Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Powers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary members voice separation-of-powers and process concerns about S.44
Summary
During a Feb. 11 Senate Judiciary discussion of S.44, committee members flagged constitutional separation-of-powers questions, the bill's proposed 60-day review window for emergency measures, and requested additional testimony from local law enforcement and municipal officials; no vote was taken.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee met Feb. 11 for a general discussion of S.44, a bill that committee members said would change how the legislature reviews executive actions taken during a state of emergency.
Committee members said their principal concerns center on separation-of-powers implications and the mechanics of a 60-day legislative review. "Probably my biggest concern is just the separation of powers there... and the constitutionality of it," said Committee member (Speaker 2). The same speaker asked whether the statutory process would allow the governor to veto a legislative up-or-down vote and how that veto would be handled in practice.
The committee heard that S.44 would alter the role the governor plays during declared emergencies. "How does this really work in taking away the state of emergency portion of it? ... taking the governor's powers away there," Committee member (Speaker 2) said, adding that a 60-day review "feels like a long time" if an emergency is ongoing.
Committee member (Speaker 1) framed the issue as a constitutional division of responsibilities: "There is a distinction that's spelled out in the constitution between legislative branch having the power of a purse as compared to the executive branch having the power to make these decisions..." That speaker said counsel for the committee was doing further research and that the committee will await that analysis.
Members requested additional testimony before advancing S.44. Several speakers suggested inviting local law-enforcement representatives, municipal leaders, sheriffs and corrections officials to explain practical consequences and any operational constraints. "I do think we definitely need to get some more testimony," Committee member (Speaker 1) said.
A committee member also clarified the relationship between special sessions and states of emergency. "There doesn't have to be a state of emergency for special session... The state of emergency to me... is a separate thing that we might need to look at differently," Committee member (Speaker 4) said, noting special sessions can be convened whenever the legislature is out of session.
Committee members and staff mentioned outreach attempts to federal and military agencies in earlier work on related issues, citing efforts to contact FEMA and a site referenced as Fort Richardson, though witnesses from those agencies did not appear for this meeting.
No motion or vote on S.44 was recorded during the discussion. Committee members said the election council is researching unanswered questions for a person identified in the discussion as Bowman and signaled plans to schedule additional testimony and counsel analysis before taking formal action.
