05/05/2023 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB129 | |
| HB11 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 11 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 5, 2023
1:04 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sarah Vance, Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative David Eastman
Representative Andrew Gray
Representative Cliff Groh
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jamie Allard, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 129
"An Act relating to voter registration; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 11
"An Act establishing the crime of assault in the presence of a
child."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 129
SHORT TITLE: VOTER REGISTRATION
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
03/22/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/22/23 (H) STA, JUD
03/28/23 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/28/23 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/30/23 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/30/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/23 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/27/23 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/27/23 (H) Moved CSHB 129(STA) Out of Committee
04/27/23 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/28/23 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 5DP 2AM
04/28/23 (H) DP: CARPENTER, C.JOHNSON, ALLARD,
WRIGHT, SHAW
04/28/23 (H) AM: ARMSTRONG, STORY
05/01/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/01/23 (H) Heard & Held
05/01/23 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/03/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/03/23 (H) Heard & Held
05/03/23 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/05/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 11
SHORT TITLE: CRIME: ASSAULT IN THE PRESENCE OF A CHILD
SPONSOR(s): JOSEPHSON
01/19/23 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/23
01/19/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/23 (H) JUD, FIN
01/25/23 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
01/25/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/23 (H) JUD, FIN
01/27/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/27/23 (H) Heard & Held
01/27/23 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/21/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/21/23 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/24/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/24/23 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
05/05/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JAKE ALMEIDA, Staff
Representative Sarah Vance
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on amendments to CSHB
129(STA) on behalf of the House Judiciary Standing Committee,
sponsor by request, chaired by Representative Vance.
LORI WILSON
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
CSHB 129(STA).
MICHAEL SHAFFER
Office of Victims' Rights
Legislative Agencies and Offices
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on HB 11.
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
SSHB 11.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
SSHB 11, as the prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:35 PM
CHAIR SARAH VANCE called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives Carpenter, C.
Johnson, Eastman, Gray, Groh, and Vance were present at the call
to order.
HB 129-VOTER REGISTRATION
1:05:20 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 129, "An Act relating to voter registration; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 129(STA).]
CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on CSHB 29(STA). After
ascertaining that no one wished to testify, she closed public
testimony.
1:06:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER moved to adopted Amendment 1 to CSHB
29(STA), labeled 33-LS0668\B.7, Klein, 5/4/23, which read:
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "nonforwardable"
Insert "forwardable [NONFORWARDABLE]"
Page 2, line 7, following "(C)":
Insert "permanently"
Page 2, lines 8 - 14:
Delete all material and insert:
"(D) served on a jury in another state;
(E) received benefits under a claim of
residency in another state, territory, or country; or
(F) established residence in another state,
territory, or country, based on information from the
United States Postal Service national change of
address program."
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
1:06:29 PM
JAKE ALMEIDA, Staff, Representative Sarah Vance, Alaska State
Legislature, explained Amendment 1 on behalf of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee, sponsor by request, chaired by
Representative Vance. The proposed amendment would change
"nonforwardable" to "forwardable" on page 1, line 6 to comply
with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). He reminded
the committee that the bill would change the state's current
two-notice system to a one-notice system, which must be
forwardable to be in compliance with the NVRA. Secondly,
Amendment 1 would add "permanently" on page 2, line 7, following
"(C)" and clean up the indicators on page 2, lines 8-14.
1:08:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether a snowbird with a permanently
registered vehicle in another state would trigger the voter
registration system each year.
MR. ALMEIDA said that was not the intent. He pointed out that
Section 1 focused on individuals who failed to communicate with
the Division of Elections (DOE) or vote within the past two
years. Theoretically, if snowbirds were voting in every general
election, they would not receive notice from the division, he
said.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked how the division would check whether a
person had served on a jury in another state, per subparagraph
(D).
MR. ALMEIDA shared his understanding that information would be
gathered from secretaries of state in other states, or systems,
such as the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC).
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inquired about the communication between
states regarding an individual's permanently registered vehicle.
He asked how the provision would be enforced and whether such
enforcement would require additional resources.
CHAIR VANCE clarified that [page 2, lines 8-14] were not
required of the division. The indicators were simply a
mechanism to determine whether registered voters were no longer
Alaska residents, which would trigger a notice from the
division, thereby creating an opportunity for the voter to
respond.
1:12:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how many days a person must reside
in Alaska to be eligible to vote in a given year.
MR. ALMEIDA shared his belief that the answer was 30 days;
nonetheless, he directed the question to Ms. Wilson for
confirmation.
1:13:13 PM
LORI WILSON, Division of Elections (DOE), Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, clarified that an individual could register
to vote upon claiming residency in Alaska; however, that person
must be registered 30 days before the election to be eligible to
vote.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the 30-day requirement
applied to people voting in the presidential election only.
MS. WILSON indicated that same-day registration was allowed for
the presidential election, in which case, the individual would
vote a question ballot or absentee in-person ballot and the form
would be used to register him/her to vote. In that scenario,
only the vote for president and vice president would be counted.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a person was required to
spend the 30 days before each election in Alaska once his/her
Alaska residency had been established.
MS. WILSON said once a voter is registered to vote in Alaska,
that person can continue to vote in Alaska unless he/she
registers to vote in another state.
1:15:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the consequences for
voting in another state.
MS. WILSON said if an individual were to register to vote in
another state, DOE would be notified of the registration, and
that person's Alaska registration would be canceled.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there was emporary
vehicle registration in Alaska.
MS. WILSON directed the question to Mr. Almeida.
1:17:23 PM
MR. ALEMDIA offered to follow up with the requested information.
CHAIR VANCE claimed that a temporary registration was issued
when buying a car. She pointed out that Amendment 1 added the
word "permanently" as a marker for registered vehicles because
many people buy cars from out of state.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he was unfamiliar with a temporary
registration. He expounded on the distinction between temporary
and permanent registrations.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether, in Representative Eastman's opinion,
the intent of Amendment 1 was impeded in any way.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested removing both "temporary" and
"permanently" to focus solely on vehicle registration.
1:20:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned the deletion of subparagraph
(G) from page 2, lines 12-14 of the bill and the intent of
subparagraph (F) in Amendment 1.
CHAIR VANCE relayed that the United States Postal Service's
(USPS's) national change of address program was not being
offered to Alaska at this time. For that reason, she believed
that "established residence in another state, territory, or
country" provided more flexibility as an indicator, as opposed
to prescriptive language specifically referring to the national
change of address program.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that the current wording
"established residence" could set a higher threshold for the
division.
1:24:10 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:24:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 to delete all material on lines 5-6 of Amendment 1.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment 1 to include "may have" on line 13 of Amendment 1
prior to the word "established."
CHAIR VANCE objected for purposes of discussion.
1:25:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the proposed conceptual
amendment would allow the division to look into a person's
residency that may or may not have been established in another
state.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER explained his opposition to Conceptual
Amendment 2 to Amendment 1. He pointed out that none of the
other indicators included the words "may have." For that
reason, he characterized the proposed conceptual amendment as a
"distinction without a point."
CHAIR VANCE agreed with Representative Carpenter.
1:27:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY pointed out that establishing residence was
a nebulous concept, adding that the requirements varied from
state to state. He stated his support for Conceptual Amendment
2, opining that the suspicion of established residence should be
enough to trigger an investigation. He argued that without the
conceptual amendment, the notice could not be triggered without
knowing the meaning of "established residence."
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER said regardless of the specific
requirements for establishing residency in another state, they
must be met to become a resident. Therefore, when the division
looks into a person's declared residency in another state, the
answer would either be yes or no, not somewhere in between.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied that in a perfect world that may
be true; however, he asserted that not every state had a clear
method for establishing residency.
CHAIR VANCE contended that most states did have well-defined
residency laws. She reiterated the provision in question would
simply trigger a notice to begin the conversation, as opposed to
automatic removal from the voter rolls. She opined that the
language should remain as drafted.
1:30:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment 1. He moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment [3] to
Amendment 1 to reinsert subparagraph (G) back into the bill.
CHAIR VANCE objected.
1:32:06 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:32:45 PM
CHAIR VANCE clarified that Conceptual Amendment [3] to Amendment
1 would add subparagraph (G) [on page 2, lines 12-14] back into
the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected for purposes of discussion and
asked whether the sponsor was comfortable with the conceptual
amendment. He asked why Amendment 1 initially removed
subparagraph (G) from the bill.
1:33:17 PM
CHAIR VANCE reasoned that the language in subparagraph (G),
"moved to a different residence", was addressed by the language
in subparagraph (F) of Amendment 1, "established residence in
another state". She argued that the deletion of subparagraph
(G) and the subsequent replacement of subparagraph (F) offered a
more definitive marker of residency.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER agreed that there was a distinction
between establishing residency and moving to a different
residence. He maintained his objection to Conceptual Amendment
[3] to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that the reason for the
indicators was to determine whether an individual had
established residency in another state. For that reason, he
posited that there was no reason to include "established
residence in another state" as an indicator to trigger an
investigation as to whether an individual had established
residency in another state.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY opined that the national change of address
program would provide good evidence that a person had left the
state permanently. He acknowledged that the program was not
offered in Alaska at this time; nonetheless, he suggested that
keeping the language in the bill may be helpful, as the program
could be the primary resource in the future.
1:36:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON questioned the meaning of a temporary
change of address.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY explained that with a temporary change of
address, a person can request that mail be forwarded up until a
specific date.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON expressed his confusion as to the
meaning of a temporary resident. He asked how often temporary
residents would be notified by USPS.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that when changing one's
address, USPS offered two options: permanent change of address
or temporary change of address accompanied by a specific end
date. He noted that the choice could be amended at any time.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON opined that the process [of
continually forwarding mail] would provide a loophole for voters
by allowing someone who had no intention of returning to the
state to vote in Alaska and affect the elections in a nefarious
way.
1:39:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which a person
had set up mail forwarding services with USPS. He asked whether
an official ballot from DOE would be forwarded to the new
address.
MS. WILSON shared her understanding that ballots were not
forwardable.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY reported that the maximum temporary
forwarding was six months, per the USPS website. To extend the
forwarding longer than six months, the service must be reapplied
for.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER reiterated that a ballot would never be
forwarded.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether the provision would be a useful tool
for the division.
1:41:45 PM
MR. ALMEIDA shared his understanding that the state, as a member
of ERIC, was indirectly receiving information from the national
change of address program.
MS. WILSON said that was her understanding as well.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON posited that Conceptual Amendment [3]
to Amendment 1 was unnecessary, as the state was already
receiving the information [from the national change of address
program via ERIC].
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN argued the opposite. He said regardless
of whether the state received the information from ERIC or USPS,
the goal was to act on it. He pointed out that removing
subparagraph (G) would tell the division not to act on the
information.
1:43:19 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Gray, and
Groh voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment [3] to Amendment 1.
Representatives Carpenter, C. Johnson, and Vance voted against
it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment [3] to Amendment 1 failed
by a vote of 3-3.
1:44:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked for a refresher on Amendment 1,
as amended, before the vote.
CHAIR VANCE reminded the committee that the only change to
Amendment 1 was the deletion of lines 5-6.
1:44:29 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Carpenter, C.
Johnson, Gray, Groh, and Vance voted in favor of Amendment 1, as
amended. Representative Eastman voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1, as amended, passed by a vote of 5-1.
1:45:08 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:45:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER moved to adopt Amendment 2 to CSHB
129(STA), labeled 33-LS0668\B.8, Klein, 5/4/23, which read:
Page 3, line 18, through page 4, line 1:
Delete all material and insert:
"(g) The division shall adopt regulations
providing for regular review and updates of the master
register. The regulations must provide for review of
the register for data breaches, the number of
registered voters compared to persons eligible to vote
in the state, and the names of deceased voters,
persons convicted of a felony involving moral
turpitude, persons not qualified to vote under
AS 15.05, and persons registered to vote in another
state. The regulations must specify records and
databases for use in reviewing the master register;
the records and databases must include databases
sourced from governmental agencies outside the
division, including the United States Postal Service
national change of address database, the database of
permanent fund dividend recipients, Alaska Court
System databases, state motor vehicle records, records
of the state programs of corrections, property and
sales tax records, records of the federal social
security system, municipal assessor databases, the
United States Social Security Administration death
index, an alien database maintained by the United
States Department of Homeland Security, and jury duty
records from other jurisdictions. The director shall
compare the master register to state welfare and
public assistance agency databases to identify
information relevant to registration to vote in state
elections, including address changes, deaths, and
citizenship status, and shall review the number of
voters registered at each registration address to
identify anomalous registration totals."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
1:45:33 PM
MR. ALEMIDA explained that Amendment 2 would re-write subsection
(g) on page 3, line 18 through page 4, line 1 of the bill. He
read the new language, indicating that the main changes occurred
on lines 10-12 of Amendment 2.
1:47:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether the division supported
Amendment 2.
MS. WILSON did not know the answer. She offered to follow up
with the requested information.
1:48:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what the division would do with the
information after conducting the review.
MS. WILSON deferred to the maker of the amendment.
CHAIR VANCE said the language required DOE to review the
register and decide whether registrants should remain on the
list.
1:49:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed concern that there was no
mechanism for the division to fix the anomalies. He questioned
whether specific recourse should be added to the proposed
amendment.
CHAIR VANCE pointed out that there were other mechanisms in the
legislation that would allow the division to take action.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what options were available to the
division in terms of the information gathered from the review.
CHAIR VANCE directed attention to subsection (h) on page 4,
which established reporting requirements for the director.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he did not read subsection (h) in
the same way. He maintained his belief that the division lacked
any authority to take action [on the information]. He asked
whether the division could offer insight on the provision.
1:54:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the division would need
to adopt regulation to interface with the new database and
whether they would need explicit direction to act on the
gathered information.
MS. WILSON explained that information was researched and
confirmed before inactivating a voter's record in the system.
She acknowledged that there were bad actors who continually try
to access governmental databases to which the division and its
partners continue to monitor the voter list and absentee
applications and actively prepare for unlawful election
interference. She assured the committee that DOE would bring
the Department of Law (DOL) into any situation that warranted
further attention.
1:57:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the division had the
authority to unilaterally act on new information indicating that
a person should no longer be eligible to vote in Alaska.
MS. WILSON pointed out that simply living out of state and
participating in Alaska's elections did not constitute fraud.
she acknowledged that there was no investigative unit in the
division; nonetheless, she reiterated that DOE would advance any
concerns that arose to DOL.
1:59:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON considered a scenario in which a voter
moved out of state and neglected to cancel his/her Alaska voter
registration. If that person were to register to vote in
another state, he asked whether that was grounds for immediate
removal from Alaska's voter registration list.
MS. WILSON said upon registering to vote in another state, that
state would send DOE a notification, thereby effectively
cancelling that person's Alaska voter registration.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON sought to confirm that an
investigation would not be needed in that scenario and the
individual would be removed from the voter registration list in
Alaska.
MS. WILSON clarified that the individual would be placed on
inactive status and shown as registered elsewhere.
2:01:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that Alaska would only get the
message from another state if the individual took the initiative
to contact the new state in which they registered.
2:03:10 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:04:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON called the question.
2:04:47 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Carpenter, C.
Johnson, and Vance voted in favor of Amendment 2.
Representatives Groh, Eastman, and Gray voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-3.
2:05:22 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that CSHB 129(STA), as amended, would be
held over.
2:05:40 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
HB 11-CRIME: ASSAULT IN THE PRESENCE OF A CHILD
2:06:50 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 11, "An Act establishing
the crime of assault in the presence of a child."
CHAIR VANCE opened invited testimony.
2:07:24 PM
MICHAEL SHAFFER, Office of Victims' Rights, Legislative Agencies
and Offices, gave invited testimony during the hearing on SSHB
11. He highlighted the importance of the proposed legislation
because of the impact that witnessing violence has on children
under the age of 16. He reported that when children witnesses
violence, it directly affects their brain development,
specifically the cerebral cortex. Even children as young as six
months old can be affected by violence occurring around them.
In addition to the physical impact, he acknowledged the
emotional and psychological effects of observing violence. He
discussed the importance of domestic violence intervention
programs for people capable of committing violent crimes around
children. He opined that the bill was long overdue, noting that
the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) had the crime "on the books"
for over twenty years and consequently, it had been tested in
terms of appellate law. He acknowledged that the bill wouldn't
add much in the way of resources for law enforcement or
prosecutors; nonetheless, it would help to better protect
children across the state in situations where violence was being
committed around them.
2:13:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the statistical impact of
enacting the law in the MOA.
MR. SHAFFER shared his understanding that a formal study had not
been conducted on family violence prosecutions in Anchorage. He
said the bill may not be a perfect solution; nonetheless, it's
better than doing nothing, he said, given the crime's impact on
small children.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inferred that the municipal law had
impacted the justice system in the way of more prosecutions and
convictions. He requested data or anecdotal evidence of changed
behavior or a diminishment of violence in front of children.
MR. SHAFFER anecdotally reported that the crime made offenders
more mindful and conscious of the impact that an assault has on,
not only the person that it was perpetrated against, but the
children who witnessed it. He said many of the offenders who
completed programs ceased to reoffend.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Mr. Skidmore to share his
perspective.
2:18:08 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), reminded the committee that Mr. Shaffer
worked through the MOA to prosecute a crime that had been in the
municipal code since 2000. He said he was unaware of research
on the effect of the particular provision.
2:18:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the proposed crime,
assault in the presence of a child, could be used to prosecute
an assault that occurred in a high school in front of younger
children.
MR. SKIDMORE answered yes, he believed that, theoretically, it
could allow for that prosecution. He expounded on the impact of
adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), adding that the inclusion
of ACEs would be a policy call for the legislature.
CHAIR VANCE noted that a forthcoming amendment would exclude
juveniles from the bill.
2:21:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER sought to verify that assault in the
presence of a child applied to fourth degree assault, which
included the verbal threat or fear of physical injury without
physical contact. He asked whether that was accurate.
MR. SKIDMORE said case law indicated that when placing someone
in fear, there must be fear of imminent injury. He shared, for
example, that stating the words "I'm going to kick your butt"
would not qualify as a fear assault. Alternatively, getting
ready to hit someone without making contact would qualify as a
fear assault. He confirmed that committing a fear assault in
the presence of a child would qualify [under the new statute].
2:24:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of SSHB 11, asked for verification that there was a
world of juvenile justice that most Alaskans weren't aware of.
MR. SKIDMORE answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON sought to confirm that assault in the
fourth degree applied to juveniles.
MR. SKIDMORE answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON confirmed that he and Chair Vance were
looking for a way to exclude juveniles from the crime's
applicability. He asked whether DOL had a preference as to
whether the criminal code for juveniles should be separate from
that of adults.
MR. SKIDMORE said that was a difficult question to answer,
indicating that the concept of criminalizing certain conduct for
adults but not for children involved analyses of issues related
to equal protection. He pointed out that, unlike adult criminal
prosecutions, the goal of juvenile justice was to consider the
best interest of the child.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the committee should be
concerned about a raft of new misdemeanor charges against
children or whether the charges would be disposed of.
MR. SKIDMORE answered no, he did not believe that there would be
a raft of fourth degree assault charges filed against children.
2:30:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the department's criteria
for making referral in a juvenile case.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that law enforcement investigated
juvenile cases in the same way as any other criminal conduct.
Law enforcement agencies then refer the cases to the Division of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for further evaluation. He directed the
question to DJJ.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the process of charging a
juvenile as an adult.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that the process was dictated by statute.
He reported that when children above the age of 16 commit a
serious offense, such as an unclassified or class A felony, they
can be automatically waivered [into adult court]. He recalled
only two instances in which juveniles under the age of 16 were
waved into adult court.
2:33:45 PM
CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on SSHB 11. After
ascertaining that no one wished to testify, she closed public
testimony and announced that the bill would be held over.
2:35:11 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 |
|---|---|---|
| HB 11 - Amendment #1 (S.3).pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 - Amendment #2 (S.4).pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 - Amendment #3 (S.7).pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 - Amendment #4 (S.6).pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 - Amendment #5 (S.9).pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 - Amendment #6 (S.8).pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 - Amendment #7 (S.12).pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 - Amendment #8 (S.11).pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 11 - Amendment #9 (S.10).pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 11 |
| HB 129 - Amendment #1 (B.7) by Chair Vance.pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/8/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB 129 - Amendment #2 (B.8) by Chair Vance.pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/8/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB 129 - Amendment #3 (B.4) by Rep. Eastman.pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/8/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB 129 - Amendment #4 (B.5) by Rep. Eastman.pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/8/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB 129 - Amendment #5 (B.3) by Rep. Eastman.pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/8/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |