Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
03/22/2018 03:30 PM Senate 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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Lieutenant Governor Successor, Board of Fisheries | |
| SB186 | |
| HB31 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 22, 2018
3:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Kevin Meyer, Chair
Senator David Wilson
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator John Coghill
Senator Dennis Egan
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Lieutenant Governor Successor
Commissioner Valerie Davidson - Juneau
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Alaska Board of Fisheries
Orville Huntington - Huslia
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
SENATE BILL NO. 186
"An Act relating to voter registration; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 31(FIN)
"An Act relating to law enforcement training in domestic
violence and sexual assault; relating to sexual assault
investigation protocols; requiring an inventory and reports on
untested sexual assault examination kits; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED SCS CSHB 31(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 186
SHORT TITLE: VOTER REGISTRATION & PFD APP REGISTRATION
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/16/18 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/18 (S) STA, FIN
03/08/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/08/18 (S) Heard & Held
03/08/18 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/22/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 31
SHORT TITLE: SEX ASSAULT TRAINING & EXAM KITS; DOM VIOL
SPONSOR(s): TARR
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) STA, FIN
01/31/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/31/17 (H) Heard & Held
01/31/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/02/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/02/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/02/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/07/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/07/17 (H) Moved HB 31 Out of Committee
02/07/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/17 (H) STA RPT 4DP
02/08/17 (H) DP: WOOL, LEDOUX, BIRCH, KREISS-TOMKINS
03/13/17 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/13/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/13/17 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/15/17 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/15/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/17 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/31/17 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/31/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/31/17 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/04/17 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/04/17 (H) Moved CSHB 31(FIN) Out of Committee
04/04/17 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/05/17 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 8DP 2NR
04/05/17 (H) DP: GARA, PRUITT, ORTIZ, THOMPSON,
GUTTENBERG, GRENN, SEATON, FOSTER
04/05/17 (H) NR: WILSON, TILTON
04/07/17 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/07/17 (H) VERSION: CSHB 31(FIN)
04/10/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/10/17 (S) STA, FIN
03/22/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
VALERIE DAVIDSON, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee for lieutenant
governor successor.
ORVILLE HUNTINGTON, appointee
Alaska Board of Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Huslia, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on his reappointment to the Board
of Fisheries.
NORMAN VAN VACTOR, CEO
Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Mr. Huntington.
GARY CLINE, representing self
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Mr. Huntington.
GARY HOLLIER, representing self
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Mr. Huntington.
PAUL SHADURA II, representing self
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Mr. Huntington.
JOSIE BAHNKE, Director
Alaska Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed SB 186.
LIBBY BAKALAR, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Labor & State Affairs Section
Alaska Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed an amendment for SB 186.
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 31.
ORIN DYM, Forensic Laboratory Manager
Alaska Department Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 31.
RANDI BREAGER, Criminal Justice Planner
Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory
Alaska Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 31.
KEELEY OLSON, Standing Together Against Rape (STAR) and Alaska
Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 31.
NANCY PORTO, representing self
Kirkland, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 31.
CASSANDRE HUMPHREY, representing self
Burbank, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 31.
JANIS JOHNSON, representing self
Valdez, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 31.
BESSIE ODAM, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 31.
SALLY PORTO, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 31.
JANE ANDREEN, representing self and the Alaska Women's Lobby
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 31.
ALYSON CURREY, Legislative Liaison
Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest and Hawaii
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 31.
DIANA RHOADES, Staff
Representative Tarr
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained an amendment for HB 31.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:31:11 PM
CHAIR KEVIN MEYER called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Wilson, Giessel, Coghill, Egan, and Chair
Meyer.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): Lieutenant Governor Successor, Board
of Fisheries
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Lieutenant Governor Successor
Board of Fisheries
3:32:20 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of governor's
appointees: Commissioner Valerie Davidson, lieutenant governor
successor; Orville Huntington, appointee for the Alaska Board of
Fisheries.
3:32:41 PM
VALERIE DAVIDSON, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Health and
Social Services, Juneau, Alaska, testified as appointee for
lieutenant governor successor and commented as follows:
I am not planning on going anywhere, the lieutenant
governor is not planning to go anywhere, but a
statutory requirement is that the state has a third
person named as successor in the event something
happens so that Alaska is prepared should something
happen to the governor or lieutenant governor.
COMMISSIONER DAVIDSON provided the committee with her background
information in Alaska. She said she takes service to the
community and the state very seriously.
3:37:03 PM
CHAIR MEYER addressed Commissioner Davidson's resume and noted
that she had spent time in a program for fetal alcohol spectrum
disorders, a preventable disorder that he has an interest in. He
asked what prevention work is being done for fetal alcohol
spectrum disorders.
COMMISSIONER DAVIDSON detailed her background in addressing
fetal alcohol spectrum disorders issues when she worked for
Senator Binkley, Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation, and
currently as commissioner.
3:43:25 PM
SENATOR WILSON pointed out that the current governor and
lieutenant governor are both independents and asked what her
party affiliation is.
COMMISSIONER DAVIDSON replied that her party affiliation is non-
partisan. She explained that she chose her non-partisan
affiliation to allow her the flexibility to choose a ballot in
elections. She noted that there were some years when she chose a
Republican ballot and some years she had chosen a Democratic
ballot.
SENATOR WILSON asked what Commissioner Davidson viewed the
lieutenant governor's position as outside of the normal
statutorial and constitutional roles.
COMMISSIONER DAVIDSON answered as follows:
I think one of the biggest responsibilities is
supervising the director of the Division of Elections
to ensure that every Alaskan can vote in an election,
have their ballot count, and to ensure fair and
impartial elections.
COMMISSIONER DAVIDSON added that the division provides
information for the decennial census redistricting process. She
noted that the lieutenant governor also oversees the following:
• State regulations publication.
• The use of the Alaska State Seal.
• Signature authentication for foreign governments when
required.
• The commissions for the state's notaries public.
• The state's online notice system.
• The publication of the Alaska Constitution.
• Stands in on behalf of the governor.
3:47:27 PM
SENATOR WILSON asked if Commissioner Davidson would redefine the
role of lieutenant governor if she was lieutenant governor.
COMMISSIONER DAVIDSON replied that she was not sure if she would
redefine the lieutenant governor's role because the process
would be a "heavy lift" for the lieutenant governor's office as
well as for the Division of Elections, especially going into an
election cycle. She continued as follows:
I know that in the last election cycle almost 3000
employees were hired to be able to, as temporary
employees, to be able to handle ensuring that we have
fair and impartial elections. I don't really see a
substantial change if I were to assume this role. I
will be honest that when the governor and lieutenant
governor first asked me about this I was absolutely
honored and of course would happily step in to assume
that role should something happen.
3:49:20 PM
CHAIR MEYER pointed out that one of the lieutenant governor's
responsibilities is approving initiatives. He noted that
Commissioner Davidson has a legal background that would allow
her to work closely with the Department of Law to determine if
initiatives were legal. He asked if Commissioner David was
concerned that the state has seen an increase in initiatives.
COMMISSIONER DAVIDSON answered as follows:
The lieutenant governor oversees not only initiatives
but also referendums and recalls, and you are correct,
the lieutenant governor and the Division of Elections
do rely upon the Department of Law to be able to
provide that legal analysis and I just want to be
clear to you and the rest of the committee that I am
not stepping into an attorney general-like role in
this position. I very much respect the office of the
attorney general, likewise in this position that I am
currently in as commissioner of the Department of
Health and Social Services. We have had conversations
about a variety of things over this term about what
policy direction I would like us to go in litigation,
but I also respect that the attorney general makes
that decision on behalf of the state.
3:52:00 PM
CHAIR MEYER opened and closed public testimony
3:52:10 PM
CHAIR MEYER found no objection and read the following statement:
In accordance with AS 39.05.080, the Senate State
Affairs Committee has reviewed the appointee and
recommends the appointment be forwarded to a joint
session for consideration; this does not reflect an
intent of any members to vote for or against the
confirmation of the individual during any further
sessions.
3:52:43 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced that the next confirmation hearing is to
consider Mr. Orville Huntington's reappointment to the Alaska
Board of Fisheries.
3:53:00 PM
ORVILLE HUNTINGTON, appointee, Alaska Board of Fisheries, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Huslia, Alaska, noted that he has
served two terms on the board and was seeking reappointment. He
stated that if he was reappointed to the board that this
reappointment would be his last.
3:54:10 PM
SENATOR WILSON asked if user-type or geographical location is
more important in terms of serving on the board.
MR. HUNTINGTON replied that serving on the board is a
combination of both. He continued as follows:
You get a lot more information from the local
fishermen in that area where we are meeting but the
problem is, they are always conflicted-out, so it does
seem to be the user-type of who they represent when
they come onboard. I found that all the board members
that I have ever worked with have been fairly
unbiased, we are all open minded and we try our best
to represent everyone for the State of Alaska because
these laws are so important.
CHAIR MEYER noted that Mr. Huntington is known as a "tie
breaker" on the board because he is a subsistence representative
versus a sport or commercial representative. He pointed out that
one of the board's future meeting was voted to be in Anchorage
and then somehow the meeting was changed to the Kenai Peninsula.
He asked why the board meeting was changed to the Kenai
Peninsula.
MR. HUNTINGTON replied that he was not sure. He surmised that
the venue change was due to a board member stepping down. He
said he has always been open to changing board meeting venues.
He noted that he understood the financial constraints on holding
meetings in rural areas but supported having some meetings in an
area where the people fish.
3:57:49 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked how he voted on moving the meeting from
Anchorage to the Kenai Peninsula.
MR. HUNTINGTON explained that he did not have a preference
either way and initially voted with the board membership in
favor of Anchorage.
SENATOR GIESSEL remarked that she was pleased to hear that the
Board of Fish meeting was scheduled for the Kenai Peninsula. She
addressed her question for Mr. Huntington as follows:
My question has to do with legislation that is
promoting an interesting idea that being that board
members are often conflicted-out, that is to say maybe
the vote or the subject is on commercial fishing in a
certain area and a board member has a permit in that
area, and so they have to actually leave the table and
go sit in the audience; I think this particularly
happens on the Board of Game, but apparently the Board
of Fisheries may have the same issue. The proposal by
one of the House members was that this be modified so
that the board member who had a permit in a certain
area which was under discussion would be able to
continue to sit at the table and share the expertise
that they have. In your case, you are bringing
expertise on the subject of subsistence and we would
want you to be able to offer that to the board as they
discuss the subject of subsistence, for example, and
then on the vote you would recuse yourself. Do you
have an opinion about that idea?
3:59:50 PM
MR. HUNTINGTON replied that the proposed legislation is a good
idea, even if the board member cannot vote the individual is the
most knowledgeable about the fishery in the area where the board
is meeting. He continued as follows:
I think we would benefit from them at least sitting at
the table and telling us they don't have to influence
us in any way, but just providing information would be
good for the board process.
SENATOR WILSON asked when he was self-employed as a commercial
fisherman.
MR. HUNTINGTON answered that he had commercially fished in
Galena, but the endeavor was not economically feasible.
SENATOR WILSON remarked that he valued Mr. Huntington's
expertise on the board as a wildlife biologist. He said Mr.
Huntington brings a different perspective to the actual user-
group as well.
4:01:47 PM
CHAIR MEYER opened public testimony.
4:02:16 PM
NORMAN VAN VACTOR, CEO, Bristol Bay Economic Development
Corporation, Dillingham, Alaska, testified in support of Mr.
Huntington. He opined that Mr. Huntington is a huge asset to the
state, a dedicated public servant, and the state needs people
like Mr. Huntington.
4:02:57 PM
GARY CLINE, representing self, Dillingham, Alaska, testified in
support of Mr. Huntington. He said he may not always agree with
Mr. Huntington but remarked that Mr. Huntington uses the best
information available to make the soundest decision.
4:04:03 PM
GARY HOLLIER, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of Mr. Huntington. He noted that he has attended many
board meetings and asserted that Mr. Huntington is an asset to
the board.
4:04:41 PM
PAUL SHADURA II, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of Mr. Huntington. He noted that Mr. Huntington has been
a board member since 2012 and has shown his skills in
considering the resource first and the ramifications of
management and policy decisions on the regional economies and
traditional users. He said Mr. Huntington exemplifies diversity
and has the scientific background to make decisions based upon
the best available science. He added that Mr. Huntington has the
personal experience of working with Alaskans that rely on the
fisheries resources for subsistence and the multiple years of
supporting the economy while supplying food for residents and
nonresidents.
4:07:51 PM
CHAIR MEYER closed public testimony.
4:08:28 PM
CHAIR MEYER found no objection and read the following statement:
In accordance with AS 39.05.080, the Senate State
Affairs Committee has reviewed the appointee and
recommends the appointment be forwarded to a joint
session for consideration; this does not reflect
intent of any members to vote for or against the
confirmation of the individual during any further
sessions.
SB 186-VOTER REGISTRATION & PFD APP REGISTRATION
4:09:04 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of SB 186. He noted that
the committee last heard SB 186 on March 8 and there were
numerous questions posed by committee members that the Division
of Elections has returned to address.
4:10:11 PM
JOSIE BAHNKE, Director, Alaska Division of Elections, Office of
the Lieutenant Governor, Juneau, Alaska, announced that the
division had an amendment to offer for SB 186.
CHAIR MEYER noted that there were two amendments for the bill,
one from the Division of Elections and another from Senator
Coghill. He asked that Senator Coghill move his amendment.
4:11:15 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 1, [30-GS2097\A.1]:
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR COGHILL
TO: SB 186
Page 1, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 15.07.050(a) is amended to read:
(a) Registration may be made
(1) in person before a registration
official or through a voter registration agency;
(2) by another individual on behalf of the
voter if the voter has executed a written general
power of attorney or a written special power of
attorney authorizing that other individual to register
the voter;
(3) by mail;
(4) by facsimile transmission, scanning, or
another method of electronic transmission that the
director approves; or
(5) by requesting to be registered as a
voter on [COMPLETING] a permanent fund dividend
application form under AS 43.23.015."
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "completing"
Insert "requesting registration on [COMPLETING]"
Delete "with"
Insert "form and including"
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "included"
Page 2, line 1:
Delete "submit a"
Insert "request to be registered on a"
Following "application":
Insert "form submitted"
Page 2, line 4:
Delete "declines to"
Insert "who requests to be registered does not"
Page 2, line 5:
Delete "[AN"
Insert "[SUBMIT AN"
Page 2, line 11, following "notify":
Insert ","
Page 2, line 12, following "applicant":
Insert "who requested registration of the
applicant's registration status"
Page 2, lines 13 - 14:
Delete "of the applicant's registration status"
Page 2, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "[IF AN APPLICANT DOES NOT DECLINE TO BE
REGISTERED AS A VOTER WITHIN"
Insert "If an applicant requests [DOES NOT
DECLINE] to be registered as a voter, the [WITHIN"
Page 2, line 28:
Delete "FORM.] The"
Insert "[FORM. THE]"
Page 3, following line 1:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 6. AS 43.23.015(b) is amended to read:
(b) The department shall prescribe and furnish
an application form for claiming a permanent fund
dividend. The application must include
(1) notice of the penalties provided for
under AS 43.23.035;
(2) a statement of eligibility and a
certification of residency;
(3) the means for an applicant eligible to
vote under AS 15.05, or a person authorized to act on
behalf of the applicant, to request that the applicant
be registered as a voter, to furnish information
required by AS 15.07.060(a)(1) - (4) and (7) - (9),
and to attest [AN ATTESTATION] that the [SUCH]
information is true."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, lines 3 - 5:
Delete "Except for a permanent fund dividend
application where the applicant declines to provide
the information required under AS 15.07.060(a)(1) -
(4) and (7) - (9), the [THE] "
Insert "The"
Page 3, line 11, following "who":
Insert "requested to be registered to vote and"
Page 3, line 19:
Delete "secs. 1 - 5"
Insert "secs. 1 - 7"
Page 3, line 27:
Delete "Sections 1 - 5"
Insert "Sections 1 - 7"
Page 3, line 28:
Delete "sec. 8"
Insert "sec. 10"
4:11:27 PM
CHAIR MEYER objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR COGHILL said he does not entirely agree with an earlier
statement by the director that the form would be better off to
have someone opt-in. He pointed out that the ballot measure
meant to register people to vote during the process of applying
for their Permanent Fund dividend (PFD). He noted that page 1 in
the initiative gives six reasons for the intent of the
initiative and specified that the fourth reason says:
In the intent that the permanent fund dividend
applicants who wish to register to vote or update
their voter registration must submit information to
the state the second time using a different form.
He commented on the initiative's language as follows:
It starts off with the kind of permission and I think
that's a big deal to me, but it says it can relieve
the voters of a burden by having them complete that on
a permanent fund dividend application; I think that's
okay and I think that the opt-in/opt-out is two very
different ways of looking at it and here's how I see
the difference. The way that it was written is you
would be automatically registered unless you opted out
and the division is asking for.
4:13:53 PM
At ease.
4:14:59 PM
CHAIR MEYER called the committee back to order.
SENATOR COGHILL continued as follows:
There were two things that I was going to refer to,
the ballot measure itself and the intent. The intent,
as people read it, was to relieve qualified voters who
apply for a PFD from the burden of having to complete
additional paperwork. I think an opt-in still does
that and so it's well within the reason of our
initiative.
I was going to read the constitution to you on that
particular issue because we have court cases, I get
that, but we also have a constitution and I'm willing
to challenge it, it says in Article XI, section 6,
about halfway down, it says, "It's not subject to veto
and may not be repealed by the Legislature within two
years of the effective date, it may be amended at any
time;" very explicit language in the constitution,
very clear, very plain, it may not be repealed, but it
may be amended and I see this as an amendment, you can
look at their answer, they see this as a "more than
that," it would probably go to court and I have a
legal opinion that says we think that it might and we
think that it might not, so that's an open question.
If you look at the initiative language the opt-out
doesn't even come until page 3, and it's at the top of
page 3 and subsection 3, "If applicant does not
decline to be registered and failure to respond to the
notification on subsection (b)." So, for those who see
the intent have to dig pretty deep to get to that.
4:17:05 PM
He continued as follows:
Now, it is true that in the ballot measure language
they combine two things in the last sentence, "New
voters will receive a notification in the mail to
either declare a political affiliation or opt out of
the voter registration process." So, it does say that
after two pretty good significant paragraphs, but it
also says for a small change our state can reap huge
benefits and these benefits are three:
1. Make government more efficient and save
taxpayer dollars.
2. Voter databases become more accurate and
secure.
3. Every eligible voter gets an equal opportunity
to have their voice heard in our democracy.
That's what people are going to pay attention to, so I
think it is well within our reason. So, the courts
have several different tests that they are going to go
through, I get that. I just wanted to make the case
that the burden should, the burden of the willingness
to vote, still belongs to the voters. There should not
be a presumption on a government that they are
registered to vote, there should be a presumption that
the individual chooses to vote.
The next thing we are going to talk about is sending
notices back and forth, all you have to do is say, "I
want to register to vote," just like you do on your
car registration, it's just a simple, "I want to
register to vote;" this way you have to actually get
information back and they are trying to change that to
say, "I want to opt out," it's an awkward way of doing
it.
So, to me the burden if you will or the least
restrictive means to the individual would be to just
opt-in. The least restrictive to the government is
you've got to opt-out. I just error on the side or I
fall on the side of having the least restrictive means
to the individual, that's just me, so that's my
argument.
4:19:13 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked if he had a legal opinion.
SENATOR COGHILL replied that his legal opinion said, "We think
it may and we think it may not." He opined that his amendment
may not be a problem.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked Senator Coghill to explain Amendment 1.
SENATOR COGHILL summarized that the amendment changes the opt-
out in the bill to an opt-in. He conceded that the amendment
might be litigated but emphasized that an individual should have
the right to say, "I want to vote," instead of saying, "I'm
already registered, I don't want to be registered." He opined
that his amendment is a better civics concept where the burden
is placed on the voter to register rather than a presumption
that goes to the state.
4:24:29 PM
LIBBY BAKALAR, Assistant Attorney General, Alaska Department of
Law, Juneau, Alaska, addressed Amendment 1 as follows:
I have reviewed the memo from legislative counsel and
I agree with it overall. The germane sentence in Mr.
Bullard's memo is that, "There exists a possibility
that requiring an applicant to opt-in could be
interpreted by a court as so significant a change to
the initiated law that it functions as a repeal of
15PFVR," which is the ballot initiative that was
enacted in the 2016 general election. In my view, that
outcome is more likely than not because the core
intent behind the initiative was to create an
automatic voter registration process, the opt-out
provisions are sort of the heart of that process and I
think that the Supreme Court would more likely than
not reach the conclusion that this type of amendment
prior to March of 2019 would constitute an
unconstitutional repeal of the bill.
So, Mr. Bullard has correctly identified the core
legal issue. I think that yes, he is saying "maybe,
maybe not." I think more "maybe yes" based on what I'm
reading and specifically in section 5 of the
initiative what I understood the sponsors' intent to
be. My understanding from working with the sponsors'
post enactment that this is really all about the opt-
out process and with respect to Senator Coghill's
concerns about where the burden falls on the state
versus the government, this is something that the
people enacted, the people voted for it. So, we have
no choice really but to assume this is what the people
want is to have this automatic opt-out process. Now, I
think were Senator Coghill's amendment to be adopted I
think the amendment is sufficiently deviant from the
core of the intent of the initiative that a court, if
this were litigated, would more likely than not find
this to be affectively a repeal of the measure, that's
my legal opinion.
4:26:58 PM
SENATOR COGHILL responded to Ms. Bakalar's response
We had this conversation and as you can see from the
legal opinion a lot of it is what-if language, it's
not very emphatic and so I get that and I don't see it
going to the heart of it because the heart of it was
to make it easier for people to register; in fact, if
you go back and listen to all of the advertisements
that happened, it was really centered on, it makes it
easy for you to register to vote and it should be on
the your PFD and then to simply say, "Okay, I want to
register on the PFD," seems cleaner, clearer, and less
expensive. So, I don't think it goes outside of the
realm of either the ballot measure language or the
actual legislative intent in the language of the
thing. So, it does change some of it, but I think our
constitutional duty is very, very clear, that we may
amend it at any time. I think this is a proper
amendment, it does speak to a court issue, but it
doesn't change, I think, the core of the expectation
of the initiative. So, that's just my argument, we
just fundamentally disagree on this, it's a reasonable
argument both ways, but that's where I fall.
4:28:19 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked Ms. Bakalar to verify that the initiative
cannot be amended for two years.
MS. BAKALAR specified as follows:
You may amend it at any time, you may not repeal it
before two years, but what the case law says is that
some amendments are so significant that they
"vitiate," is the word that the Supreme Court uses, so
vitiate the initiative as to constitute effectively a
repeal of the initiative.
CHAIR MEYER asked if she believes that the amendment effectively
repeals the initiative.
MS. BAKALAR replied yes.
SENATOR COGHILL responded as follows:
I think that it falls right square in the intent and
this idea of using a permanent fund dividend as a
place to apply for a voter registration, that was the
core intent, and this makes it so easy all you have to
do is say, "Yes, I want to register to vote." So, that
is the difference of opinion we have.
4:29:15 PM
CHAIR MEYER agreed with legal counsel and maintained his
objection. He asked for a roll call vote.
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Wilson, Giessel, Egan, and
Coghill voted in favor of Amendment 1 and Chair Meyer voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 passed by a 4:1 vote.
4:30:34 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked Director Bahnke to proceed with Amendment 2.
4:30:56 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved Amendment 2. She noted that the amendment
does not have a legal drafting number and simply states on the
top of the document: AM - to SB 186, 03/07/2018.
AMENDMENT 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: SB 186
Page 2, line 2, following "treat":
Delete "an eligible"
Insert "a"
Page 2, line 3, following "applicant":
Insert "under AS 43.23.016"
Page 2, line 9:
Delete "Upon"
Insert "The director shall establish procedures
to allow a permanent fund dividend applicant under AS
43.23.015 to decline voter registration under AS
43.23.016 when applying for a permanent fund dividend
under AS 43.23.015. The procedures may include a form
prescribed by the director. For a permanent fund
dividend applicant that does not decline voter
registration through the permanent fund dividend
application, upon[UPON]"
Page 2, lines 12 - 13:
Delete "[NOT ALREADY REGISTERED TO VOTE]"
Insert "not already registered to vote"
Page 3, line 5, following "(9)":
Insert "under the procedures developed by the
director of the division of elections under AS
15.07.070(k)"
4:31:20 PM
CHAIR MEYER objected for discussion purposes.
MS. BAHNKE explained Amendment 2 as follows:
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "an eligible;" this is to provide an area of
clarity and to streamline the voter registration
process with regards to eligibility of a PFD applicant
and a registered voter; this was needed because we
don't know if one is eligible at the time they come in
the door to apply for a PFD, so we saw as a necessary
change to clarify that.
Page 2, line 3:
Following "applicant" we inserted reference to a PFD
statute and that was for conformity by adding
reference to AS 43.23.016.
Page 2, line 9:
Delete "Upon" then insert how the opt-out process will
work in practice and sets opt-out standards for the
director and allows the director to come up with
procedures.
Page 2, lines 12-13:
We added this back in, it was originally deleted, but
we added it back in, "not already registered to vote,"
because the division will want to provide newly
registered voters a voter card, so it eliminated the
necessity of a mailer but we want to add back in "not
already registered to vote" because we still will want
to mail them a new voter card.
Page 3, line 5:
Allows the division director to adopt regulations.
4:33:23 PM
SENATOR COGHILL commented as follows:
Because of the opt-in/opt-out debate, certainly the
lines 8-14 are not going to work in this bill. So,
what is necessary in this particular amendment for you
to manage, for example, the not already registered
vote. So, let's go through this and find out based on
the amendment we just did, what is absolutely
necessary for you to do to make it smoother or is
there anything, based on the amendment, nothing, right
at this point?
MS. BAKALAR responded as follows:
I do think the passage of the previous amendment will
probably sort of moot the reason for this piece of the
amendment, it's hard for me to visualize without a CS
in front of me, I kind of need to look at the CS with
both amendments together to see what works and what
doesn't work because it's hard for me to picture it
all in pieces; but, certainly this part of the
amendment that we are looking at that Senator Coghill
has identified, lines 8-14 on page 1 of our amendment,
certainly is implicated by the amendment that just
passed and because it goes to the opt-out procedures
if there is no opt-out procedure in the bill anymore
then I don't know that this piece is needed because
the whole reason for this piece was to facilitate and
streamline the opt-out procedure. So, if the amendment
is to do away with the opt-out then I don't
necessarily, and again, I will qualify my response by
saying I would need to see the CS and consult with
Legislative Legal and my colleagues, etcetera, but I
don't think this piece of the amendment would be
necessarily needed anymore because it does go to the
whole opt-out concept and if that concept is removed
from the bill then I don't think we will likely need
that piece.
4:35:28 PM
SENATOR COGHILL replied as follows:
Based on that, I would like to reject the amendment,
but have them come back to things that they think they
needed to have for the better operation because it
looks like there are pieces in here that may be
helpful to them, I just don't know the answer to that.
CHAIR MEYER suggested that he hold the bill in committee and
order a committee substitute (CS) with the new Amendment 1. He
confirmed that Amendment 1 changed the bill significantly. He
opined that cleanup was needed for Amendment 2 and noted that
the proposed amendment was different than what the division had
previously offered.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if she should withdraw her motion to adopt
Amendment 2 or to make a motion to table Amendment 2.
CHAIR MEYER replied that the amendment would be left as moved
with no action taken and be picked up when the committee has a
CS.
4:36:55 PM
CHAIR MEYER held SB 186 in committee.
HB 31-SEX ASSAULT TRAINING & EXAM KITS; DOM VIOL
4:37:09 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of HB 31.
4:37:33 PM
At ease.
4:38:21 PM
CHAIR MEYER called the committee back to order.
4:38:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 31, provided an overview as follows:
We have been working on the issues related to how we
process our sexual assault kits for the last few
years, starting in 2014 when I was contacted by a
national organization called "End The Backlog," and it
was an issue that I was not familiar with but through
their organization learned about this effort and
basically across the country there are these sexual
assault kits that have not been tested, there's a
variety of reasons that's been the case in the past,
but it's been thousands and thousands of kits and
there's become a movement around reforming how we deal
with these kits and basically using it as a tool to
address serial sexual assaulters and that is what has
been found to be very helpful in accomplishing.
We started out with a bill related to an audit that
was the first piece of information that we needed to
try and understand the extent of the problem in
Alaska. At the same time the Federal Department of
Justice started offering some grants because this
issue took on a national impact and so they were
offering these grants so then at that time the
governor's office applied for one of the grants so
there are kind of two things happening at once then,
once those grant dollars were received by the state,
the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) was formed
and we have been working closely with them and trying
to unravel where the problems are in Alaska and what
we can do to address those issues. There are several
different things that we could choose to work on at
this time, but we have confined it to a few items
right now because these are things that we can make
changes to pretty immediately and continue working
with the SAKI for more long term changes that we think
will result in a much better system that functions
well and makes sure it keeps the public safe.
4:40:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained the bill's components as follows:
This particular bill addresses three components. One
is the audit and that piece was thankfully put into
Senate Bill 55, so we got the first audit last year
but it continues and has that same provision in it so
that we can get an annual update of the status of the
kits and the progress in Alaska, and that audit I
would say was really helpful for us this year because
what it did was help us define sort of the universe of
untested kits, how many are out there, where are they
and kind of get everybody on the same page because now
we can actually come up with a plan of how we are
going to address the backlog of untested kits. So, the
audit provision remains, and I think that's an
important way for the state to get updated, the
Legislature to get updated on the progress and on an
annual basis have a number that we are working off of,
so we know progress is being made. We've worked
closely with the department on that provision and my
understanding is that they feel like that could be
easily implemented as an ongoing thing that because we
did it through Senate Bill 55: again, thank you to
Senator Coghill for that last year, that
infrastructure is in place to continue that on an
annual basis and at some point that may not be
necessary, but I think it's going to be a multi-year
effort here for us to continue to working on this and
it will keep us getting accurate information. So, one
piece is the audit.
4:42:06 PM
She continued as follows:
A second piece is related to sexual assault training
for law enforcement officials. Most folks in Alaska go
through either the academy in Anchorage or the trooper
academy unless there is someone who perhaps comes in,
does a lateral transfer or something, but most of our
folks are going to come through those two academies,
but right now what the statute says is it requires
that 12 hours for training on domestic violence, but
it doesn't specify that there is also training
required on sexual assault response, even though that
is happening in practice. The recommendation to
include this actually came in from the folks who are
working on this, that way it is clear that it should
be both domestic violence and sexual assault, there
are ways that those can be the same information
because, of course, a domestic violence situation
could involve a sexual assault, but there are also
instances where that is different and what we want to
ensure that we have a good victim-centered approach
and so that if someone is assaulted it doesn't matter
whether it happened in northern Alaska or southeast
Alaska, that there's going to be a strong victim-
centered approach and that everybody is going to get
the same response and treatment.
4:43:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR continued as follows:
The third provision is related to the actual options
for a victim to report. About a year ago the Federal
Department of Justice released a "white paper" on this
very provision and there's a couple of ways to look at
this, and this sort of took me a little bit to wrap my
head around because when you start working on this and
see what some of the results have been in other
states, there's a strong motivation to say everything
single kit needs to be tested because that individual
could be a dangerous criminal and we want to get them
off of our streets; however, we have to make sure that
we have a victim-centered approach and it isn't always
the case that a victim wants to engage in law
enforcement and so we really do have to make sure that
we have an opportunity for them to have the kit taken
or evidence collected because it has to be done in a
timely fashion if it's not done in about 72 hours then
your evidence collection isn't going to be useful.
Unfortunately, you have someone who just experienced a
very traumatic situation, that has to go in for an
invasive medical procedure to do the examination and
collect the evidence and might not be the right time
for them to make the decision about where they want to
go, do they want to pursue a case with law enforcement
or do they want to just make sure they don't have
health issues as a result of the assault or STD
testing, things like that. Because you have that
limited window of time when you can do the collection,
having a couple of different options is the best way
to make sure that the individual who experienced the
assault can choose what works for them.
So, what we put in, and you will notice in the
original version there were actually three different
opportunities for a victim and in working with the
department and through the SAKI that has been going
on, we've been able to decide that this number-two can
come out and as you look at it, what looks like
number-three, one and three would be the two that
remained, so you would have the option of getting the
evidence collected and choosing to engage with law
enforcement right at that moment and you would have
the second option of an anonymous report and that
allows you to choose at a later date whether you want
to engage with law enforcement or not, and we are told
that often the individual does choose to move forward,
but needs a little bit of space from that whole
experience to be able to get a support network around
them, but able to work with the people who are trained
to provide that kind of response, the trauma response,
and once they feel more secure, more safe, more
stable, that they know that that's something that they
can move forward with then make that choice, but you
haven't missed that window of opportunity when you can
actually collect as evidence that would be usable. So,
those are the two options that are allowed for that.
4:46:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR summarized as follows:
So, those are the three parts that are in the bill
now. Some of the other provisions that people may want
to consider in the future are a timeline within which
all of the kits have to be tested, that was one thing
we considered. Also, from the folks who have been
working on this nationally, they are really pushing
for a way for a victim to be able to track where their
kit is, so that is something that we might consider at
a later date. So, there are a couple of those other
pieces out there that you may have heard of in the
conversation, that's why I wanted to mention them
today, but these ones are confined to the items that
the department has said they can do at this time
without a fiscal impact which is really important to
the work we are all trying to accomplish in developing
our sustainable fiscal plan, but can be meaningful and
I think that is really important. I know that Senator
Meyer, and I thank you for your leadership on sexual
assault issues and always acknowledging April as
Sexual Assault Awareness Month, this is something that
we try to work together on and so I'm encouraged that
there is an option here where we can make meaningful
changes that could have a positive impact, but also
aware of our fiscal situation right now, don't have a
big price tag attached to them.
4:47:20 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked if 3,400 kits remain untested.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered yes. She explained that batches of
kits were being sent out to be tested, but there was a backlog
in the facilities that do the testing because a lot of states
were trying to move forward as well. She conceded that testing
will take some time and noted hundreds of thousands of dollars
is needed for all the kits to be tested. She said federal grants
dollars would be used but noted that an audit would be helpful
to assist in the process. She said prosecutions may occur
because of the testing. She stated that the process would be
ongoing, and her hope was that everyone will work together.
4:49:01 PM
CHAIR MEYER thanked Representative Tarr for her leadership in
sexual assault exam kits. He continued as follows:
Often times we get asked what are our favorite bill
that we ever got passed and mine was when we were able
to drop the statute of limitations on rape and sexual
assault; unfortunately, that was in 2001 or 2002, so
anything prior to that we cannot go after. With these
kits and with DNA, we are able to go back 10, 15, 20
years or more.
SENATOR WILSON asked if the legislation assists current practice
and specified as follows:
During my time as a director of a DVSA program, we
started a program in the Mat-Su and working with the
SART team there, we already had these protocols in
place in terms of anonymous reporting, I just didn't
know if that was part of the statute. Is this just
needed to help that, sort of? I'm trying to understand
the need for anonymous reporting in statute versus
what is currently in practice. I didn't know if there
was an issue that's happening out there or not, and
that's sort of a DPS type of question, I know that
they still funded folks who wanted to have SART kits
ran for the anonymous process. I didn't know if that
was a new issue that was now coming up or not.
4:50:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied as follows:
What we hope to accomplish is to have a standard
statewide policy. What has been explained to me, and
that also relates to why we want to put the 12 hours
of training in, is that there's over 200 law
enforcement agencies in the State of Alaska, in some
cases people are doing things a little bit different
from the next and by having that standard policy it
will ensure that everybody is getting that
opportunity.
SENATOR WILSON said his other question related to getting the
actual number of untested rape kits. He conceded that his
question may be better posed to the Department of Public Safety
(DPS). He said his last question addressed the audit language in
Senate Bill 55 and asked if the audit would be only for one year
or for an annual audit.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied yes and noted that committee members
were provided with a report given to the Legislature on November
1, 2017 regarding the single-year audit. She continued as
follows:
This is where it states that there are 3,484 sexual
assault kits inventoried; 3,219 were in the possession
of the 7 largest agencies and that is the number we
are working off of right now. The SAKI grant allows a
portion of the grant money to be used to test kits and
under these grants 571 sexual assault kits were
identified as eligible for testing and those are the
ones that are going to be sent outside to the
contractor.
4:53:03 PM
CHAIR MEYER opened invited testimony.
SENATOR WILSON asked Mr. Dym from DPS to specify the number of
sexual assault kits that remain untested.
4:53:39 PM
ORIN DYM, Forensic Laboratory Manager, Alaska Department Public
Safety, Anchorage, Alaska, answered questions relating to HB 31
as follows:
We did provide the number in our report and what I can
say is we have sent 300 kits so far to the contract
vendor for analysis, we have not received any of those
kits back yet, so they are not yet completed. We have
another 132 kits staged, ready to go. Our vendor did
request that we delay sending those because they ran
out of space to put the kits. We have 432 kits
scheduled to go to the vendor. We will be waiting to
see whether or not we run out of money with those kits
as to whether or not we can continue to send kits.
SENATOR WILSON asked how testing for sexual assault kits is
prioritized.
4:55:17 PM
RANDI BREAGER, Criminal Justice Planner, Scientific Crime
Detection Laboratory, Alaska Department of Public Safety,
Anchorage, Alaska, answered questions relating to HB 31 as
follows:
We established a triage protocol to identify how we
were going to send kits and in what order knowing that
we might possibly run out of funds before we can test
all 571 eligible kits. We prioritized first based on
cases that have an unknown suspect or a stranger
assault, essentially. Our next priorities where all
sexual abuse of minor cases. The next step was any
suspect that had more than ten incidences in their
criminal history and that goes beyond sexual assault,
so they could have a number of different other crimes
attributed to them. Our next one was known suspects
but not in [Combined DNA Index System (CODIS)] yet,
and then our final category is a mix of the remaining
kits.
SENATOR WILSON pointed out that only 571 sexual assault kits
were eligible and inquired what occurred with the remaining kits
and would the state have to test the remaining kits.
MS. BREAGER replied as follows:
No, that's a great clarification point. So, the 571
kits are actually only Department of Public Safety-
Alaska State Trooper kits. What we did with this grant
was we applied first isolating Alaska State Trooper
cases because they are within the jurisdictional
control of the Department of Public Safety and we are
utilizing it as sort of a pilot project if you will
because it is taking an immense amount of resources
for personnel and time to organize this project and we
knew the smaller departments would not have the
resources to dedicate to that level of a project. So,
we are hoping by us going through this process that we
will be able to provide policy recommendations, best
practices, templates, etcetera, for all of the smaller
departments to copy and implement, they could choose
to apply for grant funds on their own or we can
continue to have conversations about what it might
look like for the state to help with that.
CHAIR MEYER asked Ms. Breager if she had anything to add.
MS. BREAGER replied that Representative Tarr did an excellent
job explained the bill step-by-step and she did not have
anything else to add. She noted that Representative Tarr worked
closely with the Department of Public Safety throughout the
process and she did a great job summarizing the feedback from
multiple agencies.
4:58:19 PM
CHAIR MEYER opened public testimony.
4:58:56 PM
KEELEY OLSON, Standing Together Against Rape (STAR) and Alaska
Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA),
Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of HB 31. She disclosed
that there were 413 sexual assault kits submitted in 2017 and
approximately 235 occurred in Anchorage.
5:00:31 PM
NANCY PORTO, representing self, Kirkland, Washington, testified
in support of HB 31. She disclosed that she grew up in Alaska
and noted that she testified at a committee meeting in 2016
regarding her sexual assault that occurred in 2013. She revealed
that she consented to a full rape kit examination, but the kit
has not been fully processed and results have not been received
from the biological evidence portion of her exam. She provided
committee members details of her sexual assault and examination
results. She disclosed that she continues to inquire about her
examination but eventually leaves messages and no callbacks
occur. She asked the committee to support the bill to provide
closure for herself and others.
5:03:12 PM
CASSANDRE HUMPHREY, representing self, Burbank, California,
testified in support of HB 31. She disclosed that she is the
sister of Nancy Porto and supports the need for action regarding
sexual assault kit processing. She disclosed personal
information on family members and friends who have been sexually
assaulted in Alaska, noting that none have received justice. She
asserted that Alaska's system on sexual assault has failed her
sister and emphasized that victims need to know that their
crimes will get a real response from the justice system and
hopefully in turn, sexual crimes will eventually decrease in
Alaska.
5:07:04 PM
JANIS JOHNSON, representing self, Valdez, Alaska, testified in
support of HB 31. She asserted that the sexual assault kit
backlog compromises prosecution and allows perpetrators to
continue at large and repeat their assaults and reoffend. She
said not processing sexual assault examination kits was
devasting to victims and the backlog needs to be addressed. She
asserted that law enforcement agencies need to be accountable
for the kits that have not been processed so that the justice
department can prosecute.
5:08:50 PM
BESSIE ODAM, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
support of HB 31. She said victims of sexual assault deserve
justice and they deserve the protection of the law. She asserted
that proper procedures must be taken to ensure that victims of
sexual violence are able to get the closure they need and
deserve.
5:09:45 PM
SALLY PORTO, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
support of HB 31. She disclosed that her two daughters spoke
earlier. She emphasized that no action has been taken over the
past five years by state authorities to resolve her daughter's
sexual assault.
5:12:48 PM
JANE ANDREEN, representing self and the Alaska Women's Lobby,
Juneau, Alaska, testified in support of HB 31. She provided the
committee with her background in sexual assault training. She
revealed that she was sexually assaulted in Minnesota in the
1970s and detailed her rape examination and police interview.
She disclosed that she has never received any word on whether an
arrest was made or what the results of her examination were. She
explained that her sexual assault incident led her to move to
Alaska and to work in the areas of domestic violence and sexual
assault. She detailed her history in Alaska regarding domestic
violence and sexual assault as follows:
While in Homer as the director of South Peninsula
Women's Services, we worked with South Peninsula
Hospital to bring the first SART training to Alaska,
and then when I took over as the director of the State
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault in
1994, I was able to play a role in helping to expand
that team approach across the state. I've dedicated a
lot of my life to this issue and wanting to make it be
much more victim centered and much more empowering as
well as to be an affective tool in making arrests and
holding offenders accountable.
After I retired from the state about 18 months ago, I
was working with one of the local programs on contract
doing a needs assessment and as part of that I looked
into the statewide data that we have and I just wanted
to share for 2015, our Alaska victimization survey
that is conducted by the University of Alaska Justice
Center reported that 7662 adult Alaska women were
raped in 2015, at that same time we look at the
uniform crime report which is the reports that were
made to law enforcement, there were 895 confirmed
reports. So, you go from 7662 down to 895, and of
those 895, only 130 arrests were actually made; this
is a crime that represents between 10-20 percent of
our violent crimes that are reported in Alaska every
year, and yet we have the lowest conviction rate, we
need this tool. I often wonder, because rapists are
repeat offenders more often than not, how many other
women were affected by that man who attacked me and
what we could do if we could get this backlog cleared
off.
I really want to commend Representative Tarr for the
work that she is doing and dedication, and also for
the work that I know you have done individually and as
a legislature, but for these reasons I think it is
really important to support this bill and move these
kits forward.
5:16:37 PM
ALYSON CURREY, Legislative Liaison, Planned Parenthood Votes
Northwest and Hawaii, Juneau, Alaska, testified in support of HB
31. She expressed her appreciation for Representative Tarr's
leadership on the issue. She thanked those that testified and
shared their personal stories. She asserted that the bill would
clearly have a direct and positive impact for victims of sexual
assault in Alaska who are waiting for closure and justice.
5:17:55 PM
CHAIR MEYER closed public testimony.
5:18:15 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to adopt Amendment 1, version 30-
LS0271\O.2.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: CSHB 31(FIN)
Page 3, line 3:
Delete "three"
Page 3, line 8, following "system;":
Insert "or"
Page 3, lines 9 - 15:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
Page 3, line 28, through page 4, line 25:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 6. AS 44.41 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 44.41.070. Report on untested sexual assault
examination kits. (a) By September 1 of each year,
each law enforcement agency and state department
charged with the maintenance, storage, and
preservation of sexual assault examination kits shall
conduct an inventory of untested sexual assault
examination kits and report, in writing, to the
Department of Public Safety the number of untested
sexual assault examination kits in the possession of
the agency or department and the date on which each
sexual assault examination kit was collected.
(b) By November 1 of each year, the Department
of Public Safety shall prepare and transmit a report
to the president of the senate and the speaker of the
house of representatives that contains
(1) the number of untested sexual assault
examination kits stored by each law enforcement agency
or department;
(2) the date each untested sexual assault
examination kit was collected; and
(3) a plan for addressing the backlog and
prevention of a backlog of untested sexual assault
examination kits.
(c) The Department of Public Safety shall
deliver a copy of the report prepared under (b) of
this section to the senate secretary and the chief
clerk of the house of representatives and notify the
legislature that the report is available.
(d) In this section, "untested sexual assault
examination kit" means a sexual assault examination
kit with evidence that
(1) has been collected but that has not
been submitted to a laboratory operated or approved by
the Department of Public Safety for either a
serological or DNA test; or
(2) has been collected and submitted to a
laboratory operated or approved by the Department of
Public Safety but that has not had a serological or
DNA test conducted on the evidence.
* Sec. 7. This Act takes effect July 1, 2018."
CHAIR MEYER objected for discussion purposes.
5:18:33 PM
DIANA RHOADES, Staff, Representative Tarr, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained Amendment 1 for HB 31 as
follows:
Earlier this year, Representative Tarr met with victim
advocates and the Department of Public Safety to talk
about as we mentioned the three reporting options and
the need to remove the middle reporting option, we
call it the "medical option." What this bill would do
was on page, "delete 'three,'" so it is basically
removing the middle option, the "medical option," and
then it actually updates the information about the
"reporting option" so that the original language had
the one-time audit and this would make it be an annual
audit, and then it just changes the dates in the bill,
the bill says 2017 and it updates those dates.
CHAIR MEYER asked if the bill has a zero fiscal note.
MS. RHOADES answered yes.
CHAIR MEYER asked if the amendment would change the fiscal note.
MS. RHOADES answered no.
5:20:01 PM
CHAIR MEYER removed his objection to Amendment 1. He announced
that without objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
SENATOR WILSON noted that legislators can just ask for a report
and questioned the need for statutorial reporting.
MS. RHOADES answered as follows:
It's just to make it clear that we have that reporting
requirement so that it was one of the recommendations
from across the country that it is very clear that
there is this reporting requirement instate and it's
by November 1 of each that the information should be
collected and reported.
5:21:53 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report SCS CSHB 31(STA), version 30-
LS0271\O as amended, from committee with individual
recommendations and attached zero fiscal note.
5:22:07 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced that there being no objection, the motion
carried.
5:23:38 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Meyer adjourned the Senate State Affairs Committee at 5:23
p.m.