Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
04/30/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB163 | |
| HB3 | |
| HB151 | |
| HB225 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 225 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 3 - REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE/I.D. 1:16:21 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 3, "An Act relating to issuance of identification cards and to issuance of driver's licenses; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR RAMRAS announced that public testimony on HB 3 was closed. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, as sponsor of HB 3, indicated that since the bill was last heard, work had been done to address concerns regarding the grace period. 1:18:07 PM CHAIR RAMRAS referred to Amendment 1, labeled 25-LS0040\C.4, Luckhaupt, 4/24/07, which read: Page 3, line 20: Delete "expired" Insert "been expired for more than 12 months" CHAIR RAMRAS explained that Amendment 1 would give Alaskans ample opportunity to replace their expired driver's license with a new driver's license. 1:20:05 PM DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration (DOA), concurred [although no formal motion was made to adopt Amendment 1]. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for the purpose of discussion. He offered his understanding that non-residents have up to 90 days to obtain a license. CHAIR RAMRAS said he believes that is set out in regulation and would apply to military personnel and new residents. MR. BANNOCK explained that current statutes provide that persons are not required to hold an Alaska driver's license if they are in the state for less than 90 days, and stipulate that persons are required to have a driver's license if they reside in the state longer than 90 days. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN questioned whether it would be more appropriate to match Amendment 1 to that specific timeframe for consistency. MR. BANNOCK, recalling a question from a prior hearing, pointed out that this entire bill section is not compliant with the federal REAL ID Act of 2005, so any changes made to [paragraph (8)] will not affect other parts of the statute, therefore, the division has no preference regarding the specific timeframe. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN suggested an amendment to Amendment 1, to change "12 months" to "90 days". REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what the current grace period is if one's driver's license is expired. MR. BANNOCK responded that under current statute there is no grace period, and one cannot drive with an expired license. If a person comes into the DMV office a day or so after his/her license expires, the division would continue the renewal process without penalty, though by regulation, if more than 12 months has lapsed since the license expired, the person must retake the written exam. After 5 years have lapsed, he/she would need to retake the skills test, commonly referred to as the "road test." He noted that the DMV does not impose any fines for an expired driver's license. 1:24:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed that 90 days seems consistent and mentioned driver's licenses are also used for identification purposes. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM questioned whether extending the grace period any length of time would cause problems within the division, for example, for the purpose of address changes, or other administrative and police functions. MR. BANNOCK responded that placing the change in statute would establish a grace period. He stated that other than an exception for military or college exemption, he was not aware of any other grace period allowed. But he said that the question of grace periods also raises the issue of whether a person with a lapsed license is considered to hold a valid license, or if his/her driving privilege is in limbo; regardless, the change to grace period would still only apply to the driver's license function. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he thought that Amendment 1 applied to renewal of a license, or issuance of a duplicate license. He added that Amendment 1 would not affect the issuance of initial driver's licenses. CHAIR RAMRAS [although no formal motion was made] said he accepted the amendment to Amendment 1. He explained that the effect of the amendment to Amendment 1 is that the text being inserted would read "been expired for more than 90 days". REPRESENTATIVE LYNN concurred. CHAIR RAMRAS [treating Amendment 1 as having been amended], asked if the objection was maintained. After determining that it was not, announced that Amendment 1 [as amended] was adopted. 1:28:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 25-LS0040\C.5, Luckhaupt, 4/30/07, which read: Page 2, line 11: Delete "the person's legal status and presence in the United States" Insert "(1) a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant visa or nonimmigrant visa status for entry into the United States, (2) a pending or approved application for asylum in the United States, (3) entry into the United States in refugee status, (4) a pending or approved application for temporary protected status in the United States, (5) approved deferred action status, or (6) a pending application for adjustment of status to legal permanent residence status or conditional resident status" Page 3, lines 30 - 31: Delete "the person's legal status and presence in the United States" Insert "(i) a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant visa or nonimmigrant visa status for entry into the United States, (ii) a pending or approved application for asylum in the United States, (iii) entry into the United States in refugee status, (iv) a pending or approved application for temporary protected status in the United States, (v) approved deferred action status, or (vi) a pending application for adjustment of status to legal permanent residence status or conditional resident status" REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that there are people who are unable to obtain their green card timely due to bureaucratic reasons. He stated that the language in Amendment 2 is based on Virginia law [Virginia Acts of Assembly-Chapter [H2471]], which would allow a person with a pending application to get a driver's license. 1:29:43 PM MR. BANNOCK stated that the division supports Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN announced that he accepts Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM removed her objection to Amendment 2. CHAIR RAMRAS objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked for clarification and for an example of a person who is in refugee status pending asylum. MR. BANNOCK responded that the division has attempted to define a person's legal status, but the state has not yet adopted a legal presence law, although 40 other states have. For example, the State of Virginia adopted a six-point plan for its legal presence law. He said that his division staff could not find a single circumstance or instance in which an immigrant's application status did not fit within the six points of the Virginia Act. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked for clarification of the source of the language in Amendment 2 and asked about asylum status. MR. BANNOCK replied that the language in Amendment 2 was taken verbatim from portions of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), provisions. While he said he could not speak specifically to the asylum status, he said that the federal government clearly offers protection to those in one of the six statuses. He stated that the DMV has maintained inclusion of all who are legally present in the U.S. Those legally present in the U.S. will fit one of the six categories [listed in Amendment 2]. 1:32:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES agreed with the director that immigrants fit within the six federal criteria in the Virginia law embodied in Amendment 2, and pointed out that all these immigrants had a legal right to be in the United States. She related a situation in which a family member experienced a significant delay in obtaining a green card, even though he/she had followed all the rules required to apply for legal immigration status. However, due to a significant ICE backlog, he/she could not obtain a green card timely. During this limbo period he/she had not been given any written documentation to prove legal status in the United States. If contacted, the ICE, would verbally verify that the person had a legal right to be in the country. In this situation, the person's legal status was considered, "pending adjustment of status." REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS inquired as to how long a driver's license would be valid under the proposed amendment if that party had made an application for asylum in the United States. MR. BANNOCK replied that all drivers' licenses are valid for five years, until the person's next birthday in five years, regardless of whether the party was rejected by the immigration office. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested a conceptual amendment to Amendment 2, to read, "to expire on the next birthday in five years unless rejected, and if rejected the driver's license would expire immediately". REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS expressed concern that a person could potentially physically possess a valid driver's license, even if the driver's license was expired, or the person's immigration application had been denied, because the expiration date would actually reflect future date. He asked if it would be possible to set the initial expiration date for a shorter timeframe to allow for immigration processing time. MR. BANNOCK replied that the federal government posts and updates an estimated wait period on its website, which sometimes exceeds two years. He explained that the federal agency's backlog sometimes creates a problem for the division, and using the Virginia language embodied in Amendment 2 will help address and mitigate these issues. 1:36:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the driver's license would be valid only during the time the person has authorized legal status. He also asked whether Amendment 2 would place tension in its directive to the agency because the person's authorization status was listed as indefinite. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred members to the Virginia Act included in the committee packet. He stated that although the language in the Virginia Act is mirrored in Amendment 2, other portions of the Virginia Act could potentially address this issue. He indicated that he would support amending Amendment 2 to reflect the rest of the Virginia language. MR. BANNOCK explained that another portions of HB 3 pertains to immigrants' indefinite statuses. He opined that if Amendment 2 were adopted, even when a person's pending status is continued into perpetuity he/she would still only be issued a driver's license for a one-year period. After one year, he/she would have to renewal annually during the application pending status. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that he could also support the entire Virginia language as alternative language. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the division could renew a license that was in pending status if the person provided documentation that showed the application was still pending. MR. BANNOCK replied yes. The division would require a one year renewal on applications without an end date. However, if the individual's documentation allowed him/her legal status in the United States for 18 months, the division would issue the license up until the 18-month date. He noted that these licensing circumstances are addressed in HB 3. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL questioned whether the limitation for license issuance and renewals ought to be clarified further to identify the applicant's status, such as identifying "pending legal status" or "indefinite status." MR. BANNOCK responded that it would not be necessary to do and referred to the limiter in Section 6. MR. BANNOCK, in response to Representative Coghill, confirmed that a pending application would be treated as an indefinite application status. 1:40:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the division preferred the language in Section 6 or the additional language from the Virginia Act. MR. BANNOCK explained that the difference between Section 6 in HB 3 and the Virginia Act is that the Virginia Act is very specific to items listed in paragraphs (1) through (6), whereas Section 6 pertains to the whole gambit. He said he understood that very few people actually hold permanent residency cards, but that those in permanent residency status must still renew their card every 10 years. He said that he thought the result would be the same, whether the Virginia Act is altered to make it specific to the six paragraphs listed in Amendment 2, or whether Section 6 is maintained. CHAIR RAMRAS stated he was satisfied with the language in Section 6. He asked whether Amendment 2 dealt with the issues adequately within Section 6 or if additional language should be added to further clarify how renewals on pending applications are handled. MR. BANNOCK responded that he thought the instructions to the division are crystal clear. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS described an instance where the ICE indicated there would be an a delay in processing an application for about two-and-a-half years. And whether the DMV would consider applicant in the aforementioned pending status an indefinite status. MR. BANNOCK responded yes. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS related his understanding that the bill's goal, is to stop potential terrorists from obtaining a driver's license. He expressed concern that the DMV might issue an identification card ]from one to five years] to a person whose intention is to harm our country. However, he said he would not offer any amendments to Amendment 1 if the DMV is satisfied with issuing one-year licenses for those persons holding indefinite status. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated he was satisfied with Amendment 2. CHAIR RAMRAS removed his objection to Amendment 2. There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. 1:44:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 3, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objections, the CSHB 3(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|