Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205

04/11/2019 03:30 PM STATE AFFAIRS

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 80 INITIATIVE SEVERABILITY TELECONFERENCED
Moved SB 80 Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony <Time Limit May Be Set> --
+= SB 32 CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony Rescheduled to TBA --
*+ SB 100 NAMING WILLARD E. DUNHAM RESIDENCE HALL TELECONFERENCED
Moved SB 100 Out of Committee
Uniform Rule 23 Waived
-- Public Testimony <Time Limit May Be Set> --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
            SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                           
                         April 11, 2019                                                                                         
                           3:35 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Senator Mike Shower, Chair                                                                                                      
Senator John Coghill, Vice Chair                                                                                                
Senator Lora Reinbold                                                                                                           
Senator Peter Micciche                                                                                                          
Senator Scott Kawasaki                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 100                                                                                                             
"An Act naming the Willard E. Dunham Residence Hall."                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED SB 100 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 80                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to proposing and enacting laws by initiative."                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED SB 80 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATE BILL NO. 32                                                                                                              
"An  Act relating  to  criminal law  and  procedure; relating  to                                                               
controlled  substances;   relating  to  probation;   relating  to                                                               
sentencing;  relating  to   reports  of  involuntary  commitment;                                                               
amending  Rule  6,  Alaska  Rules   of  Criminal  Procedure;  and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB 100                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: NAMING WILLARD E. DUNHAM RESIDENCE HALL                                                                            
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MICCICHE                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
03/27/19       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/27/19       (S)       STA                                                                                                    
04/10/19       (S)       STA WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE,RULE                                                                  
                         23                                                                                                     
04/11/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB  80                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: INITIATIVE SEVERABILITY                                                                                            
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) BIRCH                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
03/06/19       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/06/19       (S)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
04/11/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB  32                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE                                                                          
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
01/23/19       (S)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/23/19       (S)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
02/06/19       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
02/06/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/06/19       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/08/19       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
02/08/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/08/19       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/09/19       (S)       JUD AT 1:00 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
02/09/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/09/19       (S)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/11/19       (S)       MOTION TO DISCHARGE FROM JUD COMMITTEE                                                                 
02/11/19       (S)       DISCHARGED FROM JUD COMMITTEE U/C                                                                      
02/11/19       (S)       STA REFERRAL ADDED                                                                                     
02/11/19       (S)       STA REPLACES JUD REFERRAL                                                                              
02/11/19       (S)       JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)                                                                      
02/11/19       (S)       <Bill Hearing Canceled>                                                                                
03/05/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
03/05/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/05/19       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
04/04/19       (S)       STA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
04/04/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/04/19       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
04/09/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
04/09/19       (S)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/09/19       (S)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
04/11/19       (S)       STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHEYENNE GIRMSCHEID, Intern                                                                                                     
Senator Peter Micciche                                                                                                          
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 100 on behalf of the sponsor.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CATHY LECOMPTE, Director                                                                                                        
AVTEC                                                                                                                           
Seward, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 100.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR CHRIS BIRCH, Bill Sponsor                                                                                               
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 80                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
KIM SKIPPER, Staff                                                                                                              
Senator Chris Birch                                                                                                             
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 80 on behalf of the sponsor.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
LARRY BARSUKOFF, Director of Operations                                                                                         
Alaska Policy Forum                                                                                                             
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 80.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
BETHANY MARCUM, Executive Director                                                                                              
Alaska Policy Forum                                                                                                             
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 80.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MARLEANNA HALL, Executive Director                                                                                              
Resource Development Council for Alaska                                                                                         
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 80.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
ALBERT FOGLE, Vice President                                                                                                    
Alaska State Chamber                                                                                                            
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 80.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
ERIC FJELSTAD, representing self                                                                                                
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 80.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
KATHY MONFREDA, Director                                                                                                        
Statewide Services                                                                                                              
Department of Public Safety (DPS)                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 32.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL DUXBURY, Deputy Commissioner                                                                                            
Department of Public Safety (DPS)                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions and  provided information                                                             
related to SB 32.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
ROBERT HENDERSON, Deputy Attorney General                                                                                       
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law                                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions and  provided information                                                             
related to SB 32.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
QUINLAN STEINER, Public Defender                                                                                                
Public Defender Agency                                                                                                          
Alaska Department of Administration                                                                                             
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions and  provided information                                                             
related to SB 32.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                              
3:35:29 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  MIKE  SHOWER  called the  Senate  State  Affairs  Standing                                                             
Committee meeting  to order at 3:35  p.m. Present at the  call to                                                               
order were  Senators Coghill,  Micciche, Reinbold,  Kawasaki, and                                                               
Chair Shower.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
         SB 100-NAMING WILLARD E. DUNHAM RESIDENCE HALL                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:36:20 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration  of SENATE BILL NO. 100,                                                               
"An Act naming the Willard E. Dunham Residence Hall."                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:36:33 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE, bill  sponsor, said the bill  was introduced at                                                               
the request  of the people  of Seward.  Mr. Willard Dunham  was a                                                               
great man who passed away March  1. After the earthquake in 1964,                                                               
he  worked to  rebuild Seward.  He was  the founding  director of                                                               
AVTEC [Alaska's Institute of Technology]  and served from 1969 to                                                               
2019. He  worked to bring the  Alaska Sea Life Center  to Seward.                                                               
He always put  his community and Alaska first. He  was an amazing                                                               
man.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE  said the  bill renames  AVTEC dormitory  as the                                                               
Willard E. Dunham Residence Hall.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:38:19 PM                                                                                                                    
CHEYENNE  GIRMSCHEID,  Intern,  Senator  Peter  Micciche,  Alaska                                                               
State  Legislature, Juneau,  Alaska,  said Mr.  Dunham spent  his                                                               
life working toward  and advocating for a better  quality of life                                                               
in his community. He worked  for the Alaska railroad before being                                                               
drafted  into the  Army and  was  stationed in  Fairbanks in  the                                                               
early 50s.  After his  Army service,  he worked  on the  docks in                                                               
Seward until the 1964 earthquake  wiped out the docks, along with                                                               
most of the town.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  GIRMSCHEID said  this led  him to  work full  time with  the                                                               
Department of Labor and the City  of Seward. He had an impressive                                                               
record  of community  service and  employment  projects. Some  of                                                               
these projects included the Spring  Creek Correctional Center and                                                               
the Seward  Library and Museum.  He was  mayor of Seward  for two                                                               
years and  sat on nearly  every city task force,  commission, and                                                               
committee  over  a  60-year  period.   One  thing  that  came  up                                                               
repeatedly in  her discussions with  AVTEC staff was  his passion                                                               
for Alaska  and his dedication  to Seward. As director  of AVTEC,                                                               
he reminded  his students and  staff of  the goals of  the school                                                               
and Seward itself. These are  the values that Willard Dunham left                                                               
impressed on  those around him  and the values that  AVTEC wishes                                                               
to honor and remember.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER noted the letters  of support from the community and                                                               
asked if  they had reached  out to the  family. He asked,  out of                                                               
concern  for  due  diligence,  if there  was  any  opposition  to                                                               
renaming the hall.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. GIRMSCHEID said  the person she spoke to with  AVTEC had been                                                               
in contact with family, friends, and coworkers.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:41:36 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE  said the community  is excited about  the bill.                                                               
Mr.  Dunham was  beloved  by  his community.  They  have lots  of                                                               
support.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if the building already had a name.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. GIRMSCHEID answered  that it was just the  Third Avenue AVTEC                                                               
facility.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  REINBOLD   said  Mr.   Dunham  sounds   impressive.  She                                                               
generally  has  a  challenge with  naming  things  after  persons                                                               
because  people have  no idea  why  that person  was chosen  over                                                               
others. She  asked if  a there  can be a  plaque on  the building                                                               
that  states why  the dormitory  is named  after Mr.  Dunham. She                                                               
thinks  informative  plaques  are  critical  for  people  in  the                                                               
future.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. GIRMSCHEID said the city is  collecting funds to buy a plaque                                                               
that will do that.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:43:48 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:43:59 PM                                                                                                                    
CATHY  LECOMPTE, Director,  AVTEC, Seward,  Alaska, testified  in                                                               
support of SB 100. She said  the ribbon cutting will be September                                                               
27. The  plaque is being purchased  by the city of  Seward and it                                                               
will explain  who Mr. Dunham  was and  remind students to  live a                                                               
life of public service in honor  of Mr. Dunham. He was an amazing                                                               
man. Because of his efforts  at AVTEC, thousands of Alaskans have                                                               
gone through  AVTEC and been trained  for work and have  had good                                                               
careers. They continue to do that to this day, 50 years later.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:44:55 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
3:45:13 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:45:44 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  MICCICHE said  that because  it is  a state  building, a                                                               
name change requires  a bill. Mr. Dunham was a  friend of his and                                                               
a mentor. He  provided the ultimate example of  public service in                                                               
the state of Alaska.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER asked the will of the committee.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:46:25 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  COGHILL  moved to  report  SB  100 from  committee  with                                                               
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER found no objection and SB 100 passed from the                                                                      
Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:46:43 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
                 SB  80-INITIATIVE SEVERABILITY                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:48:39 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and announced the                                                                           
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 80, "An Act relating to                                                                        
proposing and enacting laws by initiative."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:48:50 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR CHRIS BIRCH, Bill Sponsor, Alaska State Legislature,                                                                    
Juneau, Alaska, read the following sponsor statement:                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     SB 80  seeks to ensure ballot  initiative language that                                                                    
     appears before voters at the  ballot box is the same as                                                                    
     the language circulated  during the signature-gathering                                                                    
     phase and  to restore the legislature's  important role                                                                    
     in the initiative process.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Alaska's  constitution details  a very  important right                                                                    
     of  our  residents -  the  right  to enact  legislation                                                                    
     through the  voter initiative process.  The legislature                                                                    
     also has  the right to enact  legislation substantially                                                                    
     the same  as the  proposed initiative thus  removing it                                                                    
     from the ballot.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Per our  constitution, some  issues are  off-limits for                                                                    
     ballot initiatives  and initiatives can only  cover one                                                                    
     subject. But  while a cursory legal  review of language                                                                    
     occurs before the  Lieutenant Governor's certification,                                                                    
     it  has sometimes  been the  case  that further  review                                                                    
     finds constitutional  concerns with  proposed language.                                                                    
     In those  cases, a  party can file  a lawsuit  to force                                                                    
     the  issue through  the court  system. This  can happen                                                                    
     simultaneous to the circulation of signature booklets.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Under current law, if a  court determines that language                                                                    
     in  a proposed  initiative  is unconstitutional  and/or                                                                    
     severed, an amended version of  the language can appear                                                                    
     before  voters.   This  results  in  voters   seeing  a                                                                    
     different initiative  than the one they  supported with                                                                    
     their   signatures.   Furthermore,    if   the   courts                                                                    
     revise/sever the language  after the legislative review                                                                    
     process, they deny the legislature  its right to review                                                                    
     the initiative as revised. The  net effect of a court's                                                                    
     severance  is that  an initiative  can move  forward to                                                                    
     the  voters that  is substantially  different than  the                                                                    
     initial version reviewed by the legislature.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     SB 80  would rectify  this situation. Under  this bill,                                                                    
     if  a  court determines  that  language  in a  proposed                                                                    
     initiative   is   unconstitutional  or   severed,   the                                                                    
     Lieutenant Governor  must reject the  entire initiative                                                                    
     petition and prohibit it from  appearing on the ballot.                                                                    
     Voters should  be assured that  language on  the ballot                                                                    
     has  not  changed from  the  language  in the  petition                                                                    
     booklets supported  with voter signatures  and further,                                                                    
     restores the  legislature's right  to review  and enact                                                                    
     substantially   similar   legislation    to   stop   an                                                                    
     initiative from moving forward.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR BIRCH noted that Eric Fjelstad, who assisted with the                                                                   
bill, was online.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:51:57 PM                                                                                                                    
KIM   SKIPPER,  Staff,   Senator   Chris   Birch,  Alaska   State                                                               
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,  said the bill is  a single section.                                                               
Section   1  amends   AS  15.45.240   by  adding   the  following                                                               
subsection:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
          (b) The provisions of an initiative are not severable                                                                 
     after  being circulated  under AS  15.45.110. An  initiative                                                               
     petition may not  contain a severability clause.  If a court                                                               
     finds    a    provision    of   an    initiative    petition                                                               
     unconstitutional during a review  under (a) of this section,                                                               
     the court shall order the  lieutenant governor to reject the                                                               
     entire  initiative petition  and prohibit  the placement  of                                                               
     the initiative on the ballot.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER advised that the committee is discussing the                                                                       
possibility of changes and those are forthcoming. After public                                                                  
testimony, he will see if those changes are available.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:53:20 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:54:14 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER  reconvened the meeting and  opened public testimony                                                               
on SB 80.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:54:36 PM                                                                                                                    
LARRY  BARSUKOFF, Director  of Operations,  Alaska Policy  Forum,                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska,  testified in  support of SB  80. He  said the                                                               
right   of  Alaska   voters  to   directly  participate   in  the                                                               
legislative  process is  to be  cherished  and protected.  Voters                                                               
must have  an absolute guarantee  of the integrity of  the ballot                                                               
initiative process.  Since 1988, a  loophole has expanded  and is                                                               
now  used  when  ballot  initiative groups  rely  on  the  Alaska                                                               
Supreme Court  to act  as a legal  editor of  ballot initiatives.                                                               
Language that may  not pass constitutional muster  is included in                                                               
petition booklets. These groups know  that the Supreme Court will                                                               
remove the offending language later.  This violates the integrity                                                               
of the  ballot initiative process.  Voters casting  their ballots                                                               
for  or against  an initiative  should know  absolutely that  the                                                               
ballot language  was exactly the  same as what was  presented for                                                               
signatures.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. BARSUKOFF said  that a further effect of the  loophole is the                                                               
legislature can  be stripped  of its  role to  counterbalance the                                                               
system.  The  legislature  has the  right  to  enact  legislation                                                               
substantially the same as proposed  in initiatives, thus removing                                                               
those initiatives  from the ballot.  When initiative  language is                                                               
stricken or  changed by the  court, the legislature can  lose its                                                               
ability  to provide  oversight of  the process.  To prohibit  the                                                               
ability  of a  court and  unelected judges  to pick,  choose, and                                                               
delete language in  a ballot initiative would  require authors of                                                               
an  initiative to  more carefully  vet their  language and  would                                                               
keep  judges out  of the  business of  crafting legislation.  Not                                                               
imposing a  prohibition of severability  robs the  legislature of                                                               
its  right and  mandate  to  act as  a  check  on the  initiative                                                               
process by  enacting legislation similar to  a ballot initiative.                                                               
Not imposing  a prohibition of severability  robs Alaska's voters                                                               
of the assurance  that the language on the ballot  when they vote                                                               
is the same  as the language they supported  during the signature                                                               
gathering. It would be a good  policy for this technicality to be                                                               
addressed.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:57:26 PM                                                                                                                    
BETHANY   MARCUM,  Executive   Director,  Alaska   Policy  Forum,                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska,  testified in support  of SB 80. She  said the                                                               
state is  fortunate to  have a  constitutionally-enshrined ballot                                                               
initiative  process.  Not  all states  trust  their  citizens  to                                                               
participate  directly in  the legislative  process. In  order for                                                               
the  ballot initiative  process  to continue  to  have value  for                                                               
future generations  of Alaskans, it  is imperative to  ensure the                                                               
integrity of  the process is  ensured. A loophole was  created by                                                               
past Supreme Court decision that  allows the court to tamper with                                                               
initiative language. While the intention  may be good, the result                                                               
can be  that the words which  voters see on their  ballots may be                                                               
different than the language that  was displayed to them and other                                                               
voters  who   earlier  signed   the  petition   booklets.  Alaska                                                               
experienced  this  in  2018  with  Ballot Measure  1.  It  is  an                                                               
injustice to  Alaskan voters  when the words  they approve  for a                                                               
ballot are  changed by  unelected judges.  Another effect  of the                                                               
loophole is that  the legislature can be stripped of  its role to                                                               
act as  a counterbalance  in the  ballot initiative  process. The                                                               
legislature has the right to  enact legislation substantially the                                                               
same as proposed  in an initiative, thus  removing the initiative                                                               
from the  ballot. When  the court  changes or  strikes initiative                                                               
language,  the  legislature  effectively   loses  it  ability  to                                                               
provide oversight over this process.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD  said she understands  the concept of  the bill,                                                               
which is  that judges  should not be  able to  amend initiatives,                                                               
but the problem  she has is that she hasn't  liked numerous court                                                               
decisions.  The   court  has  struck  down   numerous  laws  that                                                               
legislators have  worked on diligently. She  understands that the                                                               
bill  would  not allow  the  court  to  amend,  but it  seems  to                                                               
increase  their  power to  kill  initiatives.  She has  seen  the                                                               
courts often  use one little  phrase in the  constitution without                                                               
looking   at  the   constitution  globally.   For  example,   the                                                               
constitution  says  people  can  enjoy  their  rewards  of  their                                                               
industry, but it also allows the  government to tax, so it can be                                                               
in conflict.  She said she doesn't  want the court to  do what it                                                               
did  with the  marriage law  when  it was  as clear  as day  that                                                               
marriage was  between one man  and one  woman. She asked  if this                                                               
increases the power of the courts.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MARCUM said  she didn't  believe so  because so  many ballot                                                               
initiatives already  involve a lawsuit  and the courts  must rule                                                               
on them.  The solution to  what she is  discussing is SJR  3 that                                                               
Senator Shower has introduced and some sort of judicial reform.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:01:49 PM                                                                                                                    
MARLEANNA HALL, Executive  Director, Resource Development Council                                                               
for Alaska,  Anchorage, Alaska,  testified in  support of  SB 80.                                                               
She said  she had  submitted a  letter of support  for SB  80 and                                                               
wanted to share additional points about  why SB 80 is needed. The                                                               
voters  have  the  ability  to  participate  in  the  legislative                                                               
process  by passing  law or  overturning law  through the  ballot                                                               
measure process. Voters can support  initiatives by writing them,                                                               
signing onto them, and voting  for them. Throughout these actions                                                               
the  language  should remain  unchanged  once  a voter  signs  in                                                               
support.  SB 80  would remove  the court's  ability to  sever the                                                               
language, thereby  leaving that  language intact.  As the  law is                                                               
currently  written,   rather  than   ensuring  that   the  ballot                                                               
initiative  language  passes   legal  and  constitutional  muster                                                               
before being presented to voters,  they are concerned that groups                                                               
will rely  on Alaska's courts  for legal editing services.  SB 80                                                               
will  send a  message  to  proponents that  the  language of  the                                                               
initiative   must  be   carefully   drafted  to   ensure  it   is                                                               
constitutional.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:03:46 PM                                                                                                                    
ALBERT FOGLE,  Vice President,  Alaska State  Chamber, Anchorage,                                                               
Alaska, testified  in support of SB  80. He said SB  80 is needed                                                               
to retain the integrity of  the signature-gathering process for a                                                               
ballot  measure. Once  the voters  sign their  names to  specific                                                               
ballot measure language, their support  should be applied only to                                                               
the exact language  to which they lent their names.  If any court                                                               
decides  to alter  or  remove language  from  the initiative,  it                                                               
cannot be assumed  that voter support remains. If  a court severs                                                               
language from a  proposed ballot measure, it  should be mandatory                                                               
that initiative proponents go back  and ask voters to support the                                                               
revised language  that will actually  appear on the  ballot. They                                                               
applaud  their  effort to  correct  a  deficiency that  has  been                                                               
overlooked with the ballot initiative  process. SB 80 will result                                                               
in fewer protracted legal battles  once ballot measure proponents                                                               
understand that should  any section of their  initiative not pass                                                               
constitutional muster,  they would be  required to revert  to the                                                               
signature-gathering stage  of the process. This  should result in                                                               
more  carefully crafted  ballot  measures being  proposed at  the                                                               
outset, which means a smoother,  more predictable process for all                                                               
parties.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:05:57 PM                                                                                                                    
ERIC  FJELSTAD, representing  self, Anchorage,  Alaska, testified                                                               
in support  of SB 80.  He said he is  an attorney who  has worked                                                               
with  ballot   measure  initiatives  for  the   past  ten  years.                                                               
Testimony  has  focused  on  three  things.  First  is  truth  in                                                               
advertising. When  voters sign a  pamphlet, that  language should                                                               
not change. Second is the  constitutional issue. The constitution                                                               
puts power with the legislature  as the last stop on initiatives.                                                               
There  is  the ability  to  cut  off  an initiative  by  enacting                                                               
something substantially similar. That  is an important safeguard.                                                               
Last  fall with  the salmon  initiative, the  court struck  major                                                               
provisions of  the initiative  and then sent  that on  to voters.                                                               
The key takeaway is that  the modified version was different than                                                               
what the  legislature looked  at initially.  He would  argue that                                                               
the  dynamics are  entirely different  after  something has  been                                                               
modified by the  court. If the bad portions of  an initiative are                                                               
removed, the odds  go up that the legislature  would take action,                                                               
so this  matters. This is  a balance  of power issue  between the                                                               
legislature  and the  courts. It  is  the rightful  place of  the                                                               
legislature to make  it clear that this is  their prerogative and                                                               
not the  courts. He sees this  as an apolitical issue  that would                                                               
apply equally to  any ballot measure. The last point  is that the                                                               
court's  last ruling  will encourage  all sorts  of bad  behavior                                                               
with initiative  proponents. There  is no  reason to  worry about                                                               
overreach  or  the constitutionality  of  the  draft because  the                                                               
courts will  step in at  the end. SB  80 restores the  balance of                                                               
powers as the architects of the constitution intended.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
4:08:50 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on SB 80.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:08:58 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:10:52 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER  reconvened the meeting.  He asked if  the committee                                                               
members had any questions.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:11:23 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI  asked if the  purpose is to restrict  the total                                                               
numbers of ballot measures that  go before the voters because the                                                               
legislators can do  it. He asked how many ballot  measures in the                                                               
last ten years have gone before the voters.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR BIRCH  clarified that the  intent is not to  restrict the                                                               
number  of ballot  measures. The  intent  is that  if the  courts                                                               
rewrite a ballot  measure that signatures had  been gathered for,                                                               
if  the language  is  substantially changed  and  severed by  the                                                               
courts, the  process should  start over.  The language  should be                                                               
constitutional from the get-go.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked  how many ballot measures  had gone before                                                               
voters in the last ten years.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR BIRCH said his office would get the answer.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   KAWASAKI   asked   Senator    Birch   what   the   term                                                               
"substantially"  means  to him  in  the  context of  changing  or                                                               
severing language in a ballot initiative.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR BIRCH replied  that the severability would  relate to the                                                               
constitutional aspects.  If the language  is revised to  make the                                                               
ballot question  constitutional, then the ballot  measure changes                                                               
substantially from what people signed.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  KAWASAKI  said  the  use  of  severability  clauses  are                                                               
common.  They are  in  almost  every bill.  He  asked  why is  it                                                               
necessary  to remove  severability clauses  from laws  that would                                                               
appear before  the people vs.  laws that would appear  before the                                                               
legislature.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  BIRCH  said  the  issue   is  the  effort,  energy,  and                                                               
initiative  it takes  to prepare  a  properly constructed  ballot                                                               
measure and  gather those signatures.  It needs to be  done right                                                               
the first time.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  KAWASAKI   asked  how  often  an   initiative  is  later                                                               
challenged.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR BIRCH said he would follow up with the answers.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  KAWASAKI said  he wonders  about the  generation of  the                                                               
bill  and   what  effect   this  will   have  on   a  fundamental                                                               
constitutional  right  of  initiative   and  referendum.  He  has                                                               
questions around those. On the  timeline, he asked if they looked                                                               
at changing  the timeline  to address  the problem,  for example,                                                               
the total numbers of days  for the lieutenant governor to certify                                                               
and the  number of days the  petitioners have after. He  asked if                                                               
they  looked  at  a  way  that would  be  more  amenable  to  the                                                               
petitioners.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR BIRCH said that once  the signature gathering begins, the                                                               
expectation would be that the  document has been constitutionally                                                               
vetted. The  content should not change  substantially between the                                                               
signature-gathering phase and what is on the ballot.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
4:15:37 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  COGHILL asked  how many  initiatives  have been  changed                                                               
after the vetting process and before the voting process.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR BIRCH said he would follow up with the information.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  COGHILL  said  the  concept  is  right,  but  these  are                                                               
questions that  need to be addressed  to get to the  finish line.                                                               
One  of  the  most  recent   initiatives  had  a  change  with  a                                                               
constitutional tweak so  it's easy to demonstrate  why this needs                                                               
to  be fixed.  The legislature  also has  the same  restrictions.                                                               
Some of  their laws have  been slapped  down by the  courts. They                                                               
are still  on the books  but are invalid.  It is a  good concept,                                                               
but it's necessary that background information.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:17:53 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD asked  if the  court  has to  be very  specific                                                               
about why it is striking down  an initiative as opposed to making                                                               
a general reference to the constitution.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR BIRCH deferred the question to Mr. Fjelstad.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
4:18:33 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.   FJELSTAD  said   the  court   would  identify   a  specific                                                               
constitutional  provision.  Last  fall,   the  court  found  that                                                               
multiple   provisions   of   Ballot  Measure   1   violated   the                                                               
appropriations   clause  and   those   were   severed  from   the                                                               
initiative.  The  remainder  moved forward.  Regarding  how  many                                                               
times this  has come up, he  thought it was just  a handful, less                                                               
than five.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  REINBOLD said  that's helpful,  but sometimes  the court                                                               
looks at different clauses in  the constitution, like it did with                                                               
marriage between  a man and a  woman. She asked him  if the court                                                               
has to  look at the constitution  globally or if they  can strike                                                               
the measure down based on one clause.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  FJELSTAD  said  the  court  primarily  would  focus  on  the                                                               
arguments the parties  make rather than finding  authority on its                                                               
own.  If  a clause  is  struck  down,  the  court would  have  to                                                               
identify the specific constitutional provision for doing so.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD  commented that it  seems that the  court should                                                               
have  to look  at the  constitution globally  rather than  just a                                                               
little provision because almost anything  can be argued with each                                                               
and every clause in the constitution.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  FJELSTAD said  there is  no hard  and fast  rule but  if the                                                               
parties  argue  three  constitutional provisions,  generally  the                                                               
court will look at those three and not everything else.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:21:25 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD said  she  absolutely  supports the  initiative                                                               
process  and thinks  it  is brilliant  in  the constitution.  She                                                               
wants to  make the courts  to look at the  constitution globally.                                                               
So many times, they have  struck down some awesome things because                                                               
of a  little clause. "I don't  want to increase the  power of the                                                               
courts at  all. That is not  the intention. I think  they are way                                                               
too powerful as  it is right now. The power  should really belong                                                               
with the  people," she said. As  long as the courts  must specify                                                               
why they strike things down, the concept is good.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE  clarified that  the section  of law  only deals                                                               
with initiatives, not referendums.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. FJELSTAD agreed.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE said he supports  this and sees it as completely                                                               
nonpartisan.  He   related  his  personal   experience  gathering                                                               
signatures on  parental consent.  He'd rather  have known  it was                                                               
unconstitutional in  advance instead of wasting  time waiting for                                                               
a ruling.  Referencing the  fish initiative  process, if  he were                                                               
running  an initiative  today, he  would shoot  for the  moon. He                                                               
would go  for most extreme stance  and let the courts  fix it for                                                               
him,  which is  what  occurred. He  is a  huge  supporter of  the                                                               
initiative process. When folks feel  the legislature is not doing                                                               
its job,  they have the  ability to make  law and to  repeal laws                                                               
through the  referendum process. This  puts more pressure  on the                                                               
courts to determine constitutionality  in advance so that perhaps                                                               
people  on  either  side  can come  back  with  something  likely                                                               
constitutional, collect signatures, and put  it on the ballot. It                                                               
is a  time saver.  It is  the right  thing to  do. It  avoids the                                                               
courts rewriting initiatives differently from what was proposed.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  REINBOLD said  she was  out there  collecting signatures                                                               
when it was freezing cold. She  was ticked off when it was struck                                                               
down. She reiterated Senator Micciche's comments.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
4:25:21 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:28:03 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
4:28:55 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report  SB 80, Version U, from committee                                                               
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:29:14 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR SHOWER found  no objection and SB 80 moved  from the Senate                                                               
State Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
4:29:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
        SB  32-CRIMES; SENTENCING;MENT. ILLNESS;EVIDENCE                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:32:50 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR   SHOWER  reconvened   the   meeting   and  announced   the                                                               
consideration of SENATE BILL NO.  32 "An Act relating to criminal                                                               
law and  procedure; relating  to controlled  substances; relating                                                               
to  probation; relating  to sentencing;  relating  to reports  of                                                               
involuntary  commitment;   amending  Rule  6,  Alaska   Rules  of                                                               
Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER noted  that the committee last heard  the bill April                                                               
9 and  that James  Stinson, Director  of Public  Advocacy, Robert                                                               
Henderson from  the Department  of Law,  and several  people from                                                               
the  Department  of  Public  Safety   were  available  to  answer                                                               
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:33:53 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI  said part of the  bill deals with DNA  swabs at                                                               
the time of arrest. He asked for the thoughts behind that.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:34:23 PM                                                                                                                    
KATHY  MONFREDA,  Director,  Statewide  Services,  Department  of                                                               
Public Safety  (DPS), Anchorage,  Alaska, said the  law requiring                                                               
the collection of  DNA at the time of arrest  was passed in 2007.                                                               
It was  a lobbying effort by  Karen Foster, the mother  of Bonnie                                                               
Craig.  She   was  passionate  about  it.   Senator  Wielechowski                                                               
introduced the amendment to a bill.  The power behind it was that                                                               
had the law  been in effect the murder could  have been solved 12                                                               
years earlier.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted  that this is a person's first  time to be                                                               
arrested  for  any  sort  of  crime.  Now  the  penalty  for  not                                                               
providing  DNA  at  the  time  of   arrest  will  be  a  class  A                                                               
misdemeanor. He asked if there had been a penalty before.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. MONFREDA  replied it currently  is not  a crime to  refuse to                                                               
submit a  DNA sample at  the time of arrest.  It is only  a crime                                                               
for refusal on felony arrests.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked what happens to  the DNA taken at the time                                                               
of arrest, where it  is stored, if it is analyzed  at the time of                                                               
arrest, and what happens to it if the person isn't arraigned.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. MONFREDA said current law is  that if the person is not found                                                               
guilty, the person  can request a court order to  have the sample                                                               
destroyed. The  samples are  analyzed and  entered into  a system                                                               
called  CODIS run  by the  FBI. It  is in  an encrypted,  private                                                               
network. Once the  person gets a court order, the  crime lab gets                                                               
a copy and  then destroys the sample,  documents the destruction,                                                               
and  notifies the  court and  the defendant's  attorney that  the                                                               
sample has been destroyed.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:38:02 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if people  arrested for disorderly conduct                                                               
would need to  submit to a buccal swab that  would be uploaded to                                                               
CODIS automatically.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL  DUXBURY,  Deputy   Commissioner,  Department  of  Public                                                               
Safety  (DPS),  Anchorage,  Alaska,  said no.  That  would  be  a                                                               
misdemeanor which does  not require a buccal sample  to be taken.                                                               
The requirement applies to serious felonies.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if it had to be a crime against a person.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. DUXBURY deferred to the Department of Law.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:39:16 PM                                                                                                                    
ROBERT  HENDERSON, Deputy  Attorney  General, Criminal  Division,                                                               
Department  of Law,  Anchorage, Alaska,  said disorderly  conduct                                                               
would not be a qualifying  offense under AS 44.41.035(b). This is                                                               
applicable to  AS 11.41 crimes  against a person  offenses, Title                                                               
11 felonies, and Title 28 DUI felonies.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  asked what proof  there is  that the data  has been                                                               
truly destroyed and can never be retrieved or used again.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MONFREDA  said  her  understanding   is  that  the  data  is                                                               
destroyed. It is removed from CODIS and is not accessible.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SHOWER said  that is  a good  answer for  the record.  The                                                               
reality is that it is probably out there somewhere.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:41:35 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  REINBOLD   said  she  likes  that   there  are  bookends                                                               
regarding collecting the DNA sample.  She asked for clarification                                                               
about the point at which a DNA sample is required.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.   HENDERSON  replied   that   the  types   of  offenses   and                                                               
circumstances under  which a  DNA sample  is required  is spelled                                                               
out in AS 44.41.035(b). First it  is a person convicted of crimes                                                               
against a  person or  a felony under  AS l1, AS  28.35, or  a law                                                               
with elements  similar to  crimes against a  person or  a felony;                                                               
(2) would  be a minor  adjudicated of  a delinquent if  the minor                                                               
was 16  years of  age or  older and committed  a crime  against a                                                               
person  or  a  felony;  (3)  is a  voluntary  donor;  (4)  is  an                                                               
anonymous  DNA  donor used  for  forensic  validation; (5)  is  a                                                               
person  required  to   register  as  a  sex   offender  or  child                                                               
kidnapper; and (6) is what SB  32 talks about - a person arrested                                                               
for a  crime against a person  under Title 11.41, a  felony under                                                               
Title 11 or a felony under AS 28.35.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  REINBOLD asked  if someone  convicted of  vehicle theft,                                                               
burglary,  or purse  snatching would  have to  give a  DNA sample                                                               
under current law.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  said it  depends on the  type of  offense. Someone                                                               
convicted of felony-level  theft would be required to  give a DNA                                                               
sample upon conviction  whereas a purse snatching  depends on the                                                               
ultimate charge  and conviction. A  theft against a  person under                                                               
theft in the second degree is a C felony and would be covered.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  REINBOLD  said you  keeps  saying  "at conviction."  She                                                               
generally supports  the concept  of getting  more DNA  samples to                                                               
help  reduce wrongful  convictions, help  get to  a verdict  more                                                               
quickly, and  help reduce pretrial  delays, as long as  there are                                                               
parameters. She asked what the parameters are for SB 32.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:45:48 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON  said the three  big categories for which  DNA will                                                               
be collected are  any felony arrest or crime against  a person or                                                               
felony DUI. It  is a powerful and effective  law enforcement tool                                                               
as Ms.  Monfreda described  in her  initial testimony.  There are                                                               
several  safeguards  or sideboards  on  the  information that  is                                                               
collected.  He  has  talked  about  a  couple  of  them.  Another                                                               
safeguard is that federal law imposes  a $250,000 fine or up to a                                                               
year in  jail for any  unauthorized disclosure of  information in                                                               
CODIS.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  REINBOLD   asked  if  there  is   any  correlation  with                                                               
fingerprints and  DNA. She asked  if they are allowed  to collect                                                               
fingerprints or would  that be part of a warrant.  She asked if a                                                               
swab is  taken under SB  32 and someone  is not convicted,  can a                                                               
person use the court rule to  get the fingerprints and DNA sample                                                               
destroyed.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON answered  that if  a  person is  not convicted  or                                                               
charges are  not filed,  that person can  have the  DNA destroyed                                                               
and not  put into CODIS.  If the person is  ultimately acquitted,                                                               
the  same  process would  apply.  He  asked  her to  restate  the                                                               
question about fingerprinting.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD  asked if  fingerprints can  be taken  at arrest                                                               
and is there is correlation between fingerprints and DNA.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  said the  constitution allows  the police  to take                                                               
certain  routine   administrative  steps  during   processing  or                                                               
booking. That  includes getting biographical information  such as                                                               
name  and date  of birth,  photographing, and  fingerprinting and                                                               
for one of the qualifying offenses, taking the buccal swab.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  said he'd  like to hear  about the  safeguards from                                                               
the Department  of Public  Safety in an  e-mail that  spells them                                                               
out clearly  so that the  committee and then Judiciary  will know                                                               
exactly  what those  bookends are.  He  also asked  if any  other                                                               
states have  had this kind  of provision  and if there  have been                                                               
any constitutional issues or legal  challenges. He asked for that                                                               
information to be provided in written format.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SHOWER  asked  Mr.  Steiner to  comment  from  the  public                                                               
defender  side  about  the  proposals  in  SB  32  regarding  DNA                                                               
collection, use, and destruction.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
4:50:33 PM                                                                                                                    
QUINLAN STEINER, Public Defender,  Public Defender Agency, Alaska                                                               
Department of  Administration, Anchorage, Alaska, said  the issue                                                               
is that  the crime occurs at  arrest. The bill could  elevate the                                                               
situation  significantly  because  it covers  all  11.41  crimes,                                                               
which  includes  misdemeanor  assaults  in the  lowest  level  of                                                               
crimes against  a person. He did  not know how that  would relate                                                               
to  the dismissal  of charges.  Someone could  be convicted  of a                                                               
crime  of failing  to  provide.  Charges may  not  even be  filed                                                               
against  the  original,  low-level  fear assault  that  could  be                                                               
stemming  from just  an argument.  A disorderly  conduct may  not                                                               
apply, but arguments can develop  into fear assaults because of a                                                               
raised fist  in a  bar. It  often doesn't  go anywhere,  but that                                                               
could result in the conviction  of somebody for failing to supply                                                               
the  sample.  Then that  person  has  to affirmatively  seek  its                                                               
destruction.  That doesn't  happen automatically.  It is  a whole                                                               
other  process that  the  person  may not  be  in  a position  to                                                               
pursue. This  elevates things to  a level that the  committee may                                                               
not want.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SHOWER  asked Mr.  Henderson  to  comment or  counter  Mr.                                                               
Steiner's view. He  asked if the evidence would  be admissible if                                                               
a  sample  was  taken  after  arrest  and  that  person  was  not                                                               
convicted  but the  DNA  provided  a hit  on  another crime.  The                                                               
committee  is concerned  about using  data appropriately,  making                                                               
sure it is protected constitutionally,  and not violating rights,                                                               
he said.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON said an argument  can lead to a misdemeanor assault                                                               
in the fourth degree, but it has  to be more than an argument. It                                                               
has  to  have  recklessly  placed someone  in  fear  of  physical                                                               
injury. There has  to be an affirmative step, which  is how it is                                                               
distinguished  from disorderly  conduct,  which is  not an  11.40                                                               
crime.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  said that  if DNA  is taken in  good faith  by law                                                               
enforcement  and results  in that  person becoming  a suspect  in                                                               
another crime,  the DNA match  is unlikely to be  suppressed. The                                                               
statute talks about that scenario.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  HENDERSON said  the person  has to  affirmatively refuse  to                                                               
provide, so it  does create a new crime, but  in his professional                                                               
judgement, it  would encourage  people to  submit their  DNA. The                                                               
person is required by law to  submit their DNA and being reminded                                                               
of  that  will encourage  the  person  to  comply with  the  pre-                                                               
existing state of the law. Right now the incentive is missing.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SHOWER expressed  concern that  it  could be  part of  the                                                               
lowest level of  crime. He wondered how big a  hammer they wanted                                                               
to wield,  depending on the level  of the crime. He  is trying to                                                               
find  a balance.  He addressed  Ms.  Monfreda to  make sure  that                                                               
somebody  would get  back to  him with  the information  he asked                                                               
for. He said the committee also  may not have gotten an answer to                                                               
Senator  Reinbold's question  about  what happens  if someone  is                                                               
arrested versus convicted.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. STEINER  pointed out that a  person is entitled to  talk to a                                                               
lawyer before refusing  to submit to a breathalyzer  sample for a                                                               
DUI.  If this  passes, it  would certainly  raise that  prospect.                                                               
That can be a substantial time  process. Someone has the right to                                                               
engage a  lawyer right  there on the  spot before  refusing. That                                                               
DUI scenario may extend to this process as well.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SHOWER  said that  is  in  line  with his  question  about                                                               
whether other states have enacted  something similar and if there                                                               
have been constitutional or legal challenges.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
4:56:57 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HENDERSON said  that Alaska is not unique. All  50 states use                                                               
CODIS, the  Combined DNA Index  System maintained by the  FBI. As                                                               
of  2018, 31  states  have DNA  collection laws  at  the time  of                                                               
arrest.  Most   states  define  what  is   a  qualifying  offense                                                               
differently. There have  been legal challenges. The  ones he read                                                               
this morning about legal challenges  for misdemeanor arrests as a                                                               
qualifying  offense have  not been  successful. The  U.S. Supreme                                                               
Court has  definitively held that  it is  not a violation  of the                                                               
Fourth Amendment  to collect  someone's DNA  upon arrest  if they                                                               
are charged with a serious  offense. The question becomes what is                                                               
the  definition of  "serious  offense." That  is  what the  lower                                                               
courts  are  struggling  with  now.   Other  states  have  upheld                                                               
misdemeanor violent offenses as qualifying offenses.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  asked Ms.  Monfreda if she  had gotten  his request                                                               
about  providing  written  information   about  the  bookends  or                                                               
guardrails  in SB  32 regarding  privacy  protections related  to                                                               
providing DNA.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. MONFREDA said  she would coordinate with the  lab DNA experts                                                               
to provide the safeguard steps in writing.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked for someone  from the Department of Law to                                                               
contact  him to  discuss his  concerns about  the language  about                                                               
terroristic   threatening.  He   had  some   questions  for   law                                                               
enforcement regarding  the Title 47  process and the  request for                                                               
the  Department of  Public Safety  to  receive all  records of  a                                                               
person adjudicated of a mental  illness or incompetence issued on                                                               
or after October  1, 1981. Legislative Legal  Services said there                                                               
might  be due  process  issues for  people  who committed  crimes                                                               
prior  to 2014  under the  Brady handgun  bill. That  says it  is                                                               
illegal to  dispose of  or sell  a firearm  or ammunition  to any                                                               
individual  adjudicated  of  a  mental defect  or  who  has  been                                                               
committed to a mental institution.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SHOWER  asked  Mr.  Henderson if  he  could  provide  that                                                               
information to the committee in writing.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON said yes.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  asked Ms.  Monfreda to  provide the  information as                                                               
well.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. MONFREDA agreed.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER  asked Mr.  Steiner to share  anything he  needed to                                                               
with the committee.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. STEINER said certainly.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
5:01:48 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD  said this is  a powerful tool and  the bookends                                                               
are  really  important. There  are  provisions  to have  the  DNA                                                               
destroyed  for  wrongful  or non-convictions  or  dropped  cases.                                                               
There  is a  $250,000 fine  for  misuse of  the information.  She                                                               
asked Mr.  Steiner and  Mr. Henderson if  this could  help ensure                                                               
that wrongful convictions do not take  place. She asked for a yes                                                               
or no answer.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. HENDERSON  replied the short answer  is yes. There may  be an                                                               
example in another state that he will look for.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  STEINER  said  there  may  have been  instances  and  it  is                                                               
certainly a  theoretical possibility.  He doesn't have  an answer                                                               
for a closed case, for example, but it's theoretically possible.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD  clarified that she  meant that this could  be a                                                               
powerful tool  for the  defendant to make  sure the  wrong people                                                               
are ending up in jail. To her,  this is just as good an amendment                                                               
for wrongful convictions. It could help either side.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  STEINER replied  that  would  depend on  whether  a new  DNA                                                               
sample could  tie in to  closed cases.  He doesn't know  if those                                                               
cases stay in the system once they have been closed.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD said she thought he was confusing issues.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. STEINER said he was not confused about the issue.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD said  she was not talking about  closed cases at                                                               
all.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. STEINER  said with  a false conviction,  the case  is closed.                                                               
The case is closed with conviction.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR REINBOLD  said she is  talking about  preventing wrongful                                                               
convictions.  She  asked  Ms. Monfreda  for  information  on  the                                                               
offenses in 2018.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER said  powerful tools are important, and  they can be                                                               
used for  good and  bad. That  is the balance  the bill  needs to                                                               
strike.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR SHOWER held SB 32 in committee.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
5:07:16 PM                                                                                                                    
There being no further business to come before the committee,                                                                   
Chair Shower adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing                                                                        
Committee meeting at 5:07 pm.                                                                                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SSTA OFFICIAL AGENDA MEMO.pdf SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
agenda
SB 80 Sponsor Statement.pdf SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 80
SB 80 Version U.pdf SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 80
SB 80 Letter of Support Alaska Chamber.pdf SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 80
SB 80 - Letter of Support - RDC.pdf SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 80
SB 80 - Letter of Support - Alliance Board of Directors.pdf SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 80
SB 80 - Letter of Support.pdf SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 80
SB 80 - Fiscal Note - GOV.pdf SJUD 4/23/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 80
SB 100 Sponsor Statement.pdf SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 100
SB 100 Ver. A.PDF SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 100
SB 100 Letter of Support - Crews.pdf SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 100
SB 100 Letter of Support - Collins.pdf SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 100
SB 100 Letter of Support - Aspelund.pdf SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 100
SB 100 AVTEC Dormitory in Seward.pdf SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 100
SB 32 Transmittal Letter.pdf SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB32 - Version A.pdf SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - Classification and Sentencing Highilghts.pdf SJUD 2/6/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - Classification and Sentencing Sectional.pdf SFIN 4/24/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 2/9/2019 1:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - FN#1 - DPS.pdf SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - FN#2 - DOL.pdf SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - FN#5 - DHSS.pdf SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - FN#6 - DOC.pdf SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - FN - DOA - Public Advocacy.pdf SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - FN - DOA - Public Defender Agency.pdf SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - FN - Court System.pdf SSTA 4/4/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB91-GOA Bills Matrix 2-22-19 - DRAFT STA CS.pdf SSTA 4/9/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - Committee Questions.pdf SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32
CS for SB 32 - Ver. U.pdf SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 32
SB 32 - Leg. Legal Memo.pdf SSTA 4/11/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/15/2019 6:00:00 PM
SSTA 4/16/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 4/18/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB 32