03/31/2006 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR32 | |
| HB415 | |
| HB413 | |
| HB347 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 413 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 347 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 415 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HJR 32 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 31, 2006
1:18 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson
Representative John Coghill
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Les Gara
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Max Gruenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 32
Proposing an amendment to the section of the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to marriage.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 415
"An Act relating to landowners' immunity for allowing use of
land for a recreational activity; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSHB 415(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 413
"An Act relating to the burning capability of cigarettes being
sold, offered for sale, or possessed for sale; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 347
"An Act relating to mandatory motor vehicle insurance, license
suspensions, and notices relating to motor vehicles and driver's
licenses."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 32
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
02/10/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/10/06 (H) JUD, FIN
03/15/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/15/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/17/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/17/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/27/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/27/06 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 03/29/06>
03/29/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/29/06 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/06 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/31/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 415
SHORT TITLE: LIABILITY FOR RECREATIONAL LAND USE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SEATON
02/01/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/01/06 (H) RES, JUD
03/22/06 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/22/06 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/22/06 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/24/06 (H) RES RPT 6DP 3NR
03/24/06 (H) DP: KAPSNER, GATTO, OLSON, SEATON,
ELKINS, RAMRAS;
03/24/06 (H) NR: SAMUELS, LEDOUX, CRAWFORD
03/29/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/29/06 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 03/31/06>
03/31/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 413
SHORT TITLE: BURNING CAPABILITY OF CIGARETTES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JOULE
02/01/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/01/06 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/09/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/09/06 (H) Moved CSHB 413(STA) Out of Committee
02/09/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/06 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 6DP
02/13/06 (H) DP: GARDNER, LYNN, ELKINS, RAMRAS,
GRUENBERG, GATTO
03/31/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 347
SHORT TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE & NOTICE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GARA, LYNN
01/09/06 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/6/06
01/09/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/09/06 (H) STA, JUD
01/31/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/31/06 (H) Heard & Held
01/31/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/14/06 (H) Heard & Held
02/14/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/16/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/16/06 (H) Moved CSHB 347(STA) Out of Committee
02/16/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/17/06 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 3NR
02/17/06 (H) DP: GARDNER, GATTO, SEATON;
02/17/06 (H) NR: GRUENBERG, ELKINS, RAMRAS
03/31/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SCOTT MILLER
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 32, expressed
concerns and asked the committee to defeat the resolution.
MARSHA BUCK
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)
Juneau
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 32.
JUDY CRONDAHL
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 32.
JERI MUSETH
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 32.
EVE DILLINGHAM, Professor;
Representative
Faculty Senate
University of Alaska Southeast (UAS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Read a resolution passed by the UAS Faculty
Senate in opposition to HJR 32, and responded to questions.
DIANE MAYER
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 32.
LEE PARKER
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns regarding HJR 32 and
asked the committee to vote against it.
CHERYL HUMME
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 32.
SHIRLEY RIVAS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns regarding HJR 32 and
asked the committee to refrain from voting to place it on the
ballot.
EDITH BAILEY
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns regarding HJR 32 and
asked the committee to vote no on it.
MICHAEL "WES" MACLEOD-BALL, Executive Director
Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns regarding HJR 32 and
urged the committee to stop the measure.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 415.
LINDSAY WINKLER
Programs Management
Homer Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD)
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 415.
ANNE MARIE HOLEN, Special Projects Coordinator
Administration Department
City of Homer
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 415 and urged
passage of the bill.
BRUCE HESS
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 415 and asked that the bill be moved from committee.
DAVID BRANN, Kachemak Nordic Ski Club
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 415.
WAYNE STEVENS, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (ASCC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 415 and stated that the ASCC encourages passage of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 413.
WARREN CUMMINGS, President
Alaska Fire Chiefs Association (AFCA);
Fire Chief
City of Fairbanks
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 413.
CAROL REED
Alaska Fire Standards Council (AFSC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 413.
GARY POWELL, Director State Fire Marshal
Central Office
Division of Fire Prevention
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 413.
RUSS HAVEN, Legislative Counsel
New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG)
Albany, New York
POSITION STATEMENT: Encouraged the legislature to pass HB 413.
ANDREW McGUIRE
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Quincy, Massachusetts
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 413, urged Alaska
to join other states in passing fire-safe cigarette legislation.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 347.
TOM McGRATH
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 347, and suggested changes.
ACTION NARRATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE TOM ANDERSON, acting as chair, called the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:18:42 PM.
Representatives Anderson, Coghill, Gara, and Kott were present
at the call to order.
HJR 32 - CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE
[Contains brief mention of SJR 20, companion bill to HJR 32.]
1:19:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON announced that the first order of
business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 32, Proposing an
amendment to the section of the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to marriage.
1:20:22 PM
SCOTT MILLER observed that some who testify on HJR 32 - and
perhaps even some members of the committee - seem to believe
that homosexuality represents some kind of perverse choice, and
that laws like this are necessary to label that perversity for
society and maybe even to influence that choice. However, one
can hardly think of a social situation in America that confers
so little gain and yet so much danger, frustration, and
heartache as being gay. Why would anyone ever "choose" to be
persecuted, ridiculed, and legislated into the fringes, possibly
to end up crucified on a barbed wire fence in Wyoming as one
college student was? Why would anyone persevere through all
that for a lifetime, or choose to live in a same-sex
relationship for decades, if it were not an honest expression of
his/her true identity?
MR. MILLER observed, then, that if such is not a "choice," then
same-sex couples are either in the grip of Satan, deluded, or
really and truly gay. He said he rejects the first explanation
because believing in such would foster the same kind of
atmosphere that surrounded the Salem witch trials; in that kind
of society, no one is ever free from suspicion, which in turn
means that no one is ever free and only those who lie the
loudest are safe. Of the two remaining explanations for saying
one is gay - either one is deluded or is honestly and truly gay
- he pointed out that there is a lot of evidence that such a
person is not deluded, though perhaps some people might say or
think they are gay but aren't. However, few, if any of the
latter are in committed same-sex relationships.
MR. MILLER pointed out that the American Psychological
Association holds clearly that homosexuality is not a mental
disorder, hence there is no need for a cure. He relayed that
all his life he has had gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender (GLBT)
friends, acquaintances, teachers, and professional associates,
and surmised that so, too, have committee members whether they
knew it or not. Many of these people, he added, are smart,
competent, creative, and they manage great public and family
responsibilities with skill and clarity.
MR. MILLER explained that his daughter is a lesbian, adding that
she is a former honor student who is pursuing a career in law
and public health. He went on to say:
She is smarter, better organized, and more articulate
than I am. She has navigated a complicated life and
world for 25 years intelligently and productively, and
she has been unwaveringly clear about her sexuality,
without making a big deal about it, since she was 12
[years old]. I don't think she is deluded. I think
she is honest, brave, and admirable, and I'd like to
think there is a future for her in the state where she
was born.
I don't expect the average voter to know how to deal
with all this. Most people don't have the
information, the experience, the intellectual
training, or the self-awareness to treat this issue
fairly. But when Alaskan citizens are being honest
about who they truly are, and the State moves to
punish them for that, society has a big problem.
That's where legislators like you need to step in
above the fray and above politics. I hope you will
accept that responsibility and defeat this measure.
Thank you.
1:24:24 PM
MARSHA BUCK, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
(PFLAG) Juneau, relayed that she would be speaking in opposition
to HJR 32. She said:
This resolution has a current, direct, and harmful
effect on my daughter and on her family, and on many,
many of my Alaskan friends and their long-term, same-
sex-partner families, and on numerous heterosexual
domestic-partner families who live throughout our
great state. And I wonder how many of your families
it affects as well? If you think only of the current
effect on your families, that might appear to be
simply a rhetorical question, because many of us think
we don't know of any same-sex couples in our immediate
family.
But on a nationwide basis, approximately one-fourth of
all extended families contain a gay, lesbian,
bisexual, or transgender family member. Now, that
doesn't necessarily mean that everyone in the family
knows that a member is gay, or lesbian, or [bisexual],
or accepts the fact that the member is gay. But the
family member is there nonetheless - silence or denial
doesn't make them go away. It would behoove all of us
to ask: "Which niece, which nephew, which child, or
which grandchild might this resolution affect right
now?" and perhaps, "Am I loving enough so that I can
listen as my family member shares this personal truth
when it occurs?"
In addition, we must consider the future, because
we're looking at a potential constitutional amendment
here. Which of our children, our grandchildren, our
great grandchildren, or our cousins, or grand nieces,
or grand nephews will unavoidably be gay or lesbian or
bisexual as they mature? Research shared in the
segment of 60 Minutes shown on CBS television recently
... made it clear that scientists don't yet know why a
person is gay or lesbian, but that it's clear, by the
scientific research that's being conducted right now,
that the reasons are a combination of genetics and ...
hormonal factors - not personal choice.
So if you are considering passing HJR 32 out of
committee, which members of your family will you be
harming? In addition to my loved ones, which of your
loved ones will be denied benefits [either] currently
or in the future? ... Please vote no on HJR 32. Thank
you.
1:27:10 PM
JUDY CRONDAHL said:
We all agree that families are important. Families
provide the basic protections for individuals and the
building blocks of our communities and society. ...
Government is the entity empowered to set the rules
for our society and provide protections for
individuals, families, and communities. You, as
legislators, have a great responsibility to ensure
that all Alaskans have access to the necessities of
life and fair treatment within our families,
communities, and society. There are only 60 of you to
do this and you are limited to whatever actions you
can agree on within a constitutionally mandated 120-
day session.
What are the prevailing problems in our state? We
have a high rate of alcohol abuse, which has severely
impacted many families in our state, resulting in
child abuse and neglect, accidental injuries, and
deaths. We have a high rate of poverty, especially in
our rural areas, many of which also lack basic
sanitation facilities and other 20th century
amenities. High fuel prices, a boon for state
government, have created hardships for many who are
living on the economic edge, and [have] impacted
services for us all. These are not our only problems,
but I offer them as examples of the important issues
facing state government and you as our elected
representatives.
Now, [comes] the issue of benefits for same-sex
couples and the proposal embodied in HJR 32. First of
all, I am really puzzled by the amendment changing the
title from "Marriage" to "Marriage and related
limitations." I may have a more positive view of
marriage than the sponsors of this resolution, but,
having been married for almost 41 years, I looked on
marriage as an expansion of opportunities rather than
a limitation or handicap. [Second], as to the stated
purpose of this resolution, how does denying benefits
to anyone help anyone else? How does an injury to my
friends' families protect either my family or my
marriage?
Is the provision of benefits one of the most pressing
problems in our state, worthy of even one hour's time
in a 120-day session? Does the time spent denying
partner benefits take away from time spent preventing
oil spills on the North Slope? How will the denial of
partner benefits help the family that cannot afford
fuel oil? Are some of you Christians? At the end of
your lives will you be able to say that you used your
talents wisely? Will you be able to say that you
loved your neighbors as yourselves? That you used
your talents to feed the hungry, house the poor, and
comfort the ill?
Or are you using your talents to turn people against
each other, spread fear, and foment hatred? Do you
use your high positions to generate compassion or pass
judgment? How will you be judged? If some of you are
not Christians, if the work you leave behind after you
die is your only shot at immortality, how do you want
your game scored? Will it be by money in the bank,
number of toys left behind, fearful enemies, or a
loving family and friends? Do family values apply
only to certain kinds of families, or do we want to
recognize the potential value of all families?
You are the leaders in our society and our state - you
have a great responsibility to use your talents and
time to protect individuals and families, to create a
better society and state through fair treatment for
all. Please do not waste precious time on something
that does just the opposite; instead, focus on the
many problems that are so important and those for
which solutions will bring Alaskans together.
Divisiveness is not good for families, it is not good
for communities, and it is not good for Alaska.
Please vote no on HJR 32. Thank you.
1:31:32 PM
JERI MUSETH relayed that she would be speaking in opposition to
HJR 32. She said:
I have lived in Alaska for more than 42 years, and I'm
presently employed as a project manager working with
elders; I'm also a student at the University of
Alaska. I'm widowed, I raised my daughter in
Southeastern Alaska, and I've watched my grandchildren
grow up Alaskan. My family and I live a straight
lifestyle, but I'm fortunate enough to have friends
who participate in same-sex partnerships. My friends
are professionally employed in various positions
around the community; some have raised or are raising
families, they buy homes, they contribute to the
economy, they do volunteer work in the community, go
to church, and participate in loving relationships.
In short, they live lives very similar to you and me.
... [House Joint Resolution 32] proposes to amend the
Alaska [State] Constitution ...; for five years this
paragraph has served the purposes of the people who
voted for the amendment. When the Alaska Supreme
Court decision, based on equal protection, decided
that same-sex partners were entitled to health and
other benefits afforded a spouse, some residents did
become upset. The [Alaska] Supreme Court decision
does not undercut the institution of marriage. And
because there are actually not many state employees in
same-sex [relationships], the decision will not place
a significant financial burden on the state. ...
I just had to do a research paper on this topic, pro
and con, on civil rights [for] gays - it was lengthy
research - and what I found was, a lot of various,
interesting reasoning. And it seems like people are
in this corner and this [other] corner, and they don't
seem to slide and meet in the middle. So, as I'm
going through this, I'm wondering, if [providing]
benefits for same-sex partners is not going to put a
financial burden on the state or other participating
businesses or agencies, then what's the purpose of the
... [resolution]?
This country was founded on the notion of separation
of church and state. If this [resolution] ... has a
purely religious purpose, it's [a] clear violation of
the separation of church and state. The bible
actually has no standing in American law, and this is
made clear by the intent of the First Amendment to
U.S. Constitution. Not all religions have a problem
with homosexuality. This ... [resolution] considers a
serious civil rights issue. Besides health and
pension benefits, it denies a partner the right to
make emergency medical decisions for their partner,
inherit mutually purchased property, and add
additional health insurance for natural or adopted
children.
Alaska has one of the best state constitutions in the
country, even 50 years after its adoption. It is a
fundamental document that people have not tried to
change every time the courts do [something] they don't
like. We need to respect our [Alaska State]
Constitution and all the people that it protects.
Amending the [Alaska State] Constitution to remove,
rather than enhance, protection is not painting a
flattering picture for the people of this state.
Oppression can never be accepted as normal. And I
thank you for your valuable time, and for the
consideration of my viewpoint.
1:36:12 PM
EVE DILLINGHAM, Professor; Representative, Faculty Senate,
University of Alaska Southeast (UAS), read a resolution passed
by the Faculty Senate on March 24, 2006; that resolution read
[original punctuation provided along with some formatting
changes]:
RESOLUTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: BENEFITS &
MARRIAGE
(SJR 20 AND HJR 32)
WHEREAS, Discrimination against faculty on the basis
of marital status is expressly prohibited by the
University of Alaska Board of Regents Statement of
Non-discrimination; and
WHEREAS, the UAS Faculty Senate affirms the importance
of complying with university nondiscrimination
policies; and
WHEREAS, to comply with SJR 20 and HJR 32 the
university would deny financially interdependent
partners (FIPs) insurance benefits, family membership
at the Student Recreation Center, tuition waivers,
faculty housing, and other valuable benefits currently
offered counter to university policy prohibiting
discrimination based on marital status; and
WHEREAS, The Faculty Senate affirms that providing
insurance and other benefits to FIPs is a valuable way
to recruit and retain excellent faculty; now
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAS Faculty Senate
is opposed to SJR 20/HJR 32; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the UAS Faculty Senate
commends the University of Alaska statewide
administration for its ongoing support of financially
interdependent partner (FIPs) benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON surmised that according to UAS's
resolution, people in opposite-sex domestic relationships could
expect to receive benefits as well.
MS. DILLINGHAM explained that according to [UAS] policy, at
least 13 criteria must be met in order for one to be defined as
a financially interdependent partner, and if those criteria are
met, then one is entitled to benefits regardless of whether the
relationship is same-sex or opposite-sex. In response to a
question, she said that the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
Faculty Senate has an identical resolution, but she is not sure
whether the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) does.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that if HJR 32 passes, one group of
employees will get health benefits for their whole families as
part of their pay package, while the other group will be getting
less of a pay package for the same work. He surmised that this
is the point being made by the UAS resolution, that it's a pay-
package issue, a "sweat-equity-at-work" issue.
1:40:34 PM
DIANE MAYER said she is opposed HJR 32, and asked the committee
to vote no on it. She went on to say:
After a job, health care is the biggest [factor]
providing for family security. All state workers
deserve equal access to their employee family benefits
- not just those who are also allowed to marry. This
is an issue of fair treatment of individuals, and good
business for the State. Access to healthcare helps to
prevent medical emergencies, and to cope when they
hit.
Why would we want a State benefits system that
unnecessarily puts some employees at risk of financial
disaster from family medical emergencies, particularly
while protecting their peers from the same stress and
uncertainty? Why would you wish some employees fewer
options than you have for your own family in a health
crises? And why create this discrepancy knowing that
such added stress and suffering, felt by one employee,
would inevitably impact ... [his/her] coworkers and
lower the office productivity.
Given the unanimous decision of the Alaska Supreme
Court, the State has an opportunity to expand, at
minimal cost, healthcare to more Alaskans, and improve
the economic security of a minority - its gay and
lesbian employees who are in committed, long-term
relationships. From a business point of view, Alaska
should jump at this opportunity. Whether some members
like it or not, there are many talented and
hardworking gay and lesbian people employed by the
State of Alaska. And whether you recognize them or
not, they are daily making contributions that benefit
us all.
The State invests in each employee, their training,
and their experience. We count on their judgment and
attention on the job. We should put in place every
workable option that improves the security and
stability of our work force. And we should end these
costly, divisive, and losing court battles. Our
[Alaska State] Constitution states that all persons
have a natural right to the enjoyment of the rewards
of their industry, and holds as its fundamental
premise that all persons are equal and entitled to
equal rights, opportunity, and protection under the
law.
This does not conflict with the 1998 amendment
defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
Nor are relationships between consenting same-sex
couples illegal. The Alaska Supreme Court got it
right last October. The case was not about marriage,
but about all State employees [having] equal access to
their employment benefits. To state, as this
resolution does, that, quote, "no other union is
similarly situated to marriage", is blatantly untrue;
if it were true we wouldn't be here, [and] you
wouldn't have had much of the testimony you've had
already.
MS. MAYER concluded:
From there, HJR 32 is just simply poorly drafted,
confusing, and difficult to interpret. What is ...
"quality of marriage" anyway? And who will be
affected in the end? Please end this attack on
minorities and on our [Alaska State] Constitution. I
urge [your to] respect the diversity of Alaskans, to
stand up for privacy and for fairness and for equal
opportunities in Alaska. Please vote against HJR 32 -
it's good business for Alaska. Thank you.
1:45:33 PM
LEE PARKER, after noting that she is a resident of Juneau
currently serving in Antarctica, said that she doesn't support
HJR 32 and doesn't really quite understand its purpose. For
example, is it designed to protect married couples as defined as
one man and one woman, and, given that definition, if HJR 32 is
not passed, what would married couples lose? Would they lose
any of their rights, benefits, or obligations? And, if HJR 32
is passed, what will married couples gain? Will they gain any
additional rights, benefits, or obligations? Again, if married
couples are not going to gain or lose anything through the
passage of HJR 32, what is its purpose? Is HJR 32 instead
simply directed against a small minority, a key group of people?
MS. PARKER said it seems as though HJR 32 is designed to remove
rights from a small group of folks. She opined that both the
U.S. Constitution and the Alaska State Constitution should
expand people's rights and obligations, not reduce them, adding
that she views HJR 32 as an attempt to reduce the rights and
obligations, mostly, of those in the gay community. She asked
that [the committee] tread cautiously when [attempting to make]
any amendments to the Alaska State Constitution, again opining
that everyone's rights and obligations should be expanded, not
reduced. She also asked [the committee] to consider this issue
carefully, judge wisely on it, and vote against [HJR 32].
1:49:34 PM
CHERYL HUMME said she is very opposed to HJR 32. Instead of
working towards fairness, equal treatment, and equal rights, she
observed, HJR 32 stresses discrimination, discrimination of
people that the supporters of HJR 32 consider to be outside the
norm - people who think differently than they do. Instead of
working towards expanding healthcare to all Alaskans, HJR 32 is
trying to narrow and restrict healthcare. Alaska has a rich
history of [honoring] privacy and individual rights, she
remarked, and went on to say:
I want to share how my brother and sister would be
treated under this proposal. My sister is married and
my brother has a domestic partner, Betsy. It astounds
me which partnership this proposal would honor. My
sister's husband has cheated on my sister, he has
taken advantage of her financially, and disrespected
her over and over again, but they're married, so it
seems we should give these two better rights than the
supporters [of HJR 32] would give my brother and
Betsy. They have been together for over 10 years,
they are both professionals, they own three houses
together - imagine the tax dollars, there; yet they
are not married, so the supporters of ... [HJR 32]
would not want them to have the same rights.
I realize neither of my examples show same-sex
couples, but they do [speak to] ... the supposed
values surrounding marriage. I am a strong supporter
of gay rights and could easily speak about how this
proposal is wrong along those lines alone, but so many
others are doing that wonderfully. I would like to
show how this proposal is harmful to all Alaskans and
[how it] is important for us not to get lost in what
this [proposed] amendment is actually saying. When I
read this [proposed] amendment, I see that it talks
about limiting benefits outside of marriage, plain and
simple.
The supporters of [HJR 32] ... would like us to think
only about same-sex unions because they hope that it
will stir up indignation surrounding this issue. They
will bring in large amounts of money from outside the
state, as well, to stir up that anger and make it seem
like an "us against them" issue. This proposal is
against any individual who does not conform to the
mandate of the supporters of this proposal. Over and
over again I hear it said that the people who support
this proposal are good people but that it's just
simply a moral issue for them.
MS. HUMME concluded:
I have really come to loath the use of ... the word,
"morals" because it usually is a code word for
judgment. I simply cannot understand how you can talk
about morals and still be willing to destroy families
that are simply different from your own. I urge you
to vote down this proposal and to not let this ...
divisive proposal go any further. Thank you.
1:52:18 PM
SHIRLEY RIVAS said:
I hold the belief that when we, with no provocation,
deliberately hurt our fellow human beings, we also
hurt ourselves just as much or more. [House Joint
Resolution 32] is designed to be hurtful to a certain
segment of our minority population. First, the very
act of singling them out is cruel, discriminatory, and
unusual treatment. And then, by removing their rights
and benefits, is further cruel and punishing
treatment. I thought punishment was designed [to]
punish convicted criminals: people who steal, commit
murder, fraud - i.e., real crimes.
This proposed amendment is punishing a great number of
people who have neither been convicted of, nor who
have committed, a crime. The law says that we have a
right to face our accusers ... in a court of law,
therefore this [proposed] amendment would further deny
the GLBT community another right. It says to them,
"You are being punished because of how you were born,
not because of any crime you have committed." I
repeat: Isn't punishment reserved for the accused and
convicted?
I think the ... [Declaration of Independence] states,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
Our pledge of allegiance states, "With liberty and
justice for all." Who are "all?" "All" needs no
explanation - it means, "all of us." [House Joint
Resolution 32] is in direct opposition to these
principles.
MS. RIVAS continued:
Another quote: "There is no error greater than that
species of self-deception which leads intelligent
beings to crave the exercise of power over other
beings for the purpose of depriving these persons of
their natural liberties. The golden rule of human
fairness cries out against all such fraud, unfairness,
selfishness, and unrighteousness. Only true and
genuine liberty is compatible with the reign of love
and the ministry of mercy." This is from a book
published in 1955.
I am here today initially because I am the mother of a
gay son. I am here to advocate for his rights and
those of his partner. Because I am a mother of a gay
son, I have become active in the gay community, I
maintain dear friendships throughout the GLBT
community, and know firsthand how damaging and hurtful
HJR 32 is. This [resolution] characterizes my son and
my friends as people who have earned punishment under
our [Alaska State Constitution]. How can this be?
They are simply people - they come from every segment
of our community.
I personally know GLBT people who are doctors,
lawyers, ministers, police officers, students,
artists, nurses, teachers, waiters, cooks, musicians,
firefighters, carpenters, computer nerds, architects,
Rolfers, non-profit administrators, painters, and
more; these people work hard, pay taxes, raise
children, and struggle with life's mysteries. Those
people are us. As a society, remember, when we hurt
one another, we ultimately hurt ourselves and society
as a whole. This is legislation at its worst. Please
do not vote to put it on the ballot. Thank you very
much.
1:58:07 PM
EDITH BAILEY, after characterizing herself as a heterosexual
retired commissioned officer, said she is a grandmother of 5, a
mother of 4, and a foster mother of 45 - 5 of which have
identified themselves as gay or lesbian. She went on to say:
I was there with them when they struggled with
accepting their [sexual] orientation. It was through
raising these teens that I came to fully understand
that sexual orientation is not a choice. Since it is
not a choice, it is just not right to consider denying
rights based on it. As a female, I value my right to
vote; it was only 1920 that we gained the right to
vote - that was only 20 years before I was born.
Probably few Americans now would even think about
denying women the right to vote. It just sounds
ridiculous to consider it.
I was a young adult during the civil rights movement.
We look back at those days and wonder why did we deny
individuals rights based on the color of their skin.
It was only 1964 that blacks were assured the vote in
the entire United States. And it seems so ridiculous
when we look back - what were we so afraid of? Now
we're standing at a pivotal point of rights for gays
and lesbians. Let us not make those same stupid
mistakes again.
Forget about quoting the bible - I remember the bible
verses were quoted to support denying rights to both
women and to blacks; we don't consider them to apply
now. And if the rights of ... blacks to vote had been
put to the people to vote, they would still be
[second-class] ... citizens with no voting rights. It
seems such a contradiction of the republican ideology
of less government to find there's now a consideration
of government moving into the bedroom and denying
rights based on sexual orientation.
Alaska prizes its right to privacy as expressed in its
constitution - government must stay out of the private
lives of people. My hope is that I will live long
enough to see everyone treated equally. Please help
realize this dream by voting no on this ...
[resolution].
2:00:43 PM
MICHAEL "WES" MACLEOD-BALL, Executive Director, Alaska Civil
Liberties Union (AkCLU), thanked the committee for both the
opportunity to speak and for its sincere hearing of all the
testimony coming forth on the issues raised by HJR 32. He
noted, however that he's heard reports that some people have
been unable to testify because of limited call-in availability;
notwithstanding this, the numbers of those who have testified
have been overwhelmingly in opposition to HJR 32, and so he
hopes that the committee will take that into account.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL offered a brief history: 1998, the marriage
amendment passed; 1999, the AkCLU filed a lawsuit representing
the AkCLU and 18 individuals; and this resulted in the [Alaska
Supreme] Court decision arrived at last October. This decision
essentially said that the existing benefits system for public
employees is discriminatory. The rationale was fairly simple
and fairly straightforward: the State, under the marriage
amendment, bars some people from marrying, and the state also
offers benefits, through its public employment benefit package,
only to married people. Therefore, the discrimination occurs by
barring benefits to those who are barred from marrying.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL observed that contrary to some of the previous
testimony, the Alaska Supreme Court's justification was under
the equal protection clause. The court said, essentially, that
it didn't classify same-sex couples as any group that was
entitled to special privilege; rather, it said that there was no
rational justification for the discrimination of the public
employment benefit package. There's been some comment that the
court's decision represents a runaway court; however, he pointed
out, the decision was unanimous - 5-0 in favor of the decision -
and was written by one of the more conservative justices.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL pointed out that even Senator Seekins has
acknowledged that were he to have sat on the Alaska Supreme
Court, he probably would have made the same decision because of
the language contained in the [Alaska State] Constitution, which
is what the court was interpreting. "I don't think this can be
characterized as [a] decision of the court that is irrational or
activist in any sense of the word," Mr. Macleod-Ball concluded,
adding that HJR 32 would counter that court interpretation and,
again according to Senator Seekins, its intent is to trump the
equal protection clause of the [Alaska State] Constitution.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL said that the AkCLU believes that trumping the
equal protection clause is exactly the wrong way to go; HJR 32
would write discrimination into the [Alaska State] Constitution.
Instead, he proffered, the state should be strengthening the
Alaska State Constitution's equal protection clause in order to
reassure minority communities, of today and of tomorrow, that
society recognizes and values the diversity achieved by the
amalgam of minorities and that the government will not tolerate
discrimination even if the majority retains some element of
private bias against a particular group. The government needs
to stand up, where private individuals will not stand up, in
protection of minorities.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL, noting that one of the points made in support
of HJR 32 is that [the legislature] should let the people
decide, pointed out that "letting the people decide" really
depends on what question is posed to the people. Clearly, in
advancing the measure, the proponents of HJR 32 would control
the very nature of the question that's being asked. Everybody
knows, he remarked, that pollsters and surveyors can get the
response that they want by asking the question in the right way.
It's been stated by many people that the majority ought not to
be able to determine the rights that are extended to the
minority; furthermore, Vic Fisher - a member of the Alaska
Constitutional Convention and one of the authors of the Alaska
State Constitution - has stated in an article in the Anchorage
Daily News the reasons for preserving the rights of the
individual even against the weight of public opinion.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL stated that the AkCLU opposes HJR 32 on several
levels, among them that it is poorly phrased and ambiguous in
the extreme. He went on to say:
I think we know ... what the intent of the measure is,
as measured by public statements - the intent is
discriminatory and it is to ban benefits to same-sex
couples. But the effect, despite the statements of
proponents, I think is less clear; this measure is, in
fact, very ambiguous. While part of a lawyer's job is
to argue an issue from both sides, this measure will
permit, and encourage, many different interpretations.
We cannot tell, at this point, for sure, what this
[proposed constitutional] amendment would do.
The proponents say that there is some confusion over
the meaning of the original marriage amendment, that
the [Alaska Supreme] Court has misconstrued the intent
of the 1998 amendment. This measure will put that to
shame in the confusion that it will create; we'll be
right back in this situation over, and over, and over
again as we hash out the real meaning of this measure
in the years ahead if this measure is adopted.
We believe that this measure is bad public policy.
Immediately upon introduction of this measure, a
broad-based coalition has coalesced around this issue
in opposition to the measure - Alaska won't
discriminate. It's an organization that consists of
people from all corners of Alaska and all walks of
life. It consists of clergymen, small business
owners, corporate and government employees and
employers, doctors and healthcare workers, lawyers,
social workers, university professors, university
administrators and other educators, families and
friends of gays and lesbians, and of course many
activists. This [resolution] ... is bad for Alaska,
and the representation of our broad-based coalition of
all these groups, I think, testifies to that.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL added:
All across America, and even in Alaska, the trend is
in exactly the opposite direction of what this measure
would do: employers are extending benefits to
domestic partners more often now than ever. [For
example], 50 percent of the "Fortune 500" companies
offer domestic partner benefits; several hundred
public employers, from all parts of America, not just
the "blue" states, offer domestic partner benefits;
many Alaskan employers offer domestic partner
benefits, including such major employers as "BP" and
"Chevron," and Wells Fargo, and "Key Bank," and Alaska
Airlines and all the other major airlines that fly
into Alaska, and ... [Providence Alaska Medical
Center], and the City and Borough of Juneau, and the
university system; there are many major religious
denominations that offer domestic partner benefits;
and the trend even among insurers is to extend
domestic partner benefits, at least as an option, to
even small employers - and I would site the recent
addition of BlueCross BlueShield of Montana, I believe
it was, [as a company that has] recently added this as
an option to its small-group employer benefit package.
We're seeing things like that happening all across the
country - the list goes on and on. Testimony was
presented in the Senate Finance Committee that this
benefit could be extended at essentially no cost to
Alaska, and, in fact, even perhaps at savings to the
State of Alaska ...; you can save money on Medicaid,
you can expand the pool of workers and increase the
State's competitive posture with respect to healthcare
coverage. The national system is staggering; we've
lost 5 million people in coverage over the last five
years. Coverages are declining, costs are increasing,
nothing is on the horizon to rectify this national
crisis, and states are limited in what they can do.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL concluded:
But one thing is certain: each state should be doing
whatever it can do to expand healthcare coverage. And
when it can be done at no cost or perhaps a public
savings, it's a "no brainer." This measure's bad for
same-sex couples, it's bad for unmarried Alaskans,
it's bad for business, it's bad for public employees,
it's bad for public employers, it's bad [for] the
State, it restricts access to healthcare, it promotes
discrimination and bias, it damages our [Alaska State]
Constitution, it limits the equal protection clause;
this measure just is not right, and we urge you to
stop this measure now. Thank you ....
MR. MACLEOD-BALL, in response to a question, said he is not sure
that any other state has adopted a measure just like what is
being proposed via HJR 32, though there are a relatively few
states that have adopted [or are considering adopting] a "one
man one woman" definition of marriage and included language that
goes beyond just that definition.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON closed public testimony on HJR 32.
MS. BUCK provided members with a copy of the aforementioned UAF
Faculty Senate resolution.
[HJR 32 was held over.]
HB 415 - LIABILITY FOR RECREATIONAL LAND USE
2:12:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON announced that the next order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 415, "An Act relating to
landowners' immunity for allowing use of land for a recreational
activity; and providing for an effective date."
2:13:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HB 415 seeks to encourage private landowners to
allow free recreational access to their lands by giving them
tort immunity from liability except in cases of gross
negligence. Under the bill, landowners who do not charge for
access to their lands would no longer have a duty to keep the
land safe for use, to warn recreational users of unsafe
conditions, or to curtail the use of their land for recreational
purposes. He offered his belief that current statutes do not
specifically pertain to land that is being used free of charge.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2, line 14, and explained
that subsection (d) prohibits claims for adverse possession,
prescriptive easement, or similar claims arising from the
recreational use of land without charge; this provision should
address concerns by landowners that giving someone free access
to their lands for recreational use will result in a
prescriptive easement. He offered his understanding that
members' packets include various letters of support for HB 415,
including letters from the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
(ASCC), the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the City of Homer, and many
others who believe that [passage of] HB 415 would be
advantageous for promoting recreation in their areas.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he would like to provide for a narrower
title by adding in the things that the bill provides for such as
the preclusion of adverse possession or prescriptive easement
claims by private persons, and that there is no liability if the
land is being used without charge unless the conduct [by the
landowner] is grossly negligent, reckless, or intentional.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he would not oppose such a change to
the title should the committee desire it.
2:19:08 PM
LINDSAY WINKLER, Programs Management, Homer Soil & Water
Conservation District (SWCD), relayed that members' packets
include a letter of support from the Homer SWCD, and that she
will submit her written testimony to the committee. Of
particular interest is that HB 415 specifically states the
recreational use provided for in the bill may not form the basis
of prescriptive easement claim. She offered her understanding
that a recent Washington Post article indicates that in 2005,
more money was spent on tort liability than on research and
development efforts. With the increasing need for more energy
resources and with Alaska showing leadership in this direction,
HB 415 is one step the state can take towards changing this
statistic around; ultimately, HB 415 provides landowners wanting
to provide access clear and comfortable guidelines for their
role in such an allowance and what their liability is. The
Homer SWCD is in strong support of HB 415 because property
owners are not comfortable with the protections offered by
current statutes.
2:21:03 PM
ANNE MARIE HOLEN, Special Projects Coordinator, Administration
Department, City of Homer, relayed that members should have a
copy of City of Homer Resolution 6-30 expressing strong support
of HB 415. Outdoor recreation is an important part of Homer's
identity and local economy. Most Homer area residents support
trail development, but some landowners who would be interested
in establishing public trails through their property are
understandably nervous about possible liability. House Bill 415
addresses these concerns in a straightforward manner, just as
many other states have done, and clears up ambiguity in existing
state statutes - a worthwhile goal in itself. From the City of
Homer's perspective, she relayed, HB 415 provides a good deal
for everyone involved. It is the City of Homer's hope that HB
415 will be reported out of committee quickly for a vote on the
House floor. She thanked the committee, and thanked the sponsor
for introducing the bill.
2:22:30 PM
BRUCE HESS relayed that he is a founding member of the Coalition
of Homer Open Space and Trails (CoHost), and offered his belief
that there is absolutely no controversy on this issue; everyone
wants to promote recreational activities in Alaska. House Bill
415 is needed, he remarked, because the ambiguity of current
statutes stifles potential recreational activity on private
property. Landowners must have clarity before they feel
comfortable allowing recreational activity to occur on their
land. In conclusion, he asked the committee to move the bill
forward, adding that it will benefit all Alaskans.
2:23:24 PM
DAVID BRANN, Kachemak Nordic Ski Club, noted that he, too, is a
founding member of the Coalition of Homer Open Space and Trails
(CoHost), and that he volunteers construction and maintenance
services on trails on "the peninsula and in Alaska" and so has
had to deal with private property owners regarding trails and
recreational use on their land. House Bill 415 will be a major
step forward with regard to trail development on private lands.
He urged support of what he termed "win-win-win" legislation:
it is a win for private landowners because they will be
protected; it is a win for recreational users because more
landowners will be willing to allow access to their properties
for recreational use; and it is win for the state because it
won't cost the state anything. He said HB 415 is especially
important with regard to opening up lands for recreational use
near urban and suburban areas. He thanked the committee for its
support and for moving the bill forward.
2:25:21 PM
WAYNE STEVENS, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
(ASCC), mentioned that the ASCC has long been a supporter of
tort reform. He opined that HB 415 will encourage recreational
use of private lands by protecting landowners who allow free
access to their land. Private landowners often play a pivotal
role in accessing Alaska's outdoors through leasing or granting
permission to use their private property; this role helps small
businesses grow while providing recreational access for Alaska's
burgeoning visitor and adventure activities. Without legal
protections, such activities may be limited or threatened
altogether. He relayed that the ASCC encourages passage of
HB 415.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that although the bill states that
it won't apply in situations involving intentional, reckless, or
grossly negligent conduct on the part of the landowner, the bill
also states that a landowner won't have a duty to warn persons
of dangerous conditions. At what point would not warning
someone of a dangerous condition be considered intentional,
reckless, or grossly negligent conduct?
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON offered a hypothetical example in which
a deteriorated well lies on the path that recreational users
traverse. Would a landowner be required to warn recreational
users that that well exists?
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated that a Legislative Legal and
Research Services memorandum dated March 31, 2006, attempts to
address that issue, and offered his understanding that
"malicious failure to warn" could be construed as "grossly
negligent" Therefore, he surmised, in the aforementioned
example, it would be up to the courts to decide whether not
giving warning of the well would constitute gross negligence.
2:30:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Representative Seaton whether he would
be amenable to having the bill say that there is no duty to warn
unless the failure to do so is grossly negligent, reckless, or
[constitutes] intentional misconduct.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that that is
what the bill provides for already and thus the court would find
that "those cases" constitute gross negligence.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he thinks so as well, but he is
wondering whether they should perhaps add to page 1, line 12,
the words, "except as provided by subsection (b),". He
proffered that this would clarify that except in instances
involving gross negligence, there would be no duty to warn.
[Later Representative Gara suggested that this change occur to
page 1, line 6.]
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his belief that the bill already
contains that concept, adding that he doesn't have a problem
with that suggested change.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON labeled that suggestion Conceptual
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to a question, said his
concern is that he wouldn't want someone he lets go hunting or
motorcycle riding on his property to sue him because of an
injury sustained due to a failure to pay attention to the
terrain.
2:33:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON surmised that if a landowner's children
set traps on the property, there should be a duty to warn.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he's seen some mean-spirited people
do things on their property to discourage trespassing, and that
he would view running wire across a trail, for example, as
criminal behavior. He said he'd thought that the immunity
provided by the bill addressed his concern until he reviewed
subsection (b) further.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that negligence
is the current standard, and that the bill would be changing
that standard to intentional, reckless, or gross negligence
conduct. He directed members' attention to page 3 of the
aforementioned memorandum, and noted that it says in part:
On the other hand, it is also plausible that the court
would recognize the legislative intent of HB 415 to
protect landowners and disregard the doctrine [of
attractive nuisance] entirely. I expect that the
course chosen by a court would be fact specific
depending on the age of the child, the child's ability
to perceive the risk, and the nature of the risk.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that he thinks that "this issue" is
covered in that the bill specifies that intentional, reckless,
or grossly negligent conduct is the standard. Adoption of this
legislation will remove the problem that most landowners
allowing recreational use of their land face.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged the point that the standard
is being raised via HB 415.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he does not see the harm in adding, on
page 1, line 6 [earlier in the meeting stated as line 12],
after, "(a)" the words, "except as provided by subsection (b),".
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL posited that doing so would draw
attention to subsection (b), but acknowledged that even without
that change one is automatically drawn to it.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he thinks that the courts would
interpret it the same way, but the problem is that "negligence"
is usually a separate doctrine from the doctrines listed on page
1 of the bill; therefore, he is not 100 percent sure that the
courts would take the new doctrine of gross negligence and apply
it to those items listed on page 1.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised, then, that the proposed change
would be saying that the legislature wants the higher standard
of gross negligence to apply in all situations.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA concurred, adding that although he thinks
the sponsor, members, and Legislative Legal and Research
Services are right in how the language will be interpreted, he
would be more comfortable if the language he is proposing were
added.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that 38 other states have used the
same language as is currently in the bill, and that this
language is model language.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that perhaps the concern could
be addressed via a title amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA sought clarification that it is everyone's
intention that the proposed standard of intentional, reckless,
or grossly negligent conduct will also apply to conduct listed
in subsection (a).
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed with that summation.
2:41:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, to
tighten the title such that the concepts discussed are included
in the title; Amendment 2 read [original punctuation provided]:
After "use of land" add "without charge"
After "activity;" add "retaining liability where
landowner conduct involves gross negligence,
recklessness or intentional misconduct; addressing
claims of adverse possession and prescriptive
easements, or similar claims by private persons or
entities;"
2:42:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Representative Gara whether he meant
to say, "limiting claims" instead of, "addressing claims".
REPRESENTATIVE GARA acknowledged that the drafters usually use
the term, "relating to", and so perhaps Amendment 2 ought to use
that term as well.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested, then, that Amendment 2 be
conceptual.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to amend Conceptual Amendment
2, to replace, "addressing claims" with, "relating to claims".
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was amended.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON removed his objection and asked whether
there were any further objections to Conceptual Amendment 2, as
amended. There being none, Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended,
was adopted.
2:44:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA moved to report HB 415, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations [and the accompanying
fiscal notes]. There being no objection, CSHB 415(JUD) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 413 - BURNING CAPABILITY OF CIGARETTES
2:44:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON announced that the next order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 413, "An Act relating to the
burning capability of cigarettes being sold, offered for sale,
or possessed for sale; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was CSHB 413(STA).]
2:45:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HB 413 relates to slowing/snubbing the burn of
cigarettes. He informed the committee that New York,
California, Washington, Vermont, and Massachusetts have passed
laws to require that cigarettes be packed differently and
utilize rolling paper with what he referred to as "speed bumps."
These speed bumps would cause the cigarette, when not actively
being smoked, to extinguish. Therefore, this would save lives
and avoid property damage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE relayed that the college intern in his
office, Mikayla Saito, has conducted research which indicates
that self-snubbing cigarettes were developed in 1932. For
whatever reason, the federal government has failed to utilize
this technology, and therefore individual states are taking
action. Additionally, in 2003, the entire country of Canada
adopted the requirements regarding the burning capability of
cigarettes. Representative Joule emphasized that HB 413 doesn't
change the composition of the cigarette or add to the cost of
its production. In conclusion, Representative Joule urged the
passage of HB 413.
2:48:25 PM
WARREN CUMMINGS, President, Alaska Fire Chiefs Association
(AFCA); Fire Chief, City of Fairbanks, provided the following
testimony:
The Alaska Fire Chiefs Association, the largest
membership of fire service managers in Alaska, is
dedicated to serving the needs and issues that face
Alaska's fire service. We would like to inform you
that [the AFCA] ... strongly supports the Fire Safe
Cigarette Act - [HB 413] - and encourage your yes vote
when this legislation comes before you on this
Committee and the House floor. [House Bill 413] will
prohibit the sale, manufacture, or distribution of
cigarettes in Alaska that do not meet fire safe
standards established by the American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM).
Careless smoking is the leading cause of fire deaths
in Alaska. From 1995-2004, careless smoking, as the
fire cause, resulted in 27.6 percent of all fire
deaths in Alaska. This type of fire killed 45 people
in Alaska during the past 10 years. These costs are
simply too great. Fortunately, an effective solution
to this problem lies within your reach. California,
New York and Vermont have already passed similar
legislation to protect their residents. We hope that
you will do your part to accomplish the same in
Alaska.
On behalf of the 144 members of the Alaska Fire Chiefs
Association, we thank you for considering our support,
and we hope that you will vote yes on HB 413 - a life-
saving piece of legislation.
2:50:45 PM
CAROL REED, Alaska Fire Standards Council (AFSC), provided the
following testimony:
The Alaska Fire Standards Council represents the
public, industry, and the fire service in matters of
fire training and safety standards. The members
represent all geographic areas of the state of Alaska.
The [AFSC] ... unanimously supports HB 413. In our
professional experience we have seen all too many
fires caused by careless ... use of cigarettes, many
resulting in fire fatalities. Over the past 10 years,
24 percent of all fatal fires in Alaska were caused by
the careless use of cigarettes. This is the leading
cause of fire deaths in Alaska. The (indisc.) number
of fatal fires would have been avoided with the
reduced burning capability cigarettes, as noted in HB
413. We ask you to take a significant step for ...
fire and life safety by passing this important bill.
2:52:46 PM
GARY POWELL, Director State Fire Marshal, Central Office,
Division of Fire Prevention, Department of Public Safety (DPS),
began by relaying the department's support of HB 413. He echoed
earlier testimony regarding the problem of fires being started
from careless cigarette [smokers]. [This legislation provides]
the means to address that problem. He offered his understanding
that 24-26 percent of Alaska's fire fatalities are caused by
cigarettes. However, often those who die in the fire are not
smokers themselves. Mr. Powell acknowledged that this matter
could be addressed through regulation of the items that are
ignited, but he opined that it would be an overwhelming amount
of regulation. Reducing the burning capability of cigarettes
will result in far fewer fires [being caused by cigarettes].
Mr. Powell surmised that there are not too many valid arguments
in opposition to this.
2:55:39 PM
RUSS HAVEN, Legislative Counsel, New York Public Interest
Research Group (NYPIRG), highlighted that the NYPIRG took the
lead in lobbying for [a similar] New York state statute and
closely monitored and participated in the almost three-and-a-
half-year regulatory process to achieve what's been similarly
proposed via HB 413. The standard in HB 413 is the same as that
of New York, Vermont, California, and Canada. The change
required under this proposal is inexpensive, will go practically
unnoticed by the consumer, and will have no impact on tobacco
sales in terms of the tax revenues. The preliminary data
regarding fire deaths from cigarettes indicates that there has
been a 48 percent drop in cigarette fire deaths over previous
years. More importantly, as smokers are driven inside during
the winter months, one would observe more fires, but that wasn't
the case after New York's cigarette fire safety law was enacted.
MR. HAVEN clarified that the technology consists of using a
different wrapping paper that has slightly thicker bands around
the cigarette barrel that cause an unattended cigarette reaching
this band to stop the burning. The aforementioned makes
tremendous sense, especially given that cigarettes are the
leading cause of fire deaths across the nation. Mr. Haven
encouraged the legislature to pass HB 413. He then pointed out
that committee packets should include a fact sheet that provides
answers to some of the basic questions about "reduced ignition
propensity" laws and regulations.
MR. HAVEN characterized the reduced ignition propensity laws and
regulations as a win-win situation. And because Congress has
been far too close to the tobacco industry, he said he didn't
expect anything positive from Congress. Therefore, the hope is
that as more states pass these laws, the industry will be
encouraged to produce fire safe cigarettes for the entire
country. Mr. Haven opined that although these aren't fireproof
cigarettes, they greatly reduce the risk of fire and will likely
help in the reduction of [all types] of fires. He urged the
committee to visit the fire safe cigarettes web site, which
includes a video of a fire marshal comparing a standard
incendiary cigarette and a fire safe compliant cigarette.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired as to how long New York has had the
fire safe compliant cigarettes.
MR. HAVEN informed the committee that the regulation went into
effect June 28, 2004. However, he noted that many of the
tobacco companies shifted production to these cigarettes earlier
than the effective date. He further noted that retailers were
allowed to sell off any old cigarettes with a tax stamp prior to
the effective date. Mr. Haven characterized it as a seamless
transition for wholesalers, retailers, and manufacturers. In
further response to Representative Kott, Mr. Haven specified
that a February 2005 Harvard School of Public Health study found
that the fire safe cigarettes aren't any more harmful to the
smoker than a regular cigarette. He noted that the fact sheet
attached to his testimony specifies the web site for the
document.
3:04:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said that he would provide that information
to the committee as well as other information that has been
mentioned.
ANDREW McGUIRE, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA),
opined that [fire-safe cigarettes] are an idea whose time has
come. He informed the committee that legislation similar to
HB 413 is likely to become law in Illinois in the next few
weeks. Furthermore, similar legislation might pass in Maryland.
He noted that nine other states, including Alaska, are
considering [similar legislation]. He offered his belief that
if a few more states pass similar legislation, cigarette
companies will have no choice but to make fire-safe cigarettes
for the entire nation.
MR. McGUIRE relayed that fairly recently, Phillip Morris, the
largest cigarette manufacturer in the U.S., stopped opposing
state [fire safe cigarette] legislation; he therefore
interpreted that to mean that the company will start making fire
safe cigarettes for all states. However, other cigarette makers
are continuing to oppose such legislation. In conclusion, he
urged Alaska to join other states in passing fire safe cigarette
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON indicated that CSHB 413(STA) would be
held over.
HB 347 - MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE & NOTICE
3:09:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON announced that the final order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 347, "An Act relating to
mandatory motor vehicle insurance, license suspensions, and
notices relating to motor vehicles and driver's licenses."
[Before the committee was CSHB 347(STA).]
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, speaking as one of the prime sponsors of
HB 347, relayed that HB 347 attempts to correct an unintended
result in which people are charged with not having insurance
when, in fact, they do have insurance.
3:10:55 PM
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), began by relayed that the
DMV supports HB 347. He highlighted that the division is
involved with the legislation due to Section 3. As the law
reads today, the DMV is directed to notify the customer when
there are issues pertaining to mandatory insurance and the
potential suspension that follows if there is no insurance. The
division, he explained, is required to notify the customer at
the address provided to DMV. However, since people obtain their
drivers' license once every five years, they often don't notify
the DMV of address changes.
MR. BANNOCK explained that furthermore, the police report which
is causing the action to be generated has the individual's
current address, but by law the DMV has to send the notification
to [the address on file with the DMV]. This legislation allows
the DMV to provide better [service]. In response to
Representative Anderson, Mr. Bannock specified that the law
requires an individual to inform the DMV of his/her new address,
but doesn't require that the individual obtain a new drivers'
license. Therefore, it's possible that a drivers' license would
specify one address while the DMV's records would specify the
correct address.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if Mr. Bannock is aware of individuals
being charged with the crime of not having insurance when they
really did.
MR. BANNOCK replied yes.
3:13:35 PM
TOM McGRATH opined that in Alaska, about 50 percent of drivers
don't have [automobile] insurance, and in Anchorage, when a
police officer stops a motorist, the officer may or may not ask
for proof of insurance. However, the individual who is hit by
an uninsured motorist uses his/her insurance to pay for the
repair of his/her vehicle, which drives up his/her costs. The
fine proposed in Section 1 is not to exceed $300 for an
infraction, he noted, much less than the cost of insurance.
MR. McGRATH characterized the aforementioned as providing an
incentive for people not to have insurance. Therefore, he
suggested that CSHB 347(STA) be modified such that a reference
to AS 28.22.041, AS 28.22.019, and AS 28.22.091 be added to
Section 4. With the aforementioned change, if an individual is
caught without a drivers' license, insurance, or proper
registration, the vehicle is removed from the street until the
individual rectifies the situation. He further suggested that
the fine under Section 1 should be changed to a mandatory $1,000
fine. Under AS 28.01.015, he recommended that the "may" be
changed to "shall" so that the municipality must impound the
vehicle when the individual doesn't have a drivers' license,
proper registration, or insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that the fine proposed in Section
1 only pertains to whether the individual informed the DMV of an
address change, not whether the individual has insurance.
MR. McGRATH suggested that there is probably some place in Title
28 where a larger fine can be implemented for those individuals
driving without insurance.
3:19:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that Mr. McGrath's comments and
concerns warrant further consideration. Representative Gara
emphasized that he shares Mr. McGrath's concerns with regard to
those driving without insurance, and thus the original intent
was to try to develop a way to enforce the mandatory insurance
law. However, he couldn't find a way to do that without
requiring the department to invest in new computer systems and
additional staff, which would necessitate a large fiscal note.
[CSHB 347(STA) was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|