Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
05/10/2019 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 | |
| Election of a Vice Chair | |
| SB71 | |
| HB123 | |
| HB115 | |
| HB142 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 115 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 10, 2019
1:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Laddie Shaw
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Chuck Kopp
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
ELECTION OF A VICE CHAIR
- REPRESENTATIVE KOPP ELECTED VICE CHAIR
SENATE BILL NO. 71
"An Act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as
recommended by the revisor of statutes."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 123
"An Act relating to electric-assisted bicycles."
- MOVED HB 123 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 115
"An Act relating to absentee voting; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 142
"An Act relating to Alaska Native organizations; relating to the
village public safety officer program; and relating to the
Alaska temporary assistance program."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 71
SHORT TITLE: 2019 REVISOR'S BILL
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
03/01/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/01/19 (S) STA, JUD
04/12/19 (S) STA REFERRAL WAIVED
04/29/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/29/19 (S) Heard & Held
04/29/19 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/01/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/01/19 (S) Moved SB 71 Out of Committee
05/01/19 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/02/19 (S) JUD RPT 3DP 2NR
05/02/19 (S) DP: HUGHES, MICCICHE, KIEHL
05/02/19 (S) NR: SHOWER, REINBOLD
05/03/19 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/03/19 (S) VERSION: SB 71
05/06/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/06/19 (H) JUD
05/10/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 123
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRIC-ASSISTED BICYCLES
SPONSOR(s): WOOL
04/05/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/05/19 (H) TRA, JUD
04/16/19 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/16/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/16/19 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/18/19 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/18/19 (H) Moved HB 123 Out of Committee
04/18/19 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/22/19 (H) TRA RPT 4DP
04/22/19 (H) DP: STORY, TALERICO, DRUMMOND, WOOL
05/03/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/03/19 (H) Heard & Held
05/03/19 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/08/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/08/19 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/10/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 115
SHORT TITLE: ABSENTEE VOTING
SPONSOR(s): TUCK
03/27/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/27/19 (H) STA, JUD
04/02/19 (H) STA AT 4:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/02/19 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/04/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/04/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/04/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/09/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/09/19 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/18/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/18/19 (H) Moved HB 115 Out of Committee
04/18/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/22/19 (H) STA RPT 3DP 1NR
04/22/19 (H) DP: STORY, FIELDS, KREISS-TOMKINS
04/22/19 (H) NR: WOOL
05/01/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/01/19 (H) Heard & Held
05/01/19 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/03/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/03/19 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
05/06/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/06/19 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/08/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/08/19 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/10/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 142
SHORT TITLE: NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS VPSO & TANF PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(s): KREISS-TOMKINS
04/22/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/22/19 (H) TRB, JUD
04/30/19 (H) TRB AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/30/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/30/19 (H) MINUTE(TRB)
05/02/19 (H) TRB AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
05/02/19 (H) Moved HB 142 Out of Committee
05/02/19 (H) MINUTE(TRB)
05/03/19 (H) TRB RPT 4DP 2NR
05/03/19 (H) DP: LINCOLN, ORTIZ, EDGMON, ZULKOSKY
05/03/19 (H) NR: VANCE, TALERICO
05/08/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/08/19 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/10/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JEAN MISCHEL, Revisor of Statutes
Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 71 on behalf of the Senate
Rules Standing Committee, the prime sponsor.
DONALD BULLOCK
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 71.
KEVIN HIGGINS, Assistant Attorney General
Labor & State Affairs Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
123.
MARLA THOMPSON, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
123.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
115 as the bill's prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 142 as prime sponsor.
RALPH WOLFE, 5th Vice President
Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
Yakutat, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 142.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:06:52 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. Representatives Eastman,
Thompson, Stutes, Shaw, and Claman were present at the call to
order. Representative Wool arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^Election of a Vice Chair
Election of a Vice Chair
1:07:47 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
the election of a vice chair in light of the recent Committee on
Committees report and pursuant to Mason's Manual Section 612.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to elect Representative Kopp Vice
Chair of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. He asked where Representative
Kopp is. After being informed that Representative Kopp is
tending to a personal matter, he suggested electing someone else
vice chair, at least until Representative Kopp returns.
CHAIR CLAMAN disagreed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW asked a clarifying question about the vote.
CHAIR CLAMAN said the vote is "yes or no" as to whether
Representative Kopp will become vice chair of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Shaw, Stutes,
Thompson, and Claman voted to elect Representative Kopp as vice
chair. Representatives Eastman voted against. Therefore,
Representative Kopp was elected Vice Chair of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-1.
SB 71-2019 REVISOR'S BILL
1:09:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 71, "An Act making corrective amendments to the
Alaska Statutes as recommended by the revisor of statutes."
1:10:12 PM
JEAN MISCHEL, Revisor of Statutes, Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature, introduced SB 71. She
provided context for the bill by explaining that Legislative
Legal Services attempts to present a revisor's bill each year.
She noted that this has not been possible the past few years due
to the demands of special sessions. She said this explains SB
71's considerable size, weighing in at 102 sections. She noted
that AS 01.05.036 requires the Legislative Affairs Agency to
review existing statutes for errors, deficiencies, conflicts, or
obsolete provisions and to recommend improvements related to the
form and substance of the law according to the current drafting
manual standards. She addressed the sectional summary document
included in the committee packet. She characterized many of the
changes proposed in SB 71 as "fairly minor and technical in
nature," including the addition and removal of commas. She said
one of the larger changes would be the removal of all references
to telegraphs.
1:12:08 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the committee received an e-mail
pertaining to language located on page 14, line 14 of the bill.
He pointed out that one mention of a telegraph is proposed to be
removed but another is not.
MS. MISCHEL observed that the second mention of a telegraph
should also be removed. She suggested that it can be done so
via a conceptual amendment.
CHAIR CLAMAN said he does not intend for the bill to be moved
out of committee today. He asked her to request the change be
made so that the committee could take it up as an amendment
during the next hearing.
1:13:16 PM
MS. MISCHEL said SB 71 also contains changes to some references
to federal law. She explained that one of these references was
an error while another was to the Code of Federal Regulations,
which is discouraged as it can be changed and be out of
alignment with legislative intent. She said SB 71 would also
delete cross references to statutes that have been repealed.
She explained it would also update references to agency names
that have since changed. She stated that SB 71 would also
consolidate repetitious definitions, insert missing definitions,
and repeal definitions of terms no longer used. She said the
drafters have also eliminated "but not limited to" following
"including," as that is provided for in AS 01.10.040(b). She
said references to "Alaska state" or "this state" would be
changed to "the state." She said some terms would be reworded
to fit their definitions.
MS. MISCHEL noted that the most significant technical changes
proposed in SB 71 pertain to AS 17.38, "the marijuana
initiative." She explained that the person who drafted the
marijuana initiative was not necessarily familiar with the
Manual of Legislative Drafting, to which SB 71 would conform the
language. As an example, she pointed out that instances of the
words "shall not" would be replaced with "may not." She noted
that SB 71 would also remove obsolete provisions of AS 17.38
pertaining to the possible adoption of regulations because they
were dependent upon a 2015 date that is long past and has no
future significance. She noted that all the provisions that
would be repealed by SB 71 are listed in the back of the
sectional summary document.
1:16:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if obsolete references to things
like telegraphs and telegrams would be replaced with modern
equivalents such as e-mail.
MS. MISCHEL said SB 71 is not a bill to substitute language; its
purpose is to clean up language. She said if there is a
provision that he thinks should contain reference to a more
modern form of communication, that can be accomplished via a
substantive bill. She noted that the affected provisions often
contain references to another form of communication, such as a
telephone or facsimile machine. She said the exceptions to that
are the provisions relating to crimes involving transmittal of
telegrams.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked about the process by which the
revisor's bill is created.
MS. MISCHEL said it is a laborious process. She described how
drafting attorneys comb the titles assigned to them for errors,
then submit memoranda suggesting corrections or modifications.
She explained that the revisor of statutes also receives
suggested changes from the publisher and office editors. She
said it is ultimately a group decision between the revisor and
the assist revisors about which provisions can or should be
corrected by way of the revisor's bill. She noted that some
corrections require substantive changes, so they are not
included in the revisor's bill.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what happens to the recommended
changes that do not appear in the revisor's bill.
MS. MISCHEL said some end up in substantive bills if a
legislator or committee requests a change to a section where one
was identified. She clarified that this is something Legal
Services will discuss with the bill's prime sponsor. She noted
that, most frequently, Legislative Legal Services asks the
Department of Law (DOL) to include recommended changes in one or
more of its bills submitted by the governor.
1:20:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on SB 71.
1:21:01 PM
DONALD BULLOCK stressed the importance of the revisor's bill and
commended the revisor's team for the work it has done in
drafting it. He spoke to the importance of maintaining
consistency across all statutes regarding style, language,
punctuation, and other elements. He noted that those elements
contribute to the way statutes are interpreted and offered the
example of a term that could potentially have conflicting
definitions across different statutes. He asked the committee
to expeditiously pass the bill.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that Mr. Bullock is the person who had
alerted the committee about the overlooked telegraph language
mentioned earlier.
1:22:27 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SB 71.
1:22:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN drew attention to Section 29 and
recommended the committee eliminate it from the bill or--
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that the committee would not act on the
bill today. He said the plan is to take up the bill at the next
meeting. He said if a committee member wants to offer an
amendment, it must be submitted to his office by 9 a.m.
tomorrow.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he is not looking for an amendment
at this point. He observed that the wording in Section 29 is
such that it might impact policy. He said the committee should
decide whether it wants to treat it as a policy change and, if
not, he would entertain an amendment to remove it.
CHAIR CLAMAN said the only way to meaningful address the issue
is to propose an amendment.
1:24:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the committee would hold SB 71 for
further review.
MS. MISCHEL asked if he would like the proposed change
pertaining to telegraphs to be included as part of a new
committee substitute (CS).
CHAIR CLAMAN said it would be better if it were presented in the
form of an amendment so as to allow other members the
opportunity to offer amendments of their own.
HB 123-ELECTRIC-ASSISTED BICYCLES
1:25:21 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 123, "An Act relating to electric-assisted
bicycles." He announced that his office did not receive any
proposed amendments to HB 123.
1:25:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN relayed that there were some questions
left unanswered at the previous bill hearing. After a request
for further clarification, he noted that the committee was
hoping to hear from a representative from the Department of Law
(DOL) to speak to how police officers are supposed to handle
situations involving electric-assisted bicycles.
CHAIR CLAMAN thanked him for that reminder. He observed that
Kevin Higgins from DOL is available for questions.
1:26:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced an anecdote offered at the
previous hearing in which one of Representative Wool's
constituents was pulled over for riding an electric-assisted
bicycle and told he could not ride it without a driver's
license. Representative Eastman explained that knowing whether
the conduct was appropriate or not will help the committee
decide how to act on HB 123.
1:27:24 PM
KEVIN HIGGINS, Assistant Attorney General, Labor & State Affairs
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, said the answer he
gave at the previous hearing still stands, that whether it is
appropriate for law enforcement to stop or conduct an
investigative detention of any individual is a highly fact-
specific determination. He stated that, from what he heard, he
does not have the facts necessary to offer an opinion as to
whether the law enforcement encounter was lawful.
1:28:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether "the department" has a
position on HB 123.
MR. HIGGINS asked him to clarify if he means DOL or the Division
of Motor Vehicles (DMV) under the Department of Administration
(DOA).
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said if it were not the same answer in
both cases, he would be curious to know how they differ.
CHAIR CLAMAN observed that he wants to know the administration's
perspective, as the administration supervises both those
departments.
MR. HIGGINS said DOL does not have any sort of official position
on HB 123. He deferred to Director Marla Thompson of the DMV as
to whether the DMV has a position.
1:29:26 PM
MARLA THOMPSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department
of Administration, answered that the DMV does not take a
position on HB 123.
1:30:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said the bill clearly defines what an
electric bicycle is and how large its motor can be. He added
that the bill would treat an electric bicycle, as defined, like
a bicycle and not like a motorized vehicle. He noted that other
states have passed similar legislation. He said the
municipalities would be welcome to impose more restrictions if
they choose. He spoke to the rising popularity of electric-
assist bicycles and how they are currently used. He restated
his intention of defining what is and what is not an electric-
assist bicycle in Alaska statute.
1:31:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to report HB 123 out of committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HB 123 was reported out of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 115-ABSENTEE VOTING
1:32:43 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 115, "An Act relating to absentee voting; and
providing for an effective date." He said the committee would
take up amendments to the bill. He noted that the Director of
the Division of Elections (DOE) is unavailable today to answer
committee questions, so the plan is to hold the bill after
taking up amendments to allow for questions to be answered at a
future hearing.
1:34:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 31-
LS0213\A.1, Bullard, 5/2/19, which read:
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 1, lines 4 - 11:
Delete all material and insert:
"(m) An absentee ballot application must include
options for a qualified voter to choose to receive
absentee ballots by mail for
(1) all future regularly scheduled state
elections;
(2) future state
(A) special elections;
(B) primary elections; or
(C) general elections; or
(3) any combination of future elections
described in (2)(A) - (C) of this subsection.
(n) The division may not require a voter who
chooses to receive absentee ballots under this section
to reapply to receive absentee ballots by mail unless
the voter has not voted an absentee ballot for a
period of four years or an absentee ballot sent to the
voter under this section is returned to the division
as undeliverable. A voter may change the voter's
absentee ballot selection under (m) of this section by
reapplying under this section."
1:34:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the current language of
the bill does not allow voters the option to choose which
absentee ballots they want to receive. He relayed that DOE said
it spends approximately $2.50 when it sends out an absentee
ballot. He argued that unused absentee ballots are wasteful,
and it would save money if voters could designate ballots they
do not wish to use.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Tuck, the prime sponsor of HB
115, if he supports Amendment 1.
1:35:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, said
Amendment 1 would make a simple matter more complicated. He
stated that Alaskans who would choose to always receive a
permanent absentee ballot under HB 115 "would not be obligated
to vote on that ballot unless they miss a particular election."
He said he wants to ensure voters can always show up at the
polls and vote, and not be limited to "this type of voting
here."
1:36:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked Representative Tuck if Amendment 1
or a similar amendment had already been heard in another
committee. She mentioned that she feels she has heard the
amendment before.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said it is possible there was a similar
amendment proposed to an omnibus elections bill during the
Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature. He spoke to his intention
to keep HB 115 simple and focused on the issue of absentee
voting.
1:37:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked where Representative Eastman got the
$2.50 per ballot figure and requested that he expound on it.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that number was forwarded to him
from DOE. He clarified that it only relates to state elections
and not municipal elections. He said $2.50 is the cost per
ballot and said he believes that includes preparation, printing,
and mailing.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL posited that DOE took the total cost and
divided by the number of ballots to reach $2.50 per ballot. He
said, "If you subtracted a couple, you may not save exactly
$2.50 per ballot since the ... initiation fee might be
particularly high." He noted that there is no one from DOE to
confirm that.
CHAIR CLAMAN reminded the committee that the plan is not to move
the bill out of committee today.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW mentioned that he and his wife voted
absentee during the last election and "it was a 50-cent stamp."
1:39:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN drew attention to line 9 of the amendment
and said it is his understanding that the language is the exact
same as is in HB 115, so that even with the amendment passing
voters would be able to check a box to sign up for all future
elections. He asked if Representative Tuck reads it the same
way.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK identified where language is the same in HB
115 and in the amendment. He said his concern is that a person
who regularly votes by mail could miss out on a special election
and potentially be dropped from the list. He said special
elections are currently an exception in the bill. He called
Amendment 1 "a policy call" about whether a voter should have to
check a box for special elections.
1:41:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if that means the bill, as written,
does not include special elections, so a person who signs up for
the permanent list would not receive a special election ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said, "Actually, now that I reread this,
that may be correct." He said the bill would probably require a
special absentee ballot application to vote absentee in a
special election. He suggested the bill could be amended so
that the language "future regularly scheduled state elections"
is replaced by "all future scheduled state elections."
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the amendment currently before the
committee is Amendment 1.
1:43:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said his preference would be for a voter to
receive all the ballots for which he/she is eligible instead of
having to preselect them because there may be things that change
during an election. He said it is better to err on the side of
giving too many voting options. He also noted that it could be
an administrative hassle for DOE to determine and keep track of
who gets which ballots. He opined that it is better to send
voters every ballot.
1:44:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said he appreciates the intent of the amendment to
give voters a range of choices. He said he understands the
appeal but observed that having DOE implement Amendment 1 would
invite error and confusion on both the division and the voter.
He commented that some voters particularly elderly voters
might forget whether they signed up for a particular ballot. He
spoke to the convenience of voting by mail in the Municipality
of Anchorage. Arguing that it is likely to seed confusion and
extra expense for DOE, he stated that he would not support
Amendment 1.
1:46:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said there is another amendment to come
that might alleviate concerns about voters forgetting whether
they have signed up for an absentee ballot. He remarked that
Amendment 1 addresses that the bill does not currently allow an
option to sign up for special elections. He said it also
recognizes that some voters like to go to the polls for general
elections but only vote absentee in special elections. He
remarked that those people would be given the option to
designate which ballots to receive. He noted that he has not
fashioned the amendment so that absentee ballots would be the
norm and those who wish not to receive them could opt out. He
said if there is a concern that not enough people are getting
absentee ballots, that would be a way to solve that problem. He
remarked that his approach is to include a line on the form that
would allow voters to sign up for all, some, or none of the
ballots.
1:47:55 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman voted in
favor of adopting Amendment 1. Representatives Wool, Shaw,
Stutes, Thompson, and Claman voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 1-5.
1:48:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 31-
LS0213\A.2, Bullard, 5/2/19, which read:
Page 1, lines 4 - 11:
Delete all material and insert:
"(m) An absentee ballot application must include
an option for a qualified voter to choose to receive
absentee ballots by mail for future regularly
scheduled state elections. The division shall stop
mailing absentee ballots to a voter and require the
voter to reapply to receive absentee ballots by mail
if
(1) the voter does not vote an absentee
ballot sent to the voter; or
(2) an absentee ballot sent to the voter
under this section is returned to the division as
undeliverable."
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 2 recognizes the
fact that the State of Alaska (SOA) should not have to waste
money on absentee ballots that are not going to be used. He
said the amendment would make it so that a voter who does not
use an absentee ballot would not receive future absentee ballots
unless he/she reapplies.
1:49:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, when asked for his stance on Amendment 2,
said he opposes it. He said some people only vote in general
elections and, under this amendment, would be dropped from the
list if they skip a primary election. He identified language in
the bill that would allow for a four-year grace period before a
voter is dropped from the list due to inactivity. He said that
language allows for voters who only wish to vote in general
elections to do so without being dropped.
1:49:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES said she opposes Amendment 2 because of
the current mail situation on Kodiak Island. She explained that
all mail on Kodiak goes through Anchorage, even if it is
something mailed by a person on Kodiak to a person on Kodiak.
She said Kodiak Island Borough currently does not have mail-in
ballots but that does not mean it won't in the future. She
said, "If the planes don't get in with the ballots, then
everybody who is used to getting these ballots in the mail is
off the list." She said she can see some real problems brewing
for rural Alaskans who may have mail-in ballots.
1:50:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN agreed with Representative Tuck's stance
that many Alaskans only vote in general elections and said that
is a reason to only send them ballots for general elections. He
said the situation referenced by Representative Stutes is a
bigger problem having to do with voting access. He remarked
that the bill and the amendments being offered already assume
that the voting system is not broken and nothing in them can
solve that problem.
1:51:53 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman voted in
favor of adopting Amendment 2. Representatives Thompson, Wool,
Shaw, Stutes, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment
2 failed by a vote of 1-5.
1:52:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 31-
LS0213\A.3, Bullard, 5/2/19, which read:
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "or"
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "."
Insert "; or
(3) a person at an address to which an
absentee ballot is sent under this section provides
evidence satisfactory to the division that the voter
to whom the absentee ballot was sent no longer lives
or receives mail at the address."
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 3 would instruct
DOE to cease sending absentee ballots to an address if the
resident informs DOE that the voter no longer lives there.
1:53:01 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Tuck for his position on
Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked Representative Eastman if Amendment 3
relates to situations in which a resident receives an absentee
ballot addressed to a prior resident and writes "no longer at
this address" on the envelope before dropping back in the
mailbox.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said the amendment is addressing
situations in which a resident says, "I got this ballot. It's
not mine. Please stop sending ballots." He explained that the
amendment would allow DOE to use that information to remove the
prior resident from the list.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said the amendment makes sense. He noted
the current bill currently has two conditions for removal from
the list, including items of mail that were returned as
undeliverable. He said the bill does not currently have a
provision for DOE being informed that the voter is no longer at
the address.
1:54:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked a question about mail returned to the sender
with a yellow United States Postal Service (USPS) label. He
questioned how the provision proposed in Amendment 3 differs
from that official USPS action. He asked if that means, under
Amendment 3, that DOE would rely on a handwritten note by an
unknown person to remove a voter from the mailing list.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that he queried how many people are
registered to vote at his home address and learned that "an
awful lot of people" he had never met were. He said he does not
want to have to receive someone else's ballot for four years.
He said Amendment 3 would allow him to call DOE and ask that it
stop sending the ballot.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if Amendment 3 would require DOE to publish
and enact regulations about what qualifies as evidence
satisfactory to the division.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he does not know if it would. He
noted "evidence satisfactory to the division" is language that
was recommended by the drafter of the amendment. He remarked
that immediate contact with DOE about a ballot may be deemed
satisfactory where delayed contact may not.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if Representative Eastman has a definition
for "evidence satisfactory to the division."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he does not. He said the drafter
wanted to leave that up to the division.
1:57:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for confirmation that the version of
the bill in front of the committee is Version 31-LS0213\A.
CHAIR CLAMAN answered correct.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK read the language in line 10: "the voter's
previous absentee ballot sent under this section was returned to
the division as undeliverable." He said he thinks a previous
draft of the bill may have read "any mail returned to the
division as undeliverable" so that a returned voter registration
card or any other mail sent by DOE could result in the removal
of the voter from the list. He said he would talk to DOE about
what it would prefer.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said the current language of the
amendment may capture that because the language "a voter to whom
the absentee ballot was sent" identifies that the issue is the
person, not the ballot.
1:59:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN suggested that Amendment 3 be tabled until DOE can
weigh in on it.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he supports that idea. He noted that
the wording "any mail returned" could potentially result in a
situation where a person seeking to mess with someone could
covertly get that person removed from the list.
2:00:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES REPRESENTATIVE moved to table Amendment 3.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
2:01:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 31-
LS0213\A.7, Bullard, 5/2/19, which read:
Page 1, lines 3 - 11:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Section 1. AS 15.20.081 is amended by adding a
new subsection to read:
(m) An absentee ballot application must include
an option for a qualified voter to choose to receive
absentee ballots by mail for future regularly
scheduled state elections. A voter who selects the
option to receive future absentee ballots by mail
shall provide the division with the voter's electronic
mail address, if any. At least 90 days before each
state election, the division shall send to each voter
who has requested to receive future absentee ballots
by mail, and who has provided the division with an
electronic mail address, notice by electronic mail
indicating that the voter is scheduled to receive an
absentee ballot by mail for the election. A voter's
selection of the option to receive future absentee
ballots by mail remains in effect, and the division
may not require a voter to reapply to receive absentee
ballots by mail under this section, unless the
(1) voter has not voted an absentee ballot
for a period of four years; or
(2) voter's previous absentee ballot sent
under this section was returned to the division as
undeliverable."
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said Amendment 4 addresses the
possibility that a voter may not remember whether he/she has
applied to receive an absentee ballot. He said the amendment
would instruct DOE to send an e-mail reminder to voters who have
signed up for an absentee ballot if DOE has an e-mail address on
file.
2:02:01 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Tuck for his position on
Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he opposes it because it is
unnecessary. He stated an absentee ballot may only be returned
by the person that requested the ballot. He spoke to the
identification procedures employed to verify an absentee voter's
identity. He said it is illegal to submit a falsified ballot.
He said it is already legal to allow someone who is a registrar
to provide an absentee application to somebody else to fill out
to vote by mail." He noted that one need not be a registrar to
do that. He said it is a regular practice for political parties
to send out absentee applications to party members. He said he
does not see anything wrong with an entity making an absentee
ballot application available to a voter.
2:03:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for confirmation that Amendment 4 is
before the committee.
CHAIR CLAMAN said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES shared concerns with the following
language beginning on line 6 of Amendment 4: "A voter who
selects the option to receive future absentee ballots by mail
shall provide the division with the voter's electronic mail
address." She said she receives enough junk e-mail at her e-mail
address and does not want to be required to submit her e-mail
address simply because she wants to vote by mail.
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that he worries every time the committee
adds "one more thing" to a department's to-do list. He said
Amendment 4 feels like an unfunded mandate. He echoed
Representative Stutes misgivings about the e-mail address
requirement.
2:04:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he agrees with Representative
Stutes. He said that language is not what he intended when he
submitted the amendment to the drafter and agreed that it should
be optional for a voter to provide his/her e-mail address.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 1 to Amendment 4, which
would remove the word "shall" in line 7 and insert in its place
the word "may." There being no objection, so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that Amendment 4 would not cause
DOE to substantially alter its current practices. He said it
would simply allow for voters who have provided their e-mail
address to receive an e-mail notification. He remarked that
this would be important because some voters will not remember if
they have already applied for their absentee ballot. He said
the e-mail notification would ensure that such voters do not
take up DOE's time by calling to confirm or by submitting a
redundant application.
2:07:37 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman voted in
favor of adopting Amendment 4, as amended. Representatives
Stutes, Thompson, Wool, Shaw, and Claman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 4, as amended, failed by a vote of 1-5.
2:08:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 5, labeled 31-
LS0213\A.5, Bullard, 5/2/19, which read:
Page 1, following line 11:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 15.20.220 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) Before the certification of a state ballot
counting review under AS 15.15.450, the director shall
select random voters in each house district who
submitted absentee ballots. The director shall attempt
to contact the voter to confirm that the voter
returned an absentee ballot. On or before the day the
director certifies a state ballot counting review
under AS 15.15.450, the director shall aggregate the
information collected under this subsection, deliver
the information to the senate secretary and the chief
clerk of the house of representatives, and notify the
legislature that the information is available. The
director shall include in the information delivered
under this subsection the number of absentee voters,
by district, that
(1) the division attempted to contact;
(2) the division successfully contacted;
(3) reported voting by absentee ballot in
the applicable election; and
(4) reported not voting by absentee ballot
in the applicable election."
Page 1, line 12:
Delete "Sec. 2"
Insert "Sec. 3"
2:08:09 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said it is important to implement
safeguards to ensure that the increased number of absentee
ballots be used appropriately. He relayed that DOE found on
more than one occasion during the last election cycle that a
person in whose name an absentee ballot was received reported
that he/she did not submit an absentee ballot. He said this is
of great public concern. He explained that Amendment 5 would
require that the Director of DOE contact a random selection of
absentee voters from each house district in order to confirm
that the voters returned an absentee ballot. He said the
amendment does not specify the size of the random selection. He
stated that the amendment would call for a "check" to ensure
absentee ballots are being used appropriately.
2:09:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Tuck for his position on
Amendment 5.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he opposes Amendment 5. He said he
would like to keep HB 115 simple. He noted that he is not
familiar with the DOE findings to which Representative Eastman
made mention. He added that he does not know whether DOE
currently has a verification process. He noted that DOE has a
review process in which it examines signatures before certifying
an election. He expressed concern that Amendment 5 could place
a burden on the Division of Elections and could alarm voters who
receive a phone call that might raise concerns about their
ballot. He said the amendment is not necessary at this time.
2:10:46 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said the amendment appears to be an unfunded
mandate that creates more duties for DOE. He shared that he
thinks DOE is doing a good job. He said he has not seen any
meaningful evidence of election fraud in Alaska.
2:11:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN alluded to news headlines related to
DOE's reporting about people mailing absentee ballots under
other people's names. He expressed concern and opined that
something must be done so that it does continue. He noted that
HB 115 would significantly expand the number of absentee ballots
and thus significantly expand the potential for fraud.
2:11:34 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman voted in
favor of adopting Amendment 5. Representatives Stutes,
Thompson, Shaw, and Claman voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 5 failed by a vote of 1-4.
2:12:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 6, labeled 31-
LS0213\A.6, Bullard, 5/2/19, which read:
Page 1, lines 4 - 7:
Delete all material and insert:
"(m) An absentee ballot application must include
an option for a qualified voter to choose to receive
absentee ballots by mail for future regularly
scheduled state elections. The division shall stop
sending absentee ballots to a voter under this
subsection upon the voter's written request. A voter
may request that the division stop sending absentee
ballots at any time. If a voter does not request that
the division stop sending absentee ballots, the
division may stop sending absentee ballots to the
voter and require the voter to reapply only if"
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he noticed that there is no option
for a voter who has signed up for an absentee ballot to undo
that action. He opined that this would be an important option
for a voter to have to avoid the risk of misuse of an unwanted
absentee ballot and to avoid unnecessary DOE costs.
2:12:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, upon being asked his position on Amendment
6, opined that it is not necessary. He said the bill already
includes an automatic mechanism to drop an absentee voter from
the mailing list if the voter votes at the polls.
2:13:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented that the committee should give
credit to people for having common sense. She expressed that
what Amendment 6 seeks to accomplish should not need to be
enshrined in statute. She called it "a foolish amendment."
2:14:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked that the bill tells DOE to send
absentee ballots to people for four years without allowing it
any discretion in the process. He said it is common sense to
allow DOE to take phone calls and written correspondence related
to requests for removal from the mailing list.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
6, which he said would prevent a third party from signing up on
someone's behalf to receive future absentee ballots. He opined
that third parties should not be allowed to submit forms for
someone to receive absentee ballots perpetually.
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that the subject of Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 6 is broadly separate and different from the
subject of Amendment 6. He ruled it out of order and said it
would be too hard to get it down into writing to make it
meaningful for a vote.
2:15:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that he had worked with the
drafters to try and get it into writing.
CHAIR CLAMAN told Representative Eastman that he can object to
the rule of the chair and the committee would vote on it.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said, "I'll object because it was reduced
to writing and I want that on the record."
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Shaw, Stutes,
Thompson, Wool, and Claman voted to uphold the ruling of the
chair. Representative Eastman voted against it. Therefore, the
ruling of the chair was upheld by a vote of 5-1.
2:17:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said Amendment 6 would allow the option
for someone to contact DOE if he/she wishes to no longer receive
absentee ballots.
2:17:24 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Eastman voted in
favor of adopting Amendment 6. Representatives Shaw, Stutes,
Thompson, Wool, and Claman voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 6 failed by a vote of 1-5.
2:18:00 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:18 p.m. to 2:19 p.m.
2:18:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 115 would be held for further
review so that the committee could hear from DOE.
HB 142-NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS VPSO & TANF PROGRAMS
2:19:18 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 142, "An Act relating to Alaska Native
organizations; relating to the village public safety officer
program; and relating to the Alaska temporary assistance
program."
2:19:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS, Alaska State
Legislature, said HB 142 is a technical fix bill" relating to
the Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) and Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs that have been
administered for decades by the Central Council of Tlingit and
Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska (CCTHITA). He explained that the
current statutes authorizing partnerships with regional native
nonprofit organizations such as Tanana Chiefs Conference allow
those organizations to administer the VPSO and TANF programs.
The problem, he said, is that CCTHITA has a different legal
identity than the other regional native nonprofit organizations
and is therefore technically not eligible to partner with SOA to
administer those programs. He noted that CCTHITA is already
administering VPSO and TANF programs and has without incident
for a long time. He said the issue was recently realized
between the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and CCTHITA. He
added that both sides are keen to resolve it. He explained that
HB 142 would adjust the statutes to add another category of
eligible entity that would encompass CCTHITA so that it can
legally continue to administer the VPSO and TANF programs.
CHAIR CLAMAN disclosed for the record that his wife works as
General Counsel to the Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC), a
regional native nonprofit organization. He said he does not
believe CITC has any financial interest in HB 142 and that his
wife's employment does not create a conflict. He explained his
intention was to make the record clear.
2:22:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said there are over a dozen organizations
that qualify as "Alaska Native organizations. He asked how
many of those organizations want to have VPSOs. He noted that
he does not think any of them currently have VPSOs.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he is not aware of any
organizations other than CCTHITA that have an interest in
administering the VPSO and/or TANF programs.
2:23:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 142.
RALPH WOLFE, 5th Vice President, Central Council of Tlingit and
Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, said he is speaking on behalf of
Richard Peterson, President of CCTHITA. He echoed what
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins said about HB 142 being a
technical fix to an issue relating to the VPSO and TANF
programs. He said CCTHITA has been administering those programs
for 20 years. He explained that in 2018 the VPSO program was
administered via a corporation established by CCTHITA. He said
this setup created administrative difficulties. He explained
that the TANF program has been administered through an agreement
with the understanding that a technical fix would be made to the
statute. He restated that CCTHITA has already been
administering these programs and said it has endeavored to
achieve long-term productivity. He said DOL has determined that
there would be no negative impact to the enactment of HB 142.
2:25:41 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 142.
2:26:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it is the prime sponsor's
intent for HB 142 to relate solely to CCTHITA or if he intends
to open a potential new avenue for other organizations to
administer VPSOs.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said the intent of the bill "is
just looking at [CCTHITA]. He characterized CCTHITA's
organizational structure as distinct, explaining that it was
recognized by the federal government as a regional tribal
organization - "an actual sovereign government" well before
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was signed into
law. He said the goal of the bill is to encompass only CCTHITA
since the other regional nonprofits are partnering at present
and without incident with SOA on these programs.
CHAIR CLAMAN posited that HB 142 would put CCTHITA on the same
level as other organizations that currently could choose to
participate in the VPSO program, so the bill would not change
the eligibility of other organizations. He said it would put
CCTHITA on par with other similarly situated organizations
because CCTHITA is defined differently by the federal
government.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said that is correct. He
clarified that it would put CCTHITA "on par with [SOA]" given
SOA is ultimately funding the programs.
CHAIR CLAMAN suggested that if there were another organization
listed in the present statute that wanted to contract with the
state for a VPSO program, it could do that already. He said the
difference with HB 142 is that it would place CCTHITA on the
same level as those other organizations. He said it would not
require CCTHITA to reach agreement with SOA, but it would allow
it to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said that is an accurate summary.
2:28:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that is different from what he heard
earlier. He noted that there are 13 organizations listed in AS
47.27.070. He asked, "Do we want to solidify in statute that
each of these organizations can be running the VPSO program in
their various areas and so forth?"
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS consulted AS 47.27.070. He asked
Representative Eastman to restate his question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN addressed lines 28 and 29 on page 2 of
the bill, located in Section 4. He said the language therein
would add a new definition of "Alaska Native organization" that
draws in the list of organizations in AS 47.27.070. He asked
how the prime sponsor would feel about grandfathering CCTHITA in
to VPSO and TANF eligibility rather than impacting the other
statutes. He cited the potential for other implications and the
fact that there is no desire to change the way the other
organizations operate.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he would have to consider
that proposal. He explained that HB 142 was generated through a
partnership between DOL, DPS, and CCTHITA, plus private counsel
retained by CCTHITA. He said HB 142 was the final product of
several months of conversations and negotiations between all
stakeholders. He said all the stakeholders knew what they
wanted to accomplish; it was just a question of the right means
to accomplish it. He remarked that he would not want to "upset
the apple cart" given that HB 142 represents a settlement
between different stakeholders. He said he would prefer to stay
with the bill as presently structured. He noted that he is not
able to speak for the other entities that agreed on the language
of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he would like to talk to those
stakeholders to discuss whether an amendment is necessary.
2:32:00 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease from at 2:32 p.m.
2:32:23 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 142 would be held for further
review. He expressed uncertainty that the bill would be taken
up again during the current session. He explained the process
through which members may submit amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS quipped that he fully expects the
governor to put HB 142 on the call for a special session.
2:34:34 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB071 ver S 5.10.19.PDF |
HJUD 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/11/2019 9:30:00 AM |
SB 71 |
| SB071 Sponsor Statement 5.10.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/11/2019 9:30:00 AM |
SB 71 |
| SB071 Sectional Summary 5.10.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/11/2019 9:30:00 AM |
SB 71 |
| SB071 Supporting Document-Statutory Instruction 5.10.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/11/2019 9:30:00 AM |
SB 71 |
| SB071 Supporting Document-Department of Law Approval 5.10.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/11/2019 9:30:00 AM |
SB 71 |
| SB071 Fiscal Note LAW-CIV 5.10.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/11/2019 9:30:00 AM |
SB 71 |
| HB123 ver M 5.3.19.PDF |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB115 ver A 5.1.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/1/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/11/2019 9:30:00 AM |
HB 115 |
| HB115 Amendments #1-6.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/11/2019 9:30:00 AM |
HB 115 |
| HB142 ver K 5.8.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 142 |
| HB142 Sponsor Statement 5.8.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 142 |
| HB142 Sectional Analysis 5.8.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 142 |
| HB142 Fiscal Note DPS-VPSO 5.8.19.pdf |
HJUD 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 142 |