Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/12/2021 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 | |
| HB116 | |
| HB66 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 116 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 12, 2021
1:04 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
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Chris Tuck
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 116
"An Act relating to care of juveniles and to juvenile justice;
relating to employment of juvenile probation officers by the
Department of Health and Social Services; relating to terms used
in juvenile justice; relating to mandatory reporters of child
abuse or neglect; relating to sexual assault in the third
degree; relating to sexual assault in the fourth degree;
repealing a requirement for administrative revocation of a
minor's driver's license, permit, privilege to drive, or
privilege to obtain a license for consumption or possession of
alcohol or drugs; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 66
"An Act relating to voting, voter qualifications, and voter
registration; relating to poll watchers; relating to absentee
ballots and questioned ballots; relating to election worker
compensation; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 116
SHORT TITLE: JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SPOHNHOLZ
02/24/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/21 (H) HSS, JUD
04/09/21 (H) HSS REFERRAL MOVED TO AFTER JUD
04/09/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/12/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 66
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TUCK
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, JUD
04/09/21 (H) STA REFERRAL MOVED TO AFTER JUD
04/09/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/12/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHOHNOLZ
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, provided information and
answered questions during the hearing on HB 116.
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for HB 116
on behalf of Representative Spohnholz, prime sponsor.
TRACEY DOMPELING, Director
Division of Juvenile Justice
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
hearing on HB 116.
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Service Program Officer
Division of Juvenile Justice
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
116.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
116.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced HB 66.
PADDY MCGUIRE
Harstine Island, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 66.
AMBER MCREYNOLDS, Chief Executive Officer
National Vote at Home Institute
Denver, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
66.
KENDRA KLOSTER, Executive Director
Native Peoples Action Community Fund
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
66.
JOEL HANSON
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 66.
TERRI LYONS
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 66.
DOUG WOODBY
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 66.
LOREN PETERSON, Chairman & President
Azachorok Incorporated
Anchorage Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 66.
CELESTE HODGE GROWDEN,
President & Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Black Caucus;
Executive Vice President
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 66.
JESSICA LINDMAN
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 66.
RICK PHILIPS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 66.
ALEX KOPLIN, Member
Kenai Peninsula Votes
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 66.
CHARLES MCKEE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 66.
CASSIE LAWVER
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 66.
JOHN SONIN
Douglas, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 66.
MIKE COONS
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 66.
ANNETTE ALFONSI
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 66.
BERT HOUGHTALING
Big Lake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 66.
NICK MOE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 66.
EVAN ANDERSON, Director of Civic Engagement
Alaska Center Education Fund
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 66.
REBECCA MOORE
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 66.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:01 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives Drummond, Kreiss-
Tomkins, Vance, Snyder (via teleconference), and Claman were
present at the call to order. Representatives Kurka and Eastman
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 116-JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT
[Contains discussion of HB 105]
1:04:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 116,
"An Act relating to care of juveniles and to juvenile justice;
relating to employment of juvenile probation officers by the
Department of Health and Social Services; relating to terms used
in juvenile justice; relating to mandatory reporters of child
abuse or neglect; relating to sexual assault in the third
degree; relating to sexual assault in the fourth degree;
repealing a requirement for administrative revocation of a
minor's driver's license, permit, privilege to drive, or
privilege to obtain a license for consumption or possession of
alcohol or drugs; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR CLAMAN recalled to the committee that the bill had been
previously introduced during the Thirtieth and the Thirty-First
Alaska State Legislatures.
1:05:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHOHNOLZ, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, explained that HB 116 would accomplish three main
objectives: close a loophole pertaining to sexual abuse of a
minor; update terminology that defines and references the
definition of juvenile justice facilities and staff; and codify
the Division of Juvenile Justice's (DJJ) best practices.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ paraphrased from the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation included]:
In 2013, Daniel Carey, staff at a Division of Juvenile
Justice (DJJ) facility, engaged in a sexual
relationship with a 17-year-old girl he had previously
supervised at work. The State of Alaska
sought conviction of Mr. Carey for sexual abuse of a
minor. However, the court found that DJJ
staff are not explicitly listed as being in a
"position of authority" under AS 11.41.470(5). Mr.
Carey was acquitted in 2017 due to this finding.
HB 116 closes this loophole. If such inappropriate
behavior were to occur again with youth in their
custody, DJJ staff could be prosecuted for the offense
of sexual abuse of a minor.
In addition, HB 116 updates terminology in state
statute referring to facilities operated by DJJ and
clarifies the authorities and responsibilities of DJJ
staff. HB 116 does not substantively change DJJ
operations. The updated definitions, clarifications,
and codified best practices will:
? provide clarity for law enforcement;
? give the division the authority needed to
oversee juvenile cases in court, and;
? close a loophole for sexual abuse of a minor in
the 2nd degree as exhibited by the Carey case in 2017.
HB 116 enhances DJJ's ability to operate with clear
policies and regulations and, codifies best practices,
and strengthens protections against the sexual abuse
youth in their custody to ensure safe and secure
treatment of juveniles in Alaska.
1:07:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ explained that HB 116 would update
language that describes the division's facilities, which, in
current statute, has been determined to be outdated, inaccurate,
or obsolete. She added that the passage of HB 116 would result
in codification of best practices within the division that had
been determined not to reflect the authority nor the standard
operations of the division. She explained that HB 116 would add
division staff and probation officers to the list of mandatory
reporters of child abuse and neglect, would clarify that
probation officers would have the authority to file amended
petitions on behalf of youth. She added that the bill would add
language to permit DJJ to disclose confidential information
related to an offense. She offered that HB 116 would permit the
division to better complete its mission.
1:08:47 PM
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Spohnholz, prime
sponsor of HB 116, directed attention to the presentation
included in the committee packet entitled "HB 116 PowerPoint
Presentation 4.12.2021". She explained that slide 2 listed the
definitions in Section 6 of the bill that would clarify that
division staff are in a position of authority of a minor and
referred to the acquittal that was referenced by the bill's
sponsor. She explained that slides 3 [and 4] illustrate a list
of definitions that would be changed or repealed with the
passage of HB 116, and [slide 5] illustrates additional
definitions that would be amended by HB 116. She explained the
reason for the change of definition from "youth counselors" to
"juvenile probation officers" was because the former position
title had not been in use since 2003. She added that Section 3
of the bill would repeal the definition for juvenile probation
officers and stated that, currently, it inaccurately defines the
position and limits the officers to only those in custody
between the ages of 18 and 19. She added that a new definition
in Section 26 would expand the age range up to 21 years,
reflecting current practices.
1:11:45 PM
MS. HOLLAND directed attention back to slide 4 in the
presentation which illustrated the repeal of several outdated
definitions as listed for added accuracy and consistency
throughout the statute. She directed attention to slide 5,
highlighting the change in Section 30 of HB 116 to amend the
definition of "minor" to more accurately reflect the age of
individuals in custody of the division that may exceed the age
of 18. She explained that the definition of "juvenile detention
facility" is currently limiting a facility to separate quarters
in a city jail, and that some communities do not have adequate
sight and sound separation of facilities as federally required
between adult and youth detention areas.
1:13:45 PM
MS. HOLLAND explained that the new definitions depicted on slide
6 were a change from "institutions" to "facilities" and that the
division had advocated to the change of definition to more
accurately reflect the facilities which they operate. She noted
that Section 31 of the bill would create a new definition for
"Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Area" to more accurately
reflect various communities that do not maintain adequate
juvenile facilities. She highlighted Section 26 of the bill,
which would create a new definition for "juvenile probation
officers" for which one does not currently exist. She drew
attention to slide 7, which depicts the alignment of statute
with the best practices within the division. She said Section
5clarifies that employees if juvenile treatment institutions and
juvenile probation officers qualify as legal guardians for those
youth committed into their custody. She added that Sections 16
and 18 would provide officers with authority to file amended and
supplemental petitions. She noted that Sections 24 and 25 would
clarify that the authority to arrest and detain minors would
rest with juvenile, not adult, probation officers.
1:16:38 PM
MS. HOLLAND referenced slide 8, which illustrated that Section
27 would add "secure residential psychiatric treatment centers"
to the list of facilities from which, when a juvenile is
released, victims would receive notification, adding that
current statute limits the notification requirements to only the
release of those in DJJ facilities. She noted that Section 28
would correct language authorizing the department to disclose
confidential information in cases that have been adjudicated.
She noted that Section 40 would add juvenile probation officers,
DJJ office staff, and staff of juvenile facilities to the list
of mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect. Section 41
would repeal revocation of juvenile driver licenses for offenses
involving a controlled substance that were handled informally by
the division; the proposed legislation would not provide that
youth driver licenses cannot be revoked, rather, the division
would address the matters in the district courts.
1:18:09 PM
MS. HOLLAND drew attention to slide 9, which summarized the
three key changes that would occur under HB 116: closing a
loophole regarding the sexual abuse of minors; updating terms
and definitions pertaining to DJJ facilities and staff; and
codifying best practices to improve the division's ability to
complete its mission.
1:18:58 PM
TRACEY DOMPELING, Director, Division of Juvenile Justice,
Department of Health and Social Services, stated that HB 116
would address long identified and newly emerging statutory
issues related to juvenile justice. She stated that HB 116 had
been submitted at the request of the division. She reiterated
that previous versions of the bill had been submitted and it is
similar in content to House Bill 133, which passed out of
committee during the Thirty-First Alaska State Legislature. She
explained that the statutes had been drafted approximately 20
years prior, when the division had been created as a separate
division within the department. She offered that, while most of
the bill contains conforming language, the definitions have a
direct impact on the operations of the division and the duties
and authority of its staff.
1:21:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that during a hearing on HB 105, matters
related to the sight and sound [separation] requirements had
been discussed, and he asked whether there exists overlap
between the two proposed bills, and how the committee should
proceed should any overlap exist.
1:22:04 PM
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Service Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social Services,
confirmed that there exists overlap in a couple of Sections in
both bills, but that the language is not in conflict. He stated
that [HB 116] was conceived in response to changes in federal
law pertaining to holding minors in custody. He added that HB
105 did not mirror the changes proposed in HB 116 intentionally.
He suggested that the bills were not in conflict; however, the
division would monitor the progression of both bills and attend
to any issues that may arise and work with the legislature in
order to align both bills. He added that the term "juvenile
detention home" would remain in statute should HB 105 pass.
1:23:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the provisions in HB 105 appeared in
HB 116.
1:23:47 PM
MR. DAVIDSON answered that the changes proposed in HB 116 do not
appear in HB 105. He added that HB 105 corrects alignment with
federal laws.
1:24:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated his understanding to be that the bills
pertained to one another topically but that both bills would
effect separate, but related, outcomes.
1:24:37 PM
MR. DAVIDSON stated his agreement with Chair Claman's statement.
1:25:02 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to Section 41 pertaining to driver license
revocation involving substance abuse charges delegated by the
district courts, and asked whether it was the intention to
direct these cases to district court, rather than superior
court.
1:25:57 PM
MR. DAVIDSON offered background information related to
misconduct involving controlled substances among minors and
effects of past legislation on the ability for DJJ to advocate
for revocation of a minor's driver license.
1:28:03 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that his question pertained more to the
jurisdiction of juvenile delinquents between superior court and
district court. He asked how juvenile delinquency is within
district court jurisdiction now, and what effect on jurisdiction
HB 116 would have on defendants under the age of 18, if passed.
1:28:47 PM
MR. DAVIDSON answered that drug offenses would not be within the
jurisdiction of district court for minors, but that underage
drinking offenses were currently under the jurisdiction of
district court. He added that the district court has the
privilege of requesting revocation of driver licenses under
another title.
1:29:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether juveniles were treated as non-
juveniles in the cases of underage drinking, in that they were
identified in [district] court [records].
1:29:48 PM
MR. DAVIDSON stated that in 2016, there passed legislation that
made those cases not available in CourtView. He referred Chair
Claman to Ms. Meade to provide additional information on that
legislation.
1:30:12 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Meade to offer clarification on juvenile
jurisdiction pertinent to cases of underage drinking.
1:30:23 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Office of the Administrative
Director, Alaska Court System, stated that under Title 47,
juveniles charged with minor consuming are not treated as a
juvenile, they are treated as an adult. She drew a comparison
to the offense as akin to a traffic ticket, which goes to
district court, not superior court. She said the district court
does not revoke driver licenses for minor consuming; but rather
the defendant, if convicted, is imposed with a fine. She added
that the court may revoke driver licenses for possession of a
controlled substance or the illegal use or possession of a
firearm. She confirmed the chairman's earlier statement that
some of those charges would be within the jurisdiction of the
superior court as correct.
1:31:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the charges of possession of a
controlled substance or the illegal possession or use of a
firearm could be brought in district court.
1:32:16 PM
MS. MEADE stated her belief that those charges would be in the
jurisdiction of superior court, not district court.
1:32:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether HB 116 would change what types of
charges could be brought in juvenile court.
1:32:47 PM
MS. MEADE offered her understanding that the proposed bill would
not affect jurisdiction of charges related to controlled
substances for minors.
1:33:02 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the bill, if passed, would pertain
only to minor consumption of alcohol.
1:33:19 PM
MR. DAVIDSON stated that HB 116 would not make any changes to
jurisdiction. He offered that the referral of any controlled
substance or weapons charges to the division would be in the
jurisdiction of superior court, and that HB 116 would address
the matter of driver's license revocation in cases involving
minor consumption.
1:34:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, referring to Sections 24 and 25, asked
to what extent HB 116 would change the ability for adult
probation officers to aid in the arrest of minors.
1:34:46 PM
MS. DOMPELING answered that Department of Corrections adult
probation officers do not have the authority to intervene on
juvenile arrests that have been referred to the Department of
Health and Social Services, Division of Juvenile Justice.
1:35:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for confirmation that the bill
would not have any impact on the authority of adult probation
officers.
1:35:25 PM
MS. DOMPLING confirmed this as correct.
1:35:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Section 28 and asked who has
access to the confidential information currently in statute, and
how the passage of HB 116 would change that.
1:36:04 PM
MR. DAVIDSON cited the existing statute 47.12.135(c) and pointed
out a lack of alignment with Sections (a), (b), and (c). He
offered that the proposed language would align the language to
the timing of when information could be released to the public;
specifically, the information can be publicly released after
adjudication. He added that the proposed language would allow
for the matter that was adjudicated - the defendant's conviction
- to be released to the public, not the original charge or
allegations filed in the first petition.
1:37:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked to whom the division would be
authorized to release information prior to adjudication with the
passage of HB 116.
1:38:17 PM
MS. DOMPELING stated that the bill would provide that
information only be released to an inquiring entity for a
specific juvenile after adjudication.
1:39:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered a scenario wherein a child is
alleged to have committed an offense, and he asked whether a
parent or guardian would be allowed access to the information of
the allegations deemed confidential.
1:39:36 PM
MS. DOMPELING explained that, in the example described by
Representative Eastman, a parent or guardian would be a party to
the hearing and would have access, but not individual
representation, at the actions and hearings pertaining to the
allegations. She added that a parent or guardian would have
access to confidential information such as probable cause.
1:40:50 PM
MS. HOLLAND added that HB 116 would not change what information
would or will be disclosed; rather, it would clarify who could
receive such information.
1:41:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether confidential information
would be allowed to be released to anyone who is not party to
such charges, prior to adjudication.
1:42:09 PM
MR. DAVIDSON explained that those who are party to a case, such
as the victim, parents, and attorneys, will have access to
confidential information throughout the case. He added that
there exist provisions that allow the division to share
confidential information with entities such as insurance
companies and other law enforcement agencies for continuing
investigations. He noted that juveniles in the system will
often receive referrals for services prior to or in lieu of
adjudication, and that some confidential information could be
shared with service agencies involved with the juvenile as part
of his/her delinquency proceeding.
1:43:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that HB 105 was currently under
consideration by the House Health and Social Services Standing
Committee and encouraged that any overlapping language between
HB 105 and HB 116 be taken into consideration early in the
process for consistency and conformity.
1:44:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that the order of referral of the bills
had resulted in the House Judiciary Standing Committee hearing
HB 105 prior to that of the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee. He suggested that the committee compare HB
105 and HB 116 to confirm the division staff's claims that the
language in both bills is not in conflict.
1:45:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE opined that the sponsor's intent would be
to create consistency among definitions and encouraged the
committee to scrutinize each bill for consistency. She
expressed her concern of the bill having taken so long to gain
passage, and she asked the sponsor to provide some history on
the bill.
1:46:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ expressed her belief that the bill
would have passed in the prior legislative session. She added
that a companion bill had been taken into consideration by the
Senate. She offered that there exist other legislative
priorities that may take precedence, and that the passage of
this bill is subject to those priorities. She added that HB 116
is a long and complex bill.
1:47:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Section 30 of the sectional
analysis [included in the committee packet] regarding the
definition of a minor. He asked how broad in scope the change
in definition of a minor would be under HB 116 and what other
statutes the change of definition might affect.
1:48:37 PM
MS. DOMPELING responded by offering some historical background.
She said previously if a minor committed a crime and the crime
was not discovered until after the individual turned 18, the
division did not have jurisdiction. There occurred a change in
statute to enable jurisdiction to petition an individual -
especially in serious cases such as those involving restitution
- in such cases where the individual is over the age of 18 and
the offense was committed prior to his/her eighteenth birthday.
She expressed her opinion that under HB 116, the change of
definition would apply only to the specific chapter under
statute.
1:50:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his understanding that an
individual under the age of 18 is traditionally referred to as a
minor and asked whether anyone had evaluated the impacts within
the chapter that a change to the definition of "minor" would
bring [should HB 116 pass].
1:51:04 PM
MR. DAVIDSON stated that the change of definition would be a
change to the delinquency statute. He said he could not speak
to the impacts that a change of definition would have on other
statutes but expressed that it was not intended that the
definitions of other statutes would be impacted.
1:53:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN offered that, due to the language in the bill
changing the definition in Title 4, chapter 12, which deals with
delinquent minors, the change would only apply to the
definitions contained therein.
1:53:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ, in response to Representative Vance's
earlier question regarding a previous version of the bill,
clarified that it had been passed by the House and, prior to
adjournment, the bill had been heard and passed out of the
Senate Health and Social Services Standing Committee and had
been referred to Senate Judiciary Standing Committee as the last
committee of referral.
1:54:23 PM
MR. DAVIDSON offered to provide to the committee a comparative
analysis between HB 116 and HB 105.
1:55:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER, as co-chair of the House Health and
Social Services Standing Committee requested that the division's
comparative analysis be provided to that committee for its
consideration of HB 105.
1:55:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 116. After
ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, he
closed public testimony.
1:56:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 116 was held over.
HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
[Contains discussion of SB 39]
1:56:24 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 66,
"An Act relating to voting, voter qualifications, and voter
registration; relating to poll watchers; relating to absentee
ballots and questioned ballots; relating to election worker
compensation; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR CLAMAN recalled that, during the Thirtieth Alaska State
Legislature, the House Judiciary Standing Committee had held a
hearing on a previous version of HB 66 in April 2017, and the
bill had been moved from committee. He added that items such as
eliminating the witness requirement for absentee ballots, pay
increases for workers, and "curing" provisions may not have been
part of the previous version of the bill.
1:57:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 66. Representative Tuck stated that 2020
was a year that exemplified safe and secure elections in Alaska
and the other 49 states. He stated that it had been reported
that the 2020 election was one of the most secure elections in
history. He referenced reports made by the United States law
enforcement and intelligence communities concluding that no
evidence of significant voter fraud had occurred. He cited a
publication by the Brookings Institute, entitled "It's Official-
The Election Was Secure." He stated that in the last election,
more votes than ever had been cast: 361,000 out of 599,687
eligible Alaskan voters cast a ballot. He suggested that voters
were allowed to vote by mail safely and conveniently, despite
the pandemic. He stated that there were two primary goals for
the passage of HB 66; the first would be to allow voters to opt
to vote by mail in perpetuity until an election is missed, and
the second would be to expand access to voting and modernize
elections by authorizing same-day voter registration and allow
for notification and opportunity to cure any ballot's technical
issues found. He added that the bill would allow for absentee
ballots to be counted as they are received rather than awaiting
the polls closing to begin counting.
1:59:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that the higher volume of absentee
voting had had a more significant impact on the recent election
than on prior elections. He explained that HB 66 also would
seek to clarify terminology and eliminate confusion between
early voting and in-person absentee voting among different
locations in the state. Further, the bill would aid in creating
consistent polling locations, provide that candidates and groups
sponsoring ballot initiatives be allowed observers at the polls,
and provide for paid postage on absentee ballots.
Representative Tuck added that, currently, a voter may request
to vote absentee in an election, and that HB 66 would provide an
option to voters to choose to vote by absentee ballot for all
future elections. He suggested that the passage of HB 66 would
help to create a more equitable accessible voting system by
putting voters first and ensuring that every Alaskan is entitled
to one vote.
2:03:44 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the committee would hear invited
testimony.
2:04:12 PM
PADDY MCGUIRE offered a brief history of his background and
employment. He endorsed HB 66 as a significant step forward in
correcting issues in Alaska law that would make voting from home
easier and more accessible. He opined that, following the 2020
election, public sentiment has risen in favor of being able to
vote from home. He offered his opinion based on experience that
the provisions of HB 66 have been successfully adopted
elsewhere. He stated that allowing voters to choose to vote
absentee for future elections would reduce the burden on
election administrators when compared to administering repeat
requests for absentee voting. He stated that, in 1998, the
State of Oregon had adopted vote by mail, and it followed that
70 percent of voters chose to become permanent absentee voters.
He added that the State of Washington introduced same-day voter
registration and, while not without some technical difficulties,
voters were able to cast a ballot rather than be turned away.
He added that postage and cure remedies adopted by the State of
Washington had been popular among voters, and increased security
by detecting fraud by means of the cure process.
2:07:25 PM
MR. MCGUIRE imparted that the State of Washington begins
tallying ballots as soon as they are received and has penalties
in place to prohibit revealing results early. He added that pay
to election workers in his jurisdiction ranges from $15-18 per
hour and expressed his surprise that Alaska election workers
were not paid at or above the same rate and expressed his belief
that the State of Washington's higher wage had increased
employee retention.
2:09:01 PM
AMBER MCREYNOLDS, Chief Executive Officer of the National Vote
at Home Institute, described the institute as a national, non-
partisan, non-profit organization that works on expanding access
to vote at home and on improving elections systems overall. She
stated that the organization's values are fairness,
accessibility, security, transparency, equity, and reliability
in elections systems. She endorsed HB 66 on behalf of the
organization. She recalled her experience as an election
official in the State of Colorado, where vote by mail had been
expanded and stated that, over time, more voters chose to use
the vote by mail option, in record numbers. She added that HB
66 would expand voter choice to either vote in advance of
election day or on election day.
2:12:09 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, Executive Director, Native Peoples Action (NPA)
and Native Peoples Action Community Fund (NPACF) testified in
support of HB 66. She explained that the two sister
organizations that she represents are indigenous, non-profit
organizations focused on protecting traditional [Native] ways of
life by providing Alaska Native communities with a voice at all
levels of policymaking. She explained that her advocacy for
voting reform has evolved as more is learned about voting issues
in Alaska.
MS. KLOSTER said that NPACF had hired fifteen rural voter
engagement specialists during the 2020 election and had sent out
more than 57,000 absentee voting applications in response to
community concerns voiced around COVID-19. She shared NPACF's
summation of voter concerns that had been identified as barriers
to voting including insufficient ice on the river prohibiting
travel to polls, unfulfilled online requests to receive absentee
ballots, communities in lockdown due to COVID-19, and post
office closures and voters' inability to obtain postage to vote
absentee.
2:15:40 PM
MS. KLOSTER spoke in favor of ballot curing. She encouraged the
committee to seek additional solutions to eliminate barriers to
voting, and she expressed her opinion that HB 66 is a good start
to addressing some of the barriers. She encouraged additional
outreach and voter education efforts, including diversity in
languages for election education efforts.
2:18:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA referred to page 1, line 11, of HB 66 and
asked whether the bill would allow for adequate time and process
to verify citizenship [of voters seeking registration].
2:19:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that the Alaska State Constitution
prescribes a 30-day residency requirement that HB 66 would not
circumvent. He exemplified situations such as in which a
resident changed districts or in which a voter sought new
registration, he/she would be subject to a question ballot, a
special needs ballot, or an in-person absentee ballot. He
explained that all three ballot types are examined for voter
eligibility by the same process. He noted that language in
Section 12, [on page 6], line 25 through page 7, line 2 would be
eliminated, but the language is included in Section 13 on how a
person voting by means of a question ballot, special needs
ballot, or an in-person absentee ballot would be qualified.
2:21:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA referred to proposed language in Section 2,
on page 2, line 30, through page 3, line 3, which read:
(14) an acknowledgment of understanding by the
applicant that, if the applicant has previously been
registered to vote in another jurisdiction, the
director will notify the chief elections officer of
that jurisdiction that the applicant has registered to
vote in Alaska and request the applicant's voter
registration be canceled in that jurisdiction.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked, should the voter not inform the
director, how the director would be informed as to whom to
contact in another state.
2:21:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that the state has a paid
partnership with the Election Registration Information Center
(ERIC) that allows the Division of Elections to verify residency
in a manner similar to the methodology that is used for
residents to be verified to obtain a REAL ID.
2:23:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked whether the verification process
would be completed within the 30-day required timeframe.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to the Division of Elections to
confirm but offered that the verification process would be
allowed up to the deadline of certification of the election.
2:24:18 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 66.
2:25:11 PM
JOEL HANSON testified in support of HB 66. He stated that he
had since retired from commercial fishing and had voted absentee
or by mail for many years. He stated his support of prior
legislation that associated the Alaska permanent fund dividend
(PFD) application process with an opt-out provision for
automatic voter registration. He claimed that HB 66 would
retain the opt-out provision and stated that SB 39 would change
the voter registration via PFD application to an opt-in process.
He cautioned that voter turnout could diminish significantly
should SB 39 pass unless HB 66 should pass and allow for same-
day voter registration at the polls. He stated that he had
observed public testimony regarding allegations of voter fraud
and suspicious activity pertaining to the 2020 election and said
that none of the allegations had convinced him of widespread
voter fraud. He added that most suspicious activity reported in
testimony had been resolved by voters themselves choosing not to
participate in fraudulent activity.
2:27:40 PM
TERRI LYONS, testified in opposition to HB 66. She specified
her opposition to electronic signatures and early voting. She
emphasized her opposition to eliminating witness signatures.
She also stated her opposition to proposed pay raises for
election officials. She suggested that the passage of HB 66
would result in the state becoming subject to extreme voter
fraud. She stated that she and her late husband had received
absentee ballots in the mail, though no such absentee ballots
had been requested by them.
2:29:13 PM
DOUG WOODBY testified in support of HB 66. He stated that the
passage of HB 66 would expand voter access, modernize Alaska
elections, make it more convenient to vote before election day,
make it easier to vote on election day. The proposed
legislation would require the Division of Elections to inform a
voter when an absentee ballot has an error and is subject to
rejection and provide for a voter to be able to cure mistakes.
2:30:19 PM
LOREN PETERSON, Chairman & President, Azachorok Incorporated,
testified in support of HB 66. He explained that Azachorok
Incorporated is a corporation headquartered in Anchorage and
serves shareholders in Western Alaska, including the Lower
Yukon. He suggested that the region had experienced
disenfranchisement including in elections. He stated the board
of directors of the corporation unanimously resolved support for
ballot curing. He stated that he had been an active voter, as
were his parents. He stated that his signature had changed over
time and absentee ballots should allow for a curing process
should signatures not match. He requested the committee
consider allowing for a curing process for mail-in ballots. He
further suggested that voter turnout would increase should HB 66
pass.
2:33:23 PM
CELESTE HODGE GROWDEN, President & Chief Executive Officer,
Alaska Black Caucus; Executive Vice President, National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, described the
Alaska Black Caucus as a non-partisan organization that
advocates for the lives of black and other people of color in
Alaska in the areas of health, education, economics, and
justice. She suggested that in Alaska and other states some
voter suppression bills had been introduced based on fear and
unsubstantiated rhetoric that erode voting rights. She
suggested that HB 66 would enable every voter to be heard by way
of their ballot. She emphasized that vote by mail would allow
more voters to participate in elections despite personal and
economic barriers to voting. She suggested that HB 66 would
make voting more accessible and more secure. She stated fierce
opposition to discriminatory practices and described prior
discriminatory practices that made it more difficult for people
of color to vote.
2:36:24 PM
JESSICA LINDMAN testified in support of HB 66. She stated that
she had been a resident of Oregon and there had voted
exclusively by mail. She stated her understanding that there
had not been any evidence of widespread voter fraud. She stated
that the State of Oregon also had permitted a ballot curing
process and expressed her dismay at learning that Alaska had no
such process.
2:37:36 PM
RICK PHILIPS testified in support of HB 66. He stated that he
would support any bill that would make it easier to vote. He
read from the Constitution of the United States, as follows:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." He
suggested that the right to vote should be assigned at birth.
2:38:58 PM
ALEX KOPLIN, Member, Kenai Peninsula Votes, testified in support
of HB 66. He complimented the Division of Elections and its
staff for their work on the 2020 election. He spoke in support
of ballot curing, prepaid postage on absentee and mail-in
ballots, the elimination of the witness signature requirement,
and the option for voters to opt for permanent absentee ballots.
He claimed that SB 39 had not been subject to public testimony
to date. He encouraged bipartisan support of HB 66.
2:41:38 PM
CHARLES MCKEE testified in opposition to HB 66. He stated that
he had provided testimony in opposition to SB 39.
2:43:27 PM
CASSIE LAWVER testified in opposition to HB 66.
2:43:56 PM
JOHN SONIN testified in support of HB 66. He encouraged free
and fair elections and making it easier to vote. He suggested
that HB 66 was perfect and urged the committee to pass it.
2:46:48 PM
MIKE COONS testified in opposition to HB 66 and stated his
support of SB 39. He suggested that same-day voter
registration, ballot curing, and eliminating the witness
signature requirement render the election system open to voter
fraud.
2:49:39 PM
ANNETTE ALFONSI testified in support of HB 66. She shared a
personal story of her disability and her resulting difficulty in
voting in previous elections. She emphatically supported
provisions of the bill that would aid disabled citizens in
voting. She suggested that ballot curing for mismatched
signatures would be a fraud prevention measure.
2:51:56 PM
BERT HOUGHTALING testified in opposition to HB 66. He suggested
that the passage of HB 66 would weaken elections and increase
the potential for voter fraud. He opined that the judicial
system had subverted a free and fair election in 2020. He
recommended that the committee consider revising HB 66 to align
with SB 39.
2:54:28 PM
NICK MOE testified in support of HB 66. He suggested that
ballot curing had been long overdue and suggested that in excess
of 1,100 ballots in the previous election had been rejected and
may have been counted had a cure process been available. He
expressed his support for same-day voter registration, stating
that he had encountered young and new voters in his capacity of
student government relations at the University of Alaska who had
expressed a desire to vote, but had not been allowed due to the
30-day advance registration requirement.
2:56:10 PM
EVAN ANDERSON, Director of Civic Engagement for the Alaska
Center Education Fund, testified in support of HB 66. He
complimented the efforts and adaptations involved in the 2020
election under a global pandemic. He encouraged outreach to
existing and new voters to inform them of their voter rights.
He stated that his organization had established a hotline that
garnered hundreds of calls from voters seeking information. He
suggested that same-day voter registration and the option for
permanent absentee ballot requests would be the most effective
reforms. He suggested that HB 66 would expand the electorate.
2:58:40 PM
REBECCA MOORE testified in opposition to HB 66. She expressed
concerns that the passage of HB 66 would not provide increased
integrity in elections.
2:59:54 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 66.
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 66 was held over.
3:01:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that the time allotted for
public testimony for HB 116 be increased to 3 minutes for each
testifier due to the complexity of the bill.
3:01:46 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN answered that he would take the matter under
consideration and reminded attendees that individuals may also
provide written testimony on a bill.
3:02:20 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska Police Standards Council Appointment - Joseph White Resume.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 66 v. B 2.18.2021.PDF |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Sponsor Statement v. B 4.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Sectional Analysis v. B 4.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Document - National Vote at Home Institute 2020 Review 4.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Document - Sightline Institute Absentee Voting Article 12.15.2020.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Document - Alaska 2020 Ballot Statistics 4.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Supporting Document - Letters Received as of 4.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 4.9.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 116 v. A 2.24.2021.PDF |
HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Sponsor Statement v. A 4.12.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Sectional Analysis v. A 4.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Supporting Document - FAQs 4.12.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Supporting Document - Carey Acquittal 2017 4.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Supporting Document - Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Areas 4.12.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Supporting Document - DJJ Letter 4.9.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 PowerPoint Presentation 4.12.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Fiscal Note DHSS-PS 4.9.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |