HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiatives regarding natural resources belonging to the state. REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE stated that the purpose of the proposed amendment would be to raise the bar for the passage of all natural resource ballot initiatives. HJR 3 would require a natural resource initiative to obtain a two-thirds vote in order to pass. Raising the bar for management of resources would encourage that scientific data, both pro and con, become available to the public on issues. Representative Bunde wanted to see that resource management be well reasoned and based on sound scientific principles. He recommended that Alaska should try to avoid the proliferation on initiatives that have plagued other states and that we maintain access to natural resources. Recently, the Alaska Supreme Court in the Brooks vs. Wright case, Opinion No. 5066, January 15, 1999, found that the legislature does not have exclusive law-making powers over natural resources and that management of the State's natural resources could be an appropriate subject for an initiative. Representative Bunde pointed out that Alaska's historic voter turnout is not a good credit reflection. The number of people that vote in an election is relatively small in comparison to the number of registered voters. HJR 3 would prevent resource management from being dictated by the "majority of the moment". Representative Bunde believed that Alaskans can not properly maintain resources if they do not participate in the process. He emphasized that Alaska is an "Owner State" and should have a stake in assuring that a clear majority manages resources. Representative Austerman pointed out that when the fish initiative was placed before voters' two years ago, it was "thrown out" by the Courts indicating that the "initiative process" would not be the best avenue from which to allocate resources. Representative Bunde noted that the case which he had referenced was the wolf snaring initiative. The Supreme Court stipulated that the Legislature does not have the sole authority in the management of resources. GEORGE UTERMOHLE, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY, referenced the fish initiative case, Helen vs. Palmer, in which, the Supreme Court stated that the constitutional provision prohibited initiatives dealing with the subject of appropriations. That was applicable to the initiative which attempted to provide a preference for an allocation of fishery resources. In the purpose of that constituitonal prohibition against initiatives, the Court found that the State had sufficient interest in ownership of the fish and game resources, that the allocation or granting of a preference to that fisheries resource would be an appropriation and was therefore, prohibited by the Constitution. During the deliberations on that initiative, the Court raised the issue that it could be prohibited by the provisions of Article 8, stating that the "Legislature 'shall' provide for the conservation, utilization and development of the resources of the State". That was the issue litigated in the Brooks vs. Wright case. The Court found that indeed, fish and game matters were proper subjects for initiatives and could be addressed by the people. Mr. Utermohle commented that the Brooks vs. Wright case did not disturb the decision in the fish initiative case, stating that fish and game initiatives which involve appropriations were not appropriate to change, however, the Legislature could deal with other fish and game issues. Co-Chair Therriault questioned if that meant that the Courts had left the concern of whether "methods and means" would rise to the level of appropriation. Mr. Utermohle replied that had been the issue before the Court in the Brooks vs. Wright case. Representative Grussendorf pointed out that since 1960, there has been twenty-nine initiatives. Of those, only five addressed the area of natural resources. He pointed out that most of those initiatives were defeated. It appears that voters have been able to track initiatives and that they have voted according to their conscience. Representative Bunde pointed out that in other states, there has been a growing number of initiatives and that the passage of even one "bad" could negatively affect the allocation of resources. Representative J. Davies commented that the Court case clarified that those allocations are clearly off limits. The Courts have stipulated that certain allocations such as means and methods would be okay. The uncertainty stems from combining the mixture of the two. Representative Bunde corrected his previous statement commenting that he should have used the term "management". Co-Chair Therriault inquired why the resolution had not used the two-thirds bar to the list of restrictions. Representative Bunde did not believe that the public would support the two-thirds bar. If an initiative was to happen, it should be reflective of the majority of citizens. He added that he was concerned with an all resource harvest and that should be managed on a scientific basis, not as a popularity contest. Representative Grussendorf asked if there was a way in which the problem could be addressed so that citizens would not feel disenfranchised. Mr. Utermohle explained that the Constitution provides for an initiative and for the Legislature to provide for an amendment to the Constitution. It would be within the scope of the Legislature to make an amendment to this effect. He advised that the power of the Legislature is restricted to making an amendment to the Constitution. That provision would make a "sweeping change" to the Constitution and would be considered a revision. At present, there is no basis to determine whether or not prohibiting people from voting on matters such as a natural resource initiative would be considered by the Courts to constitute a revision. Representative Bunde pointed out that the Alaska Supreme Court outlined four items in the Brooks vs. Wright case and that HJR 3 meets that criteria. He questioned at what point would this become a "sweeping change". Representative Bunde argued that the proposal would not require a constitutional convention. HJR 3 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.