02/03/2011 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB7 | |
| SB30 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 3, 2011
9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Chair
Senator Kevin Meyer
Senator Catherine Giessel
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Joe Paskvan, Vice Chair
Senator Albert Kookesh
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 7
"An Act relating to the civil rights of felons."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 30
"An Act providing for the release of certain property in the
custody of a law enforcement agency to the owner under certain
conditions."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 7
SHORT TITLE: FELONS' RIGHT TO VOTE OR BE JURORS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DAVIS
01/19/11 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/19/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/11 (S) STA, JUD
02/03/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 30
SHORT TITLE: RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DYSON
01/19/11 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/19/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/11 (S) STA, JUD
02/03/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 7.
TOM OBERMEYER, Staff to Senator Bettye Davis
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 7 for the sponsor.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 7.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney
Legal Services
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 7.
CARMEN GUTIERREZ, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained provisions of SB 7.
DR. ALONZO PATTERSON, Pastor
Shiloh Baptist Church
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 7.
CAL WILLIAMS, Vice President
NAACP of Anchorage
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 7.
TROY BUCKNER, President
Anchorage Urban League
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 7.
SENATOR FRED DYSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 30.
CHUCK KOPP, Staff to Senator Fred Dyson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained provisions of SB 30.
VICTOR KESTER, Executive Director
Alaska Office of Victims Rights
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 30.
LIEUTENANT RODNEY DIAL
Alaska State Troopers
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions concerning SB 30.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:00:07 AM
CHAIR BILL WIELECHOWSKI called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Giessel, Meyer, and Chair Wielechowski.
Senators Paskvan and Kookesh were excused.
SB 7-FELONS' RIGHT TO VOTE OR BE JURORS
9:00:42 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced the first order of business would
be SB 7.
SENATOR DAVIS, sponsor of SB 7, stated this is not the first
time this bill has been introduced, but it is an important
issue.
9:01:19 AM
TOM OBERMEYER, staff to Senator Bettye Davis, noted that
currently the right to vote remains suspended from the date of a
felony conviction to the date of release from all provisions of
the sentence, including probation and parole. Harsher sentencing
laws have allowed the prison population to balloon, while
reducing rehabilitative programs to almost nonexistent. Article
1, Section 12, of the Alaska Constitution requires that criminal
administration shall be based upon the philosophy of
reformation. He stated that in 2009 more than 10,000 Alaskans
were ineligible to vote pursuant to this provision. In Alaska
the prison population increased from 800 prisoners in 1984 to
over 5,000 prisoners in 2008, an increase of over 600 percent.
Of those incarcerated in Alaska, 48 percent were Caucasian and
52 percent were minorities.
MR. OBERMEYER said that felons face discrimination as they try
to reenter society, and that restoring the right to vote is
critical to successful reentry into society after incarceration,
and is consistent with the modern ideal of universal suffrage.
He added that SB 7 would limit disenfranchisement to those
actually incarcerated, and would give felons the right to vote
upon release. Felon disenfranchisement standards rest on
outdated practices, and former U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Marshall said it is doubtful whether any state can demonstrate a
compelling interest in denying felons the right to vote.
MR. OBERMEYER noted that the bill has a zero fiscal note.
9:06:54 AM
SENATOR MEYER asked how "moral turpitude" is defined.
MR. OBERMEYER replied it is defined under AS 15.80.010(9) [AS
15.05.030(a)] as "those crimes that are immoral or wrong
themselves, such as murder." There appears to be no statutory
reference to felonies not involving moral turpitude.
SENATOR MEYER then asked for a definition of "unconditional
discharge."
9:09:18 AM
MR. OBERMEYER responded that is a better question for Ms.
Gutierrez, but the purpose of SB 7 is to let felony offenders
vote immediately upon release from prison, regardless of
unconditional discharge.
SENATOR MEYER asked if a person still on probation has served
his or her full sentence.
MR. OBERMEYER responded that probation is a historic process of
allowing people to perform while out of prison. The only way to
easily administer this bill is to give released felons the right
to vote immediately. He noted that if they are reincarcerated,
then their voting rights can be taken away again. They have
served good time in order to get parole, and hopefully are
better citizens when they are released.
SENATOR MEYER stated concern that a person still on parole could
serve on a jury if SB 7 passes.
9:12:40 AM
MR. OBERMEYER replied that there is no way to know what people
will do once released; but hopefully they want to do the right
thing, and that continued retribution hinders the process of
reintegrating into society.
SENATOR GIESSEL said that some of the felonies that involve
moral turpitude are sexual abuse, incest, perjury, child
pornography, endangering the welfare of a minor, and misuse of
controlled substances. Some of these have high recidivism rates,
and she is concerned about giving felons the right to vote while
on probation. Current law says that after a felon has completed
parole or probation, their rights are restored; in fact, more
than 17,000 felons had their voting rights restored in 2008-
2009.
9:14:35 AM
MR. OBERMEYER said he doesn't see this as a problem, and noted
that some states don't even take voting rights away upon a
felony conviction. He further stated that the Alaska
constitution is pointing toward a model of rehabilitation and
reformation. People must have their civil rights restored in
order to be able to vote. With modern procedures, the Division
of Elections can change a person's status on-line. Mr. Obermeyer
also said that the ACLU cites a study indicating that the
numbers of people who have been re-enfranchised shows a link
between voting participation and re-offense; those who vote are
half as likely to be re-arrested.
9:18:53 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI noted this is a good discussion to have,
because recidivism is a revolving door and the costs to the
state are enormous.
9:19:26 AM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), stated the department's concerns with
SB 7 are legal, not philosophical, although the criminal
division does have concerns about people who are recently
released from incarceration serving on juries. Philosophically,
the DOL shares the sponsor's concerns. She explained that the
legal issue is difficult, because the constitution is very
clear; there is no right to vote until the person's civil rights
are restored. Serving on a jury or possessing a handgun, for
instance, are civil rights and being on probation or parole does
restrict a person's civil rights.
9:21:50 AM
SENATOR MEYER asked if being on probation is part of a person's
sentence.
MS. CARPENETI replied yes, probation is still part of the
sentence and the conditions of probation do limit a person's
civil rights.
9:22:38 AM
SENATOR MEYER stated the voting part doesn't bother him as much
as someone serving on a jury while still on probation.
MS. CARPENETI responded that a person becomes part of the jury
pool by virtue of applying for a PFD.
SENATOR MEYER asked if a person serving a sentence may receive a
PFD.
MS. CARPENETI replied that PFDs are suspended for most felons.
She emphasized that the Department of Law does not have a
position on SB 7 at this point, but there are practical issues
that need to be considered.
9:24:03 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked what part of the constitution she was
referring to.
MS. CARPENETI said that it was Article 5, Section 2.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI read from that document, "No person may vote
who has been convicted of a felony, until that person's civil
rights have been restored." So the question remains, at what
point a person's civil rights are restored.
MS. CARPENETI responded that under current law, a person who has
been convicted of a felony can vote when the conditions of
probation and parole have been satisfied. She noted that
definition is in statute.
9:25:20 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if restoration is automatic or part of
a process.
MS. CARPENETI responded that she believes they can just go to
the Division of Elections and register.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked Mr. Obermeyer to walk the committee
through the bill.
9:26:20 AM
MR. OBERMEYER said that Section 1 would change AS 9.20.020(2)
from a person being disqualified from serving as a juror until
unconditional discharge to being disqualified until release from
prison.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if unconditional discharge is
automatic.
MR. OBERMEYER answered that the disability has to be removed by
the Department of Corrections, and they send information to the
Division of Elections, then the person has to go the Division of
Elections and reapply. In the past, this happened after
unconditional discharge. He noted that in some cases,
restitution is also involved, which makes it more difficult for
people to have their civil rights restored.
9:29:35 AM
He further explained that Section 2 changes AS 15.05.30(a) to
provide that a person convicted of a crime that constitutes a
felony involving moral turpitude under state or federal law will
be advised of voter registration requirements and procedures
upon release, and the Division of Corrections will notify the
Division of Elections that the person is entitled to be
registered as a voter. Section 3 changes AS 15.07.135 to provide
that the voter registration of a person convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude will be cancelled only while that
person is incarcerated, instead of until that person's
unconditional discharge from custody. Section 4 changes AS
33.30.241(a) to provide that a person convicted of a crime that
constitutes a felony involving moral turpitude under state or
federal law is disqualified from voting while incarcerated
instead of being disqualified from voting until the person's
unconditional discharge.
9:30:58 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked why SB 7 includes federal law.
MR. OBEMEYER responded that many felony offenders, including
most drug offenses, wind up in federal prisons. He further
stated that Section 5 changes AS 33.30.241(b) as it relates to
jury duty, and Section 6 repeals AS 15.60.010(39), a definition
of unconditional discharge, and AS 33.30.241(c), a definition of
unconditional discharge.
9:32:31 AM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legal Services, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that "federal" is added on page 2, line
28, to create a consistent standard. If someone is able to vote
for governor or for mayor, they should be able to vote for their
senator as well.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked what the current law is.
MR. BULLARD replied he believes a convicted felon who has not
been unconditionally discharged is unable to vote in a federal
election.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked what is being repealed in Section 6,
with the reference to AS 33.30.241(c).
MR. BULLARD responded that it is a conforming reference to the
definition of unconditional discharge that is found at AS
12.55.185.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked, "In your opinion is there a
constitutional issue with this bill?"
MR. BULLARD stated that he does not have a legal opinion on that
issue. He further stated that Article 5, Section 2 of the Alaska
State Constitution provides that a person who has convicted of a
felony cannot vote until his civil rights have been restored.
What "civil rights being restored" means for the purpose of this
clause has not been explored by our state's courts.
9:36:19 AM
CARMEN GUTIERREZ, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections
(DOC), explained she is responsible for prisoner rehabilitation
and re-entry. She said that DOC is committed to upholding its
constitutional responsibility to provide reform and
rehabilitation for persons under its jurisdiction, and she
emphasized that they are trying to provide rehabilitative
services in their institutions, and are very supportive of
efforts to reintegrate prisoners into the community. She noted
that in 2008 the DOC released 287 convicted felons every month.
If these people are not successfully reintegrated they come
back; Alaska's recidivism rate is 66 percent, and most are
within the first year of release.
MS. GUTIERREZ further noted that page 2 of SB 7, under (b),
states "the commissioner of corrections shall notify the
director that the person is entitled to be registered." She said
this language makes it appear that the commissioner is being
asked to render a legal opinion, and it may be better stated
that the person has been released from custody.
MS. GUTIERREZ also said that, with regard to the impact of SB 7
on the department, when an individual is unconditionally
discharged from probation, meaning he or she has satisfied all
conditions of probation DOC issues a notice both to the
probationer and the Division of Elections. She noted it may be
helpful at this point to understand the differences between
parole and probation, and between mandatory and discretionary
parole. Discretionary parole is when an individual asks for
early release; if the parole board finds it appropriate, the
person will be released early. Mandatory parole comes when an
offender receives the benefit of good time credit, which most
offenders do; one-quarter of their sentence is reduced for good
behavior. She further explained that probation is usually part
of a person's sentence, and that mandatory parole and probation
are served at the same time; probation can be anywhere from
three to five to ten years. In 2008 the DOC released just over
1,700 people on to parole and almost 7,000 on to probation.
Today the DOC has about 6,000 individuals on probation, and
approximately 850 are on abscond status, meaning they are no
longer reporting, and warrants have been issued for their
arrest.
9:44:04 AM
MS. GUTIERREZ further explained that the second issue for
consideration is the filing of petitions to revoke because of
failure to comply with probation requirements. Over a six month
period, a snapshot review showed the Anchorage probation
department filed 178 - 200 revocation petitions every month.
When a petition to revoke probation is filed, she said,
sometimes the person is arrested quickly, sometimes not. So
there could be some record keeping logistics in terms of
verifying who is incarcerated and who is not. She emphasized
that this is something to be aware of, but the DOC remains
supportive of all efforts to rehabilitate, consistent with
preserving public safety.
9:46:25 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI noted the ACLU says that recent research
finds a link between voting participation and re-offense, in
which people who voted after release were half as likely to be
re-arrested as those who didn't. He asked if the DOC agrees.
MS. GUTIERREZ stated she was unaware of this research, and her
consultant was unaware of it, but she would like to review the
research. She finds it very interesting and compelling, but
can't yet comment on it.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI responded that if restoration of voting
rights can reduce recidivism, then we are talking about a huge
savings to state.
MS. GUTIERREZ stated that recidivism can be reduced by just 10
percent it would be a huge savings to the state and to the
citizens, because fewer new victims would be created and our
communities would be safer and healthier.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked Ms. Gutierrez to check with her
consultants and see if they agreed with this research, because
that would be a very compelling reason to pass SB 7. Reducing
recidivism and preventing future crimes, he stated, would have a
very positive impact on the state. He then asked if a person is
automatically discharged once they have completed the conditions
of their probation and parole.
MS. GUTIERREZ replied that when a person has satisfied the
conditions of their probation or parole, they are given a
document that states they are unconditionally discharged, and at
that point they can register to vote.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the DOC has any problems with
providing written notification of the unconditional release.
MS. GUTIERREZ replied that the DOC is already doing that.
9:50:32 AM
DR. ALONZO PATTERSON, Pastor, Shiloh Baptist Church, Anchorage,
said he has served with the parole system for thirteen years and
that he supports SB 7 to help people being released from prison
feel they are a part of society. When a person is released, the
institution says they are rehabilitated, but fulfilling their
obligations can go on for years, in some cases because of a
technicality. Dr. Patterson stated that he is supportive of
felons having the right to vote as soon as they are released
from jail.
9:55:17 AM
CAL WILLIAMS, Vice President, NAACP of Anchorage, stated that he
served as a commissioner on the prison industry commission, and
that the right to vote is a key factor in reducing recidivism.
He further stated that the NAACP stands for rehabilitation and
reintegration into society, and that the NAACP of Anchorage
supports SB 7.
TROY BUCKNER, President, Anchorage Urban League, said the
League's focus is economic and educational parity for people of
color and poor people, and that the Anchorage Urban League
supports SB 7.
10:00:25 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced that SB 7 would be set aside for
further consideration.
SB 30-RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY
10:01:15 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced consideration of SB 30.
SENATOR FRED DYSON, sponsor of SB 30, said the bill is about
restorative justice. Last year an identical bill, SB 297, made
it through the Judiciary Committee but no further. He said SB 30
is designed to further enhance the process of returning property
to victims whose property has been seized as a result of a
crime. In AS 12.36.020, the legislature added a separate
paragraph stating that if commercial fishing nets have been
stolen, those need to be returned right away. He knows of a
custom boat builder who was building a $300,000 boat, and one
night $40,000 worth of electronics disappeared. The builder got
about two-thirds back through visiting pawnshops and Craigslist,
but the police took it as evidence and he had to repurchase
$40,000 worth of gear. To avoid this situation, he said, some
people don't report the theft of equipment; instead, they
repossess it themselves.
10:05:19 AM
CHUCK KOPP, Staff to Senator Fred Dyson, said SB 30 gives
property owners the right to request a hearing for the return of
their property from police custody, and also requires that the
hearing request be submitted to the court. The court may order
return of the property upon satisfactory proof of ownership. As
the law changes, the agency could be in a position to show the
court that they can or cannot have the property returned. He
further explained that SB 30 provides the court may impose
reasonable conditions on an owner reclaiming property. Police
are often cast in the role of advocates for business owners, and
would like to return property to the owner as soon as possible,
but the defense may resist for various reasons. The court may
say you can use the property, but not lease or sell it. This
right of hearing for property owners is not currently provided
in law, which imposes a heavy burden on victims. Mr. Kopp added
that SB 30 is supported by the Alaska Peace Officers Association
and the Office of Victims Rights, and that the intent is not to
jeopardize prosecutions, but to make sure that evidence is only
held as long as absolutely necessary.
10:10:28 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI brought up the case in the Mat-Su Valley
where dogs were seized and are currently in custody, and asked
if the owner in that case could request return of the dogs.
MR. KOPP responded that under SB 30, the owner could request
return of the dogs, but he did not believe a judge would allow
them to be returned. In that case, the judge would probably
calendar a hearing after the trial date.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked what would be the standard for a judge
analyzing cases.
MR. KOPP replied that the court often makes determinations by
talking to both counsel and looking at the weight of evidence;
nothing in SB 30 prevents the court from making individual
determinations.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI noted that currently a person can file a
civil lawsuit requesting return of property, and asked what SB
30 changes.
MR. KOPP said an owner may request return of his property
without filing a lawsuit, and the court may impose reasonable
conditions on an order claiming property under this section.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked what agency would be involved.
MR. KOPP answered any agency which is responsible for the
enforcement or the prosecution of the law, such as state
troopers or municipal police, and the Department of Law.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the DOL would be required to go to
court.
MR. KOPP explained that the DOL would be required to file the
request for a hearing, and court could calendar the hearing at
its discretion.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked why SB 30 has an undetermined fiscal
note.
10:15:48 AM
MR. KOPP replied that the fiscal note is undetermined at
present, because the Department of Law doesn't know how many
people will request hearings; however, they do not expect a rush
of hearing requests.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI opened public testimony.
VICTOR KESTER, Executive Director, Office of Victims Rights
(OVR), testified in support of SB 30. The OVR believes SB 30
provides an important mechanism for property owners, because
often property crime victims have to wait months if not years
for return of their property. SB 30 would allow a victim to
request a hearing before a judge, and work with others to
determine the best interests of justice. Mr. Kester noted that
the OVR believes in the principle of restorative justice, and
said that SB 30 appropriately balances the interests of those
involved.
10:19:15 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if anyone was present from the Alaska
State Troopers or the Court System.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety (DPS), said the DPS is officially neutral on SB
30, and that the standard practice is to return property as
quickly as possible. Sometimes ownership is contested, so in
that case a court hearing would be good thing. He has supervised
evidence facilities and can't think of a case where someone has
needed property back immediately and did not receive it; they
always try to find means to make that happen, such as
photographing property.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many cases involve taking
possession of evidence.
LIEUTENANT DIAL replied that most cases result in evidence being
taken in some manner; maybe 10,000 cases per year, statewide,
result in property being seized and put into facilities. The
goal is always to get the property returned as soon as possible.
In some cases, the property is forfeited to the state, or
destroyed because it is contraband. He further stated that he
has supervised evidence facilities in Southeast Alaska for six
years, and can't remember a case where he was not able to
quickly get critical equipment or property returned to an owner.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI stated one concern is that, if you have
10,000 cases where evidence is seized, and if even ten percent
of people ask for hearings, there is potential for thousands of
cases going to court.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said the request would probably go through him,
as a facilities manager, and he would probably call the district
attorney to resolve the problem; if SB 30 passed, he would do
the same thing, and the DA's office would have to determine if
it wanted to request a hearing or return the evidence. He would
not expect the request for a court hearing to be made in most
cases.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked what kind of evidence is typically
seized.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that the vast majority is physical
evidence, such as recordings and photos. In a property crime
they would seize stolen property that they recover. If it is
stolen property, they would prefer to retain the item for trial,
and most people agree.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he was aware of cases where people
were forced to file a civil suit.
LIEUTENANT DIAL replied that in 20 years he has not seen that.
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it was a problem in other
jurisdictions.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said he has been stationed at every geographic
location in the state and has not seen a problem, because the
policy is always to return evidence as soon as possible.
10:27:44 AM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked him to define "as soon as possible."
LIEUTENANT DIAL said the idea is to return the property
immediately. There are cases where it's possible to photograph
the property on scene and return it right away; in more complex
cases, such as felony cases, it can be a matter of days.
10:28:46 AM
CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced he would hold SB 30 for further
consideration.
10:29:09 AM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Wielechowski adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting at 10:29 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 7 Sponsor Statement Rev. 1-26-2011.pdf |
SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
Felons' Right to Vote or Be Jurors SB 7 |
| SB 7 Supporting Document - ACLU Model Testimony.pdf |
SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
Felons' Right to Vote or Be Jurors SB 7 |
| SB 7 Supporting Document - NCSL Legisbrief - Felon Voting Rights.pdf |
SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
Felons' Right to Vote or Be Jurors SB 7 |
| SB 7 Supporting Document -The Sentencing Project - US Senate.pdf |
SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
Felons' Right to Vote or Be Jurors SB 7 |
| SB 7 Sectional Summary 27-LS0083A.pdf |
SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
Felons' Right to Vote or Be Jurors SB 7 |
| SB 30 Fiscal Note (Law).pdf |
SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
Return of Seized Property SB 30 |
| SB 30 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/13/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
Return of Seized Property SB 30 |
| SB 7 Fiscal Note (DOE).pdf |
SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
Felons' Right to Vote or Be Jurors SB 7 |
| SB 30 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 2/13/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
Return of Seized Property SB 30 |
| SB 30 Senator Dyson Notes.pdf |
SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
Return of Seized Property SB 30 |
| SB 30 Supporting Document - APOA.pdf |
SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
Return of Seized Property SB 30 |
| SB 30 Supporting Document - Office of Victim's Rights.pdf |
SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
Return of Seized Property SB 30 |
| SB 7 Statement Support ACLU 2011 02 02.pdf |
SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
Felons' Right to Vote or Be Jurors SB 7 |
| SB 7 Corrections Dept Processing Felons.pdf |
SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
Felons' Right to Vote or Be Jurors SB 7 |
| SB 7 NAACP Ltr of Support 2-3-2011.pdf |
SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
SB 7 |
| SB 7 Supporting Document - NCSL State Survey Permanent Disenfranchisment Feb 2011.pdf |
SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
SB 7 |
| SB 7 Supporting Document - NCSL State Survey of Voting Rights Feb 2011.pdf |
SSTA 2/3/2011 9:00:00 AM |
SB 7 |