Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/24/2021 01:30 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 | |
| HB109 | |
| HB62 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 24, 2021
1:44 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Liz Snyder, Vice Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative David Eastman
Representative Christopher Kurka
Representative Sarah Vance
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 109
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Governors
of the Alaska Bar Association; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED HB 109 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 62
"An Act relating to solemnization of marriage."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act relating to the budget reserve fund established under
art. IX, sec. 17(d), Constitution of the State of Alaska;
relating to money available for appropriation for purposes of
applying art. IX, sec. 17, Constitution of the State of Alaska;
and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 109
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND BAR ASS'N BOARD OF GOVERNORS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CLAMAN
02/22/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/21 (H) JUD, FIN
03/22/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/22/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/24/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 62
SHORT TITLE: MARRIAGE WITNESSES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CLAMAN
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, JUD
02/25/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/25/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/04/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/04/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/04/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/09/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/11/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/11/21 (H) Moved HB 62 Out of Committee
03/11/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/12/21 (H) STA RPT 4DP 2DNP 1AM
03/12/21 (H) DP: CLAMAN, STORY, TARR, KREISS-TOMKINS
03/12/21 (H) DNP: EASTMAN, VANCE
03/12/21 (H) AM: KAUFMAN
03/19/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/19/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/24/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DANIELLE BAILEY
Executive Director, Alaska Bar Association
City & State
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
109.
BEN HOFFMEISTER, President
Alaska Bar Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
109.
KRIS CURTIS
Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Legislative Agencies and Offices
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information regarding audits during
the hearing on HB 109.
SOPHIE JONAS, Staff
Representative Matt Claman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 62 on behalf of Representative
Claman, prime sponsor.
CIAN MULHERN
Celtic Ministries
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 62.
JOE CONNELLY, Owner
Chugach Peaks Photography,
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 62.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:44:01 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:44 p.m. Representatives Eastman, Vance,
Kreiss-Tomkins, Drummond, Kurka, Snyder, and Claman were present
at the call to order.
HB 109-EXTEND BAR ASS'N BOARD OF GOVERNORS
1:44:45 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 109, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR CLAMAN noted this was the second hearing of HB 109 in the
House Judiciary Standing Committee. He said the committee would
now take up amendments. He stated for the record that
Legislative Legal and Research Services has permission to make
any technical and conforming changes to HB 109.
1:45:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 32-
LS0592\A.3, Fisher, 3/23/21, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 2, following "Association;":
Insert "relating to the selection of members for
the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association;"
Page 1, following line 6:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 08.08.050(a) is amended to read:
(a) Except as provided in (d) of this section,
two [TWO] members of the board shall be elected by and
from among the members of the association resident in
the first judicial district; four members of the board
shall be elected by and from among the members of the
association resident in the third judicial district;
two members by and from among the members of the
association resident in the combined area of the
second and fourth judicial districts; and one member
of the board shall be elected at large by and from
among the members of the association residing in the
entire state. Three members who are not attorneys
shall be appointed by the governor and are subject to
confirmation by the legislature in joint session.
* Sec. 3. AS 08.08.050(c) is amended to read:
(c) Except as provided in (d) of this section,
four [FOUR] board members shall be selected on the
following triennial rotation:
(1) in the first year, one member from the
first judicial district, one member from the combined
area of the second and fourth judicial districts, one
member from the third judicial district, and one
appointed member;
(2) in the second year, one member at
large, two members from the third judicial district,
and one appointed member; and
(3) in the third year, one member from the
combined area of the second and fourth judicial
districts, one member from the third judicial
district, one member from the first judicial district,
and one appointed member.
* Sec. 4. AS 08.08.050 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) The Board of Governors may by regulation
allocate the nine attorney member seats on the Board
of Governors elected by the active members of the
Alaska Bar under AS 08.08.040(a) to each judicial
district in proportion to the number of active members
of the Alaska Bar residing in each judicial district.
The members of the board from each judicial district,
as allocated under this subsection, shall be elected
by and from the members of the association resident in
that judicial district."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "This"
Insert "Section 1 of this"
1:45:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.
1:45:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that AS 08.08.050 lays out the
composition of [the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar] in
relation to four judicial districts. He said this law was
created in the 1950s, but the apportionment scheme has not been
changed since 1971. He stated that Amendment 1 recognizes that
this apportionment is outdated and would give the board the
opportunity, not a mandate, to discuss amendment of the board
selection process.
1:47:51 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted those available for questions.
1:48:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he would like to hear from
anyone on the Alaska Bar Association regarding Amendment 1.
1:48:36 PM
DANIELLE BAILEY, Executive Director, Alaska Bar Association,
indicated that over the past 20 years population changes and
attorney representation has been consistent, thus, she does not
think Amendment 1 is necessary at this time. In response to
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, she stated the proportions and
reiterated that they have remained consistent. She confirmed
the relation between that consistency and the reason she said
Amendment 1 is not needed.
1:50:58 PM
BEN HOFFMEISTER, President, Alaska Bar Association, echoed that
the board has had consistent representation and warned that
"dilution of the ... other judicial districts" would "do a
disservice to our membership." He talked about learning a lot
from individuals from other parts of the state and explained
that how things are done in one district's court differs from
another. He opined that restructuring is not only unnecessary
but also not required.
1:54:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Eastman if there is a problem
with the legislature's decision on this matter and why the
legislature would want to give up that power.
1:54:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied that the Alaska Bar Association
is a private one. He listed the number of members currently in
each judicial district, as laid out in statute, and he said
Amendment 1 would allow the board to separate those districts,
for example, to ensure a certain number of members from each
district on the board. He questioned whether the association
wants the legislature telling them how to run their affairs.
1:57:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND directed attention to page 1 of an audit
report, to the list of membership of the Board of Governors of
the Alaska Bar, and she calculated that there are two members
from the first judicial district, four members from the third
judicial district, and two members from the second and fourth
judicial districts. She questioned the necessity of Amendment
1, "since the organization appears to be self-selecting" just as
is suggested in the proposed amendment; therefore, she said she
would not support Amendment 1.
1:58:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he would still like to know from the
Bar Association whether its members think the decision is best
left to the legislature.
1:59:47 PM
MS. BAILEY said Amendment 1 allows the association flexibility
only when doing proportional representation. She indicated that
if Amendment 1 were adopted, the second judicial district would
never get any representation because currently that district has
only 24 members, and, taking into account the comments of Mr.
Hoffmeister, she said she would be "worried about that." She
added, "As to the larger question over who should have
responsibility, that is something I'm not prepared to talk about
and [which] I don't believe is actually reflected in the
amendment."
2:00:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA said he supports Amendment 1. He alluded
to the eight-year sunset and said that is a long time "to have
things locked into statute." He said it probably does make
sense to have some flexibility with the board. He said he
disagreed with Ms. Bailey's reading of Amendment 1, and he
emphasized the word "may" in the amendment. He said there are
multiple options for apportionment.
2:02:09 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said this structure has been in place for 50 years,
and multiple legislatures have had the opportunity to fix the
system if they thought it was broken. The reasons for having
the representation as structured ensure that the less
represented areas of the state have a voice on the Board of
Governors of the Alaska Bar. He referred to Representative
Eastman's spreadsheet and said if there was proportional
representation on the board, the Anchorage Bar Association would
essentially be running the state bar. He referred to a court
case, Miller v. Carpeneti, from 2009, which notes that the one
person/one vote topic does not apply to the board.
CHAIR CLAMAN said there is good reason for the legislature to
have said it wants rural areas of the state to be carefully
considered. He explained that the board operates under Roberts
Rules, which states that the president of the board votes only
when his/her vote makes a difference. He continued, "And so, if
you had one person from Southeast, Alaska, which proportional
representation would bring you, or one person from ... the
fourth judicial district, Fairbanks, which is what proportional
representation would give you, on many occasions people from
those regions would actually not get a vote on issues taken up
by the board." Chair Claman noted that currently the three
public members are all from the third judicial district in
Anchorage, so the committee might actually consider an amendment
that would require the governor to apportion his seat on the
board so that other areas besides Anchorage would be
represented. He explained that he was just pointing that out,
not offering an amendment. He said for all those reasons, he
thinks Amendment 1 is seeking a problem that does not exist,
thus he urged a "no" vote on Amendment 1.
2:05:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1, on page 2, line 9, [as numbered on the hardcopy of
Amendment 1, in the paragraph that is the proposed new
subsection (d) to AS 08.08.050], as follows:
Between "each judicial district" and ", as allocated
under"
Insert ", subject to a minimum number of board members
from each judicial district"
2:05:51 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN objected.
2:06:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the proposed Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 would ensure the board maintains the
ability to ensure there is some level of representation from
each judicial district. He said his intent is not to have the
board become "lopsided."
2:07:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked whether Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 would "solve" the concerns voiced by the Alaska Bar
Association representatives.
2:07:27 PM
MS. BAILEY replied, "Again, I don't think an amendment is
necessary." She reiterated that the number of attorneys in each
district has been consistent over the last 20 years, so she does
not think "a proportional response" is needed at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA clarified he was asking about Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, which would ensure proportionality,
and he offered his understanding that that speaks directly to
Ms. Bailey's concern.
2:08:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN posited that Ms. Bailey had answered in stating
that the amendment is not necessary because the existing
structure works.
2:08:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN maintained his objection. He noted that all
members present were physically in the committee room [for
consideration of who could be called on to vote].
2:08:58 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kurka, Vance, and
Eastman voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
Representatives Drummond, Snyder, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman
voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-4.
2:09:54 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Kurka, and
Vance voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Kreiss-
Tomkins, Drummond, Snyder, and Claman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-4.
2:10:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 32-
LS0592\A.2, Fisher, 3/23/21, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "2029"
Insert "2025"
2:10:51 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:10 p.m. to 2:11 p.m.
2:11:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that simultaneously, the committee had
taken the at-ease as Representative Snyder was objecting to
Amendment 2.
2:12:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER confirmed, "yes."
2:12:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA spoke to Amendment 2. He said he thinks
eight years is a long time to go between audits and four would
be better.
2:13:03 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN sought to discover the timing of sunsets on this
matter historically.
2:13:41 PM
MS. BAILEY listed the last audits as having occurred July 2012,
November 2008, and November 2006. She offered her understanding
that switching the audits to eight-year intervals was because
"doing a legislative audit every so often was actually taxing on
both legislative staff and on Bar staff."
2:14:29 PM
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
offered her understanding that up until 2006 "the maximum
allowed for in statute" was four years. She asked the committee
to keep that in mind while making comparisons.
2:14:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered her understanding that Ms.
Bailey had said it was four years between 2006 and the following
audit.
MS. CURTIS offered her understanding that it was "four, six,
eight." She stated that numerous factors can be weighed when
considering a recommended term of extension. The most important
is whether the board is serving the public's interest and
whether it should be extended. She said she also considers the
division's workload. In addition to the mandated audits for
that which is in statute, the division also does the financial
audit of the state and the state's federal single audit.
Further, the division performs special audits at the request of
the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. There are limited
resources. She recommended scheduling an audit every eight
years, because reducing that interval means that the division
will [expend] additional resources "earlier on" and have fewer
resources available to do other things at the request of the
legislature. She said there is a cost to the legislature for an
audit. She relayed that the cost of auditing "a fairly clean
board" can run between 350 and 550 hours at a current rate of
$80 an hour. In response to a follow-up question, she said
there is no average in terms of the length of an audit.
2:17:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND reflected that Ms. Curtis was saying
that the length between audits depends on the division's
finding; for a board with a lot of issues, the division would
recommend a shorter period before the next audit took place; and
with no issues with the association in question, Ms. Curtis is
recommending the eight-year interval. She asked if that was the
maximum number of years.
2:18:21 PM
MS. CURTIS responded that eight years is "the maximum allowed
for in statute." In response to Representative Drummond's
summarization, she explained that it is not so "cut and dried."
She said if she knows the division will be doing a lot of audits
in eight years, she may recommend seven years, for example; the
timing is influenced by the management of the division's
projects.
2:19:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the Alaska Bar Association is run under
supervision of the [Alaska] Supreme Court, which he speculated
is one reason why "they have a long history of doing very well
on the audits and running a pretty tight ship." He said he
thinks the eight-year interval recommended by the Legislative
Audit Division is reasonable; therefore, he does not support
Amendment 2.
2:19:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA said he still thinks eight years is a long
time. He expressed appreciation for the remarks made by Ms.
Curtis, but remarked on the responsibility legislators have to
their constituents and maintained his support for returning to
four years.
2:20:17 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kurka, and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Snyder,
Drummond, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2
failed to be adopted by a vote of 3-3.
2:21:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed appreciation for the work the
association has done with the legislature regarding the audit
and encouraged updates for the legislature when the remaining
items in the audit are addressed.
2:22:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN relayed his appreciation for the work of
the association and the audit, and he stated his support for HB
109.
2:22:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to report HB 109 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 109 was reported out of the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 62-MARRIAGE WITNESSES
2:23:05 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 62, "An Act relating to solemnization of
marriage."
2:23:22 PM
SOPHIE JONAS, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 62 on behalf of Representative Claman,
prime sponsor. She paraphrased the sponsor statement [included
in the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
At present, during the solemnization of marriage,
couples must assent to the marriage in the presence of
each other, the person solemnizing the marriage, and
at least two additional witnesses. Afterward, all
parties must sign the marriage certificates. House
Bill 62 would eliminate the requirements of any
additional witnesses at the marriage solemnization and
the signatures of these witnesses on marriage
certificates in an effort to help support Alaska's
destination wedding industry while preserving the
integrity of marriage solemnizations.
Alaska is one of 20 states that require two wedding
witnessesthe upper limit of wedding witness
requirements nationwide. Twenty-four states and the
District of Columbia do not require wedding witnesses
at all. Wedding witnesses played a more critical role
in past centuries when record keeping was less
automated. Witnesses could be contacted to verify the
wedding had taken place in the event that records were
damaged or missing. Today, however, the role of a
wedding witness is ceremonial. In Alaska, while the
person solemnizing the marriage must meet certain
criteria, no form of witness verification (proof of
identification, language comprehension, address
validation, etc.) is required. HB 62 would allow
Alaska to compete with states like Hawaii and Florida,
which require no wedding witnesses and lead the nation
in destination weddings.
Destination weddings are a growing business in Alaska,
especially as couples opt for small, intimate
ceremonies rather than large ones due to risks
associated with COVID-19. But the requirement of two
wedding witnesses makes Alaska a less attractive
location for many who travel from farther away or who
do not want the financial burden of a larger wedding.
Couples who come to the state without their own
witnesses are tasked with finding strangers to witness
their wedding. The burden of supplying these witnesses
often falls to those who work in Alaska's wedding
industry who ask friends and family to witness the
weddings of their out-of-town clients. Especially
during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is hard for out-of-
state couples to find two witnesses and couples may be
reluctant to have strangers as their wedding
witnesses. The additional witness requirement can also
place an increased financial burden on the couple. For
example, for a remote location wedding, such as a
glacier, the couple must pay extra seating costs to
transport the witnesses.
At present, destination weddings bring in an estimated
$1 million in revenue to Alaska in the form of roughly
500 destination weddings a year. This revenue figure
doesn't consider the fact that more than 90% of the
out-of-state couples who come to Alaska to get married
stay for days and weeks to explore our great state.
The resulting benefit to Alaska's tourism industry is
substantial.
2:25:48 PM
MS JONAS covered the sectional analysis [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1 AS 25.05.301. Form of solemnization.
Eliminates requirement of two witnesses at a marriage
solemnization ceremony.
Section 2 AS 25.05.321. Certificates. Eliminates
requirement of the signatures of two witnesses on
marriage certificates.
Section 3 AS 25.05.361. Unlawful solemnization of
marriage. Deletes language to conform with changes
made in section 1 of the bill.
Section 4 AS 25.05.041. Matters insufficient to render
marriage voidable. Repeals subsections (a)(3) and
(a)(5) to conform with changes made in section 1 of
the bill.
2:26:39 PM
MS. JONAS played a "testimonial video" [provided by upcoming
testifier, Joe Connelly].
2:32:17 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:32 p.m.
2:32:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened invited testimony.
2:32:55 PM
CIAN MULHERN, Celtic Ministries, stated that he has performed
weddings for over 21 years in many states, quite a few of which
do not require witnesses. He emphasized that the presence of
witnesses does not influence the seriousness with which a couple
takes their vows. He said witnesses do not make a wedding more
legitimate, and he questioned who is to determine whether
witnesses are competent.
2:35:05 PM
JOE CONNELLY, Owner, testified in support of HB 62. He said HB
62 would change only the requirement for witnesses; it would not
affect the definition of sanctity of marriage. He said it
merely would make it easier for two people to commit to each
other without "government forcing random strangers into their
ceremony." He said HB 62 would not make a wedding ceremony more
serious or lead to higher divorce rates. He said it would make
it easier for people to get married, and he spoke about the
locales in Alaska where he has photographed weddings. Often
people want a private ceremony, he remarked. He opined, "We
should encourage these small destination weddings and the
tourist dollars that follow." Florida and Hawai'i, with the
highest destination weddings, do not require witnesses; 30
states in total do not, he remarked.
2:38:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered her understanding that Mr.
Connelly had provided the video and asked him to confirm that
one of the couples in the video had to hold their ceremony in
the helicopter office rather than the destination to which they
had hired the helicopter to go.
2:38:46 PM
MR. CONNELLY confirmed that the legal part of the ceremony had
taken place in the helicopter hanger office [in order for two
witnesses to be present], then the couple had the spiritual part
of the ceremony on the glacier. In response to a follow-up
question, he explained that other than the couple, the others on
the helicopter were himself, as photographer, and the pilot, who
obtained a special one-day license to marry the couple.
2:40:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA indicated that he had not realized [the
requirement to have two witnesses] was an impediment. He asked
for clarification regarding witnesses, timing, and location.
2:41:38 PM
MR. CONNELLY emphasized that the issue is not about where the
witnesses are but that there must be two witnesses separate from
the officiant. In response to a follow-up question, he
confirmed that under Alaska law, the officiant cannot be
considered one of the two required witnesses. He argued that
the officiant is sufficient, and he reiterated that already 30
states do not require the two witnesses.
2:44:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recollected having heard testimony from
those who said there have been ceremonies where the officiant
served as one of the two witnesses.
MR. CONNELLY interjected, "Not in Alaska."
2:44:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he registered the objection to two
witnesses being present at the ceremony but asked whether there
was objection to "the documentation having two witnesses after
the fact."
2:45:41 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Representative Eastman was suggesting
an amendment such that a couple could get married on a glacier
without the witnesses, and then those witnesses would sign
afterward in recognition that the newlyweds really had wanted to
get married.
2:46:12 PM
REPRESENTAIVE EASTMAN described the signing of a marriage
license as "official and formal" and suggested that even when
that happens separate from a marriage ceremony, "there might
still be utility in maintaining in statute or requirement that
that document, whenever it's signed," has two witnesses.
2:46:57 PM
MR. CONNELLY responded that when he first envisioned the
proposed legislation and brought the idea to Representative
Claman, his initial thought was to leave the marriage license as
is. He explained that currently a marriage license has two
blank spaces on it for witness signatures. Those spaces could
be left for those who want witnesses to sign but be left blank
for those who do not. Either license, signed or unsigned, would
be legal and processed by the state.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that makes sense and he would
support it, but his question pertains to "a little bit after
that." He asked, "Is there any reason that we wouldn't require,
you know, when you're going to get ... your marriage license
document, that ... your signature at that point should not be
witnessed?"
MR. CONNELLY responded that prior to COVID-19, either the bride
or groom would pick up the marriage license from the Bureau of
Vital Records, where he or she would sign it; the other person
would sign in front of the marriage officiant. He said that
served as a check. He said the requirement for two witnesses on
top of that is antiquated and stems from a time in the past when
the church in England was not able to "properly maintain
documents." Now, Mr. Connelly proffered, people typically take
photos with a mobile phone. He said anyone could write any
name, even fictitious, on the witness line of the certificate,
because there is "no auditing" or "verification of the people
who are actually listed on the marriage license." He said it is
probably best to have the officiant, who was certainly a witness
to the marriage, sign the document.
2:50:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, having heard this legislation in
two legislatures and two committees, opined that [requiring two
witness signatures] is one of the most stupid things he has ever
heard state government do. He said the law complicates people's
lives and "the sooner we can dispense with this and get rid of
this requirement, the better."
2:51:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked about the increase in cost to take
two extra people on a helicopter [to serve as witnesses during a
wedding in a remote location].
2:52:06 PM
MR. CONNELLY confirmed the cost is significantly more and the
result is sometimes couples will cancel, which means less
revenue. He suggested that some go ahead with the wedding
without the witnesses, who afterward sign "Donald Duck or
something on the license, because nobody checks it anyways." In
response to a request for specific costs, he offered that a
four-seater helicopter could cost $1,500 and a 6-seater could
cost $3,000, so basically double the cost for a bigger
helicopter.
2:54:37 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 62. After
ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, he
closed public testimony.
2:55:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said, "I'm one of those who feels that the
two witnesses is highly significant." She drew attention to a
sentence beginning on page 1, line 10, of HB 62, which read:
"At the time of the ceremony, the person solemnizing the
marriage shall complete the certification on the original
marriage certificate." She said she thinks that is the
difficulty, that the witnesses have to be there during the
ceremony to make the certificate fully legal. She then
paraphrased [the third paragraph from "Solemnization Law and
Legal Definition"], from USLegal.com, which read as follows:
Similarly, in the solemnization of marriage, no
particular form is required except that the parties
must declare in the presence of the judge, minister or
magistrate, and the attending witnesses, that they
take each other as husband and wife. In every case
there shall be at least two witnesses present besides
the person performing the ceremony.[ Barnett v.
Hudspeth, 211 Cal. App. 2d 310 (Cal. App. 1st Dist.
1962)]
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE suggested the challenge is separating a
religious ceremony [from] the legal action of the two witnesses,
who, "after a ceremony can say, 'Do you take each other as
husband and wife?' in front two witnesses, and they say, 'Yes,
yes we do.'" She said she thinks that could fulfill the legal
requirement. She said she thinks amending line 10 would serve
this purpose.
2:57:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 62 was held over.
2:59:48 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 109 v. A 2.22.2021.PDF |
HJUD 3/22/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 109 |
| HB 109 Sponsor Statement v. A 3.20.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 109 |
| HB 109 Additional Document - A Sunset Review of the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association 6.9.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 109 |
| HB 109 Statement of Zero Fiscal Impact 3.21.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 109 |
| HB 109 v. A Amendments #1-2 HJUD 3.24.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 109 |
| HB 109 v. A Amendments #1-2 HJUD Final Votes 3.24.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 109 |
| HB 62 v. A 2.18.2021.PDF |
HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 62 |
| HB 62 Sponsor Statement v. A 2.23.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM HSTA 2/25/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 62 |
| HB 62 Sectional Analysis v. A 2.23.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM HSTA 2/25/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 62 |
| HB 62 Fiscal Note DHSS-BVS 2.19.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/31/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 62 |
| HB 57 v. B 2.18.2021.PDF |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Sponsor Statement 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Sectional Analysis v. B 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - OMB Letter 7.12.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - CBR Sweep Breakdown by Fund - LFD March 2020 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - AEA Memo on PCE Sweep 8.24.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - Hickel v. Cowper May 27, 1994 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - Legislative Finance Outline of AS 37.10.420 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - Legislative Research Memo GF Definitions 9.1.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - FY19 Single Audit - Finding No. 2019-089 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - FY20 CAFR General Fund Accounts 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 PowerPoint Presentation 3.10.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Statement of Zero Fiscal Impact 3.6.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |