HJR 25 - CONST. AM: FISH & WILDLIFE INITIATIVES Number 1541 CO-CHAIR OGAN announced the next item would be 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. As sponsor, he called on Lorali Meier to present the resolution. Number 1573 LORALI MEIER, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Scott Ogan, Alaska State Legislature, came forward. She advised members that HJR 25 modifies the initiative process by requiring at least 10 percent of the voters in each house district to vote on ballot measures relating to fish or wildlife. Current law requires at least one signature from two-thirds of the election districts, and total signatures equal to 10 percent of the total number of votes cast in the previous election; that is for any subject of initiative, not just those pertaining to fish or wildlife. MS. MEIER pointed out that committee packets contain information on the types of initiatives allowed in various states, as well as restrictions on their use. In addition, there are listings of signature requirements for both statutory and constitutional initiatives. She explained that the purpose of HJR 25 is to strengthen the legislature's constitutional authority to manage fish or wildlife; she believes the sponsor's intent is to move it forward to the House Judiciary Standing Committee, where they can determine the legal aspects of the various resolutions dealing with the initiative process currently before the legislature. Number 1660 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked whether the sponsor intends to have HJR 25 stand alone or somehow relate to the other two resolutions. CO-CHAIR OGAN suggested it would be up to the House Judiciary Standing Committee to act on the various versions. However, he believes HJR 25 is the most efficient way to do it. He stated, "I just am trying to back our constitutional rights as a legislature to be the oversight authority to manage fish and game, and I feel that wildlife management by referendum is poor public policy." MS. MEIER added, "And it's not that this resolution, in the form of a constitutional amendment, would limit the public process, because the legislature can delegate that authority to a board, which has public members." CO-CHAIR OGAN took note of the large number of participants in the audience, many from out of town; he further noted that nobody had requested that the meeting be teleconferenced. Number 1806 ROSS COEN, Volunteer, Alaska Conservation Voice, came forward, specifying that he is from Fairbanks. He said he has serious concerns regarding HJR 25. The initiative process is one of the common citizen's most effective tools - if not the most effective - at managing the laws that govern the people, as well as the fish and wildlife resources. He stated, "Speaking as one who has a great deal of experience in the initiative process, I can tell you it is a long and laborious process to obtain the signatures and to get an initiative on the ballot. It is not an easy process, not one, certainly, that we take very lightly." MR. COEN expressed concern that HJR 25 would not merely raise the bar a few feet but would eliminate the public from this process. Obtaining 10 percent of the signatures from each district would be prohibitively expensive, making an effort of this magnitude very difficult. He does not want this initiative process to become the tool of special interest groups, or of groups from outside of Alaska. However, initiative campaigns are very expense as is, and raising the bar to this magnitude would, he believes, benefit only special interest groups that have the money to afford getting an initiative on the ballot. He concluded, "I know how important a process this is to the common citizen; I am one, and I don't feel that this is in the best interests of the citizens." In response to a question, he said his signature gathering has been entirely as a volunteer. Number 1997 JAY STANGE came forward on his own behalf, noting that he has lived for many years in Anchorage, although he was born in Whitehorse and grew up in Juneau. In recent years, he has worked as both a volunteer and a paid consultant on a number of citizen ballot initiatives. He agreed that the initiative process is long and laborious, and he pointed out that few initiatives have passed over the course of history in the state. MR. STANGE told members it appears there is an intent in HJR 25 to provide a check for rural residents, who may be perceived as unable to exercise their rights because of their being away from the main urban areas of Alaska. Most of the signatures he has witnessed as part of the process have been gathered in Juneau, Fairbanks and Anchorage. However, throughout the year many rural Alaskans travel through those cities, and they therefore have an opportunity to participate in this process. Mr. Stange suggested that HJR 25 would make it more difficult for urban residents to push forward citizen legislation, and it would make it a little more difficult for a sponsor of an initiative who is from a rural community, as well. If the goal is to provide a check on new citizen legislation for rural Alaska, other options may more fully meet that intent. Number 2183 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER commented that as a rural resident who must go to urban centers for supplies, she has only been approached for a signature on two ballot initiatives, both of which she characterized as "anti-rural". She isn't sure they would have obtained all the needed signatures if they had solicited for 10 percent of the signatures in her neighborhood. She said she was a little skeptical of Mr. Stange's testimony. MR. STANGE replied that from his experience, he believes it is feasible for 10 percent of the signatures to be gathered in Anchorage; he wants that right to continue for both urban and rural Alaskans. He is strongly opposed to anti-rural measures, but changing Alaska's constitution changes the playing field for everybody, which he doesn't want to see happen. In response to a question by Representative Harris, he said with regard to what he perceives as part of the intent - to provide a check for rural Alaska in statewide initiatives - he believes that already exists. Number 2284 CO-CHAIR OGAN read from Alaska's constitution, Article VIII, Section 2, which states, "The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of the people." He suggested that most of the wildlife initiatives have been anti-rural, affecting rural Alaskans directly. He also indicated that many people had believed that the same-day airborne hunting initiative was about shooting wolves from airplanes. MR. STANGE suggested that is a danger with any citizen initiative. The requirement of 24,000 certified signatures results in a lot of people out making contact. He agreed that there have been problems with the accuracy of information for some initiatives, and he would support anything they can do to ensure that good information is presented to people who are offered a chance to sign these initiatives. If HJR 25 could speak to something like that, that would be great. However, he believes it speaks to limiting citizen participation statewide, which is a little disrespectful of the intent of the original constitutional convention. Number 2435 MICHELE KECK came forward on her own behalf. From Anchorage, she told members that she coordinated the signature gathering for the recent billboard initiative and has a lot of experience coordinating volunteer and professional signature campaigns. Ms. Keck expressed concern that HJR 25 attacks the entire public process; she feels that a lot of different bills are limiting Alaskans' rights to do initiatives. She stated, "I feel like it's pretty much an insult to the Alaska public to say they don't have the ability to make good decisions on fish and wildlife issues. And I know there's a lot of concern about 'ballot box biology,' but ... the public's not stupid, and I don't feel like the public is an emotional reactionary." Ms. Keck pointed out that in spite of the many graphic commercials on the wolf snare initiative, the public made a good decision and the initiative failed. She emphasized that there is a good public process and that people can identify bad initiatives. MS. KECK cautioned that raising the signature requirements will put initiatives in the hands of outside groups even more, because of the added expense, leaving the process open only to "the animal rights groups that we don't want to have here in Alaska." In addition, changing the requirement on wildlife initiatives sets a bad precedent. She clarified that she is more concerned about keeping the public process open than about the fish and wildlife issue itself. She noted that there is another check and balance because the legislature can change the law after two years if an initiative wasn't positive for Alaska. In her view, the initiative process is working; in the spirit of democracy and public involvement, she does not want to change it. Number 2558 CO-CHAIR OGAN asked what can be done about misinformation in the initiative process. MS. KECK in turn asked how that is answered for candidate campaigns. She pointed out that the signature gathering process is just to get an issue on the ballot, so that people can debate it and vote on it; in gathering signatures, they don't debate the issue with each person. It is up to individuals to research and make sure they know what they are voting on, which applies across the board, to all issues and candidates. Number 2647 CO-CHAIR SANDERS asked for an example of "wildlife groups that we don't want here in Alaska." MS. KECK said she feels that Alaskans aren't supportive of animal rights groups coming in and running campaigns here, as shown by the wolf snare initiative; she indicated she personally feels that way, as well. However, the airborne wolf hunting initiative was more of an in-state effort. CO-CHAIR SANDERS asked whether Ms. Keck had specific groups in mind. MS. KECK restated that the general sense in Alaska is that many people don't support outside groups running initiatives in Alaska. She believes that raising the signature requirement also raises the expense, making it necessary to go to those outside groups to obtain enough money to do in-state initiatives. Number 2706 CO-CHAIR OGAN noted that it is possible to get 99 percent of the required signatures from one house district in Anchorage. He referred to wolves and declines in moose or caribou at McGrath, at Forty Mile and in Unit 13. He asked if Ms. Keck believes the current system is fair to people whose lives are directly affected. MS. KECK replied that it is already so hard to put an initiative on the ballot; the 10 percent is really high, which is why there have only been 29 initiatives on the ballot in the history of Alaska. She restated that the debate doesn't happen until the campaign. She expressed concern that rural Alaska will be hurt because of the difficulty of getting 10 percent of the signatures from each district. Even now, there are very limited places to gather signatures; before, the most common places were post offices, but nationally there is now a policy prohibiting that, leaving the malls and large department stores. However, those private owners are also refusing to have petitioners in front of their stores. Even in Anchorage, there are no public places to gather signatures. Number 2817 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested that if signature gatherers were serious, they would go door-to-door, as campaigners must. MS. KECK said she would love to go door-to-door and talk about the issue and gather signatures, but so many signatures are required that it would take too long, and it is statewide. If the requirement were lower than 10 percent, she would be much more supportive of having a broader base and more individual contact. Number 2889 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said as one of the few rural members of the committee, and as a real "Bush person," she feels that the 10 percent requirement would get more participation statewide, at least from her community, as people at the top of the initiative process might call and let rural residents know what is going on. She said in a rural community, people don't advocate for something unless they really believe in it. Perhaps rural residents could become more involved, and the networking for the state initiative process would become a little bit better." She asked how Ms. Keck feels about that. MS. KECK replied that she is definitely interested in figuring out how to make the rural areas more involved. However, equally she believes that it would hurt the rural areas to make the requirement harder. She invited anyone to come out and gather signatures, as it is difficult to explain; people don't want to stop or talk about the issue, and they really don't debate the issue at that point. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER stated, "I don't think we've ever had an initiative." MS. KECK asked: Why take away that opportunity? TAPE 99-14, SIDE B Number 2966 [Numbers on Side B run backwards because of machine] MS. KECK noted that she has done a lot of door-to-door campaigns, as well. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK pointed out that she is also a "Bush person," having been born and raised in a small village of 80 people that she still visits. Although she lives on the outskirts of a more populous area, she lives in a Bush-type area, with 40 sled dogs and five neighbors. In addition, Representative Morgan is from the Bush. Number 2891 STEPHEN WHITE, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, advised members that the department had no comments on HJR 25. He pointed out, however, that it is always helpful, when legislation separates one type of activity from another, that the reason be stated on the record. The sponsor had mentioned that the constitution gives the legislature the ability to manage wildlife; if there are further reasons why the state should do this for fish and game initiatives only, Mr. White encouraged putting that on the record, as well, to better the chances of defending a legal challenge in court. Number 2833 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated her belief that based on Article VIII of the constitution, only the legislature has the power to manage Alaska's fish and wildlife, some of which power the legislature delegates to the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game. She further said that even though the initiative process is also allowed, only until there was one court case did anyone believe there was a right to manage the public resource through the initiative process. Number 2765 MICHELLE WILSON, Alaska Conservation Voice, came forward. From Anchorage, she is a volunteer and a professional signature gather, and she does a variety of other jobs. Ms. Wilson said she loves engaging with Alaskans about these issues, noting that she goes door-to-door. She believes the initiative process is being attacked by the legislature, which she takes as a personal attack. She emphasized the need to continue to engage public discussion, especially when most Alaskans can't afford to come to Juneau to speak with legislators one-on-one. Ms. Wilson said the initiative process allows that dialogue. She emphasized that if an initiative requires each district to get 10 percent of the voters' signatures under HJR 25, it would be only fair to have a similar requirement when the legislature puts any initiative on the ballot, so that 10 percent of the residents of each district must pass that constitutional amendment. CO-CHAIR OGAN pointed out that each district is already represented in the legislature. Number 2582 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked what Ms. Wilson meant when she said she is a professional signature gatherer for initiatives. MS. WILSON replied that she works with groups and organizations that fund initiative projects. She stated, "To some degree, we pay certain activists to do it, and to some degree, we get volunteers." In response to a question about who pays her, Ms. Wilson said it depends; they receive resources from lots of different people, varying from initiative to initiative. She does a variety of jobs, works with nonprofit organizations, and works on a consultant basis. She does grassroots organizing. Number 2540 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that Alaska is one of the few states that has a statewide teleconferencing ability, which allows legislators one-on-one relationships with their constituents. She also pointed out that it requires a two-thirds' vote by the legislature to put an issue on the ballot, which is extremely difficult to get. MS. WILSON replied that it is also extremely difficult for people to get an initiative on the ballot. She then asked where the voice is from the rural communities at that meeting, further asking what attempt had been made to get people in rural Alaska on a teleconference call. She indicated people want to know when these hearings are being held. CO-CHAIR OGAN pointed out that two or three committee members who represent rural Alaska were at the meeting. He then explained that five days' notice is required for hearings on legislation, and notices must be provided by Thursday afternoon for hearings the following week. Therefore, people can call the nearest legislative information office (LIO) on Friday morning to determine which bills will be heard, and the LIO can provide that information verbally or by fax. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES commented that in places like Talkeetna and Willow, residents consider themselves rural. Number 2370 AARON BRAKEL, Volunteer, Alaska Conservation Voice, came forward. A Juneau resident, Mr. Brakel said he finds himself in a fairly conservative position regarding Alaska's constitution. He asked where the source of the legislature's power is that is set out in Article VIII, Section 2, then pointed out that Article I, Section 2, says, "All political power is inherent in the people. All government originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the people as a whole." Mr. Brakel expressed concern about messing with the balance of power in the constitution, noting the deliberate check on the legislature's power - the initiative process - set forth in it. He cautioned that HJR 25 will seriously diminish the ability of ordinary people to get a petition on the ballot, and it may abridge their freedom of speech rights, as only those with a lot of money could afford to get initiatives on the ballot. Number 2193 SOREN WUERTH came forward to testify on his own behalf. He told members he has collected thousands of signatures from Alaskans who live all across the state; much of that was done in Anchorage and Fairbanks, although he has traveled elsewhere. For example, he has obtained signatures at the Alaska Federation of Natives convention, or at the Anchorage airport. Mr. Wuerth said he believes some of the points raised are excellent. In the initiative process, people have a long time to think about these issues. People at the original constitutional convention probably had a lot of the same debate, and the result was Alaska's constitution. Trying to change this legislatively, by changing the constitution, undermines the public process. In America, everyone has a right to an opinion; if people don't like an initiative, they can choose not to sign it or vote for it. He believes the initiative process is good the way it is, and it should be kept that way. CO-CHAIR OGAN commented that he had read the minutes of the constitutional convention on this issue, and there was a lot of discussion about the need for the initiative process and the required percentages. However, Alaska is different now, with better transportation and communications. Although the original process was good at the time, times have changed. MR. WUERTH said that works both ways; the transportation system can bring people to Anchorage, where they will be able to participate in the initiative process. He agreed with previous testimony that this will give special interest groups more power, as they will be the only ones with enough money to go to all the districts to obtain signatures. CO-CHAIR OGAN called upon Dave Lacey from Fairbanks, but there was no response. Number 1878 DAVID KELLEYHOUSE, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), came forward, pointing out that the AOC is a coalition of 45 outdoor organizations with 12,000 affiliate members and 1,600 sustaining members. He told members that after a summer of high emotions and disagreements among different outdoor user groups, the one thing that united them was the last ballot initiative, which they saw as a threat. The framers of Alaska's constitution had no way of foreseeing a movement where animals had rights, or that powerful outside groups would come to Alaska to try to diminish the opportunity for all Alaskans to use resources. Article VIII stands alone as bestowing upon the legislature the public trust responsibility for managing. He said the AOC applauds the efforts of the sponsors of all the joint resolutions they have seen thus far to address this problem. He stated, "We've spent over a quarter of a million dollars, and a good portion of the year, trying to just maintain what we had in the way of outdoor use opportunities." MR. KELLEYHOUSE distributed a handout, telling members the AOC recommends a more straightforward amendment to the constitution, to add language to the end of Article XI [Initiative, Referendum, and Recall], Section 7 [Restrictions]. The first sentence of Section 7 now reads: "The initiative shall not be used to dedicate revenues, make or repeal appropriations, create courts, define the jurisdiction of courts or prescribe their rules, or enact local or special legislation." Mr. Kelleyhouse's proposed written amendment would add the language, "or to enact legislation affecting the uses or management of fish and wildlife resources. He suggested it gets to the heart of the matter and eliminates many problems discussed in testimony that day. MR. KELLEYHOUSE expressed his understanding that the state of Colorado had enacted changes on its initiative process, but the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled within the last few weeks that those kinds of obstacles are unconstitutional under the federal constitution. However, Article VIII of Alaska's constitution gives authority to the legislature to manage fish and wildlife, which the legislature may delegate to the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game; he believes there is ample opportunity for people to have input, not only at the legislative level but also through the boards and 80 local advisory committees. He concluded, "We support efforts to fix this problem, but ... even the Native organizations and I would kind of prefer to have it go straight to the heart of the issue." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES agreed that Mr. Kelleyhouse's proposal would work. Number 1649 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked whether Mr. Kelleyhouse is in favor of HJR 25 or not. MR. KELLEYHOUSE answered that he is in favor of the concept of not having fish and game uses and management susceptible to the ballot initiative process; he would like that to be the prerogative of the legislature, the Boards of Fisheries and Game, and the local fish and game advisory committees; however, he recommends a more direct approach. Number 1582 JULIE KOHLER came forward on her own behalf, noting that she has a degree in fish and wildlife management, and that she came to Alaska because she loves to hunt and fish. She expressed dismay because HJR 25 singles out fish and wildlife management issues; if the problem is the initiative process, perhaps it should apply to all. She pointed out that the legislature is elected by the public; because of the overwhelming amount of work required, initiatives seldom happen unless the legislature doesn't seem to be responding to the public. She said she hadn't thought about it from a rural-versus-urban perspective until that day; if the desire is to have everyone be able to speak, perhaps they should reduce the 10 percent or take another approach that would make it fair for all initiatives, in all areas. She concluded, "Remember when you muzzle the public that someday, when you retire from the legislature, your voice will be muzzled as much as mine, as far as opportunities to have a different way of voicing my opinion." Number 1436 HOLLY CARROLL, Alaska Conservation Voice, pointed out that if someone from Bethel, for example, needs 30,000 signatures to protect resources, it would require flying all over the state; rural residents wouldn't have that kind of money. However, if they could obtain 15,000 signatures in Anchorage and then perhaps go to Fairbanks, it would be much easier. She asked that they don't retain the 10 percent quota, which would make it harder not only for rural areas but also for nonprofit organizations to get initiatives on the ballot. Ms. Carroll also pointed out the enormous time and cost of having to go door-to-door in every single district. She emphasized that if a rural community doesn't have a voice in the signature-gathering phase, those residents still get a chance at the ballot box; nothing stops them from voting. She concluded by agreeing that lies should be kept out of the commercials, cautioning that it goes both ways. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER responded that if she were to do an initiative, she wouldn't fly; rather, she would use the telephone and fax to try to solicit someone's help. MS. CARROLL said it still takes a lot of money to call 30,000 people. Number 1242 BRAD VAN APPEL, Alaska Conservation Voice, came forward, telling members that although he lives in Homer without running water or reliable heat, he doesn't consider it living in the Bush, out of respect for people who actually live in communities off the road system. He said he hears this issue being represented as the power of the legislature versus the rights of Alaskan people to take part in the political process. He said, "I think it's a mistake on your part to allow it to be represented that way, because the Alaskan people are a strong and independent people who are going to be included in the process, one way or another." He reiterated Ms. Carroll's point about the cost of going door-to-door statewide, asking how much money any organization of Alaskan citizens would have to put together to try to put an initiative on the ballot. He further asked what organization of Alaskan citizens has that money. He stated, "We're clearly making this a real exclusive game that can only be afforded by people from outside the state, and they will come in with the money." MR. VAN APPEL suggested a better solution would be requiring a higher percentage of rural representation in the districts; rather than saying 10 percent across the board, for example, it could be written as "'x' percent of two-thirds of the districts and that a certain number of those must be designated as rural districts." While he is in favor of better rural representation, he believes there are other ways to do that. CO-CHAIR OGAN expressed his understanding that that would be unconstitutional, adding, "We have to treat everybody pretty much equally in those processes." Number 1091 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said it doesn't cost much to go door-to-door. She restated Representative Kapsner's point that if she were to contact rural residents about initiatives, she would call someone in that area to do it. CO-CHAIR OGAN called upon Megan Brinson to testify, but there was no response. Number 1006 KATY COELHO, Alaska Conservation Voice (ACV), came forward, telling members she was representing not only the ACV but also the hundreds or perhaps thousands of people she had talked to during the billboard campaign, which she had organized. One of the most important things she continually heard during the campaign was "thank you," not necessarily for the specific initiative but for giving the public an opportunity to vote on this issue. She echoed earlier testimony that the debate is not when they gather the signatures, but during the campaign and at the ballot box. Ms. Coelho said she doesn't understand the reason for suppressing the public's opportunity, raising the bar or making it more difficult, because the battle is not then but on election day. "We should have the opportunity to make that decision," she concluded. Number 0906 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move HJR 25 out of committee with the attached fiscal note(s); she asked unanimous consent. CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether there was any objection; hearing none, he announced that HJR 25 was moved from the committee by unanimous consent. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER spoke up, "Not unanimous consent; I'm sorry." CO-CHAIR OGAN pointed out that she could sign the individual recommendation as she chose; Representative Kapsner concurred. Co-Chair Ogan then restated that HJR 25 was moved from the House Resources Standing Committee.