01/21/2022 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB183 | |
| HB51 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 183 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 21, 2022
1:01 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. 183
"An Act renaming the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission the
Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission; relating to
the membership of the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis
Commission; relating to the powers and duties of the Alaska
Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission; extending the
termination date of the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis
Commission; relating to the duties of the Judicial Council;
providing for an effective date by amending the effective date
of secs. 41 and 73, ch. 1, 4SSLA 2017; and providing for an
effective date by repealing the effective date of sec. 74, ch.
1, 4SSLA 2017."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 51
"An Act relating to aggravating factors considered at
sentencing."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 183
SHORT TITLE: CRIMINAL JUSTICE DATA ANALYSIS COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CLAMAN
04/21/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/21 (H) JUD, STA, FIN
05/14/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/14/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/14/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/15/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/15/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
01/21/22 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 51
SHORT TITLE: AGGRAVATING FACTORS AT SENTENCING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, JUD
04/24/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/24/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/05/21 (H) STA REFERRAL MOVED TO AFTER JUD
05/05/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
01/21/22 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
LIZZIE KUBITZ, Staff
Representative Matt Claman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 183 on behalf of
Representative Claman, prime sponsor.
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director
Alaska Judicial Council
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 183.
BRENDA STANFILL, Executive Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 183.
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
183.
ALEX CLEGHORN, Legal and Policy Director
Alaskan Native Justice Center
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 183.
STEVE WILLIAMS, Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 183.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced HB 51.
MAX KOHN, Staff
Representative Andy Josephson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 51 on behalf of Representative
Josephson, prime sponsor.
TAMMIE WILLIS
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 51.
ALEXANDER MORIARTY
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 51.
ROBIN DERN, Board Member
Anti-Defamation League, Pacific Northwest Region
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 51.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:01:04 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 12:35 p.m. Representatives Drummond,
Snyder, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman were present at the call to
order. Representatives Vance, Eastman, and Kurka arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 183-CRIMINAL JUSTICE DATA ANALYSIS COMMISSION
1:01:44 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 183, "An Act renaming the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission;
relating to the membership of the Alaska Criminal Justice Data
Analysis Commission; relating to the powers and duties of the
Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission; extending the
termination date of the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis
Commission; relating to the duties of the Judicial Council;
providing for an effective date by amending the effective date
of secs. 41 and 73, ch. 1, 4SSLA 2017; and providing for an
effective date by repealing the effective date of sec. 74, ch.
1, 4SSLA 2017."
CHAIR CLAMAN, as prime sponsor, stated that the bill would
require a modification to reflect the 2021 sunset date of the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission. He spoke about a committee
substitute, labeled "32-LS0645\I, Radford, 1/21/22," and stated
that there would be an additional committee substitute
forthcoming.
1:02:53 PM
LIZZIE KUBITZ, Staff to Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor,
offered information regarding the aforementioned committee
substitute to HB 183 [which was never moved for adoption as a
working document]. She stated that the committee substitute
before the committee reflected the changes to the termination
date of the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) and
related statutory changes and would enact the Alaska Criminal
Justice Data Analysis Commission (ACJDAC). She explained that
Section 4 had been changed to specify that the victims' rights
advocate member of the commission be designated by the Alaska
Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA).
CHAIR CLAMAN recommended against adopting the committee
substitute due to a forthcoming, updated committee substitute.
1:05:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the rationale for capitalizing some
references to the term "commission" and not to others within the
title and body of the bill and whether it would permit there to
exist multiple commissions.
CHAIR CLAMAN answered that it was likely a matter of drafting
style, and the intent was not to create more than one
commission.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to page 3 on line 22 referencing
the member from the Department of Law. He noted that the Deputy
Attorney General would be the designee, rather than the Attorney
General, and asked whether that could create conflict [within
the Department of Law.]
CHAIR CLAMAN answered that the change in the member designation
had been made at the suggestion of the ACJC as the deputy is the
position directly engaged in criminal prosecutions. He stated
that there had been no precedent of a conflict [within the
Department of Law.]
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it had been considered the
effects of the retirement of the head of the ACJC and his
successor maintaining a differing viewpoint.
CHAIR CLAMAN answered that it had not been a point of
discussion.
1:09:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to Section 6, on page 10, line 22
and asked for information about the project described to study
risk factors.
CHAIR CLAMAN answered that the issue of risk factors had become
prevalent and had been included at the recommendation of the
ACJC to develop a working definition of "risk factor."
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated her understanding of examining data
and asked how the project referenced in Section 6 would differ
from the data analysis already taking place.
1:11:08 PM
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council,
answered that the risk assessment study has been a practice of
the ACJC and referred to a report on the Alaska Judicial
Commission's website that depicts data analyses including charts
with methodology and findings.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the reference to a "project"
in Section 6 would be akin to what Ms. DiPietro had just
described.
MS. DIPIETRO confirmed that it was.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to language in Section 4, on
page 4, regarding the appointment of a victims' rights advocate.
He noted that current practice would be appointment by the
governor and asked whether the proposed bill would designate
ANDVSA as the appointing authority. He asked what the rationale
was to designate ANDVSA and not the governor as the appointing
authority.
CHAIR CLAMAN restated that the recommendation had been made by
ACJC and had been made to include an individual engaged in
working with victims' rights. He added that the appointment
would be made after consultation with ANDVSA's members and
partner organizations. He deferred to Ms. Stanfill to offer
additional information.
1:14:56 PM
BRENDA STANFILL, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, explained that ANDVSA is a
membership organization that represents domestic violence and
sexual assault programs throughout Alaska and may support
victims of other types of crimes. She answered the question
posed by Representative Eastman by explaining that a process was
established to ensure that diverse [victims' advocate]
organizations would be represented on the commission. She noted
that partner organizations include the Alaska Native Women's
Resource Center, Healing Native Hearts, Alaska Legal Services,
and the Alaska Native Justice Center. She noted that a formal
process had been established to select the representative
member.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there exists concern on the
part of ANDVSA that current or previous governors had not been
receptive to concerns expressed by ANDVSA.
MS. STANFILL answered that there had not been any consultation
with any groups during the selection of the victims' rights
representative on the council in the past.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered that interest had existed in achieving
expanded community involvement rather than solely political
involvement in selecting the victims' rights member.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for an explanation on the rationale
of the selection of members in the past.
MS. STANFILL answered that she had no insight into the rationale
applied in the selection of members by governors.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought the answer from other individuals
present.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that he had been a long-serving, ex-officio
member of the commission and could not offer insight on the
process of deciding the appointment by governors but offered
that Ms. Stanfill had been a previously appointed member. He
explained that Governor Michael Dunleavey had appointed the
father of a young girl who had been killed in Kotzebue. He
suggested that the latter appointment had suffered a great
personal loss; however, discussions had taken place indicating
that he may have lacked connection with victims' rights
organizations and ANDVSA. He stated his observation that the
commission had expressed an interest in victim's organizations
being represented.
1:19:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to language on page 4, line 13,
that listed the commissioner of the Department of Health and
Social Services and asked whether that would be a voting member.
CHAIR CLAMAN confirmed that it would be.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for an explanation of the rationale
for that decision.
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that there had been a period in which the
commissioner of the Department of Health and Social Services was
a nonvoting member, and that the commission had reached a
consensus that that member should have a vote in recognition
that the department engaged in services that pertained to issues
related to the department's functions.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, if the commissioner would hold a
voting seat, then what would be the rationale for the elected
officials listed in Sections 12 and 13 not holding a voting
seat.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered that, as recommended by Legislative Legal
Services, members of the legislature may later be asked to vote
on legislative matters pertaining to certain boards and
commissions and are customarily nonvoting members.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for an explanation of the
perception he held that the proposed bill would diminish the
governor's discretion in favor of ANDVSA.
CHAIR CLAMAN allowed that Representative Eastman's perception
was his prerogative and explained that public comments had been
sought to address the recommendations made by the Legislative
Audit Division to focus on data collection and analysis. He
referred to "item 15" in the bill and said that the intent was
to include an individual with "lived experience" as a convicted
person and would be appointed in consultation with the Attorney
General's office's designee. He stated his belief that the
changes were made to encourage further public engagement with
the commission.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA expressed his concern that HB 183 would
expand a pattern of naming specific private organizations in
statute that may not have accountability to the public.
CHAIR CLAMAN answered that most of the groups were listed in the
existing statute and included members appointed by the court
system, the Alaska Native Justice Center, and the Alaska Mental
Health Trust Authority (AMHTA.) He stated that the only change
would be for the peace officer representative member to be
appointed by the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police and the
victims' advocate representative member to be appointed by
ANDVSA.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA reiterated that the points made by Chair
Claman were his concern as previously expressed and asked
whether that matter should be addressed in a separate bill.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the commission would likely suggest
that matter as a policy decision.
1:26:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that there existed several fiscal
notes and asked for a broad explanation of what would be
anticipated in regard to them.
MS. DIPIETRO explained that the Alaska Judicial Council staff
was concurrently serving as staff to the commission and
appropriation had been made for those functions. She stated her
determination that the proposed commission would be adequately
staffed with current or possibly fewer resources as evidenced by
the elimination of one staff member in the negative fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for further clarification of the
fiscal notes.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that the council had provided only one of
the fiscal notes that was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what the total budget impact would
be, considering all of the fiscal notes.
CHAIR CLAMAN postulated that a forthcoming committee substitute
should include a comprehensive, updated fiscal note. He stated
that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) has a designated data
analysis staff member, and he did not anticipate any increase
would be necessary.
1:30:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the other body had a member
similarly active to that of Chair Claman's involvement in the
commission.
CHAIR CLAMAN answered that it had, and it was currently held by
Senator Lora Reinbold.
1:31:12 PM
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
introduced herself for the record.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered his understanding that the Legislative
Audit Division had recommended to continue the data collection
and analysis functions of the commission and to remove the
function of the commission making recommendations and asked Ms.
Curtis to explain the recommendations and offer additional
background on the rationale for those recommendations.
MS. CURTIS stated that the division had determined during its
audit that the commission was very active and well-run, meeting
deadlines for the completion of studies and providing
recommendations for comprehensive criminal justice reform. She
stated that the recommendations offered by the commission had
been the basis if the "ill-fated" Senate Bill 91 [during the
Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature] and additional
recommendations had been sought from the commission for proposed
amendments to Senate Bill 91. She stated that it had been
observed that the changes that were adopted to Senate Bill 91 in
2018 had not been based on the commission's recommendations.
She stated that it had been determined that the commission was
not effective in making such recommendations and that it should
be terminated. She stated that it had been revealed that there
was concern that the data collection and analysis duties of the
commission would still be necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked the Alaska Native Justice Center
(ANJC) to explain how the commission makes a difference for the
people represented by the center.
1:34:34 PM
ALEX CLEGHORN, Legal and Policy Director, Alaskan Native Justice
Center, answered that the commission fills data collection and
analysis functions that AJNC is unable to conduct itself. He
suggested that the Alaska Native member of the commission
provides representation of rural and Native area residents.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked whether AJNC represented victims,
defendants, or both.
MR. CLEGHORN answered that ANJC is unique in that it represents
both because those individuals are typically represented by
separate agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked whether the commission was involved
in the victim listening sessions conducted by ANJC and how it
incorporates input from those sessions.
MR. CLEGHORN answered that the listening sessions were
summarized in the ANJC annual reports which the commission may
take into consideration. He stated that the commission having
access to the experiences captured during the listening sessions
brings those lived experiences to a broader audience.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER requested a representative from AMHTA
explain who its beneficiaries are and how its interests relate
to the commission.
1:39:02 PM
STEVE WILLIAMS, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Mental Health
Trust Authority, answered that AMHTA beneficiaries consist of
individuals experiencing mental health issues including
substance abuse disorders, intellectual development
disabilities, Alzheimer and dementia patients, and individuals
with traumatic brain injuries. He stated that 40 percent of
those incarcerated annually are such beneficiaries. He stated
that the beneficiaries consist of both offenders and victims,
and AMHTA involvement on the commission brings their perspective
to the commission.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked how long Mr. Williams had served on
the commission and asked him to offer his opinion on the
importance of maintaining the data collection and analysis
functions of the commission.
MR. WILLIAMS answered that he had been a commissioner for more
than five years and had been engaged with the commission since
its inception. He offered that the value of the commission was
self-explanatory based on its membership, which is
representation of all parties involved in the criminal justice
system, including law enforcement, corrections, the judiciary,
public defenders, the Department of Law, victims, and convicted
individuals with lived experience. He suggested that that
diversity contributed to the identification of ways in which the
system could be improved.
1:43:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether individuals who may elect a
designee would participate regularly or whether the designee
would be the only participant.
CHAIR CLAMAN suggested that [meeting] minutes could be consulted
to confirm exactly who had participated. He stated his
observation that the most frequently designated member had been
that of the Attorney General's seat and the ex-officio member
from DHSS and that designees were somewhat rare otherwise.
MS. DIPIETRO agreed with Chair Claman's suggestion regarding the
participation of members compared with that of designees.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what the rationale had been to
continue the commission within the purview of the governor's
office.
CHAIR CLAMAN suggested that each commission must exist in one of
the three branches of government and may not have been well
suited to belong within either the court or the legislature.
MS. DIPIETRO agreed with Chair Claman's suggestion and staffing
considerations were made at the time of the commission's
inception.
1:47:54 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN recalled Representative Vance's question regarding
fiscal notes and suggested that logic would dictate that there
would not occur an increase in cost due to a decrease of
[commission] function.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to page 4 which listed the powers
and duties of the commission that would permit the commission to
contract for data collection and analysis and asked from what
source, possibly including from the recidivism reduction fund,
any contractual funds would be obtained.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the contracts were not paid by the
Department of Corrections. He asked Ms. DiPietro about how
contracts are paid and the parties in them.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that the council had not contracted data
analysis services. She added that the Alaska Justice
Information Center had provided data analysis services and that
no payment had been paid for those services.
CHAIR CLAMAN added that the Alaska Justice Information Center
was part of the University of Alaska, Anchorage (UAA) and, in
response to a follow up question from Representative Vance,
confirmed that its work would be funded by UAA.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that the commission needed more data
and asked for additional explanation of the flow of source data.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that HB 183 would not increase the level of
data collection and analysis and postulated that, should the
legislature request additional analysis and reporting, the
commission would likely request additional resources.
1:51:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the changes proposed in HB
183 would include more rural representation.
CHAIR CLAMAN answered that the represented members on the
commission were separate from the data collected, and the
analysis function would have more diverse representation, should
HB 183 pass.
MS. DIPIETRO added that the amount of data that the commission
collects would be the same and the analysis would be the same,
although more could be requested. She added that technical
staff will receive and analyze data and provide reports and the
commissioners then examine the data to develop questions
revealed by the data.
1:55:00 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 183 was held over.
HB 51-AGGRAVATING FACTORS AT SENTENCING
1:55:55 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 51, "An Act relating to aggravating factors
considered at sentencing."
1:56:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, introduced HB 51. He explained that the bill
would add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the list
of aggravators found in sentencing code under AS
12.55.155(c)(22). The existing aggravators in the list are
"race", "creed", and "religion". He stated that he believed the
bill to be necessary following the events of December 2019,
during which a woman had been assaulted and the perpetrator had
never been found. He characterized the circumstances of the
assault as alarming and that on November 14, 2019, Ms. Tammy
Willis had discovered a note left on her windshield threatening
her identifying her as a person of same-sex orientation. Eight
days later, a rock had been thrown through her vehicle's
windshield. On December 9, she had been assaulted with a knife
and sustained serious injury. He explained that it had been
suggested that the attack had been the response to Ms. Willis's
organization of a "Pride in the Park" event in Kenai or Soldotna
in spring 2020. He said that a town hall event had been
attended by over 200 individuals in Kenai and Soldotna to compel
the city councils to include sexual orientation and gender
identity in aggravating factors in criminal code. He said that
both councils had voted in favor of House Bill 198, an earlier
version of HB 51. He stated that the late Representative Gary
Knopp had aided in the drafting of House Bill 198. He stated
that HB 51 would designate crimes targeted against this
population would be aggravated. He offered that hate crimes are
predicated on community condemnation, retribution, and symbolic
statements. He indicated that reaction to a crime committed
against the general public, that did not target a specific
group, did not elicit an anxiety that exists among victims of
specifically targeted groups. He recalled a U. S. Supreme Court
Case, Wisconsin v. Mitchell, in 1993, pertaining to aggravating
factors to include hate crimes. He said that Chief Justice
Rehnquist had ruled that the statutes [in question] were lawful
and that they did not violate equal protections.
2:03:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON read from the opinion issued, that
"bias motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory
crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and
incite community unrest." He stated that the aggravating
factors would apply only to felonies and that notice seeking the
aggravator to the court is required. He stated that aggravators
are considered by a jury and must be decided unanimously unless
the defendant waived the jury's unanimous verdict.
2:07:23 PM
MAX KOHN, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State
Legislature, presented a PowerPoint presentation [hard copy
included in the committee packet] entitled, "HB 51 PowerPoint
Presentation 1.21.2022.pdf," and he explained aggravating
factors as listed in 12.55.155(c). He read from slide 4, which
lists the reasoning for including aggravating factors in the
sentencing phase of a criminal prosecution. Slide 4 read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
•Motive and details matter.
•As with all laws, these factors reflect societal
attitudes.
•In instances where aggravators are relevant, the
defendant has already been convicted and the details
of the crime are broadly considered abhorrent or
aberrant.
•When a sentence is imposed beyond the presumptive
range, it can be seen as an indication that the motive
was particularly egregious or that the defendant
demonstrated a disregard for societal norms beyond
what might be expected for a 'typical' crime of that
type.
•The impact of an assault motivated by hate towards a
group has larger repercussions than even the initial
terrible impact on the individual.
MR. KOHN explained that there is one change to the statute in
question, and he read from slide 6 an excerpt from the sectional
analysis, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
•AS 12.55.155(c)(22) currently allows a sentencing
court to impose additional sentencing if "the
defendant knowingly directed the conduct constituting
the offense at a victim because of that person's race,
sex, color, creed, physical or mental disability,
ancestry, or national origin"
B 51 adds "sexual orientation or gender identity" to
this list.
2:10:51 PM
MR. KOHN drew attention to slide 7, which contained graphs based
on the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data on anti-gender
identity and anti-sexual orientation hate crimes during 2015-
2019, and he noted that the data reflected actual crimes that
had occurred. He stated that the data demonstrates that the
problem is getting worse at the national level. He next drew
attention to slide 8, which shows a map on which lighter blue
states are states that only include laws addressing sexual
orientation and that the darker blue states are states that have
laws addressing both sexual orientation and gender identity. He
pointed out that the State of Wyoming, like Alaska, has no laws
addressing hate crimes committed towards sexual orientation or
gender identity. He suggested that there exist negative impacts
in states that do not have such laws, and he read a press quote
from slide 9, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Anti-LGBTQ bigotry ran rampant in Wyoming last year.
In addition to isolated incidents of violence and
discrimination, several communities broke out in
dispute over LGBTQ representation in public spaces.
MR. KOHN stated that the business community in Wyoming was
advocating for laws against hate crimes. He then read the quote
from slide 9, attributed to Chris Brown, Wyoming Lodging and
Restaurant Association Lobbyist, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Protecting the LGBTQ+ community under a hate crime
statute "sends a message that bias-motivated crimes
are taken seriously."
MR. KOHN next drew attention to slide 10 of the presentation,
which provides an example of criminal justice reform from across
the nation, specifically legislation that had been passed
recently by the State of Georgia. Slide 10 read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Georgia passed HB 426 in 2020 with wide bipartisan
support.
60 out of 100 Republicans in the State House supported
the bill along with 26 out of 34 Republicans in the
State Senate. That's a total of 64% of Georgia
Republicans.
Georgia's HB 426 includes Race, Color, Religion,
National Origin, Sex, Sexual Orientation, Gender,
Mental Disability, or Physical Disability.
MR. KOHN concluded the presentation by recalling the story that
Representative Josephson had recounted from 2019 and stated that
the crime that had been committed had negatively affected a
larger community.
2:15:00 PM
TAMMIE WILLIS testified in support of HB 51 and stated that she
had been the victim in the crime that Representative Josephson
had detailed in earlier testimony. She began her testimony by
noting that the murder of Matthew Shepard had taken place in
Wyoming, which has no hate crime laws, and the case had garnered
national attention. She stated that she had worked with others
to establish the Kenai Peninsula College (KPC) Alliance that
evolved to the Soldotna Pride in the Park in June 2019, which
had grown to over 200 participants. She stated that because of
the size of the event, a community planning event had been
organized, following which, the crimes against her commenced.
She detailed the violent assault against her. She stated that
she had reported each incident to the police and some evidence
had been gathered. She stated that she had publicly shared her
experiences and had been met with "a wall of hate," including
threats. She stated that the threats against her continue, and
she had quit her job and moved from her home to escape the
threats.
2:18:56 PM
MS. WILLIS stated that she had started an organization called
Queers and Allies to create safe spaces and to provide education
and advocacy. She shared with the committee that she had
encountered recurring stories, during her advocacy work,
involving harassment, bullying, violence, fear, sexual abuse,
and homelessness among the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual,
and queer (LGBTQ) community. She stated that an advocate in
Fairbanks and an advocate in Anchorage had been assaulted and
remain anonymous out of fear. She stated that HB 51 would
support change to criminal justice in Alaska to protect these
citizens.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Willis to provide her written testimony.
2:23:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the assailant
against Ms. Willis had been identified and taken into custody.
MS. WILLIS answered that he had not. She stated that many
problems occurred during her case. For example, evidence had
been lost or not examined in a timely manner and witnesses had
not been interviewed in a timely manner. The FBI was eventually
involved in the case.
2:24:47 PM
CHAIR CLAMN opened public testimony on HB 51.
2:25:33 PM
ALEXANDER MORIARTY testified in support of HB 51. He thanked
the bill sponsor. He offered that aggravating factors for hate
crimes were necessary based on the evidence in the slides
presented earlier and that the protections would be put in place
for some of the most vulnerable members of society. He stated
that everyone's life should be protected equally.
2:28:42 PM
ROBIN DERN, Board Member, Anti-Defamation League, Pacific
Northwest Region, testified in support of HB 51. She stated
that according to a 2019 FBI hate crimes report, 11 hate crimes
had occurred in Alaska, the highest ever. She added that in
2020, 7,759 hate crimes had been documented across the country,
and 1 of 6 were motivated by the victim's actual or perceived
sexual orientation or gender identity. She stated that the
statistics were not representative of the actual incidence of
these crimes due to victims' reluctance to come forward and that
law enforcement may not be equipped to deal with the crimes when
they are brought forward. She urged the passage of HB 51.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Dern to provide her written testimony.
2:32:29 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 51.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what possible minimum and maximum
sentences would apply to the crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON explained that a B felony would result
in a sentence of 0-10 years and an A felony would result in a
sentence of 0-20 years. He offered an example wherein a
presumptive sentence on a B felony conviction would be 4 years,
that a judge may elect for a sentence of up to 10 years but only
with a finding that the felon was the worst in his/her class.
He said that a judge may, at his/her discretion, increase a
sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a sentence would be from 0-
20 years.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered no, such as in a case where
the victim was murdered, the sentence would be more than 20
years.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the definition of "creed".
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that "creed" is defined under
AS 12.55.185 as it is listed under AS 12.55.155. He proffered
that the terms "color" and "physical or mental disability" are
not defined, but courts operate with those terms regularly. He
postulated that "creed" likely pertains to one's religion;
however, "creed" does not pertain to HB 51.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered that "creed" is existing law.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained his reason for asking was to
determine that "creed" would not already capture the inclusion
of the protected class in HB 51.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that no such indication [that it
would] had been offered by counsel [in Legislative Legal
Services].
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether HB 51 would criminalize any
new behavior.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that it would not.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for additional information on the
increase in the crimes as presented in the PowerPoint and asked
why the crimes are not decreasing when laws are being passed to
protect against them.
2:38:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that he held his own beliefs for
the reasons for the increase in these types of crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that the bill is modest and
asked whether solely increasing sentencing would be sufficient
to solve the problem and if any other tools would be sought.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that tools which may be sought
to solve the problem would be universal pre-[kindergarten] and
support for young parents, which are expensive to implement. He
noted that a scholar, Dr. Gurstenfeld, had conducted extensive
research and had found that the symbolic expression of noting
the conduct as unacceptable in the larger society has value.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that he was persuaded that crimes
motivated by hate should be minimized and questioned the limited
language and questioned not including those who may not be
members of a group.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON recalled his earlier testimony that
hate crimes are targeted against a particular cohort with shared
traits and recalled the opinion of Chief Justice Rehnquist.
2:43:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN recalled Representative Eastman's earlier question
regarding sentencing under AS 12.55.125 and answered that the
first offense of a B felony would be 1-3 years, a second B
felony would be 3-7 years, and the third or greater offense
would be 7-10 years. He stated that, unless a jury finds an
aggravating factor in a first B felony offense, the judge would
be barred from imposing more than a 3-year sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked the rationale for including the
term sexual "identity" as compared to gender or sex.
MR. KOHN answered that the FBI data had reflected that from 2015
to 2019, of the instances of gender-based crimes committed,
crimes predicated on gender alone comprised only one-third of
those crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON added that when counsel had been
consulted regarding sex compared with gender identity, he/she
had concluded the following: "If you would like to guarantee
that a sentencing aggravator can be applied in cases where
conduct is knowingly directed at a victim because of that
person's sexual orientation or transgender status, I recommend
amending the statute to specifically include such language."
2:48:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the word "or" would be
necessary, grammatically.
MR. KOHN offered to pose the question to the drafter of the
statute, Ms. Radford, and follow up with the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled earlier testimony by
Representative Josephson regarding additional tools such as
universal pre-K and asked how effective the proposed change to
the statute would be.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON cautioned against any implication of
diminished importance of the bill but offered that it would
result in incremental progress in the law. He acknowledge the
need exists for government protection and that all Americans do
not need protections in the same way.
2:51:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 51 was held over.
2:52:05 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:52 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 51 v. A 2.18.2021.PDF |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Sponsor Statement v. A 1.21.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Supporting Document - Peninsula Clarion Article 12.26.2019.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Supporting Document - Alaska Public Media Article 12.30.2019.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Supporting Document - Washington Blade Article 11.20.2019.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Supporting Document - Peninsula Clarion Article 1.4.2020.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Supporting Document - Soldotna City Council Resolution 1.22.2020.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Supporting Document - Kenai City Council Resolution 2.5.2020.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Supporting Document - Kenai Peninsula Borough Resolution 2.25.2020.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Supporting Document - City of Soldotna Resolution 5.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Supporting Document - FBI Hate Crimes Reports (2015-2019) 1.21.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Supporting Document - 2021 HRC Hate Crimes Law Map 7.19.2021.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Supporting Document - 2021 NCSL Hate Crime Related State Statutes 1.21.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Supporting Document - Letters Received by 1.21.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Fiscal Note CRIM-CJL 1.14.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 PowerPoint Presentation 1.21.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 183 v. B 4.21.2021.PDF |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Sponsor Statement v. B 5.14.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Supporting Document - Criminal Justice Taskforce Recommendation 12.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Additional Document - A Sunset Review of the Office of the Governor, Alaska Criminal Justice Commission 6.12.2020.2020 |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Supporting Document - Alaska Native Justice Center Letter 1.21.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Fiscal Note DOH-BHA 1.14.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Fiscal Note DOC-R&R 1.15.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Fiscal Note JUD-AJC 1.18.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Work Draft Committee Substitute v. I 1.21.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 183 |