SB 126-REPEAL 90 DAY SESSION LIMIT  3:34:29 PM CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 126 "An Act relating to the duration of a regular session of the legislature; and providing for an effective date." 3:34:42 PM SENATOR GARY STEVENS, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of SB 126, stated that the Alaska Constitution recognizes a 120-day legislative session. In 1986, the legislature met longer than 120 days and passed 29 bills after the midnight deadline. After a court challenge, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that day one is ceremonial and therefore sessions are 121 days. SENATOR STEVENS provided an historical perspective of the 90-day session limit. He explained that in 2006, two legislators spearheaded a ballot initiative to end sessions after 90 days to accommodate their personal needs as a fisherman and an hotelier. The initiative narrowly passed, but the arguments used to pass it have proven to be untrue. He offered his belief that the 90- day sessions do not allow time for the legislature to do its work and the short duration allows the executive branch and lobbyists to dominate. The legislature needs relief from the statutory constraint of a 90-day session to return to the 120 days set forth in the Alaska Constitution. He deferred further introduction to Mr. Lamkin. 3:37:33 PM TIM LAMKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, stated that SB 126 simply repeals AS 24.05.150(b), which passed in 2006 and became effective in 2008, establishing a 90-day session. The bill restores the 120- day session, which is in line with the Alaska Constitution. [The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that day one of the legislative session is ceremonial and sessions therefore are 121 days. 3:38:03 PM CHAIR SHOWER recognized that Senator Costello had joined the meeting on Teams. He asked her to state her presence and location. SENATOR COSTELLO identified herself and stated that she was in her office, Capitol room 119. MR. LAMKIN began the PowerPoint presentation on SB 126 starting with the background and history. He explained that from 1913 to 1958, the Territorial Legislature met biennially for 60 days. A 60-day session was debated during the 1958 Constitutional Convention but it was voted down by a 20:32 vote. Without a limit, sessions were of varied length. In 1983 HJR 2 passed and the issue was placed on the ballot. The measure passed in 1984 with roughly 60 percent in favor of a 120-day limit. It passed with a margin of 52,000 votes. The 120-day sessions continued until 2007 when the 2006 ballot initiative pursuing a 90-day session became effective. CHAIR SHOWER asked if a pattern for session length emerged based on whether it was an election year or not. 3:40:54 PM MR LAMKIN said he had several graphs later in the presentation that would answer the question. He turned to slide 3 that depicts the official results from the November 2006 vote. He highlighted that this election was the third lowest turnout since 1976. The measure passed with a 3,800 vote margin and 6,800 of the voters took a ballot but did not vote on this issue. He offered his perspective that those who did not vote on the issue perhaps thought that the legislature should make the decision. 3:41:43 PM MR. LAMKIN displayed an excerpt from the 2006 election pamphlet showing the summary of the measure and the statement in support a 90-day session. A primary theme was that there would be a savings of 30 days of per diem and legislative operating expenses. However, there has been no change in the legislative budget. Monies were transferred from the session budget to the interim budget in anticipation of more interim meetings and special sessions, and the data shows this has happened. In fact, travel, per diem, and technical expenses associated with holding more interim meetings and special sessions have all increased. The promised cost savings have been a wash. 3:43:31 PM MR. LAMKIN said petition organizers circulated a graph showing that 27 other states have a shorter session than Alaska but it did not demonstrate the difference between Alaska's 120 "calendar" legislative days and states with "session" legislative days that only count the days the legislature is on the floor. For example, Hawaii has a 60-day legislative session but it met for 100 calendar days in 2020-2021. Indiana meets for 60 legislative days in odd years and 30 legislative days in even years but they just adjourned after meeting for 116 calendar days. He described the supporting argument as a twist on the facts. 3:45:05 PM MR. LAMKIN displayed a bar graph of the same data and pointed out that Alaska is squarely in the middle of the states and that SB 126 maintains that position. He said every state has its own reasons for setting the length of its legislative sessions but it does not matter. He turned to a graph of Alaska's legislative session days from 1970 to 2019. Responding to an earlier question, he confirmed that sessions tend to be shorter in election years. He directed attention to the wide variation in data points when there was no limit. In response to 160-day legislative sessions, the voters approved HJR 2 and the 120-day session took effect in 1984. He pointed to the relatively stable data points from 1984 to 2005 and highlighted that session lengths were again sporadic after the 90-day session took effect. He said he would argue that this graph illustrates that the 120-day session brought stability to the legislative process. 3:47:02 PM MR. LAMKIN said the third point in support of the 90-day session was that since 1990, 24 pieces of legislation were introduced but did not reach the floor in either body. He pointed out that legislation that has no chance of passing is introduced all the time; it is the legislature's prerogative to act or not act on any issue. Performance should not be based on the number of bills passed. He cited examples of perennial issues including abortion that has been introduced 67 times since 1990 and move the Capitol that has been introduced 31 times since 1990. Additional issues include oil and gas taxation, subsistence, pre-K, mining taxes, and compulsory school age. He said the sponsors' logic was not well founded. MR. LAMKIN pointed out that a 90-day session in no way restricts the legislature from calling itself into special session. The constitutional framers wanted to balance the power of state government by extending this authority to the legislature but it takes a two-thirds vote of each body. He pointed to the line graph on slide 18 of the total days the Alaska Legislature has spent in special session from 1959 to 2019. The governor has called a special session 37 times and the average duration was 16 days. The legislature called itself into special session 8 times and the average duration was 8 days. He highlighted that the frequency and length of the special sessions has increased substantially since 2006 when the 90-day session took effect. 3:50:11 PM MR. LAMKIN said the petition organizers also argued that reducing the length of the session to 90 days would encourage more people to run for office. He directed attention to the graph on the next slide that depicts the number of candidates over the past 60 years. On average, 152 candidates ran for a legislative seat in the 1960 to 2020 elections and 160 candidates ran in elections from 1960 to 2007. Since 2008 when the 90-day session took effect, 125 candidates have run for office, which he said is clear evidence that the 90-day session has not increased the candidate pool. MR. LAMKIN said he is a staunch proponent of balancing power between the people's branch of government and the executive branch and he believes the 90-day session directly shifts power from the legislative to the executive branch. The 90-day session is not working, he said. 3:53:11 PM SENATOR KAWASAKI commented that he believed in the 2006 initiative and he helped collect signatures, but it does not work the way it was intended. He said he tends to support the bill but he would like more discussion. 3:54:07 PM CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony SB 126 3:54:28 PM ADAM HYKES, representing self, Homer, Alaska, said the 90-day limit has rarely been met but he believes it is unwise to remove all constraints. He proposed the committee amend to bill to create a 120-day limit instead of simply removing the 90-day limit. He said he expects legislators to be professional and work together to achieve that end. He said he would not support SB 126 without the amendment. MR. LAMKIN said SB 126 would repeal the 90-day session in statute, but per the Alaska Constitution the session limit would remain 120 days. 3:56:16 PM CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on SB 126. He advised that written testimony on all the bills heard today could be sent to ssta@akleg.gov. SENATOR COSTELLO stated support for Mr. Hykes' suggestion. She offered her belief that the 90-day session costs more and adds uncertainty. She said she views aligning the statute with the constitution as a streamlining measure. She said she would be willing to offering the amendment herself or with Senator Kawasaki. 3:58:56 PM SENATOR HOLLAND stated support for the measure. 3:59:14 PM CHAIR SHOWER held SB 126 in committee.