Taking turns is an important concept that children learn at very young age, often from their parents. As the days of the special session tick painfully by, Alaskans have front row seats to an age-old struggle of learning to get along. We're all waiting for one body to take its turn and pass the capital budget to the other body. That's how the bicameral process is supposed to work -- even a 3-year-old can understand that. But we all know the game can't be played if one side hogs the ball.
Rock, paper, scissors
As a former teacher, I've used the game of "Rock, Paper, Scissors" to describe the balance of powers among the three branches of government. Each branch has constitutional powers to make sure that one branch does not control another.
If both legislative bodies don't like a gubernatorial veto, we can vote to override it with three-fourths of the membership of both houses. Holding on to the capital budget and refusing to let it go to the Senate floor for a vote, then on to the House, and then to a conference committee if there are differences, is depriving Alaskans of the fair process set out by our Constitution.
Attorney general weighs in
At a recent House Finance Committee hearing, we heard from Attorney General John Burns. We all know by now that the Senate won't pass the ball because they have tied 105 energy projects to the same fate and want the House to buy that plan. If one project is vetoed, they all are vetoed. If one is threatened in court, they are all stymied. Why would we want to tie a wind feasibility project or a hydroelectric project in Ketchikan, or a hundred others, to the Susitna dam?
Burns said we shouldn't want to tie all 105 projects to the same fate -- and that it would be unconstitutional to do so. The Senate language deprives the governor of his constitutional authority to strike out individual items in the budget and denies the House its independent voice in Alaska's spending.
The Hammond test applied
That troublesome Senate language fails the Hammond test on three counts. What's the Hammond test? The AG explained that both the Constitution and case law provide that budget bills must be limited to appropriations -- sounds simple enough. In State Legislature v. Hammond, a five-factor test was created to decide instances when language in a budget bill is constitutional.
The Senate's binding of 105 energy projects violates the Hammond test on three counts, he said.
First, language in a budget bill cannot "administer" a program. In 2008, the state enacted an energy policy. By tying 105 projects throughout the state with the bumper sticker "Take 'em or leave 'em," the Senate is forcing an energy policy on us without following enacted state policy to determine what those projects should be.
Second, language in a budget bill cannot create new law. The Senate's language violates this test because it crafts an entirely new energy policy for the state.
Third, language in a budget bill must be the "minimum necessary to explain the Legislature's intent" for spending. The binding language goes far beyond explaining; it dictates.
The work of the state could have been accomplished in 90 days. The House version of the operating budget was passed to the Senate early in March. Alaskans must ask: Why is the Legislature still in Juneau?
Let's play ball
When you're playing ball, it's extremely frustrating when someone hogs it; no game can go forward unless the ball is in play. House Finance has heard testimony from state officials that waiting on a capital budget until after July 1 puts important federally matched projects at risk of losing current and future dollars. While a capital budget is not constitutionally required, it's important for many water, sewer, road and airport safety issues.
The referee may have to call a foul on the Senate, but even so, let's do right by Alaskans and our Constitution and get the ball back in play.
Rep. Mia Costello, R-Anchorage, was elected to the state House in 2010.
By REP. MIA COSTELLO