Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/23/2019 06:00 PM Senate JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB12 | |
| SB80 | |
| SB52 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 23, 2019
5:59 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Shelley Hughes, Chair
Senator Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Mike Shower
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 12(JUD)
"An Act relating to protective orders."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 80
"An Act relating to proposing and enacting laws by initiative."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 52
"An Act relating to alcoholic beverages; relating to the
regulation of manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of
alcoholic beverages; relating to licenses, endorsements, and
permits involving alcoholic beverages; relating to common
carrier approval to transport or deliver alcoholic beverages;
relating to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; relating to
offenses involving alcoholic beverages; amending Rule 17(h),
Alaska Rules of Minor Offense Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to an appropriation bill funding public education for
grades kindergarten through 12.
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 12
SHORT TITLE: PROTECTIVE ORDERS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KOPP
02/20/19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/19
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) STA, JUD
02/28/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/28/19 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/07/19 (H) Moved CSHB 12(STA) Out of Committee
03/07/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/19 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 7DP
03/08/19 (H) DP: VANCE, LEDOUX, WOOL, SHAW, STORY,
FIELDS, KREISS-TOMKINS
03/18/19 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/18/19 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/19 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/27/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/27/19 (H) Moved CSHB 12(JUD) Out of Committee
03/27/19 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/29/19 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 5DP 1NR
03/29/19 (H) DP: WOOL, LEDOUX, SHAW, KOPP, CLAMAN
03/29/19 (H) NR: EASTMAN
04/05/19 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/05/19 (H) VERSION: CSHB 12(JUD)
04/08/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/08/19 (S) JUD
04/23/19 (S) JUD AT 6:00 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 80
SHORT TITLE: INITIATIVE SEVERABILITY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) BIRCH
03/06/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/06/19 (S) STA, JUD
04/11/19 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/11/19 (S) Moved SB 80 Out of Committee
04/11/19 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/12/19 (S) STA RPT 2DP 1DNP 2NR
04/12/19 (S) NR: SHOWER, REINBOLD
04/12/19 (S) DP: MICCICHE, COGHILL
04/12/19 (S) DNP: KAWASAKI
04/23/19 (S) JUD AT 6:00 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 52
SHORT TITLE: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL; ALCOHOL REG
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MICCICHE
02/11/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/11/19 (S) L&C, JUD, FIN
03/26/19 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/26/19 (S) Heard & Held
03/26/19 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/28/19 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/28/19 (S) Heard & Held
03/28/19 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/02/19 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/02/19 (S) Heard & Held
04/02/19 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/04/19 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/04/19 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/09/19 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/09/19 (S) Heard & Held
04/09/19 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/11/19 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/11/19 (S) Heard & Held
04/11/19 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/16/19 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/16/19 (S) Moved CSSB 52(L&C) Out of Committee
04/16/19 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/17/19 (S) L&C RPT CS FORTHCOMING 4DP
04/17/19 (S) DP: REINBOLD, COSTELLO, BIRCH, BISHOP
04/17/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/17/19 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/17/19 (S) JUD AT 6:00 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/17/19 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/19/19 (S) L&C CS RECEIVED SAME TITLE
04/22/19 (S) JUD AT 6:00 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/22/19 (S) Heard & Held
04/22/19 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/23/19 (S) JUD AT 6:00 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 12.
KEN TRUITT, Staff
Representative Chuck Kopp
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis on HB 12,
Version E, on behalf of the sponsor.
REGINA LARGENT, Staff
Senator Shelley Hughes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the changes in HB 12, Version G.
CHRISTINE PATE, Executive Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA)
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 12.
PATTY MASTERS, Coordinator
Direct Services
Advocates for Victims of Violence (AVV Valdez)
Valdez, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 12 to keep
victims safe.
SENATOR CHRIS BIRCH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SB 80.
KIM SKIPPER, Staff
Senator Chris Birch
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the sectional analysis of SB 80 on
behalf of the sponsor, Senator Chris Birch.
ERIC FJELSTAD, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
SB 80, relating his involvement in Proposition 1.
EDRA MORLEDGE, Staff
Senator Peter Micciche
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for SB 52,
Version S.
ACTION NARRATIVE
5:59:45 PM
CHAIR SHELLEY HUGHES called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 5:59 p.m. Present at the call to
order were, Micciche, Kiehl, and Chair Hughes. Senator Reinbold
arrived shortly thereafter.
HB 12-PROTECTIVE ORDERS
6:00:02 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the first order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 12, "An Act relating to assault in the first
degree; relating to sex offenses; and relating to credit toward
a sentence of imprisonment for time spent in a treatment program
or under electronic monitoring."
[CSHB 12(JUD), Version E was before the committee.]
CHAIR HUGHES made opening remarks on the committee hearing.
6:01:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
said that one of the habits he retains from his law enforcement
days is that he reads Alaska Supreme Court opinions and rulings.
He paraphrased from his sponsor statement, which read:
House Bill 12 An Act Relating to Protective Orders
Sponsor Statement Version E
Last summer, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in Whalen
v Whalen that victims of domestic violence are unable
to get an extension or renewal for an existing
protective order based on the same incident of
violence of the original order. This is regardless of
whether they are still in fear of their perpetrators
or whether their perpetrators continue to pose a risk
to their safety.
The Court's holding turned on the interpretation of
the protective order statutes which fail to expressly
allow for extensions, renewals, or subsequent
protective orders. The Court ruled the statutes are
unclear and thus, do not allow for the extensions.
The bill also extends this clarification to the
statute that covers protective orders for sexual
assault and stalking.
HB 12 clarifies that a court is not barred from
ordering relief to victims based on an incident for
which relief has previously been issued or considered,
thus preventing a situation in which survivors must be
a victim again before receiving judicial assistance.
6:02:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he reviewed two protective order
statutes that pertain to domestic violence and to sexual assault
and stalking. He said that the bill will provide clarifying
language that a protective order may be renewed or extended 30
days prior to the end of the order or within 60 days after it
expires without a person having to become a victim a second
time. The court would not need to determine if something else
happened to the victim to justify the renewal or extension.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP related a scenario that illustrates how this
routinely arises. A person may be arrested for domestic violence
assault and go to jail but the last thing the offender tells the
victim is that upon release the matter will be settled. Six
months later the offender is released, and the victim expresses
to the court fear that the offender will be coming after the
person again and requests an extension or renewal of the
protective order. The Alaska Supreme Court indicates that the
statutes are not clear that it is authorized unless another
domestic violence incident occurs. That seemed wrong and
inconsistent with how the courts had been responding to those
situations.
6:04:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that HB 12 does not introduce any new
public policy but clarifies the statutes to expressly allow an
extension or renewal of domestic violence orders. The Alaska
Supreme Court has requested this change, so in that spirit, he
brings forth HB 12.
6:05:05 PM
KEN TRUITT, Staff, Representative Chuck Kopp, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, said the sponsor would like the record to
reflect the problems the Alaska Supreme Court identified and how
this bill corrects them. He referred to Section 1.
Section 1 AS 18.65.850(e)
This section makes clear that the court may not deny a
petition for a protective order for a victim of
stalking or sexual assault solely because there is a
lapse between the assault and the petition, if the
sexual assault was the basis of a previous order, or
if a court previously found that the incident was
sexual assault or stalking, but declined to issue
relief.
MR. TRUITT referred to page 1, lines 4-6 of Version E, which is
the existing language. He said that the language on line 5 is
conforming language. He said that currently, AS 18.65.850(e)
only applies to sexual assault. He referred to language on line
7, the language "the stalking or" was not in the original bill.
6:06:28
MR. TRUITT said that Section 2 provides the operative fix for
the issues raised in Whalen v. Whalen.
Section 2 AS 18.65.850
This section allows a petitioner to request an
extension of a protective order 30 days before, or
within 60 days after it expires, or after an extension
was granted through the provisions of Section 1 of
this bill. The court shall give the respondent at
least 10 days' notice of the hearing and the right to
appear and be heard, either in person or though legal
counsel. The court may extend the provision of the
order it necessary to protect the petitioner from
stalking or sexual assault, regardless of whether the
respondent appears at the hearing. The protective
order extension will be for six months or earlier if
dissolved by court order.
6:07:47 PM
MR. TRUITT directed attention to page 1, line 14, to the
language "or extended under this section. He said that two
provisions provide clarity to the courts. He directed attention
to lines 9-11 of HB 12, Version E, which highlights the
situation Representative Kopp referenced. The perpetrator of the
domestic violence might be in jail or have moved out of state,
so due to the proximity of the perpetrator and the victim, a
protective order is not necessary. He explained that prior to
Whalen, the judge would advise the victim to come back if the
situation changes.
6:08:40 PM
MR. TRUITT said that Section 2 provides the due process
provisions of how a court would administer an extension, and he
reviewed the summary of Section 2. He said that nothing touches
on the existing burden of proof that applies to protective
orders. He referenced page 1, lines 10-11, noting the language
"if the petition alleges a change in circumstances since the
court's previous finding." He stated that this language was
added by the House Judiciary Standing committee at the request
of the Alaska Court System. He said that the change in
circumstance would be the perpetrator being released from jail
or moving back to the locale where the victim resides.
6:10:08 PM
MR. TRUITT turned to Sections 3 and 4, which cover the actual
domestic violence order. He stated these sections have the same
intent as Sections 1-2 but are not identical since the domestic
violence protective order statute is not identical to the sexual
assault and stalking protective order statute.
Section 3 AS 18.66.100(e)
This section clarifies that the court may not deny a
petition for a protective order for a victim of
domestic violence solely because there is a lapse
between the assault and the petition, if the domestic
violence was the basis of a previous order, or if a
court previously found that the incident was domestic
violence, but declined to issue relief.
MR. TRUITT directed attention to page 2, lines 19-20 of Section
4, Version E.
Section 4 AS 18.66.100
This section allows a petitioner to request an
extension of a protective order 30 days before, or
within 60 days after it expires, or after an extension
was granted through the provisions of Section 3 of
this bill.
The court shall give the respondent at least 10 days'
notice of the hearing and the right to appear and be
heard, either in person or though legal counsel. The
court may extend the provision of the order it
necessary to protect the petitioner from stalking or
sexual assault, regardless of whether the respondent
appears at the hearing. The protective order extension
will be for one year or earlier if dissolved by court
order.
MR. TRUITT explained that this language only applies to
protective orders issued under [AS 18.66.100(b)(2)] of the
domestic violence protective order statute. There are two types
of protective orders in that statute. AS 18.66.100(b)(1)
contains what is known as the long-term protective order
statute, one without an end date, unless dissolved by the court.
He said that AS 18.66.100(b)(2) contains 16 different provisions
of relief the court can issue by way of the protective order.
This bill applies to those provisions and not long-term
protective orders, he said.
6:11:47 PM
MR. TRUITT reviewed Section 5.
Section 5 Applicability
Section 5 adds applicability language to the
uncodified law of the State of Alaska to protective
orders issued before, on or after the effective date
of Sections 1 through 4 of this Act.
He said that if HB 12 is enacted into law, Sections 1-4 of the
bill will apply to every protective order in existence, any
issued on the day the bill is enacted, and any future protective
orders.
6:12:16 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD pointed out that the bill does not contain an
effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP acknowledged that making the bill effective
as soon as possible could help a lot of people.
6:13:13 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said that it is not right that a victim must be
victimized a second time in order to have the protective order
extended. She thanked Representative Kopp for introducing HB 12.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that he worked with the Alaska Legal
Services Corporation and the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault in drafting the bill. It is supported by
those agencies, as well as the Alaska Peace Officers
Association, he said.
6:14:19 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to adopt the Senate committee substitute
(SCS) for CSHB 12(JUD), work draft 31-LS0103\G, as the working
document.
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
6:14:43 PM
REGINA LARGENT, Staff, Senator Shelley Hughes, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, said that Version G contains three changes:
Section 1 would amend AS 18.65.850(b) related to
protective orders issued for stalking or sexual
assault. It would change the effective period from six
months to one year, which is in line with current
protective order timeframes for domestic violence.
Section 3 is also conforming language that would amend
AS 18.65.850(f) to provide that protective orders for
stalking or sexual assault have a maximum extension
period of one year. This section also clarifies that
when an extension to a current protective order is
granted the start date of that extension is the day
the current protective order would have expired.
Section 5 would add a new subsection to amend AS
18.66.100(f) to provide that extensions granted for
domestic violence protective orders start on the date
the current protective order would have expired.
6:16:30 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked whether it only allows for a one-year
extension.
MS. LARGENT said it provides the timeframes of when it expires.
CHAIR HUGHES said that long-term protective orders can be
issued.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that there is no limit to the
number of renewals for protective orders.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked for further clarification that the
protective order can be issued for one year, and an extension is
for one year unless dissolved by the court. He added that those
extensions can be renewed.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered yes.
6:18:17 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether he was supportive of the proposed
committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered yes. He said that increasing the
duration for sexual assault and stalking from six months to a
year would bring it in line with domestic violence and sexual
assault. He said that in reviewing the legislative history, that
it appears the reason was that the domestic violence involves
someone the victim knows. However, the victim does not always
know the perpetrator in stalking and sexual assault. He said
that in terms of continuity, many good reasons exist to have the
duration at one year. He stated that the Domestic Violence
Support Network supports making protective orders be one year in
duration. He fully supported the recommendation.
MS. LARGENT pointed out that when a victim files, there would be
an evidentiary hearing, so it is not automatic. The judge would
need to make findings on the record and find by a preponderance
of the evidence grounds to continue. The defendant would have an
opportunity to present evidence so an extension potentially
would not be granted. She added that the defendant or the victim
can file to have a protective order extinguished.
6:20:31 PM
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. There being no further
objections the Senate committee substitute (CS) for CSHB
12(JUD), Version G was before the committee.
6:20:44 PM
CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on HB 12.
6:21:04 PM
CHRISTINE PATE, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), Sitka, stated that she
runs a statewide legal services program for survivors of
domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. She also
provides training and technical assistance to the advocates for
the statewide domestic violence and sexual assault programs that
go into court daily with survivors on civil protective orders.
She appreciated Representative Kopp introducing this bill and
the work the committee did to make the bill even stronger. The
ANDVSA strongly supports Version G to increase the length of the
stalking and assault protection orders from six to 12 months
since it provides uniformity in the law. It also provides
protection to survivors who are not in an intimate relationship
with the opposing party and often need a longer timeframe than
the six-month period.
She said that she has worked for 25 years in this field and has
found that civil legal protective orders provide a critical tool
to help end domestic violence in the state. She said that making
sure they are strong and flexible is critical to keeping
survivors safe. This is because the survivors can control the
process and have a voice in obtaining the remedies that they
need to keep themselves and their families safe, she said. As a
civil legal provider for survivors, she has seen the devastating
effect of the Whalen decision. She has heard from numerous
survivors who have needed protection after histories of terrible
abuse but are unable to get it. She echoed what Representative
Kopp said that prior to Whalen many courts in the state allowed
for an extension or for victims to get a new protective order
based on previously found domestic violence.
MS. PATE stated that now courts are unable to do this. This bill
would give discretion back to the courts to protect survivors
who need it most. She said that survivors who have endured
terrible histories of domestic violence are currently being
forced to make impossible strategic decisions about when to
apply for a protective order to maximize their safety. These
victims know they will only have six or 12 months of safety. If
a criminal case exists, they must calculate if they should wait
until the defendant is out of jail. She said that provisions for
no contact orders may not specifically allow victims to obtain a
civil protection order. She did not think survivors should need
to make those types of decisions and protective orders must
respond to the cyclical nature of crimes of intimate partner
violence. She urged members to approve HB 12 to allow the courts
to go back to having discretion to protect victims after 12
months if safety demands it.
6:24:41 PM
PATTY MASTERS, Coordinator, Direct Services, Advocates for
Victims of Violence (AVV Valdez), Valdez, said that she
advocates for victims of violence. The AVV Valdez also provides
a shelter for victims. She said she works with survivors of
domestic violence and sexual assault on a daily basis. She
testified in support of HB 12 to help keep victims safe. She
said Ms. Pate made excellent points. She said that survivors
need a protective order for longer than one year. She said it is
difficult for women and men to come into programs and ask for
help. The process can be daunting, and these victims suffer
endless trauma in getting out of a violent household or
lifestyle. This bill would fix the Whalen decision by allowing
the courts to grant protective orders on already litigated
domestic violence sexual assault and stalking by extending the
protective order past one year. She said she recently worked
with several victims who have been terrified because their
perpetrators have been incarcerated and are being released this
month. They have been terrified that they may not be able to get
a long-term protective order.
6:27:02 PM
CHAIR HUGHES, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 12.
[HB 12 was held in committee.]
SB 80-INITIATIVE SEVERABILITY
6:27:46 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 80, "An Act relating to proposing and enacting
laws by initiative."
6:28:18 PM
SENATOR CHRIS BIRCH, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
paraphrased from the sponsor statement, which read:
Senate Bill 80 - Sponsor Statement "An Act relating to
proposing and enacting laws by initiative."
SB 80 seeks to ensure ballot initiative language that
appears before voters at the ballot box is the same as
the language circulated during the signature-gathering
phase and to restore the legislature's important role
in the initiative process.
Alaska's constitution details a very important right
of our residents - the right to enact legislation
through the voter initiative process. The legislature
also has the right to enact legislation substantially
the same as the proposed initiative thus removing it
from the ballot.
The proposed ballot initiative language must be
submitted to the State of Alaska for review. The
Alaska Department of Law reviews the proposed language
then provides the Lieutenant Governor a recommendation
whether to certify or deny the language.
The Lieutenant Governor's certification is a key step
in the initiative process. Only once certification
happens will the state print petition booklets for
gathering voter signatures. The petitioner then
circulates the booklets to gather signatures and
submits those to the state for verification. Once
signatures are verified, an initiative can be prepared
for the ballot.
Per our constitution, some issues are off-limits for
ballot initiatives and initiatives can only cover one
subject. But while a cursory legal review of language
occurs before the Lieutenant Governor's certification,
it has sometimes been the case that further review
finds constitutional concerns with proposed language.
In those cases, a party can file a lawsuit to force
the issue through the court system. This can happen
simultaneous to the circulation of signature booklets.
Under current law, if a court determines that language
in a proposed initiative is unconstitutional and/or
severed, an amended version of the language can appear
before voters. This results in voters seeing a
different initiative than the one they supported with
their signature. Furthermore, if the courts
revise/sever the language after the legislative review
process, they deny the legislature its right to review
the initiative as revised. The net effect of a court's
severance is that an initiative can move forward to
the voters that is substantially different than the
initial version reviewed by the legislature.
SB 80 would rectify this situation. Under this bill,
if a court determines that language in a proposed
initiative is unconstitutional or severed, the
Lieutenant Governor must reject the entire initiative
petition and prohibit it from appearing on the ballot.
Voters should be assured that language on the ballot
has not changed from the language in the petition
booklets supported with voter signatures and further,
restores the legislature's right to review and enact
substantially similar legislation to stop an
initiative from moving forward.
6:31:05 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD remarked that she heard this bill in Senate
State Affairs Standing Committee. She is a big supporter of SB
80.
6:31:28 PM
KIM SKIPPER, Staff, Senator Chris Birch, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, provided the sectional analysis of SB 80 on
behalf of the sponsor, Senator Chris Birch. She said that this
bill has one section that amends AS 15.45.240. It adds a new
subsection (b), which reads, "The provisions of an initiative
are not severable after being circulated under AS 15.45.110. An
initiative petition may not contain a severability clause. If a
court finds a provision of an initiative petition
unconstitutional during a review under (a) of this section, the
court shall order the lieutenant governor to reject the entire
initiative petition and prohibit the placement of the initiative
on the ballot."
6:32:22 PM
CHAIR HUGHES stated that an initiative initiates new law and a
referendum repeals existing law. She asked whether citizens have
the ability to repeal and reenact something and if that would be
an initiative or if it would be defined as a referendum. She
asked whether this would be needed to extend a referendum.
SENATOR BIRCH said he was unsure. He said he thought it applied
solely to an initiative.
SENATOR MICCICHE said since a referendum only repeals language,
there would be no need to have severability protection.
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether citizens have the ability to do a
repeal and reenactment in the same process.
6:33:46 PM
ERIC FJELSTAD, representing self, Anchorage, stated he is an
attorney with Perkins Coie LLP, but he is testifying on his own
behalf. He said he was involved in Proposition 1 last year.
CHAIR HUGHES wondered if citizens can repeal and reenact new law
in the same process.
MR. FJELSTAD responded that this provision is focused on a very
narrow situation in which citizens are making law and the role
of the legislature in reviewing it. That is unique to
initiatives, he said.
CHAIR HUGHES indicated she was satisfying her curiosity about
the process.
6:35:51 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said that he supports this bill. He has seen
people "shoot for the moon" and let the courts sort it out. This
would take the pressure away with respect to the intent of the
initiative process. He said that if my name were on it and the
language of the initiative changed, he would want to give his
name a second time. He offered his belief that this would
correct a lot of problems.
CHAIR HUGHES said she also supports SB 80. She said it made her
think about the public trust factor. She said when people sign a
contract, the language of the contract cannot change. We all
know that is not the right thing to do.
6:37:16 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that a provision like this one seems to
provide an incentive for parties to sue over any and every
initiative. He said that if "you can nick it" or "wound it just
the tiniest bit" the whole thing is off the ballot. He expressed
concern that it might encouraged citizens to be overly
litigious.
SENATOR BIRCH answered that he did not think so. He did not
think it would be a common practice in which the courts would
rewrite an initiative. He said that [Proposition 1] was a long
initiative that was substantially changed by the courts. The
presumption would be that the public members who sign the
initiative would not see significant changes when it shows up in
the ballot.
6:38:27 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that the courts first severed part of an
initiative in the 1980s [in McAlpine v. University of Alaska].
He asked what has changed in the intervening years.
SENATOR BIRCH offered his belief that initiatives are overly
complex and overreaching. The net effect is that initiatives are
put in front of the public that have not gone through the
deliberative process of law. He said that the assumption is that
when the initiative is initially certified by the lieutenant
governor that it has gone through a legal review and is
appropriate to be in front of the public.
6:39:48 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referred to Article XII, Section 11 of the
Constitution of the State of Alaska issue. He said that the
second sentence reads, "Unless clearly inapplicable, the law-
making powers of the legislature may be exercised by the people
through the initiative, subject to the limitations of Article
XI."
He said that would create an additional bar to the legislature.
This would put additional burdens on the initiative power that
are not imposed on the legislature's law-making power, he said.
SENATOR BIRCH deferred to Mr. Fjelstad.
6:40:38 PM
MR. FJELSTAD answered that with the initiative process, a number
of constitutional provisions are in play. He acknowledged that
constitutional repercussions occur when a change like this
happens. He agreed that the provision Senator Kiehl mentioned is
in play, but on the other side is the constitutional right and
policy obligation of legislature to review an initiative before
it goes to the voters. He said this is apolitical. The framers
of the Constitution of the State of Alaska contemplated the
legislature would be the last stop, with the ability to review
an initiative and to enact something substantially similar if it
chooses to do so. That would stop an initiative, he said. People
have the right to make laws, subject to the legislature bringing
an end to it. The dynamic of the court's severance significantly
changes that, because if the courts severs something like it did
last year with Proposition 1 last year, it became something very
different than what the legislature considered in the first
instance.
He said that it changes the politics. The legislature may review
an initiative and the probability it would enact something
substantially similar to an initiative it does not like is very
low. However, if the court were to sever the things that were
objectionable, it creates a very different piece of legislation
and the probability that it would enact legislation goes way up.
He said that the positioning and the timing of when the
legislature reviews it matters. He said that putting the court
after the legislative review and creating something different is
significant.
SENATOR KIEHL said it seems analogous to the governor's power to
sign a veto. He said that the court retains the ability to sever
afterwards. He said it is the same dynamic. He asked how that
would justify putting an additional restriction on the law-
making power of the people through an initiative.
MR. FJELSTAD said the people have a law-making power and the
ability to make laws. The question is not what the people
propose, which might be to say we want a law that consists of 10
parts, which is fine, rather, it is when the courts are deciding
unilaterally to remove two of 10 parts.
SENATOR KIEHL answered that the people ultimately make that
decision when they vote on the initiative consisting of eight
parts instead of 10.
MR. FJELSTAD agreed that the people get to vote. However, the
legislature could say it was presented with a bill consisting of
10 parts. However, after the legislature ends, if the court
carves out two parts, it means the legislature has not examined
the revised version, which could be a very different bill.
6:45:09 PM
SENATOR BIRCH said he thinks SB 80 has some significant benefit
and consequences with the potential to streamline the process.
6:45:44 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said the Constitution of the State of Alaska
has different provisions. He said that Title 1 on initiatives
answers several of the questions. He said he has stated his
support. He characterized it as a truth in advertising issue. If
he places his signature on [an initiative], it should be what is
going forward. Otherwise it should come back for another set of
signatures.
SENATOR BIRCH thanked the committee.
6:46:33 PM
CHAIR HUGHES pointed out that legislators can withdraw their
sponsorship on proposed bills if the language in the bill
changes.
[SB 80 was held in committee.]
SB 52-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL; ALCOHOL REG
6:47:49 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the final order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 52, "An Act relating to alcoholic beverages;
relating to the regulation of manufacturers, wholesalers, and
retailers of alcoholic beverages; relating to licenses,
endorsements, and permits involving alcoholic beverages;
relating to common carrier approval to transport or deliver
alcoholic beverages; relating to the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board; relating to offenses involving alcoholic beverages;
amending Rule 17(h), Alaska Rules of Minor Offense Procedure;
and providing for an effective date."
6:48:23 PM
At-ease.
6:49:09 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting. She asked Ms. Morledge to
discuss the changes that were made in the Senate Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee.
6:49:22 PM
EDRA MORLEDGE, Staff, Senator Peter Micciche, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, explained the changes in Version S,
beginning with Article 2.
Explanation of Changes CS SENATE BILL NO. 52 (L&C)
Version: 31-LS0004/S
Page 6, Lines 13-15: Requires the fermentation process
of all brewed beverages offered for sale for a brewery
manufacturer licensee to occur on the holder's
premises in the state.
Page 6, Lines 20-21: Requires the fermentation process
of all wine offered for sale by a winery manufacturer
licensee to occur on the holder's premises in the
state.
MS. MORLEDGE explained that this is a change from the previous
version that required 80 percent of the final product of brewed
beverages be manufactured on site. The same change is made for
winery manufacturers.
6:50:42 PM
MS. MORLEDGE turned to the next two changes, which are very
similar for breweries and wineries.
Page 22, Lines 8-10: Clarifies that brewery retail
license holders can sell up to 5.167 gallons of the
holder's beer or sake for consumption off the
premises.
Page 23, Lines 9-11: Clarifies that the holder of a
winery retail license can sell up to 5.167 gallons of
the holder's wine, mead, or cider for consumption off
the premises, regardless of alcohol content.
She said the only change on page 22 is to add sake although the
state does not currently have any sake manufacturers.
6:52:00 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that he appreciated the differentiation
between wine and cider. He asked whether the amount of wine was
doubled.
MS. MORLEDGE responded that in current statute both breweries
and wineries can sell up to five gallons. The original version
of the bill changed it to nine liters. Some wineries said that
change would negatively impact their profits. She said in the
Lower 48 wineries are selling kegs for special events and
functions.
6:52:56 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said that was her amendment and it was
conforming language. She said that the committee heard that
people wanted to have a wedding and were limited by the nine
liters, she said.
6:53:19 PM
MS. MORLEDGE continued with Section 10. This took out the
prohibition of manufacturer sampling license holders to
advertise sampling activities on their premises. She said that
was at the request of wineries who wanted to advertise to
seasonal visitors to come to their premises and purchase their
products.
6:54:14 PM
MS. MORLEDGE continued [Sec. 04.09.440(a)].
Page 33, Lines 23-24: Clarifies that consumption of
alcoholic beverages on a large resort is permitted
whether under or not the locations are in the same
building or under the same roof of the large resort.
MS. MORLEDGE said that this would allow customers at a large
resort to move the wine from a bonfire to another location on
the resort's property.
6:55:01 PM
MS. MORLEDGE continued. She turned to Section 27.
Page 55, Line 22 to Page 56, Line 10: Adds a new
section to allow for the automatic transfer of a
license if no action has been taken by the board
within 60 days. This applies to restaurant and eating
places with or without endorsements, and seasonal
restaurant or eating place tourism license with or
without endorsements.
MS. MORLEDGE said that this relates to the transfer of license
to another person.
6:55:48 PM
MS. MORLEDGE continued. She turned to Section 45.
Page 65, Line 30 to Page 66, Line 2: Changes the
authority to impose conditions or restrictions on a
permit from the Director to the Board
Removed the prohibition for the holder of a
manufacturer sampling license to advertise sampling
activities. (Version U, Page 31, Lines 13-17)
6:56:23 PM
CHAIR HUGHES referred to Section 27 on the automatic transfer.
She asked whether backlogs caused problems.
SENATOR MICCICHE acknowledged that some problems have occurred
on the transfer of ownership when people buy a new restaurant or
eating place. He said that this raises some timing issues and it
is something he will probably have to reconsider. He supports
the concept but thinks that some additional work needs to be
done.
He referred to the next change on page 65-66. He said that this
language change was to not give the director the opportunity to
make changes that only the board can make. Currently, the
director cannot put conditions on the permit. He said he thinks
that people believe the conditions are negative. However, the
realty is that the conditions would be positive. He said it
could slow down the process for people who have a minor problem
to correct. Going through the process could slow things down and
the event may be long over before the board meets. He said he
understands the reason for the change, but it will need some
work to function as intended.
6:58:47 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE thanked the Chair of the Senate Labor &
Commerce Committee. He said it is a big bill and the committee
made some important changes. He acknowledged that as mentioned a
few more changes need to be worked on, but they will be minor
ones.
SENATOR REINBOLD related her understanding that it has taken six
or seven years for the sponsor to get to this point. She said a
lot of work was done in the previous committee. She has several
amendments. She said she is very supportive of this bill.
[SB 52 was held in committee.]
CHAIR HUGHES reviewed upcoming committee announcements.
7:01:18 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Hughes adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 7:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB 12(JUD) Version E.PDF |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB012 Sponsor Statement ver E.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB012 Sectional ver E.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB012 Explantion of Changes ver E.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB012 Reference Document CPO Statute and Duration of Order.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| SB 80 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 Version U.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 - Fiscal Note - GOV.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |
| SB052 EXPLANATION OF CHANGES 04.22.19.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 52 |
| SB52 SECTIONAL ANALYSIS 4-22-19.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 52 |
| SB 80 - Letter of Support.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 - Letter of Support - RDC.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 - Letter of Support - Alliance Board of Directors.pdf |
SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 80 |