Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/12/2019 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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| Commissioner, Department of Administration | |
| Commissioner, Department of Corrections | |
| HB20 | |
| HJR9 | |
| HB57 | |
| HB83 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 12, 2019
3:07 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 Sarah Vance
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Laddie Shaw
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Commissioner, Department of Administration
Kelly Tshibaka - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
Commissioner, Department of Corrections
Nancy Dahlstrom - Eagle River
- HEARD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act relating to sexual assault; relating to the definitions
of 'without consent' and 'consent'; relating to failure to
report a violent crime; relating to sexual misconduct under the
code of military justice; requiring law enforcement agencies to
test sexual assault examination kits; requiring notification of
completion of testing; relating to reports on untested sexual
assault examination kits; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Requesting the United States Secretary of the Treasury to mint
not less than 5,000,000 $1 coins honoring Elizabeth Peratrovich
under the Native American $1 Coin Act.
- MOVED CSHJR 9(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act relating to expanding the period in a day during which
an employed child under 16 years of age may perform work in the
summer; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 83
"An Act relating to voting by electronic transmission in a state
election; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 20
SHORT TITLE: SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR
02/20/19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/19
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) STA, FIN
03/11/19 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/11/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/11/19 (H) STA, FIN
03/12/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HJR 9
SHORT TITLE: ELIZABETH PERATROVICH COMMEMORATIVE COIN
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHNSON
02/27/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/27/19 (H) STA
03/05/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/05/19 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/12/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 57
SHORT TITLE: CHILD LABOR HOURS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WILSON
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) STA, L&C
03/05/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/05/19 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/19 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/12/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 83
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBIT VOTING BY FACSIMILE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KREISS-TOMKINS
03/06/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/06/19 (H) STA
03/12/19 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SSHB 20, as prime sponsor, with
the use of a PowerPoint presentation.
DICK HANSCOM
Fairbanks Coin Club
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 9.
PAULETTE MORENO, President
Alaska Native Sisterhood
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 9.
LIBERTY SKELLIE
4-H
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 9
STEPHEN BRUNANSKI, President
Fairbanks Coin Club
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 9.
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Summarized HB 57 as prime sponsor.
JOHN SCANLON, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
83, Version M, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-Tompkins,
prime sponsor.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director
Division of Elections (DOE)
Office of the Lieutenant Governor (OLG)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
83, Version M.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:07:45 PM
CO-CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:07 p.m.
Representatives LeDoux, Vance, Fields, Kreiss-Tomkins were
present at the call to order. Representatives Story and Wool
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
3:09:07 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of
business would be confirmation hearings.
^Commissioner, Department of Administration
Commissioner, Department of Administration
3:09:32 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that the House State Affairs Standing
Committee has reviewed the qualifications of the governor's
appointee and recommends that the name of Kelly Tshibaka,
Department of Administration (DOA), be forwarded to the joint
session for consideration. This does not reflect the intent of
any members to vote for or against this individual during any
further session for the purposes of confirmation. There being
no objection, it was so ordered.
^Commissioner, Department of Corrections
Commissioner, Department of Corrections
3:10:09 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that the House State Affairs Standing
Committee has reviewed the qualifications of the governor's
appointee and recommends that the name of Nancy Dahlstrom,
Department of Administration (DOA), be forwarded to the joint
session for consideration. This does not reflect the intent of
any members to vote for or against this individual during any
further session for the purposes of confirmation. There being
no objection, it was so ordered.
3:11:36 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:12 p.m.
3:12:15 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS, [due to his understanding that the confirmation
had already been advanced], withdrew the motion to advance Nancy
Dahlstrom's name from committee.
[The confirmation of Commissioner Designee Nancy Dahlstrom was
subsequently advanced from committee during the 3/14/19 House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting.]
HB 20-SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS
3:12:39 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of
business would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 20, "An
Act relating to sexual assault; relating to the definitions of
'without consent' and 'consent'; relating to failure to report a
violent crime; relating to sexual misconduct under the code of
military justice; requiring law enforcement agencies to test
sexual assault examination kits; requiring notification of
completion of testing; relating to reports on untested sexual
assault examination kits; and providing for an effective date."
3:13:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of SSHB 20, began her presentation of the proposed
legislation with a PowerPoint presentation, entitled "House Bill
20." She gave a brief background on the rape kit reform work in
Alaska: Rape kit reform in Alaska began in the fall of 2014.
The Joyful Heart Foundation, founded by actress Mariska Hargitay
of the Law & Order: Special Victims Unit television series,
launched its "End The backlog" campaign. She referenced the
Home Box Office (HBO) documentary, entitled "I Am Evidence,"
which related the discovery of thousands of rape kits stored in
an abandoned building in Detroit, Michigan, and ultimately
500,000 untested rape kits throughout the country. She cited
that Alaska ranks first in domestic violence and sexual assault
rates, and child sexual abuse rates are six times the national
average.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR relayed that the first step in the reform
process is a statewide audit to quantify the number of untested
rape kits in Alaska. The U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ)
under President Barak Obama offered two large grant
opportunities, and Alaska has been successful in securing two of
the grants. As a result of Alaska's Scientific Crime Detection
Laboratory ("crime lab") [Department of Public Safety (DPS)]
audit, it was discovered that the [rape kit testing] system was
broken: all the kits weren't being tested; there were improper
procedures; and standard procedures were not followed for
maintaining a chain of custody for the rape kits. A change has
been implemented to require each kit have a unique identifier to
track it through the system. In addition, a policy was
implemented to require all rape kits be stored at the crime lab
in Anchorage; high capacity storage shelving was acquired for
this purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that Senate Bill 54 [passed during
the Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature, 2017-2018] put the audit
requirement into statute; and House Bill 31 [passed during the
Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature, 2017-2018] put into statute
the "gold standard" for reporting - having both an anonymous
report and a law enforcement report - to allow a victim to have
the evidence collected, which must be done within 72 hours [of
the incident], but still allow the victim to delay making the
decision regarding prosecution. She added that House Bill 31
also required standardized training on sexual assault for all
law enforcement officials. She mentioned that this requirement
was in response to a statement by a sexual assault advocate that
law enforcement response to sexual assault depends on where you
live in the state. Lastly House Bill 31 renewed the requirement
for the audit of untested rape kits in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR relayed that still to be addressed are
the two recommendations from The Joyful Heart Foundation:
a timeline to establish when testing must occur and a
victim notification process. All the reforms mentioned are
included in the Survivors' Bill of Rights Act of 2010. She
stated that besides the two recommendations, SSHB 20 would
address the following: a definition of consent and the
inclusion of sexual assault against someone who is
incapacitated, requested by Standing Together Against Rape
(STAR) and the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual
Assault (ANDVSA); and specificity in the audit report
requested by 49th State Rising.
3:21:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to adopt the sponsor substitute (SS)
for HB 20, Version 31-LS0253\S, as the working document. There
being no objection, SSHB 20 was before the committee.
3:21:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR continued with the PowerPoint presentation
to review the sectional analysis for SSHB 20. She relayed that
STAR and ANDVSA requested a change in statutory language to
address the circumstances in which a person's incapacitation is
in question - whether the person is incapacitated and whether
the perpetrator knew it. She cited the STAR document, entitled
"2019 Policy Priorities," included in the committee packet,
which read in part:
Revise the elements of the crime to ensure a
perpetrator may be found guilty of the offense if they
know or reasonably should know the victim is
incapacitated or unaware and unable to consent to
sexual penetration or sexual contact under the
circumstances.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered that Sections 1, 2, and 3 would
change the statutory definition for sexual assault in the first,
second, and third degrees, respectively. The statutory language
regarding sexual assault would be amended to state that a person
commits the crime [of sexual assault] if he/she knows or
reasonably should know that the victim is mentally incapable.
She stated that the addition of "reasonably should know" would
facilitate prosecution of a sexual assault crime. She pointed
out that there is a variance regarding the legal language to be
used in the statute - "reasonably should know" versus
"recklessly disregard." Both are used in statute; they address
the same standard; the Department of Law (DOL) and Legislative
Legal Services have offered varying opinions; and it is yet to
be decided which ultimately will be used in the proposed
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said that sexual assault in the first degree
involves sexual penetration; sexual assault in the second degree
involves sexual contact; and sexual assault in the third degree
involves sexual contact that is more specific to improper abuse
of power situations. She stated the fundamental questions to be
considered regarding the proposed legislation: What does
justice look like for a victim? Does SSHB 20 include all the
circumstances in which a crime is committed in order to bring
justice to the victims? She reviewed sentencing for sexual
assault shown on the PowerPoint presentation, which read in part
as follows:
Section 1: Sexual Assault in the First Degree
Sentencing:
For first felony conviction, if victim is
less than 13 years of age, 25 to 35 years
13 years of age or older, 20 to 30 years
Section 2: Sexual Assault in the Second Degree
Sentencing:
for the first felony conviction 5 to 15 years
Section 3: Sexual Assault in the Third Degree
Sentencing:
for the first felony conviction 2 to 12 years
3:26:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR reviewed the definition of consent in
Section 4 of SSHB 20, displayed on the PowerPoint presentation,
which read as follows:
Current 11.41.470 (8) defines "without consent" as
means that a person
(A) with or without resisting, is coerced by the
use of force against a person or property, or by
the express or implied threat of death, imminent
physical injury, or kidnapping to be inflicted on
anyone; or
(B) is incapacitated as a result of an act of the
defendant.
Problem: Current outdated definition implies force
must be used. This is not always the case and jurors
often look for evidence of force.
Solution: Update the meaning of consent to be in the
affirmative, to demonstrate that consent has been
given. This is consistent with other jurisdictions to
require a more overt expression of consent.
New language to 11.41.470:
(9) "consent" means words or overt actions indicating
freely given agreement to engage in sexual penetration
or sexual contact.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR added that this change, which puts consent
into the affirmative rather than in terms of "without consent"
and the use of force, represents an evolution of society's
understanding of consent and expectations around sexual
behaviors.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out the conforming changes included
in Section 5 of SSHB 20. The proposed legislation would update
AS 11.56.765(a), which addresses the failure to report a violent
crime committed against a child and make it clear that a child
can never give consent to sexual penetration. She pointed out
the changes, found on page 4, lines 15-23, of SSHB 20: sub-
subparagraphs (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) [under AS
11.56.765(a)(1)(C)] would be deleted; and subparagraph (C) would
read, "the sexual penetration or attempted sexual penetration by
another of a child". Legislative Legal Services personnel
explained that after research, they concluded that these four
sub-subparagraphs were included in error, because of the
understanding that a child can never give consent. Paragraph
(2), [page 4, lines 26-27] defines a child as under 16 years of
age.
3:32:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out the conforming change in Section
6, [page 4, lines 30-31]. The proposed legislation would update
AS 11.56.767(c), which addresses the failure to report a violent
crime committed against an adult, by adding the definition of
consent. She added that under the proposed legislation, all
statutory references to "without consent" would be repealed and
replaced by the new definition of consent.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out another such conforming change
in Section 7, [page 5, lines 1-2]. The proposed legislation
would update AS 26.05.900(e), relating to the Military Code of
Justice, to add the definition of consent.
3:33:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether a sex crime has been committed
if there is sexual penetration involving a 15-year-old, who is
legally a child according to statute, and another person who is
two or three years older.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied that Section 6, beginning on page 4,
line 30, addresses "failure to report a crime" under AS
11.56.767; it refers to an individual who knows that a crime has
happened, and not someone engaged in the crime.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL gave an example: A 22-year-old has a 17-
year-old younger brother who is in a sexual relationship with a
15-year-old school mate. He asked whether the 22-year-old is
legally obliged to report the relationship as a crime.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered, "Yes, if it is in fact a crime."
She expressed that she is not clear about the age difference
issue; however, if it is in fact a criminal act, then it must be
reported.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the reporting requirement would be
new statute under the proposed legislation or existing statute.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that it is existing statute
conforming to its original intent based on the opinion of
Legislative Legal Services. She reiterated that the language on
page 4, lines 17-23, would be removed under SSHB 20 because of
the understanding that a child cannot give consent.
3:36:39 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Section 5 on page 4, lines
17-23, and suggested that none of the four sub-subparagraphs
being deleted relate to a consensual sexual relationship;
therefore, Representative Wool's example of statutory rape -
involving two minors with sufficient age difference - would not
be captured in that mandatory reporting scenario.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed her belief that the crime he is
referencing is covered under a different statute. Section 5
refers to AS 11.56, entitled "Offenses Against Public
Administration," and involves a person, other than the victim,
committing the crime of failure to report a violent crime
against a child. Removing the four sub-subparagraphs is due to
it being understood that a child can never give consent.
3:38:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to the stipulation of "13 years"
under sentencing for sexual assault in the first degree, shown
on the PowerPoint presentation, and the definition of a child -
someone under 16 years of age - in Section 5, [page 4, lines 26-
27]. She asked for an explanation of the discrepancy.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referenced AS 12.55.125(i), which read in
part, "A defendant convicted of (1) sexual assault in the first
degree, sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree" and stated
that the sentencing addresses two categories of crime.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked, "What's the difference between the
definition of a minor and of a child?"
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that in Alaska, 16 years of age is
the age at which a young person may marry with parental
permission, which presents inconsistencies in statute regarding
16- to 18-year-olds. There is proposed legislation to move the
marriage age to 18 years of age. She asked Representative
Vance, "Are you asking specifically why this one chooses 13
years of age versus the other as 16?" She acknowledged that she
does not have the answer for that.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE agreed to pursue the issue later.
3:41:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether there are no longer
mandatory reporters with respect to crimes, and everyone is
required to report.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed her understanding that what
Representative LeDoux is referring to is mandatory reporting of
child abuse by teachers, childcare workers, coaches, and such.
She maintained that the proposed legislation would not alter
that requirement. She explained that the proposed statutory
change is specific to a statute regarding "offenses against
public administration"; therefore, does not impact any of the
other statutes that have specific requirements of mandatory
reporting.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether no crime has been committed
when failing to report the murder of a 17-year-old, but it is a
crime when failing to report the murder of a 16-year-old.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that the language in the proposed
legislation does not address homicides but only sexual assault
crimes. She offered that since AS 11.56.767 (c) addresses the
failure to report a violent crime committed against an adult,
both categories are covered in statute.
3:43:14 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS suggested that the questions, although
interesting, pertain more to the underlying statute than to the
proposed legislation.
3:43:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR conceded that some of the statutory
amendments were at the recommendation of Legislative Legal
Services to correct some erroneous language and not completely
aligned with the intent of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved on to Section 8 regarding sexual
assault examination kits and relayed that this section addresses
the two remaining timeline recommendations and victim
notification. The PowerPoint presentation read as follows:
Title 44: State Government
Chapter 41: Department of Public Safety
Section 65: new section Sexual Assault
Examination Kits
Adds language to requires three things:
1. That all sexual assault examination kits are
sent to the crime lab within 30 days of
collection
2. That all sexual assault examination kits be
tested within six months
3. That victims be notified by law enforcement
within two weeks of receiving the results that
the kit has been tested
REPRESENTATIVE TARR added that the law enforcement agency is the
client of the crime lab for the purpose of sending in kits for
testing. She cited page 5, lines 6-8, of SSHB 20 which read:
(1) within 30 days after the agency collects the
sexual assault examination kit, send the sexual
assault examination kit to a laboratory operated or
approved by the Department of Public Safety;
REPRESENTATIVE TARR mentioned that the word "approved" needs to
be replaced with the word "accredited." She stated that the
fiscal note for SSHB 20 has not been completed; however, she
does expect there to be a cost associated with the proposed
legislation. She also mentioned that the timelines may need to
be lengthened.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to the fundamental question: What
does justice mean for victims? She stated that with the cuts in
staffing, it was taking more than two years to bring cases to
trial; prosecutors were waiting to request the lab to do the
testing until such time they felt the case would move forward;
victims were waiting two years to get any results from the kits.
She cited the scenario in which the identity of the perpetrator
is unknown and emphasized the effect that would have on the
victim. The Survivor Bill of Rights states that by establishing
set timelines, the burden and the trauma of the experience for
the victim is eased.
3:46:38 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS suggested that even six months seems slow.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied that many states are working on this
effort using a variety of timelines. She mentioned that she
originally set an 18-month timeline. Currently DPS is achieving
an average of 10 months. She maintained that the crime lab was
built with the idea of having a huge amazing facility, fully
staffed, with a robust testing system. She said, "It just never
happened."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that the gold standard for victim
notification is to have a database with unique identifiers,
usernames, and passwords to allow the victim to log in and track
the "life cycle" of the kit. She said that typically when one
calls law enforcement repeatedly, the story must be related
repeatedly, and the victim is re-traumatized as a result. In
the course of two years, the victim may have called up to ten
times. She stated that currently there are three databases:
one for current cases; one for closed cases; and another one
specific to the court system. There are challenges in rural
communities with internet access, staffing, and capacity. She
said that she is working with DPS to find a way to accomplish
notification without it being overly burdensome to law
enforcement in small communities where resources are limited.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Sections 9 and 10, which would
add statutory language requiring [DPS to include in the audit]
the reason a kit was ineligible for testing. She explained that
the audits [currently] did not include that information; 49th
State Rising has requested that this information be included.
The work of the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) by way of
the two federal grants will end; therefore, she wants to ensure
that language in the statute reflects appropriate reporting in
perpetuity in the absence of that organization.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR reviewed the PowerPoint presentation
discussing Section 11, which lists the reasons a sexual assault
examination kit is ineligible for testing. It read in part as
follows:
Amends 44.41.070 to add a new subsection (e) to read
A sexual assault examination kit is ineligible for
testing if the law enforcement agency or state
department finds that the sexual assault examination
kit
(1) was collected improperly
(2) is not necessary to identify the perpetrator of
the crime; or
(3) was collected from a person who does not wish to
proceed 19 (sic) with criminal charges.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered alternative language that is being
considered for the proposed subsection (e) of AS 44.41.070. The
person referred to in paragraph (3) is also called an "anonymous
victim" - a person who chooses not to move forward with criminal
charges. Paragraph (2) may be referred to as a Combined
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) Index System (CODIS) ineligible
sexual assault kit - the DNA is not eligible to be used for
identification. Paragraph (1) may be referred to as a
scientifically unviable case - evidence was collected
improperly. She reiterated that there are unresolved language
issues for the proposed legislation, not intent or outcome
issues; she is attempting to gather input from many advocacy
groups.
3:53:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to paragraph (3) [page 6, lines
18-19], regarding the anonymous victim. She asked whether there
was a way to test that kit in the future should the person
decide to move forward with criminal charges later.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded, "There is a way to go back." She
said that as a result of House Bill 31, the two options were
defined - the anonymous report and the law enforcement report.
In the course of processing the backlog of cases, DPS is
attempting to contact individuals to seek their permission to
move forward with the testing.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there is a provision for the
sexual assault kit of a minor, who cannot give consent to
proceed [with testing].
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied that there is a different procedure
when sexual assault of a minor is involved. She offered to give
Representative Vance more information.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to Section 13 to display the
effective dates of SSHB 20, as follows: the changes would apply
to offenses committed on or after the effective dates of
Sections 1-7 and Section 12 of the proposed legislation; and
SSHB 20 would take effect January 1, 2020.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Section 12 to point out that in
the places in which statute has been updated to reflect the
affirmative definition of consent, Section 12 would repeal the
previous definition of "without consent" to be replaced with the
new definition of "consent."
3:55:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the statement that a child
cannot give consent and the legal definition of a child as under
age 16. He asked whether there are situations in which consent
cannot be given for someone age 16 and over.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR mentioned statute from the State of
Minnesota, which more clearly defines a person who cannot give
consent; for example, stipulating that a person who is mentally
incapacitated or physically helpless cannot consent to a sexual
act. She stated that there are many places in Alaska statute
needing updates and there are resulting implications of those
changes. She explained that her office is trying to decide
whether language captures what is intended or whether more
specificity is needed. She said that she welcomes suggestions.
3:57:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to victim notification of test
results. He asked whether victims are being notified that the
test has been completed or being notified of the results.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR cited page 5, lines 13-16, of SSHB 20, which
read as follows:
(3) within two weeks after the laboratory that
receives the sexual assault examination kit under (1)
of this subsection completes serological or DNA
testing, notify the person from whom the sexual
assault examination kit was collected that the sexual
assault examination kit has been tested.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR added that putting more specifics into the
statute was discussed - whether there was a CODIS hit or whether
the DNA sample was insufficient for testing - but staff chose
not to put that level of specificity into the statute at
present. She explained that depending on the community law
enforcement agency, different methods may be appropriate for
contacting victims. She said that she wanted to leave some
flexibility to law enforcement for how communication would occur
and what would be communicated.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether in the case of someone not
wishing to press charges, the person's kit would not be in the
queue for testing under the testing timelines but be set aside
and tested later if the victim decides to press charges.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied, "That is the intent." She said
that based on USDOJ recommendations, the state must use a
victim-centered approach; if an individual does not want his/her
kit tested, the person must be afforded the right to refuse.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that SSHB 20 would be held over.
HJR 9-ELIZABETH PERATROVICH COMMEMORATIVE COIN
4:00:53 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of
business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9, Requesting the
United States Secretary of the Treasury to mint not less than
5,000,000 $1 coins honoring Elizabeth Peratrovich under the
Native American $1 Coin Act.
4:01:29 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HJR 9, labeled 31-
LS0573\A, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 16, following "Treasury" insert:
"; The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, United States Senate;
the Honorable Dan Sullivan, United States Senate; The
Honorable Don Young, United States House of
Representatives"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
4:02:26 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS, in response to Representative Vance, stated
that the amendment would add the three names to the end of the
list of names to whom copies of the resolution would be sent,
shown on page 2, beginning on line 12.
4:03:32 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HJR 9.
4:03:54 PM
DICK HANSCOM, Fairbanks Coin Club, testified that the reason the
state and the congressional delegation need to act on HJR 9 is
because the U.S. mint has not issued a dollar coin into
circulation for about five years. He stated that because of the
historical significance of this coin to the state, it would be
beneficial for the coin to be circulating, educating Alaska's
young people, and all Alaskans. Using the coin would honor
Elizabeth Peratrovich and educate people about Alaska's Anti-
discrimination Act [of 1945].
4:04:54 PM
PAULETTE MORENO, President, Alaska Native Sisterhood (ANS),
testified that Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich was a past ANS
grand president; her courageous words at a time of critical
injustice affected the life that all enjoy today. Her [indisc.]
will be highlighted during the 75th anniversary [of the Alaska
Anti-Discrimination Act] in 2020. Ms. Moreno relayed that in
2020, the release of the $1 coin will bring attention not only
throughout the state, but throughout the nation and the world.
Ms. Moreno invited the committee to join the 75th anniversary
celebration (indisc.) to ensure that Alaska Native people and
their rights are accepted for the intelligence they possess of
all matters of this great land. She mentioned that the proposed
resolution came from the youth of Alaska by way of the 4-H club,
who want clear access not only to the coin but to the hope to
hold the coin that reflects one of Alaska's most important
stories. The ANS and Alaska Native Brotherhood (ANB) has been
advocating for history to highlight her story. They are
currently working with school superintendents throughout Alaska
to add curriculum, national recognition with all the
legislatures, and the Alaska [congressional] delegation to
collectively draft a bill in 2020 not only to highlight the
achievement of Elizabeth Peratrovich, but to carry her work
forward. She said, "It is said that a child will lead the way."
She stated that ANS and ANB express their gratitude to all
contributors to the introduction of HJR 9.
4:08:48 PM
LIBERTY SKELLIE, 4-H, testified that in the 1940s, women were
barely working outside the home; for Elizabeth Peratrovich, a
Native woman, to talk to legislators about civil rights was
extremely (indisc.). (indisc.--poor sound quality) She relayed
that she supports the proposed resolution because it would honor
Elizabeth Peratrovich and the important things she did.
4:09:47 PM
STEPHEN BRUNANSKI, President, Fairbanks Coin Club, testified
that Elizabeth Peratrovich is an ideal role model for young
people of Alaska. To honor her life and the bravery it took for
her to stand up to discrimination that she faced (indisc.--poor
sound quality). He said that each time this coin is handled
within a commercial transaction creates an opportunity for
conversation. He offered that if the U.S. Department of
Treasury would release the coin into circulation, the
opportunities for discussion about anti-discrimination would be
multiplied. He remarked at how Alaska children would feel
having a coin with the face of a fellow Alaskan. He maintained
that the coin deserves to be distributed to a much wider
audience than just coin collectors. He stated, "Let's put it in
circulation."
4:11:28 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, after ascertaining that there was no
one else who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HJR
9.
4:11:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed that she is pleased at the
introduction of the bill and has great admiration for Elizabeth
Peratrovich. She mentioned that the 4-H youth met with her and
expressed that they wanted the coin to be put into circulation.
4:12:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed her appreciation for the
introduction of the proposed legislation, requested by Alaska
youth; it signals that youth can engage in their government and
be a voice for the next generation on anti-discrimination. She
maintained that the coin would serve to communicate the message
to other areas of the world.
4:13:37 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS commented there is "no more organic
democratic process in motion" than the response of
Representative Johnson to the request from the youth.
4:14:11 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to report HJR 9, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHJR 9(STA) moved
out of committee.
4:14:36 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:14 p.m. to 4:16 p.m.
Co-Chair Fields passed the gavel to Co-Chair Kreiss-Tomkins.
HB 57-CHILD LABOR HOURS
4:15:32 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 57, "An Act relating to expanding the period
in a day during which an employed child under 16 years of age
may perform work in the summer; and providing for an effective
date."
4:15:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, relayed
that current law states that children ages 14 and 15 may work
during the hours of 5 a.m. to 7 p.m. during the school day, but
only for an hour a day, or 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. during the summer.
She was approached by the soccer association who expressed that
it was not possible to complete all the games due to there being
only one field; they asked to be allowed to play until 10 p.m.
She stated the proposed legislation would allow 14- and 15-year-
olds to be able to work until 10 p.m., instead of 9 p.m. She
maintained that HB 57 would not increase the number of hours per
week or the number of hours per day that they would be allowed
to work. She added that she discovered, through research, that
a state is required to have a waiver from the U.S. Department of
Labor (USDOL) to allow for such work hours. Alaska currently
does not have a waiver and is violating federal law, since
federal law specifies 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. during the school year
and 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. otherwise. She maintained that her office
is pursuing the waiver through U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan's
office; the waiver is necessary regardless of the progress of HB
57.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for confirmation that the bill
applies to all activities, not just sporting activities.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON answered that for 14- and 15-year-olds,
that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if there are any other groups or
businesses that have requested the change in hours.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied, "Not to me, they have not." She
mentioned that 14- and 15-year-olds are very limited in what
they can do and the hours they can do it. She relayed that
there are many activities exempted from the time restrictions
such as babysitting and other tasks associated with sports, such
as cleaning up the football field or doing laundry; however, the
work [for the soccer association] is not exempted.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to page 1, line 13, of HB 57 and
asked for the definition of "domestic work."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON answered that she does not have a
definition, but assumes it is laundry, housework, and such. She
said she is not aware of a definition in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE suggested that since doing laundry for
soccer is exempt, yet other tasks are not, additional definition
of terms may help avoid the problem of
Alaska and the youth being outside of federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that the only law Alaska is
breaking is the one regarding the work hours. She offered that
youth workers doing laundry for a football team is probably not
considered domestic work, since it is probably not their own
laundry.
4:20:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the letter from the Fairbanks
Youth Soccer Association (FYSA), included in the committee
packet, in which the association relates that the season ends
the first week of August and even a 9:30 p.m. extension would be
helpful. He mentioned that HB 57 specifies September or
otherwise being enrolled in school as the time of the work hour
change. He suggested that since school starts the third week of
August, the date should be changed in the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON answered that the language (concerning the
month) in the proposed legislation is consistent with the
language in federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that although federal law requires a
state to seek an exemption for youth working in a soccer-related
job, federal law exempts children working on fishing boats,
which is one of the most dangerous professions in the world.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON added that also there is an exemption in
the case of children working for their parents. She expressed
her belief that the law has not been reviewed recently, and
things have changed. She stated, "We are very good about making
sure our children are safe, or the jobs ... are very age
appropriate." She expressed her belief that there are other
groups in the same position as FYSA that are not aware of the
law and consequently may be breaking the law as well.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for confirmation that Alaska is
already breaking federal law, and Alaska getting a waiver will
determine if the proposed legislation can advance.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that for HB 57 to pass, a waiver
from USDOL would be needed and incorporated into statute by
Legislative Legal Services to ensure compliance [with federal
law.] She relayed that USDOL is already working on this issue
because, regardless of the passage of HB 57, Alaska wants to
comply.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged that HB 57 relates to 14-
and 15-year-olds. He asked whether there are any restrictions
in state or federal law on hours that 16- and 17-year-olds can
work.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON answered that there is a difference
between age 16 and age 17 in the type of work but not regarding
the hour issue.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for confirmation that 16- and 17-
year-olds may be restricted in the type of work, but they may
work a 11:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. shift if the work warranted it.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied, "That's my understanding."
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that HB 57 would be held over.
HB 83-PROHIBIT VOTING BY FACSIMILE
4:24:17 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 83, "An Act relating to voting by electronic
transmission in a state election; and providing for an effective
date."
4:24:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS)
for HB 83, labeled 31-LS0635\M, Bullard, 3/11/19. There being
no objection, Version M was before the committee.
4:25:26 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, as prime sponsor of HB 83, Version M,
relayed that the proposed legislation was drafted in response to
recommendations by national security experts on steps Alaska
could take to fortify the integrity of its election system. He
said that the Division of Elections (DOE) has made some
regulatory changes as part of an ongoing effort to make
improvements in the security of the election system. He stated
that one of the recommendations from the national experts was to
discontinue electronic - or non-analog - return of ballots to
DOE, therefore, avoiding the possibility of a ballot being
tampered with or manipulated in the process of its return to
DOE. He mentioned that DOE has discontinued accepting ballots
by email and facsimile (fax) for the same reason, since transit
over internet connections would be susceptible to tampering. He
added that fax return of ballots is outdated.
4:28:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the proposed legislation
would change the rules regarding DOE sending out ballots by fax.
4:28:15 PM
JOHN SCANLON, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, replied that Version M would not
change the ability of DOE to deliver absentee ballots to voters
by fax.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed her understanding that currently
you may receive a faxed ballot from DOE after the time has
passed for DOE to send absentee ballots out by mail. She asked
whether currently one has the choice to return the ballot to DOE
by fax or by mail.
MR. SCANLON responded that the only absentee ballots that may be
returned by fax are absentee ballots that a voter received by
fax or through an online ballot delivery system.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether a ballot must be sent back
to DOE by fax if received by fax or whether it may be sent back
by mail.
MR. SCANLON replied that currently someone receiving a ballot by
fax may return it by fax or by mail.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for clarification. She stated that
her understanding was that a ballot could not be returned by
fax.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS answered by saying that currently
ballots may be returned by fax; under the proposed legislation,
a ballot would not be allowed to be returned by fax.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that since DOE barred return of
ballots by email, it could, on its own, change the rules with
respect to faxed ballots.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered his understanding that DOE had
regulatory authority to disallow ballot return by email.
4:31:51 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections (DOE), Office of
the Lieutenant Governor (OLG), responded that it was her
understanding that in 2018, DOE made an internal decision to
disallow the return of ballots through the online ballot
delivery system. She explained that the system is not strictly
email; it is a portal system which consists of an open network
over the internet. She added that she does not have any more
history on that decision but would be willing to research it and
provide the committee with more information.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether it is necessary to pass HB
83 to change the rules with respect to the returning of ballots
by fax, or if DOE could accomplish the change on its own through
a regulatory change.
MS. FENUMIAI replied that statutes specifically identify the
returning of voted ballots by fax. She referred to AS
15.20.066(b), which references the return of voted ballots by
fax; that statutory reference would need to be repealed to allow
the change.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for confirmation that there is no
statutory reference to the returning of ballots through the
portal system.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that to the best of her knowledge, there
is no specific reference to [the portal system]; the portal
system is another form of voting by electronic transmission.
She added that AS 15.20.066 specifically mentions returning
ballots by facsimile.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that the internet has security
issues regardless of the type of transmission; therefore, the
fax is being eliminated altogether [for ballot return].
MS. FENUMIAI responded that the fax being discussed is a "true"
faxing - through a fax machine. She said that the security
concerns come from how the term faxing has changed over time.
There are many different types of methods of faxing; one can fax
through telephone applications and non-analog type lines, which
was the existing version of technology in 1966 when the statutes
were first implemented; and since then technology has changed.
She relayed that there is concern that with the modern method of
faxing, there may be a "middleman" type of interference.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that no matter how an individual
receives a ballot, DOE wants a paper ballot returned, and it is
the only way it will accept the ballot.
MS. FENUMIAI replied, "It's all paper ballot." She said that
currently if someone was to return a ballot by fax, DOE could
not use that actual ballot in the count. The DOE bi-partisan
review board would have to make a facsimile of a facsimile onto
the AccuVote ballot paper for the vote to be counted.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for confirmation that under the
proposed legislation, the faxed ballot would no longer be
accepted. The voter must return a hard copy of the ballot to
DOE; it cannot be returned electronically.
MS. FENUMIAI answered, "That's correct. It would have to be
returned by mail - by the U.S. Postal Service."
4:36:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether someone, who receives an
absentee ballot either by fax or mail, may drop it off at a
polling station.
MS. FENUMIAI responded affirmatively and added that a person may
take it into a polling station or any regional office of DOE.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to the use of a privacy sleeve,
making the ballot legitimate. She asked how the process - of a
ballot being received by the voter by fax and returned to DOE by
mail - is valid and secure from tampering, if it didn't come in
a privacy sleeve like a traditional ballot.
MS. FENUMIAI relayed that the voter is supplied with
instructions on putting the voted ballot inside an envelope
before putting it into the envelope to be mailed back to DOE.
She added that voters who receive a ballot by fax and return it
by fax also sign a special oath declaring that they acknowledge
they could possibly be waiving their rights to a secret ballot
by returning the ballot by that method.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked, "What if ... the Russians ... were to
look at our voting rolls and identify a group of registered
voters and request absentee ballots that would be emailed to
them or ... faxed to them, and then fill out those ballots on
their behalf and return them?" He asked, "... what protection
would there be to validate that information and prevent the kind
of fraud that occurs ... analogous ... to tax return fraud ..."
He acknowledged that the legitimate voter might go to the polls
on Election Day only to discover that [a vote had already been
cast in his/her name]. He asked whether that scenario has
occurred and whether it is something DOE is aware of and guards
against.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that if someone applies to vote by mail or
by fax, the application is taken at face value. If DOE can
identify the voter based on the identification that he/she
provides and there is a signature, DOE accepts the application.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that HB 83 would be held over.
4:41:21 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:41
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR9.PDF |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR 9 - Sponsor Statement 3.5.2019.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR 9 - Supporting Document, EP Image Options 3.5.2019.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR 9 Fiscal Note LEG-SESS.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR 9 Amendment (Rep. JKT).pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| HB083 ver A 3.6.2019.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 ver M 3.11.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 Summary of Changes ver A to ver M 3.11.2019.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 Sectional Analysis 3.11.2019.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 Sponsor Statement 3.11.2019.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 3.11.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB057 ver M 2.26.19.PDF |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB057 ver M Sponsor Statement 2.26.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB057 ver M additional document - email string DLWD 2.26.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB057 ver M additional document - email from FYSA 2.26.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB057 ver M additional document - legal memo to ver A 2.26.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB057 ver M additional document - Code of Federal Regulations 2.26.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB57 Fiscal Note DOLWD-WH 3.5.2019.pdf |
HSTA 3/5/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB020 ver A 01.07.19.PDF |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 ver S 03.07.19.PDF |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Summary of Changes Version A to S 03.11.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Sponsor Statement 03.11.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Sectional Analysis 03.11.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Supporting Document - 49th Rising_AS44.41.070_SAK Report.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Supporting Document - DPS-Annual-Sexual-Assualt-Kit-Inventory-Report-2018_ 11.01.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Supporting Document - SAK-Inventory-Report-and-Plan-DPS-2017.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Supporting Documents - Rape Kit Joyful Heart Foundation.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Supporting Documents STAR policy priorities.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Fiscal Note Ver A 3.11.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 State Affairs Presention 3.12.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/12/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/18/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |