Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
02/28/2019 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB34 | |
| HB12 | |
| HB14 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 28, 2019
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zack Fields, Co-Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Co-Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Andi Story
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Laddie Shaw
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sarah Vance
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 34
"An Act naming the Scott Johnson Memorial Bridge."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 12
"An Act relating to protective orders."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 14
"An Act relating to assault in the first degree; relating to sex
offenses; relating to the definition of 'dangerous instrument';
and providing for an aggravating factor at sentencing for
strangulation that results in unconsciousness."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 34
SHORT TITLE: NAMING SCOTT JOHNSON MEMORIAL BRIDGE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TALERICO
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) STA, TRA
02/28/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 12
SHORT TITLE: PROTECTIVE ORDERS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KOPP
02/20/19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/19
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) STA, JUD
02/28/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 14
SHORT TITLE: ASSAULT; SEX OFFENSES; SENT. AGGRAVATOR
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LINCOLN
02/20/19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/19
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) STA, JUD
02/28/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID TALERICO
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 34, as prime sponsor.
BRANDY JOHNSON
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in during the hearing of HB 34.
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 12, Version S, as prime
sponsor.
KEN TRUIT, Staff
Representative Chuck Kopp
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the sectional analysis for HB 12,
Version S, on behalf of Representative Kopp, prime sponsor.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing of HB
12.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LINCOLN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 14, Version E, as prime
sponsor.
ROSE FOLEY, Staff
Representative John Lincoln
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a sectional analysis of HB 14,
Version E, on behalf of Representative Lincoln, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:00:20 PM
CO-CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
Representatives Fields, Story, Wool, Shaw, and Kreiss-Tomkins
were present at the call to order. Representative LeDoux
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 34-NAMING SCOTT JOHNSON MEMORIAL BRIDGE
3:01:53 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 34, "An Act naming the Scott
Johnson Memorial Bridge."
3:02:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID TALERICO, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor of HB 34, paraphrased from the sponsor statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The legislation amends Alaska Statute 35.40 by naming
bridge number 506 over the Tok River at mile 1309 of
the Alaska Highway to be named the Scott Johnson
Memorial Bridge.
Scott was a person who led from the front. He set very
high standards for himself. After graduating his
recruit class as valedictorian, he was assigned to
Fairbanks patrol. Scott became involved with the
Special Emergency Response Team (S.E.R.T.) for 19
years and held positions of perimeter team leader,
entry team leader and acting team leader. He was a K-9
handler, instructor and coordinator. In addition,
Scott trained at least 33 dual purpose and/or drug
detection canine teams throughout Alaska. He also
worked in the Alaska Bureau of Investigation and at
the age of 36 was promoted to sergeant. Scott oversaw
patrol shift and later transferred to the Alaska
Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Enforcement. Scott earned
at least 43 letters of commendation, including two
commendations for honorable service during his career.
Scott Johnson was an Alaska State Trooper killed in
the line of duty on May 1, 2014. He had served the
State of Alaska 23 years.
Let this be a lasting memorial to a man who gave his
life in the line of duty to the citizens of the State
of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO directed the committee's attention to a
document by Brandy Johnson [surviving spouse to Scott Johnson],
entitled "Scott Johnson Memorial Scholarship January 12, 1969 -
May 1, 2014," included in the committee packet. He added that
Brandy Johnson would support [the naming of the bridge through
legislation], if there is public support for doing so; he urges
public testimony [on HB 34] to be taken to determine whether
public support exists to move forward with the naming of the
bridge; if the public support is not there, he will abide by Ms.
Johnson's wishes.
3:05:23 PM
BRANDY JOHNSON, surviving spouse to Scott Johnson, read from her
written testimony as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Chairpersons and members of the committee,
After much self thought, I have found I must think
about policy change beyond myself and what change
brings to others.
I realize there is not an inadequacy in policy to
address here today. I like the fact that the Tok
River Bridge is named what it is. The bridge has held
that name for many years. Scott and I have floated
the river from dawn till dusk hunting moose from the
Glenn Highway to the Alcan Highway ending at the Tok
River Bridge. In that same segment of the Tok River,
Scott told me stories of camping with his family as a
young boy. He and I crossed the bridge twice yearly
traveling to and from Eagle, Alaska during hunting
season for at least eighteen years prior to him being
murdered.
We must remember, policies that are clearly understood
and supported by all factions of a community are
respected and formulated in a constructive way. I'd
appreciate hearing supportive testimony from the
communities that centralize the area of the Tok River
Bridge. Testimony from just family, friends and co-
workers limits the space for community participation
and tailors the policy to a few individuals. Through
public deliberation across all factions, community
members will voice their respect for change or no
change. Not everybody likes change. Change shouldn't
be based on tradition, personal or political gain of
groups or individuals. Allowing and encouraging such
involvement can be realized in a way that allows
community representatives to become more active
members in the policymaking process.
After Scott was murdered, I was asked if I was
interested in naming a bridge after Scott and Gabe
Rich. I was not, based on the location of the bridge.
I don't want to drive past a sign with Scott's name
and see that it has been shot up with bullets and
spray painted. The disrespect and hurt is terrible.
What is going through my child's mind when they see
this kind of vandalism? As much as I appreciate the
thoughtfulness of the honor, none of these honors take
away the pain and loss. If anything, they make it
worse for me. This is where I must look beyond myself
for others. Scott's job was that of a public servant
and now I have found that his death, for many, will
always be remembered by his job and not the person he
was.
In conclusion, I support the renaming of the Tok River
Bridge to the Scott Johnson Memorial Bridge if there
is broadspread community support of the centralized
area of the bridge. How our lawmakers measure that
support I will leave to them.
3:08:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY commented that she was honored to learn of
Scott Johnson's life and work. She offered that she appreciated
Ms. Johnson's desire for public testimony.
3:08:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW commented that honoring a person with a
memorial road sign is heartfelt and meaningful. It affords one
the opportunity to take a moment and remember a valuable life.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that HB 34 would be held over.
HB 12-PROTECTIVE ORDERS
3:10:32 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 12, "An Act relating to
protective orders."
3:11:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 12, paraphrased from the sponsor statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Last summer, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in Whalen
v. Whalen that victims of domestic violence are unable
to get an extension or renewal for an existing
protective order based on the same incident of
violence of the original order. This is regardless of
whether they are still in fear of their perpetrators
or whether their perpetrators continue to pose a risk
to their safety.
The Court's holding turned on the interpretation of
the protective order statutes which fail to expressly
allow for extensions, renewals, or subsequent
protective orders. The Court ruled the statutes are
unclear and thus, do not allow for the extensions.
The purpose of House Bill 12 is to clearly articulate
that victims may request an extension of a protective
order 30 days before or within 60 days after it
expires.
The bill also extends this clarification to the
statute that covers protective orders for sexual
assault and stalking.
HB 12 clarifies that a court is not barred from
ordering relief to victims based on an incident for
which relief has previously been issued or considered,
thus preventing a situation in which survivors must be
a victim again before receiving judicial assistance.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP summarized by saying the proposed
legislation would amend two areas of law that address domestic
violence protective orders and sexual assault stalking
protective orders to make it very clear that renewals may happen
without revictimization; protective orders may be renewed based
on one's continuing fear of domestic violence, sexual assault,
or stalking, as long as a court finds the continuing fear to be
reasonable. He added that under HB 12, the accused would not be
denied due process, would still be advised of a hearing 10 days
in advance; and would be given the opportunity to testify.
3:15:25 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB
12 [Version 31-LS0103\S, Radford, 1/24/19] as a work draft.
There being no objection, Version S was before the committee.
3:15:55 PM
KEN TRUIT, Staff, Representative Chuck Kopp, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kopp, prime sponsor of
HB 12, referred the committee's attention to Section 1 of
Version S [page 1, lines 3-10] and relayed that under the
proposed legislation, AS 18.65.850(e) would be split into three
separate sections. The proposed new paragraph (1), [lines 5-6],
prepares the existing statute for a list that follows. The
proposed new [paragraph] (2), [lines 7-8], is the operative fix
to the problem stated in the Whalen v. Whalen Alaska Supreme
Court case [of 2018, "Whalen"]; the new language would instruct
the court that it may not deny a petition for a protective order
solely because the act that gave rise to the initial protective
order is the same one for which the extension is petitioned. He
said that the new paragraph (3), [lines 9-10], is a proposed
policy for protective orders. It states that a court may not
deny issuing a protective order solely because the court had
previously found that the petitioner was a victim of stalking or
sexual assault but declined to order relief under [Section 1].
MR. TRUIT related that HB 12 is very narrowly focused to fix the
Whalen issue and to propose a new policy for protective orders;
everything else in the proposed legislation maintains the
protective order policy as "everybody thought it was" before the
Whalen decision.
MR. TRUIT continued by say that Section 2 of Version S explains
how HB 12 would be implemented in practice and provides the
process. He directed attention to subsection (f) on page 1,
starting on line 12, which states in part, "Within 30 days
before, or within 60 days after, the expiration of a protective
order issued or extended under this section ..." and said that
this language instructs that the extensions are not limited to
just one. He relayed that the remainder of Section 2 addresses
the notice to the respondent; the judge still exercises the
discretion [for issuing the order]; nothing in the proposed
legislation alters the preponderance of evidence standard,
already in statute, required for the petitioner to convince the
judge and the court to issue the order; and the court would
still be required to make a determination based on what is
submitted by the petitioner.
3:20:13 PM
MR. TRUIT relayed that Sections 3 and 4 represent provisions
identical to Section 1 and 2 but address the domestic violence
protective order statute.
MR. TRUIT said that Section 5 is the applicability clause to
make it clear that should HB 12 become law, it would affect
existing domestic violence orders, orders issued on the
effective date of the law, and any orders thereafter.
3:20:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why the orders are not issued for a
reasonable lengthy time as a regular course of action in the
criminal proceedings. She expressed her belief that even though
the protective orders may involve criminal action by the
respondent, the orders are within the civil jurisdiction of the
court. She asked why the court doesn't issue the protective
orders in the event someone has been incarcerated for domestic
violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that there are ex parte protective
orders, which are 20-day orders issued without the presence of
the defender; and there is an emergency 72-hour order that a
police officer can request to allow collection of evidence for a
hearing. He maintained that what is under discussion in the
proposed legislation is the long-term protective orders, which
have been in state statute for about 40 years. It is unclear
how the length of time for a protective order - six months or
one year - was determined; these time periods are fairly
standard from state to state. He mentioned that the court
issues protective orders; the court determines probable cause
for restraining someone; and there is due process for the
petitioner and the respondent to make their cases regarding the
long-term orders.
3:23:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the situation discussed
involves someone accusing another of sexual assault but has not
made a report with police.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered that someone from the Alaska Court
System (ACS) should answer the question definitively; however,
he expressed his belief that it would be profoundly unusual for
a court to issue a sexual assault protective order unless there
was a formal [police] report.
3:24:21 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Office of the Administrative
Director, Alaska Court System, responded that protective orders
for sexual assaults are relatively rare compared with domestic
violence protective orders. She confirmed that these
proceedings are completely civil proceedings. There must be a
household relationship between the two individuals; they have a
dispute; they go to court. She said that there is no district
attorney involved; it is citizen versus citizen. The
proceedings are civil proceedings; if the court finds by a
preponderance of evidence that there was a crime of domestic
violence and the order is necessary, the court will issue it.
MS. MEADE restated the question: If there is a finding by a
court of a crime of domestic violence, where does the criminal
law come into it? She said that the petitioner in that scenario
can report the incident to the police, but he/she does not
usually do that. There are far more citizens seeking domestic
violence protective orders than criminal cases against someone
for the crime of domestic violence. There are about eight
different crimes of domestic violence, including trespassing and
vandalism. She confirmed Representative Kopp's assessment that
it would be quite unusual for the court to issue a sexual
assault protective order, because it would be making a finding
that there was a crime of sexual assault, which is a distinct
thing, as opposed to domestic violence, which can be one of many
things. She mentioned that in most sexual assault cases, there
is a corresponding criminal case.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether in the situation where there
is a corresponding criminal case for the sexual assault, a
separate protective order is issued in conjunction with the
criminal case.
MS. MEADE responded that the court wouldn't decide to issue an
order on its own, but "no contact with the victim" is very often
a bail condition of the person released. When the person is in
jail, no protective order is needed; after release, the court
can issue a protective order during probation.
3:27:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated his understanding that there was a
historical basis for the discrepancy between six months and one
year; and the protective orders could be successively extended
or renewed pending approval of a judge.
MS. MEADE responded that his understanding was correct as far as
the intent of the wording of HB 12. She further explained that
the six months and one-year time frames were based on federal
standards and were consistent across states. She stated,
"There's that balance of limiting in many ways the liberty of
the respondent in these cases for longer than is necessary, and
in most, if not all, cases the petitioner's fear is abated after
six months or a year, and as Representative Kopp is saying, if
not, they can come back."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether there was a historical reason
for domestic violence incurring a one-year protective order and
sexual assault incurring a six-month protective order.
MS. MEADE expressed her belief that the length of time of the
protective order was changed in 2004. It used to be a six-month
time period for domestic violence protective orders and
resulting from a federal Act - possibly the Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 - states generally moved to one-year
protective orders and Alaska followed in 2004.
3:29:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY referred to Section 1 on page 1, lines 5-6,
of Version S, which discusses the lapse of time between an act
of sexual assault and the filing [of the petition]. She asked
whether "stalking" should be added to the language in the
paragraph.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that stalking is different [from
sexual assault] because it refers to a course of conduct
occurring over time; it is not one event, but many individual
events that, collectively, put a person in fear. He added that
the legal definition refers to a process over time which, in
summation, constitutes stalking. That stalking is not "specific
event" oriented, but "course of conduct oriented" explains the
language of the proposed legislation. He offered that
Legislative Legal Services could provide additional information.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY mentioned that she could imagine a
situation in which stalking is resumed after a lapse in time.
MR. TRUIT responded that the language cited is from existing
statute; Version S does not propose any alterations to existing
language but adds language.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY maintained that there is no stalking
language included on line 5.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that he is fully supportive of
making the proposed legislation as inclusive as possible. In
discussion with Legislative Legal Services there was a drafting
issue with adding "stalking" because of the event-specific
nature of a crime of assault versus stalking, which is defined
in law as a course of conduct over time. He maintained that
that although his focus was to address the Whalen decision, he
is empathetic to Representative Story's concern.
[HB 12 was held over.]
HB 14-ASSAULT; SEX OFFENSES; SENT. AGGRAVATOR
3:33:48 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 14, "An Act relating to assault
in the first degree; relating to sex offenses; relating to the
definition of 'dangerous instrument'; and providing for an
aggravating factor at sentencing for strangulation that results
in unconsciousness."
3:34:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LINCOLN, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 14, paraphrased from the sponsor statement as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 14 (HB 14) classifies the act of
ejaculating on a person without their consent as a sex
crime and recognizes the serious nature of
strangulation to the point of unconsciousness by
classifying the act as first degree assault and
including it in the list of aggravating factors for
sentencing.
In the fall of 2018 a plea deal agreement illuminated
the fact that ejaculating on a person without their
consent could not be prosecuted as a sex offense in
Alaska. This bill enhances sexual assault statutes by
adding unwanted contact with ejaculate to the
definitions of sexual assault in the third degree and
sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree, depending
on the age of the victim.
HB 14 also acknowledges the seriousness of
strangulation. Strangulation is prevalent in domestic
violence incidences, and 56% of women murdered in
Alaska in 2017 were killed by an intimate partner. A
study published by the Journal of Emergency Medicine
found that a prior non-fatal strangulation increases a
woman's likelihood of becoming a homicide victim by
700%, and non-fatal strangulation preceded 43% of
domestic homicides. This bill recognizes the gravity
of strangulation as a precursor to future violent
crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN thanked the following: 49th Rising, No
More Free Passes, the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), the Public Defender Agency (Department
of Administration (DOA)), Department of Law (DOL), Legislative
Legal Services, and the co-sponsors of HB 14.
3:36:36 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
HB 14 [Version 31-LS0182\E, Radford, 2/26/19]. There being no
objection, Version E was before the committee.
3:37:19 PM
ROSE FOLEY, Staff, Representative John Lincoln, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Lincoln, prime sponsor
of HB 14, paraphrased from the sectional analysis for Version E
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1: Amends AS 11.41.200(a), classifying
strangulation to the point of unconsciousness as
assault in the first degree.
Section 2: Amends AS 11.81.900(b)(15), clarifying that
"dangerous instrument" with relation to strangulation
includes hands or "other body parts".
Section 3: Amends AS 11.81.900(b)(60), to include in
the definition of sexual contact "the defendant's
knowingly causing the victim to come into contact with
ejaculate".
Section 4: Amends AS 12.55.155(c), adding
strangulation to the point of unconsciousness to the
list of aggravating factors to be considered at
sentencing.
Section 5: Establishes that the provisions are
applicable only to crimes committed on or after the
effective date of the legislation.
[HB 14 was held over.]
3:39:07 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:39
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB34 ver A 2.28.19.PDF |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/7/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 34 |
| HB34 Sponsor Statement 2.28.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/7/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 34 |
| HB34 Supporting Document-Scott Johnson Memorial Scholarship Biography 2.28.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/7/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 34 |
| HB34 Fiscal Note DOT-NRHA 2.28.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/7/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 34 |
| HB12 ver U 2.28.19.PDF |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/7/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB12 CS ver S 2.28.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/7/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB12 Sponsor Statement 2.28.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/7/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB12 Sectional 2.28.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/7/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB12 Supporting Document - APOA Letter 2.28.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/7/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB12 Supporting Document- ALSC Letter 2.28.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/7/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB12 Additional Document - Whalen v Whalen 2018 2.28.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/7/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB12 Additional Document CPO Statute and Duration of Order 2.28.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/7/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB12 Fiscal Note DPS-DET 2.28.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/7/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB12 Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 2.28.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/7/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 12 |
| HB14 ver K 2.22.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB14 Draft Proposed Blank CS ver E 2.27.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB14 Sponsor Statement 2.22.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB14 Sectional Analysis ver E 2.27.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM |
|
| HB14 Summary of Changes ver K to ver E 2.27.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB14 Supporting Document-Support Letter Alaska Peace Officers Association 2.229.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB14 Supporting Document - Support Letter 49th Rising 2.27.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB14 Fiscal Note CRIM 2.28.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB14 Fiscal Note DOA-OPA 2.28.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB14 Fiscal Note DOA-PDA 2.28.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB14 Fiscal Note DPS-DET 2.28.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 14 |
| HB014 Supporting Document - Letter of Support 3.6.19.pdf |
HSTA 2/28/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 14 |