Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/26/2023 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| Governor's Appointments: Brett Huber, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission; Robert Doyle, Regulatory Commission of Alaska | |
| SB57 | |
| SB58 | |
| HB28 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act restricting the release of certain records of
convictions; and providing for an effective date."
2:40:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY WRIGHT, SPONSOR, thanked the
committee for hearing the legislation. He shared that he
wanted to talk about hope and why the bill was important.
He stated that the bill gave people the hope they needed to
move on with their lives. First, the bill would remove
names from the CourtView website and make them
inaccessible. The bill would mean individuals would not
lose job opportunities based on a CourtView search.
Additionally, the bill would enable individuals to rent an
apartment without receiving a call back that the place was
already rented. Second, the bill would limit accessibility
to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) database records.
The bill created hope for individuals trying to move on
with their lives. He stated the individuals had paid their
debt to society and the bill provided opportunity to move
forward. He asked his staff to provide further details.
ALLAN RIORDAN-RANDALL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY
WRIGHT, thanked the committee for hearing the bill. He
explained that the bill recognized there were still
convictions on the books, which would not exist by current
statute. The convictions could be burdensome on individuals
and could be deceiving to the untrained eye when viewed
online. He explained it could cause adverse action for the
individuals. The bill contained provisions for certain
organizations and agencies to access records in whole or in
part under certain circumstances listed in the legislation.
Mr. Riordan-Randall reviewed the sectional analysis (copy
on file):
SECTION I: It is the intention of the legislation to
reduce barriers to employment and other basic daily
functions for individuals who under past statute were
convicted of low-level marijuana related crimes.
SECTION II: Describes when, why and to what agencies
or organizations information protected in this bill
may be released.
SECTION III: Persons aged 21 years or older shall in
the provisions of this bill have records of low level
marijuana convictions as detailed in this section,
which by today's statutes are not a criminal act, made
to be inaccessible other than as listed in section II.
Individuals having this action taken shall pay a fee
of not less than $150.
SECTION IV: Records relating to the individuals and
occurrences in this bill shall not be publicly
published by the Alaska Court System. Information
shall be made available on how to obtain information
removed from public view.
SECTION V: An effective date for this act shall be 1st
of January 2024.
2:46:31 PM
Co-Chair Foster moved to invited testimony.
VITTORIO NASTASI, DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY,
REASON FOUNDATION (via teleconference), introduced himself
and read from prepared remarks:
The academic research is clear, people with criminal
records face significant difficulty engaging in
productive activities such as finding a job and
securing housing. House Bill 28 would help address
these barriers for Alaskans who have low level
marijuana possession convictions. People who have been
convicted for behavior that is no longer considered
criminal in Alaska. The bill would not result in the
expungement of any criminal records. In other words,
the records won't be erased, they will still be
available to some extent. The legislation simply
places limitations on the release of these records if
eligible individuals formally request that the records
be withheld.
The additional requirement of $150 for this privilege
will likely reduce the positive impact of the bill.
Research suggests that requiring petitions and the
payment of fees greatly reduces the efficacy of
policies aimed at sealing or expunging criminal
records. A recent study published in the Harvard Law
Review found that only 6.5 percent of those who are
eligible under Michigan's expungement program pursued
expungement when they were required to apply and pay
fees. Similarly low participation rates have been
observed in other states where release is not
automatic. It is for this reason that a growing number
of states have established automatic record release
programs.
Given the experiences of other states it is likely
that only a small fraction of eligible Alaskans will
be aware that their records may be withheld and will
actually request that they not be released.
Consequently, the fiscal note on this bill likely
overstates the administrative burden that DPS will
incur. Moreover, requiring a $150 fee creates an
additional barrier to low income individuals who tend
to benefit the most from record release. The fee will
also likely fail to raise substantial revenue.
Despite being a relatively small step compared to the
actions of other states, House Bill 28 would provide
much needed relief to those who make the effort
request that their records be withheld. However, the
minimum $150 fee was an unnecessary complication to an
otherwise good bill. Thank you for your time and
consideration.
Representative Galvin thanked the bill sponsor for putting
the bill forward. She believed the bill was an important
step for individuals to move towards becoming whole. She
wondered why the fee had been put in place and if it was
truly to cover costs. She asked if there had been
conversations about savings if the opportunity was in place
to take away challenges the individuals were experiencing
with jobs, housing, and healthcare. She reasoned if
individuals were able to have access to the aforementioned
items, the state would not have to pay unemployment costs
for individuals without access to a job. She thought it
would far outweigh the state's ability to collect a few
dollars to pay for administrative costs, which sounded like
they would not be very high.
Mr. Riordan-Randall replied that the purpose of the fee was
to offset the cost to the state. He deferred to DPS for
further detail pertaining to the fiscal note.
Representative Galvin reiterated her question for the
department.
Mr. Riordan-Randall clarified that the fee had been added
by the House Judiciary Committee.
LISA PURINTON, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, replied that the fee had been
added by the House Judiciary Committee as a policy
decision. She explained that DPS had submitted a fiscal
note to the original bill to pay for a change to the
programming in the state's criminal history repository. She
detailed that DPS maintained the official state criminal
history record and DPS was the repository for individuals
to come for background checks for the official record. She
noted it was separate from the Court System CourtView
database. The state's criminal history repository was a
mainframe database from the 1980s and the programming cost
to make the change had been included in the original fiscal
note. The department also anticipated part-time temporary
funding for a two-year position because it anticipated the
bulk of the requests (to have a conviction restricted from
access for certain background check processes) to come
during that timeframe. The department estimated there were
roughly 8,500 records that could potentially fall under the
criteria under HB 28 for the limited marijuana convictions
because the state's repository went back to statehood for
those convictions.
Ms. Purinton explained that the database did not always
have a straight statute to indicate the definition for the
conviction. She elaborated that sometimes the database only
included a four letter code indicating a marijuana
conviction. She detailed that the amount listed in statute
had sometimes specified one ounce and other times the
amount had been up to eight ounces; therefore, it would
require the department to do some research when individuals
came in to petition to have their information removed. The
department did not have the resources to do research for
potentially 8,500 records. The House Judiciary Committee
had added the fee to help offset the potential cost. The
department had not projected out beyond two years because
the number of individuals who would make the request was
unknown.
2:55:33 PM
Representative Galvin thought she heard that somehow the
way the department was collecting data made it more
complicated and would require extra research time. She
assumed that going forward the bill looked at collecting
the data differently so it did not require extra research.
She wondered if the House Judiciary Committee had
considered the savings that would come to the state if even
one person was given the opportunity for a job, housing,
healthcare, and mental healthcare.
Ms. Purinton answered that the only thing DPS fiscal note
considered was the cost to the department. The department
had not looked at any broader impact to the state. The bill
was specific to AS 11.71.060 subsection (a)(1) or (a)(1)(a)
and some of the court judgements received for a conviction
did not always have granularity at the subsection level.
The department had been working closely with the Department
of Law and the Alaska Court System to ensure there was
unification in how the specifics of the subsections were
used. Historically that had not always been the case, which
made historical records more challenging.
Co-Chair Foster hoped to get through the invited testimony.
He asked members to hold their questions for the bill
sponsor and department until the next hearing on the bill.
LACY WILCOX, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALASKA MARIJUANA INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, appreciated Representative Galvin's comment
about taking into account the cost that had already been
incurred for a 6A possession (a single possession of
marijuana). She relayed that Alaska had a pretty strange
relationship with legalization. She noted that from 1975 to
1990 marijuana had been decriminalized in Alaska. She
believed the state recriminalized marijuana from 1990 to
1998 and during the war on drugs the state had assessed a
$100 fine for simple citation or up to 90 days in jail. She
underscored that those impacted had paid the price already.
She did not support the $150 fee included in the bill to
make the state whole. She believed the state had made money
on the back of a cycle of legalization, decriminalization,
simple possession citation, and 90 days in jail. She
supported the bill and policy but requested a look at
removing the fee for people who had already paid their
debt.
HB 28 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.