Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/11/2021 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB62 | |
| HB44 | |
| HB62 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 62-MARRIAGE WITNESSES
3:05:16 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 62, "An Act relating to solemnization of
marriage."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted the outstanding amendments on HB 62.
3:05:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 32-
LS0272\A.4, Dunmire, 3/8/21, which read:
Page 1, following line 2:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 25.05.261(a) is repealed and
reenacted to read:
(a) Marriages may be solemnized by any person in
the state.
* Sec. 2. AS 25.05.261(c) is repealed and reenacted
to read:
(c) Nothing in this section creates or implies a
duty or obligation on a person authorized to solemnize
a marriage under (a) of this section to solemnize any
marriage."
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 3"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 24:
Delete "AS 25.05.041(a)(3) and 25.05.041(a)(5)"
Insert "AS 22.15.100(3); AS 25.05.041(a)(3),
25.05.041(a)(5), 25.05.081, 25.05.281, and 25.05.371
are repealed."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, prime sponsor of HB 62, objected.
3:05:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Amendment 2 would accomplish
two things: remove the form and $25 fee that are required to
sign a marriage license; and clarify that no person is obligated
to solemnize a marriage. Based on the discussion on Amendment 1
to HB 62 [on 3/9/21], he [moved to] withdraw Amendment 2.
[There being no objection, Amendment 2 was withdrawn.]
3:06:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 32-
LS0272\A.6, Dunmire, 3/8/21, which read:
Page 1, line 3, through page 2, line 24:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Section 1. AS 25.05.301 is amended to read:
Sec. 25.05.301. Form of solemnization. In the
solemnization of marriage no particular form is
required except that the parties shall assent or
declare in the presence of each other and the person
solemnizing the marriage and in the presence of at
least two competent witnesses that they take each
other to be husband and wife. A competent witness for
this purpose is a person of sound mind capable of
understanding the seriousness of the ceremony. At the
time of the ceremony, the person solemnizing the
marriage shall complete the certification on the
original marriage certificate. The person solemnizing
the marriage and the two attending witnesses shall
sign the original marriage certificate and the
necessary copies. The person solemnizing the marriage
may not also act as an attending witness."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
3:06:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 3 would clarify
that the person solemnizing the marriage may not additionally
act as the witness.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his opposition to the proposed
amendment because the purpose of the bill is to remove the
witness requirement. Eliminating the witness requirement would
particularly help with destination weddings, for which, under
current law, two additional people must fly to Alaska to fulfill
that obligation. He explained that Amendment 3 would maintain
the witness requirement; furthermore, it would keep the
officiant from acting as a witness, which is allowed under
current Alaska law. Because the proposed amendment adds to the
witness requirement rather than removing it, he reiterated his
opposition to Amendment 3.
3:08:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN acknowledged that there are occasions
when the person presiding over the wedding also signs as the
witness; however, he shared his belief that such occurrences do
not satisfy the original intent of the statute. He pointed out
that other more significant areas of law require a witness
signature, later adding that the decision to marry a person
[could] impact family court, inheritance, probate court, and
many other things. He maintained that it's appropriate to
require marriage witnesses because it's a legally significant
decision.
3:09:40 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 3. Representatives Story,
Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 3-3.
3:10:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 32-
LS0272\A.5, Dunmire, 3/8/21, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "relating to the Legislative Ethics Act;
and"
Page 1, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 24.60.030(a) is amended to read:
(a) A legislator or legislative employee may not
(1) solicit, agree to accept, or accept a
benefit other than official compensation for the
performance of public duties; this paragraph may not
be construed to prohibit
(A) lawful solicitation for and acceptance
of campaign contributions;
(B) [,] solicitation or acceptance of
contributions for a charity event, as defined in
AS 24.60.080(a)(2)(B);
(C) [, OR] the acceptance of a gift under
AS 24.60.075 or 24.60.080; or
(D) a legislator from accepting a benefit
in exchange for solemnizing a marriage under
AS 25.05.261(a)(4);
(2) use public funds, facilities,
equipment, services, or another government asset or
resource for a nonlegislative purpose, for involvement
in or support of or opposition to partisan political
activity, or for the private benefit of the
legislator, legislative employee, or another person;
this paragraph does not prohibit
(A) limited use of state property and
resources for personal purposes if the use does not
interfere with the performance of public duties and
either the cost or value related to the use is nominal
or the legislator or legislative employee reimburses
the state for the cost of the use;
(B) the use of mailing lists, computer
data, or other information lawfully obtained from a
government agency and available to the general public
for nonlegislative purposes;
(C) the legislative council,
notwithstanding AS 24.05.190, from designating a
public facility for use by legislators and legislative
employees for health or fitness purposes; when the
council designates a facility to be used by
legislators and legislative employees for health or
fitness purposes, it shall adopt guidelines governing
access to and use of the facility; the guidelines may
establish times in which use of the facility is
limited to specific groups;
(D) a legislator from using the
legislator's private office in the capital city during
a legislative session, and for the 10 days immediately
before and the 10 days immediately after a legislative
session, for nonlegislative purposes if the use does
not interfere with the performance of public duties
and if there is no cost to the state for the use of
the space and equipment, other than utility costs and
minimal wear and tear, or the legislator promptly
reimburses the state for the cost; an office is
considered a legislator's private office under this
subparagraph if it is the primary space in the capital
city reserved for use by the legislator, whether or
not it is shared with others;
(E) a legislator from use of legislative
employees to prepare and send out seasonal greeting
cards;
(F) a legislator from using state resources
to transport computers or other office equipment owned
by the legislator but primarily used for a state
function;
(G) use by a legislator of photographs of
that legislator;
(H) reasonable use of the Internet by a
legislator or a legislative employee except if the use
is for election campaign purposes;
(I) a legislator or legislative employee
from soliciting, accepting, or receiving a gift on
behalf of a recognized, nonpolitical charitable
organization in a state facility;
(J) a legislator from sending any
communication in the form of a newsletter to the
legislator's constituents, except a communication
expressly advocating the election or defeat of a
candidate or a newsletter or material in a newsletter
that is clearly only for the private benefit of a
legislator or a legislative employee; or
(K) full participation in a charity event
approved in advance by the Alaska Legislative Council;
(3) knowingly seek, accept, use, allocate,
grant, or award public funds for a purpose other than
that approved by law, or make a false statement in
connection with a claim, request, or application for
compensation, reimbursement, or travel allowances from
public funds;
(4) require a legislative employee to
perform services for the private benefit of the
legislator or employee at any time, or allow a
legislative employee to perform services for the
private benefit of a legislator or employee on
government time; it is not a violation of this
paragraph if the services were performed in an unusual
or infrequent situation and the person's services were
reasonably necessary to permit the legislator or
legislative employee to perform official duties;
(5) use or authorize the use of state
funds, facilities, equipment, services, or another
government asset or resource for the purpose of
political fund raising or campaigning; this paragraph
does not prohibit
(A) limited use of state property and
resources for personal purposes if the use does not
interfere with the performance of public duties and
either the cost or value related to the use is nominal
or the legislator or legislative employee reimburses
the state for the cost of the use;
(B) the use of mailing lists, computer
data, or other information lawfully obtained from a
government agency and available to the general public
for nonlegislative purposes;
(C) storing or maintaining, consistent with
(b) of this section, election campaign records in a
legislator's office;
(D) a legislator from using the
legislator's private office in the capital city during
a legislative session, and for the 10 days immediately
before and the 10 days immediately after a legislative
session, for nonlegislative purposes if the use does
not interfere with the performance of public duties
and if there is no cost to the state for the use of
the space and equipment, other than utility costs and
minimal wear and tear, or the legislator promptly
reimburses the state for the cost; an office is
considered a legislator's private office under this
subparagraph if it is the primary space in the capital
city reserved for use by the legislator, whether or
not it is shared with others; or
(E) use by a legislator of photographs of
that legislator."
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
3:10:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that Amendment 4 would add a
subparagraph (D) to Section 1, which would allow a legislator to
accept a benefit in exchange for solemnizing a marriage under AS
25.05.261(a)(4). She said in discussion with the bill sponsor,
they agreed that an acceptable form of benefit would include
transportation to the wedding and/or dinner at the reception;
however, they also considered extreme examples of benefits that
would appear questionable to the public. She welcomed a
committee discussion regarding appropriate benefits for a public
official who solemnizes a marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN reviewed examples of benefits that he and
Representative Vance had identified as reasonable for a public
official to accept: a helicopter ride to perform the ceremony
at a remote location; a meal after the wedding; a boat ride,
during which the ceremony takes place. He explained that
because the definition of benefit is broad, it raised further
questions. He said he liked the notion that a public official
solemnizing a wedding should not have to pay to participate;
however, he questioned where the line would be drawn. He
reiterated that he liked the concept but expressed concern that
the proposed amendment could make it too easy for someone to
accept a three-day cruise. He suggested addressing that concern
in the House Judiciary Committee to allow for reasonable
benefits, which are incidental to performing the service, to be
accepted.
3:14:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which a
legislator received a one-thousand-dollar honorarium or three-
day cruise. He asked if the legislator would be required to
disclose that income in the public record.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN was unsure of the answer. He said if he
were offered a three-day cruise that cost $1,000, he would call
Jerry Anderson, Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, and ask
how to proceed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that he had called Jerry Anderson
to discuss this particular amendment. He shared his
understanding that a benefit of $1,000 should be declared
publicly. He stated his belief that if legislators were
expected to declare honorariums, the transparency would help
them make good decisions on whether to accept such benefits.
3:17:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN sought to clarify how the committee would
forward on Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that he and Representative Vance
both serve on the House Judiciary Committee. He relayed their
plan to move HB 62 out of the House State Affairs Committee and
consider this discussion in Judiciary. He restated his support
for the concept; however, he emphasized that the concept must be
right. He said the process of getting the concept right would
involve discussions with Jerry Anderson and further work on the
intent language to allow someone to accept a reasonable benefit
but not a cash payment.
3:18:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed her interest in considering how
the public would view legislators' activity. She said she would
like to avoid "[setting] public officials in a place above the
average person in Alaska who is going to perform a ceremony."
She pointed out that legislators are held to higher scrutiny in
the public eye and expressed her desire to maintain
accountability and transparency. She [moved to] withdraw
Amendment 4 with the intent to reconsider it in the next
committee of referral. [There being no objection, Amendment 4
was withdrawn.]
3:19:32 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 62 would be tabled and
brought back before the committee before the end of the meeting.
HB 62-MARRIAGE WITNESSES
3:43:57 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be a return to HOUSE BILL NO. 62, "An Act relating to
solemnization of marriage."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS advised the committee to provide closing
remarks on the bill.
3:44:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that the bill is centered on
whether it's beneficial to require marriage witnesses. He
maintained that if there were no witnesses to the signing of a
marriage license, it would provide the opportunity to question
what took place and the surrounding circumstances. He expounded
on the value of preserving marriage witnesses, suggesting that
they could aide in future litigation. He conveyed the "profound
impact" that marriage has on individuals' legal standing and
financial future and expressed his opposition to removing the
witness requirement.
3:45:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE remarked:
...marriage is seen as an institution and I'm very
traditional when it comes to protecting the
institution, but the Libertarian in me says that
should be between that couple and god and the
government should stay out of it. However, a marriage
license is required by the state because there are
legal benefits to being married. ... And the reason
that I can't support this is because there are legal
benefits to marriage that involve insurance and money
and things like that. My question is why are we
lowering the threshold to provide proof of this union
that contains great benefit?
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE went on to share that her preference would
be to increase the threshold to provide proof that the
individuals [getting married] are who they say they are. For
those reasons, she said she would not be supporting the bill.
3:47:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN expressed his appreciation for the
reduction in government that is present in the bill. With
respect to the documentation of marriage, he opined that now,
[people] are documented more than ever. He noted his support
for ensuring the identity of the couple and suggested including
that in a future amendment. Nonetheless, he shared his plan to
support the bill with the notion that it would be amended in the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
3:48:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN informed the committee that HB 62 was
created because Alaska businesses had expressed that government
regulations made it difficult to engage in the business [of
marriage]. He conveyed that people want to get married and
celebrate their union in the beauty that Alaska offers; however,
the two-witness requirement creates a burden on business. He
noted that the bill does not remove the requirement that the
wedding officiant must sign the marriage certificate, which
satisfies the purpose of a witness. He pointed out that the
witness requirement does not increase or decrease the
seriousness of the vows that people enter into when they choose
to get married. He further highlighted the common practice of
documenting marriage with pictures and videos, which remove any
potential risk of uncertainty regarding who got married. He
reiterated that HB 62 is attempting to bring Alaska into the
Twenty-First Century and would allow businesses to continue to
provide valuable services and increase tourism in the state.
For all those reasons, he urged support for the bill.
3:51:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report HB 62 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE objected.
3:52:03 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kaufman, Tarr,
Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of reporting HB
62 out of committee. Representatives Eastman and Vance voted
against it. Therefore, HB 62 was reported out of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 44 Bill Hearing Request 2.23.21.pdf |
HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB44 Sponsor Statement version A.pdf |
HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 44 Sponsor Statement version B.pdf |
HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 44 Bill version A.PDF |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 44 Bill version B - Blank CS for HB 44.pdf |
HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 44 Sectional Analysis version A.pdf |
HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 44 Sectional Analysis version B.pdf |
HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB44 Additional Information - AKCPA Amendment Memo 3.4.21 .pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 44 Testimony - Received as of 2.23.21.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 106 Hearing Request 3.1.21.pdf |
HHSS 5/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Sponsor Statement 2.18.21.pdf |
HHSS 5/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 version A.PDF |
HHSS 5/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Sectional Analysis version A.pdf |
HHSS 5/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Fiscal Note DPS CJISP.PDF |
HHSS 5/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Fiscal Note HSS PS.PDF |
HHSS 5/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 DPS Prensentation 3.11.21 Distributed.pdf |
HHSS 5/13/2021 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 44 version B- Summary of Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 44 Explanation of changes version A to B.pdf |
HSTA 3/11/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 44 |