04/13/2009 08:00 AM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB96|| HB192 | |
| HB36 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 192 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 13, 2009
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Charisse Millett
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 96(FIN)
"An Act relating to nonpayment of child support, to the
definition of the term "state" for the purposes of the Uniform
Interstate Family Support Act, to certain judicial and
administrative orders for medical support of a child, to
periodic review and adjustment of child support orders, to
relief from administrative child support orders, to child
support arrearages, and to medical support of a child and the
Alaska Native family assistance program; amending Rule 90.3,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 96(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 192
"An Act relating to nonpayment of child support; relating to
certain judicial and administrative orders for medical support
of a child; relating to periodic review and adjustment of child
support orders; relating to relief from administrative child
support orders; relating to child support arrearages; relating
to medical support of a child and the Alaska Native family
assistance program; amending Rule 90.3, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 36
"An Act relating to ballot initiative proposal applications and
to ballot initiatives."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 96
SHORT TITLE: CHILD SUPPORT/CASH MEDICAL SUPPORT
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
02/04/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/09 (S) HSS, JUD, FIN
02/25/09 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/25/09 (S) Heard & Held
02/25/09 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
03/02/09 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/02/09 (S) Moved CSSB 96(HSS) Out of Committee
03/02/09 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
03/03/09 (S) HSS RPT CS 2DP 2NR NEW TITLE
03/03/09 (S) DP: DAVIS, PASKVAN
03/03/09 (S) NR: THOMAS, ELLIS
03/11/09 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/11/09 (S) Heard & Held
03/11/09 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/16/09 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/16/09 (S) Moved CSSB 96(HSS) Out of Committee
03/16/09 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/18/09 (S) JUD RPT CS(HSS) 1DP 3NR
03/18/09 (S) DP: FRENCH
03/18/09 (S) NR: THERRIAULT, WIELECHOWSKI, MCGUIRE
03/30/09 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/30/09 (S) Heard & Held
03/30/09 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/09/09 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/09/09 (S) Moved CSSB 96(FIN) Out of Committee
04/09/09 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/09/09 (S) FIN RPT CS 4DP 2NR NEW TITLE
04/09/09 (S) DP: HOFFMAN, HUGGINS, THOMAS, ELLIS
04/09/09 (S) NR: STEDMAN, OLSON
04/10/09 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/10/09 (S) VERSION: CSSB 96(FIN)
04/10/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/10/09 (H) JUD, FIN
04/13/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 192
SHORT TITLE: CHILD SUPPORT/CASH MEDICAL SUPPORT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
03/18/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/18/09 (H) HSS, JUD
03/31/09 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/31/09 (H) Moved CSHB 192(HSS) Out of Committee
03/31/09 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
04/01/09 (H) HSS RPT CS(HSS) 2DP 3NR
04/01/09 (H) DP: COGHILL, LYNN
04/01/09 (H) NR: HOLMES, HERRON, KELLER
04/13/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 36
SHORT TITLE: INITIATIVES: CONTRIBUTIONS/ PROCEDURES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHANSEN, MILLETT, P.WILSON
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) STA, JUD
03/25/09 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/25/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/25/09 (H) JUD, FIN
04/06/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
04/06/09 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/06/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/09 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/13/09 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
LYNDA ZAUGG, Staff
Senator Bettye Davis
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 96 and HB 192,
presented SB 96 on behalf of the sponsor, the Senate Health and
Social Services Standing Committee, which is chaired by Senator
Davis.
SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 96 and HB 192,
spoke as chair of the Senate Health and Social Services Standing
Committee, sponsor of SB 96.
JESSIE M. ARCHIBALD, Staff Attorney
Tribal Child Support Unit
Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
(CCTHITA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 96 and HB 192,
expressed concern with Amendment 1 to SB 96 and suggested
alternative language.
GINGER BLAISDELL, Director
Administrative Services Division
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions and provided
comments during discussion of SB 96 and HB 192.
PETER PUTZIER, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
SB 96 and HB 192.
REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SSHB 36, spoke as one
of the joint prime sponsors.
JANET DeYOUNG, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor
Labor and State Affairs Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
SSHB 36.
CHRISTINA ELLINGSON, Assistant Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
SSHB 36.
JASON HOOLEY, Deputy Chief of Staff
Juneau Office
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
SSHB 36.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:06:11 AM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:06 a.m. Representatives Ramras,
Dahlstrom, Coghill, and Gatto were present at the call to order.
Representatives Lynn, Gruenberg, and Holmes arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Representative Millett was also in
attendance.
SB 96 - CHILD SUPPORT/ CASH MEDICAL SUPPORT
HB 192 - CHILD SUPPORT/CASH MEDICAL SUPPORT
8:06:22 AM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
a hearing on two bills: CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 96(FIN), "An Act
relating to nonpayment of child support, to the definition of
the term "state" for the purposes of the Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act, to certain judicial and administrative
orders for medical support of a child, to periodic review and
adjustment of child support orders, to relief from
administrative child support orders, to child support
arrearages, and to medical support of a child and the Alaska
Native family assistance program; amending Rule 90.3, Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date.";
and HOUSE BILL NO. 192, "An Act relating to nonpayment of child
support; relating to certain judicial and administrative orders
for medical support of a child; relating to periodic review and
adjustment of child support orders; relating to relief from
administrative child support orders; relating to child support
arrearages; relating to medical support of a child and the
Alaska Native family assistance program; amending Rule 90.3,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee was CSHB 192(HSS).]
8:07:32 AM
LYNDA ZAUGG, Staff, Senator Bettye Davis, Alaska State
Legislature, explained on behalf of the sponsor, the Senate
Health and Social Services Standing Committee, which is chaired
by Senator Davis, that SB 96 would bring Alaska into compliance
with the federal Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA),
which requires states to establish guidelines addressing how
either or both parents will provide for a child's healthcare
needs and to include the term "Indian tribe" in the definition
of "state". These two conforming changes will result in
procedural changes for enforcement and modification of child
support orders from other jurisdictions. If a parent is ordered
to pay for healthcare, including cash medical support, the Child
Support Services Division (CSSD) must enforce the ongoing
medical support obligation as well as collect any cash medical-
support arrears. Including the term "Indian tribe" in the
definition of "state" will not expand or restrict tribal
jurisdiction. Failure to satisfy these UIFSA requirements would
jeopardize $85 million in federal funding for Alaska's child
support program and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) program.
MS. ZAUGG said that SB 96 adds the terms "Indian tribe" and
"United States Virgin Islands" to the definition of the term
"state" [as used in AS 25.25]; adds to existing law the
authority for a tribunal to order either or both parents to pay
cash medical support if warranted; directs the CSSD to review
child support orders for modification on a federally-mandated
three-year cycle; adds the term "cash medical support" to the
definition of the terms "arrearage" and "support order", thereby
enabling the CSSD to use its existing enforcement tools to
collect a cash medical support obligation on behalf of the
child; and removes language limiting who may request the
correction of a clerical mistake in an administrative order or
request the vacation of an administrative order that is based on
a default amount. Senate Bill 96 would put Alaska in compliance
with the federal requirements that ensure Alaska's children
receive the medical support to which they are entitled, and
would ensure that Alaska receives the aforementioned $85 million
in federal funding for Alaska's child support program and the
TANF program.
8:10:05 AM
SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
chair of the Senate Health and Social Services Standing
Committee, sponsor, and in response to a question, offered that
CSSB 96(FIN) now contains some legislative intent language,
which is supported by the department.
MS. ZAUGG added that the intent language addresses the proposed
changes to the definition of the term "state".
SENATOR DAVIS, in response to a further question, offered her
understanding that Guam would be included under the [existing]
definition of the term "state".
8:12:43 AM
JESSIE M. ARCHIBALD, Staff Attorney, Tribal Child Support Unit,
Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
(CCTHITA), referred to Amendment 1, and relayed that the CCTHITA
objects to its language; Amendment 1 read [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 2, lin2 [sic] 5:
Insert new subsection:
(b) The proposed changes made in AS 25.25.101(19)
under sec. 3 of this Act are conforming amendments
that will result in procedural changes in Alaska for
enforcement and modification of child support orders
from other jurisdictions. UIFSA does not determine
the authority of an Indian tribe to enter, modify, or
enforce a child support order. In Alaska, the scope
of tribal authority to enter, modify, or enforce a
child support order is an unsettled legal question,
due in part to the lack of Indian country in most of
the state. In adopting UIFSA conforming amendments,
the legislature does not intend to grant or restrict
tribal jurisdiction to enter, modify, or enforce child
support orders, and the amendments are not intended,
either directly or impliedly, to acknowledge, expand,
or restrict tribal jurisdiction.
MS. ARCHIBALD said the CCTHITA believes that the language of
Amendment 1 is unnecessary because the UIFSA is simply a set of
procedures pertaining to interstate processing of child support
orders, and does not confer jurisdiction to the tribe; instead,
the UIFSA deals with the contents of petitions, nondisclosure of
personal information, special rules for interstate transmission
of evidence and discovery, streamlining interstate processes,
and allowing for child support orders to be created
administratively rather than just by the court. Furthermore,
the UIFSA already has built-in procedures for the non-registrant
to raise objections about the issuing tribunal's subject matter
jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and other matters that
might limit the recognition and enforcement of an order by
Alaska's tribunals. The language of Amendment 1 would set out
tribal child support orders for particular scrutiny, implying
that such scrutiny should be hostile, and suggesting that the
legislature is prejudging the validity of an objection based
upon unsettled jurisdictional issues and the nature of Indian
tribes in Alaska.
MS. ARCHIBALD offered her belief that the intent language
essentially endorses the principle that a child support obligor
can get out of paying his/her child support simply by objecting
on the basis of unsettled jurisdictional issues and the nature
of Indian tribes in Alaska. The legislature should instead
leave those issues to individual litigants and the courts.
Collecting child support is hard enough without having
legislative intent language that could allow deadbeat parents to
get out of paying their child support obligations. The CCTHITA,
she relayed, would like to propose the following alternative
legislative intent language [original punctuation provided]:
(b) The legislature recognizes that child support
enforcement programs are administered by Federal,
State, and Tribal entities that address the
establishment of paternity and enforcement of support
orders with the intent of promoting the general
economic welfare and the best interest of dependent
children. UIFSA provides a vehicle for the non-
registrant to raise objections about the issuing
tribunal's subject matter jurisdiction, personal
jurisdiction, and other matters that may make a
specific order not entitled to recognition and
enforcement in Alaska's tribunals. The intent of the
legislature is that tribal child support orders should
be subject to the same types of objections, and to the
same extent, as child support orders from tribunals of
other jurisdictions. It is the intent of the
legislature is [sic] to provide a procedural vehicle
for Tribal child support orders for such orders to be
registered in Alaska state tribunals in the same
manner child support orders from other tribunals are
registered. This legislation is not intended to
prejudge the validity of any specific order or the
validity of any objections to a specific order.
8:19:40 AM
MS. ARCHIBALD said that the CCTHITA's goal is to ensure that
Tlingit and Haida children receive the financial and emotional
support of both their parents, and that the UIFSA's goal is to
provide for efficient, streamlined processing of child support
orders. However, the CCTHITA is of the opinion that the current
language of Amendment 1 will instead result in Alaska being out
of compliance with the UIFSA, and thus not eligible for the
aforementioned federal funding.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that Amendment 1 just
preserves the status quo and therefore doesn't really matter.
MS. ARCHIBALD, in response to comments and questions, provided
further information about the UIFSA, and reiterated that the
CCTHITA objects to the current language of Amendment 1 believing
it to be both unnecessary and likely to be used by child support
obligors to get out of paying their child support orders.
SENATOR DAVIS expressed a preference for leaving the language of
SB 96 as is, without the language Amendment 1 is proposing to
add.
MS. ARCHIBALD, in response to a question, said that the language
in Amendment 1 regarding the UIFSA is unnecessary because it's
only stating the already-known fact that the UIFSA does not
determine the authority of an Indian tribe to enter, modify, or
enforce a child support order; furthermore, the statement that
there are unsettled legal questions in Alaska regarding the
scope of tribal authority is problematic because child support
obligors could use that legislative intent language to refuse to
pay a child support order from the tribe on the basis that even
the legislature thinks that tribes don't have clear jurisdiction
to issue such an order. Again, the language in Amendment 1
could be used by those wishing to get out of paying child
support.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed a preference for adopting
Amendment 1, offering his belief that it would provide necessary
clarification regarding the proposed changes to the definition
of the term "state".
CHAIR RAMRAS suggested that Amendment 1 be amended by deleting
the language that reads, "UIFSA does not determine the authority
of an Indian tribe to enter, modify, or enforce a child support
order".
MS. ARCHIBALD, in response to a question, said she also objects
to the language of Amendment 1 that reads, "In Alaska, the scope
of tribal authority to enter, modify, or enforce a child support
order is an unsettled legal question". Again, that language
could give a child support obligor a chance to get out of paying
his/her child support order. Regardless that there is some
jurisdictional conflict, child support obligors shouldn't be
given any ammunition to say, "Well, the legislature even agrees
that we're not sure you have any authority, so why should I have
to pay my child support?" With regard to the language of
Amendment 1 that reads, "the legislature does not intend to
grant or restrict tribal jurisdiction", she pointed out that the
legislature doesn't have the authority to grant or restrict
tribal jurisdiction, and thus that language is incorrect. In
response to a question, she again reiterated that the CCTHITA's
view is that Amendment 1 is unnecessary.
8:36:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [text
provided previously].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
8:36:49 AM
GINGER BLAISDELL, Director, Administrative Services Division,
Department of Revenue (DOR), in response to a question,
explained that the Department of Revenue (DOR) sent a request
that intent language, made up of two paragraphs, be added to SB
96. The first paragraph was added to CSSB 96(FIN) but the
second paragraph - the language now contained in Amendment 1 -
was left out because the drafter thought it merely described the
first paragraph.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that the
language of Amendment 1 is not supported by Senator Davis.
8:38:23 AM
PETER PUTZIER, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Opinions,
Appeals, & Ethics, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law
(DOL), in response to a question, relayed that the intent of the
language in Amendment 1 is simply to preserve the status quo of
the State not taking a position on the scope of tribal
jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction, particularly with regard to
domestic relations, is being contested in court and will
continue to be contested. The concern, therefore, is that
without clarification, the State would have to spend time in
superior court arguing the legislative intent of the bill, and
that's not something the State wants to do. He added that
Amendment 1's language is not intended to address how the UIFSA
is enforced or to change the UIFSA's processes.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the language of Amendment 1
would call into question the authority of a tribe to administer
child support orders.
MR. PUTZIER indicated that the language is simply stating that
the legislature is not taking a position on the scope of tribal
jurisdiction, thereby leaving that issue to be addressed by the
courts.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL again expressed a preference for adopting
Amendment 1, characterizing its intent language both as
necessary and as neutral with regard to the issue of tribal
jurisdiction.
8:44:09 AM
MR. PUTZIER, in response to a question, explained that AS 25.25
doesn't speak to the authority of a particular tribunal.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether not adopting Amendment 1
would change the DOR's position.
MR. PUTZIER said it would not, but cautioned that not adopting
Amendment 1 could make the State's position significantly more
difficult to defend.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Putzier if he would support
Amendment 1 if it were amended to say [in part], "UIFSA does not
determine the authority of the State of Alaska to enter, modify,
or enforce a child support order on Indian land".
MR. PUTZIER pointed out that there isn't any Indian country in
Alaska except for Metlakatla and potentially some allotments or
other kinds of lands not at issue. In response to further
questions, he indicated that if the correct term were used, and
if the new language said that the bill doesn't add to or
subtract from the State of Alaska's authority, he doesn't think
such language would be objectionable, though he would have to
look at the specific language first to be sure.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that the DOL would be
amenable to language that says the bill does not modify the
State's authority over Alaska Native villages.
MR. PUTZIER said he is unable to confirm that because language
regarding Indian law issues must be very precise, and the
suggested change is not yet that precise.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether the language of
Amendment 1 that now reads, "In adopting UIFSA conforming
amendments, the legislature does not intend to grant or restrict
tribal jurisdiction to enter, modify, or enforce child support
orders, and the amendments are not intended, either directly or
impliedly, to acknowledge, expand, or restrict tribal
jurisdiction" ought to instead read [in part], "In adopting
UIFSA conforming amendments, the legislature does not intend to
grant or restrict the State's jurisdiction to enter, modify, or
enforce ...". In other words, should Amendment 1 be amended
such that it addresses the State's jurisdiction rather than
tribal jurisdiction?
MR. PUTZIER indicated that that's difficult to answer because
such language would raise the question of whether it's the
State's jurisdiction within Alaska that's being addressed via
Amendment 1. He added, "The state of tribal jurisdiction in the
State of Alaska, where there's not Indian country - except for
Metlakatla and certain other exceptions - in play here -- the
situation you're talking about just doesn't exist."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed a preference for holding the
bill over in order to further research Amendment 1 and the
issues it raises.
8:48:19 AM
MR. PUTZIER, in response to a question, said he doesn't agree
that the current intent language of Amendment 1 is improper;
"it's straightforward and it says that the State is not taking
... [a position on] either expanding tribal jurisdiction or
restricting it." In response to other questions, he indicated
that altering Amendment 1 such that it says the bill is not
intended to expand or restrict either the State's or the tribes'
jurisdiction could potentially result in the status quo being
maintained in the event of litigation. The goal is to have the
intent language clarify that the bill is only making conforming
amendments in response to a federal requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her understanding that the
language in Amendment 1 that reads, "In Alaska, the scope of
tribal authority to enter, modify, or enforce a child support
order is an unsettled legal question" is more controversial than
the rest of Amendment 1's language. She asked, therefore,
whether deleting that sentence would undermine the goal of the
proposed intent language.
MR. PUTZIER offered his belief that if the language that reads,
"In adopting UIFSA conforming amendments, the legislature does
not intend to grant or restrict tribal jurisdiction to enter,
modify, or enforce child support orders, and the amendments are
not intended, either directly or impliedly, to acknowledge,
expand, or restrict tribal jurisdiction" were to remain in
Amendment 1, then the aforementioned sentence could probably be
deleted while still maintaining and advancing the overall goal
of the proposed intent language.
MS. BLAISDELL, referring to SB 96, relayed that it requires the
obligor to either provide medical insurance for children in the
custody of a custodial parent or to pay cash medical support; it
requires a three-year review [of support orders] - this change
wouldn't impact the CSSD and typically such a review occurs more
frequently anyway; it contains technical changes so that the
CSSD can make clerical corrections to child support orders; and
it adds the term "Indian tribe" to the definition of the term
"state".
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SB 96.
8:57:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to amend Amendment 1, to
delete the language that reads, "In Alaska, the scope of tribal
authority to enter, modify, or enforce a child support order is
an unsettled legal question.".
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her belief that amending
Amendment 1 as she is proposing would not undermine the effect
of the proposed intent language, but would address Ms.
Archibald's concern that the proposed intent language could give
people additional ammunition for refusing to comply with child
support orders.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he does not object to the amendment
to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO offered his understanding that Ms.
Archibald had characterized that sentence as unnecessary.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said her understanding is that that
characterization was instead directed at the language that read,
"UIFSA does not determine the authority of an Indian tribe to
enter, modify, or enforce a child support order".
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that Amendment 1 was amended.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that the issue of
jurisdiction needs to be addressed carefully, particularly given
that not speaking to the issue will, in and of itself, raise
still further questions.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES mentioned that she would be following the
wishes of the bill's sponsor and thus be voting against
Amendment 1, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he opposes Amendment 1, as
amended, because he is concerned that including it would
jeopardize the whole bill, and he believes that it is not
essential, particularly given that the bill passed the Senate
without it.
9:01:54 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill, Gatto,
Lynn, Dahlstrom, and Ramras voted in favor of Amendment 1, as
amended. Representatives Gruenberg and Holmes voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 5-
2.
9:02:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSSB 96(FIN), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection,
HCS CSSB 96(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee. [CSHB 192(HSS) was held over.]
The committee took an at-ease from 9:02 a.m. to 9:07 a.m.
SSHB 36 - INITIATIVES: CONTRIBUTIONS/PROCEDURES
9:07:46 AM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 36, "An Act relating to
ballot initiative proposal applications and to ballot
initiatives."
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that public testimony on SSHB 36 had been
closed.
9:08:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 26-LS0197\E.3, Bullard, 4/9/09, which read:
Page 5, lines 4 - 7:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, line 11, through page 7, line 5:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Amendment 1 would delete
Section 8 and Section 11. Section 8 would preclude an
initiative from being proposed if, [during the previous two
years,] a substantially similar one failed to be approved by the
voters, and raised the concern that it would limit citizens'
free speech and right to place initiatives on the ballot. He
offered his recollection that even one of the joint prime
sponsors acknowledged that Section 8 could be problematic.
Section 11 would prohibit a signature gatherer from collecting
signatures for more than one petition at a time, and raised the
concern that signature gatherers would be inordinately
restricted.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that Amendment 1 would also delete
Section 12 [which contained conforming changes].
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:11:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 2,
labeled 26-LS0197\E.4, Bullard, 4/9/09, which read:
Page 2, line 21:
Delete "[AN INITIATIVE,]"
Insert "a municipal [AN] initiative,"
Page 2, line 22, following "governor":
Insert "or the division of elections"
Page 2, line 27, through page 3, line 8:
Delete all material and insert:
"(g) An initiative committee, person, group, or
nongroup entity receiving contributions exceeding $500
or making expenditures exceeding $500 in a calendar
year in support of or in opposition to an initiative
on the ballot in a statewide election or an initiative
proposal application filed with the lieutenant
governor under AS 15.45.020 shall file a report within
10 days after the end of each calendar quarter on the
contributions received and expenditures made during
the preceding calendar quarter until reports are due
under (a) and (b) of this section. If the report is a
first report, it must cover the period beginning on
the day an initiative proposal application is filed
under AS 15.45.020 and ending three days before the
due date of the report."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that he'd just been notified that
Amendment 2's currently-proposed changes to page 2, lines 21 and
22, would be being made in the wrong place.
9:12:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as one of the joint prime sponsors of SSHB 36, concurred, and
suggested that the bill's next committee of referral could
address those proposed changes. In response to questions, he
indicated that he would be amenable to having Amendment 2
divided, since its proposed change to page 2, line 27, through
page 3, line 8, is meant to address [a drafting error].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to divide the question
such that the changes proposed to page 2, lines 21 and 22, would
become Amendment 2a, and the change proposed to page 2, line 27,
through page 3, line 8, would become Amendment 2b. There being
no objection, Amendment 2 was so divided.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL withdrew Amendment 2a.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL concurred that Amendment 2b would
[address a drafting error].
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he supports Amendment 2b.
CHAIR RAMRAS sought clarification regarding the terms
"initiative committee", "person", "group", and "nongroup entity"
as used in Amendment 2b.
9:17:28 AM
JANET DeYOUNG, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor, Labor and State Affairs Section, Civil
Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), explained that
the term "person" is broadly defined in Title 1, and encompasses
both real people - individuals - and corporate or other business
groups. The term "group" as used in Amendment 2b is considered
by the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) to mean a
political action committee (PAC), an organization that registers
with the APOC in order to participate in election fundraising
and spending. The term "nongroup entity" is the creature of an
Alaska Supreme Court ruling and was later codified, and refers
to groups that are formed for the purpose of advocating certain
points of view but not specifically organized for election
purposes but may from time to time participate in elections.
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether Amendment 2b's proposed AS
15.13.110(g) would be the appropriate place to add language that
would forbid corporations from contributing [to ballot
initiatives].
MS. DeYOUNG said it would not be the appropriate place.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether Amendment 2b's reporting
requirement would apply to any contributions received before the
day an initiative proposal application is filed under AS
15.45.020.
9:21:08 AM
CHRISTINA ELLINGSON, Assistant Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration (DOA), indicated
that it would because initiative sponsors, in their first
quarterly report, are required to either start with a zero
balance or disclose where any startup money came from.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether [Amendment 2b] would apply to
unions.
MS. ELLINGSON said yes.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 2b was adopted.
9:25:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 3,
labeled 26-LS0197\E.5, Bullard, 4/10/09, which read:
Page 7, lines 9 - 10:
Delete "the sponsors shall hold public hearings
concerning the proposed bill in at least 30 house
districts"
Insert "the lieutenant governor or a designee of
the lieutenant governor shall hold at least two public
hearings concerning the proposed bill in each judicial
district of the state. Public hearings under this
section shall be conducted in a manner that allows the
initiative's sponsors, other affected and interested
parties supporting or opposing the initiative, and
citizens an opportunity to be heard"
Page 7, line 11:
Delete "sponsors"
Insert "lieutenant governor or a designee of the
lieutenant governor"
Page 7, line 13:
Delete "sponsors"
Insert "lieutenant governor or a designee of the
lieutenant governor"
Page 7, line 15, through page 8, line 12:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Amendment 3 would remove
the burden on an initiative sponsor to hold public hearings in
[at least 30 house districts], and would instead place the
burden on the lieutenant governor or his/her designee to hold at
least two public hearings in each judicial district. He offered
his understanding that the bill's sponsor considers this to be a
good way of addressing the concern that the bill's current
provision regarding public hearings would be too onerous on
initiative sponsors.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked how many judicial districts there are in the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES and REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said there are
four judicial districts in the state.
CHAIR RAMRAS, surmising that Amendment 3 would result in eight
meetings, asked when those meetings would be held. He noted
that although several potential ballot initiatives might go
through the signature-gathering phase, generally only a few
actually get certified for placement on the ballot.
9:28:50 AM
JASON HOOLEY, Deputy Chief of Staff, Juneau Office, Office of
the Lieutenant Governor, acknowledged that point, and said he is
assuming that the meetings would be held [during the signature-
gathering phase].
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed concern that a group could come up with
what he characterized as a sensational ballot initiative and
force public meetings to be held before the initiative is
certified for placement on the ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged that under the bill - either
with Amendment 3 or without it - the public meetings would be
held after the ballot initiative application is filed but before
it is certified for placement on the ballot.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed concern that sponsors of a ballot
initiative could force public meetings to be held but then never
follow through with gathering the required number of signatures
for placement on the ballot.
MR. HOOLEY offered his belief that the public hearings would be
held regardless of the merits of the proposed ballot initiative,
and reiterated that the meetings would be held after the
application is filed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that litigation sometimes occurs
between the time that a ballot initiative application is filed
and the time that it is certified for placement on the ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed concern that the lieutenant
governor's office would be spending State funds to hold public
hearings on every potential ballot initiative, and noted that it
is also not clear how the lieutenant governor's office would
know how long it's going to take sponsors to gather enough
signatures, and so could have difficulties scheduling the public
meetings in a timely manner. She said she would be more
comfortable if the bill required the public meetings to be held
after a ballot initiative is certified for placement on the
ballot but before the election.
CHAIR RAMRAS reiterated his concern, and questioned whether it
would be the sponsor's intent to have the public hearings after
an initiative is certified.
9:34:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said his intention is to have as much
information about proposed ballot initiatives made public as
soon as possible, regardless that some of them might not get
certified. He noted that voter pamphlets currently include a
pro statement and a con statement, and opined that it will be
the duty of the lieutenant governor to expand on those
statements during the public hearings, which, he surmised, could
be paid for out of the lieutenant governor's travel budget and
be held at legislative information offices (LIOs).
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed a preference for the language of
Amendment 3 over the language currently in the bill, but said he
is not in favor with having the public hearings occur before a
proposed ballot initiative gets certified. He suggested that
Amendment 3 be amended such that the public hearings would be
held after a proposed initiative gets certified for placement on
the ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said:
I guess it's all perspective; the public's right to
petition the government and have initiatives on any
subject, whether it's deemed wacko ... or not, ... is
part of the point; ... I'd argue that the lieutenant
governor would provide an opportunity for both sides
of an issue to be put out there, and if it is so out
there and wacko, then I think it would be quite
apparent.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, in response to comments and a question,
indicated that it is his intention for there to be public
hearings on every issue that could potentially get on the
ballot.
MR. HOOLEY, in response to questions, explained that both the
initial application for an initiative proposal and any resulting
proposed ballot initiative must be certified by the lieutenant
governor; if the goal is to have the public hearings after a
proposed ballot initiative is certified for placement on the
ballot, the phrase that should be used is, "after the petition
has been properly filed".
9:44:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion] to amend Amendment 3
such that the correct term of art be used to [indicate that the
public hearings would occur once a proposed initiative has been
certified for placement on the ballot].
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN indicated that such a change would be
acceptable to him.
MR. HOOLEY mentioned that although the lieutenant governor's
office has some discomfort with such a change, it has no
opposition to it. The lieutenant governor's office is an
unbiased and impartial administrator of the citizens' initiative
process, and applies the same standards to every initiative that
comes into the office; these standards are provided for by the
Alaska State Constitution and Alaska's statutes. In response to
comments, he explained that once an initiative is certified for
placement on the ballot, the legislature has one full
legislative session to act on the matter raised by the
initiative.
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether there ought to also be statutory
timeframes for when the public meetings have to occur, or
whether having something in regulations would be sufficient.
MR. HOOLEY indicated that he would have to research that issue
further.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that the lieutenant
governor's office should have flexibility in that regard so as
to be able to hold the meetings when and where it sees fit
depending on the topic of the proposed ballot initiative. He
acknowledged that regulations could be promulgated to address
this issue further.
9:51:53 AM
MR. HOOLEY offered his understanding that the lieutenant
governor's office would prefer not to have that kind of
discretion, and would instead prefer to have any such timeframes
set out in either statute or regulation so as to avoid
accusations of prejudice.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed concern that political bias could
influence the choice of venue for the public hearings if too
much flexibility in that regard is provided.
MR. HOOLEY, in response to a question, said that the lieutenant
governor's office wants the force of law behind the decisions it
makes, particularly since any person, regardless of whether
he/she is associated with a proposed ballot initiative, can file
an action in court regarding those decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that promulgating
regulations [regarding the timeframes and locations of the
public meetings] would be sufficient, but acknowledged that the
lieutenant governor's office may prefer to have the legislature,
via statute, set out those requirements.
MR. HOOLEY again said he would research this issue further.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that amendments addressing corporations
and the single-subject rule would also be offered, and suggested
that further work be done on Amendment 3 and any amendments to
it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN relayed that he was amenable to having
the bill held over in order to address the questions raised.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, characterizing the applicability
section of the bill as awkward, indicated that an amendment
addressing that section would also be offered.
[SSHB 36, as amended - with the motion to amend Amendment 3, and
the motion to adopt Amendment 3, left pending - was held over.]
10:01:24 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:01 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|