SSTA - 2/22/96 SJR 24 CHANGE TIMING OF VETO OVERRIDE Number 453 SENATOR SHARP brought up SJR 24 as the next order of business before the Senate State Affairs Committee and called Senator Donley to testify. Number 455 SENATOR DONLEY, prime sponsor of SJR 24, stated they tried to incorporate the recommendations of the committee in a sponsor substitute for SJR 24, which is in the members' packets. At Senator Leman's request, he restored the "excluding Sundays" language throughout the timing sections of the bill, consistent with the present constitutional provisions. It was clarified that a subsequent legislature couldn't consider vetoed legislation of a prior legislature. The section regarding shortening the time frame in which the governor acts on bills following the adjournment of the legislature has been deleted. He thinks those are all the changes made to the legislation. Number 470 SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if Section 4 was removed. SENATOR DONLEY responded that section was completely removed. SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if this proposed constitutional amendment is put on the ballot, how will the public understand it? SENATOR DONLEY stated it will be difficult for them to understand it. Hopefully, people will read the voters' guide. He finds it hard to believe there would be much opposition to it, since it really corrects some empty areas in the constitution, as far as the transmittal of bills. The only area in which there may be some concern would be changing the way special sessions are called. At the same time, it seems like a reasonable method of polling members. Senator Phillips is right though: people may just see a lot of language and become confused or concerned with that much language and just vote "no". SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated that was his concern: that people would vote "no" because it's complicated. Number 500 CHAIRMAN SHARP stated he is concerned regarding the seven-day time period at the end of the session. With the massive amount of legislation that comes out of both bodies at the end of session-- this says, if it doesn't return within 48 hours, excluding Sundays, that they'll duplicate it and send it over. SENATOR DONLEY remembered that the committee asked him to check into that with the clerk's office. He stated that he has talked to the clerks, and they said that at no time they can remember have they ever not been able to transmit a bill within 24 hours. They have the capability of doing it. Now there have been times where they haven't been transmitted, but it hasn't been because the clerks couldn't do it. They said that, basically, even at the end of session they can move legislation in 45 minutes. They said they've never failed to get a bill over within 24 hours for any technical reason; it's always been because of a political reason. SENATOR LEMAN asked, they said that? SENATOR DONLEY replied yes. SENATOR LEMAN asked who said that. SENATOR DONLEY replied that what they said was they've never not been able to do it within 24 hours. And most of the time they say they can do it in 45 minutes, even at the end of the session. They're all ready to go, when the bill is passed. The only problem is if there are floor amendments, that slows them down a little bit. Number 520 CHAIRMAN SHARP stated it is his understanding that the procedure is that when a bill has made final passage, it is engrossed, and then enrolled. Another problem is that sometimes the president or the speaker is not in town to sign legislation. If that was the case, would the legislation automatically move up without their signatures, under SJR 24? SENATOR DONLEY replied that is correct. He does not know how else to address the problem of someone intentionally not moving legislation along. CHAIRMAN SHARP stated they have seen that happen for 30 and 40 days at a time. He is concerned that the security of final review by legal services not be breached though. He is also concerned with putting the clerks and the secretaries in the political situation of having to move bills without them being signed off by the presiding officers. SENATOR DONLEY stated the 24 hour provision is the shortest time frame that has to be dealt with. That is for returning the legislation to the body of origin. SENATOR DONLEY made a motion to adopt the committee substitute. CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated the committee substitute was adopted. CHAIRMAN SHARP commented he hasn't had anyone step forward and say it's not do-able. This resolution still goes to the Judiciary and Finance Committees. CHAIRMAN SHARP asked Mr. Baldwin to comment on SJR 24. He asked Mr. Baldwin if his concerns have been addressed in the committee substitute. Number 565 JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, stated he has a couple of comments, and they probably can be resolved in later committees. He thinks there is some new language concerning calling sessions to take up vetoes. He is particularly looking at the language that begins on page 2, line 29, which specifies that a joint session must be called before the legislature adjourns. He wondered if a provision like this could be used to extend the session, because once the legislature is in extra-special session there is no limitation on what they can take up. He sees the same problem in subsection (b) on page 3. So he thinks the implications should be thought out: not only may you be bringing on a special session for overrides, but you could be getting into other areas. SENATOR DONLEY replied to the last point, that he is not scared of the legislature in session. He understands why the executive branch would be. TAPE 96-14, SIDE B Number 590 SENATOR DONLEY stated that if there is business to do at that time, he thinks they should do it. So that doesn't concern him. The reason it doesn't concern him is that they would have to be violating the constitution in the first place not to hold the joint session. So to use this legislation to violate the 121 day session limit, they would have to break the constitution to get to that point. Unless Mr. Baldwin is going to presume that people are going to willy-nilly violate the constitution, then it shouldn't be a problem. MR. BALDWIN stated he agrees with Senator Donley that the first point he made is kind of remote. But the second one isn't. He has seen situations where legislators did not want a special session called, just as much as the executive. He asked that the consequences of not limiting the subject matter of a special session be considered. Once you're in special session, you can take up any matter. One way to take care of that would be to limit what you could do at a special session. Number 572 SENATOR DONLEY stated the reason it is drafted the way it is, is that if we start to qualify on what we're holding the special session, we'll never be able to reach a consensus. That is why it is phrased in a simple "yes" or "no". CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there are any questions for Mr. Baldwin. SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked Mr. Baldwin if he is going to write a little thing in the election pamphlet against SJR 24. MR. BALDWIN responded he works for the Division of Elections, and they couldn't ever do that. But there are plenty of public- spirited citizens willing to come forward to comment on legislation. CHAIRMAN SHARP stated he still has concerns over the length of time for getting legislation to legal services and back again. He would like to extend that 7 days to 14, excluding Sundays. SENATOR DONLEY commented he would have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN SHARP stated that in his conversations with legal services, they thought 10 days would probably do it, but 14 days would be very safe. Number 560 CHAIRMAN SHARP stated that if the sponsor does not have a problem with that, he would like to make a motion that on page 2, line 1 change "7 days" to "14 days" and add "excluding Sundays". SENATOR DONLEY stated he would agree with that. CHAIRMAN SHARP made a motion to adopt that amendment. CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection stated the amendment had been adopted. SENATOR DONLEY commented that he would really welcome other suggestions from members of the committee. SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked how he's going to market SJR 24. SENATOR DONLEY replied he hoped that they could talk to newspaper editorial boards and other things like that and convince them that it is really a good government proposal. SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated that one suggestion might be to have something in the election pamphlet explaining SJR 24. SENATOR DONLEY replied that the voter's guide has been pretty flexible. You could probably do that in the pro statement in the voter's guide. Number 530 CHAIRMAN SHARP stated another point that was brought up by staff was that to protect the Senate Secretary and Chief Clerk there should be language for verifying contact. The chairman suggested language specifying that legislators shall contact the Chief Clerk and the Senate Secretary in written form. SENATOR DONLEY stated that they could just insert "in written form". CHAIRMAN SHARP stated that language would be inserted after "indicated" on page 3, line 4. SENATOR DONLEY stated what might happen, if SJR 24 passes this session, that it would be alright if just the first section made it on the ballot this year, if the legislation was focused down to just that section. Number 490 SENATOR DONLEY made a motion to discharge SJR 24 from the Senate State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations. CHAIRMAN SHARP added, "As amended, with small fiscal note." Hearing no objection, stated SJR 24 was released from the Senate State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.