SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska limiting the rights of prisoners to those required under the Constitution of the United States. SENATOR DAVE DONLEY noted that SJR 3 limits the rights of prisoners, convicted in the state of Alaska, to those required under the Constitution of the United States. He observed that the Alaskan Constitution grants rights and liberties not granted to citizens of other states. He maintained that Alaskan prisoners have utilized some of the provisions of Alaska's Constitution to claim additional rights not available under the federal Constitution. He stated that this could cause significant problems with the administration of correctional facilities. He identified areas of concern: 1. Discipline and classification; 2. Access to rehabilitation programs; 3. Location of incarceration; and 4. Square footage requirement on cell size. Senator Donley noted that the Cleary consent decree prohibits dormitory type cells. He maintained that, without a uniform standard for prison administration, it is difficult to get the Court to clarify the specific requirement. He emphasized that he did not know of any other states where dormitory cells are prohibited. Senator Donley provided members with a Letter of Intent (copy on file). He stressed that the proposed Letter of Intent was based on discussion during previous hearings. Senator Donley observed that the victims' rights provision of the Alaska State Constitution could be viewed as modified by the prisoners' rights section. Senator Donley referred to Brandon v. State, 938 P.2d 1029 (Alaska 1997). He observed that a prisoner who was sent to the state of Arizona contended that his reformation was endangered since he was not close to his family in Alaska. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that it raised a constitutional question under the Alaska State Constitution. The lower court will examine the case. Senator Donley noted that Chief Justice Rabinowitz, in a dissenting opinion, wrote that the Court had never before extended the principal of reformation to the issue of location. Chief Justice Rabinowitz pointed out, that according to the Brandon decision, prisoner visitation is a component of the constitutional right to rehabilitation. Chief Justice Rabinowitz suggested that, as a result of the decision, the Department of Corrections would find it difficult to justify most out-of-state incarcerations, incarcerations of rural Alaskans in urban facilities and most incarcerations that encompass significant geographical dislocation. He added that there would be significant fiscal implication. Senator Donley referred to Article I, Section 12 of the Alaska State Constitution. He observed that discussion of the principle of reformation held during the Constitutional Convention indicated that an individual right would not be created. Subsequent decisions in the late 1970's by the Alaska Supreme Court concluded an individual right was created. Senator Donley explained that the intent of SJR 3 is to clarify that the Article I, Section 12 does not create individual rights for prisoners. Article I, Section 12 would continue as a guiding principle. Representative Mulder stressed the importance of the legislation on the Department of Corrections' future liabilities and responsibilities. He emphasized that there are not enough inmate programs to assure reformation through visitation. He stressed that inmate programs are expensive. DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW agreed that the Alaska State Constitutional Convention viewed Article I, Section 12, Principle of Reformation, to be a guideline. He observed that a shift by the Court created a right to rehabilitation in the 1970's. He stated that SJR 3 would clarified that Article I, Section 12 is a guiding right, not an enforceable right. Mr. Guaneli emphasized that the Court has given the Department broad deference in choosing when and what kinds of programs to give prisoners. Despite the Court's decision there has been little impact from litigation. He noted concerns that the resolution would allow funding to be withdrawn from prison programs. He emphasized that prisoner programs are good management tools. Mr. Guaneli referred to the Cleary decision. He did not think that SJR 3 would create a very strong ground for being relieved from the Cleary judgement. He observed that there has never been a finding that the state of Alaska was in violation of the State Constitution. The State has maintained that it did not violate the Constitution. He observed that the state of Alaska has been in contempt of Court for noncompliance with the judgement. He suggested that a pattern of compliance with the order would present a better case for relief. He acknowledged that passage of SJR 3 would not hurt the State's case. Representative Davies noted that state prisoners have maintained that state statutes were violated. He observed that reformation is a management tool. Mr. Guaneli agreed that prisoner programs are good management tools. Co-Chair Therriault emphasized that the Department of Corrections is precluded from withholding participation in prisoner programs as a management tool. Mr. Guaneli reiterated that the Court has given the Department wide deference in deciding how programs are managed. He noted that programs could be withheld during administrative segregation due to prisoner behavior. He added that some prisoners are segregated through no fault of their own. The Department would have an obligation to extend some programs to these prisoners. He maintained that the Court does not impose specifics on the Department. Representative Davies questioned the affect of prisoner programs on recidivism rates. Mr. Guaneli could not comment on the affect of prisoner programs on recidivism rates. Senator Donley emphasized that SJR 3 does not preclude rehabilitation programs. He emphasized that; while prisoner programs are meritorious, how they are implemented should be the policy decision of the Legislature and the Department of Corrections. He maintained that SJR 3 is the best tool available to revisit the Cleary decision. Senator Donley clarified that the Letter of Intent was not considered for adopted by previous committees. He emphasized that the content of the ballot question is the most important consideration. He stressed that the Letter of Intent is a guideline for the ballot question. Senator Donley questioned if the House Finance Committee received the correct version of SJR 3 from the House Judiciary Committee. SJR 3 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.