HJR 15-CONST. AM: VOTES NEEDED FOR VETO OVERRIDE  2:50:26 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final 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. 2:50:39 PM CHAIR CLAMAN stated that Legislative Legal Services has permission to make any technical and conforming changes to HJR 15. He added that his office had received one amendment to the resolution. 2:51:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 31- LS0862\M.1, Wallace, 2/6/20, which read as follows: Page 1, line 13: Delete "fifth" Insert "third [FIFTH]" Page 1, line 15: Delete "fifth" Insert "third" [FIFTH] 2:51:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for purposes of discussion. 2:51:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 1 would lower the time requirement, proposed under HJR 15 for a veto override vote, from five days to three days. He explained that it occurred to him that five days is a long time to try and keep upwards of sixty legislators together in one place, and having a lower veto override vote threshold should make it easier to gather the votes and require less time. 2:53:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that the work of a legislator takes place over the course of 90 to 120 days, and similar to other work situations, it should be assumed that without a compelling reason to be absent, legislators should be present at the place of their employment; therefore, she doesn't see a difference as to whether the time frame is five days or three days. 2:54:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES remarked that she agreed with Representative LeDoux; a legislator should remain present during the legislative session, as it is his/her place of employment. She remarked that she does not think that three days allows enough time to gather and discuss whether there is potential for an override. She explained that just this session, there were five days to come together for an override and the legislature was barely able to make it by the fifth day; therefore, she remarked that she thinks it would be inappropriate to cut that time down to three days. 2:55:02 PM CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining there was no further discussion on Amendment 1, asked whether the objection was maintained. 2:55:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES stated that the objection was maintained. 2:55:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that he agrees with the comments from Representatives LeDoux and Stutes. He stated that he does not see a reason to change the constitution at this point. He said that if this were a recurring issue, which had been discussed previously, he thinks it might be worth considering; however, he thinks HJR 15 was intended to address a political situation with a particular governor. 2:55:52 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Eastman whether he was speaking to Amendment 1 of this resolution. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied that he was speaking to Amendment 1. He stated that if the route of making it easier and more streamlined to override vetoes is not being taken, then he would be inclined to withdraw the amendment. 2:56:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Amendment 1. 2:56:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she does not think that there is any need to change the constitution. She expressed that she thinks HJR 15 is the result of an unhappiness about the way recent veto overrides went, but she thinks that there would not have been a different outcome even if HJR 15 had been in effect during the veto overrides. She summarized that she would not get in the way of HJR 15 advancing, but she is not thrilled with the proposed joint resolution. 2:57:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated that in comparison to the rest of the U.S. states, she finds it amazing that Alaska has such a high veto override vote threshold. She remarked that Alaska considers itself special, but she doesn't think that Alaska is so unique as to require the three-fourths vote that it currently does for an override, when two-thirds would be a substantial enough hurdle to overcome. She expressed that for that reason, she is in support of HJR 15. 2:58:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES stated that she agrees with Representative Drummond and she thinks that a three-fourths vote threshold is a high bar to achieve. She said that she agreed with Representative LeDoux and even if it had been a two-thirds veto override vote requirement in the recent vote, the override would have failed; however, she disagreed with the statement that HJR 15 is only a reaction to this specific administration. She said that she thinks this specific instance brought the issue of an incredibly high vote requirement to the surface, and she was in support of HJR 15. 2:58:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that he thinks HJR 15 might be an elegant solution in search of a problem. He explained that if the problem is that it is too hard to raise revenue bills to get past governors, then he thinks this would be a good solution; however, he remarked that he has not heard much discussion about this being the problem, and he has not heard this issue raised prior to the most recent veto override vote. He summarized that he thinks the next election would be a better solution to the problem than changing the constitution. 2:59:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE SHAW stated that he would like to mirror Representative LeDoux's comments, in that a lower vote threshold would not have made a difference. He said he understands where Representative Stutes is coming from, but it is hard to balance against the loss of the voice of the minority, considering the threshold as is, and stated that he is probably not in support of HJR 15. 3:00:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that he thinks HJR 15 "has a journey" and, like Representative LeDoux, he would not stop the bill from further discussion. He expressed that he wanted to learn more about the long-term policy impacts of the resolution, as he is interested in a just and fair process that does not look at the situation considering any one personality or one specific governor. He added that he thinks it is worth considering whether Alaska would be better served with a different vote threshold over the course of several decades. He summarized that he supports HJR 15 moving out of committee and will watch it on its journey but does not know whether it is the proper course of action yet. He stated that he appreciated the bill sponsor bringing the issue to the committee's attention. 3:01:15 PM CHAIR CLAMAN commented that when he served as the Mayor of the City of Anchorage, there was a point in time in which he vetoed a funding bill that was bothersome to much of the Anchorage Assembly. He expressed that he does not see this as an issue of trying to protect the minority, and said he was reminded that it is important to build coalitions and work with other people. He explained that he had spoken with the members of the Anchorage Assembly to see whether he had the numbers to support the veto, before he attempted to exercise a veto authority as mayor. He expressed that he did not think it was good politics to think that he lived in a world alone. CHAIR CLAMAN explained that he thinks a two-thirds override vote threshold encourages the governor to spend time working with the legislature to build the kind of coalition that an effective governor needs to do his/her job well. He expressed that he thinks that having the highest veto override threshold in the country, as Alaska does, encourages a governor to think that he/she is a king/queen and that he/she does not need to work with the legislature to find a room for consensus and negotiate in good faith to make the government work better. He summarized that he supports passage of HJR 15 and, until he sees something that changes his perspective, he expects to support it moving forward. He expressed that giving this option to the voters and having a meaningful debate would give voters the opportunity to make a reasonable decision about whether they want a governor with the authority on finances similar to a king/queen or a governor who will work with a broad cross section of the public as he/she was elected to do. 3:03:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to report HJR 15 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, HJR 15 was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.