HJR 15-CONST. AM: VOTES NEEDED FOR VETO OVERRIDE  1:51:36 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to actions upon veto. 1:52:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, introduced HJR 15. He introduced his intern, Josiah Nash. 1:52:30 PM JOSIAH NASH, Intern, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska State Legislature, presented HJR 15 on behalf of Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, prime sponsor. He stated that HJR 15 proposes a constitutional amendment that would lower the veto vote threshold for appropriation bills from three-fourths of legislators, which is 45 votes, to two-thirds, which is 40 votes. He stated that currently vetoes of non-appropriation bills in Alaska require two-thirds of legislators for an override. He explained that HJR 15 creates a uniform veto override vote threshold, for both appropriation and non- appropriation bills. He stated that Alaska's veto vote threshold for appropriation bills is disproportionate to every other U.S. state and territory. Alaska is the only state requiring three-fourths of legislators; every other state has a two-thirds, three-fifths, or simple majority vote threshold. He explained that 38 states have a two-thirds vote threshold, 6 states have a three-fifths vote threshold, and 5 states have a simple majority vote threshold. 1:54:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated that HJR 15 is a simple resolution. He expressed that he thinks the previous year's budget process was traumatic for most legislators and Alaskans. He stated that the veto power of the governor of Alaska is, for all intents and purposes, unilateral, only requiring 25 percent of legislators' support for a veto to go through. He asserted his belief that it is important to keep in mind that "this is a blade that goes both ways." He gave as an example a hypothetical future governor, who is a strong environmentalist, that wants to end mining in Alaska. He stated that in this hypothetical situation, the governor could achieve an end to mining in Alaska by vetoing out the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Mining, Land, and Water (DMLW) with only 25 percent of legislators' support. He stated that the effective policy making power associated with a line item veto is profound, and he thinks the separation of powers is slightly unbalanced in Alaska. He expressed that he thinks this topic is worth keeping in mind for broader consideration. He added that he thinks having different override thresholds, for policy bills and appropriation bills, creates a non-uniform complexity. As an example, he referenced a line item veto by Governor Tony Knowles in the 1990s regarding a transfer of land to a university. He explained that Governor Knowles asserted that this was an appropriation, whereas the legislature asserted it was not an appropriation. The legislature did not have the required three-fourths vote for an override, but it would've had a two-thirds vote. Ultimately, this case went to the Alaska Supreme Court, which could have been eliminated by a uniform threshold for all veto override votes. 1:57:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the Alaska Supreme Court provided an answer to the case during Governor Knowles' administration, as she doesn't think there has been much ambiguity regarding the veto override vote threshold since then. 1:57:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that he thinks the Alaska Supreme Court answered the question as to whether or not land transfers constitute appropriation, but he doesn't think a comprehensive delineation has been issued by the Alaska Supreme Court in terms of what is and is not an appropriation. He added that he thinks it is worth noting that there have been very few veto overrides attempted; mostly the legislature knows that it cannot get the required three-fourths vote to accomplish an override. He stated that he thinks, since Alaska's statehood, there have only been six or seven successful veto overrides. He expressed that nearly every time the governor wins, while the legislature loses because of such a high threshold. 1:58:21 PM CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the six or seven overrides referenced earlier were finance overrides, and he asked whether Representative Kreiss-Tomkins has any indication of how many times there have been overrides of legislative matters subject to the two-thirds override threshold. 1:58:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS replied that he does not know but would like to find out. He clarified that he was mistaken, and only five vetoes have been overridden since Alaska's statehood, approximately one per decade. CHAIR CLAMAN asked for clarification that these were five vetoes that required the three-fourths threshold. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated that that is correct. CHAIR CLAMAN asked for clarification on how the Alaska Supreme Court ruled regarding the land issue. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS replied that the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that land did not constitute appropriation; therefore, Governor Knowles' veto was overridden because it fell under the two-thirds vote threshold. 1:59:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that he noticed in the presentation it was pointed out that Alaska is unique. He remarked that typically this is viewed as a positive thing. He said he expected to have heard some discussion regarding why Alaska chose to be unique during the establishment of its constitution, the silence on which he finds to be notable. He asked whether Representative Kreiss-Tomkins could enlighten the committee as to why Alaska chose to be unique. 2:00:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that he could "create some noise on the matter." He said that through review of the minutes from the constitutional convention, he saw that this very question was considered. He explained that there were two camps of delegates; the camp that proposed a three-fourths threshold desired to form a strong as possible executive office, which is a theme that can be seen throughout the constitution. He pointed out that the attorney general and all constitutional officers are appointed by the governor and not elected positions. He expressed that this creates the strongest executive office of all 50 U.S. states. He stated that the other camp of delegates highlighted the fact that it would be unrealistic for the three-fourths veto vote to ever be achieved, and this requirement would effectively hand the governor a semi- unilateral budget veto power. This camp of delegates sought out a more moderate balance of power. He expressed that after seeing a track record of so many unsuccessful veto overrides over the past half a century, it might make sense to bring the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in Alaska more in line with that of other U.S. states. 2:01:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Representative Kreiss-Tomkins mentioned it has only been six or seven times the legislature has reached the threshold for a veto override. 2:02:06 PM CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that the testimony was that it was five times the vote threshold was reached. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Representative Kreiss-Tomkins whether he could offer the committee the number of vetoes attempted, that were not overridden. CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Eastman to clarify whether he was asking how many times the legislature met and attempted to override and failed, or asking the "total number of vetoes that were done, each line item counting as one veto, and out of the total number of vetoes of Alaska history was a veto overridden?" REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that he is looking for an answer to how many times there have been appropriation vetoes, and how many of those vetoes the legislature has attempted to override. 2:03:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated that he does not know how many times the governor has vetoed an appropriation since Alaska's statehood, but he can see how that would be helpful to the conversation and he will try to have an answer by the next hearing. He stated that the legislature has attempted to override a veto, and failed, 16 times since Alaska's statehood; therefore, 5 out of 16 veto overrides have failed. He expressed that he thinks it is important to bear in mind that an attempt to override a veto, given a joint session and all of the procedure involved, takes a lot of energy, and it seems quite clear that the legislature doesn't even attempt to override vetoes it sees as hopeless. 2:04:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether a high override threshold of three-fourths is meant to protect the rights of not only the governor, but the rights of the minority as well. She expressed that she doesn't see much of a difference between the three- fourths requirement for a veto override, and the three-fourths requirement for the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund (CBR), which it is not considered to be in need of change. 2:05:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that the issue of two- thirds versus three-fourths is more abstract in terms of the balance between majority and minority. He expressed that it is a great question to consider and expressed that more than half of his time working in the legislature has been spent in the minority and not the majority. He stated that although he is currently in the majority, he is very aware that roles can flip, and that it is foolish to make short term decisions which are beneficial for only one side. He stated that he believes this proposal does not unduly infringe on the rights of the minority. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS gave an example of a veto override from a couple of weeks prior, in which a veto override could not muster the two-thirds required vote. He said that even if this constitutional amendment were adopted, and Alaska's override threshold was in line with the rest of other U.S. states, the override vote would have failed, and the minority would still have expressed its will. He expressed that even though he does not agree with the minority's perspective on policies in the veto override vote from a couple of weeks before, he respects the outcome. He said that the other 49 states in the U.S. all have minority caucuses, whereas Alaska has a unique minority which is less empowered than those in other states. He said that he thinks there is a better balance struck in the other states between the executive and legislative offices and, by extension, the minority caucuses and the legislature. 2:08:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS addressed the other side of Representative LeDoux's question, regarding the CBR. He expressed that he thinks taking funds out of the CBR is, in a way, an additive action, whereas vetoing an action of the legislature is a subtractive one. He explained that he thinks it makes sense to have a higher threshold to take money out of a bank, than it does to have a high threshold to preserve a decision made by the legislature. He expressed that he thinks if the legislature were to use a three-fourths vote as the gold standard for a balance of power between majority and minority, in a hypothetical situation, it follows that the veto override threshold for policy bills should increase from two-thirds to three-fourths. He said that he thinks a historical look at the balance of power between the majority and minority throughout Alaska's statehood shows that it is statistically uncommon to see minority caucuses smaller than one-third, which would not have the power to be relevant in a veto override vote. 2:10:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for clarification on the example Representative Kreiss-Tomkins gave regarding the CBR and taking money from the bank. 2:10:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS replied that he would try to explain the distinction in another way. He stated that the power of the legislature to draw funds from the CBR is relevant, necessary, and frequently used to balance the budget. He said that because there is a general fund and other revenue coming to the state annually, it should be possible to balance the budget without CBR revenue. He added that if the minority doesn't want to grant the three-fourths vote to approve the withdrawal of funds from the CBR, the results shouldn't be catastrophic in a way that disrupts operations. He expressed that a line item veto is different because it allows entire programs to be terminated; the stakes are considerably higher than those of the CBR. He pointed out that several programs could be ended tomorrow by line item vetoes to their budgets, including: the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS), the Alaska State Council on the Arts (ASCA), and the Division of Mining, Land, and Water (DMLW). He expressed that the power of a line item veto is far greater than the ability to take money from a savings account. He explained that he sees it as a matter of proportionality; the ramifications of being denied access to the CBR funds, by a three-fourths override vote requirement, do not carry the same weight as the consequences of a three-fourths override vote requirement for a line item veto that can potentially eliminate entire state programs. He summarized that given what is at stake with a line item veto override vote, perhaps it does not make sense to have a threshold that is as high as that of the vote requirement for the CBR. 2:12:44 PM CHAIR CLAMAN expressed that considering the current discussion, it seems to him that the question of a three-fourths vote requirement to draw funds from the CBR is quintessentially a question of legislative function. He explained that the power of appropriation, under the constitution, is exclusive to the legislature; the governor cannot appropriate any funds, regardless of whether he wants to or not. He said the three- fourths requirement for how the legislature appropriates funds is a way for the legislature to restrict its own power. The governor could line item veto what the legislature withdraws from the CBR, but he/she can't make the decision to appropriate it. He stated that in contrast, the question of overriding a veto is a question of the power relationship between the executive branch and the legislative branch. 2:14:13 PM CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HJR 15. 2:14:32 PM CRIS EICHENLAUB testified in opposition to HJR 15. He expressed that he thinks special interest groups have currently taken over Alaska. He said that he feels HJR 15 circumvents the will of the people by changing the constitution. He explained that it seems to him like special interest groups are trying to change the rules in order to get one over on the majority. He expressed that the House, as constructed, does not represent the will of the people. He stated that he thinks the Senate has also taken power from the Senators who represented the people's voice. He said that he thinks HJR 15 intends to take power from the governor, who was elected by the people and represents their will. He summarized that essentially, he wants to see a government that is of, by, and for the people. 2:16:18 PM CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HJR 15. 2:16:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Representative Kreiss-Tomkins why HJR 15 includes a change to the threshold for new tax bills, which wasn't discussed in his presentation. 2:17:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that the discussion on the threshold change for new tax bills was omitted because it has not ever been a factor in Alaska's statehood; all five of the successful veto override votes have been related to appropriation items. He expressed that Alaska seems to have a history of failing to enact revenue bills to begin with, much less allow them to be vetoed. He said that it makes sense to have a uniform threshold more in line with many other states. He asked the committee to consider the question: What is it that makes Alaska so exceptional as to have the highest override threshold in the entire country for appropriation and revenue bills? 2:18:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Representative Kreiss-Tomkins whether both issues addressed in HJR 15 are equally important to him. He expressed that he thinks the resolution might have a better chance of passing, in the current political environment, if he were to choose one or the other. He said if the increase to taxes were dropped, there might be less opposition, at least from his district. 2:18:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that he is willing to be flexible; given the political history, appropriation vetoes are likely to be far more relevant in the future than revenue bills. He stated that as an observer of Alaska's politics, if a revenue bill manages to make it across the finish line from the legislature "it's probably going to be pretty shot up, and limping, and dragging a leg, and maybe two votes over a simple majority." He said that at that point, if the revenue bill gets vetoed, it will likely be dead regardless of whether there is a two-thirds or three-fourths vote requirement. He reiterated that he is willing to be flexible and open to the possibility of changes to the resolution, if it will engender a broader base of support. He summarized that from an academic constitutional perspective, a uniform vote threshold seems cleaner, simpler, more straightforward, and makes sense. 2:20:42 PM CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that if a revenue measure came up that was a modification of oil and gas taxes, the public perception and desire for the governor to have a stronger veto authority would be different than if it were an income tax modification. He predicted that some of Representative Eastman's constituents wouldn't be opposed to a two-thirds override for an oil and gas tax bill but would probably prefer a three-fourths override for an income tax bill. 2:21:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked that Chair Claman made an important distinction about constituencies. He reiterated a concern raised earlier by Representative LeDoux, and he said that HJR 15 wouldn't change the governor's power to line-item veto, it would only change the ability of a minority vote to affect the outcome of an override vote. He said that he is sensitive to the fact that that is where the main issue lies. 2:22:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS remarked that he would dispute this characterization but acknowledges that this is the way Representative Eastman views HJR 15. He expressed that the bottom line is that the governor is the one who puts ink on the paper of a budget bill, and it becomes the legislature's decision to either sustain the governor's decision or override it. He said that the legislature is secondary to the governor's decision, and the legislature ultimately becomes a referendum on the governor's will. He expressed that he sees the veto power as an executive power and the legislature as "the tail on the dog," but he understands what Representative Eastman is saying. 2:23:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that he thinks personality should be taken out of this discussion entirely and the focus should be on what the balance of power should look like in the structure of government between the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches. He said that in 1997 the legislature overrode Governor Knowles' veto of the parent notification bill on abortion. He expressed that he imagines the legislature was very glad this was not an appropriation bill and they could reach the two-thirds limit. He added that if there were an appropriation bill to fund Planned Parenthood, there would be many people happy for a two-thirds vote on an appropriation bill. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed that he thinks it is important to think larger than specific issues, such as ferries and abortion, and focus on what is a fundamentally fair and balanced threshold, which would represent the will of the majority of Alaskans. He remarked, "It's easy to think about how you want the council shaped if you have the king in place that you want. But then, when you don't have the king that you want, you think, 'Oh, I wish that we'd never messed with that.'" He expressed that he could see uniformity being very desirable, depending on the issue, on both appropriation and non-appropriation bills. He summarized that he appreciates the sponsor bringing HJR 15 forward and thinks it presents an important discussion. 2:25:39 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HJR 15 would be held over for further review.