HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE February 15, 1993 1:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman Rep. Pete Kott Rep. Gail Phillips Rep. Joe Green Rep. Cliff Davidson Rep. Jim Nordlund MEMBERS ABSENT Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair COMMITTEE CALENDAR HJR 11: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to repeal of regulations by the legislature. PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HJR 1: Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska authorizing the use of the initiative to amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska by approval of two-thirds of the votes cast on the proposed amendment. HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE WITNESS REGISTER GAYLE HORETSKI Committee Counsel House Judiciary Committee State Capitol, Room 120 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-4990 Position Statement: Answered committee questions SANDY NUSBAUM Legislative Aide Rep. Gail Phillips State Capitol, Room 216 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-2689 Position Statement: Explained HJR 11 CHIP THOMA Juneau, Alaska 99801 Position Statement: Supported HJR 1 REP. GAIL PHILLIPS Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 216 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-2689 Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of HJR 1 THOMAS B. STEWART 925 Calhoun Avenue Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: 586-1220, 463-4741 Position Statement: Opposed HJR 1 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HJR 11 SHORT TITLE: REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE BILL VERSION: SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PHILLIPS,Brice TITLE: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to repeal of regulations by the legislature. JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/11/93 24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/11/93 24 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 01/21/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 01/21/93 (H) MINUTE(STA) 01/23/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 01/23/93 (H) MINUTE(STA) 01/30/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 01/30/93 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/01/93 196 (H) STA RPT 5DP 1NR 02/01/93 196 (H) DP: VEZEY, ULMER, OLBERG, G.DAVIS,KOTT 02/01/93 196 (H) NR: B.DAVIS 02/01/93 196 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 2/1/93 02/08/93 (H) MINUTE(ARR) 02/12/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 02/15/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HJR 1 SHORT TITLE: USE OF INITIATIVE TO AMEND CONSTITUTION BILL VERSION: SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PHILLIPS,Bunde TITLE: Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska authorizing the use of the initiative to amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska by approval of two-thirds of the votes cast on the proposed amendment. JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/04/93 21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 01/11/93 21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/11/93 21 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 01/19/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 01/19/93 (H) MINUTE(STA) 01/21/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 01/21/93 (H) MINUTE(STA) 01/23/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 01/23/93 (H) MINUTE(STA) 01/26/93 (H) MINUTE(STA) 01/30/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 01/30/93 (H) MINUTE(STA) 01/30/93 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/01/93 195 (H) STA RPT 4DP 2DNP 02/01/93 195 (H) DP: VEZEY, OLBERG, G.DAVIS, KOTT 02/01/93 195 (H) DNP: ULMER, B.DAVIS 02/01/93 196 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 2/1/93 02/01/93 196 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY 02/12/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 02/15/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 93-13, SIDE A Number 000 CHAIRMAN PORTER called the House Judiciary Committee meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. on Monday, February 15, 1993. A quorum was present. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that two resolutions were on the calendar: HJR 1, Use of Initiative to Amend the Constitution, and HJR 11, Repeal of Regulations by the Legislature. Before beginning the hearing on the two resolutions, Chairman Porter announced that the Speaker of the House had requested that the Judiciary Committee waive its referral on HB 134, An Act relating to temporary transfers of commercial fisheries entry permits. He noted that the bill had been referred to four committees. He explained that the bill would allow medically infirm limited entry permit holders, aged 65 or over, who had held the permit for at least ten years to transfer their permits on a year-to-year basis to other individuals. CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that he would not mind waiving the bill from committee, as he did not see any burning legal questions associated with the bill, and because it would be heard by three other committees in the House. Number 038 REP. DAVIDSON objected to the proposed action. He added that he was familiar with the bill from previous years. Rep. Davidson said that more and more limited entry permits were becoming private property, which invited the Internal Revenue Service to become part of the process. He felt that this would lead to a lack of control over the state's resources over the long term. Number 061 REP. PHILLIPS asked the Chairman which other committees HB 134 had been referred to. Number 067 CHAIRMAN PORTER said that the bill had been referred to the Fisheries, Resources, and Finance Committees, in addition to the Judiciary Committee. Number 072 REP. PHILLIPS moved to waive the bill from the Judiciary Committee based on the thorough review that she felt it would receive in its other three committees of referral. Number 080 REP. DAVIDSON maintained his objection to the waiver. He said that HB 134 would allow a person to hold on to a permit until his or her death. He asked what would happen in the event that a permit was in another person's name at the time the original permit holder died. He questioned who would get the permit in that case. Number 104 CHAIRMAN PORTER said that HB 134 would not affect that particular question. REP. DAVIDSON asked how that could be. CHAIRMAN PORTER said that the bill would allow the permit holder, if he or she met the other criteria, to let someone else use the permit instead, on a year-to-year basis. If the permit holder were to die, the question of transference would be the same as it was now, he added. Number 123 REP. NORDLUND asked who sponsored the bill. CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that Rep. Moses was the sponsor of HB 134. A roll call vote on whether members supported waiving HB 134 from the Judiciary Committee was taken, with five yea votes and 1 nay vote. Number 150 REP. DAVIDSON asked if HB 134 was currently before the committee. CHAIRMAN PORTER said that it was not. REP. DAVIDSON said that bills were typically not waived from a committee until they were before that committee. MS. GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, said that Tam Cook from the Legislative Legal Services Division had indicated that it was permissible to waive a bill from committee although the bill had not yet reached that particular committee. Number 163 CHAIRMAN PORTER said that he had wanted to discuss the waiver with the committee members, although he, as the chairman, could have waived it without their knowledge or consent. He said he would ask that HB 134 be waived from committee the following day during the floor session. HJR 11: REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that Rep. Phillips had been called away, but said her aide, Sandy Nusbaum, would appear before the committee to testify on HJR 11. Number 191 SANDY NUSBAUM, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO REP. GAIL PHILLIPS, read Rep. Phillips' testimony on HJR 11. (A copy is on file in the House Judiciary Committee.) Ms. Nusbaum said that HJR 11 was a proposal to place a constitutional amendment before the voters that would allow the legislature to take action on regulations promulgated by state agencies that might not properly implement laws passed by the legislature. MS. NUSBAUM mentioned that the 1st Alaska Legislature allowed for annulment of regulations, but a 1980 Supreme Court decision held that the legislature could overturn regulations by passing a bill. However, she noted that a bill could be vetoed by the governor or repealed by a referendum. A resolution annulling a regulation could not. MS. NUSBAUM added that adoption of a joint resolution annulling a regulation would require the approval of a simple majority of each chamber. She commented that many regulations did conform to and support laws passed by the legislature, but sometimes regulations went far beyond the scope and intent of the law. MS. NUSBAUM said that she often recommended that legislators look at the regulations that had been adopted to conform with their own bills that had been enacted into law. She noted that most legislators never looked at the regulations. MS. NUSBAUM stated that once in effect, regulations had all the force of law, although no elected officials had approved them. She said that Rep. Phillips believed that the framers of the Alaska constitution never intended that any governmental body, except the legislature, had the power to make laws. MS. NUSBAUM spoke of the system of checks and balances in our system of government. One area that lacked those checks and balances was that of administrative regulations. She said HJR 11 would add regulations to the areas of government that were part of the checks and balances system. MS. NUSBAUM said that this resolution had been before the 17th Alaska Legislature. It passed the Senate unanimously, was reported out of the House State Affairs and House Judiciary Committees with unanimous "do pass" recommendations, and received an endorsement from the Joint Committee on Administrative Regulation Review. It failed to be taken up for a vote on the House floor in the final minutes of the session. MS. NUSBAUM called the members' attention to the back-up materials provided in their packets. She mentioned that statements in past voters' pamphlets regarding this proposed amendment to the constitution were poorly written and difficult for the voters to understand. She stated that she understood that the attorney general was opposed to HJR 11, but Lt. Governor Coghill, one of the framers of the Alaska constitution, supported the measure. MS. NUSBAUM said that a small fiscal note was attached to HJR 11 - $2.2 thousand dollars to place the measure on the ballot. She offered to answer any questions the members might have. Number 298 REP. KOTT asked if the House held a floor vote on the measure last year. Number 302 MS. NUSBAUM said that the measure did not receive a floor vote. She noted that it was killed within a minute and a half of adjournment, for political reasons. Number 309 REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Nusbaum if HJR 11 would put a great deal of administrative work before the legislature. Number 316 MS. NUSBAUM said she thought that the opposite would be true: the volume of regulations filed by the state agencies would be reduced. Number 319 REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Nusbaum why she believed this to be the case. Number 320 MS. NUSBAUM replied that this measure would make agencies think twice before promulgating regulations. Number 333 REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Nusbaum if she felt that HJR 11 would alter our government's system of checks and balances. Number 338 MS. NUSBAUM said that it depended on whose checks and balances Rep. Davidson was concerned with protecting: the legislature's or those of the executive branch. She said that when the administrative regulation system was first put into place, it was called "policies and procedures." A bill became law and the agencies came up with a system for implementing that law. Now the implementation was more law than policies and procedures, she said. Ms. Nusbaum added that agency personnel did not have the last word on the regulations, but the Department of Law did. Number 356 REP. DAVIDSON asked if HJR 11 would place the legislature in an enforcement role as well as a policy making role. Number 366 MS. NUSBAUM responded that when regulations were more stringent than their governing statutes, the legislature should have the right to repeal them. Number 372 REP. NORDLUND requested that Ms. Nusbaum give the committee some examples of regulations that did not carry out legislative intent or that went beyond the authority of their governing statutes. Number 378 MS. NUSBAUM mentioned regulations pertaining to corporal punishment in schools. She commented that it should not require a hue and cry from the public and the legislature to get agencies to back off from certain regulations. She said that Lt. Governor Coghill could cite examples from the Water Quality Act and the Mining Act as well. MS. NUSBAUM asked Rep. Davidson if he had ever gone back and looked at regulations which pertained to his bills that had been enacted into law. Number 393 REP. DAVIDSON said that he had done so. MS. NUSBAUM asked Rep. Davidson if he felt good about those regulations. REP. DAVIDSON noted that he felt that the agencies had done an incomplete job of dealing with the most recent water bill that he had passed, because they had only implemented regulations for those provisions that they supported. Number 400 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Nusbaum if she were aware of how many other states had provisions similar to HJR 11 in place. Number 401 MS. NUSBAUM said that she did not know the answer to Chairman Porter's question. Number 411 MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to a letter in their packets from the Department of Law opposing HJR 11. Number 418 CHAIRMAN PORTER called a brief at-ease while the committee members reviewed the letter. Number 451 REP. GREEN moved that HJR 11 be passed out of committee with individual recommendations. Number 455 REP. DAVIDSON and REP. NORDLUND objected. Number 457 REP. NORDLUND indicated that he, as a member of the legislature, would probably support HJR 11. He stated that he believed there were incidences of regulations written beyond the intent of their governing statutes. He noted his fear that HJR 11 could make the legislature less vigilant in its drafting of statutes, knowing that it was possible to tinker with the law later by overturning regulations. Number 477 REP. DAVIDSON commented that when the legislature did not get its way, it simply went back and changed the statutes. He said that he liked the system the way it was, as it forced the legislature to write tight statutes. He stated that the voters of Alaska had shown repeatedly over the last 13 years that legislative repeal of regulations was not a good idea. The legislature did its part, he added, and other sections of government did their parts. The legislature might not like what the other arms of government did, he said, but the legislature's response ought to be to do its part more carefully. REP. DAVIDSON stated that the resolution should be brought back before the committee for more discussion and testimony. He indicated that he would like to hear from constitutional law experts on the issue. He said HJR 11 could be a momentous change to our government and thus merited a great deal more discussion. Number 512 REP. GREEN commented that he felt that HJR 11 was long overdue. If the legislature passed a law and a state agency misinterpreted that law, there should be a mechanism for overturning the misinterpretation, he said. He noted that a misinterpretation might signify a flaw in the statute. Rep. Green said HJR 11 would give the legislature the opportunity to discuss the intent of the law with the regulation drafters. Number 539 REP. KOTT stated that he agreed with Rep. Green. He noted that given the opportunity, many agency officials might exceed the intent of the legislature to address their own personal agendas. He said that HJR 11 would place a check on those officials. Obviously, he added, the legislature was not able to restrict regulation writers too much. But, he said, he felt HJR 11 would prevent agency officials from stepping out of bounds. Number 555 REP. DAVIDSON commented that the legislature had the responsibility to make laws that people could understand and that were tight enough to prevent bureaucrats from going against the lawmakers' wishes. He added that to take power from other government arms and give it to the legislature was a bad idea. He said it was easy to put the hammer down on bureaucrats who found it impossible to do anything right, because different groups wanted things done in completely opposite ways. He reiterated that the current system in place was a good one. Number 585 REP. GREEN replied that he felt it was not the legislature's intent to pass power to the regulation drafters. The regulations should mirror the intent of their governing statutes, he noted. The check provided by HJR 11 was needed, he asserted. Number 600 REP. DAVIDSON commented that the legislature's power came from the people who sat in the witness chair and called the legislators on the telephone to explain problems that existed in the state. Number 606 CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated his intention to support HJR 11. He said he felt that regulatory authority was quasi- legislative and was a delegation of the legislature's authority to the executive branch. He commented that the legislature should maintain that authority through control of regulations. He added that he saw HJR 11 as a means by which to do that. CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that Rep. Phillips had rejoined the committee. A roll call vote to pass HJR 11 out of the Judiciary Committee was taken, with the result of five yeas and one nay. Chairman Porter announced HJR 11 was passed out of committee with individual recommendations. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HJR 1, relating to the amendment of the constitution by initiative, was the next item of business before the committee. HJR 1: USE OF INITIATIVE TO AMEND CONSTITUTION CHAIRMAN PORTER called Mr. Chip Thoma to address the committee. Number 631 CHIP THOMA said that he strongly supported HJR 1, which he said addressed certain inequities in the law and in the constitution. He noted that he had also testified in support of SJR 6, a similar measure. He said that HJR 1 allowed citizens access to the constitutional amendment process, access which they currently do not enjoy. MR. THOMA commented that were HJR 1 to pass, it was his intention to place constitutional amendments relating to recall on the ballot. MR. THOMA noted that Article 11, Section 8, of the Alaska constitution currently said that statutes governing recall were to be made up by the legislature. He cited his involvement in the recall movement over the previous 18 months. In researching the constitution, he and others found that the drafters had made the recall process unattainable. MR. THOMA mentioned that his intention was to offer amendments reducing the requirements from the present two step process to a one step process. Additionally, he said that he planned to offer amendments reducing the number of signatures needed from 45% of those who voted in the most recent election, to 5% of those voters. He noted that Ross Perot got on the Alaska ballot with the signatures of only 1% of the voters. MR. THOMA added that he intended to offer amendments eliminating all legal challenges and judicial review from the recall process. He said that it was up to the citizens to determine the veracity of statements being made for a recall. As an Anchorage judge recently ruled (on a school board recall issue), it was not up to the attorney general and Mr. Edgar Paul Boyko to challenge the recall and thus delay it through court action. MR. THOMA noted that the first step of the recall process had been accomplished at a cost of under $10,000. However, court challenges during the second stage of the recall process were ensuring that those who wanted to have a recall vote would pay a high price for it. MR. THOMA summarized that his intended program was to make the recall process shorter and less costly. He said that he had spoken with Rep. Martin, who was sponsoring a similar measure. Rep. Martin had indicated that all states that allowed initiatives and referenda required only a simple majority, not a 2/3 majority. He said it was very easy to get 1/3 of Alaskans to oppose any measure. He expressed his opinion that a simple majority requirement should be a part of HJR 11, as was the case with all other initiative and referendum laws. MR. THOMA commented that the recall movement had spent four months negotiating with the Department of Law over the wording of the recall. The department had signed off on all language, he said; however, the department still challenged the recall. He expressed his opinion that the challenges were dilatory tactics and that Mr. Boyko and Attorney General Cole should be chastised for their actions. MR. THOMA summarized his comments by saying that the recall process was currently very onerous and that his intention was to streamline and simplify it. For that purpose, he said, he supported HJR 11. He stated that he was not a constitutional scholar, but he did not find anything else wrong with the constitution. He felt that the recall process was one glaring exception. Number 702 REP. GREEN asked if the legislature could pass a law saying that something could not be challenged by a court. Number 708 MR. THOMA said that he doubted the legislature would take such an action, but he said they did have that authority. Number 715 REP. KOTT asked if the sponsor of HJR 11 could address the committee. Number 720 REP. GAIL PHILLIPS, PRIME SPONSOR, explained that HJR 1 proposed amendments to the constitution which would allow the use of the initiative process to amend the constitution if approved by 2/3 of the voters. She said that under current law, voters could propose and enact laws by initiative and approve or reject acts of the legislature by referendum. REP. PHILLIPS noted that the Governor had asked for support for constitutional amendments through the initiative and referendum process during his State of the State address. She explained that only the legislature, by a 2/3 vote of each body, could recommend that a proposed amendment to the constitution be put before the voters. She said that she recommended that the same 2/3 requirement be put into place for the initiative process to amend the constitution. REP. PHILLIPS described the initiative process to the committee members. She noted that currently, 21 states allowed for the initiative process and 17 of those states allowed amendment of the constitution via that process. She then called the committee members' attention to the background materials in their files. (A copy of Rep. Phillips' written testimony is on file in the House Judiciary Committee.) CHAIRMAN PORTER thanked Rep. Phillips for her testimony and apologized for not hearing her comments first. He called Judge Tom Stewart to the witness table to address the committee. Number 766 JUDGE TOM STEWART, A RETIRED STATE OF ALASKA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, expressed his firm opposition to HJR 1. He mentioned that he had been elected to the House in 1954 and had chaired the Committee on Statehood and Federal Relations that called the Constitutional Convention. He noted that he had been involved in constitutional issues since that time. He said he had consulted experts all over the country on constitutional questions. He mentioned that many of those experts had been involved in writing state constitutions. Number 807 JUDGE STEWART said that he had learned that it was vital to not take actions on constitutional questions without undertaking extensive research. He said it was important to learn the potential consequences of particular language and policies before they were added to the constitution. TAPE 93-13, SIDE B Number 000 JUDGE STEWART said that 21 states had the amendment by initiative process and that experts had studied what had happened in those states. He spoke about the process by which the Alaska constitution had been written and the intensive study that surrounded that process. The single issue of how the constitution could be amended was studied and debated intensely for 60 days, he said, and the amendment by initiative process was decisively rejected at that time. He said that the committee should not take quick action on this issue. Number 049 JUDGE STEWART pointed to the state of California's constitution as an example of what could happen with the amendment by initiative process. He mentioned the many internal inconsistencies within the California constitution. He stated that the California supreme court had a horrible job trying to decipher the meaning of its constitution. He said that one of the reasons that the California constitution was one of the worst in the nation was because of the amendment by initiative process. JUDGE STEWART noted that every California ballot contained a long list of amendments to the constitution and voters did not have the opportunity to consider the significance of those amendments. He said the amendments were generally the product of special interest groups with narrow concerns. He added that the amendments did not take into consideration the balance of the constitutional language. JUDGE STEWART spoke of our nation and our state as republics. He noted that the responsibility of carrying out governmental functions was placed in our representatives. He mentioned that the legislature debated changes in law, but the initiative process was a yes-or-no situation for the voters. There was no opportunity to amend the language in that situation, he noted. The lack of deliberation in the initiative process smacked of irresponsible government, he added. JUDGE STEWART commented that at the Constitutional Convention, language was never accepted without being amended for clarity first. He said that if he were in the committee members' shoes, he would be extremely reluctant to act on HJR 1 without consulting many constitutional experts. He reiterated that the issue of amendment by initiative was deeply considered by the Constitutional Convention delegates, but in the end was rejected. Number 210 JUDGE STEWART stated that if HJR 1 were to pass, he expected that one of the first amendments to be offered would be to elect the attorney general. He said there existed a popular notion that the attorney general was the attorney for the people. However, looking at the states where the attorney general was an elected official, the governor of those states had no responsible legal advisor. He noted that the function of the attorney general was to provide legal advice to the governor. If a governor did not have a loyal attorney general, the governor's program would be thwarted. He noted that in states that elected their attorneys general, that office was a springboard to the governorship. In those cases, the attorney general often sought to thwart the governor's programs and make her or him look bad. Number 247 JUDGE STEWART also predicted that the amendment by initiative process would cause the legislature to lose control of the budget. He said that constitutional amendments restricting the legislature's authority to deal with budget issues would be passed by initiative. He cited the need for Alaska to impose new taxes due to declining oil revenues. He said that he feared that the amendment by initiative process could tie the legislature's hands with regard to taxation issues. He called Rep. Martin's HJR 9 "nonsense" because people were not in a position to determine the financial problems of the state and to weigh whether or not a tax should be imposed. Number 285 JUDGE STEWART cited the disastrous effects of California's Proposition 13, which he said tied the hands of the governor and the legislature in making responsible budget decisions. At a minimum, he said, the legislature should not act on this measure during the first year of its two-year session. He stated that the measure should be studied over the interim by a special committee that would consult with constitutional experts. He added that the use of a 2/3 or a 3/4 vote was not the answer to many of the problems inherent in the amendment by initiative process. Number 312 JUDGE STEWART cited the constitutional budget reserve fund amendment as an example of the problems created when the language of an amendment was not treated carefully. He called the language in the amendment nonsensical. He warned that the amendment by initiative process would result in many more similar instances. JUDGE STEWART said he was not trying to say that the constitution should not be amended. He stated that the constitution failed in some respects, including the apportionment process. The language regarding apportionment was obsolete, he noted. The whole apportionment process ought to be revisited in consultation with experts in the field. Judge Stewart added that there were other areas of the constitution which he felt needed to be amended. Number 356 JUDGE STEWART acknowledged that perhaps the provisions that we had for amending the constitution were too restrictive. However, he noted, there were alternatives to HJR 1, including the creation of a Constitutional Revision Commission charged with reviewing and researching proposed constitutional amendments. The Commission could then report to the legislature on its findings. He named a number of experts who could consult with the legislature on the question of constitutional amendments. JUDGE STEWART urged the committee to consult with experts before altering the pattern of amending the constitution, which was written the way that it was under the advisement of experts in the field of constitutional law. He expressed his deep personal concern with tampering with the fundamental structure of the government without adequate study of potential consequences. JUDGE STEWART said the state of Utah had a standing Constitutional Revision Commission, and he urged the Alaska legislature to make contact with that body before taking the far-reaching step of endorsing HJR 1. Number 456 CHAIRMAN PORTER thanked Judge Stewart for his remarks. Number 459 REP. PHILLIPS asked Judge Stewart if the legislature had, in the past when amending the constitution, invoked a committee on style and grammar to review the language. Number 466 JUDGE STEWART said that to his knowledge that had not occurred. In the old days, however, he noted that there were more lawyers in the legislature. Those people had been trained in the use of clear language, he added. However, some lawyers obfuscated. He said that his own personal style used short, clear sentences. But, he noted, that was the most difficult language to write. He cited the constitutional budget reserve fund language as an example of very complicated, unclear language. He said amendments to the constitution reflected the failure of the legislature to review language for style and grammar. JUDGE STEWART predicted that HJR 1 would have disastrous effects. He reiterated that he was not opposed to amendments, but he favored very carefully considered amendments. He urged the committee to look to California and Washington to see what sort of problems amendment by initiative could bring about. Number 538 JUDGE STEWART remarked that he believed the Alaska constitution to have a serious error in that it required bond issues to be voted on by the people. Number 545 JUDGE STEWART said the legislature did not study the impact of a given bond issue on the overall state budget. They abdicated that responsibility to the voters, who were not in the position to say how a given bond issue weighed against all of the state's other bond issues. He expressed his opinion that the legislature ought to be responsible for bonds. Number 576 JUDGE STEWART again urged the committee to exercise great caution and to study the issues carefully before taking action on HJR 1. Number 580 REP. KOTT thanked Judge Stewart for his enlightening comments. He asked Judge Stewart if he were familiar with the Louisiana constitution, which had been rewritten during the 1970s. He asked Judge Stewart if all states that had amendment by initiative were inundated with constitutional amendments on the ballot. REP. KOTT also questioned Judge Stewart on specific provisions of the California constitution. Number 608 JUDGE STEWART indicated that he could not answer Rep. Kott's questions and noted that his lack of expertise was precisely the reason why he was urging the committee to consult with experts. Number 610 REP. PHILLIPS also thanked Judge Stewart for his lesson in political science. She complimented Judge Stewart's suggestion that a Constitutional Revision Commission be created. Number 621 CHAIRMAN PORTER thanked Judge Stewart for addressing the committee. He related an anecdote from his days as a regulation writer, when a co-worker told him that he should "eschew obfuscation." He noted that Judge Stewart's example of the budget reserve fund constitutional amendment was very appropriate, as the committee was considering a bill, the purpose of which was to clear up ambiguity resulting from that amendment. REP. DAVIDSON expressed his appreciation for Judge Stewart's work on the Alaska constitution and for raising alarm about the seriousness of HJR 1. He said he hoped that the issue would be seriously researched before the legislature acted upon it. Number 661 CHAIRMAN PORTER appointed a subcommittee of Rep. Phillips, Rep. Green, and Rep. Nordlund to research HJR 1 and the possible formation of a Constitutional Revision Commission. He asked the subcommittee to report back to the committee in three weeks. Number 674 REP. DAVIDSON asked that the full committee be given the opportunity to hear from constitutional experts and from those knowledgeable about the experience that California had had with the amendment by initiative process. CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that he would ask that the subcommittee publicize meetings where testimony of that nature would be taken so that the rest of the committee could attend those meetings. Number 688 REP. KOTT reiterated his appreciation for Judge Stewart's remarks. He asked if any other constitutional drafters were still alive. He also asked if Judge Stewart would be willing to chair a Constitutional Revision Commission, if one were formed. Number 693 JUDGE STEWART said that there were delegates to and advisors for the Constitutional Convention who were still alive. Number 734 REP. PHILLIPS commented that two years before there had been a meeting of all of the remaining drafters of the constitution. Number 741 REP. KOTT again asked Judge Stewart if he would chair a Constitutional Revision Commission. Number 744 JUDGE STEWART said that he would be willing to chair the Commission, but due to his age, the committee ought to consider others for that role. Number 748 REP. KOTT distributed some additional materials relating to HJR 1 to the other members. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 2:45 p.m.