SB 31-PROHIBITING BINDING CAUCUSES   2:04:08 PM CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting and announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 31 "An Act relating to binding votes by or for a legislator under the Legislative Ethics Act." [The committee substitute (CS) for SB 31(STA) was before the committee. SB 31 was previously heard on May 10, 2021.] 2:04:31 PM SENATOR SHOWER stated that he introduced SB 31 because he and several legislators suffered painful experiences in this body. He explained that the Alaska legislature has a binding caucus rule. Members who wish to join a caucus must agree to vote for all budgets and procedural rulings by the presiding officer or be punished. He said procedural votes can be used to shut down political opponents. For example, he said he was punished for his debate speech when he chose to represent his constituents instead of the caucus or leadership team. He argued that this happened even though freedom of speech is a protected right. SENATOR SHOWER related that Alaska statutes established felony penalties for anyone who causes an elected official to vote for something or to withhold their vote. Surprisingly, Alaska has had a binding caucus for decades, which does not make sense to him since legislators should only be accountable to their constituents. SENATOR SHOWER said he spoke to legislators in every state about his experience with the binding caucus, except one state that responded by email. He found that every legislator thought binding caucuses were unconstitutional or objectionable. He wondered if Alaska's system was unethical, immoral, or illegal. He recalled that Mississippi or Missouri's oath of office states that "they will not vote for or against" certain things. He said he believes that the binding caucus forces legislators to make a choice, even a wrong choice, if they must vote against their constituents to fulfill the binding caucus. He introduced SB 31 so legislators could not be coerced into agreeing to vote in exchange for something. Instead, Alaska will operate as other states do. It would codify in statute that binding caucuses are prohibited, and legislators cannot be forced into these agreements. 2:09:58 PM SENATOR HUGHES recalled from a previous hearing on SB 31 that violations would be considered violations against the Ethic's Act. Since the language states "may not commit or bind," she asked if this meant legislators who joined a caucus were binding other legislators. She wondered whether there could be multiple Ethic's Act violations occurring, and if so, what penalties would apply for legislators joining a caucus. SENATOR SHOWER said he initially thought the bill should impose a felony since penalties for bribery or coercion of a public official in Alaska are felonies. He characterized the repercussions for not adhering to the binding caucus as stressful. Not only did it affect legislators, but staff could lose their positions since leadership allots personal and committee staff. Furthermore, the legislature cannot bind a future legislature, yet binding caucuses bind legislators. He offered his view that a bad person could abuse that power. Although he is not locked into specific penalties, he thought consequences should be imposed, and he was open to the committee's suggestions. 2:12:27 PM SENATOR HUGHES asked for the current penalties related to violations of the ethics statutes to help determine the penalty provisions in SB 31. 2:12:57 PM SENATOR SHOWER said he was unsure. He noted that he had encountered some resistance to imposing a felony or other criminal penalty. Others thought it might hamper the legislature's ability to conduct business. Further, the courts have ruled that the legislature does not need to follow the statutes. He emphasized the importance of having some penalty; otherwise, he thought people would continue to require binding caucuses. 2:13:58 PM SENATOR HUGHES expressed an interest in the short answer on punishment for violating the Ethics Act. 2:14:18 PM At ease 2:21:51 PM CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting. 2:15:23 PM SENATOR KIEHL said he was torn because he was not a fan of binding caucuses and did not join one. He indicated he would like a deeper understanding of the binding caucus. He wondered if it meant that Senator X could not speak to the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee chair and say that if their amendment passed, they would vote for it on the floor, but if not, they would vote no. He asked whether that would be illegal. SENATOR SHOWER offered his view that what he described was already illegal. SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that that was not the case since his scenario discussed the policy implication of an amendment regarding where a member stands on a piece of legislation. 2:16:27 PM SENATOR SHOWER posited that this was splitting hairs. CHAIR HOLLAND agreed. SENATOR SHOWER offered to research it further. He agreed that Senator Kiehl's scenario would not apply. He stated that the bill does not limit discussion between members on bills since bills do not fall under binding caucuses. Instead, binding caucuses are limited to budget appropriations and procedural votes on the floor. 2:17:24 PM SENATOR KIEHL was unsure that the language on page 1, lines 8-10 related to a binding caucus. He turned to violations. He agreed that a handshake in advance of session about voting for the budget or on a procedural motion would be a violation under this bill. He asked about consequences afterwards that are understood. He related that in other states, the understanding is implicit that if a majority member votes against the budget, and there wasn't a handshake, repercussions would still occur. For example, these member's offices will be moved across the street, and some staff will get pink slips. It just happens that way. He asked how SB 31 will work if tradition determines the outcome. 2:18:48 PM SENATOR SHOWER acknowledged that unintended consequences could happen. He said one thing he was attempting was to prevent the formation of a caucus. He admitted it isn't possible to stop humans from bad behavior. For example, murder is outlawed, yet people are routinely murdered. However, he spoke against having an organization that dictates how someone must vote. He explained that SB 31 would ban binding caucuses for organizational purposes, making it more difficult for a Senate President or Rules Chair to punish a senator since leadership would need to garner enough votes to expel or punish the senator. Currently, the Senate President can make those decisions, and legislators who join a binding caucus but do not adhere to procedural votes or vote for the budget have no recourse. 2:21:59 PM SENATOR HUGHES stated that during the at-ease, the committee agreed to have an attorney answer questions, including identifying penalties for violations of the Ethics Act at a subsequent hearing. 2:22:55 PM SENATOR SHOWER solicited questions from members. He expressed a willingness to work with members on the bill. 2:23:31 PM CHAIR HOLLAND opened public testimony on SB 31. 2:23:59 PM MIKE COONS, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, spoke in support of SB 31 because a binding caucus disenfranchised the voters in his district. He stated that Senators Shower, Hughes, and Reinbold's constituents had their voices suppressed due to the binding caucus. As a result, tens of thousands of voices in the community were not heard. He offered his support for SB 31. It reminded him of the reaction when a bill was before the legislature that allowed for concealed carry weapons. Some people thought it would create the Wild West, but it has not. Some arguments for retaining a binding caucus were cohesiveness when passing the budget or a procedural vote because otherwise, Alaska would be like the Wild West. However, that hasn't happened. He said the current Senate does not have a binding caucus, and while dissent and disagreement occur, people are not silenced by a binding caucus. The House majority has a binding caucus, and he has heard some members fear they will lose their leadership positions if they don't abide by the caucus. He offered his view that the Senate was exemplary. He stated that SB 31 would create a clear means for all members to vote their consciences and support their constituents without anyone punishing them. He offered his support for establishing penalty provisions, and if the legislature decided to institute felony penalties, violators could be indicted and prosecuted. 2:27:51 PM CHAIR HOLLAND closed public testimony on SB 31. 2:28:00 PM CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 31 in committee.