I posted my running notes of the hearing, (and I've since added a minute of video) but now I'll try to give an overview of what I thought were the key questions raised and the responses as best as I heard and understood them.
I think the basic questions the committee members were asking were:
What Alaska laws are now void?
Are there now fewer restrictions on corporations than on people regarding campaign contributions?
Corporations are a fiction created by the state. If the state creates them, could not the state impose restrictions?
Could a foreign corporation spend unlimited funding to influence an Alaskan election? What about a state corporation owned by foreigners?
Given the session is only 90 days what can we do and what should we do to protect the integrity of the elections? And will your analysis be done before the session is over?
I'm sure that I did NOT catch the answers to these questions completely, but I'll give it a general sense.
What Alaska laws are now void?
The case does not affect
Disclosure laws
Direct contributions to candidate
The case does affect
Independent expenditures for speech (which I understood as issue ads or ads that were done completely independently of a candidate)
Uncertain
Affect on foreign corporations, which apparently - but I'm not sure - were not affected. There are other laws which affect foreign corporations.
Are there now fewer restrictions on corporations than on people regarding campaign contributions?
Since the State of Alaska has banned ALL Corporate contributions including issue ads, there are no disclosure laws for corporations. So, it may well be that corporations have fewer restrictions on them than individuals.
Corporations are a fiction created by the state. If the state creates them, could not the state impose restrictions?
The attorneys said that the Supreme Court said corporations had first amendment rights. It seemed to me that this was a ripe line of reasoning, but that it didn't go in the right direction. Instead, it perhaps should explore creating an entity that isn't a corporation and doesn't have personhood, but has the other abilities that are wanted. Sort of the corporate version of civil union.
Could a foreign corporation spend unlimited funding to influence an Alaskan election? What about a state corporation owned by foreigners?
There are other federal laws that deal restrict some rights of foreign corporations, but this still needs to be investigated to be sure.
Given the session is only 90 days what can we do and what should we do to protect the integrity of the elections? And will your analysis be done before the session is over?
Determine whether disclosure laws apply to corporations under present law. If not, can adding "person" in the right places solve this problem? (See AS 13.15.065 and AS 13.15.135 below)
Check on whether foreign owned corporations or majority owned corporations are affected by this ruling.
Perhaps expand disclosure laws as well as disclaimer laws (which I understood to mean identifying the sponsor on ads themselves. There was a question about how to see the actual funder and not some newly formed group created to hide the source of the money.)
Two specific sections of Alaska Statutes were mentioned (actually I think there was a third ending in 040, but I didn't catch it). One question was whether just adding 'person' to the lists might add corporations to these requirements that now exist for individuals and other groups.
(a) Individuals, groups, nongroup entities, and political parties may make contributions to a candidate. An individual, group, or nongroup entity may make a contribution to a group, to a nongroup entity, or to a political party.
(b) A political party may contribute to a subordinate unit of the political party, and a subordinate unit of a political party may contribute to the political party of which it is a subordinate unit.
(c) Except for reports required by AS 15.13.040 and 15.13.110 and except for the requirements of AS 15.13.050 , 15.13.060, and 15.13.112 - 15.13.114, the provisions of AS 15.13.010 - 15.13.116 do not apply to limit the authority of a person to make contributions to influence the outcome of a ballot proposition. In this subsection, in addition to its meaning in AS 15.60.010 , "proposition" includes an issue placed on a ballot to determine whether
(1) a constitutional convention shall be called;
(2) a debt shall be contracted;
(3) an advisory question shall be approved or rejected; or
(4) a municipality shall be incorporated.
And
AS 15.13.135. Independent Expenditures For or Against Candidates.
(a) Only an individual, group, or nongroup entity may make an independent expenditure supporting or opposing a candidate for election to public office. An independent expenditure supporting or opposing a candidate for election to public office, except an independent expenditure made by a nongroup entity with an annual operating budget of $250 or less, shall be reported in accordance with AS 15.13.040 and 15.13.100 - 15.13.110 and other requirements of this chapter.
(b) An individual, group, or nongroup entity who makes independent expenditures for a mass mailing, for distribution of campaign literature of any sort, for a television, radio, newspaper, or magazine advertisement, or any other communication that supports or opposes a candidate for election to public office
(2) shall place the following statement in the mailing, literature, advertisement, or other communication so that it is readily and easily discernible:
A lot more than this was discussed, but these were the key questions I heard. Quite probably I missed some.
[Picture: John Ptacin (left) and Alpheus Bullard, before the meeting]
Senate Judiciary Committee
Thomas Stewart Building - Beltz 105
1:30 pm
Meeting started promptly at 1:30pm. [I took notes directly on the laptop today. Not sure posting this so raw is a good idea. Read this with the CAUTION that these are my notes as I listened and I couldn't always hear or keep up. Sometimes I had to end sentences best as I could. Question marks sometimes mean I wasn't sure what was said.]
You shouldn't attribute anything written here to anyone. Consider this as a way to get a sense of the discussion. After this, I'll try to post what I think were the key points.
Tom Dosik [Did not attend had death in family] and John Ptacin, Alaska Department of Law
Kathryn Kurtz and Alpheus Bullard
Legislative Legal Services
Bullard: First Amendment Case deals with political speech by corporations. Not about contributions. Only dealing with independent expenditures by corps. Previously, a great deal depended on who the speaker was. Significant in this case that SC has ruled that a Speaker's corporate identity is not longer an allowable distinction.
Upheld various disclosure provisions. Rationale struck down ability to suppress speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity, this bears on our own laws. Those statutes are not repealed, they are void.
Ptacin, Dept. of Law, and I represent APOC.
What laws are not affected: independent contributions to a candidate are not affected. Corps and Unions inability to make direct contributions is unaffected. Didn't interpret Alaska law, but it is affected. States in this area, do not have greater lattitude than congress to abridge the freedom of speech.
Essentially, it did overturn one aspect - ban on any corp or labor union contribution to independent expenditures leading up to elections. Not about candidate contributions. Defined first amendment rights of corps. Court ruled not reason to cut down freedom of speech rights of corps. Court is looking at specific expression and not who is making the expression. In this case making a communication electioneering speech is political speech and that's a high level right??? Govt. tried to make three arguments: 1. Anti distortion of great wealth that has corrosive and distorting impact on the message. No longer an argument. 2. Anti-corruption argument and court didn't agree on this either. 3. Shareholder protection - shareholders powerless to stop the spending of the money. Also down. Without a compelling reason to curtail speech the government's case turned down.
Affects Alaska law, preparing things internally now.
1:44 pm
Kathryn Kurz
Chair Hollis French: Which state laws are now void?
Ptacin: 15.13.067A & 15.13.135 Disallow Corps and Labor Unions from making independent expenditures. Are expenditures alwasy political speech. Some definitions include political speech, some not. Determining extent to which there are probls with current statutes.
Did we have same limitations as feds?
Ptacin: Our law contemplates a ban on all independent expenditures. Not exactly the same as Feds. Trying to determine.
French: We've gone from total ban to what is now a total free for all?
Ptacin: I look at disclosure and I look at indpendent expenditure.
[Left to right on the panel: Sen. John Coghill; Sen. Bill Wielechowski; Chair Sen. Hollis French; Sen. Dennis Egan; Sen. Lesil McGuire. The three attorneys - Kathryn Kurtz, Alpheus Bullard, and John Ptacin - are seated at the table in front.]
Bullard: Allow some corps under Alaska law to make expenditures - non-profits, so not all corps. Window opened is not as large...
French: Any corp doing business in Alaska is free to spend money for or against ....
Bullard: Hard to anticipate how things will be interpreted by our courts.
French: Will it take a specific legal action by a corp or do you deem it void by virtue of Citizens United.
Bullard: When one of our laws is challenged, the court will look, whether the Dept. of Law attempts to enforce....?? Left up to Attorney General to enforce.
Ptacin: We acknowledge the law us subject to scrutiny. An opinion on that point is probably coming.
French: Our opportunity to pass laws is limited to the session. Timing?
Ptacin: We've been working on this since the fall. Attorney General hasn't been asked for an opinion. Can't speculate when forthcoming.
Wielechowski: It seems corps exist because the state allows them to.
?: Corps are a legal fiction.
W: Could not the state impose restrictions
Bullard: Lot of kinds of corporations, difficult.
W: SC said Corps are entitled to free speech, but corps don't exist unless states allow them correct?
Kurtz: There is something that talks to this: any corp formed by.... I think the main thing is that the USSC just defined a right to speech for corps in this area and I don't think the State of Alaska can overturn that.
W: Does the state have to allow corps to exist?
K: The consequences of that declaration would be lively and interesting.
W: If a corp exists and had majority of foreign stockholders, would that corp be able to influence elections?
K: Was addressed by the court - this decision doesn't distinguish between foreign and US corps.
W: Could the another govt. set up a corp in Alaska and try to influence the law?
K: Not an expert in corp law, not comfortable answering.
Ptacin: CU didn't invalidate the law that prohibits foreign corps from speech in candidate elections. We still need to study and give guidance to the state. We have to consider do we want to distinguish between foreign and state corps?
Coghill: Breaks a veil ?
Ptacin: CU (Citizens United) took issue with the PAC /Corp distinction and breaks that down.
Coghill: Still accountability on how to speak?
Ptacin: Correct. Still taking a close look.
Coghill: Laws still more restrictive than individual and we don't want them to be less restrictive.
Ptacin: Disclosure laws - look at persons. Some laws apply to labor unions, some not.
Egan: I'm not an attorney at all. Follow up Coghill.
What kind of corps in Alaska can contribute? 527s ok, but.
Ptacin: Didn't determine that corps can make contributions to candidate directly.
Egan: Do you expect litigation?
Ptacin: Hard to say. I do represent APOC. No current litigation.
Egan: Is APOC staff looking at this independently from DoL?
Ptacin: I work closely with APOC, any advice to AG after talking to apoc.
McGuire: If we don't enact a law dealing with disclosure expenditures etc. for for-proft corps, we could face an election where for-profts are out there in the dark spending whatever amount of money without disclosing what they are doing? I don't see anything that prevents disclosure? If we do anything, we should at least look at disclosure?
Ptacin: This area does require action by legislature - which disclosures apply to corps. Which apply to persons and which not. 040. Labor Unions required to report - D and E.
French: Every individual, person, non-entity, and group. You are putting corps under person? Not individual?
Ptacin: Correct.
French: You brought up, Sen McGuire, the one bulwark against this decision - disclosure.
Bullard: 040 J.
French: take non-group entity out - you're saying it's a non-profit. Disclosures required electronically or on paper?
I think that would be reported on APOC form, on paper.
French: I can imagine we'll be looking at quicker disclosure. They are well healed, great capacity to amass wealth and should disclose as quickly as possible. Shouldn't put burdent on APOC staff to scan disclosures.
Coghill: We've set about to do that, work in progress, have not been able to do that. Heading in that direction.
French: I think you mean disclosures made by candidates?
I think corps are uniquely able to use the internet.
Kurtz: Refert to XXXX? clarifies something.
French: Leaning towards disclosure.
Covered many of the questions I submitted to you. I guess.
One more Q: APOC, concern that disclosre for each individual ads - so viewers understand source of the money. If a group of corps forms "Americans for Jobs" Is there anything that would prohibit requiring disclosure of specific contributors.
Ptacin: Law xxx currently bars contributions that aren't ballot measure groups, that merits scruity, but there is a statue that deals with that. Only spoke about its own entity. Pure speech from its own pocket.
French: Concern, any corp can now advocate for .... CU dealt with single entity. I don't see court limited by that in future case where they form a new corp together to hide the source of the funds used to electioneer. We want citizens to know who the corps are.
Ptacin: I think we hae to atake aim and disclaimer and disclosure law. Spending money from own corp treasury. CU touched on this ...
W: If and what we can do about corps. We allow them to exist. What kind of limits can we place on them?
Ptacin: Disclaimer and disclosure laws constitutional. Laws contemplated in CU are similar to those Alaska imposes. And foreign corp issue also has federal laws. It didn't rule on disclosure, just the actual expenditure.
W: Could we pass a law to say we would not allow corps with foreign majority to campaign?
Ptacin: We have to look at it.
Kurtz: Existing statute 13..... does have some of the things you're talking about 135 - we have some of those requirements, but they don't apply to corps because we didn't anticipate corps making expenditure. We can change those to apply to corps.
French: So we can now write in the word person on that list.
Kurtz: Don't know if it would b3 that simple. We need to be circumspect.
[I'm adding in a bit of video that wasn't ready earlier and fits here I believe]
Kurtz: You could get a challenge there or the Legislature could pro-actively enact legislation in anticipation.
W: Our situation now is that corps have more rights and freedom than individuals under Alaska law?
Kurtz: Not sure.
Bullard: It's possible you could characterize the situation that way. It's hard to know how it will be interpreted by the court.
Coghill: We need to clarify that they dont have more than any individual, though they may be able to speak with a louder voice, but that's been happening anyway in a different venue. Need to make sure that if they speak, we know who is speaking and the cost of that speech, so they are accountable like every other individual. If they have the right to speak, which I tend to agree with, then I want to make sure they meet the requirements that others have to comply with.
W: As I see this, Corps have more rights than people.
2:30 Brief at ease.
2:30 back
McGuire: Roe v. Wade analogy, we don't know how other states respond, it makes sense to start with non-profit, but is there any place for $ threshold? Time line makes it difficult.
Kurtz: That was back in other decision. Contribution limits, but not expenditure limits.
Coghill: Thanks for bringing this up so we can discuss this. F of Speech dear to us all and you can see the tension. We can't say they can't spend their wealth to speak any way they want.
W: Courts ruled and probably the worst decision in my lifetime, but it is what it is and I'm concerned that foreign comapnies and shareholders are not allowed to influence elections in Alaska.
Coghill: We've already be subject to that in many ways through the PAC law. Not sure we can do that, I'd be willing to look into it.
French: read two selections from Stevens: The interests of non resident corporations not in the interest of local citizens. At bottom the courts opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the people . . . strange time to repudiate that common sense. While the US democracy is imperfect, few would .
[Here, I think, are the quotes from the Stevens dissenting opinion:
"the interests of nonresident corporations may be fundamentally adverse to the interests of local voters. Consequently, when corporations grab up the prime broadcasting slots on the eve of an election, they can flood the market with advocacy that bears “little or no correlation” to the ideas of natural persons or to any broader notion of the public good, 494 U. S., at 660. The opinions of real people may be marginalized."
"At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."]
Since I worked late last night, the boss let me sleep in. Got up at 9. Then when I saw the snow on the top half of the Mt. Roberts foothill outside the window I got antsy.
Here there's no snow sticking by the last houses.
And here I am, less than five minutes run from home.
Here's the gate on Basin Road.
Under the canopy.
This wasn't a long run and as you can see I stopped a few times to take pictures. I just went a little past this sign.
So, all you staffers who haven't been out of the building or off the pavement, there's a whole world out there waiting for you to visit. It's spectacular. And it puts things back into perspective. And will remind you there's more important things than the packet for the next committee meeting.
Broadcast Schedule for February 3, 2010
The Sixteenth Legislative Day of the Second Regular Session of the Twenty-sixth Alaska Legislature
NOTE: Due to the nature of legislative activities, this schedule may change without notice.
8:00 am Joint Education Committees
-- Please Note Location Change -- Joint with Senate EDC Overview: Governor's Performance Scholarship
HB297 Postsecondary Scholarships
Live AUDIO STREAMS
10:30 am House Floor Session
Live (Streamed)
11:00 am Senate Floor Session
Live (Streamed)
1:30 pm Senate Judiciary Committee
Hearing on US Supreme Court decision regarding corporate participation in elections. Testimony by invitation only.
Live (Streamed)
I was getting hungry by noon. I'd gotten to the Capitol at 8am for the State Affairs Committee meeting and hadn't had time to make lunch. So I thought I check out the Lunch and Learn session on Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge.
I knew nothing about the speaker until I got into the room. There were lots of sandwiches and every chair had a glossy printout of the powerpoint presentation, which was good because it was on the side wall and hard to see.
Rep. Craig Johnson presented Lincoln Loehr who said he was from a law firm, Stoel Rives LLP, but was not an attorney. A 1998 article, "MANAGING THE WATERWAYS -- TOO CLEAN FOR THE FISH?" that I found online identifies him as "an oceanographer working as an environmental analyst for Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe, Seattle."
More searching found a more recent bio on the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation website that listed members of "a science advisory panel which will evaluate the most technologically effective and economically feasible wastewater treatment options for cruise ships."
Lincoln Loehr: An oceanographer employed in the law firm of Stoel Rives LLP in Seattle as an Environmental Compliance Analyst, his specialty is permitting of municipal and industrial wastewater discharges, and reviewing and commenting on regulatory developments related to such permitting. Mr. Loehr also served on the first Alaska Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharges Science Advisory Panel in 2001-2002. Mr. Loehr will fill the legislatively mandated cruise ship industry seat on the Panel.
This is the panel, if I have this figured out right, that was in the news the other day when Democrats protested the removal of Alaskan Gershon Cohen, who, according to Pat Forgey's article, "has a master's degree in molecular biology and a doctorate in environmental policy."
Rep. Craig Johnson, R-Anchorage, said on the House floor Friday that he opposed having Cohen on the panel, and supported his dismissal.
University of Washington, M.S., Public Administration, 1977
University of Washington, B.S., Oceanography and Geology, 1969
The resume doesn't give us specific work history, so it is hard to tell to what extent he supplemented what is now a 40 year old undergraduate degree with more advanced and more current study. I'm just trying to figure out what exactly his credentials are.
But when I was at the presentation, I didn't realize any of this or have these questions. He went through a lot of technical jargon, nicely mixed with understandable language that left me with the impression that he felt that the cruise lines were not a serious threat to the environment. I recorded some parts and have only edited out a couple of seconds so that when it switches from one shot to the next, it doesn't stop or start mid-sentence. So you can a sense of his comfort talking on the subject. Since I don't have the technical background I can't judge the science.
A Proven Track Record We have handled some of the highest profile federal and state NPDES permitting actions (for new and existing facilities) and section 404 permitting actions (for new and expanding developments) in the West. We work closely with our client's engineers and consultants to find a practical balance between the client's business needs and the scientific and technical challenges of the water quality issue at hand. With this big-picture understanding, we can help clients navigate regulatory constraints so that workable permits can be obtained on schedule.
While we emphasize negotiation and staking out a common ground, the Water Quality Team stands ready to prosecute or defend permit challenges, defend against agency enforcement actions (civil and criminal), and defend citizen suits in order to protect our clients' interests. We possess the legal and technical experience necessary to handle even the most complex water quality cases effectively, and we can help you develop long-term strategies to cost-efficiently resolve water quality issues before they become lawsuits.
And for a different perspective, here's the take on some of these issues from an attorney who bills himself as:
a nationally recognized attorney involved in admiralty and maritime personal injury law. He has been involved in maritime litigation since 1983. Based in Miami, Florida, Jim represents passengers and crew members injured or assaulted on cruise ships.
House State Affairs Committee
Feb. 2, 2010
8am - 10am
On House Joint Resolution 38
The session began with Rep. Peggy Wilson (R-Wrangell) in the witness stand (I better find out what that's called here) presenting an overview of her resolution to amend the Constitution. On the panel are the State Affairs Committee members, from left to right, Craig Johnson (R - Anchorage), Carl Gatto (R - Wasilla), Paul Seaton (R-Homer), Committee Chair Bob Lynn (R - Anchorage), Rep. Max Gruenberg (D - Anchorage), (space is Rep. Wilson's place), and Pete Petersen (D-Anchorage.)
You can read the resolution and the sponsor's statement in the earlier post today. Going through my notes of the 90 minutes or so of meeting, I saw the following issues surfacing.
1. The size and nature of rural districts. This appears to be the motivation behind the resolution. Rep. Wilson is listed above as being from Wrangle [Wrangell], but the district she represents includes Petersburg, Sitka, and a lot of small villages. She said she'd been flown on 90 Alaska Airlines flights, charter flights, and ferries to visit her constituents. One spot she'd only been to once because it cost her $1000 to charter a plane there.
[Second picture shows Committee Chair Bob Lynn and witness Pamela A. Varni, Executive Director Legislative Affairs Agency.]
Wilson also mentioned Rep. Kookesh's district as the largest in the United States with half the school districts in the state. "It's easy to represent a town with only one school district and one municipality," she said.
In such districts, constituents are not well represented because there are so many different local situations, such great distances and no road system that maintaining contact with constituents and knowing their issues is difficult. Also the cost of campaigning is extremely high.
2. Alaska Constitutional requirements for the make-up of districts. The Alaska Constitution sets forth standards for how districts should be created.
Section 6.6 - District Boundaries.
The Redistricting Board shall establish the size and area of house districts, subject to the limitations of this article. Each house district shall be formed of contiguous and compact territory containing as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area. Each shall contain a population as near as practicable to the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the state by forty. Each senate district shall be composed as near as practicable of two contiguous house districts. Consideration may be given to local government boundaries. Drainage and other geographic features shall be used in describing boundaries wherever possible. [Emphasis added.]
3. Impacts on Current Districts - The testimony and the questions revealed several layers of issues here:
a. The intent of the resolution is to preserve existing rural districts so that level of representation is not diluted further than it is. The new Census is expected to show increases in the Matsu and Anchorage areas. Witness Gordon Harrison said that without increasing the number of legislators, some rural districts would be be swallowed up and this problem would be even greater. [Third picture, committee member Rep. Paul Seaton listening to witness Gordon Harrison.The Alaska Law Review 2006 bio of Harrison:
The author was the executive director of the Alaska Redistricting Board. Previous employment includes director of the Alaska Legislative Research Agency, associate director of the Alaska Office of Management and Budget, and associate professor of political science at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. He is the author of ALASKA'S CONSTITUTION: A CITIZEN'S GUIDE (4th ed. 2002). He has a Ph.D. in International Relations from Claremont Graduate School and a Masters of Journalism from the University of California, Berkeley. This Comment seeks to lay out both the history and the author's opinion of redistricting in Alaska. Comments on the opinions expressed herein should be sent directly to the author. - Click on the link to access Harrison's Law Review article on the 2001 Alaska redistricting.]
b. The additional districts are expected to be in the Matsu and Anchorage areas. How this will impact specific existing legislative districts may have been a sub-theme of some of the questioning. It would appear that most districts might have some nibbling around the edges, but in the urban areas with the most population gain, the biggest changes might occur. (I'm consolidating what I think I heard from a number of people here.) While Rep. Gatto said he stands to gain, at this point no one can predict how individual districts might look at the end of redistricting.
4. The Voting Rights Act of 1965. Rep. Wilson and others pointed out that most, if not all, of Alaska's redistricting plans have been challenged in court. One factor is the Voting Act. Alaska is one of a small group of States that gets special scrutiny over voting. I understand this only vaguely and expect I'll learn more as this process unfolds. Wikipedia gives us some background on the Act. Footnote 52 of the Harrison article says
The important part is that whatever the State does, must comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which in our case seems to revolve around whether Alaska Natives lose representation. What exactly that means and how that is determined, I really don't know.
[Attorney Jim Baldwin, who was in the Office of the Attorney General and closely involved in the 2001 redistricting, responding to a question from Rep. Peggy Wilson.]
5. The Costs - This is probably the easiest issue to understand. Pam Varni testified that they estimated start-up costs of $6.14 million to remodel the Capitol to accommodate the new legislators and after that $4 million a year for the expenses of the new legislators. The issue of building a new Capitol was raised by Rep. Gatto who then offered Matsu as a perfect spot. After the meeting, under questioning from reporters, Rep. Gatto said, he was only raising the capital move issue to test the motivation of those supporting the resolution.
Here, after the hearing, Rep. Peggy Wilson talks with Rep. Craig Johnson while Rep. Paul Seaton listens. Chair Bob Lynn consults with a staffer.
Rep. Lynn said he would keep public testimony open and there would be further testimony on this issue.
I missed getting reporter Bob Tkazc's photo yesterday, so here he is questioning Rep. Gatto after the meeting.
This is starting to feel like blogging the Film Festival in Anchorage. There are little booklets that come out - maybe everyday, I'm not sure - with lists of hearings and meetings taking place. Some happen at the same time, but even so, if you go to something, there's not much time to write about it AND go to something else. I feel like I should be doing a lot more with this report, but time moves on and more is happening, so you'll have to make do with this.
And the marmot did NOT see his shadow in Juneau today.
State Affairs Committee chair Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Anchorage) declared this morning's meeting on Rep. Peggy Wilson's (R - Wrangle) proposed Constitutional Amendment to expand the size of the Alaska Legislature to be one of the most interesting. I'm writing that up now, but in the meantime, here's a shot I took yesterday as I came out of the State Office Building after the library there closed at 4:30pm.
Here 's the House State Affairs Committee Chair Rep. Bob Lynn's letterhead for this week's schedule.
The committee meets Tuesdays and Thursdays at 8am-10 am. The Uniform Rules [note: I couldn't open this page while I was writing the post] which regulate how the House and Senate operate, sets up ten standing committees (Rule 20) including State Affairs and the areas it covers:
State Affairs (programs and activities of the Office of the Governor and the Departments of Administration, Military and Veterans' Affairs, Corrections, and Public Safety, and programs and activities of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities relating to public facilities)
This was the committee I was originally assigned to, so I'm going to try to attend the meetings, at least as long as there isn't something else of more interesting happening at the same time, and I can get up early enough to attend.
Here's this week's schedule.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 8:00 – 10:00am
+* HJR 38 CONST. AM: INCREASE NUMBER OF LEGISLATORS
Tuesday (today) it hears a proposed Constitutional Amendment offered by Rep. Peggy Wilson (R - Petersberg.) [Actually her district covers much more than Petersberg.)
When a bill is discussed at a Committee meeting like this, a "packet" of relevant material is put together for the committee. You can see these at the State Affairs link on BASIS. [I won't go into how I got to this link. It took a while. BASIS has lots of interesting stuff, but finding it isn't always easy.]
One of the documents is the Sponsor's Statement. It explains in more everyday language the purpose of the bill. Here's the Sponsor Statement for HJR 38:
Posted: January 30, 2010 : v26-LS1323\A Status: (H) STA : 2010-01-19 Next Hearing: (H) STA 2010-02-02 8:00 am, Room 106 Contact:Rebecca Rooney, 465-3824, Committee Aide
''... Each house district shall be formed of contiguous and compact territory containing as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area ...'' Alaska Constitution Article VI, Section 6, titled Legislative Apportionment.
HJR 38 will put a constitutional amendment before the voters in the 2010 general election that would increase the size of the legislature to 48 representatives and 24 senators. Upon voter approval, the measure would apply to the 2012 determination of new boundary's for the election district. In the first 50 years of statehood, Alaska has not changed the 20 senator, 40 representative size of its legislative body, the smallest bicameral legislature in the nation. In this time span, the population of the state has more than tripled. Most significantly, the population increase is disproportionate, strongly favoring large urban areas over rural and small community areas. The task then of applying the proscriptions of Article VI, above, has correspondingly become more difficult and contentious. Except for the 1960 reapportionment, all subsequent reapportionments have faced successful legal challenges, requiring boundary adjustments and on several occasions, a court constructed plan. Federal protections of the U.S. Voter Rights Act of 1965 for large minority concentrations further complicate Alaska's reapportionment process. Indeed, they can act to counter the Section 6 requirements. Rural election district distortions are evident in the current plan. There is a probability that the new population distribution of the 2010 census cannot reconcile Section 6 and the Voter Rights Act without increasing the size of the legislature. Between 1960 and 2006, twenty nine states have changed the size of their legislative body. For the nine states with small populations similar to Alaska (509,000 to 1,429,000), the average size of their legislative bodies is 134 members. Another measure of the effect of the state's growth and complexity on the work of the legislature is its budget responsibilities. Legislative expenditures for government programs and projects has risen from a figure of $104 million in FY 61 to somewhere in the neighborhood of $7 billion currently. This is an increase from $2700 per capita in 1961 nominal dollars to $10,000 per capita today. For these reasons, putting a proposal to increase the size of the legislature before the voters is timely and merited.
By the way, HJR stands for House Joint Resolution. Resolutions are used for Constitutional Amendments (and other things) while HB (House Bill) is just for legislation as I understand this.
And here's the actual resolution as it gets heard for the first time in the State Affairs Committee. This resolution, as it moves through the committees, will accumulate changes, but ultimately it will be in this sort of language and format. [On my computer, the resolution is cut off on the right. You can get it in full here.]
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38
01 Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to and
02 increasing the number of members of the house of representatives to forty-eight and the
03 number of members of the senate to twenty-four.
04 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
05 * Section 1. Article II, sec. 1, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended to read:
06 Section 1. Legislative Power; Membership. The legislative power of the
07 State is vested in a legislature consisting of a senate with a membership of twenty-
08 four [TWENTY] and a house of representatives with a membership of forty-eight
09 [FORTY].
10 * Sec. 2. Article VI, sec. 4, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended to read:
11 Section 4. Method of Redistricting. The Redistricting Board shall establish
12 forty-eight [FORTY] house districts, with each house district to elect one member of
13 the house of representatives. The board shall establish twenty-four [TWENTY] senate
14 districts, each composed of two house districts, with each senate district to elect one
15 senator.
01 * Sec. 3. Article VI, sec. 6, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended to read:
02 Section 6. District Boundaries. The Redistricting Board shall establish the
03 size and area of house districts, subject to the limitations of this article. Each house
04 district shall be formed of contiguous and compact territory containing as nearly as
05 practicable a relatively integrated socio-economic area. Each shall contain a
06 population as near as practicable to the quotient obtained by dividing the population of
07 the state by forty-eight [FORTY]. Each senate district shall be composed as near as
08 practicable of two contiguous house districts. Consideration may be given to local
09 government boundaries. Drainage and other geographic features shall be used in
10 describing boundaries wherever possible.
11 * Sec. 4. Article XV, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended by adding a new
12 section to read:
13 Section 30. Applicability of the 2010 Amendments Increasing the Number
14 of Members in the Legislature. The 2010 amendments increasing the number of
15 members in the legislature (art. II, sec. 1, and art. VI, secs. 4 and 6) apply only to plans
16 for redistricting and proclamations of redistricting adopted on or after January 1, 2011,
17 and to the membership of legislatures subject to those redistricting plans and
18 proclamations.
19 * Sec. 5. The amendments proposed by this resolution shall be placed before the voters of
20 the state at the next general election in conformity with art. XIII, sec. 1, Constitution of the
21 State of Alaska, and the election laws of the state.
So this is for Tuesday. It's already Tuesday as I write
and since it begins at 8am I need to bring this to a close.
But note that in the schedule there is a + on this committee
meaning it will be televised online. I think this is the link
to see it. Maybe I'll see you at the meeting. Or you'll see me.
Started my first Monday as a legislative blogger by reading the Health and Social Services Budget late last night and more over breakfast. The hardcopy is about 388 pages (it's too bulky to carry around with me) and it's got seven or eight pages of ACRONYM glossary, about 365 terms. You can check it out yourself online.I'm not ready to write about it yet, I'm just telling you what today's been like.
I also got a copy of the Department of Law's budget. It's MUCH thinner, just charts and numbers. Not much explanation of the programs and goals.
Rep. Pete Petersen had suggested I come up to learn more about HB 187 "An Act requiring insurance coverage for autism spectrum disorders, describing the method for establishing a treatment plan for those disorders, and defining the treatment required for those disorders; and providing for an effective date." If that seems like a long title, it's because the bills are required to have a title that clearly explains what all is in them. I'll give you some background on that when I write about HJR (House Joint Resolution) 8, which I worked on when I was still a staffer for Rep. G. The Health Budget notebook is about this size. I didn't want the whole notebook. For now I just took copies of the Bill, the latest version of the Committee Substitute, and two studies of the costs of this.
The thing I wanted to do today was check in with the Press folks. There's a House Minority (Democratic) press office (half a room in the minority leader's three room offices) and there's a House Majority (Republican) press office that's got at least two rooms for itself.
This is Frank Ameduri of the Minority press office. Don't get the wrong impression. That's not his office. His office mate had two guests in his office, so we moved into the Minority leader's office to talk. I had heard that bloggers weren't being given press credentials. That's not a big handicap - the main privilege is getting on the floor with the legislators when they're in session and something about being able to ask questions at press conferences. Since those events are likely to already get the most coverage, that's not essential. But, on principle, I think bloggers should get credentials if need be, so I had decided today to check out what it means to get a credential, how one goes about it, and who makes the rules and the decisions.
Frank also sent me to Sen. Coghill's office to see a staffer who had worked on these issues when then Rep. Coghill had been House Rules Chair. She said she had recommended that the press police themselves. But she didn't know if that recommendation had been taken up.
Note, the Minority Leader's office is on the fourth floor of the Capitol. Sen. Coghill's office is on the fifth floor. There's a stairway in the middle of the building where you see people coming and going. The staff don't need stairmasters because they're walking up and down all the time. (There is an elevator, but lots of people use the stairs.)
From there I went to the Republican press room on the first floor. Sorry, I forgot to take any pictures there. I sort of met some of these folks while I was a staffer because they're right next to the copy machine Rep. G's office uses. Besides learning how things work, I also wanted to let this office know that I'm hoping to cover Republican legislators as well as Democrats and to get advice on that.
And then I went down to the ground floor to find the press room. There I found Pat Forgey of the Juneau Empire who's in this first photo. The other two in the front room were Bob Tkacz of the Fishermen's News, and Sean Cockerham of the Anchorage Daily News. I knew Sean from when we covere of the trials in Anchorage.
They seemed to be interested in a blogger being credentialed and said someone from Juneau had applied and been turned down.
I forgot to take pictures until after Bob had left, but Pat thought his desk would be a good stand in.
And here's Sean. He says the ADN will rotate reporters down. I think he said Lisa Demer and Rich Mauer would be down later in the session.
There's also a backroom and I met a couple of folks from KTUU Anchorage in there - Ted Land and Daniel Hernandez.
Then I went off to finally nail down an internet option for the apartment. Juneau Electronics, on the Juneau end of the Juneau Douglas bridge, has an agreement with ATT which let's you get a box to get the signals without having to either get a two year contract or buy the gadget for $200. They also have Apple parts.
