SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE  January 16, 1996 3:31 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Bert Sharp, Chairman Senator Randy Phillips, Vice-Chairman Senator Loren Leman Senator Dave Donley MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Jim Duncan COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 24 Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the transmittal of bills after passage, enactment of bills without the governor's signature, to vetoes, and to consideration by the legislature of vetoed bills. PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION SJR 24 - No previous senate committee action. WITNESS REGISTER Jim Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General Department of Law, Governmental Affairs Section P.O. Box 110300, Juneau, AK 99811-0300ΒΆ(907)465-3600 POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SJR 24 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 96-1, SIDE A SJR 24 CHANGE TIMING OF VETO OVERRIDE Number 001 CHAIRMAN SHARP called the Senate State Affairs Committee to order at 3:31 p.m. and brought up SJR 24 as the only order of business before the committee. The chairman asked Senator Donley, prime sponsor of SJR 24 to give the committee a review of the legislation. Number 015 SENATOR DONLEY stated that SJR 24 proposes changes to the Alaska State Constitution regarding the transmittal of bill documents, how vetoes work, and how special sessions would be called to deal with vetoes. Senator Donley informed the committee he has been working on this subject for about the last six years. He thinks there should be set time limits for transmitting passed legislation, and that not having specific lengths of time by which legislation must be transmitted has been an area of abuse by presiding officers. Everyone would be better served if there were specific guidelines in the Constitution addressing that area. Number 045 SENATOR DONLEY related details of SJR 24, which are contained in the Sponsor's Statement and SJR 24. SJR 24 would also require the executive branch to provide specific reasons for vetoing legislation. Number 060 SENATOR DONLEY informed the committee of the timelines and conditions set forth by SJR 24 for addressing vetoes. Number 140 SENATOR DONLEY stated that currently, the conditions set forth for having a special session to address vetoed legislation are ambiguous. SJR 24 would help clear up that ambiguity. Number 190 SENATOR DONLEY thinks a clarification could be made to SJR 24 if, in Section 4, the language on page 3, line 11 was changed from " A bill becomes law if," to "A bill unsigned by the Governor becomes law if,". SENATOR DONLEY thinks SJR 24 would technically clean up some ambiguities in the Constitution. Number 208 SENATOR LEMAN concurred with Senator Donley regarding some past abuses which were enabled by ambiguities in the Constitution. Senator Leman wondered why SJR 24 excluded Sunday from the count of days in most instances, excepting the portion of the resolution stating the legislature shall meet in joint session on the fifth day following receipt of the veto message. He wondered if that was an intentional omission. Senator Leman also wondered if it would be better to say, "within five days", instead of "on the fifth day". Number 230 SENATOR DONLEY explained that the resolution specifies the fifth day because of the way the Constitution is currently written. He suggested that Senator Leman's concerns could possibly be addressed in legislative intent. The Constitution currently specifies "Bills vetoed after adjournment of the second regular session shall be reconsidered...no later than the fifth day...", which is interpreted to mean the legislature is not required to meet. Senator Donley wants to convey his opinion that the legislature should always meet when legislation is vetoed. Number 250 SENATOR LEMAN agreed that it should be mandatory to meet to consider vetoes, but he would like to see the flexibility to meet at any time within that five-day period. Number 260 SENATOR DONLEY stated he would like to work with Senator Leman on a solution to Senator Leman's suggestion. CHAIRMAN SHARP asked Senators Donley and Leman to work on that issue. Number 270 CHAIRMAN SHARP also expressed concern over the practicability of the time-frames set out in SJR 24, particularly with regards to the duties of Legislative Legal Services. He would like that concern investigated. Number 285 SENATOR LEMAN wondered if SJR 24 would impact enrollment of legislation. CHAIRMAN SHARP wants clarified how SJR 24 would impact the last days' crunch of legislation. Legislative Legal Services will be contacted regarding that question. Number 310 SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked that the Senate Secretary and the Chief Clerk also be contacted regarding impact on those offices by SJR 24. CHAIRMAN SHARP called Mr. Baldwin to testify. Number 320 JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, Governmental Affairs Section, stated support for the first section of SJR 24. However, he thinks the legislature should establish the provisions of Section 1 of SJR 24 in Alaska Statute or the uniform rules, and not by constitutional amendment. He is concerned that a constitutional amendment would be too difficult to change, should it become necessary to do so at a future date. Mr. Baldwin thinks a constitutional amendment might be to inflexible and burdensome. Number 350 MR. BALDWIN stated support for the provision requiring the governor to provide statement of reasons for a veto. He thinks statements of objection should be comprehensive. MR. BALDWIN does not think a legislature should reconsider the vetoed legislation of the previous legislature. Number 375 MR. BALDWIN's final point was that the executive branch really likes the current rule giving the executive branch twenty days after adjournment of the legislature to review legislation. It is a work-load issue for executive branch staff. Both OMB and the Department of Law review all the bills for the governor, which is a time-consuming process. CHAIRMAN SHARP replied, as he understood it, SJR 24 would give finality in the second session. A new legislature would not be reconsidering vetoed legislation passed during the previous legislature. Number 390 SENATOR DONLEY added that if there was any question about that, he would be happy to clarify that it has to be the same legislature considering vetoes. He also does not have a strong feeling regarding Section 4. Twenty days is a reasonable request. Number 400 SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked Mr. Baldwin if can supply the committee with information regarding time limits and veto messages in other states. Number 407 MR. BALDWIN replied there is quite a bit of case law in other states relating to veto messages. He will try to find some information for the committee. SENATOR DONLEY recalled cases from other states where the governor did not provide information, and the case was over whether the veto was legitimate or not. MR. BALDWIN added that some of those cases found the veto invalid, because the information was not there. We have yet to see that litigation here, but he feels it's coming someday. Number 419 CHAIRMAN SHARP commented that under Section 3 he would like to see a finite time by when veto-override consideration has to be made. CHAIRMAN SHARP asked those who wish to do so to work on SJR 24 and then let the committee know when it is ready for consideration again. He will contact Legislative Legal Services regarding practicability of the time frames contained in SJR 24. SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked the chairman to also check with the Senate Secretary's Office and the Chief Clerk's Office regarding the practicability of the time frames contained in SJR 24. Number 439 CHAIRMAN SHARP replied he would do so. Hearing no other business to come before the committee, Chairman Sharp adjourned the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting at 4:00 p.m.