02/22/2018 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR27 | |
| HB310 | |
| HB152 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 310 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 152 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 22, 2018
3:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Chris Birch
Representative Gary Knopp
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson (alternate)
Representative Chuck Kopp (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to terms of legislators.
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 310
"An Act relating to the minimum age of eligibility for
marriage."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 152
"An Act relating to the organized militia; and relating to the
authority of the adjutant general."
- MOVED CSHB 152(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 27
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: TERM LIMITS OF LEGISLATORS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KITO
01/12/18 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/18
01/16/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/18 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/22/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 310
SHORT TITLE: MARRIAGE AND MINIMUM AGE FOR MARRIAGE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CLAMAN
01/26/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/18 (H) STA, JUD
02/22/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 152
SHORT TITLE: ORGANIZED MILITIA; AK ST. DEFENSE FORCE
SPONSOR(s): MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
03/06/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/06/17 (H) MLV, STA
03/14/17 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/17 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/23/17 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/23/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/17 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
03/30/17 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/30/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/17 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
04/04/17 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/04/17 (H) Moved CSHB 152(MLV) Out of Committee
04/04/17 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
04/05/17 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) 3DP 2DNP 1NR
04/05/17 (H) DP: SPOHNHOLZ, PARISH, TUCK
04/05/17 (H) DNP: REINBOLD, SADDLER
04/05/17 (H) NR: LEDOUX
05/09/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/09/17 (H) Heard & Held
05/09/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/23/18 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/23/18 (H) Heard & Held
01/23/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/25/18 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/25/18 (H) Heard & Held
01/25/18 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/22/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE SAM KITO
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 27, as prime sponsor.
CAITLYN ELLIS, Staff
Representative Sam Kito
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
HJR 27, on behalf of Representative Kito, prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 310, as prime sponsor.
CERI GODINEZ, Staff
Representative Matt Claman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 310, on behalf of
Representative Claman, prime sponsor.
JEANNE SMOOT
Tahirih Justice Center (TJC)
Washington D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 310.
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff
Representative Chris Tuck
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the committee substitute (CS) for
HB 152, Version R, and explained the changes on behalf of Chris
Tuck, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:20:01 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:20 p.m.
Representatives LeDoux, Wool, Birch, Knopp, and Kreiss-Tomkins
were present at the call to order. Representative Tuck arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HJR 27-CONST. AM: TERM LIMITS OF LEGISLATORS
3:21:04 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 27, HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to terms of legislators.
3:21:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAM KITO, Alaska State Legislature, relayed that
at the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) this
year, he attended a session on term limits. He offered that the
Alaska State Legislature has been at a crossroads during the
past ten years; it has been operating between a citizen
legislature and a fulltime legislature. He stated that a
citizen legislature is clearly defined as having members with
jobs and careers, experience from outside the legislature, or a
role to play during the Interim giving them experience outside
the professional lawmaking arena. He said that Alaska does not
have many such legislators; the perception is that legislators
do become career politicians.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO relayed that he had a career in engineering
before becoming a legislator; he expected it to last awhile,
then he would do something else before retirement. He relayed
that if he serves on the legislature for twenty years, it
becomes his career, and the ideas he brings to the legislature
are no longer fresh and relevant. He posed the question: "What
would our state look like with a legislature that had a regular
influx of new ideas and fresh interest in the legislative
process?" He said that he concluded that if Alaska is going to
have a citizen legislature, then it must provide an opportunity
for new people to serve.
3:23:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO stated that Alaska does have good turnover
in the legislature: in the Senate the average tenure is about
nine years; in the House the average tenure is slightly over
seven years. He suggested that for a regular infusion [of new
members] and not just a major "switch over", which is typical
after reapportionment, it makes sense to allow an individual the
opportunity to provide public service to Alaska as a legislator,
then step aside and allow a new person with new ideas to serve.
He maintained that his proposed resolution does not constitute a
prohibition on serving. It would allow someone to serve for up
to four terms in the House of Representatives or up to two terms
in the Senate, before either taking a two-year break from the
body in which the person served or switching to the other body.
This would allow for sixteen years of continuous service or
longer if moving from the House to the Senate and back to the
House. He stated that one legislator has done that in the past.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO relayed that the NCSL report on term limits
states that one of the reasons for not having term limits is to
allow legislators to build knowledge and experience. He
questioned why an Alaska legislator, representing about 20,000
residents, needs more experience than a governor, who represents
700,000 Alaskans and administers all the state programs. He
mentioned that the governor is limited to two four-year terms,
or eight years. He said that Alaska has determined that to be
adequate for serving as a governor and asked, "Why then is it
appropriate for a legislator to have significantly longer period
of service?"
3:26:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO continued by saying that other states do
have people who build up seniority and move up the ladder;
however, Alaska generally has a turnover of Senate President and
Speaker of the House every two years; committee chairs generally
turnover every two years; Alaska had a Speaker of the House for
eight years, but it only happened one time. He offered that
Alaska is already operating as if there was a term-limited
legislature; the average length of service is about eight years;
and there is turnover in the committees, which suggests that
knowledge in a committee area does not appear to be as critical
in a state the size of Alaska. He asked, "Why not provide that
opportunity for other Alaskans to participate?" He opined that
the other choice is to not have a full citizen legislature in
which individuals gather their own experiences during the
Interim and bring them "to the table." In that case Alaska
would be considering the possibility of a fulltime legislature,
paying the legislators a fulltime salary, expecting them to do
fulltime work, and having legislators with twenty-plus years in
public service.
3:29:46 PM
CHAIR KREIS-TOMKINS asked for the results of the advisory
question [on term limits] on the 1998 Alaska ballot.
3:30:00 PM
CAITLYN ELLIS, Staff, Representative Sam Kito, Alaska State
Legislature, replied that in the 1998 election, 50.2 percent
voted in support of term limits [Measure 7]; in the 1994
election, almost 63 percent voted in favor of term limits
[Measure 4]; and in the 1996 election, the affirmative vote for
term limits [Measure 4] was 54.5 percent. The earlier two
advisory votes were related to Congressional term limits; the
1998 advisory vote was much closer than those of the earlier
elections.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he advocated for term limits in
the past but was dissuaded because of the seniority of [former]
Alaska U.S. Senator Ted Stevens and the benefits of seniority at
the congressional level. He mentioned that Alaska U.S.
Representative Don Young is now "Dean of the House"; he is
currently the longest serving member of the House of
Representatives. He opined that there are advantages to
seniority at the congressional level; Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) opening [for development] is evidence of that.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH relayed that he is in his second year of
his first term and is one of 15 new members, which represent 25
percent of the 60-member legislature. He said that in any
business, a 25 percent turnover would be significant. He stated
that he is struck by the fact that the voters are doing a good
job of limiting the terms of legislators. He offered that in
respect to legislators having outside employment, he couldn't
agree more. He stated that he was deeply disappointed to be
"drug back" into special session four times under the "heavy
hand" of special session construction. He asserted that such
circumstances decimate any ability to maintain a job or
business. He asked, "Why do we think we need to do a term
limit, if we have a 25 percent turnover in the body?"
3:32:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO acknowledged that there is consistent
turnover in the legislative body but maintained that when he
became a representative, he decided that he did not want to be
there for twenty years, which would discourage a couple
generations of individuals in his community who might want to
participate in the public process at the legislative level. He
offered that if an individual knows that the maximum time a
Representative can be in the House is eight years, he/she could
be accruing experience on the assembly, working on non-profit
boards, all the while knowing that the legislative seat will
change in his/her working lifetime. A person could prepare to
run for office and be ready when the time comes, as opposed to
guessing when the [sitting] Representative will leave office.
He stated that if he is not term-limited and keeps his seat for
twenty years, two to two and a half generations of individuals
in his community who might be wonderful legislators would be
forced to move to a different community to serve as a state
Representative. He maintained that HJR 27 would create a better
pool of potential candidates coming up through the ranks - ones
who will be ready to serve and provide public service - as
opposed interested people who do not have a chance.
3:35:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that he has never been adamantly
opposed to term limits; when he served in local government, term
limits were implemented; he termed out in six years and was
elected to the House of Representatives during his third term.
He mentioned that Representative Kito was addressing two
different issues - career politicians and citizen legislatures.
He said that even if HJR 27 passed, it would not ensure the
state would have citizen legislators. He offered that because
the House districts have elections every two years, the public
has every opportunity to run; nothing prevents those of future
generations from running against a representative every two
years.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP mentioned the power of incumbency and
maintained that while there is some validity to that, there is
also validity in the fact that citizens recognize and value the
experience that a Representative has gained. A Representative
who spends two years on the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee, two years on the House State Affairs Standing
Committee, two years on the House Special Committee on
Education, and two years on the House Finance Committee becomes
very well rounded but then is termed out. He offered that there
is "good and bad" in the proposal. He asked about the length of
time a Senator would be required to "sit out" versus the length
of time a Representative would be required to sit out, if not
deciding to run for the other body. He concluded that the
proposed resolution offers both opportunities and concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO replied that the "sitting out" period is two
years, which would be true for both the House and the Senate.
He reminded the committee that a Senate term in a
reapportionment year is a two-year term; therefore, a Senator
sitting out in 2010 could run for that Senate seat in 2012.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP reiterated his comment about the level of
experience gained. He also mentioned that a legislator who is
in the minority for six to eight years does not have his/her
true "voice" in the legislature, which is another concern.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO replied that his predecessor was in the
minority for fifteen years and never chaired a committee yet
served her constituents very well. He mentioned that Alaska has
many legislators that only serve two, four, or six years; they
are effective; in the State of Alaska, since it is so small, a
freshman majority member can chair a committee; therefore, rapid
learning can occur with little experience. He said in that way
the situation in Alaska is different than in many other states;
people with little experience can be Speaker of the House in
his/her second term or chair of the House Finance Committee in
his/her first term. He maintained that even the shorter serving
legislators are representing their districts as well [as the
longer serving legislators], because they have opportunities to
participate in leadership positions. He added that the intent
of the proposed resolution is to bring new ideas into the
legislature and provide more opportunities for individuals to
prepare for and participate in state service.
3:40:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that he generally supports the
concept of term limits; however, there are pros and cons to it.
He mentioned that it is good to have a healthy amount of
turnover; it is difficult for a legislator to maintain a job
outside of the legislature, especially if session lasts 180-plus
days; and it wouldn't be possible to work at a regular job. He
added that owning one's own business makes it possible.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the average length of service
for those in the Senate - 9.3 years - and those in the House -
7.2 years. He asked for the ranges of lengths of service. He
offered that there are legislators who serve for two to four
years, and those who serve for fourteen years, making the
average seven or eight. There may be many new legislators, but
some are replacing ones who have served many years and retired.
He concluded it is good to have turnover; it exists on its own
with the election cycle; some legislators do "get entrenched"
and will never lose unless they choose not to run. He agreed
that turnover at the leadership level is also good; as
legislators serve longer and "rise to the top," it is good to
have turnovers to bring in different outlooks. He concluded
that under HJR 27, allowing for eight years in the House and
eight years in the Senate, which adds up to sixteen years, would
be a substantial period, and with two years off, time of service
could be longer.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO mentioned that for all serving legislators
since statehood, the terms vary from one year to thirty-two
years.
3:43:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX mentioned that California has term limits,
and she has heard that often a Senator and a Representative will
trade positions back and forth.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO answered that he cannot confirm if that
occurs. He offered that California is one of two states with a
fulltime legislature; consequently, Representatives earn
$100,000 per year and have staffs of 15. He added that the same
is true for New York State. He said that California is
different from Alaska in that each House district represents
500,000 people; getting to know a California district is quite
different from getting to know an Alaska district. He
maintained that after four and a half years, most people in his
district would recognize him as their Representative and could
come up to him to talk; that would not be the case in a state
like California or New York.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX relayed that the point she was making was
that if Representatives and Senators transfer back and forth,
then the idea that the proposed resolution would give new people
options for serving would not be correct. She asked whether
this, in fact, occurs in the California legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO responded that he would attempt to find out
if that is true. He added that his point is that if one is
representing a House district of 500,000 people or a Senate
district of a million people, then it is more likely that the
legislator has only name recognition among his constituents, as
opposed to them understanding who he/she is. He maintained that
in Alaska, the scenario Representative LeDoux described could
happen, but is not likely. He asserted that if he served an
eight-year term in the House, people would be aware of when his
term ended and could prepare to run for that seat in the next
election.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why Representative Kito thought it
would be unlikely in Alaska for a Senator and Representative to
switch back and forth between the legislative seats.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO stated his reasoning as follows: Alaska
districts are much smaller, and the individuals running for
office are better known in their districts. In Alaska,
constituent relations are important. An Anchorage
Representative who returns to the Anchorage caucus, meets and
talks with a considerable number of Anchorage residents who are
politically active in the district. He reiterated that Alaskans
know their representatives better; therefore, the trading of
legislative seats would not be an issue in Alaska.
3:46:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how a small district and
constituents knowing their legislators would prevent the
representative and senator from trading seats, if they both
wanted to keep their jobs. She added that since the legislators
are so well known by their constituents, it would be easier to
trade seats and more likely to happen.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO offered his district as an example: under
HJR 27, when he comes to the end of his eight-year term, there
will be people interested in running for his seat; it could be a
Senator, but nevertheless, it is an open office; people can
express interest in the seat. He maintained that with the
smaller population and an open seat, there is greater potential
for someone to come forward and run for that seat than there
would be for an unknown person in a 500,000-person district. He
added that the latter would be like running for governor [of
Alaska] every four years, then switching off to lieutenant
governor and back. He asserted that California is a "different
animal" than Alaska; Alaska is unique, and this is one of the
areas in which its unique is positive.
3:48:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to page 1, lines 9-10, of HJR 27,
which read, "No person who has served as a representative for
four full or partial successive terms shall again be eligible to
hold that office" and asked the sponsor if he would be willing
to change "that office" to "any office".
REPRESENTATIVE KITO responded that the change could be a policy
call of the legislature; the legislature may only want
individuals to serve for eight years and no longer; some states
have placed a prohibition for serving more than eight years. He
mentioned that in a local election in Alaska, one can sit out
one term and return to service; many people do that; Alaska also
allows its governor to sit out a term and serve again. He
offered that Alaska has not historically supported a total
prohibition.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that his suggestion would retain
the two-year hiatus but disallow transferring from House to
Senate and back to House.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO suggested that disallowing someone to run
for one body or the other constitutes an undue restriction on
that person's civil rights.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK maintained that the language change would
prevent someone from switching back and forth between bodies, as
described by Representative LeDoux. He restated his suggestion:
once someone serves in the legislature for the specified number
of terms, whether it is the House or Senate, he/she must sit out
for two years before serving again.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO asked for confirmation that Representative
Tuck is suggesting a mandatory two years after an eight-year
term before the individual could run for the House or Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO said that would be a policy call of the
legislature. He suggested that there may be some awkwardness
regarding the four-year Senate seats. If someone terms out from
a four-year seat, and it remains a four-year seat, then that
person would not be able to run for that Senate seat but could
run for a House seat after two years off.
3:51:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for clarification of the proposed
resolution: an individual could serve eight years in the house
- four terms - and immediately serve two Senate terms, which
would total sixteen consecutive years in the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO confirmed that as HJR 27 is currently
written, that is correct. An individual can move from one body
to the other, but to run again for the same body, he/she must
take a two-year break.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked how many states have term limits in
their state legislatures.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO responded that currently there are 15 states
with active term limits; the requirements are different from
state to state.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that in a term limit situation,
someone coming to the end of his/her term, knowing that he/she
cannot run for reelection, may legislate differently during
his/her last term - much like a "lame duck" U.S. President. He
added, "That's probably not a bad thing."
REPRESENTATIVE KITO responded that has been argued in both
directions. In a lame duck incumbency situation, a person may
take edgier or more challenging actions - ones that he/she would
not take if facing reelection. In that way it could be
positive. He said that on the other hand, it has been said that
an incumbent does not have to consider a constituent's issues
because in a year's time he/she won't be in office. This would
be a negative outcome. He concluded that sorting out the "pros"
and "cons" of this argument is part of a legislator's job.
3:53:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HJR 27 would be held over.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS commented that uncertainty is a limiting
factor for people who might seek legislative office; not knowing
when the seat will be open can be a handicap; sometimes even
retirements are announced at the last moment; therefore, people
seeking office are not empowered to participate in a fully open
way.
HB 310-MARRIAGE AND MINIMUM AGE FOR MARRIAGE
3:54:46 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 310, "An Act relating to the minimum age
of eligibility for marriage."
3:55:07 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:55 p.m.
3:55:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 310, relayed that by raising the minimum marriage
age in Alaska to 18 with exceptions only for emancipated minors
and active military members, HB 310 would put an end to what the
U.S. has denounced as a "human rights abuse." He continued by
saying that marriage before the age of 18 correlates with poor
life outcomes, including discontinued education, increased risk
of psychiatric disorders, and increased risk of poverty. For
those who are happily married at an earlier age or who are close
to someone who married young, the proposed legislation might
seem like it would prevent young people from marrying the person
whom they love. He said that in fact, the proposed legislation
would delay rather than prevent the unions of those looking
forward to decades of happy marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the Legislative Research
Services (LRS) Report 18.018 dated 9/15/17, entitled "State
Marriages Involving Minors, 2000-2015," included in the
committee packet. He stated that Table 1 in the report reflects
the number of Alaska marriages involving minors that occurred
from 2000 to 2015. Table 1 indicates that the number of minors
getting married in Alaska is in decline - from 73 in 2000 to 17
in 2015. He maintained that by asking an increasingly small
number of people to wait a couple of years before getting
married, Alaska would protect minors, who because of external
pressure and lack of legal rights, might find themselves forced
into marriages that they are later unable to leave.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN relayed that 70-80 percent of marriages
involving children end in divorce; and when they do, because of
limited education and work opportunities, former child brides
and grooms have few options for supporting themselves and, in
many cases, supporting their children. He maintained that in
those instances, the economic burden falls to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN maintained that under HB 310, the hope is
to bring an end to a human rights abuse that affects not just
individuals but society.
3:57:40 PM
CERI GODINEZ, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor
of HB 310, relayed that the intent of HB 310 is to protect
children from finding themselves in lifelong commitments in
which they have no say and cannot escape. She paraphrased from
the sponsor statement, included in the committee packet, which
read as follows:
Under current law, Alaskan minors cannot vote, serve
on a jury, purchase a fire arm, open a checking
account on their own, file a domestic violence
protective order on their own, or work without the
consent of their parents; yet they are old enough to
be married with parental approval or a court ruling in
the case of those under 16. This places a child in a
particularly vulnerable situation where they could be
coerced into marrying an abuser. If the relationship
is abusive, leaving their spouse may be extremely
difficult. House Bill 310 would protect minors by
requiring them to have the same rights as adults
before getting married.
MS. GODINEZ continued with a sectional analysis of HB 310 as
follows: Section 1 of HB 310 [page 1, lines 8-12] requires for
marriage a person to be 18 years of age or older, an emancipated
minor, or a member of the U.S. Armed Forces on active duty.
Section 2 [page 1, line 14-15] relates to "arrival at majority
upon marriage" and amends AS 25.20.020 to say that a person
reaches the age of majority when he/she marries. Section 3,
[page 2, line 4] repeals AS 25.05.171, which allows minors 16 to
18 years of age to marry with parental consent and minors 14 to
15 years of age to marry with judicial approval and parental
consent. Section 4 [page 2, lines 5-8] states that the Act
applies to people married on or after the effective date.
3:59:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to page 1, line 9, which read,
"emancipated under AS 09.55.590", and asked for the definition
of "emancipated."
MS. GODINEZ answered that "emancipated" means the person is 16
years of age or older, living separately from his/her parents or
guardians, and can prove himself/herself to be self-supporting.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to what was involved for
emancipation; she asked why a minor wouldn't just petition for
emancipation [to marry].
MS. GODINEZ expressed her understanding that under HB 310, a
minor could seek emancipation and if successful, file for
marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if that is a loophole that almost
subsumes the proposed legislation; the minor would not be
required to be age 18 but could simply petition for
emancipation.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN explained that the difference between the
two is as follows: to get emancipated one needs to have a court
hearing with a judge to determine if the qualifications for
emancipation are met; under HB 310, one can get married with
parental consent without proving self-sufficiency.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for the number of children under age
16 who are married in Alaska each year.
MS. GODINEZ replied that the number each year is between zero
and one. She clarified that someone who is emancipated has most
of the legal rights of an adult. She mentioned that the intent
of HB 310 is to ensure that people entering marriage are on
equal legal footing with their spouses.
4:02:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether those who are 16 through 18
years of age and get married are marrying against their wills.
She related that she has a friend who was married at age 17 and
has been married for 30 years; the friend had her parents'
permission; and she wasn't forced to marry.
MS. GODINEZ responded that there are many cases of people
happily married at age 16. The proposed legislation would ask
those people to wait a couple of years so that in the rare cases
in which someone is being forced into marriage by external
pressure from their families or other parties, that marriage
would be prevented.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX summarized by saying that although there
are many cases in which people get married at age 16 who have
workable marriages, HB 310 proposes that they forego marriage
for two years because of the extremely rare incidence in which
someone is forced into marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to Table 1 of the LRS Report to
point out that there are very few people getting married at ages
16 and 17, and of those, the clear majority get divorced and are
left in very poor financial conditions due to low functioning
during the marriage.
4:04:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH cited the LRS Report to point out that the
number of marriages of those age 17 and under decreased from 73
in 2000 to 14 in 2015; it decreased to zero for the 15 and under
age group; and there was only 1 in the 15 and under age group in
the most recent five years shown on the chart. He offered that
half of marriages end up in divorce regardless of age. He asked
whether minors could be married in another state and have it
recognized in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his belief that under the "Full
Faith and Credit Clause" [U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section
1] a marriage in Nevada, for example, would be recognized in
Alaska, if legal in Nevada.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked whether two people, who cannot
legally be married in Alaska, could travel to another state,
like Nevada, where it is permissible to be married at age 16,
then return to Alaska to live.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered that he believes that to be the
case; under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S.
Constitution, Alaska would have to recognize the marriage that
occurred in Nevada.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked whether there are any religious
issues associated with the proposed legislation or whether it
would violate any religious jurisdiction. He clarified, "Is
there a religious exemption?"
MS. GODINEZ responded that the sponsor has not received any
opposition from religious minorities.
4:08:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP referred to page 1, lines 11-12, of HB 310
and asked if there is anyone under age 18 in the active
military.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN relayed that with parental consent,
someone can join the military at age 17. The military exemption
is included for the occasion of someone being deployed and
wanting to marry his/her sweetheart before leaving. He
maintained that there is considerable history of people getting
married just before deployment; there are spousal benefits,
which is an important factor.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked about the language change on page 1,
lines 4-5: the deletion of "one man and one woman" and the
addition of "two natural persons".
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN explained that was recommended because
that is what the U.S. Constitution requires.
4:10:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether under the military exemption,
someone could enroll in the military at age 17 with parental
consent and marry someone 16 years of age who is not in the
military. He asked whether the exemption would exist for the
16-year-old spouse as well.
MS. GODINEZ expressed her understanding that the exemption would
apply to the underage military enrollee marrying an adult.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL pointed out that page 1, line 11, states
that the member of the U.S. Armed Forces may be under age 18.
He offered that a 17-year-old boy [in the military] can marry a
21-year-old woman but could not marry a 17-year-old woman not in
the military.
MS. GODINEZ agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN added that if the 17-year-old woman not in
the military got emancipated, then the marriage could proceed.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether in the case of a 16- or 17-
year-old who has received emancipation through a judge and
really wanted to get married, parental consent would be
necessary.
MS. GODINEZ replied that in that scenario, the person would need
judicial approval and parental consent. The exception to
parental consent is an extreme case, in which the parents are
unfit to decide the matter.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that his aunt got married at age
16 a long time ago; getting married at a younger age was more
common then than today. He mentioned that marriage right before
"shipping off to war" seems a little dated but conceded that it
does occur.
4:13:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to the document, entitled "Child
Marriage in America Executive Summary," provided by the sponsor
and included in the committee packet. He asked for the
definitions of "minors," "children," and "adults" and the lines
of demarcation for the three groups.
MS. GODINEZ expressed her belief that the words "children" and
"minors" are being used interchangeably in the document, and
they refer to people under the age of 18. She confirmed that
anyone age 18 to 21 is not a minor.
4:15:09 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 310.
4:15:25 PM
JEANNE SMOOT, Tahirih Justice Center (TJC), testified that the
Tahirih Justice Center is a 20-year-old national legal services
organization that works with survivors of domestic violence,
sexual assault, and other violence and abuse, including forced
marriages. She relayed that forced marriages can involve
insidious forms of coercion, not only physical violence but
extreme psychological abuse and threats. When that comes from a
parent or a loved one, it does have the effect of "a gun to the
head" or "shotgun wedding" for a teenage girl who is still very
dependent on her family both emotionally and practically.
MS. SMOOT stated that TJC has operated a special forced marriage
initiative across the country and over the past several years;
it worked on over 500 cases involving women and girls across the
U.S. The organization also has analyzed the minimum marriage
laws and exceptions for all 50 states and released a detailed
report on how the current laws can facilitate forced marriages
and other abuses and exploitation in the guise of marriage.
MS. SMOOT continued by saying that based on the work that TJC
has done, she has flagged a few of the concerns that Alaska's
current law poses in terms of serious child protection risks.
She stated that the parental consent exception can conceal
parental coercion; among the forced marriage cases, most often
the perpetrator is a parent. There are many reasons for this,
but sometimes it's because a parent just wants to be rid of
additional responsibility for a girl and to offload her onto
whomever will take her. She said that regardless of the
backgrounds of these cases, the common vulnerability is that
children lack the legal rights and resources to stand up for
themselves and get to safety.
MS. SMOOT mentioned that the low age of 14 falls even below the
state's legal age of consent for sex, and combined with the
affirmative defense to prosecution for statutory rape that is in
Alaska statute, it means that as long as the parties are
married, one can essentially "roadmap" a "work around" for
predators to access young girls that would otherwise be off
limits.
MS. SMOOT stated a third concern for flagging: Only a handful
of the minors currently being married ever see a judge. The
concern is that the approval process has only vague and
subjective criteria and doesn't have other critical safeguards,
like court-appointed counsel for the minor. She said that,
unfortunately, for the reasons she has stated, Alaska's current
laws make it far too easy for a host of horrors - ones that TJC
staff see every day - lurking behind the marriage of an underage
girl, no questions asked. She said, "That is the crux of the
problem with current law." She maintained that TJC does not
know how many of the cases behind the statistics are forced
marriages of children. Based on TJC work and the
vulnerabilities staff see, they are very concerned precisely
because the children marrying today are marrying against
national trends. They represent particularly vulnerable
children who have no say in the matter and whose parents or
partners are not listening to them ... (indisc.).
MS. SMOOT stated that this year alone, 15 states have taken up
reform bills; 8 more are on the horizon. Virginia passed a law
like HB 310, but the year before the law passed, 182 minors were
married, including one younger than age 15.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for a written copy of Ms. Smoot's
testimony.
4:19:30 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, after ascertaining that there was no one
else who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 310.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 310 would be held over.
HB 152-ORGANIZED MILITIA; AK ST. DEFENSE FORCE
4:19:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 152(MLV), "An Act relating to the
organized militia; and relating to the authority of the adjutant
general."
4:20:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 152, Version 30-LS0366\R, Wallace, 2/12/18, as the
working document, referred to as "Version R."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:20:38 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor of
HB 152, relayed that Version R removes "imminent response
authority" - the language allowing the adjutant general (TAG) to
call the national guard to duty if the governor is unavailable.
She added that Version R retained the language regarding
command, control, the TAG accepting resignations and
retirements, and adding the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF)
and Alaska Naval Militia (AKNM) to the tuition program.
4:21:27 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Version R. There being no further objection, Version R
was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that Version R addresses her
concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that Version R addresses his
concerns as well.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed that the state should devise a way
to quickly respond in situations of imminent danger to the state
of Alaska - a natural disaster or other circumstance - when the
governor and lieutenant governor are incapacitated. Currently
there would have to be a designation that the governor is
incapacitated, then the swearing in of the lieutenant governor
before action can be taken by the military to keep Alaskans
safe.
4:23:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to report the CS for HB 152, Version
30-LS0366\R, Wallace, 2/12/18, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHB 152(STA) moved out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
4:24:28 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:24
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR027 Sponsor Statement 1.19.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 27 |
| HJR027 ver A 1.19.18.PDF |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 27 |
| HJR027 Fiscal Note-LEG-02-16-18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 27 |
| HJR027 Supporting Document- Letter of Support 2.19.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 27 |
| HJR27 Supporting Document-Letter of Support 2.23.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 27 |
| HB310 Sponsor Statement 2.6.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 ver A 2.6.18.PDF |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Fiscal Note DHSS 2.16.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document-Child Marriage in America Executive Summary 2.19.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document-Child Marriage in America 2.6.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document-Minors Married in Alaska 2.6.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document-Tahirih Child Marriage Backgrounder 2.6.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document- Letter from Office of Victim's Rights 2.20.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document- Letters of Support 2.22.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB310 Supporting Document-ACT Support Letter 2.27.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 310 |
| HB152 Sponsor Statement 4.12.17.pdf |
HSTA 1/23/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 1/25/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 152 |
| HB152 ver R 2.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 152 |
| HB152 Fiscal Note DMVA 1.20.18.pdf |
HSTA 1/23/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 1/25/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 152 |
| HB152 Supporting Document-DMVA Letter of Support 4.12.17.pdf |
HSTA 1/23/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 1/25/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 152 |
| HB152 Opposing Document-Letter Lawrence Wood 4.12.17.pdf |
HSTA 1/23/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 1/25/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 152 |
| HB152 Additional Documents-DMVA Letter and bill info 4.12.17.pdf |
HSTA 1/23/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 1/25/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 152 |