Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

03/06/2017 01:00 PM JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Delayed to 1:15 PM --
*+ HB 120 DEPT OF LAW: ADVOCACY BEFORE FERC TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 20 SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
            HB 20-SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:13:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 20, "An  Act relating to  marriage solemnization;                                                               
and  authorizing  elected  public   officials  in  the  state  to                                                               
solemnize marriages."                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN reminded the committee that  he is the sponsor of HB                                                               
20, and passed the gavel to Vice Chair Fansler.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:14:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR FANSLER  recapped that on 3/3/17,  the House Judiciary                                                               
Standing Committee  adopted Amendment  1, and Amendment  2 failed                                                               
to  pass.   He  stressed  that  when  the  members speak  to  the                                                               
amendments, to keep  strictly to the amendment itself  and not to                                                               
the entirety of the bill.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:14:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  moved to  adopt Amendment 3,  Version 30-                                                               
LS0242\D.1, which read as follows:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, lines 1 - 3:                                                                                                       
          Delete "; nothing in this paragraph requires or                                                                   
       obligates an individual holding an elective public                                                                   
     office in the state to solemnize a marriage"                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, following line 3:                                                                                                  
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
      "* Sec. 2.  AS 25.05.261 is amended by adding a new                                                                   
     subsection to read:                                                                                                        
          (c) Nothing in this section requires or obligates                                                                     
     an individual or organization authorized to solemnize                                                                      
      a marriage under (a) of this section to solemnize a                                                                       
     marriage."                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill section accordingly.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN objected.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:15:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  offered that  Amendment 3 is  in response                                                               
to [Version D]  which added a provision of  not requiring elected                                                               
officials to  solemnize marriage,  and "we wouldn't  want elected                                                               
officials"  to have  to solemnize  marriage if  that is  not what                                                               
they were interested in doing.   He explained that it would apply                                                               
this  to the  section, rather  than simply  to elected  officials                                                               
only, and  opined that  if someone preferred  not to  solemnize a                                                               
particular marriage  for any reason,  they should not have  to do                                                               
so.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:16:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  noted that this  topic was adequately  addressed in                                                               
Amendment 1, and he maintained his objection.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:16:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD   asked  for  clarification   that  this                                                               
amendment  exempts   anyone  or   any  organization   wanting  to                                                               
solemnize a marriage, does not have to.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN,  in response to  Representative Reinbold,                                                               
answered  yes.    In  response  to Chair  Claman,  he  said  that                                                               
Amendment 3 "does  cover portions of this."  He  then advise that                                                               
Amendment 1 is substantially different  from Amendment 3, because                                                               
Amendment 1 specifically mentions a  person and how a person does                                                               
not have  a duty.   The language in  Amendment 3 is  different in                                                               
that  it refers  to an  individual or  an organization,  and this                                                               
statute  applies to  congregations,  religious organizations,  as                                                               
well as individuals.   Under a strict reading of  Amendment 1, he                                                               
commented, only persons and individuals  would be captured and it                                                               
is  the desire  of  the  committee to  make  sure that  religious                                                               
organizations  are also  captured.   Also, he  said, Amendment  1                                                               
spoke specifically to  having a duty, and the  words in Amendment                                                               
3  are "requires  or obligates,"  which is  broader.   Certainly,                                                               
duty  is  one  thing,  but   there  are  other  expectations  and                                                               
obligations   that   may   come  into   mind;   therefore,   this                                                               
establishes, with greater clarity, that  "we are not expecting or                                                               
intending" for anyone  on this list of those who  can solemnize a                                                               
marriage, to be under an obligation to do so, he remarked.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:18:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  referred  to the  [previously  failed  Conceptual]                                                               
Amendment 1  to Amendment 1,  which involved [Version  J, Section                                                               
1], AS 25.05.261(a)(2), which read as follows:                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
          (a) Marriages may be solemnized                                                                                       
            (2) by a marriage commission or judicial                                                                            
     officer of the state anywhere within the jurisdiction                                                                      
     of the commissioner or officer; [OR]                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  stated that  with the adoption  of Amendment  3, it                                                               
would now  apply to court  officials, which is another  reason he                                                               
does not support Amendment 3.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:19:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  referred to  Version D,  AS 25.05.261(a)(3),                                                               
page 1, lines 12-13, which read as follows:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
               (3) before  or in any  religious organization                                                                    
     or congregation according to  the established ritual or                                                                    
     form   commonly  practiced   in  the   organization  or                                                                    
     congregation;                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said  he would like to  hear from Legislative                                                               
Legal and  Research Services as  to whether it believes  the word                                                               
"person" contained  within Amendment 1,  covers that.   He opined                                                               
that  the  law  sees  corporations  and  persons  in  more  of  a                                                               
collective  sense, and  congregations  are certainly  made up  of                                                               
persons.  He said in his  plain reading, the language "nothing in                                                               
this section creates or implies a  duty on a person authorized to                                                               
solemnize   under   [paragraph]   (3)"   refers   to   "religious                                                               
organizations  or  congregations"  which   are  all  made  up  of                                                               
persons.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:20:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX explained  that, certainly, under elections                                                               
law, persons  means corporations,  or a  wide variety  of things.                                                               
Although, she said she was  unsure that "persons" means that with                                                               
respect  to  other  law,  and  it would  be  good  to  hear  from                                                               
Legislative Legal and Research Services                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:21:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to  Amendment 1, page [1], lines                                                               
2-3, which read as follows:                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Delete all material and insert:                                                                                            
                                                                                                                              
            (4) by an individual holding an elective                                                                        
     public office in the state.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  commented that  she  wants  it to  read                                                               
"anybody in  the state," and  that Sec.  2 excludes judges.   She                                                               
then paraphrased that  it read "anybody who  has authorization to                                                               
solemnize marriage."   She expressed that it does  not make sense                                                               
to her that on page 2,  line 3, paragraph (4), she paraphrased as                                                               
follows: "by an individual holding an elective office."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:22:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN recalled to Representative  Kopp that they discussed                                                               
AS  25.05.261(a)(3)  regarding  marriage  ceremonies  before  any                                                               
religious   organization  or   congregation  according   to  that                                                               
established  ritual  or  form.   He  opined  that  Representative                                                               
Kopp's explanation was that there  are certain congregations that                                                               
do  not have,  for  lack  of a  better  description, an  ordained                                                               
minister.     Paragraph  (3)  was   designed  to   cover  lay-led                                                               
congregations wherein  through the  way the church  manages their                                                               
religious ceremonies,  someone would take on  that responsibility                                                               
on behalf of  that organization.  He again  referred to paragraph                                                               
(3) and said he always  understood that the statute was "designed                                                               
to  accommodate   still  an  individual  person,"   and  not  the                                                               
organization, so  it wouldn't be a  business it would still  be a                                                               
person it's just  that because they are not  formally ordained by                                                               
the Methodist Church, for lack of a better example.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:23:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  replied that that is  his understanding, and                                                               
also with  paragraph (3), "it does  accommodate religious beliefs                                                               
and  practices  that  are  non-Westernized,  indigenous,  to  our                                                               
people  here."   He pointed  out that  the language  particularly                                                               
makes clear that  however a person brings two  people together in                                                               
this union, it  is according to their established  ritual or form                                                               
that  they commonly  practice.   The  language goes  back to  the                                                               
spirit  of independence  in Alaska  where it  is recognized  that                                                               
Alaskans want people  to be free [according  to their established                                                               
ritual  or form],  and that  he certainly  hopes this  applies to                                                               
persons, he said.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:24:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked why  the committee adopted CSHB 20,                                                               
Version J,  with the great  new language  in it, and  then turned                                                               
around and took that language out in Amendment 1.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN explained  that through  the amendment  process, an                                                               
amendment was proposed  and then adopted by  the committee, which                                                               
is  the  standard process.    He  pointed  out  that she  was  in                                                               
attendance  and  participated,  and   he  didn't  understand  her                                                               
question.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  said  the  committee  agreed  to  adopt                                                               
Version  J,  and  noted  that  Version  J  brought  forward  good                                                               
language.  She reiterated that  she didn't know why the committee                                                               
wasted  its time  adopting Version  J, if  it was  going to  turn                                                               
around and take the language out in the first amendment.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  pointed out  that the  committee adopted  Version J                                                               
for purposes of discussion, and  the committee is using Version J                                                               
as the basis to consider various amendments.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  related that now the  committee is going                                                               
back through the  amendment process.  She continued  that it just                                                               
didn't  make sense  to  bring a  brand  new committee  substitute                                                               
forward with  some incredible language  in it, "and then  to turn                                                               
around and go  out and then want  it back in."   She offered that                                                               
her amendment would bring back that language.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:26:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE  CHAIR FANSLER  noted that  Legislative  Legal and  Research                                                               
Services was still  not on online, and he would  hold Amendment 3                                                               
until Legislative Legal and Research Services was available.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN concurred.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:27:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  moved to  adopt Amendment 4,  Version 30-                                                               
LS0242\D.17, which read as follows:                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, lines 1 - 3:                                                                                                       
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
               "(4)  by an individual holding an elective                                                                   
     public office in the state.                                                                                            
        * Sec. 2. AS 25.05.261 is amended by adding new                                                                       
     subsections to read:                                                                                                       
          (c)  Nothing in this section creates or implies a                                                                     
      duty on a person authorized to solemnize a marriage                                                                       
     under (a)(1), (3), or (4) of this section to                                                                               
               (1)  solemnize a marriage; or                                                                                    
               (2)  provide services, accommodations,                                                                           
     facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related                                                                     
     to the  solemnization, formation,  or celebration  of a                                                                    
     marriage.                                                                                                                  
          (d)  A person permitted to solemnize a marriage                                                                       
     under  (a)(1),  (3), or  (4)  of  this section  is  not                                                                    
     subject to criminal or civil  liability for refusing to                                                                    
     solemnize a  marriage or refusing to  provide services,                                                                    
     accommodations, facilities, goods,  or privileges for a                                                                    
     purpose  related to  the  solemnization, formation,  or                                                                    
     celebration of a marriage.                                                                                                 
          (e)  The state or a municipality may not penalize                                                                     
     a  person  who is  permitted  to  solemnize a  marriage                                                                    
     under (a)(1), (3), or (4)  of this section for refusing                                                                    
     to  solemnize   a  marriage  or  refusing   to  provide                                                                    
     services,   accommodations,   facilities,   goods,   or                                                                    
     privileges for a purpose  related to the solemnization,                                                                    
     formation,  or  celebration  of  a  marriage.  In  this                                                                    
     subsection,   "penalize"  means   to  take   an  action                                                                    
     affecting  a benefit  or  privilege  guaranteed to  the                                                                    
     person by  law, including a  tax exemption or  state or                                                                    
     municipal contract, grant, or license."                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill section accordingly.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected for discussion.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:27:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN explained  that  he had  agreed to  carry                                                               
this amendment at a colleague's  request, and he understands that                                                               
this was a  more comprehensive way of dealing with  some of these                                                               
issues.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:28:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  opined that  Amendment 4  is inconsistent  with the                                                               
limited  purpose  of  the  bill  and  he  does  not  support  the                                                               
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
VICE  CHAIR  FANSLER  advised  the committee  to  return  to  the                                                               
discussion on Amendment 3.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:28:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LINDA BRUCE,  Attorney, Legislative Legal and  Research Services,                                                               
Legislative Affairs  Agency, Alaska  State Legislature,  said she                                                               
was available to answer questions.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  referred to adopted Amendment  1, subsection                                                               
(c), page 1, lines 5-6, which read as follows:                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
          (c) Nothing  in this section creates  or implies a                                                                    
     duty  on a  person authorized  to solemnize  a marriage                                                                    
     under (a)(1), (3), or (4)  of this section to solemnize                                                                    
     a marriage.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  asked whether  the word "person"  covers the                                                               
language  in  paragraph  (3)  with  respect  to  those  religious                                                               
organizations or congregations, for purposes of this law                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:30:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BRUCE answered  "Yes  it does,"  under  AS 01.10.060(8)  the                                                               
definition of person, read as follows:                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
               (8)   "person"    includes   a   corporation,                                                                    
     company, partnership,  firm, association, organization,                                                                    
     business  trust,  or  society,  as well  as  a  natural                                                                    
     person;                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. BRUCE continued  that the Supreme Court  has interpreted this                                                               
provision expansively, and in her  opinion it would include those                                                               
organizations.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:30:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  asked  whether  a home  church  with  no                                                               
501(c)(3)  status, would  also be  covered  under this  amendment                                                               
with the word "person."                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. BRUCE responded  that it would be covered if  it's a commonly                                                               
understood meaning.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:31:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether  home churches, with no legal                                                               
status, can solemnize marriage under current statute.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BRUCE  related that  courts  would  interpret this  broadly,                                                               
although,  she  didn't  know  about the  legal  status  of  those                                                               
churches.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX inquired  as to  whether any  organization                                                               
could call  itself a home  church and solemnize a  marriage under                                                               
current statute.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BRUCE responded  that current  statute  read "any  religious                                                               
organization  or congregation"  which is  a broad  term, and  she                                                               
opined that it  could as long as it had  an established ritual or                                                               
form commonly practiced in the organization or congregation."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:33:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  asked   whether  this  amendment  would                                                               
protect  all   Alaskans,  with  the  authority   to  solemnize  a                                                               
marriage, to refuse for any reason.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD,  in  response to  Vice  Chair  Fansler,                                                               
advised that she was referring to Amendment 3.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR  FANSLER advised Ms.  Bruce that Amendment  3, Version                                                               
30-LS0242\D.1, was before the committee.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BRUCE  pointed  out  that   this  amendment  is  similar  to                                                               
[Amendment  1], Version  30-LS0242\J.1, and  the only  difference                                                               
being is that  [Amendment 3] pertains to  "all persons authorized                                                               
to solemnize  marriage" whereas [Amendment 1]  applies to persons                                                               
under (a)(1), (3) and (4).                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  said she did  not hear an answer  to her                                                               
question as to whether this  allows anyone, with the authority to                                                               
solemnize a marriage, the right to refuse for any reason.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BRUCE responded  that it  does,  as the  statute is  already                                                               
permissive,  and this  does do  what Representative  Reinbold was                                                               
asking.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:35:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN mentioned  there  are  two categories  of                                                               
people   in   subsection   (a)  paragraph   (2),   and   marriage                                                               
commissioners   are    involved,   and   the    committee   might                                                               
inadvertently  be  leaving them  out  of  this  if they  are  not                                                               
included.  He commented that Amendment 3 includes everyone.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:36:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  commented that the marriage  commissioner is                                                               
a  voluntary process,  and by  virtue  of that  fact, the  person                                                               
voluntarily wants  to be  a marriage  commissioner or  they don't                                                               
apply for that opportunity.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that  that might be the practice                                                               
within which Representative Kopp  was familiar, the state statute                                                               
simply gives the  judicial officer in each  judicial district the                                                               
ability  to appoint  marriage commissioners.   He  added that  it                                                               
does not read  whether that will be voluntary,  or any particular                                                               
member  of the  judiciary, or  a legislator,  and he  was unclear                                                               
whether  that was  necessarily logically  necessary that  that be                                                               
the case in all parts of Alaska.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR FANSLER called for the question on Amendment 3.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:38:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was  taken.    Representatives  Eastman  and                                                               
Reinbold   voted    in   favor    of   adopting    Amendment   3.                                                               
Representatives Fansler,  Kopp, LeDoux, and Claman  voted against                                                               
it.  Therefore, adoption of Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 2-4.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:38:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE  CHAIR  FANSLER advised  that  Amendment  4 was  before  the                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:39:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Amendment 4.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:39:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 5, Version 30-                                                                  
LS0242\D.11, which read as follows:                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, following line 3:                                                                                                  
     Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                         
       "* Sec. 2. AS 25.05.261 is amended by adding a new                                                                   
     subsection to read:                                                                                                        
          (c)  Nothing in this section requires or                                                                              
        obligates an imam of any mosque in the state to                                                                         
     solemnize a marriage."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:39:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained  that current statute recognizes                                                               
many   different   individuals,    organizations,   titles,   and                                                               
ministers, priests,  and rabbis, and  does not mentioned  imam of                                                               
any mosque.  Mosques are located  in Alaska and, he commented, it                                                               
is  important that  mosques are  equally  recognized in  statute.                                                               
Therefore,  it would  not ever  be in  a situation  of having  an                                                               
expectation  or obligation  to  perform a  marriage  in which  it                                                               
wasn't enthusiastically behind, he said.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  offered that her  problem with it  here is                                                               
that  it  doesn't  parallel  the  language of  Section  1.    She                                                               
explained that the more appropriate  place, if anyone believes it                                                               
is necessary, would be in Section  1, (a)(1), which would read as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     (1)  by minister, priest, rabbi, or imam ...                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX continued that by  putting it in Section 1,                                                               
it would  not be necessary  to list them  in Sec, 2  because they                                                               
would be covered by the way Sec.  2 work anyway.  She pointed out                                                               
that  to have  it  in Sec.  2  when  it isn't  in  Section 1,  is                                                               
confusing.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:41:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  referred to  AS 25.05.261(a)(3),  which read                                                               
as follows:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
               (3)  marriage may  be solemnized before or in                                                                    
     any  religious organization  or congregation  according                                                                    
     to the  established ritual  or form  commonly practiced                                                                    
     in the organization.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  stated that  it  clearly  covers imams  and                                                               
mosques.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:42:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  related that  "in the amendment  that was                                                               
just voted down",  all persons and organizations  would have been                                                               
covered  equally without  the need  to  list or  refer to  anyone                                                               
specifically.   Although, since the committee  is continuing with                                                               
listing  pastors, rabbis,  priests,  and so  forth,  there is  an                                                               
argument that an imam should be mentioned as well, he said.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  related that she doesn't  have any concern                                                               
with listing imams, but there  are probably a myriad of religions                                                               
and they  are covered  by minister, priest,  or rabbi,  which are                                                               
the three major  religions here.  The caveat  includes just about                                                               
anything else  that is  considered a  religion, she  pointed out.                                                               
In the event  the committee lists Islam,  then Buddhists, Hindus,                                                               
and  others  must  be  mentioned  which  would  require  a  world                                                               
religion encyclopedia to make certain no religion was missed.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:43:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  said he  agreed that  subsection (a)  paragraph (3)                                                               
adequately   includes  Islam,   Buddhism,  and   any  number   of                                                               
religions.    He  offered  that the  Department  of  Defense  has                                                               
classifications of the different  religions it recognizes, with a                                                               
large  group titled  "other  religions," of  which  would all  be                                                               
covered under paragraph  (3) of this statute,  and that Amendment                                                               
5 is overly specific.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  said  she  agreed  with  Representative                                                               
Eastman  in  that  if  the  committee  had  passed  the  previous                                                               
amendment, it  would have  covered all.   She explained  that the                                                               
purpose of  Amendment 5  is to show  that because  that amendment                                                               
failed,  now  the  committee  must  go  through  each  individual                                                               
[religion],  which might  take  weeks.   The  language should  be                                                               
inclusive for any  individual and not just protect  the rights of                                                               
legislators.    She  said that  Legislative  Legal  and  Research                                                               
Services  previously  testified  that everyone  would  have  been                                                               
protected and had  the right to refuse, except  now the committee                                                               
has the  obligation to go through  each and every single  type of                                                               
religion  or whatever  because the  committee refuses  to protect                                                               
everyone.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:45:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR FANSLER said that  while he appreciates Representative                                                               
Eastman's goal  to be as  inclusive as possible, his  worry lends                                                               
toward  Representative LeDoux's  worry  that  when the  committee                                                               
does these kinds  of things, it creates legislative  intent.  The                                                               
intent suddenly becomes that the  committee chose to purposefully                                                               
include one group, but perhaps  it should have included something                                                               
else, and  "why did we  not."  Therefore,  he said he  prefers to                                                               
leave it open to the  widest possible group possible because when                                                               
putting in  lists and simply  forgetting one person or  one group                                                               
suddenly opens a large can of  worms.  While he appreciates where                                                               
Representative Eastman  is coming  from, he was  not in  favor of                                                               
the amendment, he said.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:47:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN agreed  that  the  committee was  setting                                                               
legislative intent in  these decisions, and it  will be difficult                                                               
for courts involved in HB  20's legislative history search to see                                                               
other than "we  are setting up specific types  of individuals and                                                               
categories and organizations to  effect marriages in this state."                                                               
The committee specifically  mentioned that some of  those have to                                                               
perform  marriages only  because, by  the passage  of this  bill,                                                               
there are other people who  do not have to [solemnize marriages].                                                               
He  related  that  the  committee is  setting  the  situation  up                                                               
wherein he is a marriage  commissioner, before this bill happens,                                                               
and he decides on the day of  the wedding that he doesn't want to                                                               
perform  the  marriage.    He then  offered  the  committee  this                                                               
question,  "What about  me," because  the  committee created  the                                                               
expectation  that  if  he  initially  agreed  to  be  a  marriage                                                               
commissioner, he must still want to  do it, and he described that                                                               
as a presumption.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:48:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN called  a point of order.  Chair  Claman pointed out                                                               
that Amendment 5  has nothing to do  with marriage commissioners,                                                               
it has to do with imam  and mosques and Representative Eastman is                                                               
not on topic.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:48:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR  FANSLER advised Representative  Eastman to  return to                                                               
the topic of his amendment, imams and mosques.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:49:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  said imams  and mosques are  important to                                                               
include because the language read  that there are specific people                                                               
who can  and cannot  perform marriages.   He  described it  as an                                                               
irony because  elsewhere in statute  "we kinda want  everybody to                                                               
be  able to  do  marriages,"  and created  ways  for  that to  be                                                               
accomplished.   He said he  would like to  take a step  away from                                                               
the state coming up with a list.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   CLAMAN  objected.     Chair   Claman  pointed   out  that                                                               
Representative Eastman was "way off topic of this amendment."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:49:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was  taken.    Representatives  Eastman  and                                                               
Reinbold  voted  in   favor  of  the  passage   of  Amendment  5.                                                               
Representatives Kopp,  LeDoux, Fansler, and Claman  voted against                                                               
it.  Therefore, Amendment 5 failed to  be adopted by a vote of 4-                                                               
2.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:50:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 6, Version 30-                                                                  
LS0242\D.6, which read as follows:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 9, following "state;":                                                                                        
         Insert "nothing in this paragraph requires or                                                                      
      obligates a minister, priest, or rabbi of any church                                                                  
     or congregation to solemnize a marriage;"                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN objected.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:51:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  explained that this amendment  is similar                                                               
to  the  previous  discussion, and  this  amendment  specifically                                                               
lists ministers,  priest, and rabbi,  as deserving  of protection                                                               
under this statute.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  stated that  adopted Amendment 1  does the                                                               
trick with respect to ministers, priests, and rabbis.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  maintained his  objection,  and  stressed that  he                                                               
agrees with Representative LeDoux.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:52:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  wrapped up  his testimony by  stating his                                                               
hope is that Representative LeDoux  is correct and that Amendment                                                               
6 is captured, if not, he intends to vote for this amendment.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:52:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was  taken.    Representatives  Eastman  and                                                               
Reinbold  voted  in   favor  of  the  passage   of  Amendment  6.                                                               
Representatives Fansler,  Kopp, LeDoux, and Claman  voted against                                                               
it.  Therefore, Amendment 6 failed to  be adopted by a vote of 4-                                                               
2.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:53:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 7, Version 30-                                                                  
LS0242\D.7, which read as follows:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 9, following "state;":                                                                                        
          Insert "nothing in this paragraph requires or                                                                     
     obligates a commissioned officer of the Salvation Army                                                                 
     to solemnize a marriage;"                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN   explained  that  the   amendment  lists                                                               
commissioned  officers  of the  Salvation  Army  as deserving  of                                                               
protection under the statute.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX   offered  her  previous   testimony  with                                                               
respect to Amendment 6, in that it is covered under Amendment 1.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  advised that  this is important  and the                                                               
committee  should probably  do 100  more  amendments because  the                                                               
committee  refused to  sign off  on the  amendment that  gave all                                                               
Alaskans the right to refuse.   She stated that the committee has                                                               
an obligation to go through all  of the people this might impact,                                                               
and  that   this  committee  decided   to  protect   only  select                                                               
individuals.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   LEDOUX   acknowledged   that   she   understands                                                               
Representative   Reinbold's   philosophical  concern   with   the                                                               
protection of all  Alaskans, as opposed to select  Alaskans.  She                                                               
reiterated that Amendment  1 takes care of  these select Alaskans                                                               
that are  the subject of Amendment  7, because there is  no doubt                                                               
that the people  referred to in Amendment 7 are  taken care of by                                                               
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  stated that she strongly  disagrees with                                                               
that statement.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:55:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked Representative Reinbold  whether it                                                               
is her intent is to be certain everyone is covered.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she  is hoping Representative LeDoux                                                               
is correct, but this amendment will protect one more class.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:55:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was  taken.    Representatives  Eastman  and                                                               
Reinbold  voted  in  favor  of   the  adoption  of  Amendment  7.                                                               
Representatives LeDoux,  Fansler, Kopp, and Claman  voted against                                                               
it.  Therefore, Amendment 7 failed to  be adopted by a vote of 4-                                                               
2.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:56:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 8, Version 30-                                                                  
LS0242\D.8, which read as follows:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 9, following "state;":                                                                                        
          Insert "nothing in this paragraph requires or                                                                     
         obligates the principal officer or elder of a                                                                      
        recognized church or congregation to solemnize a                                                                    
     marriage;"                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that  the amendment ensures that                                                               
nothing  in  the  statute requires  or  obligates  the  principal                                                               
officer  or  elder of  a  recognized  church or  congregation  to                                                               
solemnize a marriage.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  said  she   is  passionate  about  this                                                               
amendment  and supports  it  wholeheartedly.   In  the event  the                                                               
committee  chooses to  exclude one  branch of  government, it  is                                                               
"dead wrong."  She asked  permission of Representative Eastman to                                                               
add her name as sponsor to  Amendment 8, because it is a critical                                                               
step  in protecting  anyone  working in  the  judicial branch  of                                                               
government.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:57:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR  FANSLER pointed out  that Amendment 8 does  not speak                                                               
to the judicial branch.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD apologized.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX called for the question.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:58:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was  taken.    Representatives  Eastman  and                                                               
Reinbold  voted  in  favor  of   the  adoption  of  Amendment  8.                                                               
Representatives LeDoux,  Fansler, Kopp, and Claman  voted against                                                               
it.  Therefore, Amendment 8 failed to  be adopted by a vote of 2-                                                               
4.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:58:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  moved to  adopt Amendment 9,  Version 30-                                                               
LS0242\D.9, which read as follows:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 11, following "officer;":                                                                                     
          Insert "nothing in this paragraph requires or                                                                     
     obligates a marriage commissioner or judicial officer                                                                  
     to solemnize a marriage;"                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that  the amendment specifies in                                                               
statute that both a marriage  commissioner and a judicial officer                                                               
are not obligated or required to solemnize a marriage.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:59:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD related  that  the committee  previously                                                               
heard her  loud and clear that  she does not want  to exclude the                                                               
judicial branch of government because it would be "dead wrong."                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN maintained his objection.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  reminded  the  committee  that  Legislative                                                               
Legal  and Research  Services pointed  out that  the language  is                                                               
permissive.  He  referred to CSHB 20, Version J,  page 1, line 5,                                                               
and paraphrased as  follows:  "Marriages may be  solemnized."  He                                                               
stated  that  the  language  does not  say  "Marriages  shall  be                                                               
solemnized," and  that within adopted Amendment  1, the committee                                                               
basically  "doubled  down  on   legislative  intent,"  even  with                                                               
respect  to marriage  commissioners  and judicial  officers.   He                                                               
reiterated that the language is permissive.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:00:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD referred  to  adopted  Amendment 1,  and                                                               
asked  why  the  sponsor  excluded   [Sec.  2.  AS  25.05.261(a)]                                                               
paragraph (2), and opined that it  was with the intent to exclude                                                               
the  judicial branch.   She  said, "I  think you're  talking outa                                                               
both sides of your mouth right now."                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:00:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN called  a point  of order,  and explained  that the                                                               
topic of  adding paragraph (2) to  the bill is the  subject of an                                                               
amendment that previously failed.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:00:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX called  a point  of order,  and stipulated                                                               
that it is not appropriate  to say that another representative is                                                               
"speaking out  of both side of  their mouth," in that  it impugns                                                               
the representative's motives.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:00:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said  "As long as we  keep consistent all                                                               
of the time,  then I'm fine --  I'm fine with that.   But we need                                                               
to not  just call it  out randomly,  it needs to  be consistent."                                                               
She  explained  that  it  is  confusing  when  it  is  said  that                                                               
[marriage  commissioners and  judicial officers]  are covered  by                                                               
one, and  then exclude  them on another.   "I --  I think  it's a                                                               
very fair  statement, but  if he could  clearly explained  why --                                                               
why [paragraph (2)]  is taken out.  Now, he  says they're covered                                                               
in 9, I don't understand."                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:01:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR FANSLER pointed out there  are two points of order and                                                               
ruled that Representative  LeDoux's point of order  is well taken                                                               
and for  the members to not  impugn anyone as everyone  is trying                                                               
to do what they think is best.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:01:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR  FANSLER commented that Representative  Claman's point                                                               
of  order  was  that  the  committee  previously  spoke  to  this                                                               
amendment arguably with Amendment 3.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that prior  to the adoption of Amendment 1                                                               
[Representative  Reinbold] offered  [Conceptual]  Amendment 1  to                                                               
Amendment 1, adding  paragraph (2) into Amendment 1.   The motion                                                               
to  add  paragraph (2)  into  Amendment  1 [was  withdrawn]  and;                                                               
therefore, that topic  had been addressed by the  actions of this                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
VICE  CHAIR FANSLER  clarified that  [Conceptual] Amendment  1 to                                                               
Amendment 1 was withdrawn.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  agreed,  and   said  it  was  withdrawn                                                               
because one of Representative Eastman's  amendments spoke to this                                                               
subject.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR FANSLER pointed out  that, at the time, Representative                                                               
Eastman said  that Amendment 3 spoke  to it, and he  was inclined                                                               
to  agree  that  Amendment  3 characterizes  it  because  it  now                                                               
includes marriage under subsection (a).                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:03:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  said  the   question  was  whether  this                                                               
subject  had been  spoken to  previously, and  the committee  did                                                               
determine, prior  to the motion  to adopt Amendment 1,  that each                                                               
amendment  would be  spoken to  separately,  which involves  some                                                               
amount  of overlap.   The  committee  could say  that by  passing                                                               
Amendment  1,   the  committee   undid  the   previously  adopted                                                               
committee substitute, and he said he  is okay with that.  He then                                                               
noted that  the question was  "Well, what  have we said,"  and he                                                               
would like to be  clear "what is it that we are  trying to say as                                                               
a committee on this particular issue."                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR FANSLER  stated that Chair Claman's point  of order is                                                               
well taken.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:04:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP reiterated that  the language in this statute                                                               
is permissive, it's not prescriptive  or directive.  He commented                                                               
that  "perfect   is  always  the   enemy  of  good,"   and  while                                                               
Representative  Reinbold and  himself want  protections to  apply                                                               
across all eligible persons, and  it was his perspective that the                                                               
judiciary already  has some flexibility.   Sometimes,  he opined,                                                               
when legislators  choose the battles  in front of them,  they can                                                               
end  up damaging  the entire  goal of  what the  [legislation] is                                                               
trying to accomplish.   Currently, he said, he does  not see this                                                               
bill as  the vehicle for  the [judiciary] issue to  be addressed,                                                               
and that  this bill does a  lot of good by  extending protections                                                               
to congregations,  religious leaders,  elected officials,  and it                                                               
offers "some wonderful things."   He concluded that by adding one                                                               
more thing to it, the committee could end up undoing it.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:06:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was  taken.    Representatives  Eastman  and                                                               
Reinbold  voted  in  favor  of   the  adoption  of  Amendment  9.                                                               
Representatives  Fansler,   Kopp,  Kreiss-Tomkins,   LeDoux,  and                                                               
Claman voted  against it.   Therefore, Amendment  9 failed  to be                                                               
adopted by a vote of 2-5.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:06:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at ease.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:06:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR FANSLER passed the gavel to Chair Claman.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
[HB 20 was held over.]                                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB120 ver. A 3.1.17.PDF HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 120
HB120 Transmittal Letter 3.2.17.pdf HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 120
HB120 Summary of Bill 3.2.17.pdf HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 120
HB120 Fiscal Note LAW-CIV 2.24.17.pdf HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 120
HB020 Draft Proposed CS ver. J 3.1.17.pdf HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB020 Amendments 1-12 3.3.17.pdf HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB020 Amendment 1 replacement 3.3.17.pdf HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM