03/20/2024 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB60 | |
| HJR3 | |
| SB134 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 60 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 20, 2024
1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Matt Claman, Chair
Senator Jesse Kiehl, Vice Chair
Senator James Kaufman
Senator Löki Tobin
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Cathy Giessel
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 60
"An Act repealing the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission;
relating to decisions and orders of the Workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission; relating to superior court jurisdiction over
appeals from Alaska Workers' Compensation Board decisions;
repealing Rules 201.1, 401.1, and 501.1, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure, and amending Rules 202(a), 204(a) - (c),
210(e), 601(b), 602(c) and (h), and 603(a), Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3(JUD) AM
Encouraging Congress to pass the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act
or a similar bill.
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 134
"An Act relating to insurance data security; amending Rule 26,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rules 402 and 501, Alaska
Rules of Evidence; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 60
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL WORKERS' COMP APPEALS COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WIELECHOWSKI
02/06/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/23 (S) L&C, JUD
02/27/23 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/27/23 (S) Heard & Held
02/27/23 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
05/10/23 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
05/10/23 (S) Moved SB 60 Out of Committee
05/10/23 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
05/11/23 (S) L&C RPT 2DP 1NR
05/11/23 (S) NR: BJORKMAN
05/11/23 (S) DP: DUNBAR, GRAY-JACKSON
01/22/24 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/22/24 (S) Heard & Held
01/22/24 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/20/24 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HJR 3
SHORT TITLE: CONCEALED HANDGUN RECIPROCITY B/W STATES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAUSCHER
02/01/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/01/23 (H) JUD, STA
02/10/23 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/10/23 (H) Heard & Held
02/10/23 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/17/23 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/17/23 (H) Moved CSHJR 3(JUD) Out of Committee
02/17/23 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/20/23 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 3DP 4NR
02/20/23 (H) DP: C.JOHNSON, GROH, VANCE
02/20/23 (H) NR: CARPENTER, EASTMAN, GRAY, ALLARD
02/28/23 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/28/23 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/02/23 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/02/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/23 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/23 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/23 (H) Moved CSHJR 3(JUD) Out of Committee
03/14/23 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/17/23 (H) STA RPT CS(JUD) 5DP 1AM
03/17/23 (H) DP: ALLARD, WRIGHT, C.JOHNSON,
CARPENTER, SHAW
03/17/23 (H) AM: STORY
04/14/23 (H) DIVIDE THE AMENDMENT PASSED Y24 N15 E1
04/19/23 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/19/23 (H) VERSION: CSHJR 3(JUD) AM
04/21/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/23 (S) STA, JUD
05/04/23 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
05/04/23 (S) Heard & Held
05/04/23 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/06/23 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
05/06/23 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
05/06/23 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
05/06/23 (S) -- Public Testimony <Time Limit May Be
Set> --
05/12/23 (S) STA REFERRAL WAIVED
03/20/24 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 134
SHORT TITLE: INS. DATA SECURITY; INFO. SECURITY PRGRMS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) KAUFMAN
04/21/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/23 (S) L&C, JUD, FIN
02/05/24 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/05/24 (S) Heard & Held
02/05/24 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/16/24 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/16/24 (S) Moved CSSB 134(L&C) Out of Committee
02/16/24 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/19/24 (S) L&C RPT CS 3DP SAME TITLE
02/19/24 (S) DP: BJORKMAN, DUNBAR, BISHOP
02/19/24 (S) FIN REFERRAL REMOVED
03/18/24 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/18/24 (S) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 03/20/24>
03/20/24 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
ANDY HEMENWAY, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 60.
MICHAEL BUDZINSKI, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 60.
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER, District 29
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 3.
RYAN MCKEE, Staff
Representative George Rauscher
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion on
HJR 3.
ROBERT FRENCH, Lieutenant
Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the discussion
of HJR 3.
TOM BOUTIN, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 3.
DOMINICK HARNETT, Staff
Senator James Kaufman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for SB 134
on behalf of the sponsor.
LORI WING-HEIER, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
SB 134.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Offices
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
SB 134.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:31:26 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Kaufman, Tobin, Kiehl, and Chair Claman.
SB 60-REPEAL WORKERS' COMP APPEALS COMMISSION
1:31:57 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 60
"An Act repealing the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission;
relating to decisions and orders of the Workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission; relating to superior court jurisdiction over
appeals from Alaska Workers' Compensation Board decisions;
repealing Rules 201.1, 401.1, and 501.1, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure, and amending Rules 202(a), 204(a) - (c),
210(e), 601(b), 602(c) and (h), and 603(a), Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
1:32:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on SB 60.
1:33:09 PM
ANDY HEMENWAY, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 60. He stated that he retired as chair of the
Alaska Workers Compensation Appeals Commission in 2016 and
testifies today in a personal capacity. He addressed two points:
Commission Rulings Have the Force of Legal Precedent
MR. HEMENWAY explained that prior to the creation of the
Commission, appeals from the Workers' Compensation Board were
heard by the Superior Court. Superior Court rulings did not have
the force of legal precedent, meaning the Board, insurance
companies, or an attorney representing injured workers could
disregard a legal ruling with which they disagreed in future
cases. Moreover, other Superior Court judges could rule
differently in future cases, leading to uncertainty in the
application of rules. He stated that the legislature addressed
this uncertainty by creating the Commission and directing by
statute that Commission decisions have the force of legal
precedent. This meant the Board, insurance companies, workers
and their attorneys could rely on clear rules and plan and act
accordingly. He stated that if the parties to a case do not like
the Commission ruling, they may appeal to the Alaska Supreme
Court.
MR. HEMENWAY underscored that because the Commission's decisions
create binding precedent, it is especially important that these
decisions are the product of a body with experience and
expertise in workers compensation law. Legal expertise on the
part of the chair and practical experience on the part of the
lay members of the Commission, by statute, must have served on
the Workers Compensation Board.
Commission Caseload Numbers
MR. HEMENWAY acknowledged a decline in cases before the
Commission in the last three years. He attributed this to a
corresponding drop in the number of claims filed, which
inevitably led to fewer cases before the Board and, eventually,
fewer appeals to the Commission. He surmised that the drop is
related to the COVID-19 pandemic. He expects that the number of
appeals will rise. He stated that six appeals have already been
filed this year, which is equivalent to past normal caseload
numbers.
1:36:05 PM
MICHAEL BUDZINSKI, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in opposition to SB 60. He stated that he is an
attorney who has practiced in the area of workers' compensation
for over 40 years. He practiced when appeals went to the
Superior Court and, afterward, in 2005, when appeals
transitioned to the Commission.
MR. BUDZINSKI expressed his view that the current structure,
which involves the Commission, is far better than the prior
structure when appeals went to the Superior Court. He said this
is due, in large part, to the requirement that Commission
members have experience in workers' compensation; they are very
knowledgeable. When appearing before the Commission, attorneys
can use technical shorthand and legal acronyms, knowing that
Commission members are familiar with the terminology and subject
matter. This is a huge advantage. He emphasized the importance
of Commission decisions, which have precedential value, and
noted a recent experience in which the Commission pushed back on
legal issues raised by the Alaska Supreme Court. He believes
this type of exchange strengthens the process and yields a
better legal result because there is give and take between the
different bodies.
MR. BUDZINSKI expressed his belief that maintaining the
Commission is the wisest choice. He concluded by stating that
the creation of the Commission in 2005 was necessary, and the
reasons for its existence remain valid to this today.
1:37:43 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if he worked primarily on the employer or
employee side of workers' compensation proceedings.
MR. BUDZINSKI replied, the employer side.
1:37:59 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that he is intrigued to hear that the
Commission pushed back against the Alaska Supreme Court (ASC) on
legal matters and asked for details about this.
MR. BUDZINSKI replied that the issue of attorney fee rates is
still before the Alaska Supreme Court. He explained that there
was an attempt to increase the hourly rate paid to attorneys
representing injured workers from the typical range of $400 -
$450 per hour to between $600 - $900 per hour. The Commission
awarded $450 per hour for an appeal, consistent with its past
practice. That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which
responded that a higher rate was appropriate and remanded the
case to the Commission for reconsideration.
MR. BUDZINSKI said the Commission declined to reconsider,
maintaining its original decision. The matter is now before the
Supreme Court again. He expressed his view that this
demonstrated legal courage on the part of the Commission. This
matter is important to concerned employers who may be required
to pay higher rates for attorneys representing injured workers.
1:39:26 PM
SENATOR KIEHL expressed his appreciation for the information and
remarked that he may need to learn more about the issue. He
observed that if employers seek a standard different from the
standard in the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, those
employers should speak to the legislature. He stated that he
found the situation troubling.
MR. BUDZINSKI responded that may happen; employers may need to
approach the legislature for relief. It is a statutory system so
the legislature decides these matters.
1:39:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commented on an unrelated matter, noting that he
found it interesting that, in other issues before the
legislature, the executive branch appears comfortable paying
outside attorneys between $600 and $900 per hour for
representation in statehood defense claims. He remarked that
while he was once troubled by such high rates, they now seem to
have become relatively normalized.
MR. BUDZINSKI said that the Supreme Court awarded the rate, it
was not done at the Board level. The issue became whether the
Commission should adopt that rate. The Commission decided
against adopting that rate.
1:40:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether this was a published Supreme Court
decision.
MR. BUDZINSKI replied yes but noted that it is on appeal again
and remains ongoing.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether this was the first case published and
remanded to the Commission on the issue.
MR. BUDZINSKI confirmed and stated that the case involves two
injured workers, with the first named Rusch. The employer was
Southeast Alaska Regional Health [Consortium] (SEARHC).
1:41:20 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed public testimony on SB 60.
CHAIR CLAMAN held SB 60 in committee.
HJR 3-CONCEALED HANDGUN RECIPROCITY B/W STATES
1:41:34 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION NO. 3(JUD) am Encouraging Congress to pass the
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act or a similar bill.
CHAIR CLAMAN said this is the first hearing of HJR 3 in the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He invited the bill sponsor and his
staff to identify themselves for the record and begin their
remarks. He noted that staff from the administration are
available to answer questions.
1:42:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER, District 29, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of HJR 3. HJR 3 encourages
Congress to amend the federal criminal code to allow individuals
who are qualified to carry or possess a concealed handgun in one
state to do so in another state that also allows concealed
carry.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER explained that HJR 3 urges Congress to
enact the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, H.R. 38 from the
117th Congress, or a similar measure. He noted that the National
Rifle Association of America - Institute for Legislative Action
(NRA-ILA) has provided multiple reasons to support national
reciprocity, including:
- In 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed that individuals,
including Alaskans, have a constitutionally protected right
to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, no state can deny that
constitutional right.
- Concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding
citizens. He referenced a 2014 study to support this. The study
revealed that among 875,000 Florida permit holders, the
revocation rate was 0.00007 percent, and among 584,850 Texas
permit holders, the revocation rate was 0.21 percent.
- Reciprocity laws can change frequently with little or no
public notice, putting otherwise law-abiding citizens at a
greater risk of inadvertently committing a crime. These
citizens are often unaware that they cannot drive through
certain states with concealed weapons. One such person,
Mr. Brian Fisher, while traveling through North Carolina and
New Jersey for disaster relief work, voluntarily disclosed
possession of a legally owned firearm to a New Jersey police
officer. The police officer subsequently arrested Mr. Fisher,
who faced up to five years in prison.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated that he requests support of HJR 3
for these and other reasons.
1:45:15 PM
RYAN MCKEE, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, answered questions during the
discussion on HJR 3. He indicated that staff from the Department
of Public Safety (DPS) are available to take questions.
1:45:33 PM
SENATOR TOBIN stated that while she deeply respects the sponsor
and his work, she is very upset with HJR 3. She shared that she
is married to a federal law enforcement officer and has reviewed
research indicating states that have eliminated conceal and
carry permit requirements have experienced significant increases
in officer-involved shootings. She emphasized the desire for her
husband to return home safely each night. She asked whether the
sponsor had spoken with law enforcement officers or
organizations, such as fraternities of peace officers, and
whether those groups support the bill or have provided any
input.
1:46:19 PM
MR. MCKEE deferred to the Alaska State Troopers (AST),
expressing his belief that the organization has not taken a
position on HJR 3.
1:46:32 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN directed the question to Lieutenant Robert French
from AST and Lisa Purinton from DPS.
1:46:38 PM
SENATOR TOBIN requested testifiers to indicate whether they
speak on behalf of their respective organizations or for
themselves.
1:47:09 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN directed the question to Lieutenant French.
1:47:20 PM
ROBERT FRENCH, Lieutenant, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety, Anchorage, Alaska, stated he was available to
answer general questions but not make blanket policy statements.
1:47:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN restated the question.
1:47:42 PM
SENATOR TOBIN clarified the question asking whether:
- he had spoken with law enforcement officers about HJR 3.
- he received any letters of support.
- his colleagues had concerns that the reciprocity legislation
could undermine Alaska's ability to protect its residents,
given other states' authority to set their own firearm
policies.
1:48:13 PM
LIEUTENANT FRENCH responded in the negative, stating he does not
have information on any of the questions posed.
1:48:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated that the key requirements for
obtaining a concealed carry permit under HJR 3 include
fingerprinting, an FBI background check, and successful
completion of a [handgun competency] program with a certificate
of completion.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER explained that applicants from
reciprocity states must meet these same core requirements. The
concealed carry permit serves as proof of compliance, thereby
removing the need for retesting in each reciprocity state. He
compared it to a driver's license, which is honored across
states. He stated that for states allowing concealed carry,
individuals could present their license to demonstrate
completion of the necessary requirements, including
fingerprinting and an FBI check. He remarked that concealed
carry permit holders likely represent one of the lowest-
offending populations. Statistically, 8.4 percent of the U.S.
adult population holds a concealed carry permit, so while the
reciprocity bill may not apply to everyone, it addresses the
rights of a notable number of people.
1:50:03 PM
SENATOR TOBIN noted that some states with concealed carry laws
include additional restrictions related to domestic violence,
stalking, or felony convictions. She stated that those
stipulations had not been mentioned and asked whether, in his
estimation, would this usurp a state's ability to include such
provisions to protect its residents.
1:50:31 PM
MR. MCKEE replied that individuals must comply with the laws of
the state they are in. He explained that HJR 3 does not suggest
one state's law could override another state's restrictions.
Once an individual enters another state, they are required to
follow that state's laws. He said HJR 3 encourages reciprocity,
meaning concealed-carry states cannot deny an out-of-state
individual permission based on residency.
1:51:13 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked how law enforcement officers will ensure
out-of-state individuals follow Alaska concealed carry laws.
1:51:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER responded that law enforcement would
handle enforcement for out-of-state individuals the same it does
for Alaskans. He explained there is no way to identify someone
carrying concealed until an offense is committed. He expressed
his belief that this is consistent across all concealed-carry
states, and stated that individuals must follow the laws of the
state that they are in.
1:53:01 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN posed a hypothetical scenario. He said that if an
individual obtains a concealed carry permit in Alaska and then
travels to another state, such as New Mexico, where the criteria
for issuing permits differ, issues may arise. For example, New
Mexico may prohibit individuals with a domestic violence
restraining order from obtaining a concealed carry permit. He
noted that he was unsure of Alaska's specific requirements, but
this hypothetical scenario assumes Alaska does not have that
same restriction. He asked whether New Mexico would be obligated
to honor Alaska's concealed carry permit even though the
individual would not qualify under New Mexico's standards.
1:53:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER responded that his understanding was no.
1:53:57 PM
SENATOR KIEHL sought clarification on some of the provisions in
U.S. H.R. 38, which HJR 3 endorses. He cited U.S. H.R. 38,
stating that a person who is entitled to carry a concealed
firearm in the State in which the person resides, either
through a permit or under state law, may possess or carry in any
state that does not prohibit concealed carry. He expressed his
recollection that Alaska does not require a permit to carry a
concealed firearm. He sought clarification about U.S. H.R. 38,
asking whether this means an Alaskan does not need any kind of
permit at all to carry in say New Jersey, which requires one.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked that the question be restated.
SENATOR KIEHL repeated that federal legislation would allow a
person who either holds a concealed carry permit in their home
state or is lawfully entitled to carry without one, to carry in
any state that does not prohibit concealed carry. He interpreted
the legislation to mean that, if enacted, an Alaskan, who does
not need a permit under Alaska law, would not need a permit to
carry in a state like New Jersey, which does require one.
1:56:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER agreed with that interpretation.
SENATOR KIEHL referenced committee discussion about background
checks and fingerprinting, asking whether those requirements
would apply.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER responded that, in his understanding, no
one would stop a person from carrying a concealed handgun in
Alaska since it is legal to do so, and asked whether that
answered the question.
1:56:49 PM
SENATOR KIEHL clarified that his question pertains to states
that only allow concealed carry by permit. He said that, as he
reads the federal legislation, if enacted, it would allow
Alaskans without permits to carry in another state even if that
state requires a permit. As a result, a permitless Alaskan, who
would not have undergone a background check or fingerprinting,
could legally carry in a state that mandates those requirements.
1:57:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER expressed his belief that this
interpretation is not accurate.
SENATOR KIEHL suggested, that based on the federal text, the
matter might be appropriate for Legislative Legal Services to
review.
SENATOR KIEHL raised concern about how the legislation addresses
limitations on where a person may carry a concealed firearm. He
remarked that the federal legislation appears somewhat
ambiguous. He referenced [page 3, line 19 page, 4, line 3] of
U.S. H.R. 38, which states that this section of the bill:
shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws
of any State that -
• permit private persons or entities to prohibit or
restrict the possession of concealed firearms on
their property; or
• prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on
any State or local government property,
installation, building, base, or park.
SENATOR KIEHL pointed out that the legislation does not appear
to address specific restrictions such as Alaska's prohibition on
concealed carry in bars, churches, or daycares.
SENATOR KIEHL sought confirmation that, if enacted, the federal
legislation would allow someone from a state where concealed
carry in churches is allowed to carry in an Alaska church where
it is illegal.
1:59:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER responded no, explaining individuals
would be required to abide by each participating state's laws.
He expressed his understanding that U.S. H.R. 38 does not
rewrite state law; it is intended to preserve states' rights. He
noted that while nonresidents may be permitted to carry
concealed in a bar in their home state, they would not be
permitted to do so in Alaska if Alaska law prohibits it.
SENATOR KIEHL returned to the language on page 3, line 19
through page 4, line 3 of U.S. H.R. 38, and asked why the listed
restrictions are so limited, noting that states like Alaska
impose additional carve-outs, such as those related to churches,
daycares, or bars.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER replied that he does not know.
2:01:11 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN said the rationale behind the federal
legislation appears similar to how driver's licenses are treated
across states. He explained that a person licensed to drive in
Alaska must follow the laws of other states when driving in
them. He stated that, similarly, the concealed carry permit
could be recognized across states with the understanding that
individuals must follow local laws. He noted that it would be
interesting to see whether this rationale holds when reviewed by
Legislative Legal Services.
2:02:21 PM
SENATOR TOBIN reflected on the complication between driver's
licenses and concealed carry permits. She shared that her nephew
recently turned 18 in New York, where, prior to that age, he was
not allowed to drive with another person under 18 in his vehicle
or drive alone after 6:00 p.m. She noted that New York has
stricter rules than Alaska and emphasized that even within the
Driver License Compact, states are still permitted to establish
rules they believe are appropriate for their communities. She
stated that this is the core concern. It is to ensure that
Alaska retains the authority to define how firearms may be
carried, rather than having that authority overridden by other
states or the federal government.
SENATOR TOBIN noted that under Alaska law, individuals under the
age of 21 are prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon. She
referenced page 3 of U.S. H.R. 38 and asked the sponsor whether
Alaska's age restriction would still be honored under the bill,
requesting his interpretation.
2:03:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER responded, stating that is not his
interpretation. He offered a supposition. If a person cannot
drive at the age of 14 in New York but can in Missouri with a
farm license, that does not mean Missouri's driving laws apply
in New York. He recalled that when he was growing up, some
states allowed 14-year-olds to obtain a farmer's license to
perform certain agricultural work. However, if individuals
operated outside those parameters, they would be in violation of
the law. He offered that such a license would not be valid in
New York unless New York had a similar farm license law.
2:04:42 PM
SENATOR TOBIN commented that was not her interpretation and that
it would be helpful to have clarification from legal counsel.
2:05:06 PM
SENATOR KIEHL cited the federal legislation, which indicates a
person must carry valid identification (ID) and concealed carry
permit documentation when in possession of a concealed handgun
in another state. He said the federal legislation definition
does not appear to include tribal identification, noting that
tribal IDs are good enough to fly and show to the Division of
Motor Vehicles (DMV).
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the definition for identification
document in U.S. H.R. 38 includes tribal IDs.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked him to restate the question.
SENATOR KIEHL commented that this is a research question. He
asked whether the definition of "identification document in
U.S. H.R. 38 includes tribal IDs. He stated that many Alaska
tribes issue IDs.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER expressed his understanding that if
Alaska requires a driver's license to operate a vehicle on its
highways, and another state with concealed carry permits
requires the same, then a drivers license would be required in
both states.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER recalled that people who reside in
villages could obtain a separate type of license that required a
less extensive driving test. He said this was the case in King
Cove approximately 25 years ago, noting that circumstances may
have changed since then. He emphasized that one must obey the
laws of the state they are in and said he did not believe a
person is exempt based on where they are from. He stated he was
not sure if that fully answered the question.
2:07:27 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that he could follow up offline and expressed
his belief that the definition includes a passport and a state-
issued ID that is not a driver's license. He expressed curiosity
whether the definition also includes a tribal ID.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER replied that he was unsure whether a
passport is sufficient to rent a car but surmised that whatever
is required to rent a car would probably apply.
2:07:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the federal legislation referenced in
HJR 3 is from 2021 and likely no longer active. He inquired
whether there is a current federal bill, and if so, it would be
beneficial to update HJR 3.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER indicated he would collect that
information for the committee.
2:08:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HJR 3.
2:09:05 PM
TOM BOUTIN, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of HJR 3. He urged the committee to move HJR 3 out of
committee as soon as possible. He stated that he has held an
Alaska concealed carry permit for approximately 30 years. He
recounted an experience in which his plane out of Juneau was
delayed due to weather and by the time he landed in Boston at
midnight, his connecting flight to a constitutional carry state
had long since departed. He had a revolver in his checked
baggage, and the airline insisted he take possession of his
baggage at that time. He said there is not time to explain what
he did next and remarked that it might be somewhat shocking. He
stated that Alaskans need constitutional carry nationwide. He
said that it might be pertinent to point out that driving a car
or even riding a horse is not a constitutionally guaranteed
right, whereas the right to keep and bear arms is. He thanked
the committee for their time and for their hard work on behalf
of Alaskans.
2:10:18 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed public testimony on HJR 3.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that HJR 3 needs a couple of updates, mainly:
update the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, HJR 3
currently lists Kevin McCarthy; update the current number of
states with reciprocity, HJR 3 currently mentions 19 states with
reciprocity provisions in their statutes, including Alaska, but
he understands that the current number is 20.
CHAIR CLAMAN said the committee would likely hear the bill again
after Legislative Legal Services answers some of the outstanding
questions.
CHAIR CLAMAN held HJR 3 in committee.
SB 134-INS. DATA SECURITY; INFO. SECURITY PRGRMS
[CSSB 134(L&C) was before the committee.]
2:11:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 134
"An Act relating to insurance data security; amending Rule 26,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rules 402 and 501, Alaska
Rules of Evidence; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR CLAMAN said this is the first hearing of SB 134 in the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He invited the bill sponsor and his
staff to identify themselves for the record and begin their
remarks.
2:11:41 PM
SENATOR JAMES KAUFMAN, speaking as sponsor, introduced SB 134.
He stated that SB 134 is intended to address growing concerns
over data breaches within the insurance industry over the last
several years. He noted that insurance companies maintain
sensitive personal, financial, and health information for
millions of consumers, making it important to establish
guidelines and standards to reduce potential damage from data
breaches within the industry.
SENATOR KAUFMAN explained that SB 134 would require state-
licensed insurance companies to assess internal and external
threats and to develop, implement, and maintain an information
security program based on those threats. While the standards in
the bill are not broad in scope, they establish the expectations
for governance, risk assessment, risk management, third-party
risk management, and incident response.
SENATOR KAUFMAN stated that SB 134 also includes specific
requirements for incident investigation and notification. The
bill would empower the Division of Insurance with the tools
needed to effectively oversee the protection of sensitive
personal information by licensees. Similar legislation already
exists in at least 23 other states, and the federal government
has urged states to adopt comparable measures, reflecting
nationwide recognition of this issues importance.
SENATOR KAUFMAN described SB 134 as a proactive approach to
protecting personal information from cyber threats, enhancing
consumer protections, and strengthening the cybersecurity
position of the insurance industry.
SENATOR KAUFMAN expressed appreciation to the committee for
their consideration.
2:13:37 PM
DOMINICK HARNETT, Staff, Senator James Kaufman, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sectional analysis
for SB 134 on behalf of the sponsor:
Section 1:
AS 21.96 is amended by adding new sections related to
insurance data security.
Sec. 21.96.250. Risk Assessment
Licensees shall conduct a risk assessment of nonpublic
information.
• In conducting the risk assessment, the licensee
shall identify reasonably foreseeable internal and
external threats, assess the likelihood and
potential damage of threats, and assess the
sufficiency of current safeguards in protecting
nonpublic information.
• A licensee shall use this risk assessment to design
the information security program required in the
next section.
Sec. 21.96.260. Information Security Program
Licensees shall develop, implement, and maintain an
information security program.
• The program is to be based off the threats
identified in Sec 21.96.250.
• Licensees shall designate one or more employees,
an outside vendor, or third-party service
provider to be responsible for the security
program.
• A licensee's information security program must:
• Contain safeguards to protect security and
confidentiality of nonpublic information and
the information system
• Protect against threats, hazards, and
unauthorized access to nonpublic information
• Establish a schedule for retention of
nonpublic information
• Establish a mechanism for secure destruction
of nonpublic information.
• The development and upkeep process of the
licensee's information security program shall:
• Implement appropriate security measures such
as information access controls,
identification and management of data access
points, physical access controls,
encryption, secure development practices,
regular tests, audit trails, disaster
responses, and secure disposal
• Determine cybersecurity risks to include in
the licensee's risk management process
• Stay informed of emerging threats or
vulnerabilities
• Include cybersecurity risks in the
licensee's enterprise-wide risk management
process
• Provide personnel with cybersecurity
awareness training
• Implement information safeguards addressing
identified threats and annually assess
effectiveness of safeguards
• Exercise due diligence in the third-party
service provider selection process
• Monitor, evaluate, and adjust the
information security program as appropriate
• Establish a written incident response plan
for responding to a cybersecurity event that
addresses
• Internal response processes
• Goals of the plan
• Roles, responsibilities, and decision
authority
• Internal processes for communication and
information sharing
• Plans for how to remediate identified
weaknesses
• Documentation and reporting of
cybersecurity events
• Evaluation and revision process of
incident response plan
• 21.96.250(d) requires the licensee board to
delegate responsibility of the program to
executive management which is required to at
least once a year develop a report that:
• Provides overall status of the information
security program and compliance with the
contents of this bill
• Material matters related to the information
security program such as assessments,
decisions, test results, cybersecurity
events, and more
• If the executive management uses a delegate to
implement the program, the executive management
is required to oversee the development of the
program by the delegate
• 21.96.260(f) sets requirements for licensees
domiciled in the state to submit annual reports
to the Director of Insurance certifying that the
licensee complies with AS 21.96.50, including
keeping records for at least five years.
Sec. 21.96.270. Investigation of cybersecurity event
Sets investigating requirements for licensees when a
cybersecurity event occurs.
• If a cybersecurity event occurs, the licensee or
responsible party shall investigate the event and
assess the nature and scope of the event, identify
nonpublic information involved, restore the security
of the information systems that were compromised,
and retain relevant information for a period of at
least 5 years
Sec. 21.96.280. Notification of cybersecurity event
Sets notification criteria for licensees when a
cybersecurity event occurs
• Licensees must notify the director of insurance
within 72 hours of a cybersecurity event occurring.
Licensees are affected if:
• They are insurers domiciled in the state
• They are insurance producers in which Alaska is
their home state
• The cybersecurity event involves nonpublic
information of 250 or more consumers and the
event and:
• State or federal law requires notice to a
government agency
• There is a reasonable likelihood of
materially harming a consumer in the state
or the licensee's normal operations
• The report to the director of insurance must include
information specified in AS 21.96.280(b)(1-13) in a
form and format as prescribed by the director
• 21.96.280(e) allows the 72-hour notification period
to begin one day after the licensee is made aware of
a cybersecurity event affecting information systems
maintained by third-party service providers
• 21.96.280(f) sets requirements for assuming insurers
to notify affected ceding insurers and the
appropriate supervisory official of the licensee's
state of domicile
Sec. 21.96.290. Confidentiality
Establishes that all information shared with the
Division by licensees remains strictly confidential.
This means that the information is:
• not subject to inspection and copying under
AS 40.25.110
• not obtainable by subpoena or discovery
• not admissible in evidence in private civil
action
21.96.290(b), (c), (d), (e) gives privileges to the
director when using documents, materials, or
information as described earlier in this section when
done in the performance of the duties of the director.
Sec. 21.96.300. Applicability
This section establishes the criteria for which
licensees are not subject to the provisions set by
this bill.
• Licensee with fewer than 10 employees
• Licensees that are employees, agents,
representatives, or designees of another licensee
that is already covered by an information
security program
• Licensee is subject to and in compliance with the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-191)
Sec. 21.96.310. Enforcement; penalties
Adds additional powers of examination and
investigation to the director under AS 21.06.120.
• Does not create or imply a private cause of
action if a licensee is found in violation of the
stipulations within this bill (AS 21.96.250
21.96.399)
Sec. 21.96.399. Definitions
Adds definitions. Highlighted definitions are listed
below:
• "Cybersecurity event" means an event resulting in
unauthorized access to or disruption or misuses
of an information system or information stored on
the information system
• "Information security program" means the
administrative, technical, and physical
safeguards that a licensee uses to access,
collect, distribute, process, protect, store,
use, transmit, dispose of, or otherwise handle
nonpublic information
• "Licensee" means a person licensed, authorized to
operate, or registered, or required to be
licensed, authorized, or registered, under the
insurance laws of the State of Alaska
Section 2:
Rule 26, 402, and 501 Alaska Rules of evidence
changes.
• Rules 26 - Prohibits discovery of evidence in the
possession or control of the division of
insurance that was provided by a licensee under
AS 21.96.260(f) or 21.96.280(b)(2)-(5), (8),
(10), or (11) or that is obtained by the director
in an investigation or examination under AS
21.96.310.
• Rule 402 and 501 AS 21.96.290(a)(4) and (c)
enacted in Sec. 1 of this Act prevent the
director of the division of insurance acting
under the authority of the director from being
compelled to testify about confidential or
privileged documents. It also precludes
admissibility of evidence in a private action of
documents, materials, or other privileged
information.
Section 3:
This section notices the Division to begin the process
of writing regulations but does not implement any
before the effective date in Sec. 8 of this Act.
Section 4:
A conditional effect for AS 21.96.290(a)(3) and (4)
and (c) enacted by Sec. 1 of this bill requires a two-
thirds majority vote of each house as required for
court rules changes required by art. IV, sec. 15, of
the Constitution of the State of Alaska
Section 5:
Sec.3 takes effect immediately so that the Division of
Insurance can start drafting regulations.
Section 6:
Sets an effective date for several provisions of this
bill of January 1, 2025 to give insurance companies
and producers time to comply.
Section 7:
Sets an effective date of January 1, 2026 to give
insurance companies and producers time to find a
third-party service provider.
Section 8:
Except as provided in secs. 5 7 of this bill, this
Act takes effect January 1, 2024, thus allowing time
for compliance.
2:24:03 PM
SENATOR KIEHL expressed gratitude to the bill sponsor for
bringing this bill forward, stating he is a fan of privacy
protections. He expressed that SB 134 is a starting point to
better understand the scope of the issue. He referred to the
definitions section, stating the bill appears to focus
exclusively on cybersecurity and computerized information. He
asked whether anything in the bill, or already in statute,
addresses how insurance companies protect personally
identifiable information in physical form, such as paper
records.
2:24:50 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN said his intention is to defer questions of a
broader scope to the director of the Division of Insurance.
2:25:30 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN directed the question to Director Wing-Heier.
2:25:42 PM
LORI WING-HEIER, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development, Anchorage, Alaska,
replied that AS 21 provides for some very limited authority in
the event of a data breach. It does not extend to cybersecurity.
She noted that nearly every agency is now paper-free, meaning
the primary concern is a cyber risk rather than physical paper
risks. She clarified that while the Division's authority is
limited, insurers are required to report breaches. When a breach
occurs, the Division works with the company to ensure clients
are notified and appropriate remedies, such as free credit
monitoring, are offered based on the specifics of the situation.
2:26:36 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that SB 134 includes language about notifying
the director of the Division of Insurance when a cybersecurity
event or data breach occurs but does not appear to directly
address consumer notification. The statutes reference the Alaska
Personal Information Protection Act and questioned whether it
requires consumer notification. He asked whether existing
statutes address how notification is handled.
2:27:03 PM
MS. WING-HEIER replied that while the Alaska Statutes give very
limited statutory direction, the Division would most definitely
require notification to consumers if their data were
compromised. She shared some recent headline news about a Change
Healthcare data breach, stating that Change Healthcare, a
platform owned by UnitedHealth [Group], experienced a breach in
February that severely disrupted pharmacies, hospitals, and
medical clinics nationwide. She explained that Change Healthcare
provides various platforms for preauthorization of medical
services and prescriptions, and the breach left many facilities
unable to operate normally.
MS. WING-HEIER stated that the Division has very little
authority to work with Change Healthcare because Alaska does not
have a cybersecurity law. She reported that she had just
returned from the spring National Association of Insurance
Commissioners (NAIC) meeting last night, where the chief
executive officer (CEO) participated in a regulator-to-regulator
session. She said the CEO was strongly questioned due to the
massive scale of the breach. Some clinics and facilities may be
forced to close because they are not receiving payments and
cannot meet payroll obligations. Change Healthcare not only
processes UnitedHealthcare claims, but handles claims for many
insurance companies, doctors, and pharmacists.
MS. WING-HEIER said the Division issued a bulletin to try and
help consumers, emphasizing that it was about as far as she
could go under current law.
2:28:39 PM
SENATOR KIEHL sought confirmation about consumer breach
notifications, asking whether she is comfortable with AS 45.48,
and other statutes, providing sufficient authority to notify or
require an insurer to notify customers of a breach of their
data.
MS. WING-HEIER replied that the Division of Insurance relies on
existing statutory authority to ensure consumer notification of
a breach of their data.
2:29:10 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that, if the legislature wanted, it could
add a provision to statute that required consumer notification.
2:29:19 PM
SENATOR TOBIN noted that the definition section in SB 134
includes some thorough definitions and remarked that she would
be hard-pressed to craft definitions as eloquently written. She
asked whether the sponsor based the bill on model legislation
from another entity or whether the sponsor's staff drafted the
definitions.
SENATOR KAUFMAN expressed appreciation for his staff, describing
them as marvelous, and said SB 134 was a collaborative effort.
He stated that while other models influenced the definitions,
the bill also reflects input from industry professionals and
other stakeholders. He explained that the team developed a
matrix to identify problems, propose solutions, and mitigate
potential effects. He said the work is ongoing and anticipates
further input and clarification as the bill moves forward.
SENATOR KAUFMAN highlighted that while the comprehensive list of
actions outlined in the bill is remarkable, even more so is the
realization that many of these data protections are not yet
standard practice. He said that though the goal of protecting
data is simple, the complexity lies in implementing it without
increasing costs, creating bottlenecks, or introducing
irreconcilable conflicts.
2:31:24 PM
SENATOR TOBIN stated that one of the strongest levels of
consumer protection is double encryption but expressed
uncertainty about its feasibility within the insurance industry.
She explained that achieving such protection would require
decoupling identifying information to enable end-to-end
encryption. She asked whether it is possible to decouple
identifying information to provide an extra level of consumer
protection, or whether that would be too great a hill to climb.
MS. WING-HEIER replied that specific claim information is double
encrypted, particularly within health payment utilization
databases. She noted that while claim data is transmitted with
encryption, underwriting information is not necessarily double
encrypted. She explained that if a data breach were to occur
during the underwriting process, it could expose individual
files containing sensitive personal details like Social Security
numbers, dates of birth, and other collected information. She
emphasized that this concern applies not only to health or life
insurance, but to all types of insurance.
2:32:44 PM
SENATOR TOBIN said she was unsure whether additional protections
were possible within the current framework. She referenced the
definition of "encrypt" on page 13, line 19, and questioned
whether there might be opportunities to strengthen the language
or add provisions to enhance data security. She expressed
concern for her own family members, noting that while they rely
on various insurance tools for protection, it is equally
important to ensure that their personal data is safeguarded.
SENATOR TOBIN asked whether there is a way to provide some
clarity on what the committee can and cannot double encrypt and
about other protections the committee could add. The expectation
is to decouple as much information as possible.
MS. WING-HEIER replied that she could work with the bill sponsor
and his staff but surmised insurers would likely say that
changes to their platforms and programs would be necessary. She
stated that she would look into the matter and report back on
whether additional safeguards could be incorporated into the
bill to better protect personal information.
2:34:32 PM
SENATOR KIEHL observed that SB 134 includes deadlines for
insurers to notify the director when a breach occurs in a system
maintained by a third party under contract with the insurer. He
noted that the notification timeline begins once the third party
informs the insurer. He asked whether there is a deadline by
which the third party must notify the insurer.
SENATOR KAUFMAN replied that the chain of notification, how to
manage it, and the related accountabilities are part of the
ongoing work of SB 134. He deferred to the director to address
some of the details.
2:35:20 PM
MS. WING-HEIER stated that the insurance industry approached the
bill sponsor and asked for a notification deadline revision from
72 hours to three days. She agreed to the change on the
condition that the first day begins when the insurer is notified
of the breach. She explained that this becomes more complicated
with third-party vendors because the Division does not have
direct statutory or regulatory authority over them. She
clarified, however, that she does have authority over the
insurance company and can hold insurers accountable for their
vendors' actions. She emphasized that insurers are liable for
their vendors' conduct.
MS. WING-HEIER reiterated that the Division expects the insurer,
not the vendor, to notify the department within three days of
being informed of a breach. She added that this issue has been a
major topic of discussion, particularly as the algorithms and
models used by third-party vendors present concerns.
MS. WING-HEIER concluded by stating SB 134 proposes the insurer
inform the Division within three days of when the vendor
notifies them. Ideally, the insurer's contract requires the
vendor to make immediate notification.
2:36:30 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said he is interested in working with the
sponsor's office and the director on language that would require
insurance companies to include contractual provisions that
ensure timely notification of a data breach. He said the goal is
to give the director the power to enforce such provisions and
activate a response plan to prevent situations where affected
individuals never receive notice.
SENATOR KIEHL shifted to a new topic, referencing the director's
use of the word "liable." He brought up the confidentiality
provisions in SB 134, stating that it is unclear how far they
extend. It appears the provisions prohibit disclosure of
personal identifiable information in lawsuits against a company.
However, it is not clear whether they prohibit any information
from the Division from being used in court if an individual sues
a company for violating cybersecurity rules. He asked how far
those confidentiality provisions go.
MS. WING-HEIER replied that it is fairly clear that the Division
has to keep confidential any market conduct, examination, or
investigation files. However, this does not prevent a private
citizen from obtaining information directly from the insurance
company through court action. She explained that to ensure an
investigation is not impeded, Division files are confidential;
this is true for about any investigation the Division conducts.
She said that while Division files are confidential, it does not
bar individuals from pursuing them through the parties
responsible for the data breach.
2:38:29 PM
SENATOR KIEHL sought confirmation that the need for a court rule
change is consistent with existing process and practice.
MS. WING-HEIER replied that is precisely why SB 134 requires a
court rule change. She explained that, under standard
procedures, a person might be able to obtain information from
the Division as the entity in possession of the data. However, a
provision in SB 134 explicitly states that such information
cannot be obtained from the Division. Instead, individuals must
seek it from the party responsible for the breach, such as the
insurance company, adjuster, or brokerage firm that held the
data.
SENATOR KIEHL responded that, in that case, this provision
appears to differ from standard practice.
MS. WING-HEIER agreed and clarified her answer, confirming that
it does differ. She noted that is why the court rule change is
necessary and why it requires a two-thirds vote for adoption of
the change.
2:39:30 PM
SENATOR TOBIN expressed her understanding that SB 134 exempts
small brokerage firms with fewer than ten employees. She assumed
this exemption was intended to avoid placing an undue burden on
smaller firms. She asked how the exemption would apply to
brokerage firms operating under a franchise model. She explained
that her own insurance provider, for example, operates under the
auspices of New York Life but may only have one or two employees
in the local office. She asked whether such franchised offices
would be required to meet the stipulations of the legislation or
would fall under its exemption.
MS. WING-HEIER replied, in that example of a franchise, the
Division expects firms such as Marsh McLennan Agency, State
Farm, or Allstate to comply. However, under SB 134, small
independent businesses with ten employees or fewer would be
eligible for a compliance waiver.
SENATOR TOBIN requested a better understanding of the court rule
change.
2:41:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN invited Ms. Meade from the Alaska Court System to
put herself on the record to answer questions.
2:41:28 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Offices, Alaska
Court System, Anchorage, Alaska, answered questions during the
discussion of SB 134.
2:41:39 PM
SENATOR TOBIN referenced the indirect court rule amendments on
page 15 of SB 134. She noted that the language essentially
establishes a change in court rules and creates new privileges
for the Division of Insurance. She expressed interest in hearing
the Alaska Court System interpretation of and input on these
provisions, noting that court rule changes should be made
judiciously.
2:42:08 PM
MS. MEADE said SB 134 proposes fairly routine court rule
changes, which the legislature makes when it establishes
statutory provisions that are part of substantive legislation.
MS. MEADE referred to page 10, line 22, which outlines specific
and unique confidentiality provisions that would be privileged
and not subject to discovery. These provisions are directly
linked to the first indirect court rule amendment, Rule 26, the
discovery rule, found on page 15, line 15. She stated that, in
general, the discovery rule allows parties in a civil case to
obtain any relevant information that would help them in
preparing their case unless an exception applies. SB 134 creates
such an exemption on page 10, starting on line 22. It is a
discovery rule exception and because it affects Rule 26, a
corresponding amendment is required in the indirect court rule
amendment section on page 15.
MS. MEADE continued explaining proposed changes to Alaska Rules
of Evidence 402 and 501 on page 15, line 21. These changes
pertain to admissible evidence and recognized privileges, such
as spousal or psychotherapist-patient privilege. Alaska Rules of
Evidence 402 and 501 must recognize these special privilege
changes in law, which is the basis for these indirect court rule
amendments.
2:44:12 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN observed that one of the challenges in highly
accessible internet environments, such as insurance, is
balancing access and privacy. He said that as a consumer, people
want to find information about their coverage, whether it be
medical, auto, or otherwise. Consumers want to find information
quickly and easily without navigating numerous layers. By the
same token, consumers want their personal data to remain
inaccessible to others. He praised SB 134 for addressing this
complex dynamic. The legislation enables consumer access while
preventing unauthorized access, a balance that is difficult to
achieve.
2:45:21 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN agreed, noting that achieving this balance has
been central to the legislation. He stated that SB 134 affects
many components and must be implemented carefully to avoid
loopholes. He remarked that the bill reflects the broader
challenge of updating statutes in a rapidly evolving
technological environment. Gaps in statute occur when the speed
of technology outpaces lawmaking, and making these changes is
not easy, often causing updates to languish. He emphasized the
importance of crafting legislation that not only protects data
but also facilitates commerce by allowing consumers controlled
access to their information through secure portals.
2:46:44 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on SB 134; finding none, he
closed public testimony.
2:47:03 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN held SB 134 in committee.
2:47:21 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Claman adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:47 p.m.