A Citizen’s Guide

The proposal by Senate President Ben Stevens to let the public vote on the pipeline contract in place of the Legislature is living up to its sponsor’s description of “simple but complex.”

One of the particularly complex parts is the effective dates.

In the first version of the amendment, those dates raised at least two issues.

This morning, Stevens’ took back his first version of the amendment and introduced another, which could make this no longer relevant, but here it is anyway.

The first issue deals with how Stevens made approval of the contract contingent on the public’s voting for it.

The contingency seems oddly constructed. A section of the amendment says the following: If the sections that grant approval of the contract go into effect, they go into effect on the day the director of elections certifies the results of the 2006 election at which voters approved the contract. Essentially, it says if they go into effect, they do so on a day that may never happen—a Nov. 7, 2006 on which people vote a certain way. A Nov. 7, 2006 on which Elvis is elected president, for example, probably will never happen.

That “if” seemed odd to this non-lawyer reporter. The amendment does not say the sections that approve the contract only go into effect if the people vote to approve the contract. It says if they go into effect, then that’s when. And presumably those sections would go into effect—either immediately, as the amendment asks, or 90 days after the governor signs the bill.

The section on contingency seems to deal with the date of effectiveness, not effectiveness itself. Ditto with the amendment’s last section, which references the contingency section.

With the new version, this could now be irrelevant except for speculation on Stevens’ intent. The new version is much clearer and does seem to make the effect conditional, not just the effective date. It says the critical sections “take effect only if a majority of the votes cast … favor execution.”

The second issue has to do with immediate effective dates, and probably still holds.

As it turns out, and adding a touch of drama, the proposal for a public vote three months from now could fly or die depending on whether it’s passed on the penultimate day of the special session or the ultimate.

Stevens apparently hadn’t thought of needing immediate effective dates, which require a two-thirds vote in the Legislature. When asked about it Tuesday, first he said he wouldn’t need the stronger majority vote. Then he acknowledged he could. Then he got out his calculator.

Because law goes into effect after 90 days even if the immediate effective date fails, Stevens might not need that two-thirds vote. There’s still 96 days before the election.

Ninety days from the last day of the special session is Nov. 8, a day too late. Ninety days from the second-to-last day, Aug. 9, is Nov. 7, the day of the election.

“Damn!” Stevens said, “That’s damn close!” By which he meant it’s still doable.

Stevens said he would have to get the language to the Division of Elections by Aug. 18, but if the amendment’s approved in time, that shouldn’t be a problem.