Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/22/2011 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB7 | |
| HB3 | |
| HB119 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to issuance of driver's licenses."
2:29:20 PM
Vice-Chair Fairclough moved CSHB 3 (STA) 27-LS0010\X.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, SPONSOR, explained that the bill
was very different from legislation that had been
introduced the previous session. Currently a person in the
country with a passport, visa, or green card that expired
the following day could still get a driver's license in
Alaska that would last for five years. He explained that HB
3 would allow the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue
a license that would match the term of the non-citizen's
legal presence document. He stated that a visa that expired
in six months time would mean that the driver's license
would expire at the same time.
THOMAS REIKER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, explained
that the Department of Homeland Security was responsible
for determining whether a foreign national could stay in
the U.S. and that it was important to ensure that
legislation would not contradict any ruling made by the
federal government. The bill would put an end to the
contradiction by allowing the DMV to issue driver's
licenses for less than five years when the length of a
person's authorized stay was less than five years. The
legislation would ensure that a person's license would
expire on the same date as their legal presence. A person
who was authorized to stay in the U.S. indefinitely would
have a license that expired in one year and it would
require annual renewal until they received a definite
length of legal stay. Annual renewal fees would be waived
and applicants could renew by mail for up to five years to
prevent an overly burdensome process for people who had an
indefinite length of authorized stay. The bill did not
include ID cards which were controlled by regulation. The
DMV had sufficient statutory authority to change the ID
cards and intended to match the terms that would be
implemented for licenses under the legislation. He
emphasized that the bill did not make changes to the
application process for driver's licenses and did not
require a person to offer proof of their authorized length
of stay to obtain a license. However, a person who applied
for a license with a visa, passport, or other immigration
document would receive a license that was linked to the
length of stay listed on the document.
2:34:20 PM
Representative Wilson wondered how the license extension
process would work by mail. Mr. Reiker responded that a
person would need to be physically present when they
applied for their initial license and that renewals could
be done by mail. He believed that a copy of extension
paperwork provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services would be sufficient documentation for a license
extension by mail.
Representative Lynn clarified that the bill was primarily
focused on visitors to the U.S., not immigrants.
Representative Wilson asked whether a person that received
an extension on their length of stay could provide the same
paperwork repeatedly to obtain future extensions of their
driver's license. Mr. Reiker confirmed that an applicant
would be required to send in documentation that provided a
new authorized length of stay or that extended the
indefinite period.
Representative Gara wondered whether a person could obtain
a license if they had submitted a valid immigration
application and were in Alaska because they were a victim
of domestic violence.
Representative Lynn responded that a person could obtain a
driver's license for the period of time they were
authorized to stay. An indefinite status would allow them
to receive a license for a one-year period. Mr. Reiker
agreed.
Representative Gara communicated that a person with a
pending application would not have obtained an authorized
period of stay.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the default was one year.
Mr. Reiker replied that the term "indefinite" was slightly
misleading. He explained that a more accurate word was
"pending." A person would be able to obtain a license for
one year if they could provide proof that they had applied
for authorized stay status. In order to extend the license
after the one-year period the person would have to provide
proof that their status had been adjudicated.
Representative Gara relayed that under the current bill
only a person with an authorized stay would be permitted to
obtain a driver's license. He believed the language would
need to be changed if the goal was to include people who
had a valid application underway. Mr. Reiker responded that
the sponsor would be okay with changing the language from
"indefinite" to "pending." He believed the change would
address the concern that had been raised.
Representative Gara explained that the language would also
need to be amended to say something other than "authorized"
because a pending application would mean that it had not
yet been authorized.
WHITNEY BREWSTER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference),
discussed that HB 3 allowed the DMV to promulgate
regulations to shorten the length of time that it issued a
driver's license for. The zero fiscal note reflected that
the legislation would not impact the existing procedures of
the DMV. The only change would be that the license would
expire at a different time than the standard five-year
period. Currently the DMV required proof of legal name,
date of birth, resident address, and social security number
(if one existed). Immigrants would typically present the
DMV with a permanent resident card and international
visitors typically provided a passport and accompanying
visa. The documents were commonly seen at the DMV and under
the legislation a license would expire at the time of the
legal document expiration. She believed it was important to
note that the DMV received and honored letters from the
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
on a regular basis. The documents would continue to be
honored by the division. She explained that there was a
specific category for victims who were granted temporary
legal stay while their cases were under investigation and
that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and law
enforcement were familiar with the process. She had met
with the USCIS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
regarding the specific topic and felt satisfied that
victims were protected and would not face immediate
deportation.
2:43:39 PM
Vice-Chair Fairclough believed she had attended the same
meeting. Ms. Brewster replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Fairclough relayed that she had met with law
enforcement and the federal government during the interim
to discuss concerns she had expressed about the bill the
prior session. She had been assured that a victim of
domestic violence or sex trafficking would be given a valid
residency status for a temporary period within 24 hours to
48 hours. She believed the particular issue had been
sufficiently managed. She wondered why the State Affairs
Committee had changed language in the bill from "shall" to
"may." She also asked DOL about the definition of
"indefinite" in regards to the bill.
Mr. Reiker noted that DMV had some concern that the five-
year length of time was laid out in statute and that the
division was not authorized to promulgate regulations for
driver's licenses. The sponsor did not want to be
restrictive of DMV and decided that the bill should read
"may" and not "shall." Representative Paul Seaton and
others had expressed concerns that the bill would be overly
burdensome on people with an indefinite or pending
authorized stay. In order to address the concerns language
had been included to allow the division to waive renewal
fees and to enable people to complete the renewal process
by mail.
Vice-Chair Fairclough read from the original legislation,
"If a period of authorized stay is indefinite the
department may not issue the license with the validity of
greater than a year." She explained that the original
premise was for the DMV to have the ability to issue a
license for anywhere up to a year and the current version
of the legislation would give individuals a one-year
license regardless of their length of stay in Alaska. Mr.
Reiker replied that she was correct. Their office learned
in a discussion with U.S. Immigration and Customs Services
for the State of Alaska that the office provided 30-day to
90-day extensions to people with indefinite status. They
did not want people in the middle of the process to be
required to apply for a new license every 30 days.
Additionally, they did not want the department to take on
the cost of issuing a new license every 30 days.
Vice-Chair Fairclough emphasized that the department had
expressed its need for flexibility around its ability to
determine the length of time a license would be issued. She
thought the intent of the bill was to match licenses to
other documentation. She was not opposed to the language
and she did not want a person who had applied for a valid
stay in the U.S. to have to go through a hurdle every 30
days and did not want to burden the department, however, a
mandate that required the department to issue one-year
licenses would deny the it flexibility. She repeated her
earlier question to DOL regarding the definition of the
term "indefinite" for the purposes of the legislation.
2:50:27 PM
ERLING JOHANSEN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW (via teleconference), responded that in relation to the
bill the term "indefinite" meant "non-finite" terms. A
pending application and a continuing authorization were
both examples of a non-finite term.
Vice-Chair Fairclough remarked that for Webster's the term
meant continuing on and on, which was different than the
definition that had been presented to the committee. The
provided definition indicated that there was something
pending that was awaiting an action that would determine
when the indefinite period ended.
Mr. Reiker agreed with the interpretation. He also believed
that their Webster's working definition for indefinite was
"not definite." He understood that it could also be
interpreted to mean "in perpetuity."
Representative Guttenberg noted the Department of
Administration's zero fiscal note. He wondered what it
would take to familiarize DMV employees with documentation
and whether staff would phone the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) [now called United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services] or go online in order
to authorize the issuance of a new driver's license. He
wondered how the department was prepared to handle the new
procedures that would be required under the legislation.
Ms. Brewster responded that the DMV was currently receiving
immigration documents and that there would not be a
substantial change from the current process. The change
would be to the expiration date of the license that would
match the date on the provided documents. The training that
would be required would be minimal and could be absorbed in
the current DMV budget. She elaborated that DMV had a
strong relationship with USCIS and they would have no
problem asking for assistance if necessary.
Representative Edgmon discussed that the bill could impact
Alaskan communities like Sand Point, King Cove, Akutan, and
Unalaska, in a way that had not been anticipated. He asked
how the DMV would handle communities that did not have
year-round DMV service. Ms. Brewster noted that Unalaska
was the only community listed that had a year-round DMV.
She did not believe a substantial change would occur in the
areas where there were a number of cannery workers. She
explained that the requirements to obtain a driver's
license were in statute and would not change. The
requirements included proof of legal name, date of birth,
residence, and social security card (if one existed). The
only significant change would be that a person's license
would expire at the time of the legal stay listed on the
authorization documentation.
2:56:35 PM
MR. JEFFREY MITTMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF ALASKA (via teleconference), testified
that the union's concern was related to the potential for
differential treatment of immigrants. The union believed
that the bill raised constitutional issues related to the
equal protection rights of immigrants. Immigrants were a
suspect class under most federal discrimination law and
would receive a different and second-class type of license.
There could be a reasonable government interest in
providing the differential class of license in the event
that the term of stay was related to a person's safety,
ability to drive, or the DMV mandate of issuing licenses.
He explained that because the purpose of a driver's license
was to identify that a person was a safe driver the idea of
a second-class type of license raised significant concerns
that a court may have contention with.
Representative Gara was concerned that a person who had a
valid application in for legal presence in the U.S. would
not be covered under the bill's "authorized stay" language.
Mr. Mittman responded that the union believed that there
were some language problems with the bill and the problem
at hand put the DMV in the position of making a
determination that would be best made by a federal INS or
immigration agency. He explained that it was an open
question that did not relate to a person's ability to
safely drive a vehicle or understand road laws. The union
believed that the new law would deny an individual the
right to obtain a license under a procedure that all other
individuals were entitled to.
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered whether Mr. Mittman saw any
reference to the immigration issue in the legislation
before the committee. Mr. Mittman responded that the issue
was related to an individual's length of stay. Information
had been provided that pertained to lawful presence
requirements that many states could constitutionally
implement. However, the union believed that it would be a
reasonable assumption that a differential type of license
would be related to a person's immigration status. He
explained that presumably every U.S. citizen was able to
stay in the country for an indefinite period that was until
their death. Presuming the intention of the bill was to
provide differential licenses to people who may not be
citizens or lawful permanent residents the presumption
would be that the majority of the people would be in some
sort of immigrant status.
Vice-Chair Fairclough discussed that DMV was specifically
required to provide a license for five years and that there
were reasons that the division might want to limit a
driver's license that were outside of immigration issues.
She explained that the law before the committee was taking
a step to meet the specific need and that she had also
introduced a piece of legislation that worked to provide
DMV with the flexibility to issue a license for a period
that was different than five years. Mr. Mittman answered
that there could be a constitutionally appropriate and non-
discriminatory reason for having a differential license.
His concern was that as HB 3 was currently drafted the bill
was susceptible to discriminatory treatment that could
violate federal constitutional standards.
Representative Wilson did not understand why there would be
an objection to the issuance of licenses for a different
period of time. She recognized that it would be one thing
to issue a license that looked notably different from the
standard license, but that everyone in the room had a
different expiration date on their license.
Mr. Mittman replied that the change made by the State
Affairs Committee that lessened the burden on renewing a
license was an improvement on the original bill. The
differential treatment was related the more burdensome
process that individuals who could be of immigrant status
would have to undergo on an annual basis. Additionally,
there was concern about regulatory processes that may
provide discretion for a DMV employee to require a person
who they thought looked like an immigrant to provide
differential documentation.
3:04:16 PM
Representative Joule asked whether a citizen in the United
States had a bit more of an advantage than a non-citizen.
Mr. Mittman remarked that there were constitutionally
permissible instances where citizens had certain rights,
privileges, or opportunities that non-citizens did not. The
union believed that the federal government would not find
it appropriate to treat an immigrant differentially in the
case of the issuance of a driver's license.
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered whether a driver's license
was a right or a privilege. Mr. Mittman replied that in
many states a driver's license was a privilege. However,
once a state instituted policies or procedures for
individuals obtaining licenses, there could not be
inappropriately discriminatory processes for providing the
privilege.
Vice-Chair Fairclough believed that driving in the state of
Alaska was a privilege.
Representative Wilson noted that a problem was created
because a driver's license was used as a legal document for
things unrelated to driving.
Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony.
Representative Gara asked whether a person that fled a
domestic violence situation or persecution in their home
country and had a valid application in for legal presence
in the U.S. would be covered under the bill's "authorized
stay" language.
Mr. Johansen understood that a person who was in the U.S.
legally that experienced trouble providing proof of
identity could go to the appropriate federal agency for
temporary authorization or application pending paperwork
that would be accepted by the DMV. He explained that his
understanding was in part based on a meeting he attended
with state and federal agencies earlier in the year.
Ms. Brewster understood that under the legislation a person
that applied for legal status from USCIS would receive a
pending letter and that the DMV would issue a license for
one year as required in the indeterminate section of the
bill.
Representative Gara was happy provided that the department
made a commitment to its understanding of the issue. Ms.
Brewster replied that was her commitment to the committee.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the zero fiscal note.
3:10:55 PM
Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to report CSHB 3 (STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
CSHB 3 (STA) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with previously published zero impact
note: FN #1 (DOA).
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 3 Explanation of Changes.doc |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/12/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 State by State Analysis.doc |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM SSTA 4/12/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Legal Opinion dated 012811.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Sponsor Statement.doc |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB7.supporting testimony.2.10.11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Support Letters.2.10.11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.NCSL Research Report.10.5.10.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Memo regarding changes to CS.2.11.11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Leg Research Report.Other states penalities.2.8.11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Article.K2 and Spice_Straight Tox.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Article.DEA Press Release on Synthetic Materials.11.24.10.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB7.Article.ADN Article.Assembly outlaws chemical.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| CS HB 7 (JUD) Sponsor Statement.2.10.11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB 19 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 Sample License Plates.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 Legal Research.doc |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 119 Sectional Analysis CS EDT.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/15/2011 9:00:00 AM |
HB 119 |
| HB 119 AIDEA Bill Information Sheet and letter.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/15/2011 9:00:00 AM |
HB 119 |
| HB7CS(JUD)NEWFN-LAW-02-18-11.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB 7 Support Letter.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB3 ACLU Letter.pdf |
HFIN 2/22/2011 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/11/2012 9:00:00 AM SSTA 4/12/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 3 |