SCR 1 is a Senate Concurrent Resolution that sets out how the Thirty-Fourth Alaska State Legislature intends to handle reconsideration of bills and items vetoed by the governor. The resolution is largely interpretive and procedural: it states that the constitutional phrase requiring the legislature to “meet immediately in joint session” after a veto means the legislature must do so promptly and that the joint session is mandatory, not discretionary. It also ties that interpretation to Alaska’s Uniform Rule 45 and to historical statements from the Alaska Constitutional Convention and the first state legislature.
The resolution further specifies a practical timetable for veto reconsideration depending on when the veto message is received. If a veto occurs during session, the legislature would meet immediately in joint session. If a veto occurs after adjournment of the first regular session, reconsideration would occur no later than the fifth day of the next regular session if no special session is called, or no later than the fifth day of a special session if one is called. If a veto occurs after adjournment of the second regular session and no special session is called, the resolution states that no joint session will be held to reconsider the vetoed bill or item.
Impact
SCR 1 does not amend statutory law, but it would formally express the legislature’s interpretation of Article II, Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution and its own procedural expectations for veto override reconsideration. Its main effect is on legislative practice and internal rules: it seeks to create a predictable schedule for joint sessions on vetoed bills and items, and to guide how the current legislature will respond to gubernatorial vetoes during and after session. It also reinforces the relevance of Uniform Rule 45 and the five-day reconsideration framework associated with post-adjournment vetoes.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of a clear, prompt, and orderly veto-reconsideration process. The resolution emphasizes historical precedent, voter-approved constitutional language, and the need for predictability and certainty for both the public and the legislature. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented recorded opposition or debate in the supplied materials.
Contention
The central point of contention is the meaning of the constitutional phrase “shall meet immediately in joint session”: whether it is mandatory or discretionary, and how quickly the legislature must act after a veto. The resolution takes the position that the requirement is mandatory and that the legislature must act promptly, relying on historical practice and constitutional history. Another potential issue is the practical timing of veto reconsideration after adjournment, especially in cases where no special session is called; the resolution states that no joint session would occur after a second-session adjournment in that circumstance, which could be debated as a procedural limitation.
Applying to the Congress of the United States to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution for the limited purpose of proposing one or more amendments to the constitution to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and to limit the terms of office of federal officials and members of Congress.
Applying to the Congress of the United States to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution for the limited purpose of proposing one or more amendments to the constitution to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and to limit the terms of office of federal officials and members of Congress.
Proposing An Amendment To Article Xvii, Section 3 Of The Hawaii Constitution To Specify That The Standard For Voter Approval Of A Constitutional Amendment Proposed By The Legislature Is A Majority Of All The Votes Tallied Upon The Question.
Proposing An Amendment To Article Xvii, Section 3 Of The Hawaii Constitution To Specify That The Standard For Voter Approval Of A Constitutional Amendment Proposed By The Legislature Is A Majority Of All The Votes Tallied Upon The Question.
Proposing An Amendment To Article Xvii, Section 3 Of The Hawaii State Constitution To Specify That The Standard For Voter Approval Of A Constitutional Amendment Proposed By The Legislature Is A Majority Of All The Votes Tallied Upon The Question.