Sponsor(s):
SB23 - Senator Ward
HB21 - Rep. DeMarco
SB29 - Senators Ward & Brooks
SB128 - Senators Ward, Brooks, Dial, Holley, and Whatley

Summary/Synopsis: Constitutional Amendment. Under the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, portions of Article XII relate to private corporations and railroads and canals. Both bills would propose an amendment to the Constitution which would rewrite certain sections of Article XII and would repeal other sections.

Section 229 is amended to give the legislature the authority to “pass general laws under which corporations and other entities may be organized, authorized to do business and conduct their affairs.” It also indicates that such charters may be amended, altered or repealed by general laws.

Section 240 is amended to read: “All corporations shall have the right to sue, and shall be subject to be sued, in all courts in like cases as natural persons. Dues from private corporations shall be secured by such means as may be prescribed by law; but in no case shall any stockholder be individually liable otherwise than for the unpaid stock owned by him or her." [The second sentence is an addition to the current section.]

Repealed are these sections dealing with private corporations and railroad and canals: 230, 231,232 as amended by Amendment 473, 233, 234, 236, 237, 243, 244, 245, 245.

(See differences in these bills in the "Notes" below.)

LWVAL Action and Justification: LWVAL supports SB23, HB21, SB29 and SB128. The League position on Constitutional Reform states: “The Alabama Constitution should protect the people in the exercise of their civil liberties and provide a framework for government, broadly defining authorities, responsibilities, and relationships between branches of state government and between state and local governments. It should contain neither statutory law nor restrictive details that necessitate continual amendment.”

This amendment would place appropriate authority in the Legislature to make general laws. It removes restrictions that were placed in the Constitution in response to actions taken by certain corporations and decision makers in the late 1800s that are too restrictive today.

Bill Progress in Legislature:
SB23 - 3/1/2011: 1st Reading; Committee assignment:
HB21 - 3/1/2011: 1st Reading; Committee assignment: 3/24/2011: 2nd Reading and placed on calendar; pending 3rd read and favorable from TUI.
4/19/2011: Motion to Read a 3rd time and Pass adopted (87-0-0); sent to Senate
4/19/2011: 1st Reading in Senate and referred to 4/27/2011: on Judiciary schedule, Room 727, 1:30 p.m.
4/27/2011: 2nd Reading and placed on calendar; pending 3rd reading and favorable from Judiciary.

SB29 - 3/1/2011: 1st Reading; Committee assignment:
SB128 – 3/1/2011: 1st Reading; Committee assignment: 3/9/2011: Public hearing in committee, Room 777, 10:30 am.
3/9/2011: 2nd read and placed on calendar; pending 3rd read and favorable form FTGF.
6/1/2011: Indefinitely postponed.

Notes: SB29 differs from HB21/SB23 by keeping a portion of Section 229 that exempts certain building and loan associations from paying a corporation franchise tax and ratifies existing laws that do the same. In all bills references to Section numbers are the same numbers in both the Alabama Constitution of 1901 and the recompiled Constitution. SB128 removes the addition.

Sponsor(s):
HB20 - Representative DeMarco
SB28 - Senators Brooks and Ward

Summary/Synopsis: Constitutional Amendment. Under the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, Article XIII relates to banks and banking. This bill would propose an amendment to the Constitution which would rewrite one section of Article XIII . . . and would repeal certain other sections.

This bill would subdivide Section 247 as amended, into four subsections and amend the section by adding language prohibiting any bank from being established except by a general banking law as well as inserting language formerly in Section 251, Section 253, and Section 254, as amended, regarding unlimited duration, political subdivisions may not be stockholders or lend credit, and bank examination requirements.

Repealed sections: 248 relating to banking laws being general, specie basis, and the authority to issue bills to circulate as money; 249 relating to bills or notes issued as money redeemable in gold or silver and specifying laws may not sanction suspension of the specie payments; 251 as amended by Constitutional Amendment 51 relating to termination of business; 252 relating to maximum rate of interest; 253 relating to state and political subdivisions not to be stockholders in banks or lend credit thereto; and 254 relating to examinations of banks by public officers and semiannual reports by banks.

Section 250 of Article XIII was repealed Constitutional Amendment 5; Section 255, relating to the applicability of the article, would not be changed. Section 255.01, relating to nonresidents making mortgage loans through licensed mortgage loan brokers, would not be changed.
LWVAL Action and Justification: LWVAL supports HB20/SB28. This is another attempt to update legislation and to place authority into general law, not the Constitution. The League position is that the Constitution: “should contain neither statutory law nor restrictive details that necessitate continual amendment.”

Bill Progress in Legislature:
HB20 - 3/1/2011: 1st Reading; Committee assignment: 3/3/2011: 2nd reading and placed on calendar, pending 3rd reading Day 3 and favorable from FS.
4/19/2011: Motion to Read a 3rd time and Pass adopted (79-0-0); sent to Senate.
4/19/2011: 1st Reading in Senate and referred to 4/28/2011: 2nd Reading and placed on calendar; pending 3rd reading and favorable from B&I

SB28 - 3/1/2011: 1st Reading; Committee assignment: 3/24/2011: 2nd reading and placed on calendar; pending 3rd read and favorable from B&I.
5/5/2011: 3rd Reading; Brooks request to Carry Over to Call of the Chair granted; further consideration
5/25/2011: Motion to Read a 3rd Time and Pass adopted (25-0-0);
5/26/2011: 1st Read in House and referred to 5/31/2011: 2nd reading and placed on calendar; pending 3rd read and favorable from FS.

Notes: References to Section numbers are the same numbers in both the Alabama Constitution of 1901 and the recompiled Constitution.

Sponsor(s):
HB67 - Rep. J. Hubbard
SB24 - Sen. Brewbaker

Summary/Synopsis: Constitutional Amendment. Under Section 125 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 125 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, a veto of a bill by the Governor may be overridden by a majority vote of the Legislature. This bill would propose a constitutional amendment to change the vote requirement to two-thirds of the whole number elected to each respective house.
LWVAL Action and Justification: LWVAL opposes HB67/SB24. The League position on Constitutional Reform states: “The three branches of state government should have authority sufficient to perform their distinct responsibilities independently, and they should function as co-equals within the traditional framework of checks and balances.” The current bill (which is not co-sponsored) alters that balance in a governmental system undergoing major change and facing serious financial problems. The veto override power is an area where few, if any, calls for reform have been expressed or debated.

Bill Progress in Legislature:
HB67 - 3/1/2011: 1st Read and referred to 3/31/2011: 2nd read and placed on calendar with 1 Substitute (127745-4); pending 3rd read and favorable from CCCE
6/1/2011: Indefinitely postponed.

Note the substitute changes the veto override vote to a three-fifths vote, eliminates the ability of the Governor to pocket veto a bill presented within five days of final adjournment, and extends the time after final adjournment for his/her approve or disapprove of a bill from 10 days to 15 days.

SB24 - 3/1/2011: 1st Reading; Committee assignment: 3/8/2011: 2nd read and placed on calendar; pending 3rd read and favorable from CCFE&E.
6/1/2001: Indefinitely postponed.

Sponsor(s):
HB16 - Rep. D. Williams
HB69 - Rep. McMillan

Summary/Synopsis: Both HB16 and HB69 address the fact that problems may arise for small cities if the 2010 census puts their population above 12,000. The procedure for filling vacant mayoral posts differs for Class 7 and 8 cities and the larger ones. For cities under 12,000, the relevant section of the code, §11-44G-2, gives the City Council power to appoint a new mayor from its own members or outside it. If that fails, the Governor may appoint from a list provided by the City Council. Failing an appointment by the Gov., after 60 days, the Judge of Probate may call a special election. For cities above 12,000, the relevant section of the Code, is 11-43-42(a), which provides that the Council President will become Mayor. Also in larger cities, the mayor does not sit with the council or vote in its proceedings.

HB16 requires the 7 and 8 class cities that grow larger than 12,000 to adopt the procedures for larger cities. HB69 provides that, in such a case, the change in the mayor's role in the city council proceedings may be subject to a referendum of the voters of the city after a public hearing and a petition of a certain percentage of the registered voters of the city. It provides first for a public hearing to inform the public of future changes and to take comments. If 10% of voters petition the Probate Judge, a special election will allow citizens to vote whether or not to approve the proposed change. If they favor the changes, the section for larger cities will apply. If they oppose changes, they will keep their existing procedures. If there is no petition, the changes will take place according to the current code.
LWVAL Action and Justification: LWVAL supports HB16 and HB69. League positions support more decision making being placed in the hands of local officials. While these bills are not the best solution (Home Rule), they improve on present conditions.

A comparison of the two bills suggests that HB69 is preferable to HB16 because it allows for more citizen information and a vote on the changes now required. Given the gap between the classes of cities and the realities of their populations, rigid adherence to the current plan (which depends on the outdated classifications of cities) seems less wise than giving citizens a choice. In terms of transparency and accountability in League positions, HB 69 is clearly more consonant with League principles.

Bill Progress in Legislature:
HB16 - 3/1/2011: 1st reading and referred to
3/2/11 - HB16 was on committee schedule, 1:30 pm, Room 622.
3/3/2011: 2nd reading and placed on calendar, pending 3rd Day and favorable from CMG.
3/31/2011: 3rd read and motion to pass adopted (97-1-1).
4/6/2011: 1st read in Senate and referred to 04/12/2011: 2nd read and placed on calendar; pending 3rd read and favorable from Govt Affairs.

HB69 - 3/1/2011: 1st reading and referred to
On committee schedule for 3/9/2011, Room 622, 1:30 pm.
3/9/2011: 2nd read and placed on calendar; pending 3rd read and favorable from CMG
6/1/2011: Indefinitely postponed.

Sponsor(s): Senators Orr, Glover, Holtzclaw, Williams, Bussman, Allen, Marsh, Pittman, Irons, Fielding, Beasley, Bedford, Brewbaker, Reed, Keahey, Smitherman, Figures, Dunn, Waggoner, Ward, Dial, Taylor and Coleman

Summary/Synopsis: This bill proposes an amendment to delete those remaining "Jim Crow" provisions of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, which have not been expressly repealed by vote of the people.
LWVAL Action and Justification: LWVAL supports SB112.

Bill Progress in Legislature: SB112 - 3/1/2011: 1st Reading and referred to 3/8/2011: 2nd read and placed on calendar; pending 3rd read and favorable from CCFEE.
4/27/2011: 3rd Reading passed; Orr Amendment (129944-1) offered; Motion to Cease Debate adopted; Motion to adopt adopted; Motion to Read a 3rd Time and Pass adopted (22-9-0); Engrossed.
4/27/2011: 1st Reading in House and referred to 5/24/2011: 2nd Reading and placed on calendar; pending 3rd Reading and favorable from Judiciary
6/2/2011: 3rd Reading passed
Buskey Amendment (132842-1) offered
P. Williams Motion to Table adopted
Rogers Amendment (132846-1) offered
P. Williams Motion to Table adopted
Holmes Amendment (132828-1) offered
P. Williams Motion to Table adopted
Motion to Read a 3rd Time and Pass adopted (67-27-0)
Passed 2nd house
Enrolled
Signature requested. Assigned Act No. 2011-353. Delivered to Sec. of State at 8:04 p.m.

Sponsor(s):
HB124 - Rep. Merrill Cross
SB111 - Sen. Orr

Summary/Synopsis: Constitutional Amendment: The amendment would prohibit the collection of an occupational tax by a county or a municipality unless the tax was imposed before January 1, 2011.
LWVAL Action and Justification: LWVAL opposes HB124/SB111. League’s position on Constitutional Reform is that “taxation and finance provisions in the constitution should provide for the flexibility to address changing conditions.” And, “The constitution should place no limitations on ad valorem and income taxes.” League also believes “Local government entities should be given more power to tax themselves.”

Bill Progress in Legislature:
HB124 - 3/1/2011: 1st Reading and referred to 3/24/2011: 2nd Reading and placed on calendar; pending 3rd read and favorable from CMG
4/27/2011: 3rd Reading Carried Over; Love Amendment (129664-1) offered; Merrill motion to Table lost; Galliher motion to Table adopted; Givan Amendment (130574-1) offered; B. Moore motion to Table adopted; Greer Amendment (130644-1) offered; Further Consideration.
6/1/2011: Indefinitely postponed.

NOTE: The Greer Amendment which was not tabled states: “Any county or municipality with an existing occupational tax will have that tax automatically repealed within 60 months of the ratification of this amendment.

SB111 – 3/1/2011: 1st Reading and referred to 3/9/2011: 2nd read and placed on calendar; pending 3rd read and favorable from FTG
6/1/2011: Indefinitely postponed.

HB124 and SB111 are also covered under Tax Reform.

Sponsor(s): Representatives Hill, Todd, Merrill, Oden, Patterson, Newton (D), Grimsley, Robinson (J), Melton, Ball, Morrow and McCutcheon

Summary/Synopsis: Constitutional Amendment. This bill proposes an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, which would provide for limited optional home rule for those counties in the state, the qualified electors of which approve the same, in the areas of public safety and health and land use regulation and control.

The bill affirms the Legislature’s right to pass general laws exercising these optional powers. Also counties can exercise land use and zoning powers only if the Legislature has not passed a general law for the purpose by October 1, 2014.  

A proposal to authorize any or all of the optional powers may be initiated a) by a resolution approved by a majority of the governing body of the county, or b) by the filing of petition at the regular meeting of the governing body containing the verified signatures of 20% of the number of electors voting in the last gubernatorial election. Voters must approve the proposal in a referendum, which must be held not more than three months after the proposal and in conjunction with a general election. The optional supplementary powers may be repealed by the same process. The powers will apply only where the services and/or the zoning authority do not exist. Members of the Planning Commission to administer the land use plan must all reside in incorporated areas of the county.

Proposal must appear on the ballot as a Constitutional Amendment applying only to that particular county.
LWVAL Action and Justification: LWVAL supports HB181. This bill is consistent with the League’s position in support of home rule. There must be a referendum, as we require, and the powers proposed are modest ones that municipalities already possess—public heath and safety, land use planning and zoning.  The latter two powers are the only ones likely to raise potential controversies. 
3/30/2011: Public hearing in C&MG, Room 622, 1:30 pm. See ACTION ALERT. UPDATE: See SJR82 which passed both houses.


Bill Progress in Legislature:
3/08/2011: 1st reading and referred to 3/30/2011: Public hearing in C&MG, Room 622, 1:30 pm. See ACTION ALERT. UPDATE: See SJR82 which passed both houses.

Sponsor(s):
HJR34 - Representatives Newton (D), Knight, Forte, Moore (M), Jackson, Givan, Robinson (O), Scott, Hill, Mitchell, Howard, Robinson (J), Hall, Boyd, England, Rogers, Coleman, Black, Harper, Melton, Hubbard (J) and Grimsley
SJR27 - Senators Bedford, Smitherman, and Irons

Summary/Synopsis: To call for a special election on the issue of calling a constitutional convention to revise and amend the constitution of Alabama of 1901; in the event a majority of electors voting on the issue in the special election favor a convention, to provide for the election of delegates to the convention; to provide for the holding of the convention; and to provide for a special election to ratify the proposed constitution of Alabama pursuant to amendment 714 of the constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as section 286.01 of the official recompilation of the constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended.
LWVAL Action and Justification: LWVAL supports HJR34/SJR27. LWVAL supports a convention of citizens for the purpose of rewriting the state constitution.

Bill Progress in Legislature:
HJR34 - 3/3/2011 1st read and referred to
SJR27 - 3/8/2011: 1st read and referred to

Sponsor: Marsh

Summary/Synopsis: Establishes a Constitution Revision Commission.

The commission shall be composed of the: Governor, Speaker of the House; President Pro Tempore of the Senate; three persons appointed by the Governor; three persons appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate; and three persons appointed by the Speaker of the House. The Chairs of the Judiciary Committee and Chairs of the Constitution and Election Committee of the House of Representatives and Senate shall be ex officio members,

The Alabama Law Institute shall serve as staff for the commission. The institute will analyze the current Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, with a view toward identifying those provisions which are antiquated, unnecessary, or duplicative of other provisions. The goal of the institute's analysis shall be the following:
(1) To provide the commission with specific guidance for constitutional revision.
(2) To recommend to the commission an article-by-article revision of the constitution.
(3) To report its recommendations to the commission of articles to be revised for the next regular session of the Legislature by December 31 beginning December 31, 2011.

The goal of the Legislature is to consider reviewing the Constitution according to the schedule as follows:
In 2011: Article XII, Private Corporations; Article XIII, Banking. Remove unconstitutional language throughout the Constitution.
In 2012: Article III, Distribution of Powers; Article IV, Legislative Department; Article IX, Representation.
In 2013: Article I, Declaration of Rights; Article V, Executive Department; Article XIV, Education
In 2014: Article VII, Impeachments; Article X, Exemptions; Article XVII, Miscellaneous.

The following articles shall be excluded from consideration by the commission due to a previous revision of the article or because revision is not considered needed:
(1) Article II, State Boundaries (determined by Congress.)
(2) Article VI, Judicial Article, which was revised in 1973.
(3) Article VIII, Suffrage and Elections, which was revised in 1996.
(4) Article XV, Militia.
(5) Article XVI, Oath of Office.
(6) Article XVIII, Mode of Amending the Constitution.

Article XI Taxation is excluded from the consideration by the commission at this time and not subject to the timetable established by this resolution.

The commission shall be charged with the following duties and responsibilities:
(1) Create a public awareness of and educate the public on the changes recommended.
(2) Provide the Legislature with recommendations for any changes to the article under consideration.
(3) Report its findings, conclusions, recommendations, and suggestions to each article to be considered in each House of the Legislature by the third legislative day of each year after 2011.


League Position and Justification: LWVAL supports SJR82.
Since the mid 1960s League has supported and worked for constitutional reform. While the League prefers reform be accomplished by a constitutional convention, it for years has supported legislatively initiated reform amendments when they support League positions. The amendments listed as supported in this section of the Legislative Report are examples.

This resolution moves the Legislature toward a more systematic study and potential revisions of the 1901 Constitution and states a commitment to public education on the recommendations made to it by the Commission. ACCR is supporting the resolution.

Bill Progress in the Legislature:
4/12/2011: 1st Read and referred to
4/19/2011: Scheduled for the Rules Committee meeting, Room 727 – 1:30 p.m.

4/19/2011: Reported from Rules; Figures Amendment (129940-1) offered; Motion to adopt Figures Amendment adopted by voice vote; Marsh Motion to Adopt adopted (17-9-1); Engrossed
4/19/2011: Received in the House and referred to Reported from Rules; Galliher motion to Concur In and Adopt adopted by voice vote; Passed 2nd House and Enrolled; Signature requested; Delivered to Governor, April 21, 2011. Assigned Act No. 2011-197

Note: The Figures Amendment added: “The membership of the commission shall be inclusive and reflect the racial, gender, geographic, urban/rural, and economic diversity of the state.”

Sponsors:
HB98 - Representatives Rich and W. Johnson
SB127 - Senators Pittman, Singleton, Holtzclaw, Williams, Bussman, Allen, Brewbaker, Orr, Sanford, Brooks, Waggoner, Glover, Reed, Smith, Scofield and McGill

Summary/Synopsis: Constitutional amendment: The amendment would provide that no person shall be elected to the Legislature for more than three full consecutive terms [three in the House, three in the Senate, or three in the two houses combined.]. An election to the Senate or to the House of Representatives for at least two years would be equivalent to the election for a full term in such body. Service in the Senate and in the House of Representatives prior to November 2010, would not disqualify, in whole or in part, such person from service in such bodies following such date.
League Action & Justification: LWVAL is monitoring HB98 and SB127.

Bill Progress in Legislature:
HB98 - 3/1/2011: 1st Read and referred to
SB127 - 3/1/2011: 1st Reading and referred to 3/8/2011: 2nd read and placed on calendar; pending 3rd read and favorable from CCFEE.
6/1/2011: Indefinitely postponed.

Note: Recent reports from states that have enacted term limits are that when faced with an influx of new legislators due to both term limits at a time when changes in the political environment lead to incumbent election loses results in an inexperienced legislature that must rely heavily on staff. Alabama legislators have little personal staff and no nonpartisan policy analysis office to assist in research. The nonpartisan Legislative Reference Service and Legislative Fiscal Offices perform other important functions.

Those who support such legislation may argue that shorter terms prevent legislators from getting too close to special interests. This problem seems solvable by good ethics laws that go to the core of the problem.

Sponsors: Representative Ball

Summary/Synopsis: Constitutional Amendment. This bill proposes an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 to provide that the people may propose the enactment of general laws and constitutional amendments by an initiative measure subject to the same limitations imposed on the Legislature and that the Legislature may offer an alternate proposal.
League Action & Justification: LWVAL is monitoring HB337. The bill contains many items the League could support (see Note below) but it is the same bill Ball has introduced since 2004, most often, as this year, as single sponsor. Usually the bill never had a second reading. The one time it came up for a vote, it was indefinitely postponed.

Bill Progress in Legislature:
3/24/2011: 1st reading and referred to
Note: The bill seems to agree with the intent of the League position and includes many of the safeguards detailed for the process. Major areas of agreement include: a) reasonable number of signatures (1,000) for the original petition; b) the construction of the official text and summary of the proposal by the Alabama Law Institute; and c) a review later, when that proposal is presented to the Legislature, by the Legislative Reference Service and the Legislative Fiscal Office. An unbiased statement is required for the official petition. Number of signatures required for a general law must equal 7% of number voting in last gubernatorial election with 1% from each congressional district to ensure statewide coverage. Constitutional amendments require 10%.

The role for the Legislature is the one we support. In one session the official version of the original proposal is submitted to allow legislators to sponsor it. If no action is taken, the gathering of signatures for the official petition begins. In the next session, the proposal is “enacted” by a third reading in each house. No modifications are allowed, but the Legislature may offer an alternative bill. Both the original proposal and the alternative are both on the ballot for voters’ choice. The one with most votes becomes law. Unlike our position, a majority vote passes both general law and a constitutional amendment.

The chief weakness in the process is one discussed in the League study—how to prevent groups with a national agenda from “buying” an initiative in Alabama, using some local person or group as cover. We require “clear identification of sponsors” from the first. This bill requires only a registered agent to be responsible to the Secretary of State. We require that all organizations gathering signatures periodically file financial disclosure forms. The bill may or may not accomplish that. The “individual agent” must file “any elections report and disclosures required by election laws in the same manner as a candidate for elected office.” Our recommendations are designed to prevent signature gathers who, to increase their pay, gather signature aggressively not scrupulously. It is possible that the Secretary of State’s regulations may prevent abuses that have occurred elsewhere.