Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
04/15/2019 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing: Commission on Judicial Conduct | |
| Confirmation Hearing: State Commission for Human Rights | |
| HB124 | |
| HB14 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 124 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 15, 2019
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Laddie Shaw
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative John Lincoln
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING: COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT
- HEARD
CONFIRMATION HEARING: STATE COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 124
"An Act relating to the recording of documents; relating to
notaries and notarization; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 14
"An Act relating to assault in the first degree; relating to sex
offenses; relating to the definition of 'dangerous instrument';
and providing for an aggravating factor at sentencing for
strangulation that results in unconsciousness."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 124
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AND NOTARIZATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CLAMAN
04/05/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/05/19 (H) JUD, FIN
04/08/19 (H) JUD WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, RULE
23
04/12/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/12/19 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/15/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 14
SHORT TITLE: ASSAULT; SEX OFFENSES; SENT. AGGRAVATOR
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LINCOLN
02/20/19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/19
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) STA, JUD
02/28/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/28/19 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/07/19 (H) Moved CSHB 14(STA) Out of Committee
03/07/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/19 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 7DP
03/08/19 (H) DP: VANCE, LEDOUX, WOOL, SHAW, STORY,
KREISS-TOMKINS, FIELDS
03/20/19 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/20/19 (H) Heard & Held
03/20/19 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/15/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
ALICE "DEBBIE" FULLENWIDER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the State
Commission for Human Rights.
CYNTHIA ERICKSON
Tanana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the State
Commission for Human Rights.
CERI GODINEZ, Staff
Representative Matt Claman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Conducted a sectional analysis of HB 124 on
behalf of Representative Claman, the prime sponsor, and answered
questions during the bill hearing.
TERRY BRYAN, President
Yukon Title Company
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 124, and
answered questions.
CRYSTAL HAMAN, Vice President/Title Manager
Yukon Title Company
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 124.
KIM MATTLE, President
Alaska Land Title Association (ALTA);
General Manager
Alaska Escrow & Title Insurance Agency, Inc.
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 124.
HOWARD HANCOCK
Chief Title Officer
Fidelity Title Agency of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 124.
MICHAEL O'NEAL, Vice President of Corporate Underwriting
First American Title Insurance Company
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 124 and answered
questions.
TERRY BANNISTER
Legislative Legal Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
124.
CHRISSI THURMAN, State Recorder
State Recorder's Office
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
124.
LIZZIE KUBITZ, Staff
Representative Matt Claman
Alaska State Legislation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced Amendment 1 to HB 14 on behalf
of Chair Claman.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:30 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives Wool, LeDoux,
Kopp, Stutes, Shaw, and Claman were present at the call to
order. Representative Eastman arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING: Commission on Judicial Conduct
CONFIRMATION HEARING: Commission on Judicial Conduct
1:03:09 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
a confirmation hearing for Jane Mores, the governor's
appointment to the Commission on Judicial Conduct. He noted
that during the previous meeting, the committee heard remarks
from the appointee, asked questions, and closed public
testimony. He asked for final comments from committee members.
No member offered final comments.
1:03:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee has reviewed the qualifications of the governor's
appointee and recommends that the following name be forwarded to
a joint session of the House and Senate for consideration: Jane
Mores to the Commission on Judicial Conduct. She explained that
this does not reflect intent by any of the members to vote for
or against this individual during any further sessions for the
purposes of confirmation.
CHAIR CLAMAN said Ms. Mores's name would be forwarded.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING: State Commission for Human Rights
CONFIRMATION HEARING: State Commission for Human Rights
1:04:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
a confirmation hearing for two appointees to the State
Commission for Human Rights. He opened public testimony on the
governor's appointments.
1:05:07 PM
ALICE "DEBBIE" FULLENWIDER shared biographical details including
information about her family, education, and life in Alaska.
She described her professional experience and the jobs she
worked that helped her develop professional skills and customer
service acumen. She added that she has attended numerous
seminars on subjects such as management and sexual harassment.
She said her life experience has involved dealing with people at
all levels of society. She discussed challenges she faced and
lessons she learned as Director of Cook Inlet Region,
Incorporated (CIRI) and Director of Eklutna, Incorporated. She
said that, as Director of Cook Inlet Tribal Council, she
addressed economic, cultural, and social issues relating to
native and non-native people within the community. She listed
various programs she oversaw relating to education, jobs,
drug/alcohol rehabilitation, and housing. She shared that she
has served on a number of committees, boards, and commissions
and that she is excited to have been appointed by Governor
Michael J. Dunleavy to the State Commission for Human Rights.
She said she believes her experience speaks for itself as to her
qualification for the appointment. She thanked the committee
for its time and consideration.
1:09:39 PM
CYNTHIA ERICKSON offered some brief biographical information and
detailed her upbringing in the town of Ruby. She said she is
part-Cup'ik and part-Athabascan and that said she has lived and
been in business in Tanana for 33 years. She shared that she
has served on the local corporation board, the Alaska Workforce
Investment Board, and the State Suicide Prevention Council. She
added that she has worked as a tribal judge and served on local
boards including the one at her church. She detailed her work
with Alaska Native youth and children all over Alaska. She
mentioned that she started her own nonprofit, My Grandma's House
"Setsoo Yeh."
1:12:02 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on the appointments.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES thanked the nominees and recognized their
qualifications.
1:12:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee has reviewed the qualifications of the governor's
appointee and recommends that the following names be forwarded
to a joint session of the House and Senate for consideration:
Alice "Debbie" Fullenwider and Cynthia Erickson to the State
Commission for Human Rights. She explained that this does not
reflect intent by any of the members to vote for or against
[these individuals] during any further sessions for the purposes
of confirmation.
CHAIR CLAMAN said the names would be forwarded.
HB 124-ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AND NOTARIZATION
1:13:06 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 124, "An Act relating to the recording of
documents; relating to notaries and notarization; and providing
for an effective date."
CHAIR CLAMAN passed the gavel to Vice Chair LeDoux.
1:13:35 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:13 p.m. to 1:14 p.m.
1:14:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN introduced HB 124 as prime sponsor. He read from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Good afternoon. For the record my name is Matt Claman,
State Representative for House District 21. I would
like to thank you all for hearing House Bill 124
today.
HB 124 establishes a secure process for remote online
notarization to facilitate commercial transactions in
the state.
Notaries are responsible for supervising the signing
of documents and attesting to both the authenticity of
a document as well as the identity of the parties
involved. Setting up a system to allow for remote
online notarization is particularly useful in Alaska
given our state's immense size and the fact that many
of our communities are not connected by road. At
present, commercial transactions within the state
often necessitate delays as the parties ship documents
back and forth for the purpose of notarization. HB 124
would allow individuals to have documents notarized
without these delays, from the comfort of their own
homes.
Given the sensitive nature of notarized documents, it
is critical that any updates to notarial law maintain
the integrity and security of the process. HB 124
adopts language directly from two Uniform Law
Commission Acts to ensure that updates to Alaska
notarial law include adequate provisions to keep the
notarial process secure and that Alaska notarial law
is consistent with notarial law in the growing number
of states that have adopted Uniform Law Commission
standards for remote online notarization.
The use of electronic records in commercial,
governmental, and personal transactions has become
increasingly prevalent in Alaska and around the world
in recent years. HB 124 allows Alaskans to keep up
with these trends and perform notarizations with
greater ease. By creating a process for remote online
notarization, improving the efficiency and convenience
of transactions in the state, HB 124 will open new
opportunities for commerce in Alaska and help
strengthen our state's economy.
With that, I will turn it over to my staff Ceri
Godinez to explain the bill in greater detail.
1:16:08 PM
CERI GODINEZ, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, conducted a sectional analysis of HB 124 with a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
To the Chair and the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify. For the record my name is Ceri
Godinez, and I'm staff to Representative Claman.
House Bill 124 updates Alaska's notarial law for the
digital age by allowing notaries to perform online
notarizations for remotely located individuals and
including provisions to ensure these online
notarizations are secure.
Section 1 establishes an electronic document of a
conveyance as an acceptable equivalent for an original
conveyance or certified copy of the conveyance.
Section 2 establishes the equivalence of electronic
notarized documents with those produced on a tangible
medium and allows recorders to accept tangible copies
of electronic records.
Section 3 adds conforming language to reflect changes
made in Section 2.
Section 4 requires that recorders comply with
standards set by the Department of Natural Resources
and allows the recorder to receive, index, store,
archive, and transmit electronic documents.
Section 5 adds three new sections to AS 40.17, which
relates to the recording of documents: Section
40.17.800, which requires that the Department of
Natural Resources adopt standards to implement
provisions relating to electronic recording; Section
40.17.810, which requires that consideration be given
to promoting uniformity among states with these
provisions; and Section 40.17.820, which establishes
the relationship between this chapter and the
Electronic Signatures and National Commerce Act.
Section 6 changes the definition of "document" to the
definition found in Uniform Law Commission language.
Section 7 adds definitions for "electronic,"
"electronic document," and "electronic signature."
Section 8 establishes "Uniform Real Property
Electronic Recording Act" as the title for sections
added in Sections 2, 4, and 5 of the bill.
Section 9 adds certifying that a tangible copy of an
electronic record is an accurate copy of the
electronic record to the duties a notary public may
perform.
Section 10 adds conforming language to reflect changes
made in Section 13 of this bill.
Section 11 requires that the lieutenant governor adopt
regulations to carry out the purposes of this chapter.
Section 12 requires that the lieutenant governor
provide standards for communication technology and
identity proofing. The lieutenant governor may adopt
regulations including provisions prescribing the
process for performing notarial acts, ensuring the
integrity of the process, and preventing against
fraud.
Section 13 allows an individual to use communication
technology as a substitute for appearing in front of a
notary, establishes a set of procedures a notary must
follow in order to verify the identity of a remotely
located individual and perform a remote online
notarization, and requires that the notary follow any
standards set by the lieutenant governor.
Section 14 requires that the notary maintain a single
journal chronicling all notarial acts they perform,
specifies the information each journal entry must
contain, and specifies storage procedure for the
journal.
Section 15 allows the notary to select the technology
they use to perform a notarial act and requires that
they notify the lieutenant governor of the technology
they will be using.
Section 16 establishes that failure to meet the
requirements outlined in this bill does not invalidate
a notarial act and that the validity of a notarial act
does not prevent an individual from seeking to
invalidate the record nor from seeking other remedies
based on law.
Section 17 establishes the relationship between this
chapter and the Electronic Signatures and National
Commerce Act.
Section 18 adds to the definition of "notarial act" to
reflect that an act may be performed with respect to a
tangible or electronic record.
Section 19 adds definitions for "acknowledgement,"
"communication technology," "electronic," "electronic
signature," "identity proofing," "in a representative
capacity," "notarial officer," "record," "remotely
located individual," "sign," and "signature."
Section 20 establishes that Sections 1-8 of this Act
apply to electronic signatures and documents received
by a recorder on or after the effective date of
Sections 1-8. And that Sections 9-19 apply to notarial
acts performed on or after the effective date of
Sections 9-19.
Section 21 allows the Department of Natural Resources
to adopt regulations to implement changes made by
Sections 1-8 and allows the lieutenant governor to
implement changes made by sections 9-19.
Section 22 clarifies that this Act does not affect the
validity of documents recorded before the effective
date of Sections 1-8 or the validity of notarial acts
performed before the effective date of Sections 9-19.
Section 23 provides an immediate effective date for
Section 21.
Section 24 provides an effective date of January 1,
2020 for all other sections.
Thank you for considering House Bill 124 today. With
that, we're happy to answer any questions the
Committee may have.
1:21:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said it appears that HB 124 would modernize
existing statutes to allow for current technology. He compared
electronic notarization to telemedicine technology and commented
that it would allow for the internet to be used as a vehicle for
commerce. He asked if that is primarily the intent of HB 124.
CHAIR CLAMAN answered "yes." He said HB 124 would also bring
Alaska in line with what other jurisdictions are doing, so that
electronic notarization is not hindered by different laws in
different states.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP discussed the process through which he
purchased his house and recalled signing documents
electronically. He asked what in HB 124 is different from what
was previously allowable regarding real estate title
transactions.
CHAIR CLAMAN said the contracts Representative Kopp signed
electronically were likely not required to be notarized. He
suggested that a notary was probably involved when
Representative Kopp signed the actual documents related to the
title transfer.
1:24:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if HB 124 would only apply for those
in remote locations, or whether someone who lives near a title
agency could instead elect to utilize electronic notarization.
MS. GODINEZ said any individual would be able to utilize the
service regardless of where he/she lives.
1:24:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for clarification of language found
in line 6 on page 13 [section 18], which he explained would
change the definition of "notarial act" by including electronic
records. He noted that AS 44.50.060 does not include language
directing a notary to do anything, citing the word "may." He
asked, "If I am a notary public ... am I going to be required to
accept this electronic record? Or is it optional?" He asked
what the legal significance of "directed" is in AS 44.50.200(2).
CHAIR CLAMAN said his office did not research the existing
language that is not being changed. He noted that if the
statute does not require anything of a notary public and the
language is "may," then the status quo would remain in place.
With regard to the electronic record, he mentioned that some
states have required all notaries to become electronic notaries
while others have allowed it to be a choice. He said if the
State of Alaska (SOA) were to give notaries the choice between
being "a paper notary versus an electronic notary," then the
electronic requirements would only apply to the electronic
notaries.
1:27:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if it is the prime sponsor's intent
to infer a right or an ability of someone to claim to be able
to accomplish a notarial act electronically. He asked whether
a person who is not able to accomplish that electronic notarial
act could claim that his/her rights were not honored.
CHAIR CLAMAN said being a notary public is not a right, rather
it is a licensed privilege administered by the Office of the
Lieutenant Governor. He explained the process through which an
individual may become a notary public.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that he was referring to the
rights of the person seeking an electronic notary, not the
notary themselves.
CHAIR CLAMAN said that is not a question he has investigated.
He said he thinks it would be unlikely that an individual would
be unable to find and utilize an electronic notary. He listed
myriad locations where one could find a notary.
1:29:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked about the identity verification
process when utilizing an electronic notary.
MS. GODINEZ said the most common way a person's identity can be
verified is by running a series of forensic tests on a high-
resolution image of his/her identification document (ID). She
noted that HB 124 allows for a situation in which a notary can
confirm a person's identity when that person is known to the
notary or when a credible witness who can confirm the person's
identity is present with the notary.
1:30:46 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX asked for more information about the forensic
tests.
MS. GODINEZ said she is not totally certain about how the tests
work, but that they can involve running the bar code on the ID
and examining the image for microdots. She remarked that the
tests are in-depth and are "more than just giving it a once-over
with your eyes." She deferred answering the question further to
an expert testifier who would join the meeting shortly.
1:31:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL described the relative casualness of in-
person identification verification at his local bank. He
observed that the electronic verification process would be more
stringent than in-person.
MS. GODINEZ said that is correct. She noted that some people
have remarked that remote online notarization has the potential
to be more rigorous in terms of identity-proofing.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mused on his earlier question about having
the option to utilize an electronic notary even though he lives
near a bank. He observed that it may be easier for him to just
go into the bank. He suggested that many people would elect to
maintain use of traditional notaries.
1:32:45 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX asked who would among those available for
questions would best be able to answer her earlier question
about the forensic tests.
MS. GODINEZ said Terry Bryan from the Yukon Title Company might
be able to field the question.
1:33:35 PM
TERRY BRYAN, President, Yukon Title Company, noted that the
detail of any forensic testing would be determined through the
development of regulations through the Lieutenant Governor's
office. He said Michael O'Neal of First American Title in
Washington, D.C. would likely be able to discuss how other
states have handled the issue. He noted that Mr. O'Neal would
be calling into the meeting shortly.
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the kinds of forensic tests
would have to be determined through regulations.
MR. BRYAN said a requirement for testing would be a matter of
regulatory enforcement. He said his interpretation is that the
regulatory process would mandate something between the current
norm presentation of a government-issued ID in front of a
notary and a thorough test.
CHAIR CLAMAN said Mr. O'Neal would be available at 2 p.m. to
address the question.
1:35:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked about forensic tests required in
other states.
CHAIR CLAMAN deferred to Mr. O'Neal.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN acknowledged that an electronic notary
could verify through various means that an ID is genuine, but
questioned how the notary would be able to verify the identity
of the person who has sent the image of the ID.
MS. GODINEZ said the online notarial act would be conducted
face-to-face through video chat and would be recorded.
1:37:06 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease from at 1:37 p.m.
1:37:37 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX returned the gavel to Chair Claman.
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 124.
1:38:19 PM
MR. BRYAN said he has been involved in the title insurance and
real estate industry for over 20 years. He mentioned that he is
daily aware of dozens of notarial acts, including by employees
of his company. He opined that HB 124 would improve the flow of
commercial transactions which require or request a notarial
function. He said HB 124 is consumer-focused legislation that
would save money and time for consumers. He stated that HB 124
would benefit Alaskans who do not live near a notary as well as
members of the state's mobile population. He opined that HB 124
would enact a "safer process" because he has more confidence in
notarial functions within Alaska than from other non-Alaska
jurisdictions. He shared that his company often questions the
integrity of a notarial act from a different jurisdiction. He
shared similar apprehensions about the integrity and validity of
international notary functions. He discussed the potential ease
and efficiency that would result if all these notarial acts
could be controlled through the State of Alaska (SOA). He noted
that 20 percent of his company's transactions require a mail-out
or shipment of documents for an individual to sign with a notary
outside the company's jurisdiction. He said these transactions
are slowed because the buyer/lender/seller must wait for
documents to be delivered by a courier service. He suggested
changes to HB 124 provisions relating to maintaining a single
notary journal and the responsibility placed on the Lieutenant
Governor's office regarding service of process for transactions
regarding notary functions. He said he and Yukon Title Company
support HB 124.
1:42:25 PM
CRYSTAL HAMAN, Vice President/Title Manager, Yukon Title
Company, said her office provides title and escrow services for
the whole northern portion of Alaska. She shared that she has
worked for Yukon Title for approximately 26 years and described
the numerous occasions in which she reviewed foreign and
overseas notaries, in particular documents that were not
properly notarized. She said she has seen many documents that
she has questioned in terms of their validity. She noted that
she was initially skeptical about electronic notaries but said
her skepticism has since been assuaged. She echoed earlier
discussion about electronic notarial acts being more secure.
She described the process through which her office attempts to
verify foreign notaries. She said military members who reside
in Alaska would benefit from HB 124, as they are often overseas
and would be able to access an electronic notary in Alaska.
1:44:57 PM
KIM MATTLE, President, Alaska Land Title Association (ALTA);
General Manager, Alaska Escrow & Title Insurance Agency, Inc.,
said she has worked in the title and escrow industry for 17
years and in banking "on the lending side" for 13 years. She
said ALTA supports HB 124 and the option to utilize an
electronic notary, which she described as consumer-friendly and
secure. She said HB 124 would bring Alaska up to date with
technology available to consumers, making the completion of
transactions easier, more efficient, and more secure no matter
where the transacting party is physically located.
1:46:26 PM
HOWARD HANCOCK, Chief Title Officer, Fidelity Title Agency of
Alaska, said his company fully supports HB 124. He relayed the
process through which his company currently handles paperwork
with parties involved in a transaction when those parties are in
a foreign country. In most cases, he said, his company
recommends those people go to the United States Embassy or
Consulate Office for a notary. He noted that this is not always
possible due to logistical reasons or the considerable time
required to schedule an appointment. Alternatively, he said, if
the party is in a country that abides by [The Hague Convention
Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public
Documents], the party can use a foreign notary public, though
the document must be accompanied by an apostille certificate
signed by a foreign government official verifying the validity
of the foreign notary public that signed it. He noted that the
process of obtaining an apostille can lead to further delays.
Additionally, he said, if the notarization is done in a foreign
language, a written translation must be attached to the document
to be accepted by the State Recorder's Office. He noted that
obtaining a translation can also lead to further delays. He
stated that his company anticipates that the option of remote
online notarization would streamline operations and eliminate
the cumbersome mail-out process. He urged support in passage of
HB 124.
1:48:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if passage of HB 124 would change
the way notaries are recruited.
MR. HANCOCK said he does not believe it would have any impact at
all. He said the goal is to give notaries the option to either
be a "paper notary" or an "electronic notary.
1:49:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how notaries deal with identical
twins.
MR. HANCOCK said they would presumably have different names.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she understands they would have
different names, but if they are identical, how would a notary
know if he/she is looking at one twin's ID and not the other's.
MR. HANCOCK said it is a good question. He suggested that Mr.
O'Neal might be able to provide an answer.
1:51:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked, assuming HB 124 were to become law,
whether an electronic notarization in Alaska would be considered
legitimate in a jurisdiction in which electronic notarization is
not recognized in statute.
MR. HANCOCK said he does not believe an electronic notarization
would be accepted in a state that has not yet adopted a similar
law. He commented that this is the way things are currently in
Alaska. He said there are approximately nine states that
currently recognize electronic notarization.
1:53:12 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:52 p.m. to 1:53 p.m.
1:54:05 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:54 p.m. to 1:58 p.m.
1:58:44 PM
MICHAEL O'NEAL, Vice President of Corporate Underwriting, First
American Title Insurance Company, said he has worked on remote
notarization legislation in approximately 40 states. He
mentioned that for HB 124, he worked very closely with the
Uniform Law Commission (ULC) as it crafted the legislation. He
said he is grateful for the opportunity to support HB 124.
Mr. O'Neal explained that the remote notarization concept has
existed for several years. He said that in 2012 Virginia became
the first state to experiment with remote electronic
notarizations via webcam interactions. He called the Virginia
law "novel" and noted that it raised unanswered questions about
the steps required to securely identify a document signer over
the internet. He described how various public and private
stakeholders worked together to determine how to achieve secure
remote notarization. He said this process resulted in two
pieces of model legislation, one produced by the title and
mortgage industries and the other crafted by the ULC. He noted
that HB 124 uses "the ULC approach. He said he served as the
liaison between the two processes and stated that the two
uniform laws are in substantive alignment, which he explained is
"very intentional." He said 17 states have passed remote notary
laws and 15 others have bills pending.
MR. O'NEAL addressed the topic of safeguards and explained that
there are three requirements: identification procedures, the
creation of an audit trail, and the use of secure technologies
to prevent after-the-fact records alteration. He said HB 124
calls for multifactor authentication and would require the
application of two types of identity-proofing. He explained
that the bill would allow the Lieutenant Governor, through
regulation, to establish a process to identify signers and stop
fraud. He described the two-step process that is currently
standard. The first step, he explained, involves checking a
scanned image of an ID for security features, such as
microprints, microdots, holographic features, and barcodes. He
drew a contrast between this thorough process and the process by
which a traditional notary verifies a document. The second form
of identity-proofing, he said, is a requirement that the signer
takes an identification quiz. He noted that this is the same
quiz that many people take online when applying for a loan or
doing a credit check. He detailed how the personal questions
are designed so that they could not be answered by someone who
has stolen a wallet. He said these questions are difficult to
solve for identity thieves.
2:05:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how the identity quizzes are
generated and who generates them.
MR. O'NEAL said there are various vendors who produce identity
quizzes. He said it is widespread commercial application in the
banking industry and credit reporting industry. He identified
LexisNexis as one major vendor. He explained that these vendors
plumb data from public data records about individuals, which
allows them to create the quizzes. He said HB 124 would allow
notaries to leverage the same tools used by financial
institutions to verify customers' identities.
2:06:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how many of the 17 states to have
authorized remote notarization currently require notaries to use
vendor-produced identity quizzes.
MR. O'NEAL clarified that 17 states have enacted laws, but
remote notarization is only "up and running" in approximately 5
states. He said each of those states requires the use of
identity-proofing quizzes. He said it is fully expected that
every state to implement regulations will adopt the concept of
an identity-proofing quiz. He noted that the National
Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), which has worked to
produce national standards to help guide the implementation of
remote notarization laws, adopted identity-proofing quizzes as a
core standard.
2:08:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for examples of the questions on an
identity-proofing quiz.
MR. O'NEAL gave a few examples including, "Which of the
following addresses have you lived at over the last 20 years?"
and, "Which of these people are you related to?" He highlighted
that these questions draw from the user's personal history and
restated that the answers could not be found in one's wallet.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why these questions would only be
asked online and not during an in-person notarial act.
MR. O'NEAL said that is an excellent question. He said it
points to the heightened robustness of identification-
verification for remote notarization. He noted that it combines
two features physical possession of an ID and knowledge of
personal history to create a state-of-the-art, multi-factor
authentication process. He remarked that advocates of remote
notarization point to it as an extremely secure process. He
said many people believe that paper notaries" can and should
adopt those same tools.
CHAIR CLAMAN said Representative LeDoux's question presents an
interesting topic and noted that he cannot remember the last
time he heard of anyone misusing the notary process, though it
must happen on occasion.
2:12:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she is reminded of the questions
generated when she attempts to sign into her bank account on a
computer terminal not recognized by the bank. She noted that
these questions are sometimes not relevant and thus there is an
option to generate a new question. She asked whether such an
option would be available in an identity-proofing quiz.
MR. O'NEAL answered yes. He explained that an industry standard
for the administration of the quizzes has been established by
the federal government through the National Institute of
Standards of Technology (NIST). He said the way it works today
is that each quiz contains five questions, four of which must be
answered within a time limit. There is an opportunity to retake
the quiz should the user fail, and at least two of the questions
from the original quiz must be replaced the second time around.
He said getting four out of five questions correct would be
nearly impossible for someone fraudulently claiming another
person's identity. This, he explained, is why the quizzes are
flexible in allowing one wrong answer that does not kick the
user entirely out of the process.
2:15:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL inquired about the prevalence of fraud
related to electronic notaries. He noted that he does not want
to see the cessation of traditional notaries under the rationale
that remote notarization is more secure.
MR. O'NEAL said HB 124 would make remote notarization purely
optional for those Alaskans who wish to use it. He said the ULC
sought to create an equivalence of notarial acts. He said, "A
notary is a notary is a notary." He mused on the impossibility
of capturing a signature through electronic means and said it is
the impetus for imposing heightened security requirements for
remote notarization.
CHAIR CLAMAN added that the Office of the Lieutenant Governor is
confident that "many people" would prefer not to get involved in
the electronic notary business.
2:19:24 PM
MR. O'NEAL said HB 124 would require a notary to keep a journal
that logs the bare facts about the notarization which could be
used as evidence as to who actually signed the document involved
in a notarial act. He commented that the bill would also
require the creation and retention of an audio/video recording
of the performance of the notarial act itself. He explained
that the act would be recorded on a webcam and retained by the
notary for a period either set in statute or regulated by the
Lieutenant Governor. Most states, he said, require a 5-, 7-, or
10-year retention period. He explained that the purpose of the
video is to contribute to the audit trail He added that it is
also a significant fraud deterrent because criminals are much
less likely to fraudulently sign in front of a public official
and on camera. He also spoke to the importance of retaining the
video for identity-verification purposes in the absence of
handwriting.
MR. O'NEAL spoke to the importance of tamper-proofing notarized
online documents. He described the kinds of technologies
currently available today that are tamper-evident and generate
error messages on electronic documents that have been altered
post-notarization. He summarized that these three features
identity-verification, an audit trail, and tamper-evident
documents have the potential to make remote notarization as
secure or even more secure than the traditional notarial
process.
2:23:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that SOA has historically required
its notaries to be bonded. He asked what effect electronic
options have had on bonding requirements elsewhere.
MR. O'NEAL answered that most states are not changing their bond
requirements as a result of enacting a remote notarization law.
He said the question of bonds varies greatly among the states.
He stated that only about half of states require a bond and, in
some cases, the bond was set at a figure like $500 almost a
century ago and has hardly changed.
CHAIR CLAMAN said Alaska is "settled" at $1,000.
MR. O'NEAL said the only state that has changed its bonding
requirement is Florida. He said he thinks Florida will be "at
the top of the heap" by requiring a $25,000 bond, an additional
cost borne by notaries in that state. He said attempts to
maintain equivalent safeguards between traditional and remote
notarization have resulted in most states finding it not
necessary to change bonding requirements.
2:25:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked about forensic and microdot
technologies and whether they are used in states that have
enacted similar legislation.
MR. O'NEAL answered yes. He described how Virginia law does not
actually require those types of technology, though he believes
most vendors operating in Virginia voluntarily allow their
notaries to use that step. He stated that the forensic analysis
of identification credentials has been part of all remote
notarization laws enacted since Virginia's.
2:26:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if Mr. O'Neal has encountered or
has any solutions for "the sticky issue" of religious garb and
identifying someone wearing religious garb.
MR. O'NEAL said he has never been asked that question before.
He noted that a traditional notary must see a person's face to
verify identity. He commented that the question raises some
fundamental First Amendment issues relating to notarization.
The bottom line, he stated, is that remote notarization requires
the presentation to the notary of an ID and a similar visual
identity verification to the traditional notarial process.
2:28:28 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN returned to Representative Stutes's earlier
question about whether an electronic notarization in Alaska
would be considered legitimate in a jurisdiction that has not
enacted a remote notarization law.
TERRY BANNISTER, Legislative Legal Services, said it depends on
the law of the other state. She said this is why more states
are being encouraged to adopt uniform electronic notarization
provisions.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked, "Isn't there a full faith and credit issue
if North Carolina doesn't recognize a notarized signature that
is considered valid in Alaska?"
MS. BANNISTER said if the notarized material has been accepted
in Alaska, then it would probably be accepted in a different
state. But, she said, if there is any reason that it has to be
acknowledged electronically in the other state, "it may not
fly."
2:30:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP addressed AS 09.80, the Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act. He explained that it was enacted in 2004 with
the intent to align practices relating to electronic records and
electronic signatures. He asked whether the intent of HB 124 is
already covered in AS 09.80.
MS. BANNISTER said she would have to do additional research and
get back to the committee with more details. She remarked that
her initial assessment is that the current statute is not
sufficient for what for what HB 124 is attempting to accomplish.
She commented that AS 09.80 acknowledges that signatures can be
done electronically, but HB 124 relates to a specific
application for notarization.
CHAIR CLAMAN said there will be plenty of time to conduct more
research. He asked Ms. Bannister to submit a written response
to Representative Kopp's question.
2:33:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN mentioned that there has been recent
debate in the legislature about whether to close or consolidate
district offices. He asked if there is anything related to the
State Recorder's Office that does not lend itself to remote
notarization. He asked why physical office locations are
necessary.
CHRISSI THURMAN, State Recorder, State Recorder's Office,
Department of Natural Resources, said the offices that are
slated to be closed due to budget cuts have no effect on the
electronic recording applications presented in HB 124.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he understands that. He said he
wanted to know if there is a reason that the offices could not
be categorically replaced by electronic processes.
CHAIR CLAMAN said he does not think there is a proposal to close
recorder's offices. He ruled that the question is not relevant
to discussion of HB 124.
2:36:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed public testimony. He said HB 124 would be
held for further review.
2:36:45 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:37 p.m.
HB 14-ASSAULT; SEX OFFENSES; SENT. AGGRAVATOR
2:37:39 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 14, "An Act relating to assault in the first
degree; relating to sex offenses; relating to the definition of
'dangerous instrument'; and providing for an aggravating factor
at sentencing for strangulation that results in
unconsciousness." [Before the committee was CSHB 14(STA),
version 31-LS0182\G.] Chair Claman recognized the presence of
Representative Lincoln, the bill's prime sponsor.
2:38:37 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN passed the gavel to Vice Chair LeDoux.
CHAIR CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 31-LS0182\G.5,
Radford, 4/10/19, which read as follows:
Page 2, lines 22 - 23:
Delete "causing the victim to come into contact
with ejaculate"
Insert "ejaculating on the victim"
Representative Stutes objected for purposes of discussion.
2:39:02 PM
LIZZIE KUBITZ, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislation, said Amendment 1 was the result of conversations
with the prime sponsor's office, the Office of the Public
Defender, and others. She said the current version of the bill
adds "knowingly causing the victim to come into contact with
ejaculate" to the definitions of sexual contact. However, she
explained, it was determined that this language could result in
unintended consequences. For example, she said, if a juvenile
were to throw a towel on someone and that towel had ejaculate on
it, the juvenile could potentially be charged with sexual
assault. She stated that Amendment 1 seeks to avoid those
unintended consequences by amending the language to read
"knowingly ejaculating on the victim." She opined that this
language better fits the goals of the bill.
2:40:43 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX established a hypothetical scenario in which
the defendant, instead of ejaculating on the victim, ejaculated
in the vicinity of the victim and then forced the victim to come
into contact with the ejaculate. She queried, "That wouldn't be
covered here, would it?"
MS. KUBITZ said the intention of Amendment 1 is to focus on the
action as opposed to "coming in contact with the ejaculate," in
order to avoid criminalizing behavior that the prime sponsor
and/or the committee may not want to criminalize.
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX returned to the example of the juvenile and
the towel. She suggested that there could be another way to
address the issue that would distinguish between a juvenile
offender and an adult offender. She expressed doubts that this
particular change is the solution.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that Amendment 1 does not change the crime of
harassment, which he suggested would apply in the circumstances
described by Representative LeDoux. He said the question is,
"Where are we going to draw the line between felony conduct and
misdemeanor conduct?" He noted that Representative LeDoux's
question reflects the reality that decisions must be made
regarding where that line gets drawn.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said HB 14 was in part inspired by public
outcry relating to sexual acts not currently categorized as sex
crimes. He said the public wants legislators to make the laws
match its expectations. He said he does not know if this
language accomplishes that.
2:44:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES withdrew her objection.
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX added her own objection.
2:44:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked a question relating to the crime of
harassment. He said other bodily fluids have been thrown at
people for the purposes of harassment. He asked, "How do you
differentiate that from a sex crime, if you don't want to pass
this amendment?"
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX said she cannot answer that. She stated she
does not support Amendment 1 in its current form.
CHAIR CLAMAN said the genesis of HB 14 was the public concerns
that arose from the Justin Schneider case relating to
strangulation, which is not a sex crime on its own, and to
ejaculation onto a strangulation victim, which is not currently
a sex crime due to a loophole. He stated that the resulting
effort of HB 14 was to change the Schneider loophole so that the
conduct in that case could be the basis for a sex crime. He
said the challenge becomes ensuring that the legislative
language drafted does not become so broad that it brings in
conduct that sounds more like harassment and less like a sex
crime. He said the language in Amendment 1 was recommended by
the former Public Defender to effectively close the Schneider
loophole while avoiding overbreadth problems.
2:47:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN proposed Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1. He proposed a two-part test in which the
individual intentionally ejaculates in the presence of someone
and afterward knowingly causes that person to come into contact
with the ejaculate. He said the reason for this proposal is
that the public outcry refers to any situation in which both
parts of that test are met. He said this would allow certain
acts to be considered as sex crimes while avoiding the inclusion
of the conduct of "teenage boys in bathrooms horsing around."
CHAIR CLAMAN said he does not support Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1. He noted that Amendment 1 is supported by the
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA).
He said ANDVSA believes Amendment 1 adequately addresses those
concerns. He stated that the public is concerned about the
loophole. He said HB 14 would close the loophole whether or
not it precisely addresses every question of every public
member." He added that the legislators need to make effective
legislation that does not create more confusion and more
ambiguity. He suggested that Representative Eastman's proposal
would make things more confusing and more difficult to apply.
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX said the proposed amendment might close the
loophole for the exact circumstances of the Schneider case
"until another loophole identifies itself."
2:50:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that harassment in the first degree is
in play when the circumstances of harassment in the second
degree include substances such as blood, mucus, or semen. He
said what elevates harassment in the first degree to the felony
level is when it occurs in conjunction with felony assault or
felony sexual assault. He noted that if the conduct were not
happening concurrently with a felony assault or a felony sexual
assault, then the committee would not be looking at making it a
registerable felony sex offense. He remarked that there has to
be a way to write the law so that it says, "if the act of
[harassment in the first degree] occurs in concurrence with
[felony assault or felony sexual assault], it is considered a
felony,because the harassment is in relation to the assault or
sexual assault.
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX inquired, "So you're saying, if there is no
kidnapping and no assault and someone is just on a date with the
wrong person and he ejaculates on her, that that's not a sex
crime?
CHAIR CLAMAN said that conduct is covered by Amendment 1.
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX said she thought Representative Kopp was
saying there is no sex crime unless it is in conjunction with
some other assault or some other felony.
CHAIR CLAMAN said part of the challenge is that all these
scenarios become very fact-driven. He noted that a scenario
involving an individual who ejaculates on the ground and then
pushes someone into it would probably be covered by a physical
assault crime for the act of pushing the person down. He said a
situation in which someone ejaculates onto another person fits
the definition of a sex crime. He said a situation in which
someone is not ejaculating on a person sounds more like
harassment.
2:54:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP agreed with Chair Claman's assertion. He
said the goal is to encompass all these situations. He said the
current language of the bill would address a number of
situations by making certain acts sex crimes. He added that
misdemeanor-level harassment, when it occurs in conjunction with
felony sexual assault or felony assault, should be charged as a
felony.
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX said her interpretation of the language in
Amendment 1 is that the perpetrator needs to ejaculate on the
victim as opposed to rubbing the victim's hand in it, or
something like that.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said the Department of Law (DOL) has some
discretion. He referenced the totality of circumstances and
noted that all sex offenses require a mental state. He opined
that trying to capture every possible instance of "horsing
around, could end up "stopping language that could do a lot of
good. He said he does not want to "see us get too tight" and
assume that DOL is not going to exercise its discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that argument would speak against
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN agreed with Representative LeDoux.
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that the line-drawing of the legislature
is a serious process. He argued that a scenario in which an
individual ejaculates on another person is more egregious than a
scenario in which an individual ejaculates in the presence of
another person. He opined that the job of the legislature is
not to try to address "every single thing on the list," but to
address "the situation before us."
2:58:21 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX addressed Representative Eastman's conceptual
amendment and objected to it.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP requested that Representative Eastman repeat
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said his conceptual amendment captures
the language in line 3 ["ejaculating on the victim"] and
captures the language in line 2 ["causing the victim to come
into contact with ejaculate"], but the language in line 2 is
only captured when the ejaculation has taken place in the
presence of the victim. He reiterated, "When, having ejaculated
in the presence of the victim, the perpetrator causes the victim
to come into contact with the ejaculate."
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said the conceptual amendment does not work.
He stated that sex offenses are about domination and control.
He established a scenario in which a person ejaculates alone in
a bed, then runs out of the room to grab the victim and bring
the victim into the room to force the victim to have contact
with the ejaculate.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN conceded that the conceptual amendment
does not capture everything. He withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 1.
3:00:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX maintained her objection to Amendment 1.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Shaw, Wool, Stutes,
Kopp, and Claman voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives
Eastman and LeDoux voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was
adopted by a vote of 5-2.
3:00:56 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX returned the gavel to Chair Claman.
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 14 will be held for further
review.
3:02:04 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| State Commission for Human Rights Appointment-Cynthia Erickson Application 4.15.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| State Commission for Human Rights Appointment-Debbie Fullenwider Resume 4.15.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Commission on Judicial Conduct Appointment-Jane Mores Resume 4.12.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB014 ver G 3.20.19.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2019 5:15:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB014 Sponsor Statement 3.20.19.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2019 5:15:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB014 Sectional Analysis ver G 3.20.19.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2019 5:15:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB014 Summary of Changes ver K to ver G 3.20.19.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2019 5:15:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB014 Supporting Document-Letters 3.20.19.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2019 5:15:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB014 Fiscal Note DHSS-PS 3.20.19.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2019 5:15:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB014 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 3.20.19.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2019 5:15:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB014 Fiscal Note DPS-DET 3.20.19.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2019 5:15:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB014 Fiscal Note DOA-OPA 3.20.19.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2019 5:15:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB014 Fiscal Note DOA-PDA 3.20.19.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2019 5:15:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB014 Fiscal Note DOC-IDO 3.20.19.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2019 5:15:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB 124 v. A 4.12.2019.PDF |
HJUD 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Sponsor Statement 4.12.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 124 Sectional Analysis ver A 4.12.19.PDF |
HJUD 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Supporting Document-RON Process One - Pager 4.12.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Supporting Document-RON Law State-by-State Graphic 4.12.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Supporting Document-Why URPERA 4.12.19.PDF |
HJUD 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Supporting Document - RULONA 2018 Summary 4.12.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Supporting Document - Letters 4.12.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Supporting Document - Quicken Loans Letter 4.12.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Supporting Document - Alyeska Title Guaranty Agency Letter 4.12.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Supporting Document - Alaska Association of Realtors Letter 4.12.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Fiscal Note DNR-RO 4.12.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB014 Amendment #1 4.15.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 14 |