In the Alaska House of Representatives, there’s a novel interpretation of Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure: If a budget committee member thinks a budget proposal is unconstitutional, it may not even be offered as a budget amendment.
The new interpretation of lawmaking unfolded when Rep. Sarah Vance of Homer offered an amendment to the Court System budget that would subtract $334,700 from Fiscal Year 2022.
That is the approximate amount spent on state-funded elective abortions. Her explanation was that it’s the Legislature’s intent that the State shall not pay for elective abortions.
That $334,700 was the sum that the Dunleavy Administration had paid back to the court system after the Alaska Superior Court declared it unconstitutional for him to reduce the court’s budget by the amount that the State is paying for elective abortions — a result of the court’s interpretation of the Constitution, which it says allows for abortion.
Vance’s amendment was the first to be moved in the Judiciary Finance subcommittee on Monday. But immediately, Rep. Matt Claman called for a point of order, and asked the amendment be ruled out of order because, he said, it was unconstitutional.
“We all take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the State of Alaska, with three independent branches of government. It is uniquely the province of the courts to say what the law is,” Claman read from his prepared remarks. “When we support the decisions of the Alaska Supreme Court, and support fair and impartial courts, we strengthen the rule of law.”
Claman went on to say that the amount Vance was trying to cut is the exact amount the governor attempted to veto last year only to run up against the decision by Superior Court Judge Jennifer Henderson.
Henderson said the governor could not veto the court’s money as a way to get back at the courts for forcing the state to pay for elective abortions. Gov. Mike Dunleavy did not appeal that ruling.
“The courts decision confirmed that cuts may be made for any reason, but not for an improper reason. Attempting to punish the courts for properly interpreting the Alaska Constitution is an improper reason for making a budget cut and the proposed cut is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. And with that I would ask the chair rule this amendment out of order,” Claman said.
Rep. David Eastman came to the defense of the amendment, citing the Mason’s Manual rule that says no proposal may be ruled out of order based on constitutionality, as that is for the voting body to decide.
Chairman Josephson seemed befuddled for several moments, appearing unsure of what to do. Should he rule an amendment out of order because his fellow Democrat caucus member said it is unconstitutional? Or is an amendment allowed to be voted on, and have the budget subcommittee members decide if it’s proper or not?
Josephson then waxed political: Of all the claims made against the governor by the Recall Dunleavy Committee, “this was the most serious. The others I found relatively picayune. That is, not terribly significant.”
“The problem is you could do this with every ruling of the court,” Josephson argued. With any court ruling a lawmaker disagrees with, he or she could offer a decrement amendment to the court’s budget in the relevant amount.
“You could do this all day long and you’d be left with no money to operate the court system,” he said. “The governor in both FY 20 and 21 has or is paying these sums and seems to acknowledge he can’t do what he did.”
Vance, along with Rep. Chris Kurka and Rep. David Eastman, argued that it is up to the committee itself to make the determination if the amendment to dock the amount from the court budget is proper, and it isn’t proper for the chair of the committee to decide on the constitutionality of the motion.
Democrats on the committee ultimately voted to uphold the ruling of the chair, with Vance, Kurka, Eastman, and DeLena Johnson voting against the ruling.
Thus, precedent appeared to be set in the House Judiciary Committee on March 15, 2021: If the committee chair doesn’t like an amendment because he or she feels it is unconstitutional, the amendment can aborted before even being offered for a vote.
