HB 20-SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS  3:11:37 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 20, "An Act relating to marriage solemnization; and authorizing elected public officials in the state to solemnize marriages." 3:13:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, Alaska State Legislature, introduced HB 20, as prime sponsor. He stated that in financially challenging times, the elected officials of the Alaska State Legislature have a role in reducing "red tape" and making government accessible to the public. He asserted that his intent for introducing HB 20 is to make marriage more accessible. He relayed that HB 20 would allow couples to have their marriages solemnized directly by elected officials. He said that performing marriage ceremonies is a privilege, and he expressed that elected officials would be fortunate to have that opportunity. 3:14:30 PM SARA PERMAN, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 20 on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor. She stated that HB 20 would amend two statutes within the Alaska Marriage Code, and the changes would allow marriages to be solemnized by elected officials of the State of Alaska. She relayed that Section 1 of HB 20 would amend AS 25.05.261(a), which relates to who may solemnize a marriage. She said that currently the statute reads that a marriage may be solemnized by: a minister, priest, or rabbi [of any church or congregation in the state]; a commissioned officer of the Salvation Army; a marriage commissioner or judicial officer of the state; or before or in any religious organization or congregation. She said that HB 20 would change the statute to include individuals holding elected office in the State of Alaska. She went on to say that Section 2 of HB 20 would amend the statute to specify that a marriage solemnized by an elected official is considered valid. MS. PERMAN stated that the purpose of HB 20 is to make marriage accessible for all Alaskans. She maintained that [the institution of] marriage "opens several doors," including access to healthcare and eligibility for family medical leave. She said that there are over 1,100 places in federal law, relating to programs, where being married "really makes a difference." She relayed that the sponsor believes HB 20 to be a "family first" bill, and it allows people to receive better benefits, which is good for all Alaskans. She offered that HB 20 would allow elected officials to be good stewards of government. She added that it would encourage elected officials to interact on a one-on-one basis with constituents, providing a service that has a long-lasting impact on them. She conceded that the Alaska Marriage Code currently allows anyone to apply for a marriage commissioner appointment; however, there is a $25 fee; it requires application for a marriage license with the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS); and it requires application for the marriage commissioner appointment with the Alaska Court System. She maintained that HB 20 would simplify the process. MS. PERMAN offered that HB 20 would be advantageous to couples not affiliated with a particular religious institution. They would be able to ask an elected official [to solemnize their marriage] rather than have to [ask someone to] apply for a marriage commissioner appointment. She concluded that HB 20 would make a real difference in small towns or rural areas with somewhat limited resources by allowing a couple the option of asking an elected official to conduct a marriage ceremony. MS. PERMAN mentioned that DHSS assigned a zero fiscal note to HB 20. She added that HB 20 would remove the financial cost for citizens who would be paying the $25 fee for the marriage commissioner's appointment. 3:17:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked what duties an elected official would have in solemnizing a marriage, with regard to verifying the paper work and signing the marriage certificate. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that there is a two-step process for marriages. The couple must get a marriage license from DHSS and then find someone to solemnize, or perform, the marriage ceremony. He opined that the official performing the marriage would not have a duty to verify the paperwork, but would sign as the officiating person and attach the authorizing certificate. He added that the marrying couple would also need to sign the certificate. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH mentioned that witness signatures would also be required. 3:20:00 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked if HB 20 would apply to all elected office holders, even school board members. MS. PERMAN answered yes, the legislation would apply to all elected officials holding public office within the State of Alaska. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked if HB 20 would include tribal council members and if further definition is needed. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that staff did not research the question of tribal officials. He said HB 20 was written to allow a public official to perform a marriage ceremony by virtue of his/her being elected, and this would include someone appointed to fill an elected seat. 3:21:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if an elected official can relinquish the privilege of officiating a marriage ceremony. MS. PERMAN replied yes. Section 1, subsection (a) specifies that marriages "may" be solemnized, rather than "shall." She said this would give one the opportunity to decline. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for clarification that as an elected official, she would not have the title of "marriage officiant." MS. PERMAN confirmed that Representative Johnson would not have that title and would not be obligated to perform marriage ceremonies. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that she has a letter of opposition because of the concern that HB 20 could be construed as a duty of an elected official - to solemnize marriages. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that he did not view HB 20 as creating a duty. Performing a marriage ceremony would be a choice, not a requirement. He added that First Amendment rights have guaranteed that religious officials may decline to perform marriage ceremonies both for religious or any other reasons. He reiterated that HB 20 would not create a duty to perform a marriage function, and an elected official could not be compelled to perform a ceremony against his/her will. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if there was an expectation that an elected official would perform a marriage ceremony and have to give a reason for not wanting to do so. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated his belief that it would not be necessary to give a reason for not wanting to perform a marriage ceremony. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that the answer to Representative Johnson's question is "no." 3:25:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if there is a shortage of marrying officials. MS. PERMAN responded that there is likely no shortage of people available to perform marriage ceremonies, because of the option to apply for a marriage commissioner appointment. She said HB 20 would provide an alternate route to simplify the process. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said his only concern is that someone might pressure an elected official to perform a marriage ceremony if no one else was available and insist that it was his/her public duty. He added that he understands the concern that performing marriage ceremonies might be viewed as another obligation of public office. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP requested more clarity in the definition of public official and whom that included. He asked if an elected official would include those in utility companies and cooperatives. 3:29:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to page 1 of HB 20, beginning on line 6, which states "elective public office". He asserted that an elected official of a utility company does not hold public office, but corporate office. He opined that the use of the term "public office" would also preclude a tribal government official. 3:30:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked how many people pay the $25 fee and what agency collects that money. 3:31:26 PM NANCY MEADE, General Council, Administrative Staff, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, testified that court system personnel perform many non-religious marriage ceremonies and issue the marriage commissions. She said that each marriage ceremony performed through the court system costs $25, and last year there were about 650 of them. She added that the average number is about 600-650 per year, and the court system collects $25 for each one. She stated that in 2016, the court system issued marriage commissions to 1,678 individuals, who each paid $25 for a commission. She relayed that the fees are collected by the court system and are deposited directly into the general fund. She added that the court system does not retain any of its filing fees. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH mentioned that about 1,600 commissions at $25 each comes to [$40,000], and he asked for clarification of the "600" number mentioned. MS. MEADE clarified that "650" represents the number of times a judge, law clerk, or magistrate performed a marriage ceremony [in 2016]. She confirmed that the court system budget would not be affected by HB 20. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH estimated that about 2,200 marriages were outside of the religious realm. 3:33:32 PM MS. MEADE, in response to Representative Wool, reiterated that the 600-plus marriage ceremonies conducted at the courthouse are $25 each. 3:33:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered that she doesn't see the need for HB 20. She offered that she has performed marriage ceremonies, and any elected official can already perform marriage ceremonies after applying for the marriage commission and paying the $25. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN speculated that Representative Johnson enjoyed performing marriage ceremonies for family and friends when she was Mayor of Palmer. He offered that HB 20 would make it more convenient for an elected official to do the same. He attested that under HB 20, government would be more accessible to the public and would be viewed more favorably. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked, "What brought this up and what problem are we solving?" REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that part of a legislator's job in government is to look for ways for government to work more effectively and efficiently for the public. He asserted that making it easier for people to go through the process of getting married is "a positive." REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that one does not have to wait to get a form and spend money before being able to perform a marriage ceremony. 3:38:36 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 20. After ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, he closed public testimony. [HB 20 was held over.]