HJR 7-CONST AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS HB 45-INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS, Sponsor of HJR 7 and HB 45, read the following sponsor statement: HJR 7 and HB 45 were introduced to ensure statewide consideration and discussion of an initiative petition before it is put on the ballot. The legislation requires signatures equal to 10% of the ballots cast in the prior general election (same as current law) and 4% of ballots cast from 30 of the 40 election districts. In past elections the greatest support for initiatives has come from one general area of the state, the Anchorage-MatSu region. The legislation is intended to further statewide discussion of an issue before it reaches the voters on election day. Alaska's population distribution is much different now than it was when our Constitution was approved. Today, initiative supporters can collect signatures in a limited area and get a question on the ballot. The legislation will facilitate a broader discussion of potential ballot questions, thus helping to create a balanced question which considers effects on all the citizens of Alaska. As we write laws in the Capitol, many perspectives are taken into account as issues are discussed through the committee process. During this process healthy debate, from representatives of all areas of the state, is conducted. This healthy debate gives all members opportunity to see how their lawmaking will affect areas that they do not represent. Pertinent questions are asked and legislation is constantly amended to take into account those concerns. Currently, initiatives can be put onto the ballot with very limited perspective. Constructive analysis of a question, from a statewide perspective, does not currently occur. Right now signatures equaling 10% of ballots cast is required. In addition, initiative sponsors must obtain one signature from 27 districts. One signature from a district is hardly representative of a district's opinion on an issue. In closing, this legislation would get people from all over the state more involved in the initiative process. This, in turn, can create an atmosphere of healthy debate and ensure questions which reach the ballot have a statewide perspective. Number 1605 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that the U.S. Supreme Court issued the "Buckley" decision which changed some of the current statutory laws concerning who can distribute an initiative, the type of information on an initiative and the reporting requirements. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he had been working with Representative Williams' staff in getting Alaska law in compliance with the supreme court decision. Because no one on the committee has reviewed the new committee substitute, Chairman Taylor announced the bill will be before the committee again next week. Number 1706 MR. PETE BUIST, Alaska Trappers Assn. and the Coalition for the Alaskan Way of Life (CAL), stated that his organizations have seen the common threat of "ballot box biology." Fighting reactive campaigns against outside special interests is expensive and time consuming. His organization supports HJR 7 in its original form, along with some changes they have submitted. The current initiative process makes it too easy to place an initiative on the ballot, and he urges the committee to restore the original language to HJR 7. MR. DICK BISHOP, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), stated that AOC is against "ballot box biology" regarding the management of fish and wildlife. AOC advocates a constitutional amendment making fish and wildlife issues ineligible for the initiative process. If the legislature is unable to take this approach, AOC urges the legislature to raise the number of petition signatures to 15% of previous voters in each house district before the petition is accepted. MR. SCOTT KOHLHAAS, Libertarian Party of Alaska, stated he is against HJR 7 and HB 45. HB 45 makes the first amendment right to petition the government very difficult and he feels the initiative process should be made easier and not more difficult. MR. KEN JACOBUS, representing himself, stated there is no need for a constitutional amendment because there is no problem now getting information to the people. The entire process should not be harmed to deal with one special interest group. He has sent a letter to the committee and urges the members to read it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented the letter had not been received yet but it would be distributed to committee members when it arrives. Tape 00-2, Side B MR. AL ANDERS, representing himself, stated the initiative process is not a problem and does not need to be fixed. He feels the process should be opened up more, and he is against HB 45 and HJR 7. MR. BOB CROOM, SR., representing himself, stated he disagrees with the 10% signature requirement because of the expense for rural areas and the remoteness of much of Alaska. MR. KEN JACOBUS stated he felt there needed to be changes in the petition law. The provisions of the present law violate the U.S. Constitution and need to be repealed. Removing the 30 day grace period last year nearly killed the voluntary petition. This almost guarantees that the only people who can petition are people with money, and certain issues this year will not be on the ballot because of the grace period. Another issue to be removed is the dollar per signature limit, and public access also needs to be reviewed. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR acknowledged that the witnesses' comments would be utilized on both HJR 7 and HB 45 because they are companion pieces of legislation. Number 1973 SENATOR ELLIS acknowledged that he agrees with Mr. Jacobus' comments on both pieces of legislation and he will continue to argue against restricting peoples' rights to petition the government. The statutes from the federal case need to be cleared up separately from this legislation. SENATOR TORGERSON stated he agrees with both sides of the issue, and a balance needs to be found so the process will not be too restrictive. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR wants to see "Buckley" utilized to clean up the statutes and to create a clear understanding of the process. Representative Williams' amendment may have to list fish and game matters as ineligible for initiative action. SENATOR ELLIS asked the Chairman for a preview of the committee substitute. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he has asked the legal drafter to work with Representative Williams to integrate the changes that are necessary under "Buckley." Number 1719 MR. DICK COOSE, representing himself, stated he supports HJR 7 and HB 45. Mr. Coose encouraged the committee members to read Undo Influence by Ron Arnold. He wants outside influences stopped and he feels this legislation will help. MR. GABE SAM, Director of Wildlife and Parks for the Tanana Chiefs Conference, read from a resolution by the Board of Directors. Resolution 99-19 Wildlife Management By Ballot Initiative WHEREAS, in recent years wildlife management issues have been brought to the voters by way of Ballot Initiatives, which do not incorporate good science, but rely on emotion driven by a few pictures or video clips and allow the money to be spent on advertising; and WHEREAS, rural residents would lose important opportunities to provide subsistence food or cash economy by loss of an issue in an election; and WHEREAS, the management of fish and game resources is best left to the professionals on a Federal Subsistence Board, the Department of Fish and Game and the State Board of Game; and WHEREAS, there is a constitutional amendment (HJR 7) sponsored by Representative Williams that would require 15% of past voters' signatures in 3/4 of the State's election districts for an issue to be certified for ballot initiatives; and WHEREAS, there is also a constitutional amendment resolution (HJR 3) sponsored by Representative Bunde of Anchorage that would require a 2/3 majority for any wildlife management issue to pass by initiative. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Tanana Chiefs Board of Directors urges TCC staff to work in opposition to wildlife management by ballot initiative, and to support HJR 3 and 7 that would restrict the ability of such issues to come to the voters. This resolution was submitted by the McGrath Native Village Council, last year, at their annual convention.