03/27/2013 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY

            HB 1 - REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:27:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KELLER announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  1,  "An  Act relating  to  issuance of  drivers'                                                               
licenses."  [Before the committee was CSHB 1(STA).]                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, as one of the  joint prime sponsors of HB 1,                                                               
explained that  HB 1 would  allow the Division of  Motor Vehicles                                                               
(DMV) to issue  a foreign person a driver's license  for a period                                                               
of less  than five years if  he/she is authorized to  stay in the                                                               
United  States for  less  than five  years  or indefinitely,  and                                                               
provides that  the foreign  person, for  a period  of up  to five                                                               
years after  such a  driver's license is  first issued,  would be                                                               
able to renew it without fee,  though if the length of authorized                                                               
stay is indefinite, the license  shall have to be renewed yearly.                                                               
When  the  period  of  authorized stay  is  not  indefinite,  the                                                               
license shall be valid only for the period of authorized stay.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN offered  his  understanding that  a visa  is                                                               
what is  used to  determine the length  of a  person's authorized                                                               
stay in the  U.S., and that similar legislation  has been adopted                                                               
in 36 other states and the District of Columbia.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:30:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
FORREST  WOLFE,  Staff,  Representative Bob  Lynn,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, on behalf  of Representative Lynn, one  of the joint                                                               
prime  sponsors of  HB 1,  in response  to a  question, confirmed                                                               
that  the previous  committee of  referral removed  language that                                                               
would have  allowed a license with  a duration of less  than five                                                               
years to be  renewed by mail.  He explained  that this change was                                                               
made at the request of the DMV.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:31:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DEAN  WAUSON -  mentioning that  he enforces  federal immigration                                                               
law, and  referring to an  e-mail included in members'  packets -                                                               
offered his  belief that  HB 1 would  neither change  the process                                                               
currently undertaken  by the DMV when  issuing driver's licenses,                                                               
nor  increase  costs,  and  opined  that  foreign  persons  whose                                                               
authorized stay  in Alaska is  less than  90 days don't  have any                                                               
reason  to get  an  Alaska driver's  license.   He  acknowledged,                                                               
however,   that   in   instances   where   a   foreign   person's                                                               
documentation doesn't  reflect how  long he/she is  authorized to                                                               
be in the  U.S., DMV personnel would have to  contact the federal                                                               
government for that  information.  In conclusion,  he opined that                                                               
HB 1  would discourage foreign  persons from coming to  Alaska to                                                               
obtain driver's licenses.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:43:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JEFFREY A. MITTMAN, Executive  Director, American Civil Liberties                                                               
Union of Alaska (ACLU of  Alaska), after mentioning that the ACLU                                                               
of  Alaska's written  testimony  regarding HB  1  is included  in                                                               
members'  packets,  pointed out  that  immigration  is a  complex                                                               
issue  that is  reserved solely  to the  federal government,  and                                                               
warned that  significant preemption issues could  therefore arise                                                               
should HB 1  become law, particularly given that  the DMV doesn't                                                               
have the  necessary training, expertise, or  authority to address                                                               
immigration issues.  The purpose of  the DMV is to assess whether                                                               
individuals  are qualified  to  drive on  Alaska's  roads and  to                                                               
issue driver's licenses to those  who are, not to research myriad                                                               
complicated immigration  statuses.  Furthermore, passage  of HB 1                                                               
could  also  result  in  litigation  based on  a  lack  of  equal                                                               
protection, because  under federal law, immigrants  are a suspect                                                               
class  with   specific  protections,   and  HB  1   would  burden                                                               
immigrants in  Alaska with different licensing  requirements that                                                               
do nothing to make the roads safer  - in other words, there is no                                                               
nexus  between being  qualified  to drive  in  Alaska, and  being                                                               
authorized  to   stay  in  the   country.    In   conclusion,  he                                                               
characterized HB 1  as unnecessary, noted that it  is not closely                                                               
tailored  to  any  legitimate  state   interest,  and  urged  the                                                               
committee not to pass it.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. MITTMAN, in  response to a question - relaying  that he would                                                               
conduct  further  research  of  case law  pertaining  to  similar                                                               
legislation and  provide it to  the committee in addition  to the                                                               
case-law  information already  included in  the ACLU  of Alaska's                                                               
written testimony -  offered his understanding that  the trend in                                                               
other states has been to  allow for even greater leniency towards                                                               
ensuring that anyone who is on  a state's roads is a safe driver;                                                               
in other  words, other states  recognize that the  general course                                                               
and better practice is for  their motor vehicle division to focus                                                               
on ensuring the  safety of individuals who would  be driving, not                                                               
getting involved in immigration issues  it has no expertize in or                                                               
jurisdiction over.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:49:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ERLING  JOHANSEN, Assistant  Attorney  General,  Labor and  State                                                               
Affairs Section,  Civil Division  (Anchorage), Department  of Law                                                               
(DOL), noting that in a  letter he'd provided the committee dated                                                               
January 28, 2013,  he'd relayed that he didn't see  any basis for                                                               
a constitutional  challenge of HB  1, opined that the  bill isn't                                                               
proposing  a preemption  of federal  authority.   Foreign persons                                                               
coming  to the  DMV for  a  driver's license  would have  already                                                               
obtained  from the  federal  government  any necessary  documents                                                               
regarding  their  authorized  stay,  and  DMV  personnel  already                                                               
consider a variety  of documents on a regular basis.   He said he                                                               
doesn't envision HB  1 raising either equal  protection issues or                                                               
due process  issues, and ventured  that because it's  the federal                                                               
government that decides who is  authorized to stay in the country                                                               
and for how long, not DMV  personnel, HB 1 is neutral with regard                                                               
to  treating people  equally, though  under  it the  period of  a                                                               
particular  license's  validity would  vary.    His research,  he                                                               
relayed, indicates  that other states  have laws similar  to that                                                               
proposed by HB 1.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. JOHANSEN  noted that  on a  different point  - that  of being                                                               
issued a license,  rather than that of being issued  a license of                                                               
lesser duration  - the  Iowa Supreme Court,  in Sanchez  v. State                                                             
692  N.W.2d  812 (Iowa  2005),  held  that the  state's  driver's                                                               
licensing  requirement that  either a  social security  number or                                                               
federal documents  authorizing a  foreign national's  presence in                                                               
the  country   be  provided,  was   rationally  related   to  the                                                               
legitimate   state  interest   of   not   allowing  the   state's                                                               
governmental machinery  to facilitate the concealment  of illegal                                                               
aliens,  and did  not therefore  violate  Iowa's constitution  or                                                               
federal equal-protection  rights.   In conclusion,  he reiterated                                                               
his view  that HB 1  wouldn't raise any equal  protection issues.                                                               
In response to  a question, Mr. Johansen indicated  that he'd not                                                               
found any  recent court cases  addressing legislation  similar to                                                               
HB 1.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. MITTMAN,  in response  to questions  and comments,  said that                                                               
the  court cases  he'd  cited  in the  ACLU  of Alaska's  written                                                               
testimony generally  address federal consideration of  state laws                                                               
that impact "on  immigration areas."  Regardless  that the courts                                                               
have  held that  it  is  permissible for  a  state  to have  laws                                                               
restricting the issuance  of driver's licenses to  just those who                                                               
are present in  the country legally, HB 1  is proposing something                                                               
significantly different,  something that would impact  the rights                                                               
of foreign  persons who  are in  the country  legally.   In Torao                                                             
Takahashi v.  Fish &  Game Commission 334  U.S. 410,  420 (1948),                                                             
for example,  the U.S.  Supreme Court ruled  that a  state cannot                                                               
adopt  a classification  that  prevents lawfully-admitted  aliens                                                               
from  earning  a  living  in   the  same  way  that  other  state                                                               
inhabitants earn their  living.  It is clear from  such case law,                                                               
he opined, that  it is impermissible - by setting  up a different                                                               
standard  that imposes  a special  condition -  to differentially                                                               
burden someone who is lawfully present in the country.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MITTMAN,  in response  to  further  questions and  comments,                                                               
asserted that what  must be considered is  the jurisprudence that                                                               
assesses  the rights  of those  who  are legally  present in  the                                                               
country   -  the   suspect   classification  of   legally-present                                                               
immigrants  - because  the courts  are  aware that  there can  be                                                               
discriminatory laws  passed against  immigrants; in  other words,                                                               
there is  already a significant  body of  case law that  looks at                                                               
differential  burdens  on such  persons'  rights.   In  Hines  v.                                                             
Davidowitz,  312 U.S.  52, 59-60  (1941), for  example, the  U.S.                                                             
Supreme  Court   invalidated  a  Pennsylvania   requirement  that                                                               
legally-present  immigrants must  obtain  an identification  (ID)                                                               
card every year [that  then had to be shown in  order to obtain a                                                               
driver's  license or  register a  vehicle].   With cases  such as                                                               
Takahashi  and Hines,  though they  do  not specifically  address                                                           
laws  such  as  that  being  proposed  by  HB  1,  what  must  be                                                               
considered  is, what  [was the  court's] constitutional  analysis                                                               
with regard to state laws that impact immigrants.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN,  in response  to a question,  reiterated his                                                               
belief  that similar  legislation has  been adopted  in 36  other                                                               
states   and  the   District  of   Columbia,   and  offered   his                                                               
understanding that none of those laws have been challenged.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG,  in response  to comments,  offered his                                                               
belief  that not  enough research  regarding  the legislation  in                                                               
those [other jurisdictions] has  been conducted yet, particularly                                                               
with regard to any constitutional issues they raise.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:07:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  PRUITT  moved  to   report  CSHB  1(STA)  out  of                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
fiscal  notes.    There  being  no  objection,  CSHB  1(STA)  was                                                               
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.