HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE February 27, 1997 8:05 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jeannette James, Chair Representative Ethan Berkowitz Representative Fred Dyson Representative Kim Elton Representative Mark Hodgins Representative Ivan Ivan Representative Al Vezey MEMBERS ABSENT All members present. COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7 Supporting continued funding of the Alaska National Guard Youth Corps Challenge Program. - MOVED SJR 7 OUT OF COMMITTEE *HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to freedom of conscience. - HEARD AND HELD *HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska prohibiting the imposition of state personal income taxation, state ad valorem taxation on real property, or state retail sales taxation without the approval of the voters of the state. - MOVED HJR 7 OUT OF COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SJR 7 SHORT TITLE: AK NAT'L GUARD YOUTH CORPS CHALLENGE PROG SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PHILLIPS, Pearce, Leman, Mackie, Green, Kelly, Parnell, Ellis, Hoffman, Ward, Sharp, Wilken, Miller, Duncan, Lincoln, Halford, Torgerson; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Rokeberg, Grussendorf, Brice, Bunde, Ryan, Kubina, Masek, Mulder, Ivan JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/14/97 41 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/14/97 41 (S) STATE AFFAIRS 01/23/97 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 01/23/97 (S) MINUTE(STA) 01/24/97 124 (S) STA RPT 5DP 01/24/97 124 (S) DP: GREEN, MILLER, MACKIE, WARD, DUNCAN 01/24/97 124 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DMVA) 01/28/97 (S) RLS AT 11:09 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 01/28/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 01/29/97 160 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1/29/97 01/29/97 161 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 01/29/97 161 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 01/29/97 161 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 7 01/29/97 161 (S) COSPONSOR(S): PEARCE, LEMAN, MACKIE, 01/29/97 161 (S) GREEN, KELLY, PARNELL, ELLIS, HOFFMAN, 01/29/97 161 (S) WARD, SHARP, WILKEN, MILLER, DUNCAN, 01/29/97 161 (S) LINCOLN, HALFORD, TORGERSON 01/29/97 162 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1 01/29/97 164 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 01/31/97 182 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/31/97 183 (H) MLV, STATE AFFAIRS 01/31/97 207 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG, GRUSSENDORF 01/31/97 207 (H) BRICE, BUNDE, RYAN, KUBINA 02/07/97 277 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): MASEK 02/11/97 (H) MLV AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 17 02/11/97 (H) MINUTE(MLV) 02/12/97 312 (H) MLV RPT 7DP 02/12/97 312 (H) DP: MASEK, KOTT, MULDER, NICHOLIA 02/12/97 312 (H) JOULE, RYAN, FOSTER 02/12/97 312 (H) SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DMVA) 1/24/97 02/12/97 325 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): MULDER 02/27/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HJR 5 SHORT TITLE: CONSTIT AMNDMNT: FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/13/97 22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97 01/13/97 22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/13/97 23 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 02/25/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 02/25/97 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/27/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HJR 7 SHORT TITLE: VOTER APPROVAL FOR NEW TAXES SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/13/97 23 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97 01/13/97 23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/13/97 23 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 02/27/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 WITNESS REGISTER SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 103 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-4949 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SJR 7. JOHN MANLY, Legislative Assistant to Representative Terry Martin State Capitol, Room 502 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-3783 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 5. ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General Legal Services Section Criminal Division Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 Telephone: (907) 465-3428 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 5. MARY SHIELDS 3941 East 7th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telephone: (907) 333-9336 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 5. KEN JACOBUS 425 "G" Street, Number 920 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 277-3333 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 5. THEDA PITTMAN P.O. Box 201844 Anchorage, Alaska 99520 Telephone: (907) 258-0044 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 5. REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 502 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1185 Telephone: (907) 465-3783 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 5 and HJR 7. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 97-21, SIDE A Number 0001 The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by Chair Jeannette James at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives James, Dyson, Hodgins, Ivan and Vezey. Members absent were Berkowitz and Elton. SJR 7 - AK NAT'L GUARD YOUTH CORPS CHALLENGE PROG The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was SJR 7, Supporting continued funding of the Alaska National Guard Youth Corps Challenge Program. CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called on Senator Randy Phillips, sponsor of SJR 7, to present the resolution. Number 0086 SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS, Alaska State Legislature, explained SJR 7 was a resolution asking for the continuation of the funding for the National Guard Youth Program on Fort Richardson. The resolution requested that the U.S. Congress continue the program. The program was at the end of its third year of federal funding. He stated the program was very good, and that many were aware of the good deeds of the National Guard. In addition, there was a $250,000 appropriation proposed as a state match in the Governor's budget to continue the program. Therefore, by showing the state's commitment to the program, it should increase its chance to receive federal funding. He reiterated the resolution was a request of Congress to continue the program. The record reflected the arrival of Representatives Kim Elton and Ethan Berkowitz. Number 0218 CHAIR JAMES commented that she had heard good reports of the program and believed it was worthwhile. Number 0229 CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to move the resolution from the committee. Number 0237 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON moved that SJR 7 move from the committee with attached fiscal note(s) and individual recommendations. There was no objection, SJR 7 was so moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. CHAIR JAMES called for a brief at ease at 8:08 a.m. CHAIR JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting back to order at 8:10 a.m. HJR 5 - CONSTIT AMNDMNT: FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was HJR 5, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to freedom of conscience. CHAIR JAMES called on John Manly, Legislative Assistant to Representative Terry Martin, to present the resolution. Number 0425 JOHN MANLY, Legislative Assistant to Representative Terry Martin, explained that the resolution would put a constitutional amendment before the voters that would protect the freedom of conscience. It was important to distinguish between the freedom of religion and the freedom of conscience. He explained an individual had to have a freedom of conscience to choose a religion. An individual followed a conscience that told him or her what was right and what was wrong. Individuals that did not choose a religion also had a freedom of conscience. MR. MANLY further explained it was the Valley Hospital Association, Inc. v. Mat-Su Coalition for Choice court case that brought this issue to the fore front. The Valley Hospital offered abortions but the staff was reluctant to get involved. As a result, staff from Anchorage was brought in to participate. Ultimately, the staff choose to stop offering an abortion, of which, they were sued by the doctors. The judge in the court case mandated that the hospital continue to offer an abortion because it was a publicly funded hospital and an abortion was a protected right. However, it was also clear the judge decided that the freedom of conscience was not protected by the freedom of religion. MR. MANLY further explained that the abortion statute passed in 1970 included a disclaimer that if someone conscientiously objected to the procedure he or she did not have to participate in it. Moreover, the right of privacy passed in 1972 was a constitutional right that overrode the statutory freedom of conscience. MR. MANLY further cited an example in Australia in regards to its euthanasia law where the doctors were nervous about participating in that practice. The procedures of abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia were issues that people could object to participating in, and if their job was on the line, they should not have to make that choice. MR. MANLY further stated that there was a phrase in other state's constitutions that took care of problems of circumventing the paying of taxes, for example, because it was against one's conscience. Number 0815 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Mr. Manly what would be the situation if a medical staff member believed that blood transfusions were philosophically improper and refused to participate in any blood transfusion work? Number 0852 MR. MANLY replied that was an issue that needed to be discussed. He was familiar with the Jehovah Witness religion that was opposed to blood transfusions. Their opposition gave rise to the work of super cooling the body for open heart surgery. In his mind, the objection fell into the same category as a person who objected to killing babies; a conscientious objection due to religion. Number 0905 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Manly if a hospital would be prohibited from terminating the services of a person who objected to blood transfusions? Number 0928 MR. MANLY replied the hospital could terminate the services of that person, but then there would be a constitutional cause to sue for damages and/or to get his or her job back. Number 0949 REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS saw the negative end of the resolution and how it could be used against society. In addition, he was concerned about the wording on the ballot and the possibility that it could be misleading. He had no problem, however, with passing the resolution from the committee because the people would make the final determination. Otherwise, he would need more answers regarding its impact on society. For example, did this allow someone to not pay his taxes? he asked. Number 1027 MR. MANLY replied the states of Washington and Connecticut outlined freedom of conscience in their constitutions. They included a phrase that said the following: "but the liberty of conscience here by secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justified practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state." MR. MANLY further stated that the phrase could be interpreted broadly or narrowly. The phrase indicated that mayhem or the refusal to pay one's taxes, for example, was not allowed. Number 1081 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Manly when and who put the wording together for a ballot measure? Number 1093 MR. MANLY replied the wording would be as it appeared in the resolution. Number 1123 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS wondered, unless the resolution was amended, if lines 6-8 of the resolution were the only things that would appear on the ballot. MR. MANLY replied there would probably also be a preface statement. Number 1142 CHAIR JAMES explained the leading statement on the term limit issue on the ballot last year did not fully disclose what was being voted on. The Division of Elections created the ballot language with the approval of the attorney's general office. It was important to include a follow-up, however, so that the full intent was included in the preface statement. Number 1206 MR. MANLY explained that the ballot measure in 1970 asking for a constitutional convention was challenged in court because the preface language was misleading. Number 1263 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON announced he was not comfortable with the bill. He wondered how it would affect the private sector. He cited a timber company that encountered a couple of loggers who believed in the sanctity of anadromous fish streams and did not want to cut trees closer than 500 yards to a fish stream. He was also concerned that an amendment of this sort would create a playground for attorneys. Number 1320 MR. MANLY replied that Tamara Cook, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services, also believed that a string of cases would be brought to the courts, of which, no merit would be found. It was a valid point which was why the language from Washington and Connecticut was included; to address the issue of licentiousness behavior. Number 1392 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied that licentiousness was lewd and lascivious behavior. MR. MANLY replied that was the first definition. The first definition, according to Webster, was morally undisciplined or sexually under-restrained behavior. The second definition was having no regard for accepted rules or standards. Number 1419 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN asked Mr. Manly if he had a legal definition of freedom of conscience? Number 1438 MR. MANLY replied he had background material only. He did not have a legal opinion. Number 1461 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked Mr. Manly if it was not the right of a person to look for another job if he could not go through with a morally-opposed-to medical procedure? Number 1487 MR. MANLY replied the alternatives were: to quit or be fired. The question was: "Should a person have to quit or be fired, if he morally objected to a procedure that a hospital engaged in?" Number 1503 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked Mr. Manly would a person's defense be that he or she conscientiously objected to staying with the job and to performing the acts that he or she felt were morally wrong? Number 1520 MR. MANLY replied, "Yes, that would be your defense." A person would have legal action in the event he was fired. Number 1539 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated the courts would deal with the serious cases that would help build a pattern to define what was acceptable and protected. A good example was the Swammer case, of which, a landlord refused to rent to unmarried couples based on his religious convictions. The resolution, he explained, empowered the people to act on significant issues in concert with their own conscience, who did not have an underlying religious principle, but rather a strong, moral and ethical principle. Number 1608 MR. MANLY replied that was the main idea. Some people were protected by their freedom of religion. Although, that was not what the court found in the Valley Hospital case. In other words, the freedom of conscience was not protected by the freedom of religion. Number 1627 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Manly if the states of Washington and Connecticut had been inundated with frivolous suits? MR. MANLY replied, "I don't know." Number 1642 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Manly if information was provided to the committee members to move the suggested amendment he referred to earlier? Number 1650 MR. MANLY replied, "No." He did not include an amendment in the package of information. It was just a suggestion to consider. Number 1657 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Manly how the bill would affect the debate regarding Indian country? Number 1669 MR. MANLY replied, "I don't know." Number 1681 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated much of the Native community cited a strong reasonof conscience. Therefore, if an exemption for conscience was granted, it would be hard for the state to contest. Number 1701 MR. MANLY replied he did not understand the scenario Representative Berkowitz suggested. Was he concerned that the Natives would disregard the fishing and hunting regulations and statutes due to a freedom of conscience? he asked. He did not know, however, how that would affect the resolution. Number 1731 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that the House State Affairs Standing Committee just passed some bills adding restrictions to abortion. He asked Mr. Manly if a doctor would be able to use the freedom of conscience provision in order to perform an abortion? Number 1741 MR. MANLY replied, as long as an abortion was legal in the state he could already perform one. Number 1754 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated an example would be a minor who wanted an abortion without parental notification for a late-term abortion. Number 1761 MR. MANLY replied that would again depend on the final language of the clause and how it would appear in the constitution. Number 1771 CHAIR JAMES stated it appeared that the freedom of conscience allowed one to not do something that was otherwise legal. It did not necessarily allow one to do something that was illegal. CHAIR JAMES further stated that violating her conscience was the most painful thing that she could do. In addition, a conscience could be conditioned over time so it was very difficult to define, and it must be defined before allowing for its freedom. Number 1850 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained he had participated in court cases that involved this issue. He discovered that when a departure from the law was allowed, anarchy was created that served no one's freedom. Number 1883 MR. MANLY replied the language that he suggested adding would address the justification of acts that were inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state, and would allow for the avoidance of those types of court cases. Number 1952 ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law, declared that the division was opposed to HJR 5. "We as Americans revere our freedom, especially as Alaskans, our freedom of expression and thought." The freedom to behave in certain ways was guided by laws adopted by the legislators. The amendment allowed for a person to act according to his or her individual conscience without regard to the collective consciousness of the people and the laws-both criminal and natural resource laws. "I think this would open up a Pandora's box of epic proportions and it would allow anarchy," because criminal laws could be violated and the violations could be justified by a person's sincerely held conscientious belief that he or she had the right to do that. MS. CARPENETI further explained that the federal government passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that required a person to prove a sincerely held religious belief and allowed the state to overcome it through a compelling state interest. House Joint Resolution 5, on the other hand, was absolute. It allowed a person to behave according to his or her conscience without regard to the collective will or to the criminal statutes. Number 2061 CHAIR JAMES stated that the resolution, according to her understanding, allowed a person to not behave in a certain way if it violated his or her conscience. The discussion today, however, did not allow a person to do something, but allowed a person to do something because of his or her conscience. Number 2083 MS. CARPENETI read Section 25 of the resolution, "Freedom of Conscience. An individual may not be denied freedom of conscience...." Number 2088 CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Carpeneti how else could it be defined so that it was more restrictive rather than an approval of doing something? In other words, a person could walk away from something if it bothered his or her conscience. She cited a story of a neighborhood grocery that refused to sell tobacco or alcohol products despite the public pressure because of a belief. As a result, the people would go elsewhere to purchase their alcohol and tobacco products. A hospital was a different story, however, because it offered services. She could see both sides of the issue, but she could not see making a person perform a type of service, such as, an abortion if it bothered him or her. Number 2170 MS. CARPENETI replied language could be drafted to address her concerns, but it would not answer all of the problems. Language could be drafted so that a person did not have to act in a way that was contrary to his or her conscience. That, however, did not answer objections to paying taxes, for example. Number 2194 CHAIR JAMES stated the conscientious objector in World War II had to belong to a religion that did not believe in war. It was more a freedom of religion than a freedom of conscience. Number 2235 MS. CARPENETI replied during the Vietnam Era it was not a freedom of religion but a freedom of conscience; the objector had to establish that it was a sincerely held belief. Number 2252 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that there was a court case in Rhode Island during the Vietnam Era that expanded the belief beyond a freedom of religion to a freedom of conscience for the purposes of military service. Number 2270 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that the talk today concentrated on the negative side of the issue. The underlying question for the other side of the issue was: "Should we extend to non-religious people the right to make principled decisions about their activities?" Number 2296 MS. CARPENETI replied, personally, the amendment clearly allowed for that. It was not limited to a conscientiously held belief based on a religion. It allowed for a person to act according to his or her conscience no matter what it was based on. Number 2318 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Carpeneti if the constitutional battles surrounding a religious conscientious objection tied it to the consensus of a larger group thereby protecting it from anarchy? Number 2348 MS. CARPENETI replied, historically, organized religions in the early part of the century were more dominant. And, tying an objection to a religious belief was one way that a person could prove a sincere objection. Number 2369 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that the focus today had been on the issue of whether someone could be compelled to act. He wondered if an action always included a refrain from action. He asked Ms. Carpeneti is she agreed with that statement? Number 2380 MS. CARPENETI replied, "Yes." The amendment would cover actions and refrain from actions in terms of hospitals and abortions. It would be difficult to draft it so that it only dealt with positive actions, however. Number 2416 MARY SHIELDS was the first person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. The rationale of this resolution also applied to a doctor to perform an abortion at any time during a pregnancy; it would allow any doctor to practice euthanasia if it was part of his or her conscience; and it would allow any employer not to promote based on merit because "women really don't belong in the work place, and they certainly don't belong as managers in the work place." TAPE 97-21, SIDE B Number 0001 MS. SHIELDS further stated that she practiced her conscience, but she might not want somebody else to practice their conscience. She further wondered if the resolution meant that somebody could beat up a small, black child; or beat a wife/husband into submission. "When you start dealing with things like `freedom of conscience' and take it away from any type of consistent moral standard, I believe that we're opening a Pandora's box." Furthermore, if the resolution was moved forward, a huge fiscal note would be necessary because there would be many, many, many law suits. The resolution was conceived with a good purpose, but it would be devastating to the state of Alaska. Number 0064 KEN JACOBUS was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. It was unfortunate that the issue of freedom of conscience was tied to the abortion debate because it missed the point. He was also surprised that there had not been a reference made to the right of privacy. He supported the resolution in order to allow the people to vote on the issue. Furthermore, the right of privacy was already in the Alaska State Constitution which was exactly the opposite of the freedom of conscience. The right to privacy protected an individual's right to do something without governmental interference. The right to a freedom of conscience, on the other hand, protected an individual's right to not do something without governmental interference. The Valley Hospital court case was an extension of that freedom whereby a woman had the constitutional right to an abortion and she could use that right to force a doctor or a hospital to perform an abortion, even if the doctor or the hospital did not want to perform it. Otherwise, it was a violation of an individual's right. He reiterated, it was unfortunate that the issue of freedom of conscience was tied to the abortion debate and religion. The issues of the conscientious objectors to military service, the Jehovah Witnesses saluting the flag, the Amish paying taxes and social security, and the conditions of employment had already been resolved in freedom of religion court cases. It did not extend to someone of an organized religion but rather it extended to a religion, a conduct being religiously based, and a sincerity in the religious belief. This protection should also be extended to people who simply objected to certain acts due to a conscientious objection. Number 0226 THEDA PITTMAN was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. She opposed HJR 5 because of the sponsor's statement which read, "that providers of medical services such as doctors and nurses have been forced to perform or participate in certain medical procedures such as abortions." The statement was misinformed and it had nothing to do with the Valley Hospital court case. She explained, nothing in the court documents supported the assertion that the point was to force anyone to participate or assist in an abortion against his or her conscience. The record showed, however, that the union agreement for the Valley Hospital employees contained a conscientious objection clause specifically relating to abortions. The case showed that the plaintiffs had no problem complying with that clause and they experienced no problems during the two years of the temporary injunction that required the hospital to perform abortions. An example was made of a maintenance employee who wished to be exempt from working on any equipment that was used for an abortion in accordance to the bargaining agreement. The hospital denied the request on the grounds that working on the equipment was not participating in or assisting in an abortion procedure. In addition, the executive director testified that only two physicians cited their anti- abortion views-an Anchorage physician and a temporary physician. She was amazed that the pro-choice activists would want to force a doctor or a nurse to participate in an abortion. "Just imagine yourself as a patient, a patient for any medical procedure, do you really want someone working on you who has a moral objection to the procedure?" She asked the committee members to hold the resolution in the committee. Number 0331 REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, Alaska State Legislature, explained that throughout the history of mankind the freedom of conscience had always been recognized. This was exemplified in the ancient Hebrew writings. It was only later in Europe that individual rights and religious rights were talked about. At the same time the right of a conscience was talked about for those that did not have a religious belief. It was clear for those that immigrated to America, the freedom of conscience was much more important than the freedom of religion. REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN further stated that, according to the courts, the conscientious right to an abortion overrode the statutory conscientious clause in Alaska. Moreover, the Founding Fathers did not want to include every freedom into the Declaration of Independence because they did not want to limit the inalienable rights of future generations. He wondered if the inalienable right of the freedom of conscience was a guaranteed protection, or a statutory right that could be changed by the legislature at any time. REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN further explained this was a worldwide phenomena. He cited an example in Australia where a doctor did not want to participate in an euthanasia procedure. "Can we force anybody to take the life of somebody else, especially if we won't do it ourself?" he asked. REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN further stated that the Alaska State Constitution gave the freedom of exercise, but it did not give the freedom of conscience which needed to be addressed. Number 0567 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that the body was discussing the problems inherited with having 226 sovereign entities within the state of Alaska. The resolution would create 600,000 sovereign entities within the state of Alaska. He asked Representative Martin how the government would function when a person refused to obey the law due to a freedom of conscience argument? Number 0595 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied there were really 260 million individuals in the United State, and 4.5 billion individuals world wide that had a freedom of conscience. It was an individual freedom; it had nothing to do with ethnicity, values or nationality. Those who chose to use the right to disobey the law by speeding down the highway, for example, was not a freedom of conscience but rather a deliberate disobedience of the law. Number 0687 CHAIR JAMES stated part of the problem was that the term "conscience" had been used for a lot of improper things and it was hard to measure. She believed that her freedom of conscience was protected with or without a constitutional amendment because she had a choice to act or to not act. HJR 7 - VOTER APPROVAL FOR NEW TAXES The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was HJR 7, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska prohibiting the imposition of state personal income taxation, state ad valorem taxation on real property, or state retail sales taxation without the approval of the voters of the state. CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Terry Martin, sponsor of HJR 7, to present the resolution. Number 0774 REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, Alaska State Legislature, explained HJR 7 was another principle that should be ascertained as a constitutional guarantee. The Founding Fathers wondered to what degree an elected official could pry people of their earnings through taxation. Most other states had protections so that it was not as easy to get into a person's private earnings, such as, savings and retirement pensions. Most states required a two-thirds vote of both houses before a new tax was instituted. And, many states also required the approval of the people before instituting a new tax. The people usually approved of a new tax if it was reasonable. Most taxes, however, were not approved. In Alaska, a simple majority of the legislators was required to impose a new tax at anytime. "That's kind of scary, especially when we don't need the money." And, there was a constant threat to the people for a taxation in Alaska; the richest state in the country. Number 0895 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS announced he intended to become a co-sponsor of HJR 7 because the question of taxation should always rest with the individual on the street. Number 0935 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that HJR 7 move from the committee with the attached fiscal note(s) and individual recommendations. Number 0947 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives James, Dyson, Hodgins and Ivan voted in favor of the motion. Representatives Berkowitz and Elton voted against the motion. House Joint Resolution 7 was so moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. Number 0988 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN further stated in regards to HJR 5 that Section 1 of the Alaska State Constitution stated that all persons had a corresponding obligation to the people and to the state. This provision was similar to other state constitutions that included a freedom of conscience protection. Number 1044 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked what was the status of HJR 5? CHAIR JAMES replied it was sitting in the committee. ADJOURNMENT Number 1056 CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting at 9:16 a.m.