SB 80-INITIATIVE SEVERABILITY  1:41:41 PM CHAIR HUGHES announced that the final order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 80, "An Act relating to proposing and enacting laws by initiative." 1:42:07 PM CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on SB 80. 1:42:29 PM KATI CAPOZZI, President and CEO, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, Eagle River said that her nonprofit organization was founded in 1953 to promote a positive business environment in Alaska. The Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (State Chamber] represents hundreds of businesses, manufacturers, and local chambers of commerce across the state. These companies employ more than 100,000 hard-working Alaskans, she said. The State Chamber believes that SB 80 is necessary to maintain the integrity of the signature-gathering process for a ballot measure. She explained that once voters sign their names to specific ballot measure language, their support should be applied only to the exact language to which they lent their names. If any court or courts decide to alter or remove language from the initiative, it cannot be assumed that the voters' support remains. If a court severs language from a proposed ballot measure, it should be mandatory that initiative proponents support the revised language that actually appears on the ballot. MS. CAPOZZI said the State Chamber supports SB 80 because it will correct a deficiency that has been overlooked in the ballot initiative process. Further, the organization also believes that this bill will result in fewer protracted legal battles once ballot-measure proponents understand that if any section of the initiative does not pass constitutional muster, the proponents would be required to revert to the signature gathering stage of the process. Passage of SB 80 should result in more carefully- crafted-ballot measures at the outset, she said. This would result in a smoother, more predictable process for all parties, whether the parties support or oppose the ballot measure in question. 1:44:22 PM LAURA BONNER, representing herself, Anchorage, said that she is a 47-year retiree who strongly opposes SB 80. She offered her belief that this bill would usurp the peoples' power in the initiative process. Gathering the number of signatures in all 40 districts to place an initiative on the ballot takes considerable time, effort, and expense. If SB 80 were to pass, if even one word was changed, added, or deleted that process would need to start over. She has signed numerous petitions over the years, sometimes just because she wanted to see the issue come before the voters, she said. She said she has seen legislators support a proposed bill [in committee] but vote against it on the floor because the bill was amended, or the legislator obtained more information on the bill. It is the floor vote that matters in the legislature; likewise, it is a person's vote during the election that matters in terms of an initiative. She expressed concern that SB 80 would stifle Alaskans' constitutional rights. Although she is not an attorney, she has concerns about potential constitutional issues related to this bill. 1:46:31 PM BETHANY MARCUM, Executive Director, Alaska Policy Forum, Anchorage, said that Alaska is fortunate to have a constitutionally enshrined ballot initiative process. Not all states trust their citizens to participate directly in the legislative process. Most Alaskans would agree this is an important right. In order for the initiative process to continue to have value for future generations of Alaskans, it is imperative that the integrity of the process is ensured. Currently, a loophole created by past Alaska Supreme Court decisions allow the courts to tamper with the initiative language. She related that when the courts remove unconstitutional provisions, the end result is that the language voters see on their ballots may be different than the language in the petition booklet that voters signed. This is what happened last year with Ballot Initiative 1, she said. She characterized it as an injustice to voters. Further, the legislature can be stripped of its role to act as a counterbalance in the process. The legislature has the right to pass legislation that is substantially the same as proposed initiatives, thus removing those initiatives from the ballot. When courts change the language, the legislature loses its ability to provide oversight on the process. She urged members to consider [SB] 80 to rectify this situation. 1:48:40 PM CHAIR HUGHES after first determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on SB 80. 1:48:48 PM SENATOR KIEHL referred to a memo with legal analysis from the Division of Legislative Legal Services, [Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency memo of 4/23/19 from Alpheus Bullard, Legislative Counsel] as to the constitutionality of SB 80. The memo cited the rule of construction, in Latin [expression unius est exclusio alterius" or "the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another".] In essence, the legal counsel interpreted that the Constitution of the State of Alaska provides some limits and strictures on the peoples' ability to exercise the legislative power directly, but having those limits and rules in place means that the legislature does not get to do other limits and rules on the peoples' power, at least not through statutes. He related a scenario he had with a constituent who was interested in obtaining a presidential candidate's tax returns. The Legislative Legal Research answer was the same, that the U.S. Constitution has a set of qualifications and the state does not get to add more qualifications, which is the same principle, he said. He said he would not hold up the bill today, but he does have concerns. CHAIR HUGHES said she also reviewed the memo. She asked the record to reflect her comments, that the restrictions in Article XI, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and read, "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.". She said she realizes that those are restrictions on content and not process. She referred to the "Law-Making Power" in Article XII" of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and read, "As used in this constitution, the terms 'by law' and 'by the legislature,' or variations of these terms, are used interchangeably when related to law-making powers. Unless clearly inapplicable, the law- making powers assigned to the legislature may be exercised by the people through the initiative, subject to the limitations of Article XI." CHAIR HUGHES asked whether this would create an imbalance between the initiative and what the people can do. She said that when the legislature passes a law, and the governor signs it, it can be appealed in court. The courts can find some sections in a bill could be found unconstitutional and pulled out, but the rest of the bill stands. Thus, the legislature's process has severability. She asserted that SB 80 does not remove that ability because if an initiative were to pass and become law, 90 days after passage, if challenged, the court could remove parts that it deems unconstitutional, so the rest of the initiative would stand. She concluded that these "law-making powers" as being very balanced. This refers to severability in the process, she said. She commented that one benefit is that the people putting forth initiatives will work harder to create accurate language during the drafting of initiatives. This would reduce time and effort spent by the Lieutenant Governor's office and by the Alaska Court System, she said. She acknowledged that the analogy of the balance and law-making power is not a perfect analogy. However, people are signing petitions based on the language that they believe will be on the ballot. If it is rewritten it could be likened to her duties, if she were to cosponsor a bill and vote in favor of it, but the bill is rewritten before the governor signs it. At that point her name is on a final bill that she voted for, yet it contains language she does not support. CHAIR HUGHES characterized [SB 80] as being about the process, that the severability still stands for the initiative process after it becomes law. The courts could determine a part of it is not constitutional, but the rest would stand. She acknowledged that the Division of Legislative Legal [Services, Legislative Affairs Agency] does a good job, but she thinks that the restrictions in the Constitution of the State of Alaska are content related and that the severability still holds for the initiative process after it becomes law. 1:55:37 PM SENATOR CHRIS BIRCH, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau agreed with the Chair's comments. He said that fundamentally it comes down to truth in advertising. He said that SB 80 would restore a check in the "checks and balances" of the constitutional framers' vision of the initiative process. The intent of the voters at the signature phase should matter, he said. When signing the petition, these voters are not giving their support to a general concept for legislation. The courts should not be empowered to divine the intent of those who support an initiative to guess what degree of changes would be permissible. The legislature has an obligation and right by the Constitution of the State of Alaska to stop an initiative by enacting similarly situated legislation. If the courts revise initiatives after the legislative review process, they deny the legislature its right to review a revised initiative. He said he would appreciate the committee's support. 1:57:09 PM SENATOR REINBOLD moved to report SB 80, work order 31-LS0185\U, Version U, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). CHAIR HUGHES found no objection. Therefore, SB 80 was reported from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.