Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/29/2004 08:04 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 40-REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE Number 2204 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 40, "An Act relating to issuance of a driver's license." [Before the committee was CSHB 40(TRA).] The committee took an at-ease from 8:58 a.m. to 8:59 a.m. Number 2155 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, as sponsor of HB 40, noted that the bill was heard a year ago and at the beginning of the current legislative session. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered his understanding that Version H was "before the committee." REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said that is the version he was using. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representative Lynn to move to adopt Version H as a work draft. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 40, Version 23-LS0262\H, as a work draft. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected [for discussion purposes]. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: A: However (8) shall not apply to a person who is already in possession of a valid driver's license who applies for license renewal, or change of legal names on a currently valid license, or replacement of a currently valid Alaska Driver's License that has been lost. B. The Division of Motor Vehicles may determine by regulation what primary documents will be acceptable as proof of legal presence in the United States or an alien legally admitted to the United States, to include persons who have filed for an appeal for amnesty for legal presence. Number 2107 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected. He said the language in Conceptual Amendment 1 is limiting. He explained that "persons who have filed for an appeal for amnesty" may exclude those simply attempting to gain citizenship or those who are in the country and appealing an INS determination of whether they can stay in the country. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN explained that the word "amnesty" was used to address concerns stated by Representative Berkowitz [at a prior hearing]. Number 1962 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 1], to delete "an appeal for amnesty for". There being no objection, Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 1 was so ordered. Number 1943 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved to adopt Amendment 2 to Conceptual Amendment 1], to delete "Department" and insert "Division". CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that [Amendment 2 to Conceptual Amendment 1] was so ordered. Number 1917 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH ask if there was any further objection to Conceptual Amendment 1 [as amended]. Number 1897 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the Division of Motor Vehicles would make its determination of which documents are acceptable, independently of other states. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered his understanding that [the Division of Motor Vehicles] would make that determination, which would mean that [the legislature] would not have to put that specification in statute. Number 1829 DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration, on behalf of department, told Representative Seaton that the division currently follows 13 AAC 08.330. In regard to the question of other states and "their ability," he said there have been sweeping changes, including the ability to take another state's driver's license when that state has a legal presence law. He noted that the state dealing with that most recently is Arizona. Currently, a law in front of the Arizona State Legislature would preclude a person getting an Arizona driver's license by submitting their Alaska driver's license. He added, "And I would suspect that we would have something to follow suit with that, should HB 40 become the law." Number 1805 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Mr. Bannock meant that if a person moved to Arizona, he/she would be able to obtain an Arizona [driver's] license, by submitting an Alaska [driver's] license as proof of citizenship. MR. BANNOCK answered that that would be true only if a bill like HB 40 were to pass. Currently, if the bill in Arizona passes, an Alaska driver's license in Arizona would not satisfy Arizona's requirements. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Mr. Bannock was suggesting another amendment to HB 40 to allow "that reform you're suggesting to be implemented." MR. BANNOCK indicated that he would not suggest that, because it is his opinion that [the second part of the adopted Conceptual Amendment 1] would "allow us, by regulation, to do that very thing." REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if that would mean that if the regulations go forward, Alaska would not accept a driver's license from another state that didn't have proof of citizenship. MR. BANNOCK answered that's correct. MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question from Representative Seaton, offered his belief that, at last count, 36 states have a law in content similar to HB 40, or what is referred to as "a legal presence law." In response to a follow-up question, he offered the following example: Arizona has a legal presence law; so, if the Arizona person were to come to Alaska, we would honor the Arizona driver's license, at its face value, for proving legal residency, because the DMV in Arizona had already asked [for] those documents to be shown. MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, said he doesn't know if "legal presence" is a legal term of art; however, he said it's a phrase that he has learned through his involvement with DMVs throughout the country. He suggested that it may be industrial jargon. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the term "legal presence" should be defined. MR. BANNOCK replied that he would have no problem with that. Notwithstanding that, he noted that Section 8 is "the main context of HB 40" and "kind of draws out what we're looking for." Number 1622 MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question from Representative Seaton, explained as follows: Our statute charges us to make sure we know who it is that we are issuing a driver's license to, in essence. The question of whether or not you should be required to be a United States citizen or ... a person who is here legally, is largely on your shoulders. We are here to implement whatever the law requires us to do. Now, what I can share with you is, through our association of motor vehicle administrators - and Alaska is not real cutting edge on this deal - this is the trend that is going across America. ... Having a legal presence law will bring us into substantial compliance with ... the majority of the other states in America. It will make it easier for us when taking a new person's driver's license. It will make it easier for you, if you were to move to another state. MR. BANNOCK reiterated that the issue of whether a person must be a United States citizen falls on the shoulders [of the legislature]. Notwithstanding that, he revealed that as the director of DMV, he is "in full support of it." Number 1500 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH redirected the committee's attention to Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended. He asked again if there were further objections to Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended. There being none, it was so ordered. Number 1486 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he just wants to ensure that the Alaska DMV has an adequate public purpose for "putting in this thing that could be quite complicated and could have far- reaching effects." MR. BANNOCK suggested that Representative Lynn had made good points in previous testimony. He said he has attempted to keep [his testimony] within the division's point of view, but he said he could deluge the committee with reams of paperwork citing reasons why it's compelling for the state to have a legal presence law. He mentioned "the terrorism aspect" and "illegal aliens establishing themselves as a presence." Number 1395 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH directed the committee's attention to an article published in the Anchorage Daily News, [Thursday, April 22, 2004, included in the committee packet]. He offered [Conceptual Amendment 2] to ensure that the division provides appropriate training to its staff to implement the provisions of [HB 40]. MR. BANNOCK responded that training is ongoing at the DMV. He said the news article included some accurate information, but left out a lot of accurate information, as well. For example, no less than once a month, his office seizes fraudulent documents. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that he wants language that will show that the legislature wants the DMV to provide training. He suggested that [the DMV] could then counter [articles like the aforementioned one] by saying, "We have been asked by the legislature to provide this training; it simply affirms what we've been doing and we're following legislative directive to have this in Alaska to meet the requirements of law in a larger context." MR. BANNOCK responded, "We would cheerfully support that, sir." Number 1266 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to [Conceptual Amendment 2]. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he had no objection. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that Conceptual Amendment 2 [was adopted]. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH closed public testimony on HB 40. Number 1235 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report [CSHB 40(TRA), as amended] out of committee with individual recommendations [and the attached zero fiscal note]. There being no objection, CSHB 40(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee. Number 1148 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Chair Weyhrauch if he would rescind the committee's action, because he had been out of the room at the time and would like to sign the committee report. Number 1137 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the action was rescinded. He asked Representative Lynn to renew his motion. Number 1130 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report [CSHB 40(TRA)], as amended, with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 40(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|