Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
05/03/2023 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB29 | |
| HB129 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 29-INSURANCE DISCRIMINATION
1:34:53 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 29, "An Act relating to insurance
discrimination." [Before the committee was CSHB 29(L&C).]
CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on CSHB 29(L&C). After
ascertaining that no one wished to testify, she closed public
testimony.
1:35:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCABE, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of CSHB 29(L&C), offered a brief summary of the
legislation. He said the bill sought to prohibit insurance
companies from discriminating solely on the basis of a person's
status as an elected official.
1:37:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSHB
29(L&C), labeled 33-LS0272\S.1, Wallace, 4/29/23, which read:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "relating to insurance discrimination"
Insert "prohibiting certain insurance decisions
based solely on a person's political party or a
person's status as an elected official"
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Discrimination"
Insert "Decisions"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
1:37:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON explained that Amendment 1 proposed a
title change to avoid ambiguity. The new title would read
"prohibiting certain insurance decisions based solely on a
person's political party or a person's status as an elected
official".
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:38:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2 to CSHB
29(L&C), labeled 33-LS0272\S.3, Wallace, 5/2/23, which read:
Page 1, line 6, following "party":
Insert ", a person's political view,"
Page 2, line 7, following "AS 15.80.010":
Insert ";
(3) "political view" means a position that
a state or national political party takes in support
of or in opposition to an issue"
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:38:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 2 would prohibit
discrimination based on a person's political view in addition to
political party.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked for the bill sponsor's input on
Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said he was neutral on Amendment 2, as it
would not be harmful to the bill's objective.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER questioned the aptness of the word
"position" in the definition of "political view" on lines 6-7 of
Amendment 2 based on his misinterpretation of how the term was
used.
1:41:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY expressed concern about the broadness of
"political view," and questioned whether it would apply to an
individual who believes in overthrowing the government, which
could leave the insurance company vulnerable to lawsuits.
CHAIR VANCE asked how a person's political view was defensible.
She pointed out that political party and elected status were
easily defined and proven, whereas political view was ambiguous.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that the word "position" on
line 6 referred to a person's view - not a job or nomination.
In response to Representative Gray, he acknowledged that some
political views, such as anarchism, might be considered illegal;
however, he said there was no intent of protecting illegal
behavior. In terms of the mechanism for proof, he suggested
that it would be the same as demonstrating discrimination based
on political party.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE pointed out that a person's political view
could be changed tomorrow. He believed that the addition of
"political view" could make the bill overly broad.
1:47:37 PM
BUDDY WHITT, Staff, Representative Kevin McCabe, Alaska State
Legislature, suggested that Ms. Wing-Heier could provide insight
on how insurance companies might look at the additional
provision.
1:48:20 PM
LORI WING-HEIER, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED), agreed that
the language was broad and may cause insurance companies
concern, as a person's political view could be changed on a
daily basis. In response to a previous question from
Representative Gray regarding legal fees, she noted that
repeated claims would lead to policy cancellation.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether [Amendment 2] involved freedom of
speech rather than discrimination.
MS. WING-HEIER answered yes.
1:49:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the maker of Amendment 2
equated political view to a person's political expression.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered no, the term was not focused on
political expression. He said his intention was that "political
view" would be limited to a person's belief or opinion on a
political issue.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER was unsure how to empower any
organization to understand a person's thoughts. He pointed out
that the only way an insurance company would know a person's
view was if that person expressed it, either by word or
affiliation. He highlighted the language on page 1, line 6 of
the bill, which had already captured political expression.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY pointed out that a person's party
affiliation could also be changed on the spur of the moment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD shared her belief that the conversation
was straying from the bill's intent, which was to protect
politicians and elected officials. For that reason, she stated
her opposition to Amendment 2.
1:53:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked how Amendment 2 would impact
insurance companies and the type of insurance they offer.
MS. WING-HEIER affirmed that the Division of Insurance could
enforce the proposed legislation; however, she could not make an
insurance company remain in Alaska or offer a certain type of
insurance. Further, she declined to predict how insurance
companies may respond.
1:55:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether the maker of Amendment 2
envisioned the definition of "political view" applying to areas
of Alaska Statutes outside of Title 21.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN agreed that the issue [of belief versus
expression] was complicated and referenced the censorship of a
Montana legislator. In response to the bill sponsor, he said
his intent was to focus on the particular statute at hand. He
acknowledged that including political view may be messy and
suggested limiting the scope of the bill to elected officials
only.
1:58:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Amendment 2 with the suggestion
that "political party" be removed from the bill as well.
1:59:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3 to CSHB
29(L&C), labeled 33-LS0272\S.4, Wallace, 5/2/23, which read:
Page 1, lines 5 - 6:
Delete "A person transacting insurance in this
state may not, solely because of a person's political
party or a person's status as an elected official,"
Insert "If a person transacting insurance in this
state makes a policy decision solely because of a
person's political party or a person's status as an
elected official, or if a policy holder suspects that
a policy decision was made solely because of the
person's political party or the person's status as an
elected official, the person transacting insurance
must provide documentation to the policy holder
identifying the factor or combination of factors that
were used in making a policy decision to"
Page 1, line 13, through page 2, line 2:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON objected.
1:59:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 3 would require
insurance companies accused of discrimination based on political
party or status as an elected official to provide documentation
to the policy holder identifying the factors used in making the
policy decision.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY observed the unlikelihood of insurance
companies providing, in writing, documentation of
discrimination.
2:02:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated his opposition to Amendment 3, as
it would complicate current practices. He asked Mr. Whitt to
expound on those practices.
2:02:48 PM
MR. WHITT noted his appreciation for the proposed amendment,
which addressed a mechanism for proof of denial. He read a
statement from the Division of Insurance's website regarding
policy rights, indicating that upon the denial of an initial
application, the insurer must inform the applicant that he/she
has the right to know why. The applicant can then submit a
written request for further information. He directed attention
to page 1, lines 11-12 of Amendment 3, and asked why the maker
of the amendment sought to delete page 1, line 13, through page
2, line 2 of the bill, which offered a carveout to insurance
companies that allowed them to deny a policy based on standard
underwriting or actuarial principles.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Amendment 3 deleted the
language in question because it would no longer be relevant
should the amendment pass. He indicated that the proposed
amendment wouldn't prohibit discrimination [based on political
party or one's status as an elected official], it would simply
require them to be transparent when doing so.
2:07:54 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman voted in
favor of Amendment 3 to CSHB 29(L&C). Representatives Carpenter
C. Johnson, Gray, Groh, Allard, and Vance voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 1-6.
CHAIR VANCE sought final comment on CSHB 29(L&C), as amended.
2:09:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that the bill would not work as
intended, adding that he viewed it as a counterintuitive and
counterproductive way of solving the issue.
2:10:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to report CSHB 29(L&C), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
2:10:28 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Groh, Allard,
Carpenter, C. Johnson, Gray, and Vance voted in favor of
reporting CSHB 29(L&C), as amended, out of committee.
Representative Eastman voted against it. Therefore, CSHB
29(JUD) was reported out of the House Judiciary Standing
Committee by a vote of 6-1.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB29.VerB.SponsorStatement.1.31.23.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 29 |
| HB29.VerB.1.31.23.PDF |
HFSH 5/3/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/3/2023 1:00:00 PM HL&C 2/10/2023 3:15:00 PM |
HB 29 |
| HB29.VerB.SectionalAnalysis.1.31.23.pdf |
HFSH 5/3/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/3/2023 1:00:00 PM HL&C 2/10/2023 3:15:00 PM |
HB 29 |
| HB 29 - Fiscal Note DCCED (04-05-23).pdf |
HFSH 5/3/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/28/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/3/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 29 |
| HB 29 - Amendment #1 (S.1) by Rep. Johnson.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 29 |
| HB 29 - Amendment #2 (S.3) by Rep. Eastman.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 29 |
| HB 29 - Amendment #3 (S.4) by Rep. Eastman.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 29 |