SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 32 Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the constitutional defense council. Senator Robin Taylor testified on behalf of SJR 32. He said that the reason the bill was before the committee was because it would require a vote of the people. The fiscal note attached is because of the extra paragraph or two that would be needed to place it on the ballot. The bill is a simple concept but a significant change in our constitutional make up. The constitutional defense council created by this legislation would have the option, should any governor in the future, fail to defend the constitution of the State of Alaska or fail to prosecute actions to defend the sovereignty and constitution of this State. The council could initiate such action and would have standing before the Courts. The committee is well aware that the Legislature has in the past attempted to both initiate action or continue with actions previously filed by the State of Alaska and upon dismissal by the Governor when we attempted to intervene we were told that we did not have standing sufficient to be before the Court and were dismissed on those grounds. One recent example is the "Babbitt" case. Because of the dismissal of that case, federal agencies, both interior and agriculture, are in the process of developing regulations under the subsistence law of Section 8 in ANILCA which law would, if those regulations are carried out and enforced, the entire fishing industry of the State of Alaska this summer will be regulated under subsistence laws. That is the direct result of the dismissal of that suit. Our forefathers never contemplated electing a Governor into office who would fail to defend the constitution of the State of Alaska, and in so doing, forfeit the rights of the people of Alaska and the rights under our constitution. By creating this council there will be an independent body made up of members appointed by the Senate President, the Speaker of the House, by the Governor and from the public at large who will make an objective determination as to whether or not litigation needs to be pursued and will have the authority and right to pursue that litigation in defense of our constitution. It should not be seen as a threat to any administration because it would be assumed that the administration, an executive branch of this State, would be carrying forward those defenses and prosecutions that were necessary to defend our constitution. It should be only seen as supplementary to, and supportive of that administration. However, should any administration in the future fail to defend the constitution they would have the right to intervene. Their funding would be through the legislative branch and that is the basis upon which they would receive their authority. Senator Rieger said the primary concern has been where only the executive branch has been able to bring actions at the federal level. What is added by adding state constitutional law? Senator Taylor said this would limit the council to bringing those actions that would affect State constitutional law as opposed to merely going off and litigating any question involving federal constitutional law that would be of interest to them. They are allowed to litigate in the State courts, the Federal courts and before administrative agencies. There was a recent dismissal of an appeal before an administrative agency that two extensive hearings were held on and we still have no idea what the future ramifications of that decision may be. Senator Rieger and Senator Taylor discussed a hypothetical settlement question and what one would be looking at if there are State or Federal constitutional issues involved that are being compromised by the settlement. Senator Taylor said a most recent and controversial example would be Governor Hickel's settlement of the Exxon Valdez situation and the manner in which the funds became appropriated without passing through the legislative process. The dollar amount would not have been subject to the review of the council. It would have been wise at the time to have a group like this available to say only the Legislature appropriates money, not the executive branch through a settlement. Senator Phillips and Senator Taylor further discussed if it was necessary to put in how many people make a quorum and what number does it take to have a vote. Senator Taylor said the drafters advised that this was covered by Robert's Rules of Order, just as all panels and groups are. Senator Phillips felt this was vague. Senator Taylor said he would provide a legal opinion incorporated in the record, on the floor, in consideration of the amendment, stating the excess verbage was not necessary. Senator Phillips MOVED SJR 32 and without objection the bill was REPORTED OUT with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note of $2.2 from the Office of the Governor.