HOUSE BILL NO. 45 "An Act relating to initiative and referendum petitions; and providing for an effective date." HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum petitions. REPRESENTATIIVE BILL WILLIAMS stated that HJR 7 and its companion measure HB 45, were introduced to ensure statewide support of an issue prior to it being put before the voters. The legislation would require signatures from 10% of those who voted in the preceding general election in at least 75% of the house districts for a question to reach the ballot. It would require signatures from 10% of the total number of voters in the prior election. Representative Williams noted, currently, because of the population dispersal, initiative sponsors could easily gather the required signatures from a single area of the State. The current system does not require a statewide perspective in determining which topics will appear on the ballot as amendments to State law. Co-Chair Therriault clarified the manner in which the two pieces of legislation would work together. He pointed out that signing up for the signature process would be 10% of the past and previous vote and that those voters would represent 3/4 of the House election districts. He argued that such a system could be "extra" complicated. Representative Grussendorf suggested that HJR 7 had the greatest merit of the three resolutions before the Committee's consideration, however, he voiced concerned with the 10% calculation. Representative Williams advised that he had originally recommended 15%, and that in the House State Affairs Committee, it was changed to 10%. Representative J. Davies spoke to the significance of the proposed increase. He questioned how large the bar would need to be to require 10% in each of the 3/4 (30) voting districts. He emphasized that it would be a substantial change and questioned if it could wipe out the referendum- initiative process. Representative Williams referenced the handout "Districts" in member's packets, which illustrates how many voters turned out in the last election and what the 10% percentage amount would be for each district. [Copy on File]. Representative Williams believed that telecommunications would make it easier to access the signatures. Representative J. Davies explained that a person would need to be "physically" in each district to collect the signatures. He reemphasized how large of a change this would be. Representative J. Davies suggested that lowering the percentage would make it easier than implementing it in electoral districts. He believed that there could be better ways to assure a more broad base input. Co-Chair Therriault wondered if during the initial constitutional debate, it had been envisioned that the 2/3 count would be taken from one or two districts, or had it been intended that the count would be evenly distributed throughout the State. Representative Williams explained that the problem had arisen as communication resources available today were not understood at that time. Co-Chair Therriault asked what prompted the determination to move from 2/3 to 3/4 and, additionally, add the 10% to each district. Representative Williams stated that it would provide a better statewide perspective. (Tape Change HFC 99 - 55, Side 2). Co-Chair Therriault inquired if most initiatives acquiring signatures were currently being taken in Anchorage. Representative Grussendorf suggested that this legislation could create problems for the "grass root" ideas which would not have the financial resources needed to wage a petition throughout the State. Co-Chair Therriault agreed, commenting that a well-financed group would be able to better place an initiative because of their resources. Representative Foster referenced back-up material from the original Constitutional Convention at which time, present day rural concerns were addressed. He emphasized that material, when written, was protective of the Bush areas. [Copy on File]. Representative Bunde asked if HJR 7 would meet the criteria established in Brooks vs. Wright case. Mr. Utermohle stated that he had not been involved in the drafting of Representative William's resolution and was not familiar with the issues underlining it. However, he believed that it would not constitute a revision. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the resolution was specific to the initiative process. Representative J. Davies disagreed, reiterating that it was making a "sweeping change" to the current procedure. The process before had no limitation on the percentage of votes taken per district. HB 45 and HJR 7 were HELD in Committee for further consideration.