Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
01/31/2022 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 | |
| HB246 | |
| HB51 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 246 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 51-AGGRAVATING FACTORS AT SENTENCING
2:09:12 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 51, "An Act relating to aggravating factors
considered at sentencing."
2:10:18 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:11:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 3 to HB 51, labeled, 32-
LS0325\A.3, Radford, 1/24/22, which read as follows:
Page 4, line 7:
Delete "or national origin"
Insert "[OR] national origin, or immunization
status"
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Amendment 3 would add "or
immunization status" to the list of aggravating factors at
sentencing.
2:12:24 PM
MAX KOHN, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the prime sponsor, Representative
Josephson, expressed opposition to the adoption of Amendment 3.
He explained that the aggravating factors in AS 22, commonly
known as "hate crimes," refer to immutable characteristics and
do not relate to an immunization status. He suggested that
other statutes may exist which could be changed to accommodate
immunization status, if it is the wish of the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned the bill sponsor's opinion on
whether sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic.
MR. KOHN expressed the opinion that immutable characteristics
generally occur at birth; nonetheless, he offered to follow up
to the committee with additional information to fully answer the
question.
CHAIR CLAMAN acknowledged that there may exist differences in
perspectives [on the question regarding immutable
characteristics].
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that the premise of the
proposed legislation is to protect certain individuals from
violence predicated on hate, regardless of whether
characteristics are immutable.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that an individual may be
targeted with violence because of immunization status.
2:15:45 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Vance
voted in favor of Amendment 3 to HB 51. Representatives
Drummond, Snyder, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-4.
2:16:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 4 to HB 246, labeled, 32-
LS0325\A.4, Radford, 1/24/22, which read as follows:
Page 4, line 7, following "identity,":
Insert "pregnancy,"
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that pregnancy is notably
absent from the list of aggravating factors.
MR. KOHN provided that the prime sponsor is in opposition to
Amendment 4. He stated that case law has shown to include
pregnant people in Alaska, such that a defendant knew, or
reasonably should have known, the victim of the offense was
particularly vulnerable or unable to resist the offense.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the cases involved with
pregnancy pertain to either the pregnant person or the child not
yet born.
MR. KOHN expressed the understanding that the law considered
both lives.
2:20:21 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance and Eastman
voted in favor of Amendment 4 to HB 51. Representatives
Drummond, Snyder, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 2-4.
2:21:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 5 to HB 51, labeled, 32-
LS0325\A.5, Radford, 1/25/22, which read as follows:
Page 4, line 7, following "ancestry,":
Insert "nationality,"
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.
MR. KOHN provided that the prime sponsor is not in opposition to
Amendment 5.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS questioned instances of hate
crimes which were motivated by nationality.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded that the amendment is designed
to protect all nationalities. He suggested that research may
reveal crimes which have occurred against citizens of Israel.
CHAIR CLAMAN questioned the difference between "nationality" and
"national origin."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded that "national origin" could be
interpreted as citizenship at the time of birth, while
"nationality" could be interpreted to be where someone is born.
He deferred to the drafter of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN requested that Representative Eastman
confirm his assertion that "nationality" and "national origin"
may share some overlap but not necessarily apply to the same
subset of people.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN requested legal counsel to make the
distinction.
2:24:24 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Snyder, and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 5 to HB 51. Representatives
Drummond, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 5 failed by a vote of 3-3.
2:25:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 6 to HB 51, labeled 32-
LS0325\A.6, Radford, 1/25/22, which read as follows:
Page 4, line 7, following "ancestry,":
Insert "citizenship,"
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.
MR. KOHN provided that the prime sponsor is not in opposition to
Amendment 6.
2:26:40 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Vance,
Snyder and Claman voted in favor of Amendment 6 to HB 51.
Representatives Drummond and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 6 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
2:27:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 7 to HB 51, as amended,
labeled, 32-LS0325\A.7, Radford, 1/25/22, which read as follows:
Page 4, line 7:
Delete "creed"
Insert "religion [CREED]"
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that the amendment proposes a
grammatical change as "creed" is no longer common parlance.
MR. KOHN provided that the prime sponsor is not in opposition to
Amendment 7.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether there exists a difference between
[spiritual practice] and religion. He postulated that religion
may fit within the definition of "creed."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed the belief that [spiritual
practice] is the opposite of religion, as it does not
necessarily have a basis in doctrine. He expressed the opinion
that a sincerely held belief would most likely meet the
definition of religion.
CHAIR CLAMAN requested that Representative Eastman cite the
source of the definitions being discussed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded that the definitions have been
sourced from the dictionary in consultation with the drafter.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER expressed opposition to the amendment, as
it would narrow the definitions, possibly excluding those who
practice agnosticism or atheism.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN argued that the drafter would agree that
atheism is a protected class. He stated that "creed" could be
inclusive of individuals as part of civic organizations who may
swear an oath.
2:32:47 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Vance
voted in favor of Amendment 7 to HB 51, as amended.
Representatives Drummond, Snyder, and Claman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 7 failed by a vote of 2-3.
2:33:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 8 to HB 51, as amended,
labeled, 32-LS0325\A.8, Radford, 1/25/22, which read as follows:
Page 4, line 7, following "creed,":
Insert "status as a conscientious objector,"
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that there had been instances
of wartime drafts and instances of poor treatment of
conscientious objectors.
MR. KOHN provided that the prime sponsor is in opposition to
Amendment 8.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that the amendment was timely
in the absence of wartime.
2:35:20 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Vance
voted in favor of Amendment 8 to HB 51, as amended.
Representatives Snyder, Drummond, and Claman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 8 failed by a vote of 2-3.
2:36:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 9, to HB 51, as amended,
labeled, 32-LS0325\A.9, Radford, 1/25/22, which read as follows:
Page 4, line 7, following "creed,":
Insert "status as a dissident,"
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that dissidence is protected in
other laws and should be included in the modification of the
statute being considered.
MR. KOHN provided that the prime sponsor is in opposition to
Amendment 9.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked the reason a person dissenting should
enjoy protection while those who are treasonous would still be
pursued.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that a dissident would apply
only to lawful dissidence and would not apply to criminal
dissidence. He added that a dissident is one opposed to
government policies.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether any other states include
dissidents in hate crime legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that he is unaware of any other
states with such legislation, as the need for this protection is
a recent development.
CHAIR CLAMAN added that sentencing structures may vary among
different states.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for an example of a
dissident who would have benefitted from the proposed
protection.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to an individual who had been
targeted because of having worn a political [themed] hat.
CHAIR CLAMAN questioned the hat.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that it bore the words "Make
America Great Again" and added the protection should apply to
any attire.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the example was that of the hat or
that of the individual wearing the hat.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that the individual in the
picture was "going to take some time to recover from their
physical injuries which were very much tied to their political
attire when they were attacked."
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked the name of the individual
in the example offered by Representative Eastman.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered he is not aware of the name of
the person in the photo; however, he knows of "other people."
He expressed the opinion that it is unfortunate that the need
exists for the proposed amendment. He referred to a shooting
which had occurred at a Republican [Party] baseball training
event and characterized the occurrence as an indicator of
behaviors which should be included in the statute.
2:41:53 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Vance
voted in favor of Amendment 9 to HB 51, as amended.
Representatives Drummond, Snyder, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 9 failed by a vote of 2-
4.
2:42:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 10 to HB 51, as amended,
labeled, 32-LS0325\A.10, Radford, 1/25/22, which read as
follows:
Page 4, line 7:
Delete the second occurrence of "or"
Insert "[OR]"
Following "origin":
Insert ", refusal to participate in a boycott,
divesting from, sanctioning, or condemning another
person, or refusal to invest in another person"
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to some ongoing campaigns
targeting specific nations. He stated that the right to abstain
from participating in a boycott should be protected in the
statute.
MR. KOHN provided that the prime sponsor is in opposition to
Amendment 10.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN encouraged including the protection as
drafted in the amendment.
2:45:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to a quote, which he
supposed was attributed to the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra
Day O'Connor. The quote related that most cases are brought in
order to decide where a line should be drawn. He said that a
"litany" of amendments has been presented, with the suggestion
that each of the proposed classes among the amendments deserve
protection. He pointed out that the protected classes have
demonstrable instances of hate or crime against them; however,
there are not likely substantive instances [of hate or crime] to
support the current and previously proposed amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE recalled previous testimony of four
instances of hate crime per year specifically targeting the
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. She
questioned whether four crimes would amount to a substantive
level. She argued that the other classes in the proposed
amendments should enjoy the same protections. She suggested
that larger issues should be considered.
CHAIR CLAMAN cautioned that the most recent comments pertained
more to the proposed legislation, as a whole. He recommended
the committee direct attention to the proposed amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that boycott, divestment, and
sanction campaigns have a negative impact on Alaskans.
2:51:21 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance and Eastman
voted in favor of Amendment 10 to HB 51, as amended.
Representatives Drummond, Snyder, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 10 failed by a vote of
2-4.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that the previously
proposed amendments are not germane to the crimes which are
being committed against the protected classes in the statute and
against those proposed in HB 51. He expressed his support for
the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed her support for HB 51.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN spoke about his observations of changes
taking place in society which have resulted in more individuals
being targeted for political beliefs. He expressed a strong
belief that steps should be taken to stop this violence.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the sentencing structure related to
felonies, along with aggravating and general factors, exist to
address serious crimes, such as assault. He pointed out that
the question exists as to whether the assault rises above an
average assault, which is still a serious crime. He expressed
the opinion that there has been value in the preceding
discussion; however, he cautioned against addressing relatively
recent developments in society.
2:58:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to report HB 51, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 51(JUD) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 246 v. A 1.7.2022.PDF |
HJUD 1/19/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 246 Sponsor Statement v. A 12.2.2021.pdf |
HJUD 1/19/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 246 Sectional Analysis v. A 1.19.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/19/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 246 Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 1.14.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/19/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 246 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 1.18.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/19/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 246 v. A Amendments #1-5 HJUD Updated 1.31.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 51 v. A 2.18.2021.PDF |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Sponsor Statement v. A 1.21.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Opposing Document - Letters Received by 1.31.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 Fiscal Note CRIM-CJL 1.14.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 51 v. A Amendments #1-10 HJUD 1.26.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/26/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/28/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB 246 v. A Amendments #1-5 HJUD Final Votes 1.31.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 246 |
| HB 51 v. A Amendments #1-10 HJUD Final Votes 1.31.2022.pdf |
HJUD 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |