Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permanent Fund Constitutional Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects amendment to constitutionalize a dividend; HJR 10 reported out with committee recommendations
Summary
The House State Affairs Committee debated an amendment to House Joint Resolution 10 that would insert a required annual dividend; the amendment failed 3–4 and the underlying resolution (HJR 10) was reported from committee 4–3 with individual recommendations and fiscal notes attached.
The House State Affairs Committee on May 1 considered amendment 1 (a.2) to House Joint Resolution 10, a proposed constitutional amendment addressing the Alaska Permanent Fund and payout rules. The committee defeated the amendment and later reported HJR 10 from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.
Representative Vance moved amendment 1 a.2, which would have added a constitutional requirement that an annual dividend be paid to eligible residents (without specifying a calculation method). Vance said the amendment would provide assurance to residents that a dividend would be required by the constitution, rather than left solely to statute.
Representative Schrage, sponsor of HJR 10, opposed the amendment. He said the amendment “puts the dividend on autopilot” and warned it could force a large deficit by constitutionally requiring a dividend tied to current statutory formulas; he gave the fiscal year 2026 example and said it could “force ... a $1,500,000,000 deficit” on the state unless statutes or appropriations changed. Schrage argued making the dividend constitutional would create a high threshold to adjust fiscal policy and could constrain appropriations for other statutory services.
Committee members debated whether the amendment would effectively elevate a dividend above other constitutionally recognized services by linking a mandatory payment to statute. Representative McCabe, Representative Holland and others asked whether the amendment merely required a dividend in principle or would lock in a formula; Schrage and other members said it would create the risk of an automatic appropriation unless changed by statute and subject to veto.
The committee called the roll on amendment 1 a.2; the amendment failed on a 3–4 vote (3 ayes, 4 nays). Later in the meeting Vice Chair Story moved to report HJR 10 from committee “with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.” The motion passed 4–3. The committee took a brief at-ease to sign paperwork and returned the resolution for the next steps in the legislative process.
No legal text was adopted at this hearing; members debated fiscal implications and constitutional framing. The committee recorded votes and forwarded the resolution with committee recommendations and fiscal notes for floor or joint consideration.
