HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum petitions. HOUSE BILL NO. 45 "An Act relating to initiative and referendum petitions; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE 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, in order for an issue to reach the ballot. It would require signatures from 10% of the total number of voters in the prior election. Representative Williams added, currently, because of Alaska's population dispersal, initiative sponsors can easily gather required signatures from a single area of the State. The current system does not require a statewide perspective to determine what issues will appear on the ballots as amendments to State law. Representative Williams stated that HB 45 would make the statutory changes necessary to conform to the proposed constitutional changes of the resolution. HJR 7 and HB 45 were HELD in Committee for further consideration. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON HJR 3, HJR 7, & HJR 25 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. HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum petitions. HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to a petition for an initiative or referendum regarding fish or wildlife. STEVE WHITE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, NATURAL RESOURCE SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, directed his comments to concerns with the wildlife initiatives. He stated that the Legislature needs to clarify why they would be placing fish and wildlife initiatives separate from all other initiatives. He stated that passage of the legislation would establish a higher bar for those concerns. Representative Austerman asked for clarification regarding comments made by Mr. White. Mr. White replied that whenever the Court's witness that the Legislature has taken different action with different groups, they need to separate the different categories and look for reasons. The reason for establishing a higher bar should be discussed and placed on the record for future litigation purposes. Co-Chair Therriault commented that the prime sponsor's see the need to use wildlife resources, and for that use to be managed on science and logical grounds. Mr. White noted that the sponsor's comments would to accompany the legislation as it moves forward. Representative J. Davies questioned why the proposed concerns should be set apart from air and water quality issues. Representative Bunde pointed out that HJR 3 speaks to all natural resources, not just fish and game. He reiterated that it would be best that the State's resources be managed wisely and not be subject to the media indoctrination. Mr. White stated that the Department of Law looks to the Legislature to provide the tools needed to clarify why these initiatives need a higher bar so that the Department of Law can withstand a legal challenge when protecting the legislation. Co-Chair Therriault questioned the possible legal challenges when State residents vote to change the Alaska Constitution. Mr. White replied that when the Legislature takes action differentiating two types of topics, the Courts will always look for a reasonable base to guarantee that there are not alternative motives. Co-Chair Therriault asked if the Department of Law anticipated a challenge that the legislation might violate the U.S. Constitution. Mr. White did not anticipate that problem. He noted that this information is an underlining requirement for all types of legislation and that the Department is only trying to strengthen the initiative process. Representative J. Davies questioned how broad would the resolution be. He asked if the definition of "natural resources" would be extended. Representative Williams asked if the Department placed HJR 7 in the same category as the other two initiatives. Mr. White apologized, pointing out that HJR 7 is a separate issue since it does not distinguish certain types of initiatives, instead applies to all. Representative Bunde clarified that Alaska is not a manufacturing State. Alaska is highly dependent upon resources to support its citizens. He stated that HJR 3 would allow 2/3 of Alaskans to make decisions regarding resources and their use. Representative J. Davies cited that the Legislature should "really" allow the majority of Alaskans to make those decisions. He recommended that if there is a problem with outside interests coming into Alaska, there should be legislation addressing that concern indicating the amount of money that can be spent in State on advertising. Representative Bunde argued that the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a strong stance on political speech rights. DICK BISHOP, VICE PRESIDENT, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL (AOC), FAIRBANKS, noted that AOC voted to support HJR 25. He stated that they have observed the growing trend to use the initiative process to influence fish and wildlife management. In most cases, these initiatives have advocated simple actions that affect complex issues. The approach is usually highly emotional and shows little regard for sound conservation, scientific management or values of others. Mr. Bishop continued, the initiative process bypasses the entire process. It short circuits thoughtful public involvement. The Alaska Outdoor Council urges passage of HJR 25. AOC does not believe that the proposed legislation constraints the initiative process offered by the alternative resolutions. They each have merit, however, they would not be up to the task of ensuring an effective means of conserving Alaska's fish and wildlife, and protecting fishing, hunting and trapping values. GERON BRUCE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, stated that the Department has reservations about changing the initiative process to prevent fish and game management issues as recommended in HJR 25. Additionally, the Department does not believe that requiring a super majority of 2/3 votes cast to adopt an initiative as put forward in HJR 3. Mr. Bruce commented that the Department is proud of the way our system allows the public to be a party to fish and game management decisions. Through the fish and game advisory committees and the board process, individual Alaskans can have a direct influence on how their fish and game resources are managed, used and conserved. It is the preference of the Department that the board process be used for making fish and game management decisions because it allows both the Department's scientific information and the public's values and objectives for fish and game management to be considered before any decision is made. Mr. Bruce noted that many people consider the initiative process to be an essential part of checks and balances that make the democratic system work. The opportunity for the public to make laws directly gives people a way to prevent special interests from dominating government and in the long run helps maintain public confidence in institutions like the boards of fish and game. Mr. Bruce concluded, the view of the Department is that there is no danger to sound fish and game management from the initiative process sufficient to require preventing its application to fish and game management issues. Additionally, the Department does not think that the requirement for a super majority is warranted. Co-Chair Mulder asked how many initiatives have been introduced that affected fish and wildlife management. Mr. Bruce commented that information was available and that he would provide it to Committee members. Recently, there have been two that have been the subject of much controversy. Co-Chair Mulder asked if the Department had supported any of the initiatives. Mr. Bruce replied that the Department had not taken a position. In one of the initiatives, the Court ruled it was not suitable because it dealt with the allocation of issues, while the other two addressed methods and means. Representative Grussendorf discussed that limited entry had been one of the issues. Representative Bunde spoke to the result of leaving the initiative process as it currently is. He asked Mr. Bruce if he was suggesting that "special interests" had manipulative power in the Legislature. Mr. Bruce commented that he was speaking to the board process. People who are interested can become involved through regulatory actions. This does not suggest that the larger public does not have ideas regarding how these issues should be handled. Representative Williams inquired how the initiative process could build confidence in the State. Mr. Bruce explained that it assures people that they can directly take action to make the laws that affect them. It provides checks and balances throughout the system. (Tape Change HFC 99 - 105, Side 2). Representative J. Davies asked why the State needs to set wildlife decisions apart from other decisions. He pointed out that the sponsor believes that "science" should take the lead over "emotion". He advised that some people's emotions might be another person's values. Currently, there are both scientific and value decisions being decided in the management of fish and game. The issue of "value" is often driven and it is assumed that a decision can not be made based on science. It has been suggested that it is important to retain the initiative process, so that those issues of value can be decided through a larger context. Mr. Bruce pointed out that the number of initiatives, illustrates that by and large, the current process works. The Departments prefers that the current process remain. Representative Williams advised that all three bills give more validation toward scientific process. Mr. Bruce reiterated that the board process is the preferred one of the Department. Representative Williams questioned if the three initiatives would close that process. Mr. Bruce replied that HJR 25 would close the process entirely to fish and game issues while HJR 3 would raise the bar. HJR 7 identifies how to place an issue on the ballot. Public comment on the legislation was concluded. HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum petitions. Representative J. Davies MOVED a change to Page 1, Line 8, deleting "ten" and inserting "three". Representative Williams OBJECTED. Representative J. Davies noted that he supported the resolution, however, maintained that 10% would be too high of a raise to the bar. That amount of an increase could almost delete the initiative process. Lowering the percentage and broadening the area would accomplish the intent requested in the legislation. Representative J. Davies corrected the proposed change made to Amendment #1. He MOVED a correction to Page 1, Line 10, deleting "10" and inserting "3". Co-Chair Mulder indicated support for the amendment. He stated that without the amendment, there would be public concern as the bar would be unattainable. Representative Grussendorf noted his approval of the amendment. Representative Williams WITHDREW his OBJECTION to adopting Amendment #1. There being NO FURTHER OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Williams MOVED to report CS HJR 7 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CS HJR 7 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Office of the Lt. Governor dated 2/26/99.