Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
01/26/2018 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB216 | |
| HB13 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 13-NO ST. FUNDS FOR FEDERAL REGISTRY
1:14:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 13, "An Act prohibiting the expenditure of state
or municipal assets to create a registry based on race or
religion."
1:16:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 13, labeled 30-LS0147\R,
Martin, 1/23/18, as the working document. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
1:16:45 PM
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska
State Legislature, advised that CSHB 13, Version R, has one
conforming change from the previous version, CSHB 13(STA),
Version O. She pointed to slide 1 of the PowerPoint titled,
Changes from Previous CS," and explained that last year, a
statute referred to in this bill was repealed, and consequently,
the sponsor asked the drafter to remove that repealed statutory
reference. Ms. Holland advised that the drafter had advised
that that action did not effect a substantial change upon the
bill.
1:17:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN requested Ms. Holland to briefly describe this
legislation for the visiting exchange students in the audience.
1:17:37 PM
MS. HOLLAND referred to slide 3, "What HB 13 Does?" and
paraphrased as follows:
• Prevents municipal and state governments from using
or authorizing use of their assets to implement or
help implement a presidential order, a federal
regulation or law that "creates a registry based on
race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin."
• Proactively prevents federal overreach and protects
the privacy of Alaskans
• Potentially saves the state money.
MS. HOLLAND described that this bill proactively prevents
federal overreach and protects the privacy of Alaskans and, it
could potentially save the state money. She described it as a
proactive solution to a problem that does not currently exist
because such registries have existed in the past. It is the
sponsor's belief that these rights to privacy and equal
protections under the law should be protected, she advised.
1:18:57 PM
MS. HOLLAND turned to slide 4, titled, "What HB 13 Doesn't Do:"
and paraphrased as follows:
• Affect state registries
• Affect institutions which collect aggregated data in
regard to race, religion, ethnicity, or national
origin
• "Based on" are key interpretive words
• Impair the Department of State's capability to track
terrorist organizations
MS. HOLLAND explained that the sponsor's office determined
through Legislative Legal and Research Services that HB 13 does
not affect state registries. She pointed out that this bill has
very few words, but the words included are important. For
example, "based on" and "registry" are two key terms in this
legislation, such that the United States Census compiles data
based on ethnicity of United States citizens every year.
Although, she pointed out, it is not a "registry" because it
takes that data and compiles it into an aggregated form;
therefore, it is not based on ethnicity due to the fact that it
compiles this data for the purposes of counting the population,
age, children, and so forth. She explained that HB 13 does not
affect those institutions which collect aggregated data in this
sense, and it does not impair the Department of State and
Homeland Security's capability to track terrorist organizations,
as it currently tracks the comings and going of people from
every country, every national origin. Therefore, creating an
additional registry was determined to be redundant by the United
States Department of State and Homeland Security.
1:20:35 PM
MS. HOLLAND turned to slide 5, titled, "Why Introduce This
Bill?" and paraphrased as follows:
• Federal administration has not retracted statements
communicating intent to revive such a registry
• Our state has proactively protected individual
rights before in the same statutory section,
specifically with regard to the right to bear firearms
• Makes a statement that Alaska will not participate
in any forms of federal overreach, especially as it
concerns our liberties
MS. HOLLAND advised that this bill was introduced after hearing
statements from the federal administration implying there was
significant interest in reviving such a registry based on
religion or national origin. Therefore, the sponsor believes it
is a pressing issue for the state legislature to respond to
those claims. She referred to [CSHB 13, Version R, AS
44.99.040(a)] Section 1, and related that the bill was also
introduced because this state enacted a proactive measure, such
as this, previously with regard to the individual right to bear
firearms, and it also makes a statement that Alaska will not
participate in any forms of federal overreach, especially when
it concerns Alaskans' liberties.
1:21:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that Ms. Holland had testified that
the bill could potentially save the state money. Except, she
argued, if the federal government decided that Alaska was not
cooperating, it could use that as an incentive or a hammer
wherein Alaska loses money.
MS. HOLLAND clarified that Representative LeDoux was correct in
the event this bill was considered to be a sanctuary policy, and
that, according to a recent executive order, Alaska would no
longer be qualified to receive certain grants from the
Department of State and Homeland Security. However, she
advised, a fairly similar bill recently passed in the State of
Vermont which was ruled not to be a sanctuary policy.
Therefore, whether this bill would save the state funds hinges
upon whether it is considered a sanctuary policy, she offered.
She advised that she had spoken with the National Conference of
State Legislatures, and she reviewed similar legislation to
determine a yes or no answer as to whether this bill is a
sanctuary policy and, unfortunately, she was unable to receive
an answer. She said that the clearest answer she could offer
was that it could be argued in court that this is a sanctuary
policy, but she had seen similar legislation that was determined
to not be a sanctuary policy. Which meant, she related, that
Alaska would not be violating that specific statute and the
state would not lose out on those federal funds.
1:23:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the fiscal notes noting that
when "we're" saying a bill could potentially save money, or
possibly lose money, that it is more appropriate to give the
bill an indeterminate fiscal note. She asked whether anyone
from the administration was available to respond to her comment.
1:23:56 PM
MS. HOLLAND advised that no one from the administration was
currently online to answer her question and commented that the
savings from this bill would come from the state not
participating in a federally mandated registry.
1:24:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether this legislation would
preclude the state from helping the federal government if it
simply listed everyone who came in with non-citizenship status.
It would not be based on race, religion, or national origin, but
rather based upon citizenship and the federal government's
desire to keep track of people coming and going from this
country.
MS. HOLLAND noted that Representative LeDoux made a fine
observation in that immigration status is not included under
this list of registries of which the state will not participate.
National origin, she offered, although it is closely tied to
immigration status, is actually not the same thing. The federal
government currently tracks everyone who comes in and out of
this country, it has been improving that process for years, and
this bill would not affect the federal government's tracking
process.
1:25:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether Ms. Holland was familiar
with any legislation such as this that had been determined a
sanctuary policy in any other states.
MS. HOLLAND responded that she has a document from the National
Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) listing sanctuary
legislation in other states, and she paraphrased as follows:
At least 36 states and the District of Columbia
considered legislation in 2017 regarding sanctuary
jurisdictions, or non-compliance with immigration
detainers. Of these states, 33 states would prohibit
sanctuary policies, 15 states and the District of
Columbia would support sanctuary policies, and 12
states have legislation on both sides of the issue.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered that this legislature does not want to
predict the desires of the other states.
1:27:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether Ms. Holland was familiar
with legislation in the other states that had been determined to
have sanctuary legislation, and whether their legislation was
reflective of this proposed legislation.
MS. HOLLAND acknowledged that she had looked at that
legislation, but she did not have the list with her currently.
She reiterated that the State of Vermont's bill read that the
state government would not give personal individual data to the
federal government in the event the federal government requested
that data. The states are all different and she would have to
get back to the committee, she said.
1:29:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES surmised that Ms. Holland was not clear as
to whether some of the other legislation that was determined to
be sanctuary-type legislation is reflective of HB 13.
MS. HOLLAND agreed, and she said that she spoke directly with
the National Conference of State Legislatures in an attempt to
receive a yes or no answer to that question. She received "a
maybe," and if any anything, it was "a very soft no," and was
told that it would not be able to offer the answer until it had
been determined by the courts, which could not be predicted.
1:30:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked about the specific assets
referenced in this legislation, and that the title specifically
calls out the expenditure of state or municipal assets. He
offered a scenario of a private party providing or donating
assets, and quiered as to whether this legislation would
preclude those assets being used for any of these reasons. He
related that in a previous bill a private party donated money to
be used for creating signs, or perhaps in this case, creating
registries.
MS. HOLLAND clarified that this legislation quite specifically
addresses state and municipal assets, and she assumed that the
lack of addressing private institutions meant it would not
affect those.
1:31:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referenced the State of Vermont's
legislation wherein it was determined that a bill similar to
this legislation would not be a "sanctuary city bill," and
requested a copy of the legislation, statute, decision, and
whether that decision had been appealed.
MS. HOLLAND advised that she would be happy to provide the
committee with an exact copy of the legislation, she did not
believe the State of Vermont's decision had been appealed, and
she would provide a copy of the court opinion. She offered
Representative LeDoux a summary ...
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that the committee would like to see
the bill itself because this committee "likes the weeds" and a
summary may not provide the same analysis as putting the statute
side-by-side.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked to review the summary while Ms.
Holland was in the process of copying the requested materials.
1:33:01 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:34:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that the summary had been distributed to
the committee and asked whether Representative LeDoux had
follow-up questions after reviewing the summary.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that she had no follow-up
questions because she needed to see the actual legislation.
1:35:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that there is another bill in this
legislature that would require outreach to members of "immigrant
communities," and those from outside of the United States to
educate them on the topic of "female genital mutilation." He
asked whether this bill makes it harder for that outreach to
take place.
MS. HOLLAND answered that this bill prohibits the use of the
state's assets to assist in creating a federal registry. While
the federal government could still create [a federal registry],
this legislation prohibits the state's participation. Secondly,
she commented, she could not see how this bill would affect
outreach to any particular community because she did not believe
creating an individual registry "based on those things" is
necessary. She opined that there are plenty of examples of
"people doing such things without such a registry" that this
bill addresses.
1:36:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that this legislation read that
the state could continue to maintain its registries.
MS. HOLLAND responded that this bill specifically addresses
federal mandates and not the state's registries.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered a scenario of the state reaching
out to communities who may be affected by some of "these
criteria." The state would continue to do the things it wanted
to do but would that be the case if something the state wanted
to do was also something the federal government wanted the state
to do. He asked Ms. Holland whether she could see the dilemma,
and that his reading of the language would be that the state is
prohibited from "doing that, not because we don't want to, but
because the federal government has also joined us in wanting us
to do it."
MS. HOLLAND deferred to Hilary Martin.
1:38:38 PM
HILARY MARTIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, advised that she had
missed part of the question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN advised that one of the things "we're
saying in this bill is that we're not necessarily taking away
from the state's ability" to have its own registries, and in the
event the state wanted to identify individuals and reach out to
them, or educate them, based on some of these criteria, that
that state may be prohibited from doing that if it turned out
that the federal government also wanted Alaska to do the same,
and expressed that through an order, regulation, and so forth.
MS. MARTIN pointed out that the bill discusses aiding the
federal government, whether it is an order of the president or a
federal regulation or law, in creating this type of registry.
In the event the state is creating a registry based on its own
needs or is carrying out the mandates of a state law, and the
fact that it might incidentally also be something the federal
government collects, it would probably be okay because the state
was acting out of state law. The question is whether the state
was using state resources to implement a federal mandate for
something required by the state, and that, she advised, is a
different situation.
1:40:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered a scenario where the state, for
one reason or another, decided to create a registry, and whether
this bill would prohibit turning over that registry to the
federal government. She opined that the bill would not impair
the state's ability to create a registry, but it would prohibit
turning that registry over to the federal government.
MS. MARTIN responded that it could prohibit turning the registry
over to the federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that it could prohibit those
actions, but that it would not necessarily prohibit turning over
the state's registry.
MS. MARTIN opined that it would be a fact specific determination
as to what exactly is going on ... for instance, if
Representative LeDoux was talking about the federal government
deciding it would create a registry based on the religion of
every citizen, and it told Alaska to give the federal government
this information, she believed "this bill would prohibit that."
1:42:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered a scenario wherein a group of
people from a certain area experienced health problems, and [the
state] wanted to create a registry and reach out to "some group"
to educate the people on their health problems, and the federal
government requested that registry. She asked whether this bill
would prohibit the state from giving that registry to the
federal government.
MS. MARTIN opined that it would depend upon the reason the
federal government requested the registry. In the event the
federal government was using it to create a registry, then the
state would be prohibited from turning over the registry. In
the event the federal government wanted that registry for some
other purpose, then it may not be prohibited, she explained.
1:43:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP clarified that this bill speaks to
registries based on race, religion, ethnicity, or nation origin.
In the event there was an outbreak of polio in a specific
location and [the state] tried to perform a quarantine to make
sure everyone in there at the time was vaccinated, he could see
that the above actions deemed justified under healthcare.
Except, this legislation relates to much larger classes of race,
religion, ethnicity, or nation origin. He offered that in
reading the bill on its plain view, it appears there is nothing
that inhibits the state from doing what it wants to do, it just
may or may not be able to receive aid or help from the federal
government in "doing it" if the federal government is also
interested in the same thing in one of these protected
categories.
MS. MARTIN advised that she believed Representative Kopp was
correct. The question is whether the federal government is
using the information to create a registry based on race,
religion, ethnicity, or national origin, which would determine
whether the state could use its assets to assist the federal
government.
1:45:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he could think of two types of
scenarios where the federal government might be involved in
health issues relating to items on this list and noted that a
lot of money is spent on health research to specific categories
of people based on "some of these list items, in fact." Health
issues are often traced to genetic issues dealing with race and
ethnicity, and that different communities and ethnicities
practice different habits that impacts health, which may impact
public health. He referred to the manner in which the bill is
written, commenting that "we're spending a lot of weight" on
what "based on" means. He asked exactly what "based on" means,
how it will be interpreted by the courts, and whether there are
other examples as to how that has been used.
MS. MARTIN answered that she does not have "any great specific
answer" about the court interpreting something like "based on."
She explained that a state agency would be asked to provide
information to the federal government, and [the agency] would
make a determination as to whether that information would
provide information to create a registry based on race,
religion, ethnicity, and national origin, and a court would then
decide whether the agency's interpretation was reasonable.
Certainly, she offered, in the event the committee wanted to
clarify the bill, it is within the committee's power to make the
language clearer.
1:47:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to [CSHB 13, Section 1. AS
44.99.040(a)(3), page 1, line 14, and page 2, line 1] and asked
whether the language would be clarified if it reads as follows:
(3) create a registry based solely on race,
religion, ethnicity, or national origin.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether "solely" would more narrowly
define it from a legal definition.
MS. MARTIN responded that it would certainly narrow the reading
if the committee so chose, but it is only registries that are
solely based on these things and not something that also happens
to include this information.
1:48:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that if the legislature prohibited
the creation of a registry based on race, religion, ethnicity,
or national origin, with the operative language being "or," an
easy way to get around this limitation would simply be a
registry that included other information along side each of the
above. Even if, he offered, it was a registry based on race,
religion, ethnicity, and national origin, it would obviate the
restriction on any one of these items individually. He noted
that by simply adding a bit more information into this registry,
the committee could get around the intended limitation.
MS. MARTIN responded that if this is a matter of drafting, while
"and" would mean both or all of them, "or" does not just mean
one, such that "or" could often be "race or religion or both."
She reiterated that it is within the committee's power to change
the language.
[HB 13 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB216 Additional Document-Leg Legal Memo on Amendment #5 (T.3) 1.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 216 |
| HB216 Amendments #1-5.pdf |
HJUD 1/24/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 216 |
| HB216 Amendments #1-5 HJUD Final Votes 1.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 216 |
| HB013 ver R 1.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 Sponsor Statement 1.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 Supporting Document-Research Document 1.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 PowerPoint Presentation 1.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 Fiscal Note GOV-OMB 1.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 13 |