CSHB 414(JUD)-U.S.SENATE VACANCY/DEF OF POLITICAL PARTY  CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced CSHB 414(JUD) to be up for consideration and asked Representative McGuire's aide to identify himself. HEATH HILYARD, staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, sponsor, advised that the bill does two things. First, it addresses the process for filling U.S. Senate vacancies in Alaska statute. The 22nd Legislature changed the policy to allow the governor to make an appointment to fill a vacancy instead of holding a special election, as was previously the case. HB 414 makes the policy change again to redress the issues that were brought up including the concern about legislative intent regarding circumventing the initiative process. The sponsor, on behalf of the House Judiciary Committee, wants to go on record to refute the allegation. HB 414 ensures that the people have the ability to fill these vacancies through a special election. Second, the bill addresses the definition of political parties. Currently political parties are recognized after receiving three percent of the total vote in a gubernatorial election. The version of the bill under consideration changes that to include congressional elections as well. He further explained that sections 6 through 8 are housekeeping sections with regard to inserting "United States senator" in the language and enumerating the process by which special elections are conducted. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for verification that there is already a process for filling a vacancy for a U.S. representative and this addresses U.S. senate vacancies in the same manner MR. HILYARD agreed. SENATOR JOHN COWDERY thought he heard that the governor would still have the authority to temporarily appoint a replacement. MR. HILYARD pointed to section 3, AS 15.40.145, which specifically states that, "the governor may, at least five days after the date of the vacancy but within 30 days after the date of the vacancy," make a temporary appointment. SENATOR COWDERY asked, "What's the limit on the days left to require an election?" MR. HILYARD read section 2 of the bill and interpreted it to mean that there would be no more than a 90-day gap. SENATOR HOFFMAN asked what happens if the people like the current system and they want the governor to make the decision because it's more cost effective and quicker. He opined that this legislation circumvents the people that like the system. MR. HILYARD replied this is in response to the Trust the People Initiative and would change the system back to what it was. If Alaskan voters agree with the current system, they can vote no on the ballot initiative. SENATOR HOFFMAN said his point is that if this passes there won't be a ballot. MR. HILYARD said this legislation was introduced in response to voters that signed a ballot initiative. Although he understood the point, he said they haven't received much public response in support of the current system. SENATOR HOFFMAN insisted that the people should be able to decide whether they like the current system in which the governor makes the appointment versus spending time and money on a special election. "If we proceed with this bill we'll never find out." SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS agreed with Senator Hoffman's point that the bill is circumventing the public. She argued that everyone that signed the petition didn't do so because they want a change. Some people in her district want to vote to keep the process the same. With regard to Senator Cowdery's question, she said that she read the statute and she understands that if a vacancy happens on May 1 there would be a special election, a primary election, and a general election. "If it's 90 days within the primary, it's the primary. If it's 90 days within the general, it's the general." She asked for verification that if vacancies occur in the late fall then there would be three elections. "As you know, it's hard enough to get people to the primary let alone the general." She asked if they've discussed that at all. MR. HILYARD said he didn't have a copy of the existing statute with him, but he didn't think they'd addressed that particular point. He understood that section 2, which revises AS 12.40.140, would potentially address that point. SENATOR GUESS said it addresses it if the vacancy occurs within 90 days and the statute addresses it if it's within 90 days of a primary. "But if you're outside of that at all you're going to have ... three elections backed up in a year." SENATOR COWDERY chimed in to say you're not elected in a primary you're just a candidate. SENATOR GUESS replied, "Under the current statute if the vacancy occurs within 90 days of the primary, then the primary would be the special election." SENATOR COWDERY was still unclear. MR. HILYARD admitted he hadn't reviewed the provision closely enough to be able to answer definitively. CHAIR GARY STEVENS was comfortable with Senator Guess's interpretation. "It's pretty clear that there would be multiple elections." SENATOR GUESS asked if the person that's appointed could run for the office in the special election. MR. HILYARD asked Senator Guess to bear with him a moment. CHAIR GARY STEVENS commented that he saw nothing that would preclude... MR. HILYARD interrupted to say, "I was going to come to the same conclusion. I don't see anything that specifically precludes that." SENATOR GUESS asked if House Judiciary made that conscious decision because it's an interesting catch-22. The appointed individual could then run as an incumbent after as few as 60 days in office. MR. HILYARD said he didn't remember that specific issue being a topic of discussion at that particular hearing. He couldn't say whether it was discussed at any other time. "So I would say, my guess would be, no it was not a conscious decision to exclude that or to exclude that language that you're discussing." SENATOR GUESS said she would appreciate a response on that point from the sponsor and the committee. "It can definitely be used to gain the system in a way that I don't think the public necessarily wants." MR. HILYARD agreed to look back at the committee record to try to determine whether or not that point was addressed or any concern expressed. SENATOR GUESS noted that the statute still uses mail, delivery or telegram as the options for nominating and communicating. In fact, "At this point, no one could put themselves into this race by fax. That's the point that I'm making." Since some of the sections were housekeeping measures, she suggested it might be appropriate to clean up that sort of language. MR. HILYARD felt confident that that might have been an oversight on the part of House State Affairs and House Judiciary Committees. SENATOR GUESS referred to page 2, line 7 and asked whether the term qualified goes back to constitutionally qualified because she saw nothing in statute on qualifications. MR. HILYARD was fairly certain that refers to age and residency requirements. SENATOR GUESS suggested making that clarification. MR. HILYARD remarked that inserting "constitutionally" before "qualified" might work. SENATOR GUESS wondered why AS 15.40.075 was being repealed because the rest of the sections made sense. She acknowledged that she was the only member with the statute book and explained that the section refers to, "how someone declares in a prevailing time and some of the specifics that are going on." She asked Mr. Hilyard to get back to her on that point. MR. HILYARD conceded he didn't know why that was included, but he thought it was from the drafters. SENATOR GUESS said she knew the answer to the following but, "Although I see the legislative intent, I want to get it on the record that if this bill passes, and [indisc.] it's substantially similar so the initiative is pulled off the ballot, there is nothing that is stopping the legislative body from passing this next November. It just takes three days to pass a bill if people wanted to do that. And if the initiative goes through it would be two years before a statute change. Am I correct?" MR. HILYARD said that is correct. One Legislature can't bind another so even though that's in the intent language they can't provide for that statutorily. SENATOR GUESS stated for the record that her biggest concern is that this might develop the same way the initiative to increase and inflation proof the minimum wage did. The Legislature passed a bill similar to the initiative and then removed the inflation proofing the following session. "I think it's that type of gerrymandering, and I use that in the broad sense, that really gets the public not trusting us as legislators." CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted that he was aware that the newspapers wrote about the Legislature repealing the inflation proofing the next year. He asked Mr. Hilyard to verify that the sponsors of HB 414 said that that was not their intention. MR. HILYARD replied that is correct. That isn't the intent and Representative McGuire has made it clear that any effort to make that change would be, "over her dead body." SENATOR GUESS said thanks for the clarification and she trusts Representative McGuire at her word, but she heard the same argument from the sponsors on the minimum wage bill and it happened anyway. "And there wasn't a vote to try to leverage that support or even find out where people were with inflation- proofing and now it's gone." DON ROBERTS JR. testified via teleconference from Kodiak to say that he took issue with the definition of political party saying, "I don't think a vote for a particular candidate should be deemed support for a particular party. And I don't think a person should be put in a dilemma of voting for a particular candidate by supporting their party. I think it stifles political discourse and it results in a mindless 'vote for me' approach to campaigning that the people have to suffer through each election cycle." MR. HILYARD pointed out that page 4, lines 11-13 is part of the definition of "political party" and removing it would be "a substantial change in policy and one that was not necessarily our intent to completely eliminate." SENATOR GUESS said Mr. Roberts made a good point. She understood why the definition is being expanded, but she joined him in asking why have [the definition] at all. MR. HILYARD explained that recognizing a particular party by tying the votes an individual candidate receives has a long- standing policy. He wasn't sure why that definition was used, but "this expands it to give parties more opportunity to be recognized, thus a greater opportunity to participate in the political process." SENATOR GUESS asked if he knew the gubernatorial election in which this began. MR. HILYARD said he didn't have that information. There was no further public testimony. CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked Mr. Roberts for bringing the issue to light then asked if there were further comments or questions. SENATOR GUESS made a motion to adopt a state affairs indeterminate fiscal note. "I think we've talked about the multiple elections you could have in a year. I'm not sure why this bill has a zero fiscal note on it; it's really indeterminate. We don't know the cost to the state of this bill. We keep having multiple fiscal notes that say zero and it really isn't there, it's indeterminate. So I will move that at this time." CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked her to restate her motion. SENATOR GUESS said she was moving a state affairs indeterminate fiscal note on to HB 414. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if there was any discussion and there was none. SENATOR HOFFMAN noted the bill says it has no fiscal impact on the Division of Elections, but he assured members that a special election would cost money and the department should know what the cost would be. "At least, at a minimum, we have to have an indeterminate fiscal note." SENATOR COWDERY said, "That's assuming there is an election..." but there's no assurance there would be an election. CHAIR GARY STEVENS made the point that if the election were to take place at the same time as a primary or general election, then it would be difficult to separate the individual costs. SENATOR COWDERY added, "I don't even know how you come up with the fact that you're even going to have an election." SENATOR GUESS remarked that the previous discussion substantiates why the fiscal note should be indeterminate. "You don't know one way or another ... and that's an okay thing, but I think it needs to be reflected in this bill." CHAIR GARY STEVENS restated the motion and called for a roll call vote. The motion to adopt the indeterminate fiscal note failed 2 to 3 with Senators Hoffman and Guess voting yea and Senators Cowdery, Stedman and Chair Gary Stevens voting nay. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if there was further discussion. SENATOR GUESS asked if the committee was going to clean up the bill. CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced that he would prefer that the bill move on to the Judiciary Committee with the issues that were brought up. He asked for a motion. SENATOR COWDERY motioned to move CSHB 414(JUD) to the next committee of referral with individual recommendations and accompanying zero fiscal note. SENATOR GUESS objected and said she would speak to her objection. It's a slight disappointment in this committee as the issues that I brought up are all state affairs issues; they're not judicial issues except for maybe the qualified voter, which is a judicial issue. This body should be doing its work and not passing a bill to judiciary, per our Senate President, when there's issues about the appointment and whether or not someone who's appointed can run and some of these other cleanup matters and the fact that some of the statutes might be wrong. So, it's a slow process - besides the fact that it circumvents the public. SENATOR COWDERY said the sponsor's representative is aware of the questions that were raised and he would provide the answers to the next committee. MR. HILYARD confirmed that he would do so adding that he would be happy to personally brief Senator Guess. SENATOR GUESS thanked Mr. Hilyard. SENATOR HOFFMAN suggested that there wasn't a time crunch and he could see no reason not to hold the bill and work on it. "I didn't understand that we were going to be moving this today," he said. CHAIR GARY STEVENS stated that he would like to move the bill that day and unless he heard otherwise that's what would happen. SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if the committee could take a few minutes to amend the bill. CHAIR GARY STEVENS called an at-ease for a few minutes to discuss amendments. HB 414-U.S.SENATE VACANCY/DEF OF POLITICAL PARTY    CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced that the committee would return to HB 414. SENATOR GUESS stated that, "In a futile attempt to actually make a good bill - even though it seems that all you guys want to do is take this off the ballot - I move to delete page 3, line 31 to page 4, line 10. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked her to repeat. SENATOR GUESS restated her amendment. CHAIR GARY STEVENS stated that the motion was before the committee and he would like Mr. Hilyard to respond. HEATH HILYARD reintroduced himself and said that the sponsor would not object to that amendment. He noted that SB 356, a comprehensive election reform bill, had similar language, but for HB 414 they had no objection to the removal. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked him to tell the committee exactly... SENATOR COWDERY interrupted to say that he didn't write down the lines. SENATOR GUESS asked if he wanted her to say what the amendment would do. SENATOR COWDERY said no, just repeat so he could read it. SENATOR GUESS repeated, "page 3, line 31 to page 4, line 10." CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked her to explain the amendment. SENATOR GUESS explained that it takes away the 3 percent requirement for a political party to be recognized. "As you know, in Alaska 65 percent are registered non-party. People vote for the person not the party." CHAIR GARY STEVENS stated that he was speaking for the amendment and he believes it's a good idea. CHAIR GARY STEVENS called for a roll call vote. The amendment passed 4 to 0 with Senators Guess, Stedman, Cowdery and Chair Gary Stevens voting yea. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if there were further amendments. SENATOR GUESS remarked that in the short amount of time she had to make the amendment she would trust the sponsor to work on clean-up language. Because she thought it was an appropriate state affairs issue, she would make a conceptual amendment. She made a motion to adopt conceptual amendment 1, "which is that the temporary appointment may not run for the vacancy." SENATOR STEDMAN asked for her reasoning. SENATOR GUESS noted that she was pleased that the sponsor was present because there was similar discussion in the House. She explained that she is worried that the temporary appointee has an incumbency advantage. She thought that was at odds with the intent, which is to make a clean process that is separate from an appointment. SENATOR COWDERY commented that all sitting legislators are incumbents and two of the committee members were appointees. He simply didn't like the amendment. CHAIR GARY STEVENS recognized the sponsor. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE told Senator Guess that she understood her reasoning, but it wasn't her intent that the process would be manipulated to that extent. She said she was uncomfortable placing that restriction and if the appointee is the person the people want to elect in the special election, then she wants the people's will to be exacted. She opposed the conceptual amendment. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Senator Guess if she had any comments. SENATOR GUESS said it was a philosophical difference and there are good arguments on both sides. Her view is that the appointee would know from the beginning that they were filling a temporary roll. SENATOR COWDERY said his view is that would be taking away a citizen's right if that stipulation were made for appointments. CHAIR GARY STEVENS recapped that the amendment before the committee says that a temporary appointee could not run for that office in the special election. He asked for a roll call vote. The amendment failed 1 to 3 with Senator Guess voting yea and Senators Cowdery, Stedman and Chair Gary Stevens voting nay. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Senator Guess if there were other issues she wanted to address. SENATOR GUESS replied there were, but she would work with the sponsor on some clean up. SENATOR STEDMAN asked Senator Guess to get back to the members regarding any clean up language they might agree to. SENATOR GUESS said she would do so and asked if she could use the services of the Senate State Affairs Committee to order a CS that would reflect the clean up language. CHAIR GARY STEVENS said, "Okay and before us then a motion on the CS for HB 414(JUD) as amended." SENATOR COWDERY asked for verification that there was one amendment. SENATOR GUESS said that was correct. SENATOR COWDERY said I move... SENATOR GUESS called a point of order stating, "I think you need to remove your last motion because we made amendments and we had a motion on the table. So then Senator Cowdery can make the new motion. You have a motion on the table to move, correct?" CHAIR GARY STEVENS questioned, "Do we have a motion on the table to move it?" SENATOR COWDERY told Senator Guess he missed her point. SENATOR GUESS said, "I think you just need to remove your previous amendment to move and re..." CHAIR GARY STEVENS said, "Because if we remove the previous motion then now we're going to deal with the motion as amended. Okay if you would do that Senator." SENATOR COWDERY said, "I'll remove my object." CHAIR GARY STEVENS said he was ready for a motion. SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to move CSHB 414(JUD) as amended forward with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. SENATOR GUESS objected. CHAIR GARY STEVENS called for a roll call vote. The motion passed 3 to 1 with Senators Cowdery, Stedman and Chair Gary Stevens voting yea and Senator Guess voting nay. SCS CSHB 414(STA) moved from committee and the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 pm.