HSTA - 02/21/95 HJR 4 - USE OF INITIATIVES TO AMEND CONSTITUTION Number 619 TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Assistant to Representative Terry Martin, testified on behalf of Representative Martin who was unable to attend the meeting. He reviewed some previous discussion on HB 4 when the State Affairs Committee debated it, and reminded the committee there was discussion on increasing the percentage of the vote. He noted that Representative Green offered to submit an amendment, which increases the voting of an initiative from majority to 55 percent. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked someone to refresh her memory, because she only remembered voting to increase the percentage to two-thirds. Up to then, there had not been a new bill before the committee that increased it to 55 percent. If they were to change it to 55 percent, they were, in fact, rescinding their original motion to change it to two-thirds. She stated that she objected to the motion. Number 635 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned offering an amendment after a lengthy discussion with Mr. Anderson about whether frivolous changes to the Constitution could be accomplished with a simple majority vote. The other side of the debate stated that if it required three-fourths or two-thirds, there would never be a change. Constitutions are living documents as we have seen by our Federal Constitution, and there have been significant changes. On the whole, the changes have been good, and sometimes changes are necessary. His reason for suggesting 55 percent is to try to strike a balance of allowing the people to be heard when there is a reason for change. It is conjectural, if they wanted something, that they could get two-thirds, but he feels reasonably sure they could get 55 percent of the votes. Number 661 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS noted that he remains strong about a two- thirds vote. It is historically acceptable, and has been since the beginning of the nation concerning the federal institution. The citizenry through the years has accepted it, and it is not impossible to accomplish change under the two-thirds provision. He said he will personally support the two-thirds vote. REPRESENTATIVE IVAN responded to the debate by restating that the democratic process is slow moving. He would like to see some changes, and subsistence would be one change, and if they had a way to take advantage of this legislation he said they would do it in a heartbeat. However, looking at the balance of state population this would be democratic process to the majority, but not for the folks on the other side who are being governed, too. MR. ANDERSON added that, currently, 18 states allow the initiative process for amending of the constitution, and 6 more states allow amending of the statutes in their process. All of these states require a majority. He emphasized that none of these states have this two-thirds - all of them are majority. If it is passed in the House and Senate, we would be the only state requiring two-thirds out of almost half that have the initiative process. TAPE 95-18, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said officials are able to debate the issue and understand what is being discussed, and then vote. The problem with requiring this of the general public is that often the public is not aware; they dont listen to debate. They expect their elected officials to go through that rigorous exercise. He believes that is why a simple majority has been used so frequently when dealing with the public, as opposed to higher standards for elected official groups. By adhering rigidly to the higher percentage he thinks we will not only grind exceedingly slow, we may grind to a halt. Number 031 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said in some ways, Representative Green was advocating the two-thirds, because if there was a real need to change the Constitution, which she agrees is sacred, it would be the responsibility of the group who introduced the initiative to educate enough people to get the two-thirds vote; also to convince them it is in the best interest of the state. This is so important that she believes it should be a higher standard. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he did not intend to support the amendment. He supported the two-thirds, because he thought it would eliminate this bill. He said he does not like the initiative process. In his opinion, if people are to vote on changes to the Constitution, the legislature should go through the arduous process of considering an amendment by two-thirds vote. VICE-CHAIR OGAN stated that an amendment was before the committee, offered by Representative Green, to delete majority and insert at least 55 percent. He wondered if it was in error, since they amended this to two-thirds. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected, saying the document was amended once and could be amended again. In order to be precise, the amendment should be voted down. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said her impression was that they had already changed it to two-thirds. Therefore, the appropriate amendment should be to delete two-thirds majority and insert 55 percent. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he would then recommend modifying his amendment to delete two-thirds and insert at least 55 percent. Vice Chair Ogan declared it so moved. VICE-CHAIR OGAN requested a roll call vote. REPRESENTATIVES PORTER, ROBINSON, WILLIS and OGAN voted against of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN voted in favor of the amendment. Number 140 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON voted to hold the bill over in committee. There were no objections, so the motion to hold the bill passed.