03/27/2025 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB58 | |
| HB35 | |
| HB16 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 27, 2025
3:18 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ashley Carrick, Chair
Representative Andi Story, Vice Chair
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Ky Holland
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Elexie Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sarah Vance
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 58
"An Act relating to the office of public advocacy; and relating
to the public advocate."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 35
"An Act relating to the use and possession of electronic devices
by prisoners."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 16
"An Act amending campaign contribution limits for state and
local office; directing the Alaska Public Offices Commission to
adjust campaign contribution limits for state and local office
once each decade beginning in 2031; and relating to campaign
contribution reporting requirements."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 104
"An Act creating and relating to the address confidentiality
program; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 58
SHORT TITLE: OPA: PUBLIC ADVOCATE APPOINTMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FIELDS
01/22/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/25 (H) CRA, STA
03/11/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/11/25 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/13/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/13/25 (H) Heard & Held
03/13/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/18/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/18/25 (H) Moved HB 58 Out of Committee
03/18/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/21/25 (H) CRA RPT 4DP 1NR
03/21/25 (H) DP: HOLLAND, HALL, HIMSCHOOT, MEARS
03/21/25 (H) NR: PRAX
03/27/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 35
SHORT TITLE: PRISONERS: ELECTRONIC DEVICE ACCESS/USE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HIMSCHOOT
01/22/25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/25
01/22/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/25 (H) CRA, STA
02/20/25 (H) CRA AT 9:00 AM BARNES 124
02/20/25 (H) Heard & Held
02/20/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/25/25 (H) CRA AT 9:00 AM BARNES 124
02/25/25 (H) Heard & Held
02/25/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/27/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/27/25 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/13/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/13/25 (H) Moved CSHB 35(CRA) Out of Committee
03/13/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/14/25 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 3DP 3AM
03/14/25 (H) DP: HALL, MEARS, HIMSCHOOT
03/14/25 (H) AM: HOLLAND, PRAX, RUFFRIDGE
03/27/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 16
SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN FINANCE, CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SCHRAGE
01/22/25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/25
01/22/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/25 (H) STA, FIN
03/27/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE ZACK FIELDS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented HB 58.
BRANT MCGEE, Independent Law Practice Professional
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony in support of HB 58.
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director
Alaska Judicial Council
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on HB 58.
COURTNEY OWEN, Staff
Representative Zack Fields
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave the sectional analysis for HB 58 on
behalf of Representative Fields, prime sponsor.
ELLA LUBIN, Staff
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave the sectional analysis for CSHB
35(CRA) on behalf of Representative Himschoot, prime sponsor.
TERI TIBBETT, Coordinator
Alaska Reentry Partnership
Co-Chair
Juneau Reentry Coalition
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As an invited testifier, gave a PowerPoint
presentation during the hearing on CSHB 35(CRA).
BARBARA MONGAR, Coordinator
Mat-Su Reentry Coalition
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony in support of CSHB
35(CRA).
BOBBY DORTON, Consultant
Healing Homes
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on CSHB 35(CRA).
APRIL WILKERSON, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on
CSHB 35(CRA).
REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented HB 16.
AMANDA NDEMO, Staff
Representative Calvin Schrage
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation of HB 16 on
behalf of Representative Schrage, prime sponsor.
SHARMAN HALEY
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on HB 16.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:18:03 PM
CHAIR ASHLEY CARRICK called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:18 p.m. Representatives Moore,
Holland, Himschoot, Story, and Carrick were present at the call
to order. Representative McCabe arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 58-OPA: PUBLIC ADVOCATE APPOINTMENT
3:18:38 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 58, "An Act relating to the office of public
advocacy; and relating to the public advocate."
3:19:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZACH FIELDS, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented HB 58. He said that he introduced the
proposed bill when a constituent who had worked in the Office of
Public Advocacy (OPA) explained that the selection of the head
of OPA is very different from the selection process of the
Alaska Public Defender Agency (PDA), despite having similar
functions and work and many of the same types of legal cases.
He opined that work associated with OPA was even more complex.
He said the bill objective is to make the selection process of
the director of OPA analogous to the selection process of the
public defender in PDA. He commented that this probably should
have been done 40 years ago. He clarified that the bill is not
intended to criticize the current director of OPA but was
intended to create a structural fix to the selection process.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS explained that OPA was established in 1984
by a bill that was put forward by the governor at the time.
This office was established to provide legal advocacy and
guardianship to vulnerable Alaskans. He said that often PDA and
OPA are required to hire outside counsel in cases that involve a
conflict of interest. He remarked that OPA provides crucial
services for children, vulnerable individuals, and represents
clients in a variety of civil and criminal matters. This
includes advocacy for abused and neglected children, as well as
protective proceedings regarding guardianship for incapacitated
adults. He reaffirmed that OPA plays a role in these types of
cases when a public defender can have a conflict of interest.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS reiterated that OPA was established in
1984 whereas PDA was formed in 1969. He explained that PDA
provides constitutionally mandated legal representation to
vulnerable clients, including legal representation in criminal
cases. When looking at the work of both OPA and PDA, the scope
of OPA's work is broader, but both agencies are essential for
providing constitutionally required legal representation.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS explained that both agencies are similar
in that they are both government agencies that provide legal
services under the Department of Administration (DOA). They
both serve vulnerable Alaskans and, in some cases, represent
clients in the same case. He noted that OPA provides these
services to youth and elderly individuals. However, despite
these similarities, the process for selecting each office's
director differs substantially.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS explained that the public defender is
appointed by the governor from a list of two or more candidates
nominated by the Judicial Council. The prospective appointee is
subject to confirmation by members of the Alaska State
Legislature and serves a term of four years before
reappointment. He noted that the governor may remove the public
defender at any time. In contrast, the OPA director, though
also appointed by the governor, is not subject to confirmation
or term limits. However, like the public defender, the OPA
director may be removed at the governor's discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS, in conclusion, said that the selection
processes for the two agencies differ, despite overlapping
services provided by OPA and PDA. He reiterated that the OPA
arguably has an even broader scope of practice.
CHAIR CARRICK announced the committee would hear invited
testimony.
3:23:41 PM
BRANT MCGEE, Independent Law Practice Professional, began
invited testimony in support of HB 58. He said he was the first
public advocate, appointed in 1984, and served at OPA until
2003. He stated that the proposed legislation corrects a
mistake dating back to the agency's creation in 1984. He added
that adopting the same selection process as that of PDA is
appropriate and expressed uncertainty about why it was never
aligned.
MR. MCGEE explained that there were three reasons to accommodate
the proposed changes to the appointment process in OPA. First,
it would address potential conflicts of interest. Second, OPA
can serve as the entity responsible for accountability. Third,
the position does not involve policymaking or policy
implementation. He noted that OPA's responsibilities are
established by statute in the U.S. and Alaska Constitutions. He
urged the committee to take these three reasons into
consideration when evaluating the proposed legislation.
3:28:33 PM
SUSANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council,
Alaska Court System, began invited testimony on HB 58 by
explaining that the council was established in Article 4 of the
Alaska State Constitution and its members include both lawyers
and non-lawyers who are appointed without regard to political
affiliation since the council is a nonpartisan body.
MS. DIPIETRO explained that the Alaska Judicial Council has
several constitutional and statutory duties. She explained that
one important duty would be the council's statutory duty to
screen and nominate applicants to the position of public
defender. She said that as Representative Fields had mentioned,
the intent of the bill is to use the same nomination procedures
for OPA as currently conducted with PDA.
MS. DIPIETRO discussed the process of nominating a public
defender. First is the announcement of a vacancy, followed by
solicitations from applicants. She said this is widely
publicized; a letter is sent out to every lawyer in the state;
press releases are put out; and information is posted on the
Alaska Judicial Council's website. She said that this is a 5-
week application process and included a 27-page application that
asked for previous employers, education, legal experience,
trial-practice experience, and any references that were
previously affiliated with their work. They are also required
to provide waivers to allow the council access to their
confidential personnel files and their confidential bar-
discipline records. At the close of this application process,
the Alaska Judicial Council publicizes the names of people who
have applied, and an electronic survey is sent to every member
of the bar who may have had direct experience with the
applicants to rate applicant qualifications. She said
applicants are rated on several qualities that the council has
found to be critical to these types of positions. These include
legal ability, temperament, impartiality, fairness, integrity,
and overall performance. The results of the survey are posted
on the council's website for everyone to see.
MS. DIPIETRO said that during the application process, council
staff are investigating all the information that the applicants
provided. Contact is made to each legal employer that the
person has worked for and requests feedback about their
performance. The council also contacts references and other
people who have been involved in litigation with the applicant;
this could involve co-counsel, opposing council, or even as a
judge in the case. These affiliates are asked to answer a
questionnaire providing detailed feedback about the applicant's
performance.
MS. DIPIETRO said that the Alaska Judicial Council also conducts
criminal-records checks, credit-history checks, and looks
through those personnel files and bar-discipline files, and does
other investigations as needed. Importantly, the council
members listen to public comments throughout the process.
MS. DIPIETRO said that the council holds a public hearing on the
applicants and a 45-minute interview is held for each applicant.
Following the interviews, the council nominates the most
qualified individuals in the group. She said the criteria used
to determine "most qualified" include professional competence,
diligence and administrative skills, integrity, fairness,
temperament, judgement, common sense, legal and life experience,
commitment, demonstrated commitment to the public and community
service and a demonstrated commitment to equal justice and the
legal needs of all communities in Alaska.
MS. DIPIETRO noted that at least two individuals are nominated
for later confirmation processes and only the most qualified
among the applicants were candidates following application
procedures.
3:34:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND said he recalled a lot of these details
from previous discussions in the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee. He asked whether there were any
changes to the proposed legislation since those previous
discussions.
3:35:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS responded that there had been no changes
to the bill.
3:35:20 PM
COURTNEY OWEN, Staff, Representative Zack Fields, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Fields, prime sponsor,
gave the sectional analysis for HB 58 [included in the committee
file], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1: Amends AS 13.26.750(a), changing the title
from "COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION" to "public
advocate."
Section 2: Amends AS 36.30.305(a), changing the title
from "DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY" to
"public advocate."
Section 3: Amends AS 36.30.850(b)(31), changing the
title from "DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY"
to "public advocate."
Section 4: Amends AS 44.21.400 to read: (with
reference to the "public advocacy office") "The office
is administered by the public advocate."
Section 5: Amends AS 44.21 by adding a new section
that reads: "Sec.44.21.405. Appointment, removal, and
vacancy."
Subsection (a) directs the governor to appoint the
public advocate for a term of four years, from persons
nominated by the judicial council and subject to
majority confirmation by the joint legislature.
Retention of the public advocate requiring only
similar legislative approval.
Subsection (b) lays out the removal process for the
public advocate, a power held by the governor, who
need only submit a report stating the reasons and
notify the legislature of the report within 10 days
after the convening of the regular session.
Subsection (c) required eligibility entails acquiring
admittance to practice law in the State of Alaska.
NOTE: This mirrors the existing Sec. 44.21.430
(requiring employees of the public advocacy office to
be licensed to practice law in the State of Alaska.
Subsection (d) during vacancy, the governor has
discretionary authority to appoint an "acting public
advocate" and the joint duty (with judicial council)
to fill the vacancy as soon as possible.
Section 6: Amends AS 44.21.410(a)(7), changing the
title from "COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION" to "public
advocate."
Section 7: Amends AS 44.21.410(b), changing the title
from "COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATON" to "public
advocate" (and under (b)(1): "COMMISSIONER" to "public
advocate").
Section 8: Amends AS 44.21.415(c), changing the title
from "COMMISSIONER" to "public advocate."
Section 9: Amends AS 44.21.415(e), changing the title
from "COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION" to "public
advocate."
Section 10: Amends AS 44.21.420, changing the title
from "COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATON" in subsection (a)
and "COMMISSIONER" in subsections (b), & (c), to
"public advocate."
Section 11: The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section, titled:
"TRANSITION" and to read:
Subsection (a): Provides for the continuity of all
orders, regulations, contracts, rights, liabilities
and obligations issued, created, or adopted by the
predecessor to the envisioned public advocate (the
commissioner of administration) and by the pre-
existing law changed by this bill.
Subsection (b): Provides for the continuity of
governance by allowing the individual employed as the
director of the office of public advocacy on the day
before the effective date of this Act to serve as the
public advocate until the governor appoints a new
public advocate.
3:38:34 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that HB 58 was held over.
HB 35-PRISONERS: ELECTRONIC DEVICE ACCESS/USE
3:38:44 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 35, "An Act relating to the use and possession of
electronic devices by prisoners." [Before the committee was
CSHB 35(CRA).]
3:38:52 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:38 p.m. to 3:41 p.m.
3:41:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT, as prime sponsor, presented CSHB
35(CRA). She explained that this bill concept has been around
before and this was the third legislature that handled this
topic. She said that the proposed legislation would bring
Alaska into alignment with 48 other states that allow the use of
electronic tablets in a Department of Corrections (DOC)
facility. The goal of the bill is to reduce recidivism through
additional access to training and family visitation. She said
that it would help inmates learn how to use tablet devices as
well, common tools in the public space. The goal is to allow
inmates to leave corrections on a better footing to reduce the
chances of returning to a correctional facility.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that security threats could be
reduced with the proposed legislation. This includes increasing
access to telehealth options and the reduction in transport to
medical care facilities. She noted that a DOC pilot program was
underway that allowed limited use of electronic tablets and
reports indicated that it was having positive outcomes. She
said that since this allowance has not been addressed in Alaska
Statute (AS), DOC cannot provide electronic tablets to all the
states correctional facilities. She said that the pilot program
made determinations for how this tool could be deployed at a
larger scale. She clarified that these electronic tablets were
not free access to the Internet nor a luxury item that had games
and other entertainment access. Access to library materials,
training courses, telehealth, and family visitation is
permitted. She said that she wanted to ensure that policies
were in place to give DOC the latitude needed to provide these
devices but with sufficient guardrails to ensure appropriate use
amongst inmates.
3:44:38 PM
ELLA LUBIN, Staff, Representative Rebecca Himschoot, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Himschoot, prime
sponsor, gave the sectional analysis for CSHB 35(CRA) [included
in the committee file], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 1: Adds an exemption (I) to the prohibition
against electronic devices for prisoners. It also adds
television show ratings to the list of banned movie
ratings. Subparagraph (I) adds additional accepted
uses for electronic devices including use for
rehabilitative and case plan purposes, legal material
access, health care access, or another purpose
identified by the commissioner in regulation.
Subparagraph (4) adds language that prohibits
correctional centers from charging fees for electronic
device use.
Section 2: States that electronic devices may not be
used to replace in-person visitation.
Section 3: Adds clarifying language regarding the
applicability of the effective date.
CHAIR CARRICK stated that the committee would hear invited
testimony.
3:46:31 PM
TERI TIBBETT, Coordinator, Alaska Reentry Partnership; Co-Chair,
Juneau Reentry Coalition, began invited testimony by talking
about the coalition's purpose of helping people transition out
of incarceration and back into the public community. She gave a
PowerPoint presentation [hard copy included in the committee
file], titled "Alaska Reentry Partnership Presentation to House
State Affairs Committee 3/27/25." She brought attention to
slides 4 and 5, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
HB 35 - Access to Digital Technology in Prisons
• HB 35 removes a barrier in state law that restricts
inmates inside correctional facilities from utilizing
certain electronic devicessuch as computers or
digital tabletsfor improved access to rehabilitative
programming and activities.
• The Alaska Reentry Partnership supports efforts to
expand digital technology in prisons for vocational
training, education, treatment and recovery, reentry
planning, housing and employment assistance,
telehealth, peer support, faith-based, Tribal,
visitation, and more.
• Rehabilitative programming increases the likelihood
of success in the community after release. Successful
reentry means safer communities.
• In today's world, people need to be 'digitally
literate' for basic functioningto fill out an
application, apply for a job, banking, communication,
and more. People who have been incarcerated for
decades need basic digital skills to function in
today's world.
• The Alaska Reentry Partnership supports DOC's
efforts to improve digital infrastructure to best
provide safe and secure access to telehealth, video
teleconferencing, closed circuit education channels,
digital tablets, computer labs, and more.
MS. TIBIT brought attention to a graph on slide 6, titled
"Offender Returning to Incarceration Within 3 Years of Release,"
which shows a graphical summary of decreasing recidivism rates
from 2015 to 2021. She said that there was not any state data
available to group data from reentry efforts and recidivism
rates. However, data from nationwide efforts regarding reentry
efforts suggested positive outcomes. On the additional slides
she discussed reentry efforts with the State of Alaska (SOA).
She concluded the presentation by commenting that national
recidivism rates are 23 percent lower than 2008 and commented
that achieving these rates were due to changes in policy and
increasing opportunities and resources to support employment,
behavioral healthcare, and housing.
3:54:43 PM
BARBARA MONGAR, Coordinator, Mat-Su Reentry Coalition, began her
invited testimony in support of CSHB 35(CRA). Representing the
Mat-Su Reentry Coalition, she noted that she has worked as the
coordinator for the group for the past five and a half years.
The coalition consists of state agencies such as the Alaska
Department of Labor (DOL) and the Department of Corrections
(DOC), community substance treatment centers such as Set Free
Alaska, Inc. and True North Recovery, Inc.; Mat-Su Health
Services, Inc.; tribal agencies; and nonprofit and private
community service agencies. She said that the close community
partnership through the coalition has made it easier to provide
wrap-around services. A reentry case manager starts planning
with individuals scheduled for release at least 30 days before
their release. These services include comprehensive case
planning, housing support, employment support, parole and
probation support, and referrals for substance and mental health
treatment. She remarked that the case managers also assist
individuals in obtaining clothing and hygiene items, applying
for benefits such as Medicaid or food stamps, and accessing
other services needed for post-incarceration success.
MS. MONGAR said that the coalition supports HB 35 because the
bill would help remove barriers that restrict inmates from
utilizing certain electronic devices such as computers or
digital tablets for improved access to rehabilitation activities
and programs. She stated that early access to these services
would increase the likelihood that individuals will successfully
integrate into the community once they are released from
incarceration.
3:57:07 PM
BOBBY DORTON, Consultant, Healing Homes, began his invited
testimony on CSHB 35(CRA) by talking about his experience while
incarcerated. He noted that he was last incarcerated for over
eight years; five years in a corrections facility and three
years using an ankle monitor. He said that while incarcerated
he wanted to learn how to read and did a lot of reading.
Additionally, he engaged with some of the available programs for
inmates such as the substance abuse program. He said that he
"hungered" for a career once he was able to leave incarceration
but felt that he did not have all the appropriate avenues
available to study these different skills. He said that while
there was a culinary program, it was limited in nature and not
many people were selected, and it required being in the right
institution. He did, however, mention that following his
release a few more programs have been made available to inmates.
MR. DORTON emphasized what he "could have been" if he were able
to satiate his "hunger" for learning given the time he had
available. He felt "warehoused" and "stored away" in prison.
He said that a lot of money was spent on him to be incarcerated;
he believed around $150 a day, and during this time he was ready
to learn but everything was on hold. He said he had to wait to
be released to begin training, school, and the ability to
acquire a career that he wanted. He reiterated that while in
prison, he could have been getting ready for a career but was
instead "warehoused."
MR. DORTON said that for the last seven years he has worked on
facilitating reentry for inmates. He said that once many
inmates are released, they are lost and often end up doing jobs
that involve labor or other lines of work that do not fit their
individual passions. This is largely due to the inability to
train when incarcerated. He said that if training tablets were
available in prison, then the "sky is the limit" and the
educational opportunity for expanding career prospects was
substantial. He opined that his educational level would have
been much higher had these educational tools been available for
him while incarcerated. He believed that expanding the
educational tools for inmates would allow for reentry into
careers and not just jobs. He said that many inmates' following
incarceration are working in fast food venues or washing dishes.
He said that many of these jobs do not last and there was risk
of recidivism when placed in the wrong job category. He said
that putting opportunities in place for inmates and trying to
mold individuals in preparation for a career of choice would
create a better Alaska. In conclusion, he said that the
educational benefit to electronic tablets would be substantial
in supporting reentry for incarcerated Alaskans.
4:02:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY thanked the testifiers. She asked the bill
sponsor and testifiers whether they knew what kind of security
measures could be expected with electronic tablets as this was a
point of concern for some people.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that Deputy Commissioner April
Wilkerson could help address this question. She remarked that
this type of device would be offline system to her
understanding.
4:04:05 PM
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILKERSON, Deputy Commissioner, Department
of Corrections, in response to Representative Story, commented
that security details were a concern for DOC as well. She said
that the current pilot program is occurring at Highland Mountain
Correctional Center. She said that DOC is utilizing a vendor
that operates multiple corrections related network systems to
provide electronic tablets to individuals in various
correctional settings. She said that there is a structured and
closed network that only allows departmentally approved content
to be displayed on electronic tablets. She commented that the
network is so "tight" that prisoners would not be able to take
these tablets into the cells without disconnection occurring.
She remarked that DOC is building trust with the devices and has
faith in the possibilities of utilizing the tablets with the
pilot program. She reiterated that the network was quite
limited and restricted in use.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether Ms. Wilkerson could elaborate
on the current pilot program and how the electronic tablets were
being utilized.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILKERSON remarked that the electronic
tablet program at Highland Mountain Correctional Center was
available to all offenders following orientation. The
orientation consists of a medical and mental health assessment,
an orientation video, an acknowledgment, and meeting with an
institutional probation officer. She said that inmates are
issued a unique personal identification number (PIN) that allows
them access to the tablet. She said that the tablets have the
digital law library, offender handbook, and allow for
professional visitation with attorneys. She remarked that
currently, visitation with friends and family was not allowed
but electronic mail ("e-mail") can be received via a service
paid by the sender, about half the price of a stamp. She said
the tablets allow for instant messaging; however, these were
monitored and tracked by staff in the facility. She said that
the facility was piloting communication between the correctional
superintendent and the population. She said that there had been
a maintenance issue and the water had to be shut off.
Notifications were made to inmates via the tablet regarding
where bottled water would be stored, how long the water was out
of service and other details. She remarked that the tablets can
facilitate communication.
DEPUTY COMMISIONER WILKERSON said that DOC was also piloting
requests for information (RFI). The process is for the offender
to get a piece of paper and write out and complete the form; the
form goes in a box; a sergeant will collect that information and
distribute it, whether to medical, to disciplinary, jobs, or
wherever the request is going. She said that individuals on the
back end of RFIs will write responses that return to the box.
She said that this was a very manual process. She said that DOC
is trying to streamline this process via the use of the
electronic tablets.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILKERSON said that DOC is also converting
the grievance process, which much like RFIs is a manually
intensive process. She noted that manual processes for
completing forms were still available for those who do not have
or want a tablet for use.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILKERSON said that more recently DOC was
looking at expanding the education that is available on the
program. This includes career exploration and preparation,
computer literacy, and other employment and work skills. She
said that currently, educational materials are limited as they
were just being deployed.
DEPUTY COMMISIONER WILKERSON said that there is another program
running out of Goose Creek Correctional Center following
partnership with the courts. She said that this involved using
tablets to engage in court proceedings to avoid transportation
of inmates to and from courts. She said that DOC was in the
process of bringing this service to Highland Mountain
Correctional Center as well. She clarified that both facilities
are using different tablets on separate networks.
4:11:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said that she was hoping to hear more about
technical coding skills that incarcerated inmates could get when
they reenter society but based on testimony it appeared the DOC
was not quite there yet. She said that there are various
network security companies in the United States, and she asked
whether there could be any elaboration to what systems DOC uses.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILKERSON responded that DOC was not at the
point at which it could offer coding education to inmates via
the electronic tablets but wanted to get there. She recognized
the nationwide workforce challenges that everyone is facing and
expanding programming opportunities for the population could
help.
4:13:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that the zero fiscal note concerned
him. He said that he has researched these companies for why
they provide electronic tablets at no cost. He compared the
tablets to printers, where the front-end cost is cheap, but the
back-end cost is where they make considerable money. He said
all the Internet providers for these secure networks utilized by
tablets make huge money off prisoners and the states. He asked
whether there was a request for proposal (RFP) out for these
types of electronic tablets. He understood that one of the
providers charges 50 cents an email and four times as much if it
has a video or picture attached. He reiterated that the costs
can be huge with these types of devices. He asked whether there
was an anticipated cost when moving forward to scale this type
of service. He said that it was important to know what these
back-end costs may be before moving forward with providing the
service. He understood that these networks needed to be secure
and asked for elaboration on what companies DOC has spoken with
and what the anticipated costs may be.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILKERSON responded that the zero fiscal
note attached to the proposed bill is because the legislation
only gives the SOA the authority to use electronic tablets.
Pending any final version of legislation, DOC is planning to
evaluate how these tablets can be rolled out in the most
beneficial fashion for the department while maintaining costs.
She said that she envisioned the future use of an RFP and
hopefully reducing expenditures and becoming more efficient,
some of the savings could get redirected towards the cost of
tablets. She noted that the cost of tablets at Highland
Mountain Correctional Center is $60 per month per user and that
it is based on current operations.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILKERSON said that most vendors such as
JPay, Securus, and ViaPath can offer reduced costs or limited
services based on the functions of the tablets. She said that
DOC was waiting to see what the final form of the proposed
legislation may be to get an RFP prepared to expand the current
pilot program into other institutions. It would likely be a
budget request in the future.
4:17:14 PM
CHAIR CARRICK asked for explanation of cost avoidance in other
areas regarding the use of electronic tablets.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILKERSON responded that reduced paper
printing was one example of a cost avoidance since forms could
be filled out digitally. She said that tablets would also
reduce the manual burden of RFP requests around the facility and
their distribution amongst personnel, freeing up this time,
which would allow resources to be focused on other areas.
Additionally, another area of savings would be document
delivery, unless a hard copy is requested. She also speculated
that visitation opportunities on the tablets could reduce in
person visitation and reduce strain on staffing required for in-
person accommodation. Lastly, he reiterated that telehealth and
programming could reduce the movement of inmates in and out of
the facility, which would also be a form of cost avoidance.
4:19:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND thanked the previous testifiers for their
comments. He said that he has learned recidivism is significant
in Alaska and how much cost is associated with it. He offered
support to any remediation that could help drive down costs
associated with incarceration. He commented that he hoped that
as this technology continues to develop it could be an
opportunity to engage with Alaska companies and entrepreneurs
for service coverage. He was aware of Alaska startups already
providing hardened tablets, but not specifically for prisons.
He said that this could be an opportunity for Alaska, allowing
those business opportunities to stay in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked whether there was a current method
to track individuals using tablets to assess whether there was
any meaningful impact following reentry. He said it may cost a
small amount of money, but the cost savings given reduced rates
of recidivism would save substantially more. He said SOA spends
roughly $70-$80 thousand to keep someone in the prison system
and a fifty-dollar investment in a tablet would be a
considerable return on the investment. He said that being able
to see the savings in action would make these decisions
straightforward, but it would require the collection of data.
He reiterated his question into whether DOC was collecting
reentry data for individuals who used tablets and if not, could
DOC begin collecting this information.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that the question of
causation and correlation always play into this discussion. She
noted that there was some research in the committee's bill
packets about recidivism at a national level [copy included in
committee file]. She said that research indicates that
recidivism is reduced with increased educational opportunities.
She said that while there were educational programs available
right now, nobody could force inmates to participate. She
commented that it was human nature to want to occupy time with
something. She deferred Deputy Commissioner Wilkerson for
further comment.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILKERSON said that DOC intends to track as
much data as possible to ensure the success of the tablet
program. She said that the tablet infrastructure was put in
place the previous March and devices were not rolled out until
the beginning of April, with limited tablet functionality
consisting of the handbook, digital library, and attorney-client
visits. She remarked that only last October had DOC been able
to work with the vendor to get the RFI process established,
grievance process and communications started with the tablets.
Furthermore, the educational components of the tablets are only
beginning to be "turned on". Due to recent implementation of
the tablets, only limited data was available regarding outcomes
from tablet use. She said that DOC plans to have tracking
capabilities to monitor and report on the success and
utilization of the tablets. She noted that everything on the
tablet was recorded except for professional visits with their
attorney clients.
4:24:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT noted that the committee should not
overlook opportunities for faith-based services and family
visitation. She commented on the vast nature of Alaska and the
distance that many inmates have from families. She noted that
Sitka has no long-term correctional facility and at best an
inmate might be housed in Juneau. She said that at a minimum, a
tablet would provide an opportunity for family visits when in-
person visitation was not possible.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT also referenced a study evaluated by
her research team that explained the impact of education on
reentry success. She clarified that it was a national study and
not specific to Alaska but indicated that educational
opportunities reduce post-release incarceration rates by 13
percent. It also indicated a savings of five dollars in
correctional costs for every single dollar spent on correctional
education. She emphasized that the tablets are directly tied
into educational access.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND said that based on previous comments it
is understood that DOC can track the use of the tablets and will
be expanding what the tablets can be used for. He reiterated
that his question pertained to tracking reentry for individuals
who used a tablet and those who did not and their respective
outcomes following reentry. He was interested in whether
recidivism data could be correlated to tablet access. He
acknowledged that the statistical significance might be
speculative but explained that he was looking at data that could
correlate from national studies as well and provide Alaska-
specific information. He remarked that this type of data would
help infer whether tablets had an impact on reducing recidivism
rates in the state. Being able to see a change in Alaska's
recidivism rates and correlating it back to different services,
products, or tools would be ideal.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILKERSON said that DOC can track recidivism
rates. For individuals returning to custody, the department can
review what programming those individuals previously received,
whether they had participated, completed it, or successfully
completed it. She said that with regards to tablets, DOC can
evaluate whether those inmates were issued a tablet and what it
was used for. She said that this was a component that could be
added to reports generated by the Department.
4:27:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE asked whether Deputy Commissioner Wilkerson
could elaborate on what was included in the $50 a month cost
associated with the electronic tablets.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILKERSON responded that this covers costs
associated with setting up the system, setting up users,
software updates, security elements, and services that were
being provided. She compared it to costs associated with
setting up phones.
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE noted that based on the language of the
bill, some of the features were already being piloted on the
tablets, such as entertainment and online education. He noted
that in other states, entertainment is charged to the inmate,
and inmates pay for online education courses. She said that
inmates in other states often pay for text messaging and emails
as well.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILKERSON clarified that from DOC's
standpoint and the way the proposed legislation reads, there is
no ability to allow for entertainment under the current bill
language. She said that email and visitations are prohibited
from being charged back to inmates. Because of this, any such
services would require negotiation with the vendor, the
department would need to return to the legislature to seek
funding for full implementation.
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE asked, if the bill carries forward, whether
DOC would also charge for entertainment and online educational
courses. Furthermore, she inquired whether there had been any
conversations about whether the department would charge inmates
$50 to cover the monthly fee associated with the tablets. She
said that this would need to be addressed in a fiscal note.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILKERSON reiterated that DOC understands
that the proposed legislation would not allow the use of tablets
for the purpose of entertainment. Furthermore, she reiterated
that email and electronic visitations could not be charged to
inmates. Because of this, negotiations would be required with
the vendor regarding costs and required funding for full
implementation.
4:31:51 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that CSHB 35(CRA) was held over.
HB 16-CAMPAIGN FINANCE, CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
4:32:17 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 16, "An Act amending campaign contribution
limits for state and local office; directing the Alaska Public
Offices Commission to adjust campaign contribution limits for
state and local office once each decade beginning in 2031; and
relating to campaign contribution reporting requirements."
4:32:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, presented HB 16. He said that this was an act to
amend campaign contribution limits for state and local offices.
Pertaining to the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), the
bill would adjust campaign contribution limits once every decade
beginning in 2031 as well as contribution reporting
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE explained that in 2024, a ballot petition
was certified after a grassroots effort gathered nearly 30,000
signatures from Alaska voters and met the 7 percent threshold in
32 of Alaska's 40 House districts; this puts the ballot measure
in front of voters in 2026 if the Alaska Legislature did not
pass similar legislation. He explained that HB 16 matches the
ballot initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE remarked that Alaska has historically had
some of the strongest and most effective campaign finance laws
in the nation, which serve to promote better accountability and
trust in elections and elected officials. He said that in the
past, Alaskans have shown their support for fair and reasonable
limits, including a 2006 initiative that passed with 73 percent
support. He said that unfortunately, in 2021 the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals struck down Alaska's statutory campaign
contribution limits, opening state and local elections to the
threat of unlimited political contributions, from anywhere in
the country.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE stated that HB 16 reinstates fair,
reasonable, and constitutional campaign contribution limits,
adjusted to Alaska's consumer price index moving forward,
ensuring that these limits remain constitutional. He remarked
that HB 16 would move Alaska's campaign contribution limits to a
per-election basis as opposed to a per-year basis and would
increase individual statutory limit from $500 per year to $2,000
per election cycle. Furthermore, it would change group limits
from $1,000 per year to $4,000 per election cycle. Lastly, it
would direct APOC to adjust contribution limits related to
inflation.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE stated that these changes follow guidance
laid out by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and United States
Supreme Court precedent while upholding the desire of Alaska
voters for fair and reasonable contribution limits.
4:35:40 PM
AMANDA NDEMO, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Schrage, prime sponsor,
gave a PowerPoint presentation of HB 16 [hard copy included in
the committee file]. She began by providing an overview of the
history of political contributions in Alaska, highlighting key
legislative actions, legal challenges, and reforms from 1974 to
today. She remarked that Alaska has a long history of
regulating political contributions, balancing the need to
prevent corruption with the constitutional right to free speech.
However, recent court decisions have significantly altered the
campaign finance landscape. She explained that starting in
1974, Alaska adopted its first significant campaign finance
regulations in response to national concerns over political
corruption. Alaska's statutory individual contribution limits
began at $1,000. Adjusted for inflation, this amount would be
$5,303 today. This limit was in effect until 1995. These
limits were changed in 1996 to $500 following a citizens'
initiative after the legislature's reaction to a citizens'
initiative aimed at reducing these limits. Adjusted for
inflation, this amount would be $933 today. In 2003, the
legislature passed Senate Bill 119, which raised the individual
contribution limit back to $1,000, approximately $1,638 today.
In response to concerns about political corruption, Alaska
voters reaffirmed a $500 limit in 2006 through Ballot Measure 1.
This measure passed overwhelmingly with 74 percent support.
This limit remained in effect for over a decade but was never
adjusted for inflation, making it one of the strictest in the
country. This limit was later overturned in 2021 with the
decision in Thompson v. Hebdon.
MS. NDEMO said that this case was initially brought forward in
2015 in federal district court. David Thompson and others filed
a lawsuit challenging the $500 individual contribution limit as
a violation of the First Amendment. The lower court upheld the
contribution limits, ruling that they were narrowly tailored to
prevent corruption. The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth
Circuit Court in 2018. The Ninth Circuit Court upheld the
district court's ruling, maintaining that Alaska's strict limits
were sufficiently justified and closely drawn to a state
interest, with preventing corruption as sufficient
justification. The case was then petitioned and heard by the
U.S. Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit's decision was vacated
for reconsideration, with the U.S. Supreme Court citing Randall
v. Sorrell, a 2006 decision on Vermont's $400 contribution limit
that was determined to be unconstitutional.
MS. NDEMO explained that the importance of this case is the
five-factor test, which provides guidance on whether states'
contribution limits violate the First Amendment rights of
individuals and political organizations. More specifically, the
five-factor test asks: whether the limits are so low that they
risk disadvantaging challengers compared to incumbents; whether
the limits are unduly restrictive on the ability of political
parties to support their candidates; whether volunteer services
or expenses are considered contributions that would count toward
the limit; whether the limits are adjusted for inflation; and
whether there is a special justification warranting a
contribution limit so low or so restrictive that it is based on
a valid government interest. Of these five factors, Alaska
failed to meet this threshold because contribution limits were
too low and had not been adjusted for inflation since being
initially implemented.
MS. NDEMO said that in 2021, APOC issued an advisory opinion
following the court's decision. They set an annual limit of
$1,500 for contributions from an individual to a candidate and a
$3,000 limit for a group-to-candidate contribution. These
numbers were based on the limits that were established by the
Alaska legislature in 2003, which was a $1,000 contribution
limit for an individual to a candidate but increased for
inflation. She said APOC's five commissioners voted on whether
to accept the staff's advisory opinion. Three out of five voted
in support; however, the staff advisory opinion was not accepted
because they failed to get the required four votes. Alaska
currently has no individual-to-candidate limits, out-of-state
contribution limits, or individual-to-group limits. This has
left Alaska and local elections open to unlimited and outside
funding.
MS. NDEMO explained HB 16 aims to offer a balanced approach to
the reinstatement of campaign contribution limits in Alaska.
Furthermore, HB 16 seeks to modify the existing limits on
campaign contributions for state and local offices by
establishing the contribution limits. It also establishes
contribution limits based on an election cycle, ensuring
consistent limits regardless of election timing or candidate
entry date. Additionally, it directs APOC to adjust these
limits every decade starting in 2031 to account for inflation.
Shown in the slide is a summary of the proposed contribution
limits. Individual contribution limits were previously set to
$500; adjusted for inflation, this is $751 today. The new
limits would be $2,000. An individual's contribution limit to a
political party and a non-political party's contribution to a
group, non-group entity, or political party would be set at
$5,000. This has not changed and was not an issue with the
court. A non-political party to an individual is set at $4,000.
A non-group entity to a non-group entity was set at $1,000 in
2006, which is $1,501 today. The new limit would be $4,000. A
group to join a joint campaign for governor and lieutenant
governor is $2,000, which is $3,003 today. The new limit would
be $8,000. This is just a simple infographic of those changes.
This slide provides a visual of the five-factor test from
Randall v. Sorrell and how HB 16 implements those specific
questions that were asked by the court. Overall, this
initiative brings Alaska's individual-to-candidate and
individual-to-group political contribution limits in compliance
with the Thompson v. Hebdon court decision. It re-establishes
limits that Alaska voters' support.
4:44:14 PM
CHAIR CARRICK said that review of the sectional analysis wasn't
necessary and asked committee if they had questions.
4:44:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked whether these limits apply to all
races including the local assembly, school board, and both state
and federal elections. He was unsure whether the bill covered
all elections that are managed by the state.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded that federal elections are
governed through federal law and the proposed legislation was
focused on state elections including the governor's race, the
House, Senate, and municipal races.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked for clarification whether the
proposed bill would comply with the citizens' initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded that the proposed bill mirrors
exactly what is certified to appear on the 2026 ballot.
CHAIR CARRICK said the committee would hear invited testimony.
4:46:39 PM
SHARMAN HALEY began her invited testimony by giving her
background as a now retired policy analyst and researcher,
including time spent with Legislative Legal and Research
Services and the Institute of Social and Economic Research. She
stated that she has been working on this issue for about 10
years. She said that currently she was involved in work with
Alaska Move to Amend, Citizens Against Money in Politics,
American Promise, as well as with ordinary citizens and
politicians who care about this issue.
MS. HALEY said that the proposed bill should not be
controversial and that it had solid support amongst Alaska
constituents across the political spectrum. She explained that
the bill contained the same language as the citizens' initiative
that would be on the 2026 ballot, but there is hope that the
legislature would pass the legislation this session and save the
effort necessary to put forth a ballot measure. She remarked
that the bill was carefully crafted to conform to the five
criteria dictated by the Ninth Circuit Court that struck down
previous law; any "gray areas" that might be grounds for legal
challenge have been removed from the bill. She noted that it is
a politically solid bill because Alaskans have demonstrated
their support for strong campaign finance laws.
MS. HALEY explained that the old campaign finance also began as
a citizen initiative and was enacted by the legislature in 1996.
It was one of the strictest in the country, with contribution
limits of $500. She said that the legislature felt that this
was inadequate because some candidates were required to do a lot
of fundraising. She said that in 2003 limits were increased to
$1,000, but voters stepped up in 2006 and passed another
initiative bringing campaign limits back to $500. This 2006
initiative passed with a 73 percent approval rating. She said
that the initiative passed with a solid majority in every single
district of the state.
MS. HALEY explained that Alaskans want strong campaign finance
limits to protect the balance of power and limit the
disproportionate influence and corrupting power of big money in
elections. She said that in 2020, there was a poll that
illustrated that 71 percent of Alaskans would support a U.S.
constitutional amendment restoring full authority to set
reasonable limits on political spending in elections, including
independent expenditures. The court in Citizens United said
that it could not be limited. As a result of that poll, support
for a constitutional amendment restoring authority to limit
independent expenditures was strong across both political
parties and independents.
MS. HALEY said she probably did not need to restate the limits
in the bill because the committee already had that. She said
she would have chosen a lower limit than $2,000 and that she had
run the numbers a couple of years earlier, but there had been a
lot of inflation since then, and she accepted the political
judgment of the sponsors that $2,000 was a safer number
politically. She stated that the two big improvements in the
bill over the old law were that the limit would be per election
cycle and not per year - because savvy people used to double dip
in December and January - and that it would automatically adjust
the limits for inflation every 10 years, which was one of the
requirements from the Ninth Circuit Court. She concluded by
saying that she and her fellow Alaskans supported HB 16 and
called on the committee to support it as well.
4:52:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that he was interested in definitions
and whether there was a difference between a group and a non-
group.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded that he would have to follow up
with an answer.
MS. NDEMO responded that definitions for this could be found in
Alaska Statute (AS) 15.13.400.
4:53:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE asked Representative Schrage why he did not
take this opportunity to make APOC more accountable and it
seemed like the commission needed more transparent direction
through statute. She said that most legislators she knew would
like this to come from the commission and asked whether this
additional step would make the proposed bill more convoluted.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked for additional clarification
regarding the question.
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE clarified that the question is whether
there was a reason not to take the opportunity to overhaul APOC
protocols when drafting the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE provided clarification of the history of
why the bill was proposed. He said that efforts began after the
court struck down previous limits and the initial approach was
to fix the hole created in Alaska's campaign finance structure
following the court ruling. He said that the intent was to take
the "lightest touch, most straightforward approach" to restoring
campaign contribution limits, which is what the proposed bill
would accomplish. He said that he was happy to discuss the
mechanics associated with this process.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that while he has not been involved
in politics for a substantial amount of time, he frequently
hears various concerns about APOC. These concerns regard
funding and staffing limitations to why they cannot proactively
enforce campaign finance laws. He said that the funding aspect
is a policy decision for the state. He reiterated that his
approach was just to address the lack of limits and
enforceability of the mechanics that APOC currently has. He
said that in his experience talking with legislators and those
involved in campaigns, there is not a consistent view of how
APOC should be structured. He said that there was concern with
some people giving APOC enforcement mechanisms due to its
potential weaponization as an agency.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE commented that people are comfortable
with what they know today, which is a complaint-based system,
where if someone notices something odd, they file a complaint;
this is what triggers enforcement and investigation. He said
that the legislature could consider whether they wanted APOC to
have enforcement capability, but it was something that he was
reluctant to do because the primary goal is to take care of the
shortcomings in campaign finance. He suggested APOC reform is
something that could be done in the future.
4:58:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether Representative Schrage knew
what the proportional support was for campaign contribution
regarding the citizens' initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded that with the ballot initiative
it is not possible to ascertain what percentage of people
support the initiative since the objective is to simply collect
the minimum number of signatures, both as an aggregate and a
minimum across several districts in the state. He said that
while the signatures required to initiate a ballot measure were
met, it does not necessarily speak to the level of support that
exists in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that given recent polling in the
past couple weeks, it is deduced that support is upwards of 65
percent. He said looking at other polls and some of the ballot
initiatives that his staff walked through, support has remained
well over 60 if not even above 75 percent support. He said
there was a "strong appetite" for this change to occur in
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that with regard to limits, he
wanted to provide a background to campaign contribution limits.
He said that as the presentation indicated, the individual
campaign limits have gone from $500 to $2,000, and while this
seems like a considerable jump, it pertains to each election
cycle as opposed to an annual limit. He said that in the old
system, one could collect $500 twice for a total of $1,000 per
individual contribution, now it would be $2,000 - double the
limit. He said that the old limits did not account for
inflation, and with this consideration, the limit would be about
$1,500 per election cycle. He said that $2,000 was selected
because previous limits were struck down in part for being too
low; the $2,000 limit is intended to reduce the limits being
tossed out by courts again.
5:00:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that APOC needs a "haircut." He said
that if he had it his way, he would get rid of APOC entirely and
adopt the Federal Exchange Commission (FEC) limits. He
recognized that once "Pandora's box" gets opened, things get
complicated fast. He highlighted the enormous problem Alaska
has with outside money. He understood Citizens United but said
the reality is that Alaska "is a cheap date." He said that the
state has roughly 530,000 voters and, for only a few million
dollars, outside interests can reach voters multiple times. He
said this money overwhelmingly targets ballot measures, such as
this ballot measure.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that it is frustrating that Alaska is
constrained by the courts. The citizens said $500, then the
legislature said $1,000, then the citizens reinstated the said
$500, then the court said no to everything. He said that it may
be wise to start listening to the citizens. He said that Alaska
voters he spoke with were extremely upset about "dark money"
coming into Alaska to experiment with state affairs such as the
election system. He said whether someone supported ranked
choice voting or not, Alaska is the "guinea pig."
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded that he shares the same
frustration. He said that as an Alaskan who strongly believes
in campaign contribution limits, he was deeply frustrated by the
Citizens United ruling. He opined that it was a mistake or at
the very least, a problematic decision that limits Alaska's
right to self-determination. As previously noted, the decision
places strict limits on what states are allowed to do. He said
that Citizens United established several principles, but one of
the most consequential is that contribution limits can only be
justified for a very narrow set of reasons. Today, the only
legally valid justification is preventing the actuality or
appearance of corruption. He said that previously states could
rely on other rationale such as self-determination, but these
arguments were no longer available. He said that since
corruption is now the sole permissible justification, out-of-
state donations cannot be banned. He said that as a policymaker
he could not claim that an out-of-state contribution poses any
greater risk of corrupting an elected official than an in-state
donor. As a result, Citizens United effectively prohibits
states from limiting out-of-state donations to local elections.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that he has worked with legislators
to explore creative new approaches to this problem, but so far,
he has not believed that a solution has been identified that
would survive legal scrutiny. He shared Representative McCabe's
concerns regarding outside money. He said that he was
interested in pursuing a resolution urging Congress to address
this issue directly; this is the only path to restoring
meaningful limits on out-of-state donors.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that while out-of-state spending is
a serious problem, there were at least a few mitigating factors
worth consideration. He noted that when one outside group pours
money into Alaska, an opposing group is able, though not always,
to rally resources and provide a counterweight in the same media
market. An independent expenditure group faces a disadvantage
that candidates do not: dramatically higher advertising rates.
He said that it may cost $100 for campaign to run a mailer or
advertisement ("ad"), whereas independent expenditure groups
might pay $700 to $1,000 for the same placement. He said that
it does not solve the problem but blunts some of the impact of
outside spending.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that he was trying to understand how
outside money would function under this HB 16. As he read it,
outside contributions would be limited for candidates, which
would mean that someone from outside the state could not
contribute directly to a candidates' campaign, even though
independent expenditures would still be allowed. He asked
whether ballot measures could be treated the same as candidates
and said that campaign contribution limits apply to state and
local offices. It would not stop independent expenditure groups
from advertising, but it would prevent contributing directly to
the ballot measure committees themselves. He said that he was
unsure how this would play out legally, but looking at the same
problem, it feels unconscionable that certain groups can pour
$20 million from outside the state trying to oppose people that
might have $100,000 or less. He said the imbalance is
staggering.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that he is happy to explore this
issue but would want to ensure that solutions would pass legal
scrutiny.
5:07:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that like Representative McCabe,
she was appalled by the amount of outside money flowing into
Alaska. She asked Representative Schrage, if the bill passed,
whether these rules would be enforced for the 2026 election
cycle. She said that she agreed with the inflation-proofing
associated with the proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded that if the bill were passed
and signed into law, then it would be in effect for the next
campaign cycle. He said that this was something that would need
to be monitored as the bill progresses. He noted that if the
bill did not pass until the upcoming legislature [2026], then
the effective dates may require adjustment.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that the $2,000 individual
contribution per cycle seems high, but in her district, five of
the communities are only reachable by vehicle after she gets
there, which requires a $700 round-trip ticket from her home.
She said that she has a lot of low-income areas that can't
contribute, even if they wanted to. She said that despite the
contribution limit seeming high, only a few members of her
district could realistically contribute that much.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said that it had been hard work to come
up with a contribution limit that is legally defensible but
reasonably low. He reiterated that the goal is to match the
intent of Alaskans who have made it clear that they want a low
contribution limit. He said that Alaskans are sensitive to
issues surrounding corruption and distrust of election
officials. He raised concern about contributions' abilities to
influence a legislator's role and the issue of "indebtedness."
5:11:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked whether the committee still planned
on public testimony for the proposed bill on the upcoming
Saturday since he had interested testifiers.
CHAIR CARRICK affirmed that the proposed bill would be brought
back for the upcoming Saturday committee meeting.
[HB 16 was held over.]
5:12:15 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:12
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 16 Version A Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB0016A.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Version A Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Fiscal Note DOA-APOC-3-21-2025.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Support LTR Alaska Voter Hub.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Written Testimony Rec'd 3-26-25.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Presentation 3-27-25 UPDATED.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| CS HB 35 Sponsor Statement - Version G 3.13.25.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| CS HB 35 Sectional Analysis - Version G 3.13.25.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| CS HB 35 CRA Ver G.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| CS HB 35 - Version G Explanation of Changes 3.13.25.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| HB 35 Presentation ARP 3-27-25.pdf |
HSTA 3/27/2025 3:15:00 PM |
HB 35 |