02/20/2020 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB148 | |
| SB144 | |
| HB225 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 225 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 20, 2020
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zack Fields, Co-Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins
Representative Andi Story
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Laddie Shaw
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 148
"An Act relating to solemnization of marriage."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 144
"An Act establishing June 7 of each year as Walter Harper Day."
- MOVED SB 144 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 225
"An Act relating to sex trafficking; establishing the crime of
patron of a victim of sex trafficking; relating to the crime of
human trafficking; relating to sentencing for sex trafficking
and patron of a victim of sex trafficking; establishing the
process for a vacation of judgment for a conviction of
prostitution; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 148
SHORT TITLE: MARRIAGE WITNESSES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CLAMAN
04/29/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/29/19 (H) STA, JUD
02/20/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: SB 144
SHORT TITLE: ESTABLISH JUNE 7 AS WALTER HARPER DAY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) BISHOP
01/21/20 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/17/20
01/21/20 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/20 (S) STA
02/04/20 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/04/20 (S) Moved SB 144 Out of Committee
02/04/20 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/05/20 (S) STA RPT 4DP
02/05/20 (S) DP: REVAK, COSTELLO, KAWASAKI, COGHILL
02/07/20 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/07/20 (S) VERSION: SB 144
02/10/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/10/20 (H) STA
02/18/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/18/20 (H) Heard & Held
02/18/20 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/20/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 225
SHORT TITLE: PROSTITUTION/TRAFFICKING; VACATE CONVICT.
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/27/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/27/20 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/20/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 148, as prime sponsor.
SOPHIE JONAS, Staff
Representative Matt Claman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the sectional analysis on HB 148
on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor.
CIAN MULHERN, Reverend
Celtic Ministries
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 148.
ERICA ROSE
Erica Rose Photography
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 148.
ERIN VELANDER
Alaska Destination Weddings
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 148
JOE CONNOLLY
Chugach Peaks Photography
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 148.
MIKE HARPER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 144.
BILL GORDON
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 144.
KATHERINE TRITT
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 144.
JUDE HENZLER
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 144.
JENNIFER HENZLAR
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 144.
MARY EHRLANDER
Olympia, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 144.
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 225 on behalf of the House
Rules Committee by request of the governor.
SAMANTHA CHEROT, Public Defender
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration (DOA)
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
225.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:03:00 PM
CO-CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
Representatives Hopkins, Thompson, Shaw, and Kreiss-Tomkins were
present at the call to order. Representatives Story, Vance, and
Fields arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 148-MARRIAGE WITNESSES
3:03:59 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 148, "An Act relating to
solemnization of marriage."
3:04:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, Alaska State Legislature,
paraphrased from his written statement, which read:
Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for
hearing House Bill 148 "An Act relating to
solemnization of marriage."
At present, during the solemnization of marriage,
couples must assent to the marriage in the presence of
each other, the person solemnizing the marriage, and
at least two additional witnesses. Afterward, all
parties must sign the marriage certificates. House
Bill 148 would eliminate the requirements for any
additional witnesses at the marriage solemnization and
the signatures of these witnesses on marriage
certificates. These changes will bring our ceremonial
requirements into the modern age and help support
Alaska's destination wedding industry while preserving
the integrity of marriage solemnization.
Alaska is one of only 17 states that require two
wedding witnesses in addition to the person
officiating the marriage. Twenty five states do not
require any wedding witnesses.
Wedding witnesses played a more critical role in past
centuries when record keeping was less automated. In
England, prior to the 18th century, the legal
requirements of marriage were governed by the canon
law of the Church of England. A marriage was
considered valid as long as the union was consented to
by both parties and celebrated by an Anglican
clergyman. This largely informal process that dictated
the validity of marriage allowed for the proliferation
of clandestine marriages.
In 1746, a woman laid claim to the recently deceased
Captain John Campbell's pension on the basis that she
married him in a clandestine ceremony. The problem
arose because another woman claimed she was the wife
of the Captain. The confusion that ensued from
inability to verify marriage claims led Parliament to
pass the Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine
Marriage, known as the Marriage Act of 1753. The Act
formalized the marriage process, requiring that
marriages be viewed by witnesses who could later be
called on to confirm that the marriage did or did not
take place- an extra precaution of record-keeping
should records of marriage be damaged or go missing.
The Marriage Act is the historical basis for the 2
witness requirement.
Today, however, the role of a wedding witness is
ceremonial. In Alaska, while the person solemnizing
the marriage must meet certain criteria, the law does
not require any form of witness verification (proof of
identification, language comprehension, address
validation, etc.). HB 148 would allow Alaska to
compete more directly with states like Hawaii and
Florida, which require no wedding witnesses and lead
the nation in destination weddings.
Destination weddings, often on mountain tops and
glaciers, are a growing business in Alaska. The
requirement of two wedding witnesses makes the state
less attractive for many couples who travel from
farther away or who do not want the financial burden
of a larger wedding. Couples who come to the state
without their own witnesses are tasked with finding
strangers to witness their wedding. The burden of
supplying these witnesses often falls to those who
work in Alaska's wedding industry who ask friends and
family to witness the weddings of their out-of-town
clients.
In addition to the awkwardness of having strangers
witness the wedding, the additional witness
requirement can place an increased financial burden on
the couple. For example, in a wedding in a more remote
location like a glacier via helicopter, they must pay
extra seating costs to transport the witnesses. At
present, destination weddings bring in an estimated $1
million in revenue to the state in the form of roughly
500 destination weddings a year. This revenue figure
doesn't consider the fact that more than 90% of the
out-of-state couples who come to Alaska to get married
stay for days and weeks to explore our great state.
The resulting benefit to Alaska's tourism industry is
substantial. HB 148 would simplify the wedding process
by reducing the number of hurdles a couple must
address to get married.
3:08:45 PM
SOPHIE JONAS, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor
of HB 148, reviewed the sectional analysis, which read:
Section 1
Amends AS 25.05.301:
Eliminates requirement of two witnesses at a marriage
solemnization.
Section 2
Amends AS 25.05.32:
Eliminates requirement of the signatures of two
witnesses on marriage certificates.
Section 3
Amends AS 25.05.361: Deletes language to conform with
changes made in section 1 of the bill.
Section 4
Repeals AS 25.05.041(a)(3) and AS 25.05.041(a)(5):
Repeals subsections to conform with changes made in
section 1 of the bill.
3:10:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to page 1, line 7-8, of HB 148,
which read in part, "... they take each other to be husband and
wife." He asked whether this was the standard language in
statute regardless of the allowance for same sex marriages.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his belief that since the
federal courts ruled that [Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA),
2006] was unconstitutional, changing every reference in the
Alaska Statutes to comply with that ruling would just take time
away from more important legislative work, and it is possible
members would not achieve resolution on the language.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to his own marriage experience
and stated that the process was incredibly complicated. He
offered his support for the proposed legislation and suggested
there may be other statutory changes that would facilitate the
process.
3:13:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether any concerns have emerged for
states that do not require two witnesses.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN reiterated that over 25 states require no
witness [for marriage solemnization]; staff research on the
issue did not identify any resulting problems.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the states with no required
witnesses have seen an increase in the rate of marriages.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that he does not know. He added
that the issue was brought to his attention by wedding
photographers who contacted his office. Hawaii leads the nation
in destination weddings; it does not have a witness requirement.
The photographers maintained that in their line of work, they
would do a much better job of serving their clients if they
didn't have to recruit two witnesses.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE maintained that marriage is one of the more
respected unions; it is a legal process. She offered that she
struggles with the idea of removing the two witnesses for the
sake of commerce. She mentioned that she is not aware of the
requirement of two witnesses being a burden. She acknowledged
the desire to promote Alaska as a destination marriage location
but said that she wanted stronger data demonstrating that the
requirement for two witnesses is burdensome.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that the interest of commerce
brought the proposed legislation to his attention; however, the
real issue is the purpose that wedding witnesses serve as a
matter of law and procedure. He referred to the Marriage Act of
1753 in England as being the foundation for the requirement of
witnesses. The problem of clandestine marriages in England in
the 1700s was due to the lack of proof of marriage and central
record keeping authority. With Alaska's very detailed current
recordkeeping requirement within the Health Analytics & Vital
Record Section (HAVRS), the need for witnesses does not exist,
and in fact, no one looks for the witnesses to authenticate a
marriage. He maintained that he was involved in a case in which
a marriage needed to be verified; he relied on the vital
statistics records and not the witnesses. He concluded that
wedding witnesses originally served the purpose of proving the
validity of a marriage; they do not serve that purpose today.
3:18:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON asked whether an underage legal marriage
requires certification from the parents.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his belief that proof of age is
required for a marriage license; the witness requirement is not
involved.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON asked about the procedure for a 15-year-
old getting married.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered that he assumes the parents would
need to give consent at the courthouse. He acknowledged the
possibility that an underage person might use a fraudulent
identification (ID) to circumvent the requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS maintained that completing the marriage
paperwork correctly, mailing it to HAVRS, and needing additional
signers made his wedding less romantic with less of a feeling of
being sanctified. He said that getting witnesses to sign the
forms and all that entailed was not optimal.
3:22:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW relayed a personal experience with his own
wedding, in which the requirement of witnesses was not a burden.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE compared the requirement of witnesses for
marriage to the requirement of witnesses for a permanent fund
dividend (PFD) application to verify residency and intent to
remain in Alaska. She asked, "What's the difference in ... the
burden on providing two witnesses?"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN replied that there is a substantial
history of fraud in connection with PFD applications. Every
year there are prosecutions of people fraudulently filing for
PFD applications. He stated that he is not aware of any cases
in Alaska of a false marriage claim. He said they are two very
different situations; the PFD is an appropriation from the
state, and fraudulently getting a PFD constitutes theft from the
state, which is why there is a verification requirement.
3:25:37 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened invited testimony on HB 144.
3:26:15 PM
CIAN MULHERN, Reverend, Celtic Ministries, testified that he has
performed weddings for over 21 years. He said that it is a
great burden for ministers to find witnesses and described the
inconvenience to himself and to the witnesses. He stated that
he does about 150 weddings per year, and over 90 percent are
destination weddings in Alaska. Couples come from all over the
world; most come for a small intimate elopement; they then
"spend lots of time here honeymooning in the state." These
couples do not know anyone in Alaska; therefore, the burden is
on him or another person in the wedding industry to find
witnesses. He maintained that most couples are not thrilled to
have two people, whom they have never met, as part of their very
special day and find it intrusive.
REVEREND MULHERN relayed that he also performs many wedding for
military personnel; many are new to Alaska and don't have many
acquaintances yet. The witnesses are not being used to verify
who the couples are or to check IDs. That is what HAVRS does
when a couple applies for a marriage license. Witnesses are not
used to verify the wedding or its legitimacy. He mentioned that
witnesses for the PFD application are people that the applicant
knows.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Reverend Mulhern
solemnizes the destination wedding marriages.
REVEREND MULHERN responded affirmatively.
3:29:31 PM
ERICA ROSE, Erica Rose Photography, testified that she has been
a wedding photographer for 10 years and shoots about 40 wedding
each year; many are small elopements for people who come from
out of state. Hundreds of people come to Alaska each year to
get married. She expressed that one of the best facets of her
work is the privilege of being part of a very sacred moment in
people's lives; although it is her business, she takes seriously
the gravity of the event. She said that she has learned through
her business that Alaska is an incredibly desirable destination
for weddings, and she believes there is potential for growth in
the industry. She relayed that the current trend is weddings in
adventure and mountain locations like Alaska, and the benefits
are felt by many other businesses. She maintained that when
people decide to elope, it is not always to save money, but to
spend the money on experiences.
MS. ROSE asserted that the two-witness rule presents a large
hurdle for the industry. When people choose to elope, they
often do it for the privacy; they don't want extra people
around; and they go out of their way to find an intimate
setting. They often look for a stunningly beautiful location;
it can be difficult and expensive to transport two extra people
to the location. She relayed an experience of a wedding in a
remote area, in which they waited in the parking to ask the next
hiker to witness the wedding; it detracted from the event. She
said that anyone in the business has similar stories. She
concluded by saying that the main goal for her as a wedding
professional is to make the important day in her clients' lives
as special as possible and provide good service, and these
stories [regarding marriage witnesses] feel like small failures
in that effort.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the meaning of the term
"elopement" in the wedding industry.
MS. ROSE explained that elopement is currently a trend, and it
refers to a bride and a groom "going off to do their own private
wedding."
3:33:52 PM
ERIN VELANDER, Alaska Destination Weddings, testified that the
proposed legislation impacts many small businesses and small
business owners. She stated that she has been an adventure
wedding planner for about 20 years. She assists couples who
want to elope in Alaska and be married in extreme places. She
relayed that she also operates her business in Hawaii; she has
planned hundreds of weddings; and [the requirement of witnesses]
deters people from eloping in Alaska. She maintained that data
shows the discrepancy between the two states as far as numbers
of destination weddings.
MS. VELANDER stated that she used to plan very large weddings
and from her experience, the number of witnesses at a wedding
does not determine "the sacredness of that moment." She
maintained that couples should be able to choose how they get
married. She offered that the very small wedding with just the
couple and the officiant often feels more sacred than the
wedding that is a "huge production." She implored the committee
to consider that the two witnesses, who are often strangers to
the couple eloping in Alaska, do not make the marriage any more
sacred, and at times, even less sacred, because they are
strangers. She asserted that Alaska does not have the right to
deny the wishes of people who choose to get married "just the
two of them."
3:37:05 PM
JOE CONNOLLY, Chugach Peaks Photography, offered a definition
for elopement: Elopement is often used to refer to a marriage
conducted in sudden and secretive fashion, usually involving a
hurried flight away from one's place of residence together with
one's beloved with the intention of getting married. He added
that in most cases it is less sudden but equally private and
small.
MR. CONNOLLY relayed that the economic impact that weddings have
on the state is probably more significant than one would expect.
He said that requiring the presence of two witnesses is an
unfair burden and an awkward intrusion into what the couple
intended - a private and personal event. He said that the act
of eloping is for the purpose of getting away to have a small
wedding with no family and friends present. He maintained that
for those who had a big wedding with family and friends,
elopement might seem unusual. He offered that there are many
people who do not want a big fancy wedding with many guests.
Hundreds of couples from the Lower 48 and from all over the
world come to Alaska every year to get married in one of the
last truly "free and wild" places in the U.S. They come up to
Alaska without family and friends; they don't know anyone in
Alaska; marketing has attracted them to the state; they all want
to get married on a glacier, a rocky beach, next to a waterfall,
or in a flowering meadow, with mountains and glaciers behind
them; none want random strangers at their wedding. If a couple
needs to hire a helicopter to get to the destination, most
helicopters can only seat three people plus the pilot;
therefore, they must hire another helicopter to fly the
witnesses. Often people back off due to the extra expense - all
because of an "ancient state law that is probably not relevant
anymore." Mr. Connolly relayed that when hiking into a
wilderness area, he is tasked with finding witnesses to
accompany the hike and "give up a day." He maintained that the
economic impact of the weddings far exceeds the direct benefits
to the vendors in the wedding industry. The couples typically
spend a week to ten days, rent a car, spend money on food, and
book tours. He asserted that HB 148 would put Alaska in a more
competitive place within the destination wedding market.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that HB 148 would be held over.
SB 144-ESTABLISH JUNE 7 AS WALTER HARPER DAY
3:42:49 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of
business would be SENATE BILL NO. 144. "An Act establishing June
7 of each year as Walter Harper Day."
3:43:20 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on SB 144.
3:43:29 PM
MIKE HARPER testified in support of SB 144 as the grandnephew of
Walter Harper. He added that 30 living family members of Walter
Harper support the proposed legislation as well. He expressed
his appreciation for the effort.
3:45:12 PM
BILL GORDON testified that his father told him the story of
Walter Harper and Episcopal Archdeacon [Hudson] Stuck when they
were in Fort Yukon; his father piloted planes to the villages.
Harper and Stuck were "friends, mentors, and benefactors" to
each other. His father stressed the importance of Walter Harper
to Alaska's history. He maintained that Harper was a "gift" to
early Alaska's relationship to the Alaska Native people. Even
when discrimination was rampant in the Territory of Alaska,
Harper and Stuck gave a blueprint to future generations to
follow that still serves the state well. He expressed his
support for special days and statutes to tell the stories to
visitors and to Alaskans. He mentioned that passage of SB 144
would help in the effort to erect a statue to Walter Harper,
which is to be dedicated on Walter Harper Day 2021.
3:48:22 PM
KATHERINE TRITT testified that she is a Gwich'in Alaska Native
and expressed her concern that the other Alaska Natives who
assisted with Walter Harper's ascent of Denali are not being
recognized.
3:50:01 PM
JUDE HENZLER testified that three young Alaska Natives were
involved in the ascent [of Denali] - Walter Harper, John
Fredson, and Esiais George. Both George and Harper died young;
John Fredson was the first Alaska Native to graduate from a
university - [Sewanee, The University of the South, an Episcopal
college in Middle Tennessee]. He stated that Fredson was the
author and creator of the Venetie Arctic Village 1.4-million-
acre Indian Reservation. He was the informant for noted
linguist Edward Sapir for the Gwich'in language and authored a
book of 52 Indian stories. He was the father of Lu Young, first
wife of U.S. Congressman Don Young. Mr. Henzler expressed that
his intention is not to detract from Walter Harper, but to
recognize the two other young men who were involved.
3:52:50 PM
JENNIFER HENZLAR testified that her mother is the niece of
Esiais George. She stated that she fully supports SB 144
honoring Walter Harper and his amazing accomplishments; there is
a serious dearth of Alaska Native heroes and heroines who are
included in public school education and who are in public view;
[Walter Harper Day] would help to alleviate that. She said that
she would be amiss by not acknowledging John Fredson's
accomplishments. She expressed the importance of recognizing
Walter Harper but believes that the other two young Alaska
Native men should be recognized as well. It is not known what
Harper and George would have been able to accomplish having died
so young.
3:54:26 PM
MARY EHRLANDER testified that she spent most of her life in
Alaska; she wrote Walter Harper's biography, [Walter Harper,
Alaska Native Son]; and she supports the proposed legislation.
She maintained that being the first person to summit Denali was
just a part of what made Walter Harper noteworthy. His ability
to achieve that feat and to contribute so centrally to the
success of the expedition were due to the skills and character
traits that made him the great Alaskan he was. His superb
subsistence skills, developed as a young person and honed during
his years on the trail and river with Episcopal Archdeacon
Hudson Stuck, along with his stellar character and his
remarkable ability to navigate comfortably in both his
Athabascan birth culture and mainstream Western society, were
admirable. She continued by saying that his capacities and
qualities, especially his strong sense of identity and purpose,
are equally admirable today. She said, "So designating June 7,
the '1913 summit day' as Walter Harper Day will ensure that
Alaskans will know of this great young man, and perhaps most
importantly, it will mean that young people will learn of him
and many will see him as a hero." She maintained that having
strong role models can make all the difference for young people
as they find their way in life. She offered that she can hardly
imagine a more appropriate hero and role model for a young
Alaskan than Walter Harper. She urged the committee to consider
the value of designating June 7 as Walter Harper Day. She added
that she agrees that there should be more recognition of
admirable and heroic Alaska Natives for young Alaskans to
respect and admire; the proposed legislation is not meant to
take away from other people deserving of recognition. She
maintained that the statue [erected] will clarify the roles of
all the participants of the expedition, and her biography
describes the contribution of all key members of the expedition.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW relayed that his experiences on mountains
gives him an appreciation for the accomplishments of the
expedition team. He said, "All efforts in mountaineering are
team efforts, and generally the recognition is given to the
first to summit. Walter Harper was the first man to summit this
mountain ever, and so the recognition to Walter Harper ...
definitely takes nothing away from the team that supported him."
He reiterated that from a historical perspective, all the
individuals will be noted through the biography and the statue.
4:00:38 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to report SB 144 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, SB 144 was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
4:00:58 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:01 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.
HB 225-PROSTITUTION/TRAFFICKING; VACATE CONVICT.
4:03:37 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 225, "An Act relating to sex
trafficking; establishing the crime of patron of a victim of sex
trafficking; relating to the crime of human trafficking;
relating to sentencing for sex trafficking and patron of a
victim of sex trafficking; establishing the process for a
vacation of judgment for a conviction of prostitution; and
providing for an effective date."
4:03:49 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL),
on behalf of the House Rules Committee by request of the
governor, stated that human trafficking is "forced labor"; over
1 million people per year are forced into labor trafficking - or
human trafficking - and 25 million currently are victims of
human trafficking globally. He mentioned a USA Today article
[2/20/20] discussing Airbnb's commitment to fight human
trafficking. He said that there are approximately 20,000-50,000
individuals in the U.S. who are victims of human trafficking;
and according to [Encyclopedia] Britannica, the U.S. is one of
the most significant destinations for victims of sex
trafficking. Sex trafficking is the third most profitable
business for organized crime, following drug trafficking and
arms trades. Organized crime is making $32 billion per year
from human trafficking and sex trafficking. He offered that
there are federal laws addressing the issue and several states
have begun to adjust their laws to align with those of the
federal government to ensure that they can appropriately respond
to these issues. He cited a 1/30/18 USA Today article which
stated that every year 10,000 minors become victims of sex
trafficking in the U.S. A 2016 study from the Center for Court
Innovation, [entitled "Youth Involvement in the Sex Trade"],
reported 8,900-10,500 victims of sex trafficking between the
ages of 13-17. He mentioned that the number of women in Alaska
domestic violence shelters who are victims of sex trafficking or
human trafficking increased 115 percent from 2016 and 2019. He
acknowledged that the number is not large - in 2019 only 42
people - but it is increasing. The Alaska Native Justice Center
worked with 126 victims in 2018; Priceless Alaska - an anti-sex
trafficking organization in Anchorage - is working with 150
survivors of sex trafficking and 16 are in shelter currently.
MR. SKIDMORE maintained that human and sex trafficking are
issues that impact the state, and Alaska must be prepared to
respond appropriately. He said that the goal of HB 225 is to
bring Alaska closer in line with the federal government and
other states in classifying and in responding to sex trafficking
and human trafficking. Under HB 225, Alaska will look at best
practices. The effort will take coordination with police
departments, the Department of Public Safety (DPS), and the
Department of Law (DOL). He asked the committee to assist in
ensuring that law enforcement and prosecutors have the tools
necessary to participate in this effort effectively. He said
that most of the cases in Alaska have been referred to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) because law enforcement
personnel do not believe that Alaska statutes are adequate.
4:10:07 PM
MR. SKIDMORE reviewed the sectional analysis, which read:
Section 1 is conforming changes to the amendments made
in section 2.
Section 2 enacts a new offense series; sex trafficking
in the first, second, and third degrees. In essence a
person is guilty of sex trafficking in the first
degree (unclassified sex felony) if the person
traffics a person under the age of 20, uses force when
trafficking a person, or manages a place of
prostitution. A person is guilty of sex trafficking in
the second degree (class A sex felony) if the person
recruits, entices, or otherwise induces or causes a
person to engage in commercial sexual conduct. Sex
trafficking in the first and second degrees would be
sentenced under the enhanced penalties for sexual
felonies and the person would be required to register
as a sex offender.
4:14:41 PM
A person is guilty of sex trafficking in the
third degree if the person provides resources in
furtherance of the commission of sex trafficking. Sex
trafficking in the third degree is a class B felony if
the value of the resources is $200 or more and a class
C felony if the value of the resources is less than
$200. A person who commits sex trafficking in the
third degree would be sentenced under the enhanced
sexual felony sentences but would not be required to
register as a sex offender.
This section also enacts the new crime of "patron
of a victim of sex trafficking." A person is guilty of
being a patron of a victim of sex trafficking if the
person solicits sexual conduct with reckless disregard
that the person they are soliciting is a victim of sex
trafficking. If the person solicited is under 18 years
of age this offense will be a B sex felony. If the
person solicited is an adult, this offense will be a C
sex felony. This crime would be sentenced under then
enhanced penalties for sexual felonies and the person
would be required to register as a sex offender.
While there are sex trafficking crimes already in
statute, these new crimes are broader and have updated
language to capture the ways in which sex trafficking
actually occurs. The sex trafficking statutes in
current law are repealed as that offense will now
appear in AS 11.41 as specified in this section.
MR. SKIDMORE added that AS 11.41 is traditionally the location
of all statutes that represent crimes against persons. He also
discussed "a place of prostitution" as not being clearly defined
in the proposed legislation: it is not a residence someone is
using for himself or herself, but one that the person is
allowing someone else to lease for sex trafficking. He
acknowledged that the definition needs adjustment. He also
explained the justification for the $200 threshold in third
degree sex trafficking in terms of the cost of moving victims
around Alaska.
4:18:07 PM
MR. SKIDMORE continued to review the sectional analysis, which
read:
Section 3 amends the crime of human trafficking in the
first degree to be an unclassified felony when the
person uses force against the victim or the victim is
under the age of 20.
Section 4 denotes that human trafficking in the first
degree is an unclassified felony.
Section 5 amends human trafficking in the second
degree to include situations in which the perpetrator
(1) exposes or threatens to expose confidential
information or a secret, whether true or false,
tending to subject a person to hatred, contempt, or
ridicule;
(2) destroys, conceals, or threatens to destroy
or conceal an actual or purported passport or
immigration document or another actual or purported
identification document of any person;
(3) threatens to report a person to a government
agency for the purpose of arrest or deportation;
(4) threatens to collect a debt;
(5) instills in another person a fear that the
person will withhold from any person lodging, food,
clothing, or medication;
(6) provides or withholds controlled substances
from the person; or
(7) deceives the victim.
Section 6 denotes that human trafficking in the second
degree is a class A felony.
Section 7 Enacts the new crime of human trafficking in
the third degree. A person is guilty of human
trafficking in the third degree if the person provides
resources in furtherance of human trafficking. Human
trafficking in the third degree is a class B felony if
the value of the resources is $200 or more and a class
C felony if the value of the resources is less than
$200.
This section also clarifies that corroboration of
a victim's testimony is not necessary. This codifies
current law in that a jury has the ability to convict
based on a victim's testimony alone. This section is
in current law and is simply relocated to AS 11.41
along with the rest of the sex trafficking statutes.
This section also makes clear that any property used
to commit sex or human trafficking may be forfeited.
Section 8 is the definition section for sex
trafficking and human trafficking.
Section 9 clarifies that the crime of coercion is only
to be used if the sex trafficking or human trafficking
elements are not present.
Section 10 cleans up the references to sex trafficking
in the prostitution statute.
Section 11 makes a conforming change to a provision
that is repealed in the repealer section (being a
patron of a prostitute under the age of 18).
Sections 13 19 make conforming changes to sex
trafficking and human trafficking references that
appear in those statutes.
Section 20 establishes that human trafficking in the
first degree, as an unclassified felony, will be
sentenced between five and 99 years.
Section 21 makes conforming amendments to AS
12.55.125(i), the sex offense sentencing statutes,
incorporating the new sex trafficking statutes and
patron of a victim of sex trafficking statute. This
ensures that these offenses will be subject to the
higher sentences associated with sex offenses.
4:25:37 PM
Section 22 makes conforming changes to the statutory
definition of "most serious felony," by removing sex
trafficking in the first degree, which is then added
to the statutory definition of "sexual felony" in
section 23.
Section 23 adds sex trafficking and patron of a victim
of sex trafficking to the definition of "sexual
felony."
Section 24 makes changes to the definition of "serious
offense" reflecting the changes made to the sex
trafficking and human trafficking statutes.
Section 25 adds sex trafficking in the first and
second degree and patron of a victim of sex
trafficking to the list of registerable sex offenses.
Section 26 establishes a process whereby people who
have been convicted of prostitution can get that
conviction vacated if they are able to show that they
were a victim of sex trafficking at the time that they
committed the prostitution offense. If the conviction
is vacated the court system may not publish records
relating to the conviction on CourtView nor may the
Department of Public Safety release that information
as part of an employment background check.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the provision described in
Section 26 exists in other states.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that some states have provisions under
which the conviction can be removed; some states mandate that a
person under the age of 18 cannot be convicted for prostitution.
He added that such modifications could be made to the proposed
legislation; he is open to suggestion.
4:30:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked why, under the proposed
legislation, the victim in a class B misdemeanor would be
defined as a criminal.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that sex trafficking can victimize anyone
of any age; therefore, Section 26 provides that anyone who is a
victim could have the conviction removed. He relayed that the
focus of many other states is on minors; federal law
automatically considers a person under the age of 18 involved
with sex trafficking a victim. He maintained that HB 225 is
trying to achieve this "best practice"; however, for someone who
is age 18 or older, engaging in prostitution is still a class B
misdemeanor with a penalty of up to 90 days in jail. For people
who are trafficked, the state would still pursue the traffickers
while providing the trafficked person a means to maintain that
he/she was a victim and should not have the conviction on
his/her record.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to paragraph four of the 1/24/20
transmittal letter from Governor Michael J. Dunleavy, included
in the committee packet, which read:
The threat of being charged with a crime is often a
tactic that traffickers will use to continue to
control their victims. It is important for society to
recognize that these victims often have no other
choice, and they should not be treated as criminals
when they are, in fact, victims themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS stated that under Alaska law all the
trafficked victims are being criminalized and the burden of
proof is on them to have the conviction vacated. He described a
scenario of a shipload or a truckload of trafficked victims
brought into Alaska from a foreign country or a 20-year-old who
has been sex trafficked for the past ten years. The victim
would be required to produce evidence and navigate the Alaska
Court System. He asked why HB 225 is not written so that these
victims would not have to go to court.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that individuals in those circumstances
would not be prosecuted for prostitution; the state would have
no interest in prosecuting them. Law enforcement would ask
their cooperation and work with them to build a case for
prosecution [of the traffickers]. In answer to Representative
Hopkins's question, he offered that the legislature could make
the law specific to prevent them from being prosecuted.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked why that specific law was not
included in the proposed legislation.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the approach of the administration was
to correct past harms that occurred. The past harm involves
people who have already been prosecuted; the proposed
legislation was drafted to help those people vacate their
convictions. He stated that in the scenario described,
prosecutors would not pursue those victims for prosecution;
therefore, it was not addressed in HB 225; however, the
legislature could prevent it from ever happening through
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS expressed his interest in incorporating
that provision into the proposed legislation.
4:35:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the wording in the proposed
legislation is to distinguish between someone who chooses
prostitution and someone who is a victim of sex trafficking.
MR. SKIDMORE restated the question: How would we differentiate
between those who are victims and those who are not? He
maintained that it is an important challenge - how to
differentiate and who makes that determination. He offered that
other states have focused on minors; he hasn't seen a provision
that addresses adults.
MR. SKIDMORE continued to review the sectional analysis, which
read:
Sections 27 29 make conforming changes to the
changes made to the sex trafficking statutes.
Section 30 clarifies that if a person's prostitution
conviction made them ineligible for a permanent fund
dividend and that conviction was vacated under section
26 of the bill, the person would be eligible for a
permeant fund dividend from the date of the vacation
forward.
Sections 31-34 make conforming changes to the changes
made to the sex trafficking statutes.
Section 35 is the repealer section.
Section 36 is the applicability section. The majority
of this bill will apply to offenses occurring on or
after the effective date.
Section 37 establishes the effective date as July 1,
2020.
4:39:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether a victim working to vacate
a class B misdemeanor crime would have access to a public
defender or would have to hire an attorney.
4:40:57 PM
SAMANTHA CHEROT, Public Defender, Public Defender Agency,
answered that under HB 225, there would not be a mechanism for
the victim to have an appointed counsel in that type of
situation.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY relayed that she has heard that for people
engaged in prostitution, it is not a choice; it has more to do
with the economic system, a limited income, and the need to
provide for a family.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated HB 225 would be held over.
4:42:43 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:42
p.m.