04/07/2015 01:30 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB154 | |
| HB106 | |
| SB30 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 154 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 7, 2015
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Charisse Millett
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kurt Olson (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 154
"An Act allowing appropriations to the civil legal services fund
from court filing fees."
- MOVED HB 154 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 106
"An Act relating to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act,
including jurisdiction by tribunals of the state, registration
and proceedings related to support orders from other state
tribunals, foreign support orders, foreign tribunals, and
certain persons residing in foreign countries; relating to
determination of parentage of a child; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 106(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 30(FIN)
"An Act relating to controlled substances; relating to
marijuana; relating to crimes and offenses related to marijuana
and the use of marijuana; relating to open marijuana containers;
relating to established villages and local options; relating to
delinquent minors; making conforming amendments; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 154
SHORT TITLE: CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FUND
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EDGMON
03/20/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/20/15 (H) JUD, FIN
04/06/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/15 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/07/15 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 106
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM INTER.CHILD SUPPORT;PARENTAGE
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/11/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/11/15 (H) STA, JUD
02/19/15 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/19/15 (H) Heard & Held
02/19/15 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/03/15 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/03/15 (H) Heard & Held
03/03/15 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/05/15 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/05/15 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/10/15 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/10/15 (H) Heard & Held
03/10/15 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/17/15 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/17/15 (H) Moved CSHB 106(STA) Out of Committee
03/17/15 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/15 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 4DP 3NR
03/18/15 (H) DP: TALERICO, STUTES, VAZQUEZ, KREISS-
TOMKINS
03/18/15 (H) NR: KELLER, GRUENBERG, LYNN
03/27/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/27/15 (H) Heard & Held
03/27/15 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/07/15 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 30
SHORT TITLE: MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
01/23/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/15 (S) JUD, FIN
01/26/15 (S) JUD AT 1:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/26/15 (S) Heard & Held
01/26/15 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
01/28/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/28/15 (H) -- Companion Bill --
01/30/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
01/30/15 (S) -- Meeting Postponed to Monday 2/2/2015
02/02/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/02/15 (S) -- Rescheduled from 01/30/15 --
02/05/15 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/05/15 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
02/06/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/06/15 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/09/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/09/15 (S) Heard & Held
02/09/15 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/11/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/11/15 (S) Heard & Held
02/11/15 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/13/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/13/15 (S) Heard & Held
02/13/15 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/16/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/16/15 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/18/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/18/15 (S) Heard & Held
02/18/15 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/20/15 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/20/15 (S) Moved CSSB 30(JUD) Out of Committee
02/20/15 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/23/15 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 3AM NEW TITLE
02/23/15 (S) DP: MCGUIRE
02/23/15 (S) AM: COSTELLO, COGHILL, MICCICHE
02/24/15 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/24/15 (S) Heard & Held
02/24/15 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/03/15 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/03/15 (S) Heard & Held
03/03/15 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/05/15 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/05/15 (S) Heard & Held
03/05/15 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/06/15 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/06/15 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/09/15 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/09/15 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/09/15 (S) FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/09/15 (S) Departments: Environmental Conservation
03/10/15 (S) FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/10/15 (S) Departments: Environmental Conservation
03/11/15 (S) FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/11/15 (S) -- Public Testimony --
03/12/15 (S) FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/12/15 (S) Heard & Held
03/12/15 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/13/15 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/13/15 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/13/15 (S) FIN AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/13/15 (S) Heard & Held
03/13/15 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/14/15 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/14/15 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/18/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/18/15 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/23/15 (S) FIN RPT CS 1DP 3NR 3AM NEW TITLE
03/23/15 (S) DP: MACKINNON
03/23/15 (S) NR: BISHOP, DUNLEAVY, HOFFMAN
03/23/15 (S) AM: KELLY, MICCICHE, OLSON
03/23/15 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/23/15 (S) Moved CSSB 30(FIN) Out of Committee
03/23/15 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/25/15 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED Y16 N4
03/30/15 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/30/15 (S) VERSION: CSSB 30(FIN)
03/31/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/31/15 (H) JUD, FIN
04/06/15 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/15 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/15 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/07/15 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM CLARK, Staff
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 154 on behalf of
Representative Edgmon, prime sponsor.
NIKOLE NELSON, Executive Director
Alaska Legal Services Corporation (ALSC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony regarding the Alaska
Legal Services Corporation during the hearing of HB 154.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 154 regarding court filing
fees.
CAROL BEECHER, Director
Child Support Services
Department of Revenue
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSHB 106, offered
testimony and answered questions.
LINDSAY BEAVER, Legislative Counsel
Uniform Law Commission
Chicago, Illinois
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing of CSHB 106,
with regard to the status of enactment of HB 105 in other
states.
MEGAN WEBB, Assistant Public Defender
Appellate Unit
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on SB 30, answered
questions.
PETER MLYNARIK, Chief of Police
City of Soldotna
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 30, Version T,
and answered questions.
JASON HARDER
Copper Center, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony regarding the "opt in/opt
out" provisions in CSSB 30, and answered questions.
ROSS MULLINS
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on CSSB 30.
LIEF ABEL
Kasilof, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on CSSB 30.
DEBRA KIRK
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on CSSB 30,
regarding marijuana from an educational standpoint.
MIKE COONS
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing of CSSB 30.
BRUCE SCHULTE
Coalition for Responsible Cannabis Legislation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony during the hearing on
CSHB 30.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:35:03 PM
CHAIR GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Representatives Claman,
Gruenberg, Keller, Lynn, and LeDoux were present at the call to
order. Representatives Millett and Foster arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 154-CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FUND
1:36:15 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 154. "An Act allowing appropriations to the civil
legal services fund from court filing fees."
CHAIR LEDOUX stated that she has a conflict of interest with
respect to this bill in that she sits on the Board of Alaska
Legal Services Corporation and unless someone objects, she will
recuse herself from voting.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected.
1:36:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN advised that his firm performs pro bono
services for the Alaska Legal Services Corporation (ALSC) on a
monthly basis.
CHAIR LEDOUX objected.
1:37:28 PM
TIM CLARK, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon, Alaska State
Legislature, said the bill safe guards access to low income
Alaskans to the civil justice system by creating a stable
mechanism for state funding for ALSC. Specifically, he
explained, it allows the legislature to appropriate to the
already existing civil legal services fund up to 25 percent of
filing fees paid to the Alaska Court System during the previous
fiscal year. He said that according to current filing fee
totals, 25 percent would provide approximately $550,000 annually
to the fund. He noted that it will always be at the
legislature's discretion to appropriate that percentage of fees
both into the fund and to make appropriations from the fund to
ALSC. He offered that this is necessary because the Civil Legal
Services Fund was originally designed to be capitalized by civil
punitive damages collected by the state. However, he noted, the
state has not collected punitive damages in three years. He
advised that the need for state contributions to ALSC is real as
in the past 30 years the number of Alaskans eligible for legal
services has more than doubled from approximately 41,000 to more
than 100,000. Yet, he related, even with HB 154, the state's
contribution to ALSC is a fraction of what it was decades ago.
Currently, he said, the appropriation from the state is
approximately $450,000. Access to ALSC is that civil justice
should not just be for people who can afford an attorney and
that HB 154 is important to ascertain that in Alaska the phrase
"justice for all" rings true.
1:40:58 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the zero fiscal note and questioned how
there could be a zero fiscal note when the legislature is
appropriating court fees to ALSC, which would otherwise go into
the general fund.
MR. CLARK responded that the fiscal note was issued by the
Alaska Court System which states that currently all legal filing
fees or court fees go directly into the general fund, and there
has never been any receipt authority or any mechanism of that
sort for the Alaska Court System. The zero fiscal note pertains
specifically to their operations. He said the legislature
always retains discretion in its appropriations as to how the
funds are eventually spent or not spent. In that regard, he
explained, it would be the legislature's decision to appropriate
those filing fee percentages into the fund and in turn, their
decision as to whether to appropriate from the fund to civil
legal services.
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony.
1:43:08 PM
NIKOLE NELSON, Executive Director, Alaska Legal Services
Corporation (ALSC), said the Alaska Legal Services Corporation
(ALSC) is aimed at reducing Alaska's civil justice gap. She
explained that ALSC through its more than 20 attorneys provides
free civil legal aid to Alaskans in need. She pointed out that
its mission is to ensure that there is meaningful access to the
civil justice system for all Alaskans and not just those who can
afford it. Assistance is provided to individuals and families
regarding critical legal needs that affect their safety, family
stability, and their self-sufficiency. She described scenarios,
such as: a grandparent raising their grandchildren who is unable
to enroll them in school or to receive health care because they
lack legal documents to do so; an abused spouse that does not
have the financial means to leave the relationship and fears
losing custody of her children if she does; a fisherman who has
spent his life savings to have his boat repaired by an out-of-
state mechanic only to have it return and catch on fire in the
prime of fishing season with no recourse to continue to earn a
living; and/or a veteran denied his federal veterans affairs
benefits despite the fact he has earned them through his service
to this country and his disability leaves him unable to work in
his rural community. She noted that there are civil legal
solutions for these problems, but unlike a criminal defendant's
guarantee that the court will appoint an attorney if the
defendant cannot afford an attorney, there is no such right in
the civil legal context. She related that for people like
these, and thousands like them, ALSC is their only hope to
access Alaska's civil legal services. She pointed out that each
year, approximately 2,500 cases are served and benefit an
additional 6,000 people as most the people served have children
in their households. The Alaska Legal Services Corporation
provides staff attorneys and volunteer pro bono attorneys who
donate their time and expertise. She noted that ALSC serves
thousands more within its self-help resources, and on-line, and
through community education services to ensure that access to
the justice system is a reality for rural residents as well.
She related that the problem is that, despite the fact ALSC is
stretching its legal resources, it is not able to serve everyone
and it is turning away one person for every one that is served.
Ms. Nelson indicated that people are turned away, not because
there are no laws to protect them, and not because their cases
lack merit, but because ALSC does not have the staff and
resources to help.
1:46:41 PM
MS. NELSON related that HB 154 is aimed at providing additional
resources to bridging Alaska's justice gap. She described ALSC
as being cost efficient and effective in that an average case
costs approximately $600. She explained that approximately 80
percent of its cases are resolved without ever going to court,
and attorneys are paid far below the market rate for private bar
or state attorneys. She expressed that last year volunteer
attorneys donated almost $500,000 in their time. She offered
that ALSC is doing what it can but it is not enough to stand
against the justice gap alone.
1:48:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether ALSC is on the "pick-
click-and give" program.
MS. NELSON answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that in other states within bar
dues a person can give an additional donation, and asked if
there is a similar program in Alaska.
MS. NELSON answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested the current status of pro
bono which has been under ALSC in the past.
MS. NELSON answered that previously and currently pro bono has
been under ALSC. She described the pro bono program as strong
and it assists in stretching ALSC resources.
1:49:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned that with respect to HB 154,
if the money goes to the ALSC, would some of that be sent to pro
bono.
MS. NELSON answered that it could use its state dollars to
extend its resources and it is possible but not guaranteed that
it could go to pro bono.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised there was nothing to prevent
the state dollars going to pro bono.
MS. NELSON said there is nothing to prevent it.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG quiered whether pro bono has a separate
funding source or would this be the mechanism.
MS. NELSON responded that the pro bono program is funded through
a variety of sources that fund the entire program, and this is
the proper mechanism.
1:50:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether Ms. Nelson was familiar
with Dimmick v. Watts, 490 P.2d 483 (Alaska 1971).
MS. NELSON said she was not.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG described it as a case wherein one of
the litigants was sued by a company for debt and that person was
represented by ALSC. He said that the attorney for the company
attempted to get into the question of whether that person was
eligible for legal services. He related that the case went to
the Alaska Supreme Court who said "you cannot inquire whether
this person is eligible for legal services."
1:51:18 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected "Where exactly are you going with
this."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied "I am going because we don't
very often have a bill dealing with legal services."
CHAIR LEDOUX said this is not a seminar on legal services, this
is basically to determine whether ALSC should be funded through
this particular mechanism. She asked that Representative
Gruenberg limit his questions to the subject of the bill before
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that he is trying to ascertain
whether that is still a problem and whether legislatively
something should be done.
CHAIR LEDOUX remarked that if there is a problem that needs to
be tended legislatively that has nothing to do with this bill
she was sure Ms. Nelson would be glad to talk with
Representative Gruenberg at another time, and he could prepare a
bill on the issue.
1:52:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG advised his second question deals with
circumstances where ALSC is conflicted out.
CHAIR LEDOUX reiterated that he should chat with Ms. Nelson as
to whether she thinks it is a problem, but it is not the subject
of this particular bill.
1:52:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER commented that the Native Corporation in
Nome is contributing office space and that ALSC is doing what it
can to get by. He questioned how much it received from "pick-
click-and give" in round numbers.
MS. NELSON related that the tally is approximately $6,700, which
is up from approximately $5,000 last year.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER surmised that amount is a very small
amount of its budget.
MS. NELSON offered that its total overall budget is
approximately $4.2 million.
1:53:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that the 25 percent based on
court fees this year would be roughly $500,000.
MS. NELSON advised that it is approximately $550,000.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked how that compares with prior years.
MS. NELSON requested clarification in whether he was referring
to prior years of court fees or the ALSC appropriation.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN clarified that his question related to the
appropriation to ALSC.
MS. NELSON responded that in prior years the appropriation has
been $550,000.
1:54:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that the state appropriation is
not the majority of funding.
MS. NELSON answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether part of the reason between
using this formula based on court fees rather than using a
population index or cost of living index, is basically trying to
tie funding to a litigation related fee. He offered that if
litigation was going up and more people were filing that the
fees might go up.
MS. NELSON opined that is a smart idea but she is not
necessarily sure that was the intent, although it does make
sense.
1:55:03 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX requested the amount of state funding for the last
several years, and the funding amount from the state this year.
MS. NELSON replied that state funding for the last several years
has been $550,000, and this year the operating budget proposed
by the Senate and House is $450,000, which is approximately a 20
percent cut.
1:55:51 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, said the
Alaska Court System is poised to increase its filing fees by a
good percentage.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked what percentage.
MS. MEADE responded that it varies depending upon the fee for
the item. For example, the current filing fees collected in
FY13 by the Alaska Court System was $2,238,700, and with the
increase in filing fees expects it to go up by another million.
In that regard, she offered, the 25 percent number would go up
by a corresponding order of magnitude.
1:57:12 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether the filing fees collected by the
Alaska Court System go into the general fund, or to the courts.
MS. MEADE replied that all fees collected by the Alaska Court
System go straight into the general fund, which is why there is
no fiscal impact from HB 154.
1:57:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN requested amounts in terms of what the 25
percent was for the last five years.
MS. MEADE responded that with regard to the 25 percent number:
FY14 = $563,225; FY13 = $559,675; FY12 = $569,900; FY11 =
$666,725; FY10 = $653,075. She remarked that they vary somewhat
and the committee can expect those to jump by another half or
so.
1:58:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned why the fees have recently
gone down.
MS. MEADE said she does not have information on that and should
not speculate.
CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
further wished to testify.
1:59:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 154, Version 29-
LS0765\A out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HB
154 moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:01:05 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:01 to 2:03 p.m.
HB 106-UNIFORM INTER.CHILD SUPPORT;PARENTAGE
2:03:50 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 106, "An Act relating to the Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act, including jurisdiction by tribunals of the
state, registration and proceedings related to support orders
from other state tribunals, foreign support orders, foreign
tribunals, and certain persons residing in foreign countries;
relating to determination of parentage of a child; and providing
for an effective date."
2:04:06 PM
CAROL BEECHER, Director, Child Support Services, said that
passage of CSHB 106 is good for Alaskans regardless of the
federal legislation requirements. She reminded the committee
that federal law imposes a short time frame for passage and that
passage this year is critical. She stated that Congress
requires passage of the bill for continued receipt of federal
child support funding which for the Alaska Child Support
Division in Alaska is approximately $19 million. She explained
that due to Title IV-D, of the Social Security Act this money is
also tied to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
block grant monies and the Alaska Division of Public Assistance
receives approximately $45 million. She pointed out that the
deadline for adopting the Uniform Interstate Support Act of 2008
amendments is July 1, 2015. She stated that during the previous
meeting she provided a synopsis of the bill, and a sectional
analysis and that questions were asked regarding the Uniform Law
Commission and a few of the provisions. She advised that
Lindsay Beaver, Legislative Counsel for the Uniform Law
Commission, and Betty Johnson, retired judge and current Uniform
Law Commissioner who has testified before Congress on this bill,
are available on line to answer questions.
2:05:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked what action was taken by the U.S.
Senate on this bill, and the vote.
MS. BEECHER advised that the U.S. House of Representatives had a
voice vote, and that it was unanimous consent in the U.S.
Senate. Therefore, she offered, individual votes were not
recorded.
CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
further wished to testify.
2:07:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether any state found any
problem with this uniform act.
2:08:10 PM
LINDSAY BEAVER, Legislative Counsel, Uniform Law Commission,
responded "not to my knowledge" as at this point all states have
either introduced, are in the process of introducing the Act, or
have enacted the Act. She remarked that it is hoped all states
will enact the Act by the end of the 2015 session in compliance
with the federal legislation.
2:09:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented that this bill is unusual and he
wholeheartedly appreciate efforts to determine that children are
taken care of. He said he is not used to the Alaska State
Legislature taking action to ratify a federal treaty and that he
still has questions, but remarked he decided to defer to the
good judgement of the Uniform Law Commission, and his peers, and
wanted it on the record.
2:10:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSHB 106, Version 29-
GH1897\W, Glover, 3/2/15, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 106(STA) moved from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
2:10:29 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:10 to 2:14 p.m.
SB 30-MARIJUANA REG;CONT. SUBST;CRIMES;DEFENSES
2:13:50 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be
Senate CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 30(FIN), "An Act relating to
controlled substances; relating to marijuana; relating to crimes
and offenses related to marijuana and the use of marijuana;
relating to open marijuana containers; relating to established
villages and local options; relating to delinquent minors;
making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective
date."
CHAIR LEDOUX stated that public testimony remained open from the
last meeting.
2:15:01 PM
MEGAN WEBB, Assistant Public Defender, Appellate Unit, Public
Defender Agency, Department of Administration, [said she was
available for questions.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the Public Defender
Agency has any problems or comments on the bill.
MS. WEBB responded that the agency itself does not take a
position on whether the committee should proceed with Version Q
or Version T, as it is a policy decision for the committee. She
said she echoes statements from Cynthia Franklin during the
4/6/15 committee meeting in terms of the importance of clarity
for both the public and law enforcement in focusing all of the
marijuana provisions in one area to reflect the manner Title 4
has treated alcohol. She suggested that the primary focus is
ensuring that not only what is passed is consistent with the
initiative, but also provides the most clarity.
2:16:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that it should be consistent
with the initiative and also consistent with the alcohol
provisions.
MS. WEBB replied "Yes," in terms of pulling marijuana out of the
controlled substance and bringing it into its own regulatory
scheme, such as that proposed by Ms. Franklin and discussed in
previous testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG gathered that she supports marijuana
not being in AS 11.17, which is the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee theory rather than the Senate Finance Committee
theory.
MS. WEBB reiterated that it is a policy consideration for the
committee as to whether it wants to keep marijuana as a
controlled substance or not. She opined that for clarity sake
the scheme suggested by the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
certainly would mimic the regulatory scheme created in Title 4,
but she is aware there were policy considerations in Senate
Finance Committee as to why they wanted to keep it in the
controlled substance under Title 11.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether there were any
provisions of either version that she liked, did not like, or
recommends the committee avoid.
2:18:37 PM
MS. WEBB referred the committee to Version Q, page 19, which
addresses proposed bail conditions if someone is charged with
misconduct involving marijuana.
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether she was talking about the CS
which would basically be the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
version.
MS. WEBB answered in the affirmative.
2:19:21 PM
MS. WEBB pointed to [Version Q, Sec. 27, AS 12.30.016(g)(3)]],
page 19, lines 14-15 and lines 27-28, which read:
(g) In a prosecution charging a violation of AS
18.38.200 or 17.38.210, a judicial officer may order
the person to ...
(3) provide a sample for a urinalysis or
blood test when requested by a law
enforcement officer;
2:19:54 PM
MS. WEBB explained that both the U.S. Supreme Court and the
Alaska Appellate Courts have determined that an individual has a
right to privacy with respect to blood tests and urinalysis.
She noted that absent exigent circumstances would normally
require a law enforcement officer to obtain a search warrant
before they could require an individual to provide a blood or
urine test. She explained that this provision would allow an
officer, without a search warrant or probable cause, to simply
ask someone who was released on bail to provide such a sample.
She expressed concern that it would violate the person's
constitutional protections under both the federal and state
constitutions.
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether currently a judge can require,
as a condition of bail, that a person provide the urinalysis.
MS. WEBB advised that it is not happening now and that this
provision was added for bail conditions for marijuana. She
noted it is a condition that appears in probation under the
statutory provision for probation terms, but probation having
occurred after conviction and during sentencing allows for a
different constitutional analysis. Here, she explained, because
it is only a bail condition, at that point the person is
presumed not guilty of the charge and, therefore, has a fuller
constitutional protection in place. She noted that the
provision does not currently exist in the general bail
provisions and thus is not something that could currently
happen.
2:22:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested a written report supporting
her position that this may be unconstitutional which provides
her suggested changes, together with points and authorities, but
not a legal research paper.
MS. WEBB said she would pass that request on to Quinlan Steiner,
Director, Public Defender Agency, and with his approval will
forward a report.
2:23:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there is another area she
would like to point out.
MS. WEBB responded that Tracey Wollenberg, Deputy Public
Defender of the Appellate Division, who in in the past has
pointed out that with respect to the misconduct involving
marijuana in the third degree that the committee might consider
other exceptions on Version Q, page 32 ...
2:24:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN interjected that he had a follow-up
question and asked the committee to turn to [Sec. 27], AS
12.30.016(g), page [19, lines 21-26], which read:
(2) submit to a search without a warrant of the
person, the person's personal property, the person's
residence, or any vehicle or other property over which
the person has control, for the presence of marijuana,
marijuana products, or marijuana accessories by a
peace officer who has reasonable suspicion that the
person is violating the terms of the person's release
by possessing marijuana, marijuana products, or
marijuana accessories;
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned that if the committee is trying
to treat alcohol and marijuana the same, why would marijuana be
treated differently for bail purposes than the state is
currently treating alcohol.
MS. WEBB answered that given the constitutional protection,
particularly with blood tests, the U.S. Supreme Court and the
Alaska Supreme Court has recognized what an invasion that is and
that there is a potential constitutional claim that could be
made with respect to the provision as it appears currently under
AS 12.30.016(b)(4). In that regard, she explained, the same
constitutional issue that exists under the new proposal would,
under the prior ...
2:27:15 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked how long AS 12.30.016(b) has been in
existence, and how many constitutional challenges have there
been since it was enacted.
MS. WEBB responded that she does not know how long AS
12.20.016(b) has been in existence, but does know the number of
appeals that arise with respect to bail conditions are fairly
rare. She explained the reason being, in part, due to the way
appeals come up as often times it does not make it to the
appellate review level due to the nature of the proceedings.
2:27:51 PM
MS. WEBB referred to Version Q, Sec. 52, AS 17.38.220(b)], page
32, lines 27-31, which read:
(b) A person under 21 years of age does not
violate (a)(2) of this section if the person enters
and remains on premises registered under this chapter
at the request of a peace officer, if the peace
officer accompanies, supervises, or otherwise observes
the person's entry or remaining on premises, and the
purpose for the entry or remaining on premises is to
assist in the enforcement of this section.
MS. WEBB stated there is currently an exception under misconduct
in the third degree for a person under 21 years of age to enter
a licensed marijuana premises if it is at the request of a peace
officer. She advised that the committee may consider extending
that, particularly for individuals who are employed not by the
marijuana establishment but by some other business, who are
required to be on the premises for a short duration in the
course and scope of their employment. For example, she noted,
someone working for UPS or FedEx dropping off packages who
through their natural business requirements would need to be on
premises. She noted that under the proposed version that
individual, if under 21, would be violating the law. She
suggested adding an additional exception for someone who is
simply engaging in the course of another legitimate business who
is required to be on premises.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that Ms. Webb prepare language
for the committee.
2:30:42 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked what the [alcohol statutes] say when a UPS
employee enters a bar and is under 21 years of age.
MS. WEBB advised that she is not familiar with Title 4
provisions and does not know the answer.
2:31:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether there is anything else
the committee should consider.
MS. WEBB offered that those are their primary concerns, and that
Ms. Wollenberg is available tomorrow and the rest of the week
should the committee like to hear additional testimony.
2:32:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that in the event her agency or
[the Office of Special Prosecutions & Appeals] has any other
suggestions, to please contact Chair LeDoux's office.
[Conversation from the audience between Staci Schroeder,
Department of Law, or Nancy Meade, Alaska Court System, and
Chair LeDoux regarding answering whether identical language is
required that involves someone going into a bar under 21 years
of age, and what the law is with UPS employees.]
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony.
2:33:03 PM
PETER MLYNARIK, Chief of Police, City of Soldotna, said he is
testifying on behalf of the Alaska Association of Chiefs of
Police. He advised it supports Version T, the categorization of
marijuana as a controlled substance, and the felony provisions.
He noted that without felony provisions and only misdemeanors,
there is nothing to stop the black market or people from growing
as many plants as they desire. He offered that he agrees the
sky is not falling, although Alaska is not at a level where
commercially grown marijuana is at any big degree other than the
black market. In speaking with Colorado law enforcement he
understands that they are basically flooded with marijuana and
it is hard to keep up with the different issues related to that
substance. He related that Colorado law enforcement recommends
making regulations tighter to begin with and then loosening them
up later because it is harder to go the other direction. He
remarked that the big issue is that marijuana is regulated like
alcohol, yet Alaska still has tremendous problems with alcohol
abuse and its correlation with crimes.
2:36:24 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that she understands his position with
respect to the felonies and black market, and while she does not
necessarily agree with him she understands where he is coming
from. She expressed that she does not understand why, from a
law enforcement point of view, Chief Mlynarik would think that
keeping marijuana as a controlled substance would be better than
the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version.
CHIEF MLYNARIK responded that it is important to keep marijuana
under the controlled substance because if marijuana is released
and there are problems down the road, it would be harder to put
marijuana back into that category. He opined there is a lot of
unknown about marijuana, including concentrates. He highlighted
a report from The Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Area, and stated Alaska can only look to the states where
marijuana is legal and review their issues.
2:38:09 PM
JASON HARDER advised that Copper Center is an area in an
unorganized borough that will be opted out with no recourse to
opt back in. He questioned how that provision can be in the
bill without ending up in court since they are citizens of the
State of Alaska. He offered that Glennallen, Copper Center, and
Tok are not cities and do not have boundaries, and have never
had a local election as there is no way to do that. He stated
he was under the impression that Copper Center was opting in
within the initiative. He offered that Senator Lyman Hoffman
submitted the subject amendment, and Mr. Harder understands his
worries regarding the villages not having police and troopers,
but they have time to opt out before the commercial industry
starts. He said that the Glennallen area has troopers and does
not have the problems villages have with alcohol, and noted that
alcohol is a problem everywhere in the state. He related that
[alcohol and marijuana] need to be separated even though the
state will try to regulate them somewhat the same. He explained
that if Copper Center is opted out but eventually has a
mechanism to opt in, it would put them behind the rest of the
state as far as making money and competing in the commercial
industry. He highlighted that rural Alaska is losing jobs due
to the economy and that marijuana will provide a lot of jobs
which it desperately needs. He pointed out that the House
Judiciary Standing Committee appears to have the desire to
implement the initiative in a manner that will not end up in
court and cost the state money.
2:40:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is concerned about the issues
Mr. Harder raised and the problems of how this will operate in
unorganized borough. He asked if anyone was available that
could answer his questions.
2:41:25 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that she was not sure there is today but
someone could be available at a future time.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested the committee staff ascertain
that prior to the above testimony, that Mr. Harder and anyone
else involved be notified.
2:42:04 PM
ROSS MULLINS, said he 100 percent endorses [Mr. Harder's
testimony] regarding unorganized boroughs. He referred to a
tradition of roadhouses and other types of establishments on the
road system in Alaska and stated that these types of
enterprises, who do serve liquor, would be unable to serve
marijuana due to automatically being opted out. He said it
presents legal issues that would not be conducive to obtaining a
good result. He then stated he would comment on the control
board issue dealt with during the 4/6/15, HB 42 hearing with
regard to a federal position on that board ...
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that the testimony today is regarding
CSSB 30, and that the Marijuana Control Board bill will be
before the committee again.
2:43:49 PM
MR. MULLINS referred to CSSB 30 with regard to right of privacy
and taking blood or urine and described the actions as invasive
procedures that would require some type of warrant or court
authorization so that a law enforcement officer could not "stab"
anyone in the arm or force a urine test. He opined it is
different from a blow test an officer can request from a DUI
suspect in that there is a right to refusal, which can present a
certain type of guilty inference from the refusal. The fact
that law enforcement would be invading a person's body would be
conditions for a lawsuit. Additionally, he related, with
marijuana, as opposed to alcohol, there are metabolites that
linger for up to 30 days in a person's body even though they may
not have any psychoactive effects, and it could put the person
in a tenuous situation legally. He commented that he would like
marijuana removed from the controlled substance category. He
opined that the intent of the initiative is to legalize it
although it is a de facto removal from controlled substance to a
misdemeanor category.
2:46:17 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX requested that Mr. Mullins start wrapping up as
public testimony is limited to five minutes per person due to
the number of people waiting to testify.
2:46:20 PM
MR. MULLLINS offered that the main emphasis for him is the
unorganized borough and hopes the issue is resolved. He stated
that if Cordova is in an unorganized borough there would be a
lot of push back from the area. He said he favors the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee version and that Senator Hoffman's
concerns regarding "opt in/opt out, wet/dry" could be treated
like alcohol where a village has an option to opt out.
2:48:06 PM
LIEF ABEL stated he supports almost all aspects of the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee's version of SB 30 in removing
marijuana from controlled substances as it is the right thing to
do. He offered that through personal experience and research
that marijuana should not be classified as a schedule one
narcotic which is in line with the intent of the initiative. He
related that he appreciates that the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee took the initiative and put it into law in a manner
that mirrors alcohol. He further related that it is an
infringement into the privacy of the people of the state to tell
them how they are going to extract their medicine at home and
how hash oil is extracted as it should be left alone and not be
determined in SB 30.
2:50:41 PM
DEBRA KIRK said she is a member of the school board and
addressed the findings found in [Version T], page 2, lines 24-
25, which read:
(2) several hundred adults and children are
admitted into treatment each year in Alaska for
marijuana use, with nearly 46 percent being children
under 20 years of age;
MS. KIRK pointed out that the implications for Alaska's
education system are huge and that Alaska must raise the bar for
education. She offered that a lot of education funding is tied
to being able to teach kids at a higher level than they've been
required to learn previously. She opined that with the
legalization of marijuana the number of children using it will
go up. She referred to [Version T, Sec. 2], page 3, lines 15-
16, which read:
(7) about 40 percent of the adults arrested in
this state who commit violent offenses have marijuana
in their system at the time of arrest.
2:52:34 PM
MS. KIRK stated that crimes will go up because if 40 percent of
adults are arrested with marijuana in their system there is a
tangential cause and effect. In that regard, she noted, money
is spent that Alaska can't put into education, health and social
services, or anything else because Alaska is force to deal with
the complications of a legalized substance. She offered that
keeping it as a controlled substance would increase the
perception among children that there is a risk to using this
drug. She related that her biggest focus is what the kids are
thinking while watching what adults are doing and noted that
Alaska desperately needs to educate its children to not use the
substance as it affects their IQ. With regard to the issue of
blood tests, she pointed out that the legislature is charged
with protecting the rest of Alaskans who did not vote for
legalization of marijuana. She expressed that they need
protection and to know when driving their kids to soccer games
that the roadways are safe. She expressed that the people who
want the substance legalized should be willing to submit to a
blood test and be honest and allow their blood and urine taken
if driving. She said she is turning the tables and asking where
is her protection of freedom and would definitely like to see
something along those lines. She remarked that she does not
advocate for someone under the age of 21 being allowed in a
marijuana establishment. She referred to hash oil and marijuana
products and stated that individuals should be allowed to read
the THC content on the package as the state requires with
alcohol.
2:55:57 PM
MIKE COONS referred to the question regarding [people under the
age of 21 allowed to enter a marijuana establishment] such as a
UPS driver. He related that a marijuana establishment is the
same as a UPS driver going into a bar to drop off a package, he
drops off a package, does not consuming any alcohol, and leaves.
As far as the two versions are concerned, the bills are letting
a genie out of a bottle that should never have been let out and
stated that he voted against the initiative. He noted that to
determine anything over an ounce is illegal as a misdemeanor,
how will the state get marijuana violations back to a felony if
serious problems arise. He recommended keeping it as [Version
T] and advised that he is a retired paramedic and has seen what
happens in automobile accidents. If someone is drinking and
driving they can still get a blood alcohol test. He opined that
a needle in someone's arm to get a little bit blood is a less
invasive procedure than a 2,000-3,000 pound vehicle crashing
into his wife because they are stoned out of their mind on
marijuana. He pointed out that every person he asked "would you
still go along with strengthening laws for drinking, smoking,
and driving" said they drive better stoned. He expressed that
is not acceptable and if someone hits him that has been drinking
and driving, "the cops better get him before I do."
2:59:23 PM
BRUCE SCHULTE, Coalition for Responsible Cannabis Legislation,
mentioned that he forwarded a letter to the House Judiciary
Standing Committee today and that he would speak to the two
versions. Although, he noted, he may have misidentified them in
his letter as Version F and Version T. He referred to the
Senate Judiciary Standing Committee version and the Senate
Finance Committee version and pointed out that the "first"
version was a joint effort between the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee and House Judiciary Standing Committee which, he
described, was a productive effort that led to very solid
legislation. The fundamental difference is that [Version T]
continues to treat marijuana as a controlled substance wherein
alcohol is not. He said it criminalizes the products and
substances rather than the behavior surrounding them. He
explained that the intent of the initiative was to legalize
marijuana and if the committee continues to keep it as a
controlled substance that is contrary to the initiative. That
being said, he offered, that he understands the members of the
Senate Finance Committee have good reasons for some of the
things they were trying to achieve, such as sideboards to
establish appropriate sanctions for conduct outside of the realm
of a normal regulated business. He opined that it is not
necessary to keep marijuana as a controlled substance to achieve
that. It has become an ingrained cultural imperative that
marijuana is in the controlled substance yet there has been no
evidence to suggest it ever should have been there in the first
place. A witness testified that marijuana should be in the
controlled substance just in case and did not offer any
specifics as to where it really needed to be. He suggested that
possibly it would be appropriate to go back and look at that
earlier version, consider what activities were not addressed
adequately to determine whether that bill could be developed
further to achieve results. He said that version of the bill
was a very good effort and got everyone where they needed to be.
3:02:40 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced CSSB 30 will be held in committee.
3:02:49 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.