Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
02/18/2014 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB199 | |
| HB212 | |
| HB273 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 199 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 212 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 273 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 212-DRIVER'S LICENSING EXEMPTION: MILITARY
9:00:56 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced the next order of business was HOUSE BILL
NO. 212, "An Act relating to an exemption from driver licensing
requirements for spouses of members of the armed forces of the
United States."
9:01:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON, as joint prime sponsor, introduced HB
212. He said the proposed legislation would provide benefit for
service members. Every year hundreds of [military] service
members come to Alaska and are allowed to use their driver's
licenses from other states, while their spouses are not, and
that is not the case in many other states. He said the proposed
legislation does not give anybody a free driver's license; the
benefit would be extended only to spouses 18 years of age or
older, who have a legitimate driver's license from another
state. In response to the chair, he explained that 18 is the
age at which Alaska allows a person to possess a driver's
license. He said HB 212 simply gives to the spouse that which
is allowed the service member. He offered an example of a
military spouse in Fairbanks who was "detained unnecessarily"
and found to be driving with a license from another state beyond
90 days. He said the intent of the bill is to show that Alaska
is military-friendly and to recognize the driver's license
requirements of other states.
9:06:00 AM
CHAIR LYNN opined that HB 212 is a "pretty good bill." He
related that when he served in the military, he and his wife had
no problems using their California driver's licenses in the
various places in which they lived. He said he had not been
aware, before seeing HB 212, that the same is not true in
Alaska.
9:06:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked if the bill differentiates between a
military spouse who is working versus one who is not working.
9:07:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON indicated that the issue is not whether
the spouse of the military member is working, but that he/she
has followed his/her spouse to Alaska.
9:09:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS clarified she wants to know if there
currently is a law that someone who works in Alaska has to
acquire an Alaska driver's license within a certain amount of
time. She offered her understanding that there is, and that the
amount of time is 30 days. She questioned whether that law
would conflict with the proposed legislation.
9:10:10 AM
NATHAN SOLORIO, Intern, Representative Doug Isaacson, Alaska
State Legislature, offered his understanding that irrespective
of employment status, any driver who moves to Alaska must obtain
an Alaska driver's license within 90 days; the only exception is
for members of the military stationed in Alaska.
9:10:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES rephrased Mr. Solorio's statement.
9:11:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 1, following "spouses":
Insert "or same-sex partners"
Page 2, line 1, following "spouse" in both places:
Insert "or same-sex partner"
Page 2, line 3:
Delete "or spouse"
Insert "or the member's spouse or same-sex
partner"
Page 2, line 4, following "jurisdiction;":
Insert "to claim to an exemption under this
paragraph, a member's same-sex partner shall submit an
application for an exemption and, with the application
for exemption, two affidavits, one from the same-sex
partner and one from the member, stating that the
member and the same-sex partner
(A) are at least 18 years of age and are
each competent to enter into a contract;
(B) have been in an exclusive, committed,
and intimate relationship with each other for the last
12 consecutive months and intend to continue that
relationship indefinitely;
(C) have maintained a household together at
a common primary residence for the last 12 consecutive
months and intend to maintain a household together
indefinitely;
(D) consider themselves to be members of
each other's immediate family;
(E) are not related to each other to a
degree of closeness that would preclude them from
marrying each other in this state if they were of the
opposite sex;
(F) are not legally married to another
person;
(G) have not executed an affidavit
affirming same-sex partner status with another person
within the last 12 months;
(H) are each other's sole domestic partner
and each is responsible for the welfare of the other;
and
(I) share financial obligations, including
joint responsibility for basic living expenses and
health care costs;"
9:11:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected.
9:11:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said Amendment 1 is offered in the
spirit of inclusivity.
9:12:06 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:12 a.m.
9:12:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said Amendment 1 would extend the
benefits that are offered under HB 212 to same-sex partners. He
said the amendment was offered in the previous committee of
referral, and he noted that Representative Gruenberg was present
in the room and could speak to the proposed amendment.
9:13:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER spoke to his objection. He said the
proposed amendment would necessitate a change in the bill title.
Further, he opined there is no question that anyone who
considers Amendment 1 would say it changes the focus of the
bill. He explained he objects to Amendment 1 because there are
only 90 days in the legislative session and because the proposed
amendment is "not really germane to the bill." He said he
thinks the word "spouse" is used hundreds of times in statute,
and he remarked upon the possibility of "almost countless
discussion."
9:14:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON stated his objection to Amendment 1. He
said during the last committee of referral, the Department of
Law (DOL) testified. He offered his understanding that DOL said
"spouse" is defined in statute, and if that definition is
changed in statute, it would apply to the use of the word spouse
in HB 212. He opined that Amendment 1 is trying to change the
scope of HB 212, almost to the point where it would need to be a
constitutional amendment. He said he would not want to see
those who could benefit from the proposed legislation to be
deprived of that benefit while the legislature waits for "legal
wrangling" or "a vote, if that ... comes to it." He said DOL
could come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee to
weigh in on the issue, if the committee wishes.
9:16:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, Alaska State Legislature, said the
issue of same-sex partners is of concern to a considerable
number of people in Alaska and across the country. He said
under current law in Alaska, "spouse" excludes same-sex couple.
He mentioned an Alaska Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) case that
was before the Alaska Supreme Court and another case named,
Schmidt, and he indicated that the Alaska Supreme Court decided
in both cases that to deny same-sex couples equal protection of
the law is a denial of the Alaska right of equal protection.
Both those decisions were based on the Constitution of the State
of Alaska. He said there are a number of federal cases "holding
similarly for federal benefits and things that involve federal
rights." He noted that a recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
case held that the exclusion of homosexuals on jury panels is a
denial of equal protection of the law. He offered his
understanding that that decision was made in Nevada, and both
the governor and the attorney general refuse to defend that law.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "This is something that society
is rapidly changing its views on." He said Amendment 1 is
carefully crafted so that it does not reach the issue of whether
it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to
marry. He said the proposed amendment uses language from state
regulations that were adopted after the ACLU case, which does
not "say they are married," but says "they are entitled to the
benefit of the law ...." He stated, "This amendment does not go
beyond the scope of the term, as used in AS 28.15.021; it would
not make any other changes." He indicated Amendment 1 does not
seek to open the door to change other laws. He expressed
appreciation to Representative Kreiss-Tomkins for proposing
Amendment 1, and he surmised that the entire [Democratic] Caucus
feels the same on the issue. He noted that HB 212 was not
scheduled to be heard by the House Judiciary Standing Committee;
therefore, he suggested that if this issue is addressed by
adopting Amendment 1, the proposed bill would not need another
committee of referral to hear it before being heard on the House
floor. Representative Gruenberg stated he supports HB 212, but
"cannot support the affect, if not the intent, that's
discriminatory." He warned that any acceptance of
discrimination opens the door to further discrimination.
9:21:39 AM
CHAIR LYNN opined, "This subject certainly is ... a surprising
issue overall, but issue or not, I don't think it's germane,
really, to who gets a driver's license and who doesn't, which is
the main part of this bill."
9:21:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER maintained his objection to Amendment 1.
9:22:03 AM
CHAIR LYNN requested a vote, but upon determining there was
further committee comment, voided the roll.
9:22:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered his understanding that the intent
[of Amendment 1] - implied, if not said - was to "continue the
effort to pull it into Judiciary and continue this discussion by
the minority." He opined that "that makes it clearly a
political move." He restated his objection to Amendment 1.
9:23:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES said that "in the midst of the court
wrangling" she does not think it is wise to "take this on." She
referred to Representative Keller's previous mention of the word
spouse in statute and of the need to change the bill title that
would be brought about under Amendment 1. She said this would
be problematic, and she stated her intent to vote "no" on
Amendment 1.
9:23:47 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins voted
in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Gattis, Hughes,
Isaacson, Keller, and Lynn voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 1-5.
9:24:25 AM
AMY ERICKSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), stated that the division
would have no problem implementing [the proposed changes under]
HB 212. Regarding Representative Gattis' question about
acquiring a license if a person is employed or not employed, she
ventured the discussion pertains to vehicle registration. She
said a person who is from out of state must register his/her
vehicle within 60 days, unless the person is employed, in which
case he/she would have to register the vehicle within 10 days.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked if, under HB 212, a military spouse
who gets pulled over by the police would have something on
his/her license showing that military spousal status.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that military spouses have dependent
identification (ID) cards that can be shown with a driver's
license.
MS. ERICKSON offered her understanding that "you would provide a
military ID just to show the law enforcement officer that you
have reason to not have an Alaska license."
9:26:13 AM
JOMO STEWART, Project Manager, Fairbanks Economic Development
Corporation (FEDC), testified in support of HB 212. He said
Fairbanks is a military town and Alaska is a fairly military-
dependent state, and FEDC supports any easing of burden on
military staff and their spouses.
9:27:12 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 212.
9:27:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 212 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 212 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB 212 v.N.pdf |
HSTA 2/18/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 212 |
| 02 HB 212 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 2/18/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 212 |
| 03 HB 212 Sectional.pdf |
HSTA 2/18/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 212 |
| 04 HB 212 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HSTA 2/18/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 212 |
| 05 HB212 Supporting Docs.pdf |
HSTA 2/18/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 212 |
| 06 HB 212 Supporting Letter.pdf |
HSTA 2/18/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 212 |
| 07 HB 212 Supporting Letter2.pdf |
HSTA 2/18/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 212 |
| 08 HB 212 Supporting Letter3.pdf |
HSTA 2/18/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 212 |
| 09 HB 212 Supporting Letter4.pdf |
HSTA 2/18/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 212 |
| 10 HB 212 Supporting Letter5.pdf |
HSTA 2/18/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 212 |
| 01 HB 273.pdf |
HSTA 2/18/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 273 |
| 02 HB 273 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 2/18/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 273 |
| 03 HB273 Leg Audit for CDVSA.pdf |
HSTA 2/18/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 273 |
| 04 CDVSA Letter of Support HB273.pdf |
HSTA 2/18/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 273 |
| 05 fiscalNote DPS HB273.pdf |
HSTA 2/18/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 273 |