Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

02/13/2017 01:30 PM JUDICIARY


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
02:04:14 PM Start
02:04:55 PM HB8
02:53:52 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Delayed to 15 Min. After LAW Subcommittee --
-- Please Note Time Change --
+= HB 8 ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN PROTECTIVE ORDERS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
         HB 8-ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN PROTECTIVE ORDERS                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:04:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced  that the only order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO. 8, "An Act relating to protective orders."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:05:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TIM  CLARK,  Staff,  Representative Brice  Edgmon,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, referred to the Explanation  of Changes in Committee                                                               
Substitute  for  HB  8,  and  paraphrased  as  follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     During HB 8's first  hearing before the House Judiciary                                                                    
     Committee, Representative Eastman  noticed two sections                                                                    
     of the bill that could be drafted more economically.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Sections  8   and  9  of  the   original  bill  concern                                                                    
     recognition  of   domestic-violence-related  protective                                                                    
     orders in statutes regarding dissolution of marriage.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Section 8  included that a petition  for dissolution of                                                                    
     a marriage  must state whether during  the marriage one                                                                    
     spouse  or  the  other  was either  the  petitioner  or                                                                    
     respondent  of a  domestic-violence related  protective                                                                    
     order.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Section  9   included  that  a  court   should  give  a                                                                    
     heightened level of  scrutiny to dissolution agreements                                                                    
     if one party or the  other was either the petitioner or                                                                    
     respondent  of a  domestic violence-related  protective                                                                    
     order.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     These statutes  currently single out  protective orders                                                                    
     issued   in   another   jurisdiction,   including   the                                                                    
     requirement that  they be filed  with an  Alaska court.                                                                    
     However, because  of the amendments  the bill  makes to                                                                    
     AS  18.66.140(b)   that  singling  out  is   no  longer                                                                    
     necessary.   Protective   orders  issued   in   another                                                                    
     jurisdiction, along with the  fact that they needn't be                                                                    
     filed with  an Alaska  court, would  now be  covered in                                                                    
     the range  of statutesAS  18.66.100  through 18.66.180                                                                     
     already    cited    in    these   sections,    at    AS                                                                    
     25.24.210(e)(7)(B) and at AS 25.24.220(h)(2)(B).                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     The committee  substitute therefore simply  repeals the                                                                    
     subparagraphs  that  make  reference to  "a  protective                                                                    
     order  issued in  another jurisdiction  and filed  with                                                                    
     the court in this state  under AS 18.66.140." These are                                                                    
     AS 25.24.210(e)(7)(D) and AS 25.24.220(h)(2)(D).                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:08:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  asked  the  location of  the  repealers  in                                                               
Version D.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARK advised they are in Sec. 8, [page 4, line 23].                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  explained that the difference  between the original                                                               
bill and  Version D, is  that Sec. 8 and  9 of the  original bill                                                               
are deleted, and the remainder of the bill remains the same.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARK agreed, and he said  Version D is a more economical way                                                               
of drafting the bill.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:09:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER surmised  that all of this  is captured in                                                               
another  section  of the  code  somewhere,  and  that this  is  a                                                               
duplicate of that code.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLARK referred  to Sec.  8 of  the original  bill, beginning                                                               
page  5,  lines 18-19,  [AS  25.24.210(e)(7)(D)],  which read  as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
                    (D)   a  protective   order  issued   in                                                                    
     another  jurisdiction and  recognized  [FILED WITH  THE                                                                
     COURT] in this state under AS 18.44.140;                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:10:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARK  then referred to  [AS 25.24.210(e)(7)  and (e)(7)(B)],                                                               
page 5, lines 12-19], which read as follows:                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
               (7)  whether any  of the  following has  been                                                                    
     issued  or filed  during the  marriage by  or regarding                                                                    
     either   spouse    as   defendant,    participant,   or                                                                    
     respondent:                                                                                                                
                    (B)   a   protective  order   under   AS                                                                    
     18.66.100 - 18.66.180;                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARK  advised that  either spouse could  also have  been the                                                               
defendant,  participant,  or  respondent  under  AS  18.66.100  -                                                               
18.66.180, which read as follows:                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
                    (D)   a  protective   order  issued   in                                                                    
     another  jurisdiction and  recognized  [FILED WITH  THE                                                                
     COURT] in this state under AS 18.66.140;                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLARK then  referred to  Sec.  6 [AS  18.66.140(b), page  4,                                                               
lines 11-19], which read as follows:                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
          (b)   A  protective   order   issued  in   another                                                                
     jurisdiction  [FILED IN  ACCORDANCE  WITH  (a) OF  THIS                                                                
     SECTION]  has the  same effect  and must  be recognized                                                                
     and enforced in  the same manner as  a protective order                                                                
     issued by a court of  this state, regardless of whether                                                                
     the protective order issued  in another jurisdiction is                                                                
     filed  as described  in  (a) of  this  section, if  the                                                                
     protective order is                                                                                                    
               (1) issued  by a court of  the United States,                                                                
     a court of another state  or territory, a United States                                                                
     military tribunal, or a tribal court;                                                                                  
               (2) related to domestic violence; and                                                                        
               (3) entitled  to full faith and  credit under                                                                
     18 U.S.C. 2265.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARK noted  that [AS 18.66.140(b), Version D,  page 4, lines                                                               
11-19]  details the  fact that  a protective  order from  another                                                               
jurisdiction  no  longer  requires  registration in  a  court  of                                                               
Alaska [to be enforced].                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARK further explained that  the language in [Version A], AS                                                               
18.66.140(b)(7)(D)  falls  within  the   range  described  in  AS                                                               
18.66.140(b)(1)]  (B);  therefore,  the  language  is  no  longer                                                               
necessary, which read as follows:                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
                    (B)   a   protective  order   under   AS                                                                    
     18.66.100 - 18.66.180;                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
                    (D)   a  protective   order  issued   in                                                                    
     another  jurisdiction and  recognized  [FILED WITH  THE                                                              
     COURT] in this state under AS 18.66.140;                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:13:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KOPP  said   that  [Version   D]  may   be  more                                                               
economical,  but  something  important  may  be  missing  because                                                               
[subparagraph] (B)  discusses protective  orders and it  is under                                                               
the umbrella  of being issued  by a state court  of jurisdiction.                                                               
Alaska has a unified court system  in Alaska "so it's -- it's not                                                               
-- you  know, we don't have  municipal law in Anchorage,  I guess                                                               
they  do, but  other than  that we're  state."   He related  that                                                               
subparagraph (D)  is important because it  discusses a protective                                                               
order issued  in another jurisdiction,  "meaning outside  or not,                                                               
not recognized  -- it's not  within Alaska.   He opined  that the                                                               
only jurisdiction  "they can  be talking  about" is  a non-Alaska                                                               
court  of jurisdiction,  so it  may not  just be  semantics we're                                                               
talking about here."                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARK responded by pointing  the committee to Version A, Sec.                                                               
6, and  reiterated that  [subparagraph] (B)  does lay  within the                                                               
range  described in  [subparagraph] (B).  [Subparagraphs (B)  and                                                               
(D)  were transcribed  above.]   He explained  that, as  amended,                                                               
[Versions  A and  D], AS  18.66.140(b) does  specifically address                                                               
the  issue of  protective orders  issued in  other jurisdictions,                                                               
together  with the  fact  that protective  orders  are no  longer                                                               
required to  be registered in a  court of the State  of Alaska to                                                               
be enforced.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:15:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP asked  what section  of law  is AS  25.24 is                                                               
related to, and noted that AS 18.66 is domestic violence.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARK responded that it  addresses statutes having to do with                                                               
the dissolution of marriage.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed  concern that it is  dealing with a                                                               
separate   section  of   the  law,   and   the  committee   could                                                               
inadvertently do something it doesn't want to do.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:16:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  referred to  the Sponsor's  Statement as                                                               
to Version D, and noted that the word "foreign" was added.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARK answered  that it is a  "term of art," used  in a legal                                                               
context  to  refer  to  a  protective  order  issued  by  another                                                               
jurisdiction,  and   it  doesn't   imply  a  court   outside  the                                                               
boundaries of the United States.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD asked  whether  Mr.  Clark could  ensure                                                               
that his  testimony is absolutely  the case  so there is  never a                                                               
broader interpretation.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARK  opined that it is  quite firmly ensured in  Version D,                                                               
Sec. 6,  [AS 18.66140(b)], [page  4, lines 16-17], which  read as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
          (1) issued by a court of the United States,                                                                       
     a court of another state or territory, a United States                                                                 
     military tribunal, or a tribal court;                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  noted that she understands,  although it                                                               
raised concern because  the language was not  included in Version                                                               
A.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:19:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER  moved to adopt HB  8, Version 30-LS0127\D                                                               
as the  working document.   There being  no objection,  Version D                                                               
was before the committee.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opened public testimony.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:20:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CARMEN  LOWRY, Executive  Director,  Alaska  Network on  Domestic                                                               
Violence  &  Sexual Assault  (ANDVSA),  advised  that the  Alaska                                                               
Network  on  Domestic  Violence  &  Sexual  Assault  (ANDVSA)  is                                                               
comprised  of  18  member programs,  with  6  affiliate  members,                                                               
providing   shelter   and   emergency  response   services,   and                                                               
prevention  services  around  issues  of  domestic  violence  and                                                               
sexual  assault.   The  Alaska  Network  on Domestic  Violence  &                                                               
Sexual Assault  (ANDVSA) supports  HB 8, and  she noted  that the                                                               
bill does bring Alaska into  compliance with the Violence Against                                                               
Women Act  (VAWA), it brings  the state into best  practices, and                                                               
it may allow ADNVSA to  access additional funds.  Oftentimes, she                                                               
explained, victims  and survivors living  in rural areas  must go                                                               
to  regional hubs  in order  to access  services.   In the  event                                                               
these  individuals are  able to  obtain a  protective order  from                                                               
their own  tribal government, it  will provide an extra  level of                                                               
security and protection when they arrive [at their destination].                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:12:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. LOWRY offered that the  recognition of protective orders from                                                               
other states, and particularly  territories, is important because                                                               
ANDVSA has  a large  network that extends  down to  coalitions in                                                               
other states.   She  explained there are  times that  victims and                                                               
survivors need to  flee from their own state and  move to Alaska,                                                               
and ANDVSA  is able to facility  that.  This bill  allows them to                                                               
have the safety they need in  transit and upon arrival.  Finally,                                                               
she  offered, it  shores up  trust because  people know  they can                                                               
obtain  a  protective  order  that will  be  respected  in  other                                                               
jurisdictions, and they will be kept safe.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:23:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD offered  concern that  officials in  the                                                               
tribal courts may know the  person who committed the assault, and                                                               
the person  may not receive the  justice they deserve due  to the                                                               
close relationships within  the villages.  She  asked whether Ms.                                                               
Lowry had concerns in that regard.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. LOWRY responded  that in a small isolated  rural area, people                                                               
know people - it  is a given.  She opined  that once a protective                                                               
order   is  obtained,   at  one   point  it   will  expire   with                                                               
opportunities  to  extend  the  order for  other  reasons.    She                                                               
explained  that the  first  time a  person  obtains a  protective                                                               
order,  it  is  based  on  the notion  that  someone  needs  that                                                               
protection.   She stated that  she was  unsure how to  answer the                                                               
question  of  limiting  an  alleged  perpetrator  or  an  alleged                                                               
defendant  access to  justice,  but  she could  get  back to  the                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that having  worked in small villages in                                                               
his public  safety capacity, small  communities are  effective at                                                               
carrying out justice.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:26:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TERRA BURNS,  Community United for Safety  and Protection (CUSP),                                                               
advised  that  the Community  United  for  Safety and  Protection                                                               
(CUSP)  strongly supports  HB 8,  because it  is well  known that                                                               
Alaska is  the rape capital,  the domestic violence  capital, and                                                               
the child abuse  capital of the country, and it  only makes sense                                                               
to  at  least  bring  Alaska into  compliance  with  federal  law                                                               
regarding these  issues.  She  asked that the committee  vote yes                                                               
on the bill.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:27:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JAYNE  ANDREEEN, Interim  Executive Director,  Alaska Council  on                                                               
Domestic  Violence and  Sexual Assault,  advised that  the Alaska                                                               
Council  on Domestic  Violence and  Sexual Assault  supports this                                                               
bill,  it aligns  with  federal level  and  ensures the  greatest                                                               
level of  protection for victims  across the  country, especially                                                               
as they  move to Alaska.   It is important to  recognize that the                                                               
flip side is  also true for people who  obtain restraining orders                                                               
in Alaska; however  that may be, when they  go out-of-state their                                                               
order is enforced, she offered.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN,  after  ascertaining  no one  wished  to  testify,                                                               
closed public testimony on HB 8.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:29:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MARY  LUNDQUIST,  Senior  Assistant Attorney  General,  Opinions,                                                               
Appeals  &  Ethics  Section,  Office  of  the  Attorney  General,                                                               
Department of Law (DOL), in  response to Representative Eastman's                                                               
earlier question that  referred to the removal, in Sec.  8 of the                                                               
Title  25 paragraph,  regarding the  petition for  dissolution of                                                               
marriage, and  echoed the comments  of Mr. Clark.   She explained                                                               
that the earlier reference in  statutes AS 18.66.100 - 18.66.180,                                                               
would include the statute AS  18.66.140, which deals with the law                                                               
of protective  orders.   She opined that  the elimination  of the                                                               
two paragraphs in Sec. 8 is fine.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:30:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER  noted  that  Version  D  reads  that  AS                                                               
25.254.210(e)(7)(D)  and  25.24.220(h)(2)(D)  are repealed.    He                                                               
surmised  that it  means  the  committee is  taking  them out  of                                                               
statute  which  pertain to  dissolution  of  marriage, and  asked                                                               
whether the language is captured elsewhere in the statutes.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. LUNDQUIST  answered that both subparagraphs  (D), referred to                                                               
in Sec.  8 of  the bill,  is reference to  the law  of protective                                                               
orders that  were required to  be filed under AS  18.66.140(b) as                                                               
it  is   currently  written.     The  requirement   that  foreign                                                               
protective   orders   be   filed  [in   Alaska   courts]   before                                                               
enforcement, she said.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:32:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  asked whether  there  could  be value  when                                                               
introducing  a  new  concept  into  the law  to  restate  that  a                                                               
protective  order issued  in another  jurisdiction  is valid,  he                                                               
commented.    He  said  he  is trying  to  weigh  the  effect  of                                                               
economizing language when the committee  is also talking about an                                                               
entirely  different  section  of  law  outside  of  the  domestic                                                               
violence statutes, now in the dissolution of marriage.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:33:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Ms. LUNDQUIST  responded that sometimes duplication  and multiple                                                               
statements in a  statute, runs the risk of  confusing things more                                                               
than  helping fix  things.    In that  regard,  she pointed  out,                                                               
someone looking  at the  statute might look  at the  two separate                                                               
paragraphs and  surmise that the  paragraphs can't mean  the same                                                               
thing  because they  are both  put  into the  statutes.   Whereas                                                               
here,  she opined,  the removal  of  subparagraph (D)  in Sec.  8                                                               
would  form a  reference  to the  VAWA  protective orders,  which                                                               
would fall under the revised AS 18.66.140(b).                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:34:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN  interjected  if  one  looks  at  the  two                                                               
different   sections    in   Sec.    8,   of   Version    D,   AS                                                               
25.24.210(e)(7)(D) and  AS 25.24.220(h)(2)(D)  are repealed.   He                                                               
explained  that  the  language  in those  two  statutes  are  not                                                               
repealing  a  huge  bunch  of statute  language.    Actually,  he                                                               
further  explained,  the  language   being  removed  is  a  short                                                               
paragraph that is identical language  in both.  He paraphrased as                                                               
follows:  "Subsection  (b). A protective order  issued in another                                                               
jurisdiction  and filed  with the  court in  this state  under AS                                                               
18.66.140."                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:35:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that it  removes a small subsection rather                                                               
than  changing  large portions  of  the  divorce and  dissolution                                                               
statutes.  He opined that that  is the place of concern because a                                                               
lot of  language, in Sec. 8  and 9, appear in  the original bill.                                                               
The actual  part being deleted is  a small part of  both of those                                                               
sections, he reiterated.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:36:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER  inquired as to the  historical reason for                                                               
this  since it  was duplicative  all along,  and it  references a                                                               
protective  order   under  AS  18.66.100  -   18.66.180,  thereby                                                               
encompassing AS  18.66.140.  He  commented there was  some reason                                                               
that this  was included prior to  this, and it causes  concern to                                                               
not  know the  reason  prior  to this  and  eliminate it  without                                                               
knowing that reason.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  LUNDQUIST advised  that  she does  not  know the  historical                                                               
reason [subparagraph D] was in AS 18.66.140.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:38:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEGAN WALLACE,  Attorney, Legislative Legal  Counsel, Legislative                                                               
Legal  and  Research   Services,  Legislative  Affairs  Services,                                                               
responded  that she  had not  performed the  legislative history,                                                               
but from a  drafting perspective, subparagraph (D)  that is being                                                               
repealed  in  Version  D,  had a  requirement  that  the  foreign                                                               
protective order issued  in another jurisdiction had  to be filed                                                               
in  the this  state under  AS 18.66.140  to be  recognized.   She                                                               
explained  that  those  amended provisions  and  state  that  the                                                               
protective   orders    are   now,    essentially,   automatically                                                               
recognized.  She offered her  understanding that the necessity to                                                               
specifically spell  out that the  protective order  is recognized                                                               
under AS  18.66.140, is no  longer necessary because it  would be                                                               
captured above.   Prior to  that, she  related, it may  have been                                                               
necessary to  point out that  those protective orders  in another                                                               
jurisdiction  had to  be filed  with the  court in  Alaska first.                                                               
That is  the only  explanation she can  offer but,  again, that's                                                               
qualified  in  the  sense  that   she  hasn't  gone  through  the                                                               
legislative history  to confirm  that was  the initial  intent of                                                               
that law when it was enacted, she said.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER  noted that it references  Version D, Sec.                                                               
6, AS  18.66.140, and  he paraphrased  as follows:  "A protective                                                               
order  filed   in  accordance  with  [subsection]   (a)  of  this                                                               
section."   He  pointed out  that  it appears  to be  referencing                                                               
things that were already there  and he would like its legislative                                                               
history.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:40:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  opined that  the primary purpose  of this                                                               
bill  is to  remove  the requirement  that  protective orders  be                                                               
registered  in  Alaska  [to  be  enforced].    By  removing  that                                                               
requirement, Alaska is now in  compliance with federal law and if                                                               
the statute had been written  "without that" it would have looked                                                               
"as we  see here now."   He advised that the  requirement created                                                               
additional paragraphs,  and in  keeping with  the purpose  of the                                                               
bill,  the statutes  would return  to what  it would  have looked                                                               
like without that special caveat.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:42:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARK related  that the bill drafter  emphasized the language                                                               
in "the amended section in the  bill."  He asked the committee to                                                               
look  at the  explanation  of changes  regarding the  dissolution                                                               
statutes, and explained that subparagraph  (D) was a singling out                                                               
of  protective orders  issued in  other jurisdictions,  including                                                               
the requirement that they be filed  in an Alaska court.  He said,                                                               
"The crux is,  however, because of the amendments  the bill makes                                                               
to AS  18.66.140(b), that singling  out is no  longer necessary."                                                               
Those  protective orders  are  now covered  in  that full  range,                                                               
assuming the  amendment made in  Sec. 6  [Version D] stands.   He                                                               
related that  his description is  the simplest way  of describing                                                               
it, and the bill drafter went a long way in explaining that.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:44:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  FANSLER advised  that  he is  supportive of  this                                                               
bill, although,  he has  a particular fear  of Version  D without                                                               
more background knowledge.  He pointed  out that to save 17 words                                                               
in two  different parts of  the statute could  come at a  loss or                                                               
could  have   an  unintended  consequence.     He  remarked  that                                                               
subparagraph  (D) has  been duplicative  all along  to subsection                                                               
(b) which means someone highlighted it for some reason.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:45:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP agreed with  Representative Fansler, and said                                                               
this  is an  example  of  the importance  of  the revisor's  bill                                                               
because the  revisor's office wades through  these tedious issues                                                               
endlessly  in   preparing  the  annual   work  product   for  the                                                               
legislature's  review.   He commented  this might  be a  harmless                                                               
error,  as  Ms. Wallace  pointed  out,  but he  appreciates  this                                                               
discussion  because  sometimes  in  attempts  to  economize,  the                                                               
legislature can do more damage than good.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  related there  is the possibility  of the                                                               
revisor  coming back  in a  subsequent legislature  to request  a                                                               
change, but that  is not any reason to change  the law and expect                                                               
the revisor to  come back and do  the work for us.   In reference                                                               
to the  discussion, in  his mind  it is  clear what  the original                                                               
statute  accomplished  and  he   is  unaware  of  any  particular                                                               
discussion that  would have  given him  pause for  these changes.                                                               
In the event the committee is  instructing judges on how they are                                                               
to  deal with  child  custody issues,  the  committee can  safely                                                               
assume  the  judges will  be  apprised  of  the changes  to  this                                                               
statute.  When speaking with law enforcement on the street there                                                                
is value in spelling out the changes in statute, he noted.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:49:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at ease from 2:49 p.m. to 2:53 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:53:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that during the at ease, Representative                                                                  
Fansler had questions and, in an abundance of caution, the                                                                      
committee will not move this bill today.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
[HB 8 was held over.]                                                                                                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB008 Work Draft Committee Substitute ver. D 2.10.17.pdf HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
HB008 Explanation of Changes in CSHB8(JUD) 2.10.17.pdf HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
HB008 ver. A 1.20.17.pdf HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM
HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
HB008 Sponsor Statement 1.20.17.pdf HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM
HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
HB008 Sectional Analysis 1.20.17.pdf HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM
HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
HB008 Additional Documentation-7.30.15 VAWA Enforcement Dept. of Law Opinion 1.20.17.pdf HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM
HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
HB008 Additional Documentation-2014 Repeal of Alaska Exemption to VAWA 1.20.17.pdf HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM
HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
HB008 Additional Documentation-USCODE Title 18 Chapter 2265--Full Faith and Credit 1.20.17.pdf HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM
HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
HB008 Additional Documentation-18 USCA Section 2265 Full Faith and Credit Given to Protection Orders 2.7.17.pdf HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
HB008 Additional Documentation-Sponsor's Reply to Tribal Court Funding Question 2.9.17.pdf HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
HB008 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 1.27.17.pdf HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 8
HB008 Fiscal Note DPS-DET 1.27.17.pdf HCRA 1/31/2017 8:00:00 AM
HJUD 2/8/2017 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/13/2017 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 8