Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
04/03/2018 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 | |
| SB118 | |
| HB96 | |
| HB168 | |
| HCR10 | |
| HB20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 168 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 152 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 20-SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS
4:42:54 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of House Bill 20 (HB
20).
4:43:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 20, provided an overview as follows:
In financially challenging times like we face, I'm
reminded that part of our role as elected officials is
to reduce red-tape and make government accessible to
the public. In introducing this bill, I would like to
make marriage more easily accessible. The bill will
allow couples to have their marriage solemnized
directly by elected officials.
He noted that "elected officials" includes mayors, school board
members, anyone that has been elected to public office. He
specified the bill will allow elected officials to perform the
marriages without making couples go down to the courthouse to
get a marriage commissioner's license. He said the bill will
allow public officials to be the "friendly face of government"
while providing a service to the public. He added that being
allowed to perform a marriage would be a privilege and elected
officials would be fortunate to have the opportunity to
solemnize a marriage from time to time. He said the bill puts
into statute the constitutional principle that religious figures
and others cannot be compelled to perform a marriage ceremony.
4:44:44 PM
SARA PERMAN, Staff, Representative Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided an overview and sectional
analysis of HB 20.
HB 20 amends Alaska's marriage code to add language
that allows for marriages to be solemnized by elected
officials of the State of Alaska. Section 1 amends AS
25.05.261(a) relating to who may solemnize a marriage,
currently the statute only allows for marriage
solemnization by a religious official which includes
ministers, priests, rabbis or commissioned officers of
the Salvation Army, a marriage commissioner or
judicial officer, or before or in any religious
organization or congregation. HB 20 adds language to
add to the list an individual holding an elected
public office in the state.
Section 2 adds a new subsection to the same statute
that says, "No religious official, organization or
elected official that is authorized for marriages is
obligated to do so." AS 25.05.281 which allows
marriages solemnized by an unauthorized person
professing to be authorized is to be considered valid
as amended in section 3 to include language that reads
that marriages solemnized by an elected official is
considered valid whereas someone professing to be an
elected official.
The purpose of this bill is to make marriage
accessible to all Alaskans. We recognize that marriage
opens doors for many people. There are over 1100
places in federal laws and programs for being married
expands an individual's opportunities, examples
include access to healthcare for one's spouse or
having eligibility for family medical leave. Frankly,
we believe that this bill is a family-first bill that
allows people to receive greater benefits that are
good for all Alaskans.
Additionally, HB 20 allows elected officials to be
good stewards of government, it allows elected
officials to interact on a one-on-one basis with
constituents providing a service that has a lasting
impact on constituents' lives. Whereas couples can
currently have anyone solemnize marriage through a
marriage commissioner appointment, there's a $25 fee
and the process can be time consuming. Having an
elected official available provides simplified cost-
free outlet.
This amendment may also apply to couples who may not
be affiliated with a particular religious
organization, they would be able to have an elected
official perform their wedding without having to go
through the process of arranging for a marriage
commissioner appointment. In smaller towns or rural
area with limited resources, this change provides one
more outlet for marriage solemnization; for example,
if a couple in a remote Alaska village is set to be
married and the minister becomes ill, the mayor could
step-in in short notice.
With that, I'll stress that nothing in this bill
mandates that elected officials must solemnize
marriage and I'll also note that the Department of
Health and Social Services has assigned a zero-fiscal
note to this bill. This bill actually removes an
expense to citizens who would otherwise pay a $25 fee
for a marriage commissioner appointment.
4:47:45 PM
SENATOR COGHILL disclosed that he has been a marriage
commissioner and noted that paperwork involved. He asked if
paperwork would be required for elected officials as well.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered no. He explained that an elected
official's marriage solemnization procedure would be like others
that are identified that can perform marriages such as a
Salvation Army officer. He explained that part of the point is
that somebody could call up an elected official on short notice
to perform the ceremony.
SENATOR COGHILL asked what documentation would be required for
the marriage ceremony.
4:48:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN replied as follows:
The marriage license itself that when somebody gets
married now would be somebody that has a marriage
commissioners license or judge, or minister would
actually sign the form that the marriage license
saying this is the day they got married.
SENATOR COGHILL asked to confirm that the process Representative
Claman explained would be up to the couple.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered right, but the signature would
come from the elected official that indicated who they are.
SENATOR COGHILL explained that his intent was to learn how the
practically played out as far as signing the solemnization. He
asked to confirm that the signature would be on the license
document. He noted that the license document is what the couple
applies for.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered correct. He explained that the
bill would not remove the need for a couple to get a marriage
license.
CHAIR MEYER asked to confirm that elected officials can
currently perform marriages without passing the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered correct but noted that either the
elected official or couple would have to stand in line to get
the marriage license.
4:50:43 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked if the process can be done online.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN replied that he did not know.
MS. PERMAN referenced an email from Nancy Meade, [general
counsel for the Alaska Court System], that addressed a similar
question from a previous committee hearing as follows:
You asked whether the marriage commissioner applicant
must be physically at the court counter to get an
appointment order. No, this may vary by court
location, but in Anchorage and Juneau for example, I
learn that they even process applications that they
receive in the mail if signed, and the couple can
bring the signed form without the commissioner
applicant present, I believe that is true for nearly
all Alaska courts.
CHAIR MEYER asked if former elected officials can perform or
does the bill apply to current elected officials.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered that the bill only applies to
elected officials that are currently serving.
CHAIR MEYER asked to confirm that the bill would only pertain to
the State of Alaska and that a person could not go to Oregon for
their marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered no, the bill applies to Alaska.
SENATOR WILSON asked Representative Claman to address the bill's
current version where version J was amended to delete the
language about an individual holding elected public office may
refuse to solemnize a marriage for any reason.
4:54:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN explained that section 2 in the "O"
version clarifies as follows:
When three of the four categories of individuals can
be compelled to perform a marriage, the only
individual that could be compelled to perform a
marriage would be members of the judiciary and they
recognize that that's part of their job.
SENATOR WILSON asked why the change in the language from the
previous version.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN explained that the final version of the
bill expands the group of people who can decline to perform a
marriage for whatever reason.
SENATOR WILSON asked what would occur if the mayor of a city
performed marriages for a fee at city hall but declined to
perform marriages to certain individuals.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN replied as follows:
It's a two-part answer, if the mayor went into a
business as you described of performing marriages in
city hall, then I think you would have issues about
public access to city hall and so in that specific
instance you might run into a more complicated
question. On the other hand, if the mayor was
performing marriages in his backyard and he had a nice
garden and was doing it in his garden and it wasn't a
public facility in anyway, then this statute would
allow the mayor to say, "I'm not going to marry a gay
couple, I'm not going to marry an interracial couple,
I'm not going to marry whoever," you could make that
choice but I think if it's going on in city hall then
I think you'll have a little different question.
4:56:37 PM
CHAIR MEYER commented as follows:
My overall first opinion of this was that it's
definitely an honor and a privilege to be an elected
official and have people trust us to vote on their
behalf. I almost think this is putting us now in a
different class than other folks because now we don't
have to stand in line, we don't have to go to the web
and pay the fee and all that. Are we kind of elevating
ourselves in status by doing something like this?
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN replied that he did not think the bill
would elevate public officials. He noted that he has heard from
several people that they would appreciate having elected
officials solemnize marriages as part of their public service.
CHAIR MEYER noted that no one has asked him to solemnize a
marriage.
SENATOR WILSON asked if the legislation has gone through an
ethics review to verify whether an elected official can be paid
for solemnizing marriages.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN conceded that the topic of one getting
paid had never crossed his mind. He pointed out that the bill
does not authorize a person to get paid and noted that payment
would raise a question related to ethics issues. He remarked
that if someone were to ask him to solemnize a marriage that he
would not ask to be paid. He said he suspected to the extent
that if somebody did want to get paid that the request would
need to go to ethic analysis.
CHAIR MEYER remarked that he was under the same impression that
public officials would do the service for free if someone had
enough trust and respect to ask.
SENATOR EGAN disclosed that he had solemnized three marriages
and his payment was "champagne and wedding cake."
5:00:43 PM
CHAIR MEYER opened public testimony and noted that no one had
requested to testify. He asked to confirm that the amended bill
had a change in opinion from the Alaska Family Council.
MS. PERMAN answered correct.
5:01:49 PM
CHAIR MEYER closed public testimony. He noted that he has
reviewed submitted testimony and the comments on the bill have
been favorable. He added that the bill has a zero fiscal note.
5:02:07 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report CSHB 20(JUD), version 30-
LS0242\O from committee with individual recommendations and
attached zero fiscal note.
5:02:18 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced there being no objection, the motion
carried.