LAWS
2:26:59 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 118 "An Act establishing the
committee on nullification of federal laws; and providing a
directive to the lieutenant governor."
[SB 118 was previously heard on 2/2/2022.]
2:27:12 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND noted his intention to take public testimony,
consider any issues, and hold the bill in committee.
2:27:21 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND opened public testimony on SB 118
2:27:41 PM
MIKE COONS, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, spoke in support
of SB 118 because nullification is the basis to countermand
amendments passed by the legislature, as needed. It would give
the new Committee on Nullification of Federal Laws the duty and
authority to review and nullify statutes, regulations, and
executive orders. He opined that this would provide Alaskans
with a means to address federal overreach.
2:28:59 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND closed public testimony on SB 118.
2:29:22 PM
MEGAN WALLACE, Director, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, Juneau, Alaska, introduced herself.
CHAIR HOLLAND stated that several legal questions arose at the
last hearing. He asked for the interplay between federal and
state laws.
MS. WALLACE explained that the supremacy clause of the US
Constitution art. VI states explicitly that the laws of the
federal government shall be the supreme laws of the land. The US
Constitution states that states will follow federal law. The
Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution to the states. The supremacy clause
would trump state law if the federal and state governments
passed laws that conflict. However, if the federal government
has not regulated or passed laws, the Tenth Amendment reserves
to states the right to make laws to address the matter.
2:31:37 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked whether any legal precedent supports a
state's right to nullify a federal law within its borders.
MS. WALLACE responded that she was unaware of any case law that
supports the state legislature's authority to nullify federal
law. The general legal mechanism used to challenge federal laws
is through litigation. Marbury v. Madison essentially
established the federal judicial doctrine that the federal
courts and the US Supreme Court ultimately have the role and
responsibility to decide whether federal laws are
constitutional.
2:32:37 PM
SENATOR SHOWER suggested that the bill sponsor might wish to
respond.
SENATOR LORA REINBOLD, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 118, pointed out that Wyoming, Alabama, and Utah
have set a precedent. She stated that the laws of Congress are
restricted by the US Constitution. She said that in Federalist
No. 33, Alexander Hamilton noted that the supremacy clause
expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the
constitution. She interpreted this to mean the federal
government must "stay in its own lane."
CHAIR HOLLAND asked if the language in SB 118 was modeled after
legislation other states have passed.
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that she would need to consult with
Legislative Legal.
2:34:19 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked if the Alaska legislature has the authority
to tell Alaskans not to abide by federal law or executive order.
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that the US Constitution and Alaska
Constitution protect individual civil liberties. If a federal
law is unconstitutional, the state absolutely must ensure
individual rights are protected. She remarked that members take
an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska. She remarked
that it is the legislature's responsibility to uphold state
sovereignty.
2:35:43 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated that he supports states' rights. He
commented that what works in Alaska does not necessarily work in
other states, such as Florida, New York, or Hawaii. He surmised
the founding fathers never envisioned the tremendous growth of
the federal government or the extent of its law-making that
governs everything. He stated it is valid to limit the federal
government since it has become too big and powerful, usurping
the states' powers. He related he introduced a bill that would
bifurcate the election system to ensure Alaska can operate its
elections in a manner it chooses rather than abide by a plan
devised by bureaucrats or elected officials in Washington DC.
2:37:33 PM
SENATOR HUGHES stated that art. VI is not in conflict with art.
1, sec. 10, which allows states to retain power over anything
that is not granted to the federal government. She suggested
that the committee might want to strengthen the language. She
referred to page 1, lines 11 - 14, and read, "In making its
recommendation, the committee shall consider whether the
statute, regulation, or executive order is outside the scope of
the powers delegated to the federal government in the
Constitution of the United States." She interpreted that means
it is not constitutional to nullify something that the
constitution granted the federal government to govern. However,
if it is an item that was not granted to the federal government,
it falls under the Tenth Amendment and the state should have a
means to nullify it. She related that Ms. Wallace said the usual
method is through litigation, but that doesn't mean it is the
only way. Nothing prohibits a state from asserting a state's
rights. She offered her view that as long as the state doesn't
nullify laws because the legislature doesn't like them or wishes
the federal government had not passed a law, the state can
nullify something that falls within [the Tenth Amendment].
2:40:00 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked if Alaska's legalization of marijuana was an
example of nullification.
2:40:21 PM
MS. WALLACE answered that she did not think Alaska's
legalization of marijuana was nullification. She related her
understanding that nullification was a term used in that a state
has the right to nullify or invalidate federal laws that it
deems unconstitutional. The state marijuana laws did not nullify
or invalidate the federal laws regulating marijuana. As most
members are aware, tension exists between states and the federal
government regarding marijuana. While the federal government has
not enforced the federal laws against marijuana in states that
have legalized marijuana, that tension still exists. She pointed
out that the possibility exists that the federal government
would enforce the federal laws in superiority over state laws.
2:42:00 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND acknowledged he did not think it was an example.
He asked what would happen if Alaska nullified a law, but the
federal government decided to enforce the federal law.
MS. WALLACE expressed concern with the process established in
the bill to nullify federal law. The bill provides for
nullification by concurrent resolution. Alaska Supreme Court
decisions indicate that if the legislature is going to act and
affect people outside the legislative branch, it needs to act by
law. Arguably, if the legislature nullified federal laws, the
bill risks challenge that it does not nullify by law. Second,
suppose the legislature were to attempt to nullify federal law.
In that case, a strong likelihood exists that the federal
government would not recognize that the state has the power to
nullify it. The federal government might continue to execute or
enforce it in Alaska. She offered her view that ultimately that
tension or conflict would end up in court.
2:43:55 PM
SENATOR SHOWER recalled that early on the federal government was
enforcing marijuana laws. He surmised it was less common now
because so many states legalized marijuana, so the federal
government let it go. Although the federal government might want
to enforce the marijuana laws, it has limited resources, so the
Drug Enforcement Agency relies on states and local authorities,
such as troopers to enforce federal law. He said the state could
push back if the federal government attempted to take over
Alaska's elections by refusing to allow them to use Alaska's
election equipment. It would be difficult for the federal
government to create its own system. He concluded that this
approach would avoid the conflict between constitutional powers.
2:45:58 PM
SENATOR KIEHL related one question he posed to the sponsor at
the last hearing was the cost to review each federal law as
proposed by SB 118. He suggested that Congress passes
approximately 2 million words of federal law each year, and
3,000 to 4,000 new regulations each year.
SENATOR REINBOLD reminded members she previously chaired the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee. She suggested that
combining that committee with the Senate Judiciary Committee
would be appropriate. She opined that the committee and the
Legal Services attorney would bring forth ideas.
2:47:58 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said the bill just says upon receipt. He asked if
the sponsor intended that Legislative Legal Services would do
the winnowing of those laws or if citizens would forward them to
the committee.
SENATOR REINBOLD stated the intention of SB 118 was to allow the
committee to set up the process. She said it would be open to
who brings forth the law for review.
2:48:55 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to the federal Real ID Act from 2005. At
one point, the state passed legislation that indicated the state
would not expend state resources to implement the Real ID Act.
He recalled that the law was repealed several years ago. He
asked whether that sponsor envisioned the Real ID Act as a
candidate for nullification.
SENATOR REINBOLD answered yes. She explained that art. 1, sec.
22 of the Alaska Constitution indicates that the privacy of
citizens shall not be infringed. She said it is the
legislature's responsibility.
2:49:59 PM
SENATOR MYERS wondered how nullifying a federal law would affect
the public. He related his understanding that many businesses
were concerned about accessing military bases. He asked what
would happen if the state nullified the Real ID Act and a
contractor submitted a non-Real ID driver's license as
identification to enter a base, but it was rejected.
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that the Department of Defense (DoD) is
under a different jurisdiction. She related that previously she
was allowed to use her passport to access the base.
SENATOR SHOWER responded that the military could restrict access
to bases due to national security concerns. He explained the
process contractors would use. If a person did not have the
Real-ID, the military would obtain their personal identifiers,
vet the person, and issue them a temporary pass to get on base
for events or contractors.
2:52:44 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked whether he could use a non-Real ID at the
airport. He asked whether he would need to call the troopers and
explain the legislature nullified the Real ID Act.
SENATOR REINBOLD answered that when conflicts arise, state
statutes would trump corporation policies. She asked whether the
legislature should allow corporations to set laws. She pointed
out that the supreme law is the US Constitution.
2:54:32 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 118 in committee.
SB 31-PROHIBITING BINDING CAUCUSES
2:54:51 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 31
"An Act relating to binding votes by or for a legislator under
the Legislative Ethics Act."
[CSSB 31(STA) was before the committee. SB 31 was previously
heard on 5/10/21 and 2/2/22.]
2:55:07 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND noted members raised several questions at the last
hearing. He related that Mr. Anderson, the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics administrator, was available for questions.
2:55:25 PM
SENATOR SHOWER said he would like to work with members on
amendments. He recalled Senator Kiehl asked whether SB 31 would
apply to more than procedural votes or the budget.
2:56:18 PM
SENATOR MYERS highlighted his only concern was enforcement
issues.
2:56:33 PM
SENATOR SHOWER offered to provide context for the bill. He
related that legislative leadership docked his staff's pay.
Since Mason's Manual or the Uniform Rules didn't address that
issue, his staff had no recourse. One goal of SB 31 is to
provide recourse if a member was stripped of their committee
chair or membership and their staff suffered financial losses.
2:57:59 PM
JERRY ANDERSON, Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, Legislative Agencies and Offices, Anchorage, Alaska,
offered to make general comments on the bill. He stated that he
did not find any changes to how parties would file complaints
under AS 24.60.170. The caucus process is silent in the
Legislative Ethics Act, and it was a product of precedent set
through the legislative process.
2:58:48 PM
SENATOR SHOWER recalled a felony penalty provision for a statute
that stated a person could not influence an elected official to
vote or prevent them from voting. However, this has happened
under a binding caucus. He said leadership threatened members
with direct action that affected legislators, their staff, and
their districts if they did not follow the caucus on procedural
or budget votes. He said he disagrees that leadership didn't
face the consequences for their threatening behavior because it
didn't violate any law. If a public member required someone to
vote a certain way, they could go to jail, but legislators are
not punished if they do the same thing.
3:00:11 PM
MR. ANDERSON responded that he had no further comments.
3:00:19 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked for the penalty provisions for violations
of the ethics law. She recalled that penalties could be
financial or impose certain things. Second, the conduct in
question was not about being bribed for receiving a prerequisite
(perk), which would fall under criminal law. Instead, the bill
states that the person may not commit their vote. She wondered
how it would affect a legislator who voted a certain way in
exchange for a perk. She said she didn't have enough
information.
3:01:53 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked if this bill passed in its current form,
whether the penalty was an ethics violation or complaint or if
the bill should elevate the penalty to a felony.
SENATOR SHOWER responded that colleagues expressed concern that
the bill would impose a felony. He commented that it might not
be politically viable to elevate this behavior to a felony. He
related his goal was to establish a consequence for a binding
caucus that required another legislator to commit to vote for or
against a bill, appointment, veto, or another measure that may
come to a vote before a legislative body. He was unsure how to
address the issues related to a binding caucus other than to
pass the bill to prohibit a binding caucus explicitly.
3:03:59 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said the bill carves out an exception for certain
votes or informal polls in a caucus. He asked whether it would
apply to a formation of a caucus. Since he is not a member of
the majority, he has less staff and less pay for staff, which
the sponsor has highlighted as forbidden binding mechanisms. He
asked whether this bill would apply to the formation of a caucus
in the first place. He wondered whether the bill could be
interpreted to mean that minority members must have the same
resources as majority members.
MR. ANDERSON responded that the definitions used in SB 31 were
taken from open meetings guidelines. Those guidelines discuss
caucus procedures. He stated that some were included and others
were not. For example, political strategy is not part of the
open meetings guideline. Under AS 24.60.039(g)(1) "caucus" means
a group of legislators who share a political philosophy, or have
a common goal, or who organize as a group. He said if the
complaint met that definition, the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics would consider it. If the committee found a
violation, it would go through the complaint process, including
issuing specific sanctions. He deferred to Mr. Klein to further
respond.
3:07:03 PM
NOAH KLEIN, Attorney, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, Juneau, Alaska, asked
Senator Kiehl to repeat the question.
3:07:16 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the bill would apply to the
formation of minority or majority caucuses since the sponsor
described the binding mechanisms, including fewer staff, pay
ranges, and committee chair assignments.
MR. KLEIN responded that the bill could apply to the formation
of caucuses if legislators were committing for or against a bill
or veto. He said if it occurs during the formation, it would not
be subject to the exception in paragraph (1).
3:08:57 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 31 in committee.
3:09:32 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Holland adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:09 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 23 Letter of Support - AGC.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 Letter of Support - Alaska Chamber.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 Letter of Support - RDC.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 Letter of Support - CAP.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 23 Letter of Support - Alliance.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| RDC SB 23 Comment letter 2-11-22.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23 - Letter of Support - APF.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 119 SJUD Amendment G.2.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 119 |
| SB 129 SJUD Amendment O.5.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 129 |
| SB 129 SJUD Amendment O.6 as amended.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 129 |
| SB 23 Public Testimony through 2.12.22.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 118 SJUD Public Testimony.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 118 |