HJR 27-CONST. AM: TERM LIMITS OF LEGISLATORS    3:21:04 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 27, HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27 Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to terms of legislators. 3:21:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE SAM KITO, Alaska State Legislature, relayed that at the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) this year, he attended a session on term limits. He offered that the Alaska State Legislature has been at a crossroads during the past ten years; it has been operating between a citizen legislature and a fulltime legislature. He stated that a citizen legislature is clearly defined as having members with jobs and careers, experience from outside the legislature, or a role to play during the Interim giving them experience outside the professional lawmaking arena. He said that Alaska does not have many such legislators; the perception is that legislators do become career politicians. REPRESENTATIVE KITO relayed that he had a career in engineering before becoming a legislator; he expected it to last awhile, then he would do something else before retirement. He relayed that if he serves on the legislature for twenty years, it becomes his career, and the ideas he brings to the legislature are no longer fresh and relevant. He posed the question: "What would our state look like with a legislature that had a regular influx of new ideas and fresh interest in the legislative process?" He said that he concluded that if Alaska is going to have a citizen legislature, then it must provide an opportunity for new people to serve. 3:23:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE KITO stated that Alaska does have good turnover in the legislature: in the Senate the average tenure is about nine years; in the House the average tenure is slightly over seven years. He suggested that for a regular infusion [of new members] and not just a major "switch over", which is typical after reapportionment, it makes sense to allow an individual the opportunity to provide public service to Alaska as a legislator, then step aside and allow a new person with new ideas to serve. He maintained that his proposed resolution does not constitute a prohibition on serving. It would allow someone to serve for up to four terms in the House of Representatives or up to two terms in the Senate, before either taking a two-year break from the body in which the person served or switching to the other body. This would allow for sixteen years of continuous service or longer if moving from the House to the Senate and back to the House. He stated that one legislator has done that in the past. REPRESENTATIVE KITO relayed that the NCSL report on term limits states that one of the reasons for not having term limits is to allow legislators to build knowledge and experience. He questioned why an Alaska legislator, representing about 20,000 residents, needs more experience than a governor, who represents 700,000 Alaskans and administers all the state programs. He mentioned that the governor is limited to two four-year terms, or eight years. He said that Alaska has determined that to be adequate for serving as a governor and asked, "Why then is it appropriate for a legislator to have significantly longer period of service?" 3:26:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE KITO continued by saying that other states do have people who build up seniority and move up the ladder; however, Alaska generally has a turnover of Senate President and Speaker of the House every two years; committee chairs generally turnover every two years; Alaska had a Speaker of the House for eight years, but it only happened one time. He offered that Alaska is already operating as if there was a term-limited legislature; the average length of service is about eight years; and there is turnover in the committees, which suggests that knowledge in a committee area does not appear to be as critical in a state the size of Alaska. He asked, "Why not provide that opportunity for other Alaskans to participate?" He opined that the other choice is to not have a full citizen legislature in which individuals gather their own experiences during the Interim and bring them "to the table." In that case Alaska would be considering the possibility of a fulltime legislature, paying the legislators a fulltime salary, expecting them to do fulltime work, and having legislators with twenty-plus years in public service. 3:29:46 PM CHAIR KREIS-TOMKINS asked for the results of the advisory question [on term limits] on the 1998 Alaska ballot. 3:30:00 PM CAITLYN ELLIS, Staff, Representative Sam Kito, Alaska State Legislature, replied that in the 1998 election, 50.2 percent voted in support of term limits [Measure 7]; in the 1994 election, almost 63 percent voted in favor of term limits [Measure 4]; and in the 1996 election, the affirmative vote for term limits [Measure 4] was 54.5 percent. The earlier two advisory votes were related to Congressional term limits; the 1998 advisory vote was much closer than those of the earlier elections. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he advocated for term limits in the past but was dissuaded because of the seniority of [former] Alaska U.S. Senator Ted Stevens and the benefits of seniority at the congressional level. He mentioned that Alaska U.S. Representative Don Young is now "Dean of the House"; he is currently the longest serving member of the House of Representatives. He opined that there are advantages to seniority at the congressional level; Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) opening [for development] is evidence of that. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH relayed that he is in his second year of his first term and is one of 15 new members, which represent 25 percent of the 60-member legislature. He said that in any business, a 25 percent turnover would be significant. He stated that he is struck by the fact that the voters are doing a good job of limiting the terms of legislators. He offered that in respect to legislators having outside employment, he couldn't agree more. He stated that he was deeply disappointed to be "drug back" into special session four times under the "heavy hand" of special session construction. He asserted that such circumstances decimate any ability to maintain a job or business. He asked, "Why do we think we need to do a term limit, if we have a 25 percent turnover in the body?" 3:32:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE KITO acknowledged that there is consistent turnover in the legislative body but maintained that when he became a representative, he decided that he did not want to be there for twenty years, which would discourage a couple generations of individuals in his community who might want to participate in the public process at the legislative level. He offered that if an individual knows that the maximum time a Representative can be in the House is eight years, he/she could be accruing experience on the assembly, working on non-profit boards, all the while knowing that the legislative seat will change in his/her working lifetime. A person could prepare to run for office and be ready when the time comes, as opposed to guessing when the [sitting] Representative will leave office. He stated that if he is not term-limited and keeps his seat for twenty years, two to two and a half generations of individuals in his community who might be wonderful legislators would be forced to move to a different community to serve as a state Representative. He maintained that HJR 27 would create a better pool of potential candidates coming up through the ranks - ones who will be ready to serve and provide public service - as opposed interested people who do not have a chance. 3:35:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that he has never been adamantly opposed to term limits; when he served in local government, term limits were implemented; he termed out in six years and was elected to the House of Representatives during his third term. He mentioned that Representative Kito was addressing two different issues - career politicians and citizen legislatures. He said that even if HJR 27 passed, it would not ensure the state would have citizen legislators. He offered that because the House districts have elections every two years, the public has every opportunity to run; nothing prevents those of future generations from running against a representative every two years. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP mentioned the power of incumbency and maintained that while there is some validity to that, there is also validity in the fact that citizens recognize and value the experience that a Representative has gained. A Representative who spends two years on the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, two years on the House State Affairs Standing Committee, two years on the House Special Committee on Education, and two years on the House Finance Committee becomes very well rounded but then is termed out. He offered that there is "good and bad" in the proposal. He asked about the length of time a Senator would be required to "sit out" versus the length of time a Representative would be required to sit out, if not deciding to run for the other body. He concluded that the proposed resolution offers both opportunities and concerns. REPRESENTATIVE KITO replied that the "sitting out" period is two years, which would be true for both the House and the Senate. He reminded the committee that a Senate term in a reapportionment year is a two-year term; therefore, a Senator sitting out in 2010 could run for that Senate seat in 2012. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP reiterated his comment about the level of experience gained. He also mentioned that a legislator who is in the minority for six to eight years does not have his/her true "voice" in the legislature, which is another concern. REPRESENTATIVE KITO replied that his predecessor was in the minority for fifteen years and never chaired a committee yet served her constituents very well. He mentioned that Alaska has many legislators that only serve two, four, or six years; they are effective; in the State of Alaska, since it is so small, a freshman majority member can chair a committee; therefore, rapid learning can occur with little experience. He said in that way the situation in Alaska is different than in many other states; people with little experience can be Speaker of the House in his/her second term or chair of the House Finance Committee in his/her first term. He maintained that even the shorter serving legislators are representing their districts as well [as the longer serving legislators], because they have opportunities to participate in leadership positions. He added that the intent of the proposed resolution is to bring new ideas into the legislature and provide more opportunities for individuals to prepare for and participate in state service. 3:40:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that he generally supports the concept of term limits; however, there are pros and cons to it. He mentioned that it is good to have a healthy amount of turnover; it is difficult for a legislator to maintain a job outside of the legislature, especially if session lasts 180-plus days; and it wouldn't be possible to work at a regular job. He added that owning one's own business makes it possible. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the average length of service for those in the Senate - 9.3 years - and those in the House - 7.2 years. He asked for the ranges of lengths of service. He offered that there are legislators who serve for two to four years, and those who serve for fourteen years, making the average seven or eight. There may be many new legislators, but some are replacing ones who have served many years and retired. He concluded it is good to have turnover; it exists on its own with the election cycle; some legislators do "get entrenched" and will never lose unless they choose not to run. He agreed that turnover at the leadership level is also good; as legislators serve longer and "rise to the top," it is good to have turnovers to bring in different outlooks. He concluded that under HJR 27, allowing for eight years in the House and eight years in the Senate, which adds up to sixteen years, would be a substantial period, and with two years off, time of service could be longer. REPRESENTATIVE KITO mentioned that for all serving legislators since statehood, the terms vary from one year to thirty-two years. 3:43:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX mentioned that California has term limits, and she has heard that often a Senator and a Representative will trade positions back and forth. REPRESENTATIVE KITO answered that he cannot confirm if that occurs. He offered that California is one of two states with a fulltime legislature; consequently, Representatives earn $100,000 per year and have staffs of 15. He added that the same is true for New York State. He said that California is different from Alaska in that each House district represents 500,000 people; getting to know a California district is quite different from getting to know an Alaska district. He maintained that after four and a half years, most people in his district would recognize him as their Representative and could come up to him to talk; that would not be the case in a state like California or New York. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX relayed that the point she was making was that if Representatives and Senators transfer back and forth, then the idea that the proposed resolution would give new people options for serving would not be correct. She asked whether this, in fact, occurs in the California legislature. REPRESENTATIVE KITO responded that he would attempt to find out if that is true. He added that his point is that if one is representing a House district of 500,000 people or a Senate district of a million people, then it is more likely that the legislator has only name recognition among his constituents, as opposed to them understanding who he/she is. He maintained that in Alaska, the scenario Representative LeDoux described could happen, but is not likely. He asserted that if he served an eight-year term in the House, people would be aware of when his term ended and could prepare to run for that seat in the next election. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why Representative Kito thought it would be unlikely in Alaska for a Senator and Representative to switch back and forth between the legislative seats. REPRESENTATIVE KITO stated his reasoning as follows: Alaska districts are much smaller, and the individuals running for office are better known in their districts. In Alaska, constituent relations are important. An Anchorage Representative who returns to the Anchorage caucus, meets and talks with a considerable number of Anchorage residents who are politically active in the district. He reiterated that Alaskans know their representatives better; therefore, the trading of legislative seats would not be an issue in Alaska. 3:46:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how a small district and constituents knowing their legislators would prevent the representative and senator from trading seats, if they both wanted to keep their jobs. She added that since the legislators are so well known by their constituents, it would be easier to trade seats and more likely to happen. REPRESENTATIVE KITO offered his district as an example: under HJR 27, when he comes to the end of his eight-year term, there will be people interested in running for his seat; it could be a Senator, but nevertheless, it is an open office; people can express interest in the seat. He maintained that with the smaller population and an open seat, there is greater potential for someone to come forward and run for that seat than there would be for an unknown person in a 500,000-person district. He added that the latter would be like running for governor [of Alaska] every four years, then switching off to lieutenant governor and back. He asserted that California is a "different animal" than Alaska; Alaska is unique, and this is one of the areas in which its unique is positive. 3:48:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to page 1, lines 9-10, of HJR 27, which read, "No person who has served as a representative for four full or partial successive terms shall again be eligible to hold that office" and asked the sponsor if he would be willing to change "that office" to "any office". REPRESENTATIVE KITO responded that the change could be a policy call of the legislature; the legislature may only want individuals to serve for eight years and no longer; some states have placed a prohibition for serving more than eight years. He mentioned that in a local election in Alaska, one can sit out one term and return to service; many people do that; Alaska also allows its governor to sit out a term and serve again. He offered that Alaska has not historically supported a total prohibition. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that his suggestion would retain the two-year hiatus but disallow transferring from House to Senate and back to House. REPRESENTATIVE KITO suggested that disallowing someone to run for one body or the other constitutes an undue restriction on that person's civil rights. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK maintained that the language change would prevent someone from switching back and forth between bodies, as described by Representative LeDoux. He restated his suggestion: once someone serves in the legislature for the specified number of terms, whether it is the House or Senate, he/she must sit out for two years before serving again. REPRESENTATIVE KITO asked for confirmation that Representative Tuck is suggesting a mandatory two years after an eight-year term before the individual could run for the House or Senate. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied yes. REPRESENTATIVE KITO said that would be a policy call of the legislature. He suggested that there may be some awkwardness regarding the four-year Senate seats. If someone terms out from a four-year seat, and it remains a four-year seat, then that person would not be able to run for that Senate seat but could run for a House seat after two years off. 3:51:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for clarification of the proposed resolution: an individual could serve eight years in the house - four terms - and immediately serve two Senate terms, which would total sixteen consecutive years in the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE KITO confirmed that as HJR 27 is currently written, that is correct. An individual can move from one body to the other, but to run again for the same body, he/she must take a two-year break. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked how many states have term limits in their state legislatures. REPRESENTATIVE KITO responded that currently there are 15 states with active term limits; the requirements are different from state to state. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that in a term limit situation, someone coming to the end of his/her term, knowing that he/she cannot run for reelection, may legislate differently during his/her last term - much like a "lame duck" U.S. President. He added, "That's probably not a bad thing." REPRESENTATIVE KITO responded that has been argued in both directions. In a lame duck incumbency situation, a person may take edgier or more challenging actions - ones that he/she would not take if facing reelection. In that way it could be positive. He said that on the other hand, it has been said that an incumbent does not have to consider a constituent's issues because in a year's time he/she won't be in office. This would be a negative outcome. He concluded that sorting out the "pros" and "cons" of this argument is part of a legislator's job. 3:53:50 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HJR 27 would be held over. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS commented that uncertainty is a limiting factor for people who might seek legislative office; not knowing when the seat will be open can be a handicap; sometimes even retirements are announced at the last moment; therefore, people seeking office are not empowered to participate in a fully open way.