HJR 15-CONST. AM: VOTES NEEDED FOR VETO OVERRIDE    3:02:01 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS 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. 3:02:24 PM CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, as prime sponsor of HJR 15, offered to answer any questions from the committee. 3:02:55 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS, after ascertaining that there were no questions for Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, opened public and invited testimony on HJR 15. 3:03:03 PM MICHAEL BRADNER, as the former Speaker of the House, relayed that he interacted and served with many of the state's constitutional founders. He expressed his belief that few of them would have ever imagined that the veto could be used in the manner it has been - reaching back in time and eliminating entire programs. Generally, over the years, the veto has been exercised to deal with issues in the current legislature and only occasionally reaching back in time. He opined that Alaska has a constitutional crisis that reaches beyond this legislature and is bipartisan in nature; what this governor [Governor Michael J. Dunleavy] could do, any governor could do; and it could lead to problems in the future. The flavor of politics changes; the governor could veto, for example, Alaska's oil tax credits. As time changes, the spending for social programs and for development changes. He offered that the future is unknown; Alaska will be under a great deal of pressure with climate change and other issues. MR. BRADNER suggested that his concern is not just about the three-fourths vote, but the three-fourths vote burdened by very small legislative bodies. He said, "It requires only securing 16 votes to override." He maintained, "If you can't secure the votes for an override, you ought not to be governor, because you're no politician." He referred to the campaign contribution limit that went to the U.S. Supreme Court and was sent back to the appeals court; Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg attached a statement citing small legislative bodies and the possibility of corruption given a narrow voter base. He said this should be a concern for Alaska. It is not just the three-fourths vote but the three-fourths vote in Alaska's small legislative bodies and the regional spread of Alaska's legislative bodies. It is very easy to intimidate different regions and put legislators in difficult situations while exercising their prerogatives to override. MR. BRADNER stressed that the legislature is the "people's branch." He referred to an expression in legal literature - "tyrannical aggrandizement of power by one branch over another." He stated that the founders of the U.S. Constitution used that term when trying to convince the various colonial assemblies that separation of powers protects them from their president being a substitute for the tyrant they had overthrown. He offered that although [in his writing as a journalist] he has referred to the governor as a tyrant in the context he just mentioned, he, himself, shares that title: In the mid-'70s, he was Speaker of the House and the legislature was young. The legislators questioned many of the lines of authority between the legislature and the governor - one being the extent of confirmation power. The legislature passed a statute, then sued the governor. [Then] Justice [Jay] Rabinowitz informed the legislature that the legislature may not encroach "one inch" and used the term "tyrant" in his opinion. MR. BRADNER expressed that Alaska must consider the invasion of the prerogatives of the legislature. He opined that the governor, being a new governor, was influenced by certain people to act as he did; it appears he is now trying to moderate that intensity. He expressed his hope that HJR 15 would be a bipartisan resolution; it reaches far beyond the acute partisanship that Alaska faces; it involves both parties and many issues for both parties over time. He relayed that Alaska is facing some issues in the next decade which will require unity. 3:10:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that she is looking for good governance, and any changes to the Alaska State Constitution needs to work for the next 50, 100, 200 years; the constitution is the state's guidebook. She expressed her belief that Mr. Bradner spoke to the politics, and she is looking for good governance. She relayed the following: While you speak to the tyranny and certain positions on one side of this issue and this particular governor, there is another side. And if we're supposed to work together for the good policy, doesn't that come through better communication, rather than lowering the voting threshold, because that would be by a lower majority guiding the conversation? So, I'm asking you, what do you feel is good governance, without looking at this current political climate? MR. BRADNER opined that this political climate only demonstrates the difficulty in governance. He expressed the following: Your prerogatives have been invaded by the governor. We can argue about that and have differences of opinion about that, but ... most states have a two- thirds override. And I think the original intent of separation of powers was that the executive branch could not intimidate the legislative branch. And I think a three-quarters vote, with our regionalism and so on - absent whether it's today's politics or tomorrow's politics - really is invasive of ... the legislature's ability to legislate. And you're the people's body politic - and it's messy at times. I've often called the legislature sort of the 'garbage can' because that's where the public brings their issues, and you fight it out, and the public sometimes gets frustrated because you're really not one legislature, you're two. You're a House; you're a Senate; you're many committees. ... The public hears this kind of commotion and ... the legislature gets criticism perhaps it isn't due. I absolutely think that good governance requires that the legislature have reasonable opportunity to override a governor's veto. In this case, I think it's almost impossible. 3:13:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE SHAW referred to the comment about intimidation from the governor. He asked, "If we lower the standards, don't we have a majority that intimidates the minority?" MR. BRADNER replied that [the two-thirds veto override vote threshold] is the standard in most states. The executive branch oversees administrating the statutes and is not entitled - in any fashion - to intimidate the legislative process. He said that the legislative process belongs to the legislature; it is through that process the legislature responds to the public. He answered, "No ... I think ... we're sort of at a point here where we've got to make some decisions." 3:14:00 PM MIKE COONS testified that 36 states require a two-thirds vote to override a veto; 7 states require three-fifths; 6 require a simple majority; and Alaska requires three-fourths. He said that 22 states, as of November 2018, have veto-proof majorities. He continued with the following testimony: Yes, Alaska is the only one with three-quarters vote, and I'm glad our founding fathers, in writing the state constitution, did so. Obviously, the founding fathers did not look upon the governor as a tyrant or call the Office of the Governor an office of a tyrant; it is an insult to our republic. Remember, we are a republic, not a democracy. What this boils down to in my opinion - this is nothing more than an attempt to make it easier to override a strong governor who is keeping spending or attempting to keep spending under control. These last attempts at overriding Governor Dunleavy's line-item vetoes were a failure. Even this last attempt would have failed by one vote if two legislators were ... and if two legislators were there, it would have failed by three. The person that is testifying for this is making this about this governor by a bill that would impact decades - if not longer - of other governors. The governor has constitutional amendments that this committee has refused to bring forward that would have far better impact on the people of Alaska. I call on Representative Kreiss-Tomkins to bring forward those bills and stop trying to undo what was and is the best way to stop overspending. 3:16:22 PM ADAM HYKES offered the following testimony: I voted for the governor in the past election, and it's really hard to see this as a way to not cover for the attempt last session to override his vetoes when there weren't enough legislators present at an unauthorized special session in Juneau when the governor had clearly called the [legislature] constitutionally within his powers to the Valley up here in the Interior. It's hard not to view this any other way, especially since the [legislature] has consistently fought against the governor. I see this resolution as a dangerous advance towards muddying the waters as far as separation of powers go in our state. [Public testimony was treated as closed.] 3:17:41 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to report HJR 15 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Thompson, Hopkins, Story, Fields, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of reporting HJR 15 out of committee. Representatives Vance and Shaw voted against it. Therefore, HJR 15 was reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.