Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)

03/18/2019 01:30 PM JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
*+ SB 89 LEGISLATURE: ETHICS, CONFLICTS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-Invited Testimony Followed by Public Testimony-
+= SB 35 CRIMES;SEX CRIMES;SENTENCING; PAROLE TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                       AALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                              
                 SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                          
                             March 18, 2019                                                                                     
                                1:32 p.m.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Senator Shelley Hughes, Chair                                                                                                   
Senator Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair                                                                                               
Senator Mike Shower                                                                                                             
Senator Peter Micciche                                                                                                          
Senator Jesse Kiehl                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 89                                                                                                              
"An  Act  relating   to  the  Legislative   Ethics   Act;  and  providing                                                       
for an effective date."                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
      - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 35                                                                                                              
"An  Act  eliminating   marriage   as  a defense   to certain   crimes  of                                                      
sexual  assault;   relating   to  enticement   of  a minor;   relating  to                                                      
harassment   in  the  first   degree;  relating   to  harassment   in  the                                                      
second  degree;   relating   to  indecent  viewing   or  production   of  a                                                     
picture;    relating    to   the   definition    of   'sexual   contact';                                                       
relating    to   assault    in   the    second   degree;    relating    to                                                      
sentencing;    relating   to   prior   convictions;    relating    to  the                                                      
definition   of  'most  serious  felony';   relating   to the  definition                                                       
of  'sexual  felony';   relating   to  the  duty  of  a  sex  offender  or                                                      
child   kidnapper    to   register;    relating    to   eligibility    for                                                      
discretionary parole; and providing for an effective date."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
      - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 89                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATURE: ETHICS, CONFLICTS                                                                                     
SPONSOR(s): RULES                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
03/13/19         (S)         READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                    
03/13/19         (S)         JUD                                                                                                
03/18/19         (S)         JUD  AT 1:30  PM BELTZ  105  (TSBldg)                                                              
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 35                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: CRIMES;SEX CRIMES;SENTENCING; PAROLE                                                                               
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
01/23/19         (S)         READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                    
01/23/19         (S)         JUD, FIN                                                                                           
02/13/19         (S)         JUD  AT 1:30  PM BELTZ  105  (TSBldg)                                                              
02/13/19         (S)         Heard & Held                                                                                       
02/13/19         (S)         MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                        
02/15/19         (S)         JUD  AT 1:30  PM BELTZ  105  (TSBldg)                                                              
02/15/19         (S)         Heard & Held                                                                                       
02/15/19         (S)         MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                        
02/18/19         (S)         JUD  AT 1:30  PM BELTZ  105  (TSBldg)                                                              
02/18/19         (S)         Heard & Held                                                                                       
02/18/19         (S)         MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                        
02/22/19         (S)         JUD  AT 1:30  PM BELTZ  105  (TSBldg)                                                              
02/22/19         (S)         -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                             
02/25/19         (S)         JUD WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE,RULE                                                              
                             23                                                                                                 
02/28/19         (S)         JUD  AT 5:00  PM BELTZ  105  (TSBldg)                                                              
02/28/19         (S)         -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                             
03/04/19         (S)         JUD  AT 1:30  PM BELTZ  105  (TSBldg)                                                              
03/04/19         (S)         Scheduled but Not Heard                                                                            
03/08/19         (S)         JUD  AT 1:30  PM BELTZ  105  (TSBldg)                                                              
03/08/19         (S)         Scheduled but Not Heard                                                                            
03/13/19         (S)         JUD  AT 1:30  PM BELTZ  105  (TSBldg)                                                              
03/13/19         (S)         Heard & Held                                                                                       
03/13/19         (S)         MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                        
03/18/19         (S)         JUD  AT 1:30  PM BELTZ  105  (TSBldg)                                                              
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL                                                                                                            
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SB 89.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAD HUTCHISON, Majority Counsel                                                                                                
Senator John Coghill                                                                                                            
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION    STATEMENT:    Presented     a   PowerPoint    and   sectional                                                     
analysis on SB 89.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
VIKKI JOE KENNEDY, representing herself                                                                                         
Kodiak,  Alaska                                                                                                                 
POSITION   STATEMENT:    Testified    during   the  hearing   on   SB  89,                                                    
urging members to stay accountable and ethical.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
DAN WAYNE, Attorney                                                                                                             
Legislative Legal Services                                                                                                      
Legislative Affairs Agency                                                                                                      
Juneau,  Alaska                                                                                                                 
POSITION   STATEMENT:   Answered  questions   during  the  hearing   on SB                                                    
89.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BUDDY WHITT, Staff                                                                                                              
Senator Shelley Hughes                                                                                                          
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau,  Alaska                                                                                                                 
POSITION   STATEMENT:   Answered  questions   and  presented   amendments                                                     
for CSSB 35, Version U, on behalf of Senator Hughes, Chair.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                      
Central  Office                                                                                                                 
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law                                                                                                               
Juneau,  Alaska                                                                                                                 
POSITION   STATEMENT:   Answered  questions   during  the  hearing   on SB                                                    
35.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REGINA LARGENT, Staff                                                                                                           
Senator Shelley Hughes                                                                                                          
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau,  Alaska                                                                                                                 
POSITION   STATEMENT:   Answered  questions   during  the  hearing   on SB                                                    
35 on behalf of Senator Hughes, Chair.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
JOHN SKIDMORE, Division Director                                                                                                
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Central  Office                                                                                                                 
Department of Law                                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION   STATEMENT:   Answered  questions   during  the  hearing   on SB                                                    
35.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:32:09 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR   SHELLEY    HUGHES   called   the   Senate    Judiciary   Standing                                                     
Committee   meeting  to  order  at  1:32  p.m.  Present   at the  call  to                                                      
order  were  Senators  Kiehl,   Reinbold,  Micciche,   Shower,  and  Chair                                                      
Hughes.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES made brief opening remarks.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
              SB 89-LEGISLATURE: ETHICS, CONFLICTS                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:32:43 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the first order of business would be                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 89, "An Act relating to the Legislative Ethics                                                                  
Act; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:33:31 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, as                                                                      
sponsor of SB 89, paraphrased from his sponsor statement:                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
      SB  89 clarifies   uncertainties    that  have  emerged  after                                                            
      the  2018   passage   of   SCS  CSSSHB   44(STA)    (known   as                                                           
      "House   Bill  44"   or  "HB  44").   Specifically,    certain                                                            
      portions   of  HB  44  eroded   Alaskans'   ability   to  have                                                            
      full,   constitutionally    required   representation    by   a                                                           
      citizen    legislature.      In    some    cases,     conflict                                                            
      provisions    are   currently     so   restrictive    that    a                                                           
      legislator   cant    live   in  "the  real   world,"   with   a                                                           
      family,   and  do  the  duties  that  they   were  elected   to                                                           
      do.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
      For  example,   successful   miners   can't   carry  a  mining                                                            
      bill.  Successful    commercial   fishermen    can't  carry   a                                                           
      fishing  bill.   The alleged   "conflicted"   subject   matter                                                            
      can  only  be  discussed   in a  public  forum,   including   a                                                           
      committee   and  the   floor,  and   only  upon  declaring    a                                                           
      conflict to the legislature.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
      In addition:   A legislator's    spouse  or immediate   family                                                            
      cannot   be   connected    to   the   alleged    "conflicted"                                                             
      subject   matter   either.  In   essence,   legislators   that                                                            
      have  a certain   expertise  in  a  field,  or that  are  most                                                            
      knowledgeable,   or  because  of  broad  family  connections,                                                             
      can't   talk   about   multiple   subject    areas   that  are                                                            
      important    to  the   state   of   Alaska,    except   under,                                                            
      essentially, unreasonably tight conditions.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
      Those    elements    combined    damage     the   legislative                                                             
      process.  Currently   there  can  be no  private  meetings   on                                                           
      any  "conflicted"     subject   matter.   There   are   severe                                                            
      restrictions   on  "official   action,"   in  multiple   forms                                                            
      (including     drafting     of    legislation      and    mere                                                            
      discussion).   A  vast   "net"  of  alleged   "conflict"   now                                                            
      exists   because    of   the   bill's    language   extending                                                             
      "conflict"   to   immediate   family   members.   "Conflicts"                                                             
      have   been   expanded    to   "financial    interests"    and                                                            
      measured against "the general public."                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
      What  are   the   proposed   changes?   1.   Definitions   are                                                            
      being  changed   back  to  the  way they   existed,  prior   to                                                           
      HB  44 (2018).   2.  The  "committee   process"   language   is                                                           
      being   removed.    3.   "Financial    interest"    is   being                                                            
      changed  to  back  to  "equity  or  ownership   interest."   4.                                                           
        eneral   public"   is   being  returned    to  "substantial                                                             
      class  of  persons  to  which  the  legislator   belongs  as  a                                                           
      member   of   a  profession,     occupation,    industry,    or                                                           
      region."   5.   There  is   an  immediate    effective   date.                                                            
      Please  join  the  Senate  Rules  Chair   in supporting   this                                                            
      necessary legislation.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:33:56 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAD  HUTCHISON,   Majority   Counsel,  Senator   John  Coghill,   Juneau,                                                      
introduced himself.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:34:12 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   COGHILL   stated   the  genesis   of   SB  89.  Last   year  the                                                      
legislature    passed   House   Bill   44,   which   changed   provisions                                                       
related   to ethical   standards   of  conduct.  He  referred   to two  of                                                      
ten  sections   in  AS  24.60.030(a)-(j).    It  became   clear  that  the                                                      
bill   made  it  more   difficult   to   determine   unethical   behavior                                                       
since   the   law  extended    to   legislators'    family   members   and                                                      
private   activities,   making   the  law  ambiguous.    Legislators   who                                                      
want  to  follow  the  ethics  law  became  unsure  of  entanglement   due                                                      
to  their   knowledge   and  expertise   on  issues.   For  example,   one                                                      
legislator   who   also  works   in  the  mining   industry   has   gained                                                      
substantial   knowledge   about   the  industry.   Under   House  Bill  44                                                      
law,   this  legislator    could  not   hold  conversations    about   the                                                      
industry,   offer  amendments,    or  craft  a  bill  to  address   issues                                                      
within  the  industry   because  the  legislator   exceeded   the  $10,000                                                      
limit on earnings.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   COGHILL   explained    that   these   concerns   were   not  the                                                      
typical   ethical  concerns   but  are  ones   related  to  the  process.                                                       
The   current    ethics   law   raised    serious   doubts    about   what                                                      
legislators could do.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR    COGHILL   referred    to  an   advisory    opinion   that   was                                                      
approved    in   November    [2018    by   the   Select    Committee    on                                                      
Legislative    Ethics.   He  offered    additional   examples,    such  as                                                      
legislators    whose   family   members    work   in  the   oil   and  gas                                                      
industry,   could  not   participate   in  the  bill  process   except  to                                                      
hold  public   discussions    or  vote  on  the  floor.   Instead,   these                                                      
legislators   would  need  to declare   a conflict   of interest   and ask                                                      
to  be excused  from  voting.   Again,  these  provisions   were so  broad                                                      
that  legislators   felt  the  need  to declare   a conflict   if they  or                                                      
their  family   members   were  involved   in or  had  knowledge   of  any                                                      
industry in Alaska, he said.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:37:39 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  COGHILL   referred   to SB  89  to AS  24.60.030(f)-(g),    which                                                      
reset  the  standards  of  conduct  and  reverts  to  the pre-House   Bill                                                      
44  ethics  law.   It would   remove  the  language   related   to  family                                                      
members.  He  explained   that  under  House  Bill 44  law,  a legislator                                                       
might   later   find  out   that  a   family   member   had  earnings   of                                                      
$10,000   or  more  on  an issue   that  came  before   the  legislature,                                                       
making  the  legislator   "unethical"    after  the  fact.  Under  SB  89,                                                      
if  legislators    are  seeking   employment   or  acquire   benefits   or                                                      
losses,   they  can  declare  a  conflict   of  interest   and  ask  to be                                                      
excused   from   voting.   Post-House    Bill   44  law   extends   beyond                                                      
identifying   unethical   behavior  and  created  a  process  that  lended                                                      
doubt  about   whether  legislators    were  following   the  ethics  law.                                                      
The ethics law is designed to promote public trust, he said.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
He  clarified  that  SB  89  would  not rewrite   the  entire  Ethics  Act                                                      
but  would  revert  to  ethics  language   that  would  clearly  identify                                                       
conflicts   of interest.   He  acknowledged   that  the  legislature   may                                                      
decide  to  revise  the  standard   of  conduct  code  at  a  later  date.                                                      
He  characterized     SB  89  as   a  discrete    reset  that   clarifies                                                       
ethical   behavior.   He emphasized    that  legislators   want  to  serve                                                      
the  public   and  uphold  the  highest   standards.   He  said  that  his                                                      
staff will explain how the bill accomplishes this.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:40:35 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   KIEHL  asked  for  further   clarification   on  the  change  in                                                      
disclosures.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  COGHILL   said that  SB  89 reverts   to pre-House   Bill  44 law                                                      
to  address  conflict   of  interest   disclosures   within   a committee                                                       
and  on  any   floor  vote.   He  said   it  is  very  important    before                                                      
official   action  occurs   that  any  disclosures   are  made,  which  is                                                      
the floor vote.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:41:56 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   REINBOLD  referred   to  page  2,  line  16,  of  SB  89 to  the                                                      
language   "shall  not  vote"  instead   of  "shall  declare   a conflict                                                       
of interest." She asked whether this is the intent.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  COGHILL   answered   that  Section  2 pertains   to  the  Uniform                                                      
Rules    of   the   Alaska    State   Legislature     and   states    that                                                      
legislators   may   not  vote  if  they  have   an  equity  or  ownership                                                       
interest   in  an   issue  that   is  beyond   a  substantial    class  of                                                      
people.  For  example,  if  a legislator   is  the only  one  receiving   a                                                     
pay  raise   or  obtaining   a  contract,   he/she   may  not   vote.  The                                                      
legislator   must  stand  up  on  the  floor,  state  the  conflict,   and                                                      
make  a motion  to  be excused   from  voting.  It is  up to  the  body to                                                      
excuse the legislator from voting, he said.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
He  deferred  to  Chad Hutchison   to  provide  reasons  why  legislators                                                       
should  vote  even   when  the  perception   of a  conflict   of interest                                                       
exists.    He   said    it   really    comes    down   to    legislators'                                                       
constitutional     duty    to   represent     their   constituents     and                                                      
determine   when  they  have   a real  conflict   of  interest.   He  said                                                      
that   the  "perceived    conflict"   is  a   bigger  problem    than  the                                                      
actual   conflict.   He  said  that   having  a  motion   in  front  of   a                                                     
committee   could  create   a "perceived   conflict."   He  said  that  SB                                                      
89 would like to return it to a real conflict.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:43:56 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   REINBOLD   said  it  could  be  viewed   as  strengthening   the                                                      
ethics law.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   COGHILL  said  that  if  legislators   have   a real  conflict,                                                       
they  should  not  be  allowed   to vote.   He said  the  distinction   is                                                      
if  the individual   benefit  is  greater  than  the  group  benefit,  the                                                      
legislator   should   not  vote.  He  said  that  it  typically   has  not                                                      
happened   in  the   legislature.   However,    the  current   law  is  so                                                      
ambiguous   that  it creates   perceived   conflicts.   He said  that  the                                                      
pre-House   Bill 44  law  has been  tested  in  the  Select  Committee  on                                                      
Legislative     Ethics.    It   makes    everyone    think   about    real                                                      
conflicts, he said.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:45:38 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES  said  she  understands   that  the bill  drafters   did not                                                      
realize  how  the  ethics  law  would  be interpreted   under  House  Bill                                                      
44  law.   She  asked  whether   the   sponsor  was   aware  of  specific                                                       
problems   during   his  tenure   in  the  legislature.   She   hoped  for                                                      
reassurances   that  problems  would  not  be  bubbling  up  if this  bill                                                      
passes.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  COGHILL   explained  that  Alaska  has  a citizen   legislature,                                                       
comprised   of   legislators   with   backgrounds    as  pilots,   in  law                                                      
enforcement   or  the military.   They  work  as teachers,   accountants,                                                       
and  lawyers.   He  worked  in  a  Christian   counseling   position,   he                                                      
said.  He  identified   potential   personal   conflicts.   For  example,                                                       
if  his pay  was  increased   or his  position   was  guaranteed,   and he                                                      
did  not  declare  a conflict,   it  would  be unethical.   He  said  if  a                                                     
legislator   was a  teacher  who  worked  in  a school  that  was  singled                                                      
out  for   raises,  that   would  be   a conflict    and  the  legislator                                                       
should   be   excused    from   voting.   However,    it  would    not  be                                                      
unethical   if a  legislator  is  a teacher   and generally   spoke  about                                                      
[issues  that  affect  schools]   or if  someone  worked  in  an industry                                                       
and  discussed  issues   related  to the  industry   without  obtaining   a                                                     
specific    benefit.   In   those   instances,   the   legislator    would                                                      
declare   the  perceived   conflict,   and   the  body  would   allow  the                                                      
legislator   to vote.  During   his 20  years  serving  as  a legislator,                                                       
many  perceived  conflicts   have  been  declared.  However,   no  one has                                                      
had  a   specific   cost  or   benefit   that   prevented   him/her   from                                                      
voting.  Alaska   has unique  geographical    fisheries  and  some  people                                                      
believe  that  legislators   who  commercially   fished  had  a conflict,                                                       
but   the  issues    were   broadly   discussed,    and  they   were   not                                                      
prevented   from   voting.   In  Alaska,   many  legislators    come  from                                                      
industries    or  enterprises    that   are  impacted   by   legislation,                                                       
including   shipping,    fishing,   schools,   and   legal   professions.                                                       
These  legislators    bring  their  expertise   gained   from  working  in                                                      
their   respective    fields,   but  unless   they   obtain   a  specific                                                       
benefit  that  exceeds   the  benefit  others  in  the  industry   obtain,                                                      
they do not have a conflict of interest.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:48:59 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE   said  it goes  beyond  the  industry  to  obtaining   a                                                     
benefit   not  given  to  "a  substantial   class  of  persons   to  which                                                      
the  legislator   belongs."   He said   that  he has  worked   in the  oil                                                      
and  gas   industry   and  in  the  fishing   industry.   He  has   always                                                      
declared   a perceived   conflict  of  interest  when  matters  affecting                                                       
those  industries    are  being  voted   on.  However,   the  legislature                                                       
has  rulings   from  [the  Select   Committee   on  Legislative    Ethics]                                                      
that  they  were  acting   on behalf   of a  substantial   class  and  not                                                      
as  individuals.    He  said   that  ethics   should   not  be   based  on                                                      
whether   legislators   like  the  outcome,   but  rather   if  they  have                                                      
real conflicts of interest.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:49:57 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  COGHILL   agreed.  He  said that  SB  89 brings  the  definition                                                       
back  to "a  substantial   class."  Currently,   a conflict   of interest                                                       
could   be  related   to  an  involvement    in  a  business,   property,                                                       
profession,   private  relation,   or  a source  of  income  that  results                                                      
in  the  legislator   receiving   or  expecting   to  receive   a  benefit                                                      
greater  than  the  general   population.   He offered   his  belief  that                                                      
this  would  likely  put  most  legislators   in a unique   circumstance.                                                       
He  emphasized   that  the language   needed  to  be changed   to  greater                                                      
than  the  effect  on  "a substantial   class  of  persons  to  which  the                                                      
legislation    belongs  as   a  member  of  a  profession,    occupation,                                                       
industry,   or  region"].    He  emphasized   the   need  to  remove   any                                                      
ambiguity   in the  ethics  law.  He  characterized   House   Bill  44 law                                                      
as one that created unintended consequences.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
1:51:26 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  HUTCHINSON   said  he would   discuss  some  constitutional    issues                                                      
that  have   arisen  since   House  Bill   44 law   was  implemented.   He                                                      
pointed   out  that  during   the  committee   process   last   year,  Mr.                                                      
Wayne recognized constitutional issues with House Bill 44.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:52:24 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 2.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      To be clear: This bill does not repeal the majority of                                                                
      the ethics legislation (House Bill 44)(2018) passed                                                                       
      last year                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:52:28 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HUTCHINSON paraphrased slide 3.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
      The following remains intact:                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
         trianglert Prohibitions on expenditures and contributions by                                                           
            foreign-influenced corporations and foreign nationals                                                               
            in state elections.                                                                                                 
         trianglert Limitations on member travel.                                                                               
         trianglert Per diem restrictions                                                                                       
         trianglert The Legislative Council's ability to adopt policy on                                                        
            per diem and moving expenses.                                                                                       
         trianglert Lobbyist restrictions on buying food and beverages for                                                      
            members or staff.                                                                                                   
         trianglert Gift restrictions to members                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
He  noted  that  the  gift  restrictions   to  members   of $250  or  more                                                      
was not included in House Bill 44, but it still remains intact.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:53:03 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES  said  she  wanted  the  record  to  reflect  she  is  eager                                                      
to  fix the  issues  with  the  ethics  law  that  have  impacted   her so                                                      
much.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:53:22 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HUTCHINSON turned to slide 4, "What this bill does:"                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
      Simply resets the conflict provisions to the way they                                                                     
      were prior to House Bill 44                                                                                               
      (HB44)(2018).                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:53:37 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.   HUTCHINSON    turned   to  slide   5,   "Noteworthy:      How   many                                                      
Constitutional    Issues    Have   Emerged   Because   of   the  Conflict                                                       
Provisions of HB44 (2018)?"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
            trianglert Alaska Constitution  - Article II                                                                        
            Legislature -  Diminishment of Core Legislative                                                                     
            Functions and Representation                                                                                        
               trianglert Example:  Successful miners can't talk  or  meet                                                      
               ("official   action")    about   mining   legislation    in                                                      
               private.      In   addition,   the   miner    can't   carry                                                      
               legislation.    Successful   commercial   fishermen/women                                                        
               can't  talk   about   commercial    fishing   in  private.                                                       
               The fishermen/women can't carry legislation.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
            trianglert Federal Constitution - First Amendment                                                                   
            Fundamental Right                                                                                                   
                trianglert Freedom of Speech for legislator and                                                                 
                constituents                                                                                                    
                trianglert Right to assemble                                                                                    
                trianglert Right to petition the government for redress                                                         
                                                                                                                                
           trianglert Alaska Constitution  Article I, Sections 1, 5, &                                                          
           6                                                                                                                    
                trianglert Article 1, Section 1  "Equal Rights"                                                                 
                trianglert Article 1, Section 5  "Freedom of Speech"                                                            
                trianglert Article 1, Section 6  "Freedom to Assemble and                                                       
                   Petition"                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
He  said  that  there  are a  number  of  constitutional   problems   with                                                      
the   conflict    provisions.     He   said    this   slide    lists   the                                                      
fundamental   rights,   which  can  be restricted,   but  the  government                                                       
can  only  do  so if  it  is  necessary  to  a  compelling   governmental                                                       
interest   and the  restriction   is  narrowly   tailored  for  the  least                                                      
restrictive alternative.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.   HUTCHINSON   referred    to  the   State   of  Alaska   v.   Planned                                                      
Parenthood   case  in  2007.  He  said  that  the  Alaska  Supreme   Court                                                      
extensively discussed this issue.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
He  pointed   out  the   list  of  fundamental    rights  on  the   slide,                                                      
beginning   with   the  diminishment   of  core   legislative   functions                                                       
and  representation.   He  said  that  the legislators   need  to  be able                                                      
to talk to their constituents.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HUTCHINSON   said  that  Article   I of  the  U.S.  Constitution   is                                                      
the  most   important   section   from   the  constitutional    founders'                                                       
perspective.   Any  restriction   of Article   II rights  granted   by the                                                      
U.S.  Constitution,   such  as  voting  or  freedom  of  speech,  must  be                                                      
the  least  restrictive   alternative.    When  legislators   cannot  talk                                                      
to  certain  constituent   groups  on  legislation   or potential   bills,                                                      
based  on  their   background   or  the  constituents'    background,   it                                                      
represents   a major  constitutional    violation.   For example,   one of                                                      
the  reasons   Senator  Coghill   got  elected   may  be  because  he  has                                                      
expertise    in  placer   mining.    However,   he   cannot   speak   with                                                      
constituents    on  these   matters   or  propose   legislative    changes                                                      
under  the  current  legislative   ethics  law.  Instead,   he must  shift                                                      
the issue to someone else who may not have the background.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
He  said that  the  14th  Amendment  contains   a due  process  provision                                                       
and  any infringement,    such  as liberty,   must be  narrowly  tailored                                                       
in the least restrictive alternative.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HUTCHISON   reviewed   the issues   listed  on  slide  5  related  to                                                      
the  Alaska   Constitution.   He  said  that   Article  1  provides   that                                                      
similarly   situated    people   cannot   be  treated   differently.    He                                                      
highlighted   that  people  from  the  travel  industry  wanted  to  speak                                                      
with  a  legislator,    but  due  to  the  connection   to  an  immediate                                                       
family   member,   the  group  cannot   meet  with   the  legislator.   He                                                      
emphasized   that  it  is  too  broad,  and  not  the  least  restrictive                                                       
alternative.   He  cautioned  members   to consider   these  factors  when                                                      
amending this bill.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:57:50 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.   HUTCHINSON     reviewed    slide   6,     Section    1   amends   AS                                                      
24.60.030(e)."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
         trianglert How does it exist under HB 44 (2018)?                                                                     
               trianglert Currently, a legislator can only take official                                                        
                 action on an alleged "conflicted bill" in public                                                               
                 discussion or debate (including in committee and                                                               
                 on the floor).                                                                                                 
               trianglert In addition, the legislator is "conflicted" if                                                        
                 the  subject  matter   is connected   to the  legislator                                                       
                 (or   the  legislator's    immediate    family)   if  the                                                      
                 legislator    (or  the  immediate    family)   made  over                                                      
                 $10,000 in the immediate 12-month period.                                                                      
               trianglert The practical result?                                                                                 
                    trianglert No private meetings about the "conflicted"                                                       
                       subject matter.                                                                                          
                    trianglert A severe restriction on official action, in                                                      
                       multiple forms (drafting of legislation,                                                                 
                       discussion, etc.)                                                                                        
                    trianglert A vast "net" of "conflict" because of the                                                        
                       extension to the immediate family.                                                                       
               trianglert See Advisory Opinion 18 05 for more information.                                                      
                                                                                                                                
He  said   it  is  noteworthy   that   the  sponsor   of  House   Bill  44                                                      
provided   a  chart  that   had  two  states  with   more  than  $10,000,                                                       
including   Michigan   and  Texas   with  $25,000   as  their  threshold.                                                       
There  was  an  acknowledgement    that  a wide  scope   exists  for  what                                                      
constitutes    "conflicted"   such   as  a  percentage   of  a  financial                                                       
interest   in  a   particular   business.   Under   the   Alaska   Supreme                                                      
Court   interpretation   of   fundamental   rights,   it's  important   to                                                      
consider   whether  $10,000,   the  immediate  12-month   period,   or the                                                      
expansion   to include   family  members   is truly   least  restrictive.                                                       
He  suggested  these  things  will  be  debated  by  legislators   through                                                      
the committee process.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HUTCHINSON    said  the   practical   result   of  [House   Bill  44]                                                      
means   that  no   private   meetings   can   be  allowed.   It  severely                                                       
restricts   official    action,   including   drafting    legislation   or                                                      
amendments.   Further,   the  net  of  conflict   has  been   extended  to                                                      
include    family   members    and   is   not   the   least   restrictive                                                       
alternative, as compared to pre-2018 law, he said.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:59:40 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.   HUTCHINSON    reviewed    slide   7,   "What   are   the   proposed                                                       
changes?"                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
               trianglert The language is returned to the language used                                                         
                 before 2018, prior to the passage of HB 44.                                                                    
             trianglert This includes the following:                                                                            
                          trianglert The language is returned to "unless                                                        
                             required by the Uniform Rules of the                                                               
                             Alaska State Legislature."                                                                         
                          trianglert Passages that restrict    legislator                                                       
                             advocacy to only narrow avenues of                                                                 
                             public     discussion     or    debate    are                                                      
                             eliminated.                                                                                        
                          trianglert The language re: "immediate family" is                                                     
                             eliminated.                                                                                        
                          trianglert The income threshold of "$10,000" for                                                      
                             the "preceding 12-month period" is                                                                 
                             removed.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
He  pointed  out  the  bill  would  return  to  the language   in  Uniform                                                      
Rule  34(b).   He  pointed  out  that  Mason's   Manual   rules  are  also                                                      
tied  to  this  rule.  He  suggested   reviewing   Sections  24,  522  and                                                      
560  of  Mason's   Manual.  He  referred   to  Advisory   Opinions   0402,                                                      
0801,   1105,  and   1301  to   provide   interpretations    of  conflict                                                       
prior  to  passage   of  House  Bill  44  in  2018.  He  emphasized   that                                                      
concern   about   extending    conflicts    to  legislators'    immediate                                                       
family  and  the  $10,000  threshold   exist  because   they  are not  the                                                      
least    restrictive    alternatives.     Other    states   have    higher                                                      
thresholds and these issues must be debated.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:01:12 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.   HUTCHINSON    reviewed   slide    8,  "Section    2   -  Amends   AS                                                      
24.60.030(g)."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
         trianglert How does it exist under HB 44 (2018)?                                                                     
               trianglert Currently, conflicts (which are expanded) have to                                                     
                 be declared in the committee process and the                                                                   
                 floor.                                                                                                         
               trianglert Conflicts are expanded to "financial interests"                                                       
                 of  a  business,   investment,   real  property,   lease,                                                      
                 or  other   enterprise.     There  is  an  expansion   to                                                      
                 measuring    the   "interest"   against    "the   general                                                      
                 public."                                                                                                       
               trianglert The practical result?                                                                                 
                    trianglert Discussion on relevant issues is severely                                                        
                       restricted.                                                                                              
                    trianglert Conflicts will have to be declared in the                                                        
                       committee   process.     If there   is  an  alleged                                                      
                       "conflict,"    there   are   legitimate   concerns                                                       
                       about   passing   otherwise   viable   legislation                                                       
                       from  the  committee   because   members  would  be                                                      
                       barred   from   private   discussion   on   certain                                                      
                       topics.                                                                                                  
                    trianglert A broadening of the "scope of conflict" cast                                                     
                       a "wide net."                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:02:38 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HUTCHINSON turned to slide 9, "What are the proposed                                                                        
changes?"                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
               trianglert The committee process" language is being                                                              
                 removed.                                                                                                       
               trianglert "Financial interest" is being changed to back to                                                      
                 "equity or ownership interest."                                                                                
               trianglert "General public" is    being     returned     to                                                      
                 "substantial class of persons to which the                                                                     
                 legislator belongs as a member of a profession,                                                                
                 occupation, industry, or region.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:03:16 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 10, "Section 3 simply repeals AS                                                                
24.60.030(j)(2) and 24.60.990(a)(6)."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
      AS 24.60.030(j)(2) says:                                                                                                  
                 "substantially benefit or harm" means the                                                                      
      effect  on the  person's                            financial                                                             
      interest   is greater   than  the  effect   on the  financial                                                             
      interest                     of  the  general  public   of the                                                            
      state.                                                                                                                    
   trianglert This language is being removed.                                                                                   
        trianglert Reasoning:                                                                                                   
               trianglert Clarifies uncertainty.                                                                                
               trianglert Fairly easily, a legislator can   have   an                                                           
               alleged   "substantial"   "financial    interest"   in                                                           
               a  specific   area  that's   greater   than  most   of                                                           
               the  general  public  of  the  state.   The  spectrum                                                            
               is   wide   as  it   can  pertain    to  businesses,                                                             
               investments,     real    property,     leases,    or,                                                          
               broadly, other enterprises.                                                                                    
               trianglert Since the language of "general public" in AS                                                          
               24.60.030(g)     is    being    changed     back    to                                                           
                  ubstantial   class   of  persons   to   which  the                                                            
               legislator     belongs     as   a    member    of    a                                                           
               profession,    occupation,   industry,   or  region,"                                                            
               this passage is appropriate for removal.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:04:07 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 11, "Section 3 - Continued                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
         trianglert AS 24.60.990(a)(6) says:                                                                                    
                 "financial interest" means ownership of an                                                                     
interest or an involvement in a                           business,                                                             
including a property ownership, or a professional or private                                                                    
                             relationship, that is a source of                                                                  
income, or from which, or as a result of                                                                                        
      which, a person has received or expects to receive a                                                                      
financial benefit.                                                                                                              
               trianglert This language is being removed.                                                                       
                    trianglert Reasoning:                                                                                       
                          trianglert Since the language of "financial                                                           
                             interest"    is   being    changed    in   AS                                                      
                             24.60.030(g)      back    to    "equity    or                                                      
                             ownership   interest,"   this  provision   is                                                      
                             being removed.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:04:41 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HUTCHINSON reviewed slide 12, titled "Section 4."                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
   trianglert Section 4 makes the act effective immediately.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:04:57 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HUTCHINSON turned to slide 13, "This clarification attempts                                                                 
to find the right balance."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
   trianglert High moral and ethical standards among public servants                                                            
      in  the legislative    branch  are  essential   to government                                                             
      trust,  respect,   and  confidence   of  the  people  of  this                                                            
      state.   See   Advisory   Opinion    19-01.     See   also   AS                                                           
      24.60.010(1).                                                                                                             
   trianglert Right of members to represent their constituencies is                                                             
      of such  major  importance   that  members  should  be  barred                                                            
      from   their   constitutionally    required    representative                                                             
      duties only in clear cases of personal enrichment.                                                                        
   trianglert                                                                                                                   
      Members  are  encouraged    to  review  Uniform   Rule  34(b),                                                            
      Mason's   Manual   of  Legislative   Procedure   at   sections                                                            
      241,   522,  560,   Advisory    Opinion   2004-02,    Advisory                                                            
      Opinion    2008-01,    Advisory     Opinion    2011-05,    and                                                            
      Advisory    Opinion    2013-01    for   interpretations      of                                                           
      conflict prior to 2018                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:05:48 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HUTCHINSON turned to the final slide, slide 14, "Questions?"                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:05:55 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   KIEHL  said  he  was  unsure  of  some  of  the constitutional                                                        
arguments,   especially   in  terms  of  the  least  restrictive    means.                                                      
The  legislature   is exempt  from  the  Open  Meetings  Act,  which  is  a                                                     
set  of rules   imposed  on  the  executive  branch,   school  districts,                                                       
and  municipalities.    It is  vastly  more  restrictive   than  anything                                                       
the  legislature   is  operating   under.   He  asked  whether   the  Open                                                      
Meetings Act is unconstitutional.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.    HUTCHINSON     explained     that    what     he   can    say    is                                                      
unconstitutional    is   when  constituents    cannot   meet  with   their                                                      
legislators   because  of  conflict  provisions   related   to House  Bill                                                      
44   law.    That    is   unconstitutional      because    it   prohibits                                                       
legislators   who  have  a similar   background   from  participating   on                                                      
an  issue,  whether  it  is mining  and  the  legislator  is  a miner,  or                                                      
fishing   and   the   legislator    is   a  fisherman.    He   said   that                                                      
commenting   on  the  Open  Meetings  Act  is  beyond  the  scope  of  his                                                      
testimony    today.   He  emphasized    that   infringements,     such  as                                                      
constituents   not  being  able  to meet  at  any level  with  their  duly                                                      
elected   representatives    due  to  a  conflict   provisions   that  are                                                      
too strict is a violation.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:07:24 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   KIEHL   turned  to   disclosure.   He  asked   whether   he  was                                                      
arguing that constitutional issues exist with disclosure.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HUTCHINSON   answered  that  is  correct.  It  has  to be  the  least                                                      
restrictive   alternative   in  terms  of  disclosures.   He  pointed  out                                                      
the  sponsor   of  House   Bill   44  law  presented   information    that                                                      
indicates   other  states   disclosure   levels  are  much  higher,   with                                                      
Texas  and  Michigan   at  $25,000.   In  addition,   the  scope  of  what                                                      
qualifies   as immediate   family   is much  more  limited.   The  problem                                                      
in  Alaska  is  that the  scope  is  broadened   so much  it  essentially                                                       
prohibits   people  from  talking   to their  legislators    and violates                                                       
Article   I  and  Article  II  of  the  Constitution    of  the  State  of                                                      
Alaska.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  KIEHL  pointed   out that  disclosure   does  not  have anything                                                       
to  do with  who  legislators   can  talk  to  or  what  meetings   can be                                                      
held.  He  acknowledged   he  is  not  an attorney,   but  he  was  pretty                                                      
sure  that  "least   restrictive"   does  not  mean  that  [Alaska]   must                                                      
adopt  the  highest   state   threshold   for  dollar  amounts.   He  said                                                      
that    the   public     official    financial     disclosures     require                                                      
disclosure   threshold  of  $1,000.  He  asked  whether  those  reporting                                                       
requirements are unconstitutional.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HUTCHINSON   related   his  understanding    he  was  talking   about                                                      
disclosures.   He  clarified   that  he  is  not  discussing   the  Alaska                                                      
Public    Offices   Commission    disclosures     that   candidates    and                                                      
legislators    must   file,  although    they   coalesce,   but   this  is                                                      
something   different.   He  explained   that   if  the  monetary   amount                                                      
affects   your  immediate    family   and  that  creates   such   a  broad                                                      
scope  of  conflict   that  legislators   are  prohibited   from   talking                                                      
with  representative    groups  that  may  have  the same  background   as                                                      
your  wife,  husband,   or immediate   family,   it raises  the  issue  as                                                      
to  whether   it  is  truly   the  least  restrictive    alternative.   He                                                      
offered   his  belief   that   this  will   be  an  ongoing   debate.   He                                                      
argued  that  the  legislature   operated  for  years  [prior  to  passage                                                      
of  House  Bill  44] so  it  obviously  was  not  the  least  restrictive                                                       
alternative.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:10:13 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   REINBOLD    pointed   out  she   served   on  the   Legislative                                                       
Ethics  Committee   when  the two  advisory   opinions  were  issued.  She                                                      
said  she   thought  they   went  far  beyond   [the  least   restrictive                                                       
alternative],    and  she  was  pretty   frustrated   with  the  advisory                                                       
opinions.   In  fact,  she  was  a dissenting   vote.   She  recalled  the                                                      
opinion  would  impact   legislators  who  belonged   to a  union,  Native                                                      
organization,    fishing   group,   oil  and  gas  industry,    or  health                                                      
care.  She  anticipated   that  it would  affect  every  legislator.   She                                                      
acknowledged    the  public   wants  ethical   legislators,    but  if  it                                                      
creates   barriers    for  constituency    groups   concerned    about  an                                                      
issue important to the district, it is problematic.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:11:51 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on SB 89.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:12:15 PM                                                                                                                    
VIKKI  JOE  KENNEDY,   representing    herself,   Kodiak,  urged   members                                                      
to  stay accountable   and  ethical.  She  stated  that  she  has  been in                                                      
Juneau  for  the  last  fifteen   months.  She  said  she  was  in  Juneau                                                      
when  House   Bill  44  passed  the  legislature   last   year.  She  said                                                      
that  any  bill that  holds  everyone   accountable   and cautious   about                                                      
ethics  is  a  good  thing.  She  was  told   in January   she  could  not                                                      
talk  to  a senator.   She  said  when  legislators   sit  on  boards  and                                                      
legislators   can  financially   benefit   [from  decisions   made  by the                                                      
board],   it could   be an  issue.   She  said  she  has  seen  "a lot  of                                                      
fine   things"   happening   [in  the   legislature],    but  she   thinks                                                      
strictness   makes  everyone  "stay  aware".   She said  she  has  carried                                                      
a  copy  of  the  [Constitution    of  the  State  of  Alaska]   with  her                                                      
since   she   arrived    in   Alaska.   She   urged    members   to   stay                                                      
accountable   and  ethical.   She  said  she  appreciates   the  work  the                                                      
committee was doing on SB 89.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:14:02 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES closed public testimony on SB 89.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:14:19 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR    KIEHL   referred   to   language    being   repealed    in  the                                                      
definition    section   of  the  ethics   law.   He  said   that   deletes                                                      
language   [in   AS   24.60.990(a)(6),    "financial    interest"    means                                                      
ownership    of  an  interest    or  an   involvement    in  a  business,                                                       
including   a  property   ownership,    or  a  professional   or   private                                                      
relationship,   that  is  a source  of  income,  or  from which,   or as  a                                                     
result  of  which,  a  person  has  received   or  expects  to  receive   a                                                     
financial   benefit.]   He read   the  language,  "from   which,  or  as  a                                                     
result  of  which,  a  person  has  received   or  expects  to  receive   a                                                     
financial   benefit."   He   asked  if  SB  89  were   to  pass,   whether                                                      
legislators   would   not need   to disclose   any  "hefty"   increase  or                                                      
benefit  they  received   from  a program  implemented   via  legislative                                                       
action.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HUTCHINSON   said  he  thought   the  person  would   be  subject  to                                                      
APOC,  depending   on  the  amount.   He  said  that   advisory  opinions                                                       
required   certain  disclosures   must  occur.  There  have  been  ethical                                                      
rulings   on  a  case-by-case    basis   on  whether   it  represented    a                                                     
substantial   interest.   He  stated,  informally,   that  anything   over                                                      
$250  is  generally   interpreted   as  a substantial    interest  by  the                                                      
Legislative    Ethics   Committee.    He  presumed   that   if   it  is   a                                                     
significant   amount,  it  must  be disclosed   on the  legislative   APOC                                                      
reports.  He  emphasized   that  this bill  does  not  change  any  of the                                                      
APOC  reporting   requirements,    but  it  ensures   that  the  scope  of                                                      
influence   is  not  expanded  so  much  that  people   cannot  meet  with                                                      
certain   groups  since   they  have  common   ties  or  their  immediate                                                       
family.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  HUGHES  asked   the legislative   legal   counsel  if  anything  in                                                      
SB  89  changes   what   must   be  disclosed   in  the   APOC  financial                                                       
disclosure.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:16:54 PM                                                                                                                    
DAN  WAYNE,   Attorney,    Legislative    Legal   Services,   Legislative                                                       
Affairs  Agency,   Juneau,  answered   that  it  does not.  He  said  that                                                      
SB  89 changes   what  must  be  disclosed   on the  floor,  but  not  the                                                      
financial disclosures under AS 24.60.200.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  KIEHL   clarified  his  question,   that  if it  is  not  through                                                      
an  equity  interest   in  a  business  or  real  estate,   but  it  would                                                      
enhance   his  finances,   whether   he  would   not  have   to  rise  and                                                      
declare [a conflict of interest on the floor.]                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WAYNE   interpreted   the  bill   to  mean  that  the  income   could                                                      
fall   under   "other   enterprise"   or   "business,   investment    real                                                      
property,   or  lease."   If   it  did  not  fall   under  one   of  those                                                      
categories,   then  Senator  Kiehl  is  correct  that  it would  not  need                                                      
to be disclosed or require requesting to abstain from a vote.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  HUGHES  asked  under   SB 89,  if  it were  to  pass,  whether  the                                                      
disclosure   would   only  apply  if   it gave   that  person   a  benefit                                                      
beyond the people in that industry or class or region.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WAYNE   answered   that  is  correct.   He  directed   attention   to                                                      
lines   23-24,   "a  substantial    class   of   persons   to  which   the                                                      
legislator    belongs   as  a  member   of  a  profession,    occupation,                                                       
industry,   or  region   class  of  persons."    He  said  that  language                                                       
would  modify  part  of  the  sentence  before   that  language,  that  it                                                      
is  all part  of  one  calculation.   He said  that  at  the  end of  that                                                      
calculation   the   legislator   would  need   to determine    whether  to                                                      
disclose a conflict or request to abstain.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:19:09 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR    MICCICHE   said    that   the   conduct   Senator    Kiehl   is                                                      
describing   would  either   be  bribery  or  else  the  legislator   must                                                      
report  it  as  a  conflict   of interest.   He  clarified   that  if  the                                                      
legislator   was the  only  one  receiving  the  benefit  or  the  benefit                                                      
is  separate   from  the   substantial   class,   it  represents   a  true                                                      
conflict   that  must  be declared,   and  the  legislator   cannot  vote.                                                      
Legislators   still   must  declare   any  perceived   conflicts   so  the                                                      
whole  world  has  knowledge.   For example,   if he  owned  rental  units                                                      
and  a  bill   came  before   the   legislature   related   to  landlord-                                                       
tenant   rights,  he  would   declare  a  perceived   conflict   prior  to                                                      
voting  on  the  measure   even  though  the  law  would  affect  him  the                                                      
same  as  anyone  else  who  is  a landlord.   Therefore,   he  would  not                                                      
have  a true  conflict   of interest   and would  be  allowed  to  vote on                                                      
the bill.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:21:04 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.   WAYNE   said   that  he   appreciates    that   clarification.    He                                                      
related   a scenario   in  which  a legislator   is  not  being  paid  for                                                      
his/her   vote,   but   the   legislator    would   still   benefit   from                                                      
legislation,   such  as a  tax  break,  or something   other  people  will                                                      
not  get.   He  said  if   the  legislator   did   not  own  a  business,                                                       
investment,   real  property,   lease,  or other  enterprise,   then  [the                                                      
language   in SB  89]  is silent.   He asked  whether   it is  okay  for  a                                                     
[legislator]    to  benefit   as  long  as   it  is  not  a  business   or                                                      
investment benefit.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR    MICCICHE   responded    that   without    him  mentioning    "a                                                      
substantial class," that his answer is incomplete.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WAYNE  agreed.  He  acknowledged   that  if  a legislator   is  going                                                      
to  be $2,000   richer  next  year  if  the  bill  passes  is  one  thing,                                                      
but  if the  bill  is  a permanent   fund  dividend   bill everyone   else                                                      
benefits,   so  he/she   would   not  need  to  declare   a  conflict   of                                                      
interest.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HUTCHINSON   explained  that  it  would  be  determined   on a  case-                                                      
by-case  basis,  which   is the  reason  for  the advisory   opinions.  He                                                      
pointed   out  that  other  avenues   exist  if  people  think  unethical                                                       
behavior   is  occurring,   such  as  censure.   Elections   and   recalls                                                      
can  remove   people  from  office,   and  sanctions   exist   for  people                                                      
who  are  unethical.    Currently,   a  particular   representative    has                                                      
ongoing sanctions with financial repercussions.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   KIEHL  said,   "Not  if  you  write  those   rules  out  of  the                                                      
law. Then those avenues are not available, right?"                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HUTCHINSON   answered   no,  that   the  behavior   occurred   before                                                      
House  Bill  44  and  it  exists  to  this  day.  The  individual   member                                                      
is  still  making  payments   because   of behavior   that  was  found  to                                                      
be unethical.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:24:23 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  said  he  will  have to  do research   on the  member  who                                                      
was  found  to  be  unethical   without   violating   any  of  the  ethics                                                      
code.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. HUTCHINSON answered that there was a violation.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
[SB 89 was held in committee.]                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
           SB 35-CRIMES;SEX CRIMES;SENTENCING; PAROLE                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                 [Contains discussion of SB 34.]                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:25:01 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR   HUGHES  announced   that   final  order   of  business   would  be                                                      
SENATE  BILL  NO.  35, "An  Act  eliminating   marriage  as  a defense  to                                                      
certain   crimes  of  sexual   assault;   relating  to  enticement    of  a                                                     
minor;  relating   to  harassment   in  the  first  degree;   relating  to                                                      
harassment   in the  second  degree;   relating  to  indecent  viewing  or                                                      
production   of  a picture;   relating   to  the  definition   of  'sexual                                                      
contact';   relating  to  assault   in the  second  degree;   relating  to                                                      
sentencing;    relating   to   prior   convictions;    relating    to  the                                                      
definition   of  'most  serious  felony';   relating   to the  definition                                                       
of  'sexual  felony';   relating   to  the  duty  of  a  sex  offender  or                                                      
child   kidnapper    to   register;    relating    to   eligibility    for                                                      
discretionary parole; and providing for an effective date."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:25:14 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES made opening remarks.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:25:43 PM                                                                                                                    
At-ease.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:27:02 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:27:43 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 31-                                                                     
GS1873\U.1, Radford, 3/13/19.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
                               AMENDMENT 1                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      OFFERED IN THE SENATE                       BY SENATOR HUGHES                                                             
            TO:  CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Page 1, line 5:                                                                                                           
            Delete "relating to assault in the second                                                                         
      degree;"                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Page 6, line 24, through page 7, line 13:                                                                                 
            Delete all material.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
      Page 22, line 28:                                                                                                         
            Delete all material.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
      Page 22, line 29:                                                                                                         
            Delete "sec. 16"                                                                                                    
            Insert "sec. 15"                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
      Page 22, line 30:                                                                                                         
            Delete "sec. 17"                                                                                                    
            Insert  "sec.  16"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
      Page  22, line  31:                                                                                                       
            Delete  "sec.  18"                                                                                                  
            Insert  "sec.  17"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
      Page  23, line  1:                                                                                                        
            Delete  "sec.  19"                                                                                                  
            Insert  "sec.  18"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
      Page  23, line  4:                                                                                                        
            Delete  "sec.  21"                                                                                                  
            Insert  "sec.  20"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
      Page  23, line  5:                                                                                                        
            Delete  "sec.  22"                                                                                                  
            Insert  "sec.  21"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
      Page  23, line  6:                                                                                                        
            Delete  "sec.  23"                                                                                                  
            Insert  "sec.  22"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
      Page  23, line  7:                                                                                                        
            Delete  "sec.  24"                                                                                                  
            Insert  "sec.  23"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
      Page  23, line  8:                                                                                                        
            Delete  "sec.  25"                                                                                                  
            Insert  "sec.  24"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
      Page  23, line  9:                                                                                                        
            Delete  "sec.  26"                                                                                                  
            Insert  "sec.  25"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:28:03 PM                                                                                                                    
BUDDY   WHITT,    Staff,   Senator    Shelley    Hughes,   Alaska    State                                                      
Legislature,    Juneau,   on  behalf   of  Chair   Hughes,   stated   that                                                      
Amendment   1 was  previously   discussed   [on  March  13].  He referred                                                       
to  page  6,  line  24  through  page  7,  line  13,  related   to  sexual                                                      
assault   in  the  first  degree   and  enhanced   sentencing   structure                                                       
for  sexual  assault  in  the third  degree.   This  enhanced  sentencing                                                       
structure   was  put into  a  previous  bill,  SB  12,  and  is no  longer                                                      
needed in this bill.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:28:59 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD asked what would happen if SB 12 does not pass.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR.   WHITT  answered    that   this  provision    would   not  pass.   He                                                      
suggested   that   the  committee   could  keep   the  language   in  both                                                      
bills, but the language should be identical.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   HUGHES   related   her  understanding    that   the  language   is                                                      
similar   but  not identical.    She  said  that  removing  the  language                                                       
would  clear   up any  ambiguity   and  if  SB  12  were  to  falter,  the                                                      
committee could look at another vehicle.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   REINBOLD    related   her  understanding    that   a  different                                                       
version was in the other body.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:29:58 PM                                                                                                                    
At-ease.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:31:16 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:31:26 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  WHITT  said   that  several  sections   of  the  bill  were   removed                                                      
and  placed  in SB  12.  He reminded   members  that  it was  the  will of                                                      
the  committee  to  make  SB 12  a stand-alone   vehicle  to  address  the                                                      
issues  in  the Justin   Schneider  case  and  it includes   the enhanced                                                       
sentence structures for sexual assault and assault.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:32:02 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:32:14 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   REINBOLD   objected   to   ask  whether   enhanced   sentencing                                                       
will not be in effect if SB 12 does not pass.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WHITT  agreed   that  if  SB 12  does  not  pass  that   there  would                                                      
not  be  any enhanced   sentencing,   clarification    on the  definition                                                       
of  sexual  contact,   credits   for  electronic   monitoring    or a  fix                                                      
for  the  Justin  Schneider   loophole  since  those   provisions   are in                                                      
SB 12.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   REINBOLD   related  her  understanding    that  if  SB  12  does                                                      
not  pass  there  will not  be  any enhanced   sentencing,   which  is the                                                      
reason  she  raised  the  "red  flag"  to  make  sure  people  understand                                                       
the implications. She expressed her concern                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD removed her objection.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  HUGHES   indicated   that  multiple   vehicles   exist   to  remedy                                                      
this, including floor amendments.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:33:36 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES  said  many  of the  amendments   were  generated  from  her                                                      
office. She asked Senator Reinbold to move Amendment 2.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:33:53 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   REINBOLD   moved   to  adopt   Amendment   2,  work   order  31-                                                      
GS1873\U.6, Radford, 3/13/19.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
                           AMENDMENT 2                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
      OFFERED IN THE SENATE                          BY SENATOR HUGHES                                                          
      TO:  CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Page 1, line 9:                                                                                                           
            Delete "relating to eligibility for discretionary                                                                 
      parole;"                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Page 17, line 29, through page 20, line 23:                                                                               
            Delete all material.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
      Page 23, lines 8 - 10:                                                                                                    
            Delete all material.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:34:12 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  WHITT  explained   that  Amendment  2  would  remove  language   that                                                      
is  in another  bill,  SB  34,  which  is in  the committee.   It  relates                                                      
to  discretionary   parole.   When  the  original   bills  for  SB 34  and                                                      
SB  35  were  read  across,   the  sections   related   to  discretionary                                                       
parole   matched.    However,    because   the   Senate   State    Affairs                                                      
Standing   Committee   made  a  change   to  SB  34,  and  the  committee                                                       
amended   SB  35,  this  language   is being   removed   to avoid   having                                                      
two competing provisions in separate vehicles.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   REINBOLD  asked  whether   the  issues  will  remain   if  SB 34                                                      
does not pass.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  HUGHES   responded   that  she  hopes  that   SB  34 passes   since                                                      
discretionary    parole  issues   are  very  important.   However,   if SB                                                      
34 does not pass, the issues will remain.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WHITT  agreed,   that  if  SB  34  does  not  pass,  the  provisions                                                       
[related to discretionary parole] will not pass.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   HUGHES   clarified   that  if  SB  34  does   not  pass,  SB  35                                                      
could be amended on the floor.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:35:49 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE removed his objection.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:36:01 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   REINBOLD   moved   to  adopt   Amendment   3,  work   order  31-                                                      
GS1873\U.11, Radford, 3/14/19.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                               AMENDMENT 3                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      OFFERED IN THE SENATE                      BY SENATOR HUGHES                                                              
            TO:  CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Page 12, line 1:                                                                                                          
            Delete "the elements"                                                                                           
            Insert "those"                                                                                                  
            Delete "under state"                                                                                            
            Insert "defined as such under Alaska"                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WHITT  explained   Amendment  3,  stating   that it  makes  a  slight                                                      
change   to  the   bill.   He  referred   to   page  12,   line   1.  This                                                      
corrects   a  drafting   error.   He   referred   to  page  11,   line  31                                                      
[through   page  12, line  2]  of SB  35,  Version  U,  which  read,  "(D)                                                  
a  conviction    in  this   or  another   jurisdiction    of  an   offense                                                  
having  elements   similar  to  the  elements  of  a felony   under  state                                                  
law  at the  time  the  offense  was  committed   is  considered  a  prior                                                  
felony   conviction;".    It   should   be  changed   to   read,   "(D)   a                                                 
conviction   in  this  or another   jurisdiction   of  an offense   having                                                      
elements   [similar  to]  those   of a  felony  [defined   as  such  under                                                      
Alaska]  law  at  the  time  the offense   was  committed  is  considered                                                       
a  prior  felony   conviction;"    and  said  that  this   makes  a  minor                                                      
technical   change  and  also  adds   "defined  as  such  under  Alaska."                                                       
This  means  that   if an  offense   occurs  in  another   state  that  is                                                      
similar   law  in  the  State   of  Alaska   it  is  considered   a  prior                                                      
felony conviction in the state.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:37:56 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE asked him to repeat the proposed language.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:38:05 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  WHITT  read,  "having     elements  similar   to  those  of a  felony                                                      
defined   as  such  under  Alaska   law  at  the  time  the  offense   was                                                      
committed is considered a prior felony conviction;".                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:38:37 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL   referred  to  the  language  in  other  sections   of the                                                      
bill  [that  is  existing   law].  He  asked  whether   this  language  in                                                      
other  subsections    should  conform   to  the [language   in  Amendment                                                       
3].                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITT deferred to the Department of Law (DOL) to respond.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:39:29 PM                                                                                                                    
KACI   SCHROEDER,    Assistant   Attorney    General,   Central    Office,                                                      
Criminal   Division,   Department    of  Law,   Juneau,   responded   that                                                      
this language was copied from page 10, lines 13-15, which read:                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
      (B) a  conviction   in this  or  another  jurisdiction   of  an                                                           
      offense  having   elements   similar  to  those  of  a  felony                                                            
      defined   as  such   under   Alaska   law  at  the   time  the                                                            
      offense   was  committed   is   considered   a  prior   felony                                                            
      conviction;                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SCHROEDER  said  this  language   was inserted   [in subparagraph    D                                                     
on page 12, line 1] to restore this provision.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KIEHL referred to language on page 1, lines 24-26.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
      (A) a  conviction   in this  or  another  jurisdiction   of  an                                                           
      offense   having  elements    similar  to   those  of  a  most                                                            
      serious   felony   is  considered    a  prior   most   serious                                                            
      felony conviction;                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
He also referred to language on page 11, lines 17-19.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
      (A) a  conviction   in this  or  another  jurisdiction   of  an                                                           
      offense   having  elements    similar  to   those  of  a  most                                                            
      serious   felony   is  considered    a  prior   most   serious                                                            
      felony conviction;                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   KIEHL  asked  whether   these  provisions   should   conform  to                                                      
the  language  in  Amendment  3.  He noted  that  this  could  be  handled                                                      
at another time.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:40:42 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   MICCICHE   asked   whether   the  language   "having   elements                                                       
similar  to"  is  clear  enough  under  law.  He  wondered   what  happens                                                      
if   [another    jurisdiction]    charged    a  crime    as   a  class    A                                                     
misdemeanor   and  Alaska  charges   it as  a class  B  misdemeanor,   but                                                      
the crimes were essentially the same.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SCHROEDER    answered   that  it  is   clear.  She   explained   that                                                      
there   are  numerous   instances   of  case  law  surrounding    how  the                                                      
state  interprets   "elements  similar   to" and  that  it  is an  element                                                      
by  element  analysis.   The  Department   of  Law  will  often  argue  it                                                      
before  the  court,   but  the  court  has  the  ultimate  decision.   She                                                      
reiterated that it is clear.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:41:24 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR   HUGHES   removed   her   objection.   There   being   no   further                                                      
objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:41:35 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   REINBOLD   moved   to  adopt   Amendment   4,  work   order  31-                                                      
GS1873\U.17, Bruce/Radford, 3/15/19.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
                               AMENDMENT 4                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      OFFERED IN THE SENATE                        BY SENATOR HUGHES                                                            
            TO:  CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Page 23, following line 10:                                                                                               
      Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                        
         "*  Sec.   33.  The   uncodified   law  of   the  State   of                                                       
      Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:                                                                        
            TRANSITION: REGULATIONS. The Department of Law,                                                                     
      the  attorney  general,   the Department   of  Public  Safety,                                                            
      and   the   commissioner    of   public   safety   may   adopt                                                            
      regulations   necessary  to  implement   the changes   made  by                                                           
      secs.  28   and  29  of  this   Act.  The   regulations   take                                                            
      effect  under   AS 44.62  (Administrative    Procedure   Act),                                                            
      but  not   before   the  effective   date   of  the   relevant                                                            
      provision of this Act implemented by the regulation."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
      Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
      Page 23, following line 15:                                                                                               
      Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                        
          "* Sec. 35. Sections 27 - 29 of this Act take                                                                     
      effect July 1, 2020."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
      Renumber the following bill section accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
      Page 23, line 16:                                                                                                         
            Delete "This"                                                                                                       
            Insert "Except as provided by sec. 35 of this                                                                       
      Act, this"                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WHITT  said  that  Amendment   4 was  requested   by the  Department                                                       
of  Law.  He referred   to  pages  20-21  to  Sections   27, 28,  and  29.                                                      
The  committee    would   like  to   gather   data  on  prosecutions    of                                                      
sexual   crimes    and   reasons    cases   are   not   documented.    The                                                      
Department   of Law  (DOL)  and  the Department   of  Public  Safety  will                                                      
work  in  conjunction   to  gather   data.  Amendment   4  would  set  the                                                      
effective   date,   as  requested   by  the  DOL,   to  July  1,  2020  to                                                      
allow it enough time to efficiently gather and report the data.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:43:01 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  SHOWER   asked  to revert   to Amendment   3.  He asked   whether                                                      
there is any conforming language in rest of the bill.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. SCHROEDER answered no.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   REINBOLD    asked   if  this   language    simply   creates   an                                                      
extension   to  allow  the  departments   to  coordinate   their   efforts                                                      
and it would not affect regulations.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.   SCHROEDER   answered    that   the  language    in   the  committee                                                       
substitute   (CS)  for  SB  35,  Version   U,  is a  new  obligation   for                                                      
the  Department  of  Law.  The  DOL would  need  to  develop  a mechanism                                                       
to  track   the  data  and  develop   regulations.    Amendment   4  would                                                      
give the department about a year to implement the change.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   HUGHES   removed   her   objection.   There   being   no   further                                                      
objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:44:19 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   REINBOLD   moved   to  adopt   Amendment   5,  work   order  31-                                                      
GS1873\U.4, Radford, 3/14/19.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
                               AMENDMENT 5                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      OFFERED IN THE SENATE                       BY SENATOR HUGHES                                                             
            TO:  CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Page 6, line 19, following "section":                                                                                     
            Insert "for a defendant convicted of a crime                                                                        
      involving a sex offense as defined in AS 12.63.100 or                                                                     
      a crime involving domestic violence as defined in                                                                         
      AS 18.66.990"                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
      Page 6, lines 20 - 21:                                                                                                    
            Delete "by a preponderance of the evidence"                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:44:39 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  WHITT  explained   Amendment   5, which  was  requested   by  Senator                                                      
Kiehl.   He   referred   to   page   6,  line   19,   which   relates   to                                                      
presumption    of  no  contact   orders.   The  language   in   Version   U                                                     
includes   the  presumption   of  no  contact  orders   for every   single                                                      
crime  in  AS  12.55.015.   However,  the  intent   is that  it  would  be                                                      
specific   to   AS  12.63.100,   relating    to  sex  offenses,    and  AS                                                      
18.66.990,   which  relates   to crimes   involving   domestic  violence.                                                       
Amendment    5   would    specify    no   contact    orders    for   those                                                      
provisions.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   REINBOLD  asked   for  further  clarification    on  the  effect                                                      
of deleting "by a preponderance of the evidence.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:45:34 PM                                                                                                                    
REGINA   LARGENT,   Staff,   Senator    Shelley   Hughes,   Alaska   State                                                      
Legislature,     Juneau,    answered    that    this   was    unnecessary                                                       
language,   that  the  courts   will  use  the  lowest   burden  of  proof                                                      
unless  otherwise   specified.   This  language   was  not requested   and                                                      
was removed.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:46:12 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR   HUGHES   removed   her   objection.   There   being   no   further                                                      
objection, Amendment 5 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:46:17 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   REINBOLD   moved   to  adopt   Amendment   6,  work   order  31-                                                      
GS1873\U.12, Radford, 3/14/19.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                           AMENDMENT 6                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
  OFFERED IN THE SENATE                      BY SENATOR HUGHES                                                                  
            TO:  CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Page 13, line 1, following "degree":                                                                                  
            Insert "if the victim is at least six years                                                                     
      younger than the offender"                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WHITT  referred   to  page  13,  line  1  to Section   19  of SB  35.                                                      
The  definition  [in  AS  12.55.185]   for "sexual   felony"  was  amended                                                      
to  add  conforming   language  due  to  changes  in  sexual   abuse  of  a                                                     
minor  in  the  third  degree.   However,   language   was  inadvertently                                                       
omitted   that  would  read,  "if  the  victim   is  at  least  six  years                                                      
younger than the offender".                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  LARGENT   related   her  understanding    that   this  language   was                                                      
originally   in  the  bill  but  was  removed.   The  Department   of  Law                                                      
asked that the language be added.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:47:29 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   REINBOLD   asked   whether   the  department   thinks   this  is                                                      
well written.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. SCHROEDER nodded yes.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:47:47 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR   HUGHES    indicated   that   Ms.   Schroeder,    seated    in  the                                                      
audience, had nodded affirmatively.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   HUGHES    removed   her   objection,    and   after   determining                                                       
Senator Shower had a question withdrew removing her objection.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:47:58 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  SHOWER   recalled  the  committee   held  a long  discussion   on                                                      
minors   defined   as  younger   than  age  17.   He  asked  for   further                                                      
clarification    that   this   change   "lines   up"   with   the   issues                                                      
previously discussed.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WHITT   responded   that  an  additional   amendment   will   clarify                                                      
the language in Sections 7 and 12 of the bill related to minors.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:49:01 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  LARGENT   concurred   that  Mr.  Whitt   is correct   that  separate                                                       
amendments   address   those  provisions.   Further,   the Department   of                                                      
Law is working on other amendments to address it.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:49:21 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   SHOWER    remarked   that   the   discussion   last   week   was                                                      
confusing.    He  said  that   identifying    that  the   sexual   assault                                                      
language   related  to  minors  needed  to  be updated   came  up,  but he                                                      
has  not  been  able  to  identify  all  the  sections   in  statute  that                                                      
pertain   to  sexual  assault.   He  wanted   to  be  certain   that  this                                                      
language   "matches   up."  He  asked   for  clarification    on  how  six                                                      
years was determined.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:50:34 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  SCHROEDER   explained   that   Amendment   6  is cleanup   language.                                                       
She  related   that  the  underlying   bill  makes   it  a sexual   felony                                                      
sentence  to  the  higher  presumptive   sentence  when  there  is  a six-                                                      
year  age   difference   between   the   offender   and  the  victim   for                                                      
sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
She  referred  to  the definition   of  sexual  abuse  of a  minor  in the                                                      
third degree [AS 11.41.438(a):                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
      (a) An  offender   commits  the  crime  of sexual  abuse  of  a                                                           
      minor  in  the third  degree   if being  17  years  of  age  or                                                           
      older,  the  offender   engages   in  sexual  contact   with  a                                                           
      person  who  is 13,  14,  or  15 years  of  age  and  at least                                                            
      four years younger than the offender.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
She  said  that  if  the  victim  is  at least  six  years   younger  than                                                      
the  offender,    the  offender   would   be  sentenced    as  a  class   C                                                     
felony.  However,   the  bill  would  acknowledge   that  a  six-year  age                                                      
difference   is  more  predatory,   and  the  crime   would  be  a  sexual                                                      
felony   sentenced   to  the   higher   presumptive   ranges   associated                                                       
with  sex  felonies.   Amendment  6  would  clarify  that  aspect   in the                                                      
definition of a sexual felony.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:51:51 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD   said  that  the committee   received  the  amendments                                                       
this  morning.  She  asked  for  further  clarification   on  whether  the                                                      
"newer  fix"  is  a  change  from  the  original   bill  or if  it  refers                                                      
to the committee substitute.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  LARGENT   referred   to  the  internal   document,   not   posted  to                                                      
BASIS,   which  consisted   of  staff  notes.   One  column  was   titled,                                                      
"new  or  fix."  She  stated  that  "fix"   was intended   as  a reminder                                                       
that  the  amendment   was  something   not   drafted  as  requested,   or                                                      
the   Legislative    Legal   Counsel,    Legislative    Legal   Services,                                                       
Legislative   Affairs  Agency   removed  the  language  and  Chair  Hughes                                                      
requested that it be reinserted.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   REINBOLD  asked  for  further   clarification   that  Amendment                                                       
4 referred to one specific crime.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SCHROEDER  answered   yes.  She said  that  Amendment   4 would  draw                                                      
the  line  at six  years  of  an age  difference.   If  the  offender  and                                                      
the  victim  were  within   six  years  of  age,  the offender   would  be                                                      
sentenced   to a  lower-level   sentence.   If the  offender   and  victim                                                      
were  six   years  apart   or  above,   the  offender   would   receive   a                                                     
higher  level   of sentence.   The  crime  in  both  instances   would  be                                                      
sexual  abuse   of a  minor  in  the  third  degree,  but  two  different                                                       
sentencing    structures    would   be  used,   depending    on  the   age                                                      
difference.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:53:44 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL   asked  for  further  clarification    that  the six-year                                                       
age  difference    would  relate   to  sexual  contact   and   not  sexual                                                      
penetration, which would be more serious.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. SCHROEDER answered yes.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:54:08 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR   HUGHES   removed   her   objection.   There   being   no   further                                                      
objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:54:16 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   REINBOLD   moved   to  adopt   Amendment   7,  work   order  31-                                                      
GS1873\U.13, Radford, 3/14/19.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                            AMENDMENT 7                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
OFFERED IN THE SENATE                            BY SENATOR HUGHES                                                              
      TO:  CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Page 21, lines 12 - 19:                                                                                                   
            Delete all material and insert:                                                                                     
                 "(1)  develop a tool to track felony sex                                                                       
      offenses   reported  to  the  Department    of Public   Safety                                                            
      by geographic   location;   the  tracking  tool  must  include                                                            
      a  means  to  record  the  reason   a  reported   offense  was                                                            
      not  referred    for  prosecution    or,   if  referred,   the                                                            
      reason   the    offense    was   not   prosecuted    and,    if                                                           
      applicable,   the   reason   a  sex  offense   charged   as   a                                                           
      felony  resulted   in  a  conviction   of  an  offense   other                                                            
      than a sex offense under a plea agreement;                                                                                
                 (2)  develop regulations and procedures to                                                                     
      implement the requirements established under (1) of                                                                       
      this subsection; and                                                                                                      
                 (3)  provide training for the implementation                                                                   
      of the regulations and procedures established under                                                                       
      (2) of this subsection in each state department as                                                                        
      necessary."                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:54:47 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.   WHITT   said   that   Amendments   7,   8,   and  9   coincide.   He                                                      
explained   that  the  language   in  Sections   28 and  29  of  the  CSSB                                                      
35,  Version   U,   related   to  gathering   more   data  on   cases  and                                                      
reasons   sexual  felony  cases   are  prosecuted   or not  to  develop   a                                                     
tool  to  track   offenses.   He  said  the  language   in  the  CSSB  35,                                                      
Version   U  was   not   the  language    requested.   He   reviewed   the                                                      
language   in Amendment   7,  paragraphs   (1)-(3),   which  specifically                                                       
lists    the   desired    data   and    directive    to   the   pertinent                                                       
departments.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:56:10 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE   asked  whether   this  would  ask  the Department   of                                                      
Public  Safety  (DPS)  to  record  [statistics]   on  defendants   who are                                                      
found  not  guilty.  He  said  if  defendants   are not  prosecuted   that                                                      
they  are  still  presumed   innocent   until  proven   guilty.  He  asked                                                      
whether   this   would   require    tracking   offenses    that   are  not                                                      
prosecuted.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WHITT  responded  that  tracking   the data  would  not  include  any                                                      
personal   or  proprietary   information,    but  rather   the  number  of                                                      
cases  that   were  reported,   but  were   not  ultimately   prosecuted.                                                       
Further,   it would  track   cases  that  were  reported  but  ultimately                                                       
dropped,   as  well  as  the  number  of  cases  that  were   pursued  and                                                      
prosecuted.    He  characterized    it   as  raw   data   not  containing                                                       
personal information or data.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:58:04 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR    MICCICHE    asked   for   further    clarification    on   this                                                      
section.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SCHROEDER  responded   that  the  department  views  Amendment   7 as                                                      
a  query   for  the   reasons   why   cases  are   not  prosecuted.    The                                                      
department   currently  attempts   to  track  these  reasons  internally.                                                       
She   concurred   with   Mr.   Whitt   that   this   would   require   the                                                      
department    to  report   the   data.   For  example,    the  department                                                       
declined    this    many    sexual    felonies    for    these   reasons,                                                       
evidentiary   reasons,  witness   not  available,  or  other  reasons  the                                                      
cases were not pursued.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  MICCICHE   asked  whether  this  was  in the  original  bill  and                                                      
for further clarification on the goal of this section.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:59:15 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  WHITT   explained   that   Sections   8  and   9  of  the  committee                                                       
substitute   (CS)   SB  35,   Version   U,  were  not   in  the  original                                                       
version   of  the   bill.  Amendments    7-9  add   language   originally                                                       
requested by Chair Hughes and Vice Chair Reinbold in Version U.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   REINBOLD   recalled   that  43  percent   of  misdemeanors   are                                                      
dismissed.    She  said   she   was  uncertain    about   the  number   of                                                      
felonies  that  are  dismissed,   but  63 percent  of  [sexual  assaults]                                                       
are  unreported  nationwide.   She  said  this  is a  "red  flag"  for the                                                      
public and the reason she thinks the amendment is a good idea.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   SHOWER  said   he understood    the  value  of  obtaining   data                                                      
and  to track   it. He  expressed   concern  to  ensure  that  the  record                                                      
reflects   the  legislative   intent   on  the  type  of  data.  He  would                                                      
like   the   record   to   reflect   that   only   raw   data   would   be                                                      
collected.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:01:13 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES   asked   the  record  to  reflect   that  the   privacy  of                                                      
individuals   will  be  protected  and  that  this  relates   to raw  data                                                      
for statistical purposes.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SCHROEDER    agreed   that  is  how   the  the  Department    of  Law                                                      
interprets the language in Amendment 7.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:01:39 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  SHOWER   asked  the  record  to  reflect  that  the  legislature                                                       
wants  the  department   to  protect   the  privacy  of  individuals.   He                                                      
said  that  the  intent  of  Amendment  7  is to  provide  raw  data  only                                                      
and  not   any  identifying    data   so  the   department   can   use  it                                                      
appropriately.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  KIEHL   agreed  with  the  intent.  He  asked  how  granular  the                                                      
DOL   intends   and   the   usefulness    to   future   legislators.    He                                                      
recalled   the   reports   to  the  committee    and  his  alarm   at  the                                                      
number  of  sex  crimes  that   are not  [prosecuted].    He  wondered  if                                                      
future  legislators   would   interpret  this  to  mean  that  victims  do                                                      
not   feel  safe   and   to  work   on  victim's    services   or   police                                                      
training.   He  asked  for  further   clarification    on  what  types  of                                                      
analysis   legislators    would  be   able  to  do  with   the  collected                                                       
data.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:02:55 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  SCHROEDER   answered   that  the  department   views  this  as  a new                                                      
area  and  she  was  unsure   how  granular,   or the  level   of  detail,                                                      
the  department   would   obtain,  but  she  offered   to  work  with  the                                                      
legislature    to   further   define   the   type   of  information    the                                                      
department should extract. She characterized it as a first step.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WHITT  referred   to  discussions   in  Chair  Hughes's   office.  He                                                      
said  that  not  knowing  what  can  be  done  with  the  data  is  a moot                                                      
point.  Once  the  legislature   obtains  the  data  and can  analyze  it,                                                      
it  is  possible  the  legislature   can  do  something   to  improve  the                                                      
numbers.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:03:55 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES said she appreciated the discussion.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:04:10 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. There being no further                                                                      
objection, Amendment 7 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:04:15 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   REINBOLD   moved   to  adopt   Amendment   8,   work  order   31-                                                     
GS1873\U.14, Radford, 3/14/19.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                               AMENDMENT 8                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
 OFFERED IN THE SENATE                         BY SENATOR HUGHES                                                                
            TO:  CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Page 21, lines 28 - 29:                                                                                                   
            Delete all material and insert:                                                                                     
                 "(3) the number of sex offenses referred for                                                                   
      prosecution that were charged as a felony and, under a                                                                    
      plea agreement, resulted in a conviction for a crime                                                                      
      other than a sex offense."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.   WHITT   explained   that   Amendment    8  would   add   previously                                                       
requested   language.  He  referred  to  page  21, lines  28-29,   [of the                                                      
proposed   committee   substitute   (CS)  for  SB  35 (JUD),   Version  U]                                                      
and  read  the  language  in  Amendment  8.  He  explained  that  this  is                                                      
clarifying language that also would add a bit more data.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:05:01  PM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR   HUGHES    removed   her   objection,    and   after   determining                                                       
Senator    Micciche    had    a   question,    withdrew    removing    her                                                      
objection.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:05:16  PM                                                                                                                   
SENATOR  MICCICHE   said  this  language   would  only  change  paragraph                                                       
(3). He read paragraphs (1)-(3).                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      (1)the number of felony sex offenses reported to the                                                                      
      Department of Public Safety that were not referred for                                                                    
      prosecution;                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
      (2) the number of felony sex offenses referred for                                                                        
      prosecution that were not prosecuted; and                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
      (3) the number of felony sex offenses.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
He  asked   whether    a  fourth   paragraph   should    be  added   since                                                      
paragraph   3  of  Amendment   8  only  captures   those   cases  under   a                                                     
plea agreement.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:06:18  PM                                                                                                                   
MS.   SCHROEDER   commented    that  Senator    Micciche   makes   a  good                                                      
point.  The  proposed  language   would  exclude  cases  that  were  taken                                                      
to  trial,  and  the  defendant   was  acquitted   on all  sex  offenses,                                                       
was convicted on a non-sex offense.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:06:39  PM                                                                                                                   
SENATOR   MICCICHE    moved   to  adopt   Conceptual    Amendment    1  to                                                      
Amendment   8,  beginning    on  page  21,  line   30,  which   would  add                                                      
paragraph (4).                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WHITT  interjected   by relating   that  the Department   of  Law has                                                      
pointed   out  the   effect   of  Amendment   8  could   be  achieved   by                                                      
deleting the language "under a plea agreement."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:07:27  PM                                                                                                                   
At-ease.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:09:12  PM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:09:12 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR    MICCICHE    restated   his   motion    to   adopt   Conceptual                                                       
Amendment   1  to Amendment   8.  On  page  21,  line  30,  [of  the  CSSB                                                      
35,  Version   U]  would  renumber   paragraph   (3)  of  Amendment   8 to                                                      
paragraph    (4)  and   insert   the  language,    "the   number   of  sex                                                      
offenses   referred  for  prosecution   that  were  charged   as a  felony                                                      
and,  under   a  plea  agreement,    resulted   in  a  conviction   for   a                                                     
crime  other  than  a sex  offense."   This would  essentially   separate                                                       
the data for sex offenses under a plea agreement.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  SHOWER  asked   whether  this  language  should  be  broken  down                                                      
further   or if  the  [Conceptual   Amendment   1  to Amendment   8]  will                                                      
capture    what   is   needed    since   the   other    categories    were                                                      
mentioned.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  WHITT   offered   to  read   the  language,    as  amended   [by  the                                                      
Conceptual   Amendment   to]  Amendment   8.  He  directed  attention   to                                                      
page  21.  Lines  28 and  29  would  remain  in  the CS  as  written,  but                                                      
a  new paragraph   (4)  would  be  added.   Amendment  8,  as  amended  by                                                      
Conceptual Amendment 1, would read:                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
      (3) the number of felony sex offenses that resulted in a                                                                  
      conviction for a crime other than a sex offense; and                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
      (4)  the  number   of  sex  offenses    referred   for  prosecution                                                       
      that  were  charged  as  a felony   and,  under  a plea  agreement,                                                       
      resulted   in  a  conviction    for  a  crime   other   than  a  sex                                                      
      offense.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:11:21 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   MICCICHE   explained   that  a  number  of  reasons   exist  for                                                      
prosecutors   to  decide  not  to  charge  a  person  of  a  sex offense,                                                       
but  the  offender  could  be  convicted   of a  crime  other  than  a sex                                                      
offense.   However,   Alaska   ranks  number   one  in  the  country   for                                                      
sexual  assaults.   He stressed   the  importance  of  obtaining   data to                                                      
help  the   legislature   develop   laws  to  reduce   these   numbers.   A                                                     
separate   category  for  plea  agreements   could  help  [the  state]  to                                                      
better   understand   the  effect  that   plea  agreements   have  on  the                                                      
lack  of  convictions   and  how  to  identify  and  improve   the  number                                                      
of  convictions.   The  importance   of  this  has  been  highlighted   by                                                      
the  recent   high-profile    case  that   brought   this  to   light,  he                                                      
said.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  HUGHES  said  she  appreciated   this since  it  may  help  close  a                                                     
loophole.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   SHOWER   said  his   question   was  not  answered.    He  asked                                                      
whether   the  two  or three   other  categories   previously   mentioned                                                       
should  also  be  added  or if  Conceptual  Amendment   1 to  Amendment   8                                                     
will  capture  the  needed  data.   He was  unsure  if  it was  necessary                                                       
to  break   the  categories   out   further   for  the  fidelity   of  the                                                      
data.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.   SCHROEDER   asked   whether   he   was  referring    to  the   other                                                      
categories in Section 29.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   SHOWER   answered   no.   He  recalled   that   in  a  previous                                                       
discussion     the   committee     rattled    off   about    four    other                                                      
categories.    However,    he    did   not   specifically     recall   the                                                      
categories.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SCHROEDER   offered   her  belief  that  the  CSSB   35,  Version  U,                                                      
with   Conceptual   Amendment   [1   to  Amendment   8],   would   capture                                                      
everything    necessary,     including    trial    and   non-trial    plea                                                      
agreements.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   SHOWER   said   he   wanted   to  be   sure  it   captures   the                                                      
necessary data.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:13:31 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR   HUGHES   removed   her   objection.   There   being   no   further                                                      
objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 8 was adopted.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  HUGHES   said  that  brings   Amendment   8,  as  amended,   before                                                      
the   committee.    There   being   no   objection,    Amendment    8,  as                                                      
amended, was adopted.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:13:56 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR   HUGHES   moved    to  adopt    Amendment   9,   work   order   31-                                                      
GS1873\U.19, Radford, 3/15/19.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                           AMENDMENT 9                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
      OFFERED IN THE SENATE                         BY SENATOR REINBOLD                                                         
            TO:  CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Page 13, line 11, following "resources":                                                                                  
            Insert ", including the Council on Domestic                                                                         
      Violence   and  Sexual   Assault,   the   Alaska   Network   on                                                           
      Domestic   Violence   and  Sexual   Assault,   the  Office   of                                                           
      Victims'   Rights,  and   the  Violent  Crimes   Compensation                                                             
      Board"                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:14:24 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   REINBOLD   explained   that   Amendment   9  would  direct   the                                                      
[Department   of  Corrections]    to include   the  Council   on Domestic                                                       
Violence   and   Sexual   Assault,   the  Alaska   Network   on  Domestic                                                       
violence   and Sexual   Assault,  the  Office  of  Victims'   Rights,  and                                                      
the  Violent  Crimes   Compensation   Board  to  provide  clarity   and be                                                      
more victim-focused in the bill.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:14:42 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. There being no further                                                                      
objection. Amendment 9 was adopted.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:15:12 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 10, work order 31-                                                                    
GS1873\U.2, Radford, 3/14/19.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
                              AMENDMENT 10                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
 OFFERED IN THE SENATE                         BY SENATOR KIEHL                                                                 
            TO:  CSSB 35(JUD), Draft Version "U"                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Page 2, line 2:                                                                                                           
            Delete "AND 24"                                                                                                     
            Insert "22, AND 25"                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
      Page 2, line 29:                                                                                                          
            Delete "sec. 24"                                                                                                    
            Insert "sec. 25"                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
      Page 3, line 3:                                                                                                           
            Delete "sec. 24"                                                                                                    
            Insert "sec. 25"                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
      Page 3, line 7:                                                                                                           
            Delete "sec. 24"                                                                                                    
            Insert "sec. 25"                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
      Page 13, following line 27:                                                                                               
      Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                        
         "*  Sec.  22. AS  12.63.010  is  amended  by  adding  a new                                                        
      subsection to read:                                                                                                       
            (g)  Notwithstanding the requirement to register                                                                    
      under  this  section,  a  sex offender   or child  kidnapper,                                                             
      as  that   term  is  defined   in  AS  12.63.100(6)(B),    may                                                            
      petition   the  department   for  removal   from  the  central                                                            
      registry  of  sex  offenders   and  child  kidnappers   and  to                                                           
      be  exempt   from   the  registration    requirements    under                                                            
      this  section.   The department   shall   grant  the  petition                                                            
      if  the   petitioner   submits    proof  acceptable    to  the                                                            
      department   that  the facts  underlying   the  conviction   in                                                           
      another  jurisdiction    do  not  constitute   a  sex  offense                                                            
      or  child  kidnapping   in  this  state.  When   the  petition                                                            
      is  granted,    the   department   shall   remove    from  the                                                            
      central  registry   information   about  the sex  offender   or                                                           
      child kidnapper as provided in AS 18.65.087(d)(4)."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
      Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
      Page 15, line 14, following "section":                                                                                
            Insert "and of the procedure to petition for                                                                    
      removal from the central registry"                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
      Page 15, line 23, following "occurred":                                                                                   
            Insert ";                                                                                                       
                 (3)  procedures to remove a sex offender or                                                                
      child    kidnapper,    as    that   term    is   defined     in                                                       
      AS 12.63.100(6)(B),    from   the  central   registry  of  sex                                                        
      offenders and child kidnappers"                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
      Page 17, following line 28:                                                                                               
            Insert new bill sections to read:                                                                                   
         "* Sec. 26. AS 18.65.087(d) is amended to read:                                                                    
            (d)  The Department of Public Safety                                                                                
                 (1)  shall adopt regulations to                                                                                
                 (A)  allow a sex offender or child kidnapper                                                                   
      to review   sex offender   or child  kidnapper   registration                                                             
      information   that  refers  to  that  sex  offender  or  child                                                            
      kidnapper,   and  if the  sex  offender   or child  kidnapper                                                             
      believes   the information    is inaccurate   or  incomplete,                                                             
      to  request  the  department   to  correct  the  information;                                                             
      if  the department   finds   the information    is inaccurate                                                             
      or   incomplete,    the    department    shall    correct    or                                                           
      supplement the information;                                                                                               
                 (B)    ensure   the  appropriate   circulation    to                                                           
      law  enforcement   agencies   of  information    contained   in                                                           
      the central registry;                                                                                                     
                 (C)    ensure  the  anonymity   of members   of the                                                            
      public who request information under this section;                                                                        
                 (2)     shall   provide   to  the   Department    of                                                           
      Corrections   and  municipal  police  departments   the  forms                                                            
      and  directions   necessary   to   allow  sex  offenders   and                                                            
      child kidnappers to comply with AS 12.63.010;                                                                             
                 (3)   may  adopt  regulations   to  establish  fees                                                            
      to  be charged   for  registration   under  AS  12.63.010  and                                                            
      for  information    requests;    the  fee   for  registration                                                             
      shall  be based  upon  the  actual  costs  of  performing  the                                                            
      registration   and  maintaining   the  central   registry  but                                                            
      may  not  be   set  at  a  level   whereby   registration    is                                                           
      discouraged;   the   fee  for  an  information    request  may                                                            
      not be greater than $10;                                                                                                  
                 (4)    shall  remove  from  the  central   registry                                                            
      of  sex   offenders    and  child   kidnappers    under   this                                                            
      section   information    about   a  sex  offender    or  child                                                            
      kidnapper                                                                                                                 
                 (A)         required      to     register     under                                                        
      AS 12.63.020(a)(2)    at the  end  of the  sex  offender's   or                                                           
      child  kidnapper's   duty  to  register  if  the  offender   or                                                           
      kidnapper    has   not  been   convicted    of   another   sex                                                            
      offense   or   child   kidnapping    and   the   offender    or                                                           
      kidnapper     has   supplied     proof    of    unconditional                                                             
      discharge acceptable to the department;                                                                                   
                 (B)     who  has   successfully    petitioned   the                                                        
      Department   of  Public   Safety   to  be  removed   from  the                                                        
      central  registry   of sex  offenders   and child  kidnappers                                                         
      under    AS 12.63.010(g)     [IN    THIS    PARAGRAPH,    "SEX                                                        
      OFFENSE"   AND   "CHILD   KIDNAPPING"    HAVE   THE   MEANINGS                                                            
      GIVEN IN AS 12.63.100].                                                                                                   
         * Sec. 27. AS 18.65.087 is amended by adding a new                                                                   
      subsection to read:                                                                                                       
            (j) In this section, "sex offense" and "child                                                                       
      kidnapping" have the meanings given in AS 12.63.100."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
      Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
      Page 23, line 5:                                                                                                          
            Delete "sec. 22"                                                                                                    
            Insert "sec. 23"                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
      Page 23, line 6:                                                                                                          
            Delete "sec. 23"                                                                                                    
            Insert  "sec.  24"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
      Page 23, line 7:                                                                                                          
            Delete  "sec.  24"                                                                                                  
            Insert  "sec.  25"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
      Page 23, line 8:                                                                                                          
            Delete  "sec.  25"                                                                                                  
            Insert  "sec.  28"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
      Page 23, line 9:                                                                                                          
            Delete  "sec.  26"                                                                                                  
            Insert  "sec.  29"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
      Page 23, following line 10:                                                                                               
            Insert a new subsection to read:                                                                                    
            "(d)  AS 12.63.010(g), enacted by sec. 22 of this                                                                   
     Act, applies to the duty to register as a sex offender                                                                     
         for offenses committed before, on, or after the                                                                        
      effective date of sec. 22 of this Act."                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   HUGHES    objected   for   the   purpose   of   discussion.    She                                                      
indicated   that  Amendment   10  was  Senator  Kiehl's   amendment.   She                                                      
asked him to speak to Amendment 10.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:15:22 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  explained   that  Amendment  10  is  designed  to  address                                                      
the  issue  where   sex  offenders   convicted  in  other   jurisdictions                                                       
are  required   to  register    in  Alaska,   but  the  crime   they  were                                                      
convicted   of  is  not  considered    a  registerable   sex  offense   in                                                      
Alaska.   If  the   person   can  demonstrate    to  the   Department   of                                                      
Public  Safety  that  the  crime  that  the person   was convicted   of in                                                      
another   state   is  not  a  crime   in  Alaska,   the   department   can                                                      
remove   the   individual's    name   off   the  registry.    He   further                                                      
explained   the  process,   such  that  the   individual   would  need  to                                                      
petition   the department   and  provide   proof  that  is acceptable   to                                                      
the  department.   The state  would  maintain   its  constitutional   duty                                                      
to  write  Alaska's  laws,  but  still  capture   everyone  who  has  been                                                      
convicted of crimes that are considered sex crimes in Alaska.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:16:39 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES   expressed   concern   that  the  full  faith   and  credit                                                      
clause   in  the  U.S.  Constitution    requires   states   to  honor  the                                                      
judgments   of other   states.  She  asked  whether  Alaska   would  honor                                                      
the  judgement   or  conviction   in  another   state  for  a  sex  crime.                                                      
For  instance,    Alaska   honors  the   domestic   violence   protective                                                       
orders   from   other   states   even   if  the   orders   do  not   align                                                      
identically with Alaska law.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:17:22 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  LARGENT   explained  that   the  full  faith  and  credit  provision                                                       
in  the  U.S.   Constitution   provides   a  foundational    way  to  view                                                      
this   proposal.   It  really   is   not  the   distinction   of   whether                                                      
Alaska   laws  match  other   states,   but  if  Alaska  will   give  full                                                      
faith  and  credit  for  a conviction,   a judgment,   of a  sex crime  in                                                      
another state.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
She  provided   an  example,   when  Francis  Scott   Key  argued  that   a                                                     
judgment   between   the  states  should   be  brought  in  as  evidence.                                                       
The  U.S.  Supreme   Court   disagreed.   Justice   [Joseph]   Story  said                                                      
this  interpretation    would  render  the  cause  "utterly   unimportant                                                       
and  illusory."  The  court  went  on  to hold  that  a judgment   that is                                                      
rendered   conclusive   must  be held  conclusive   elsewhere.   She  said                                                      
that   subsequent     case   law   has   indicated    that   is   not   an                                                      
unqualified   command.   The  courts   have  held   that  a  jurisdiction                                                       
might    go   back   and   inquire    whether    a   court   had    actual                                                      
jurisdiction.    If  not,  it  could   raise  due   process  issues.   The                                                      
court   goes   back   to   see   if  new   evidence    contradicts    that                                                      
judgment,    which   is  "reaching    back   into   the  judgment."    The                                                      
specific   language    has  been   that  states   are   not  required   to                                                      
enforce  a  law from  another   state  that is  obnoxious   to its  public                                                      
policy.   For  example,   if   enforcing   a  sex  crime   judgment   from                                                      
another   state   would   be  obnoxious   to  Alaska's    public   policy,                                                      
there  is  room  for [argument],    but unless   that  bar is  met,  under                                                      
the  U.S.  Constitution's   full  faith  and  credit  provisions,   Alaska                                                      
is  under   somewhat    of  a   directive   to   give  credit   to   those                                                      
judgments.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:20:35 PM                                                                                                                    
JOHN   SKIDMORE,   Division   Director,    Criminal   Division,    Central                                                      
Office,   Department    of   Law,   Anchorage,   said   the   issue   with                                                      
Amendment   10 is  that  it would  gut  the underlying   concept.   Alaska                                                      
suffers  from  one  of  the  worst  sex offense   rates  in  the country.                                                       
The  public  and  the  administration    were  concerned   when  Alaska's                                                       
statutes  were  interpreted   during  a  case  to mean  that  individuals                                                       
who  moved   to   Alaska   but  were   convicted   of   an  offense   that                                                      
required  them  to  register  as  sex  offenders  in  other  states  could                                                      
move to Alaska and not have to register as sex offenders.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
He  said   that  what   upset   people  were   examples   of  people   who                                                      
committed   offenses    in  other   states   who  moved   to  Alaska   and                                                      
committed   sex  offenses   in Alaska.   The  intent  behind   [SB 35]  is                                                      
to  eliminate  the  incentive   for individuals   to  seek  out Alaska  to                                                      
avoid  sex  offender  registration   requirements.    The state  may  wish                                                      
to  review  and  crimes  in  other  states   that  require   sex offender                                                       
registration   but  are  not  crimes   in Alaska   and  consider  if  that                                                      
conduct  should  be  criminalized.   The  goal  is to  avoid  encouraging                                                       
sex  offenders   to come  to  Alaska  to  avoid  sex  offender  registry.                                                       
He  characterized   it as  hanging  a  sign over  Alaska's   door  saying,                                                      
"Sex offenders welcome."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE    said  that   Amendment   10   is  still   stricter   than                                                      
current  law.  However,   it would  require   substantial   effort  by the                                                      
Department   of  Public   Safety   to  compare   Alaska's   law  to  other                                                      
states'   laws   to  determine   the   underlying   conduct.   One   thing                                                      
pointed   out by  the  New  Mexico  Supreme   Court,  which  is  cited  in                                                      
the  Doe  case,  is that  if  you  follow  this  approach,   it relies  on                                                      
the  conduct   for  which   someone   was  convicted.   Sometimes   it  is                                                      
very  clear,  but  other   times  is not  as  clear.  For  instance,   the                                                      
New  Mexico   court  considered    whether   a person   convicted   of  an                                                      
offense  who  was  required  to  register,  had  been  convicted   using  a                                                     
plea  agreement   without  an  allocution,   meaning   the defendant   did                                                      
not  stand   up  and   recite   the  facts.   In  those   instances,   the                                                      
courts   are  left  to   compare  the   statutes   but  not  the   conduct                                                      
itself.  The  original   bill was  more  encompassing   since  it  said if                                                      
an  offender    is  required    to  register   in   another   state,   the                                                      
offender     must   also    register     in   Alaska.     The    DOL   and                                                      
administration    oppose   Amendment   10   because   it  would   gut  the                                                      
concept, he said.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:25:06 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   MICCICHE   said  that  he  cannot   support  Amendment   10.  He                                                      
reminded   members  that  the  committee   worked   on [SB  12]  to  close                                                      
the   Justin   Schneider   loophole,    because   his  crimes   were   not                                                      
considered    sexual   crimes.    The   legislature    recognized    these                                                      
actions  should  have  been  crimes.   However,  if  someone  had  come to                                                      
Alaska   who   had  recently    strangled   someone   to   the  point   of                                                      
unconsciousness    [and  done  the  things   Justin  Schneider   did],  he                                                      
would   not  be  required   to  register   in  Alaska.   He  acknowledged                                                       
that  Alaska   has  gaps,  but  some   other  states   have  done  a  very                                                      
good  job.  He said  it  does  not  work  for him  and  he did  not  think                                                      
Amendment 10 works for Alaskans.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:26:02 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR   KIEHL   said  that   he  was  not   concerned   with   the  U.S.                                                      
Constitution's    full  faith  and   credit  issue   since  there  is  not                                                      
any  opportunity    to   retry  the   facts   or  the  conviction.    This                                                      
simply   looks  at   whether   the  facts   would  be  registerable    sex                                                      
crimes  in  Alaska.   The  legislature   would  not  ask  the  Department                                                       
of  Public   Safety   to  judge   the  credibility    of  a  witness.   He                                                      
maintained   his  belief   that  it  is  not  a  full  faith   and  credit                                                      
issue,  but  it  relates   to the  Alaska   Constitution.   In  the  State                                                      
of  Missouri,  a  person  must  register   as a  sex  offender  if  he/she                                                      
is  a teacher  and  has  sex  with  a student,   even  if the  student  is                                                      
18  years  old. Alaska   has not  made  that  a sex  crime.  In Michigan,                                                       
consensual   sex between   people  within  the  third  degree  of  kindred                                                      
is  a registerable   sex  offense,  but  it is  not  in Alaska,  which  is                                                      
a conscious   choice,  and  not  a loophole   in Alaska.  Ultimately,   it                                                      
is  important   to look   at what   actions  constitute   a  registerable                                                       
sex  crime  in  Alaska.  He  said  that troopers   look  at  the elements                                                       
of  the offense   all day  long.  And  when they  have  a question,   they                                                      
call   the   lawyer    for   advice.   He   offered    his   belief   that                                                      
administering    this  is  straightforward.    The  presumption   is  that                                                      
sex  offenders  must  register   and the  burden  of  proof  that  it does                                                      
not  constitute    a sex   crime  in  Alaska   is  on  the  offender.   He                                                      
characterized    it  as  a  minor  adjustment   for  the   rare  cases  in                                                      
which Alaska has decided the conduct is not a crime.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:28:58 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  SKIDMORE   said  that  some  of  the  examples   do  not  track  with                                                      
Alaska's   law.  He  said  that  the  Michigan  law  talks   about  incest                                                      
in  the third  degree,   which  is criminalized   in  Alaska.  He  offered                                                      
his  belief  that  there  are some  factual   errors.  Further,  he  fails                                                      
to  identify  where  in  the  Constitution   of  the State  of  Alaska  it                                                      
shows  some  reason  that  someone   should  not  have  to register   as  a                                                     
sex   offender.    He   said   he   goes   back   to   the   government's                                                       
compelling   state  interest  to  not  encourage  sex  offenders   to move                                                      
to  Alaska   to  avoid   having   to  register   as  sex   offenders.   He                                                      
acknowledged   that   the current   law  focuses   only  on elements   and                                                      
that  his   amendment   would   have  the   department   look   at  facts.                                                      
However,   he was  also  trying   to  highlight   that  looking  at  facts                                                      
and   determining    what   are   the   facts   that   resulted    in  the                                                      
conviction    is  not   as   easy   as  one   might   think   without   an                                                      
allocution   from  the  defendant.   Absent  the  allocution,   the  state                                                      
is  left  only  with  the  elements,   which  is  the problem   the  state                                                      
faces   today.   The   issue    becomes   that   Amendment    10   is  not                                                      
achieving   that   underlying    goal   or  principle   of   discouraging                                                       
people  from  moving  to  Alaska  to avoid  sex  offender   registry  when                                                      
they  have  already  committed   sex  offenses.   Those  are  the  reasons                                                      
the department is opposed to Amendment 10.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:31:04 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES  offered   her  belief  that  Amendment   10 would  put  the                                                      
Department   of  Public   Safety  (DPS)  in  the  position   of  making   a                                                     
judgment  in  violation   of the  full  faith  and credit   clause  of the                                                      
U.S.  Constitution   by  asking  the department   whether   it will  honor                                                      
judgments   from  other  states  and  that  concerns  her.  She  said  the                                                      
compelling   interest   to  eliminate   the problem   of  Alaska  being   a                                                     
magnet  to  sex offenders   trumps  everything.   She  said  she will  not                                                      
be supporting Amendment 10.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   KIEHL   said  the  question    of  a  plea  agreement    without                                                      
allocution,    arguably   leaves    the  offender    in  the   unenviable                                                       
position   of not  being  able  to  prove  the  facts  do  not  match  and                                                      
so  he/she  would   have  to  register.   That  is  how  Amendment   10 is                                                      
written,   he  said.  He  said  he  appreciated   Mr.  Skidmore's   talent                                                      
at   hyperbole,   but   the   State   of  Michigan's    criminal    sexual                                                      
conduct in the fourth degree is not the crime of incest.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:32:27 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES maintained her objection.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:32:34 PM                                                                                                                    
A  roll  call   vote  was  taken.   Senator   Kiehl  voted   in  favor  of                                                      
Amendment   10 and  Senators  Reinbold,   Micciche,   Shower,  and  Hughes                                                      
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 10 failed by a 1:4 vote.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR REINBOLD moved to adopt Amendment 11.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:33:02 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES   asked   whether  the  committee    could  continue   since                                                      
the allotted committee time was up.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:33:20 PM                                                                                                                    
At-ease.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   HUGHES  reconvened    the  meeting.   She  said  that   she  would                                                      
hold off on the remaining amendments.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
[The   committee   treated   Amendment    11  as  not   offered   at  this                                                      
time.]                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:34:12 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  WHITT  said  he would   review  the  action  the  committee  took  on                                                      
Amendment 8.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[SB 35 was held in committee.]                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:35:10 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES reviewed upcoming committee announcements.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:35:23 PM                                                                                                                    
There being no further business to come before the committee,                                                                   
adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee meeting at                                                                    
3:35 p.m.                                                                                                                       

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB 89 - Bill - 3 13 19.PDF SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 89
SB 89 - Sponsor Statement - 3 13 19.pdf SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 89
SB 89 - PowerPoint Presentation - 3 13 19.pdf SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 89
SB 89 - Sectional Analysis - 3 13 19.pdf SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 89
SB 89 - Supporting Document - AO 19 01 - 3 13 19.pdf SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 3/20/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 89
CSSB35 Version U.pdf SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 35
CSSB35 Explanation of Changes from Version A to U.pdf SJUD 3/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 35