Voucher legislation pulled from Senate floor vote

MAT-SU — On the eve of a vote scheduled on the floor of the state Senate, a controversial piece of school funding legislation was pulled back into committee Wednesday.

According to the Legislature’s website, Senate Joint Resolution 9 was sent back to the Senate Rules Committee.

If the constitutional amendment is approved by 2/3 majority in both the Senate and House, then the measure would be placed on the ballot for a vote of the people. If approved at the ballot box the constitutional amendment would clear the way to spend public tax dollars on private education. Opponents view the proposed constitutional amendment as a step toward school vouchers and a move that would seemingly increase local tax dollars collected to fund schools. Proponents say it is a matter of school choice.

Valley residents have been paying attention to the resolution. It was the main topic of conversation at the most recent town hall meeting held by the Valley’s legislative delegation late last month.

One of its main sponsors, Sen. Mike Dunleavy, R-Mat-Su, has said he sees the change as necessary to make legal what a lot of districts already do in allowing home school students to take private classes. A former educator, he has said he is a proponent of school choice.

At a press conference on Tuesday, he seemed gung-ho about a vote when asked what the point would be of putting the measure to a vote if it’s clear he doesn’t have the votes.

“We’ll certainly know if the votes are there or not there when folks press the button, and we’ll certainly know where folks in Alaska are on the constitutional amendment if they’re given the opportunity to push the button,” Dunleavy said.

Sen. Majority Leader John Coghill said that “for time management” reasons the rule is generally that a bill has to have a fair amount of support before it can get to the floor. But one point of letting it get to the floor if passage isn’t a sure thing would be to have a debate about it.

“We have had bills fail on the floor, but I think to throttle back a substantive debate,” Coghill said. “If it looks like you have enough votes but they’re movable, I think to have that debate is reasonable especially when you’re dealing with the constitution.”

According to notes appended to the state’s legislation database, Coghill sent the bill back to the rules committee. In a brief statement he made on the floor of the Senate Wednesday, he said he did so at Dunleavy’s request.

Though Republicans hold a majority in that body, a few members of the ruling caucus have said they don’t support the measure, and thus the measure was short the required votes.

According to media accounts, Dunleavy apparently told reporters after the bill was pulled from the floor that he was waiting on some new information that is “legal in nature” to arrive. He sais he hopes that information will generate the votes to pass the amendment.

Contact Andrew Wellner at 352-2270

or andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com.