Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/31/2021 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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): | |
| HB62 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 62-MARRIAGE WITNESSES
1:26:32 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 62, "An Act relating to solemnization of
marriage."
CHAIR CLAMAN noted this was the committee's second hearing of HB
62, and the committee would entertain amendments. He stated for
the record that Legislative Legal Services would have permission
to make any technical and conforming changes.
1:27:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 62,
labeled 32-LS0272\A.7, Klein/Dunmire, 3/26/21, which read as
follows:
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "relating to the Legislative Ethics Act;
and"
Page 1, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 24.60.030(a) is amended to read:
(a) A legislator or legislative employee may not
(1) solicit, agree to accept, or accept a
benefit other than official compensation for the
performance of public duties; this paragraph may not
be construed to prohibit
(A) lawful solicitation for and acceptance
of campaign contributions;
(B) [,] solicitation or acceptance of
contributions for a charity event, as defined in
AS 24.60.080(a)(2)(B);
(C) [, OR] the acceptance of a gift under
AS 24.60.075 or 24.60.080; or
(D) a legislator from accepting travel and
hospitality primarily for the purpose of solemnizing a
marriage under AS 25.05.261(a)(4);
(2) use public funds, facilities,
equipment, services, or another government asset or
resource for a nonlegislative purpose, for involvement
in or support of or opposition to partisan political
activity, or for the private benefit of the
legislator, legislative employee, or another person;
this paragraph does not prohibit
(A) limited use of state property and
resources for personal purposes if the use does not
interfere with the performance of public duties and
either the cost or value related to the use is nominal
or the legislator or legislative employee reimburses
the state for the cost of the use;
(B) the use of mailing lists, computer
data, or other information lawfully obtained from a
government agency and available to the general public
for nonlegislative purposes;
(C) the legislative council,
notwithstanding AS 24.05.190, from designating a
public facility for use by legislators and legislative
employees for health or fitness purposes; when the
council designates a facility to be used by
legislators and legislative employees for health or
fitness purposes, it shall adopt guidelines governing
access to and use of the facility; the guidelines may
establish times in which use of the facility is
limited to specific groups;
(D) a legislator from using the
legislator's private office in the capital city during
a legislative session, and for the 10 days immediately
before and the 10 days immediately after a legislative
session, for nonlegislative purposes if the use does
not interfere with the performance of public duties
and if there is no cost to the state for the use of
the space and equipment, other than utility costs and
minimal wear and tear, or the legislator promptly
reimburses the state for the cost; an office is
considered a legislator's private office under this
subparagraph if it is the primary space in the capital
city reserved for use by the legislator, whether or
not it is shared with others;
(E) a legislator from use of legislative
employees to prepare and send out seasonal greeting
cards;
(F) a legislator from using state resources
to transport computers or other office equipment owned
by the legislator but primarily used for a state
function;
(G) use by a legislator of photographs of
that legislator;
(H) reasonable use of the Internet by a
legislator or a legislative employee except if the use
is for election campaign purposes;
(I) a legislator or legislative employee
from soliciting, accepting, or receiving a gift on
behalf of a recognized, nonpolitical charitable
organization in a state facility;
(J) a legislator from sending any
communication in the form of a newsletter to the
legislator's constituents, except a communication
expressly advocating the election or defeat of a
candidate or a newsletter or material in a newsletter
that is clearly only for the private benefit of a
legislator or a legislative employee; or
(K) full participation in a charity event
approved in advance by the Alaska Legislative Council;
(3) knowingly seek, accept, use, allocate,
grant, or award public funds for a purpose other than
that approved by law, or make a false statement in
connection with a claim, request, or application for
compensation, reimbursement, or travel allowances from
public funds;
(4) require a legislative employee to
perform services for the private benefit of the
legislator or employee at any time, or allow a
legislative employee to perform services for the
private benefit of a legislator or employee on
government time; it is not a violation of this
paragraph if the services were performed in an unusual
or infrequent situation and the person's services were
reasonably necessary to permit the legislator or
legislative employee to perform official duties;
(5) use or authorize the use of state
funds, facilities, equipment, services, or another
government asset or resource for the purpose of
political fund raising or campaigning; this paragraph
does not prohibit
(A) limited use of state property and
resources for personal purposes if the use does not
interfere with the performance of public duties and
either the cost or value related to the use is nominal
or the legislator or legislative employee reimburses
the state for the cost of the use;
(B) the use of mailing lists, computer
data, or other information lawfully obtained from a
government agency and available to the general public
for nonlegislative purposes;
(C) storing or maintaining, consistent with
(b) of this section, election campaign records in a
legislator's office;
(D) a legislator from using the
legislator's private office in the capital city during
a legislative session, and for the 10 days immediately
before and the 10 days immediately after a legislative
session, for nonlegislative purposes if the use does
not interfere with the performance of public duties
and if there is no cost to the state for the use of
the space and equipment, other than utility costs and
minimal wear and tear, or the legislator promptly
reimburses the state for the cost; an office is
considered a legislator's private office under this
subparagraph if it is the primary space in the capital
city reserved for use by the legislator, whether or
not it is shared with others; or
(E) use by a legislator of photographs of
that legislator."
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
1:27:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected for purposes of discussion.
1:27:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE spoke to Amendment 1. She said she had
spoken with Jerry Anderson, Administrator, Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, and the proposed amendment would establish
parameters as to what is reasonable hospitality, such as payment
for travel accommodations for an elected official to solemnize a
marriage. She pointed out that while compensating a helicopter
ride [for a wedding taking place] atop a mountain would be
reasonable, paying for a five-day cruise would not be.
1:29:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER removed her objection to Amendment 1.
There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:30:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to language in the
proposed bill on page 1, lines 12-14, which read:
The person solemnizing the marriage [AND THE TWO
ATTENDING WITNESSES] shall sign the original marriage
certificate and the necessary copies.
He suggested keeping "and two witnesses" as a compromise; the
witnesses would not need to be present, but at least there would
be witnesses.
1:31:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN reminded Representative Eastman of the [elapsed]
amendment deadline.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said there seems to be some consensus
that there is no need to have witnesses at the ceremony, but
some would like witnesses to sign the document to verify there
are no fraudulent "goings on" taking place. He pointed out
that this is the only language in statute requiring witnesses.
1:32:47 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:32 p.m. to 1:33 p.m.
1:33:03 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said he would not relax the amendment deadline;
however, he said he thinks it would be worthwhile to hear from
the bill drafter on the subject.
1:34:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE suggested Mr. Dunmire could speak to what
the State of Alaska requires and the [question] as to whether
not having two witnesses at a ceremony would be in violation of
state law.
1:35:54 PM
ANDREW DUNMIRE, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, stated that currently, in order for
a marriage to be valid in Alaska, it must comply with AS
25.05.301, the first sentence of which he paraphrased, and which
read as follows:
In the solemnization of marriage no particular form is
required except that the parties shall assent or
declare in the presence of each other and the person
solemnizing the marriage and in the presence of at
least two competent witnesses that they take each
other to be husband and wife.
MR. DUNMIRE said the couple could go to a courthouse to make the
declaration to each other and subsequently fly to a glacier to
have a more personal ceremony.
1:37:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, referring to Mr. Dunmire's example of a
couple going to a courthouse, said that "there are a lot of
other people who are formally recognized to solemnize a
marriage." She described a scenario in which [a couple] had a
"traditional ceremony" and, at a later date, had the person who
was solemnizing a marriage and two other witnesses verify they
had heard the couple exchange their vows and consent to marriage
and sign the document. She asked Mr. Dunmire to confirm whether
that scenario would fulfill AS 25.05.301.
MR. DUNMIRE responded yes. He said he had used a courthouse as
an example, and he noted that there are "other people in Alaska
who are qualified to ... perform marriages."
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said this maintains her wish to respect the
privacy of a couple getting married and allows them to stay
within the law when having the documents signed by witnesses at
a separate time.
1:39:12 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, in an example wherein a couple married on Monday
in a courthouse and then had a religious ceremony in a church on
Tuesday, questioned whether this would "create a requirement ...
that religious ceremonies needed to have, in addition, a
separate civil ceremony." He clarified he meant under the
current status of the law.
1:40:24 PM
MR. DUNMIRE answered no. He cited AS 25.05.291, which read as
follows:
Sec. 25.05.291. Civil and religious ceremonies.
When a religious ceremony between two parties follows
a civil ceremony between them, one license is
sufficient for both ceremonies.
MR. DUNMIRE, in response to a follow-up question, said under
current law, a couple who is married in a church ceremony is not
required to also have a civic ceremony, as long as the church
ceremony satisfies the requirement under AS 25.05.301.
CHAIR CLAMAN then asked for Mr. Dunmire's perspective of the
purpose of having witnesses in a civil ceremony.
MR. DUNMIRE noted that the statute requiring those witnesses was
enacted in 1963, but he said he would have to do some research
as to why the legislature decided that requirement was
appropriate.
CHAIR CLAMAN proffered that "the two-witness requirement" comes
from England from the 1600s, when the state was not making
records of marriages. He asked Mr. Dunmire if he could think of
any reason today to maintain the witness requirement when there
is "a fairly robust mechanism for tracking who's married and
who's not married" and have those records in Alaska.
MR. DUNMIRE replied that he can't think of any legal reasons,
and he said that it is a policy decision for the legislature.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that on an application for a permanent
fund dividend (PFD), the applicant must verify the name and
address of those listed as witnesses, while no such information
is required for witnesses on the marriage document. He asked
Mr. Dunmire if he can explain why that is so.
MR. DUNMIRE answered he could not.
1:45:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said Chair Claman makes a good point that
those two witness requirements are not uniform, and he opined
that "we should be requiring at least as much for ... the
marriage witness as for a PFD witness."
1:45:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN invited final comments on HB 62, as amended.
1:45:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA said he likes the intent of the proposed
bill, but expressed concern about removing the requirement for
two witnesses; therefore, at this time he cannot support moving
the bill forward. He mentioned concerns about the wedding
industry having problems running a business, and he said he
would probably support an amendment to address that issue.
1:47:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he thinks [the witness
requirement] is "ridiculous and dumb." He expressed disbelief
that "we're making so many protestations to tell people how they
want to get married to their life partner."
1:47:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said the first time she married was by a
priest in a Russian Orthodox church. The second time she
married, a friend solemnized the marriage and took care of the
paperwork. She said she agrees with the purposes of HB 62, as
amended, because the paperwork the solemnizer takes care of is
plenty. She specified that she agrees with eliminating the
requirement for witnesses "at the ceremony or anywhere else."
1:49:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE thanked Chair Claman for his involvement.
She said, "We see the two witness requirements very
differently." She called the wedding ceremony a religious,
spiritual experience, and she indicated that is why it is
difficult to differentiate what is being done by statute. She
said she wants the two witness requirements upheld, stating that
the requirement dates back further than the 1600s - to Moses.
She concurred with Representative Eastman that perhaps the
verification of witnesses for marriages is lacking. She stated,
"We want to respect the separation people have on their marriage
ceremony, but when it comes to the actual certification - that
is a legal document by the state that we're going to recognize
for many other benefits." She expressed hope that the
conversations that have taken place have eased the burden on the
wedding destination industry and it will have more flexibility
now regardless of what happens with HB 62, as amended.
1:52:23 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said in discussions with Representative Vance, he
had talked about a cousin of his that had married in France,
where there is a distinction between a religious ceremony and a
civil one, and he noted Representative Vance had cited some
biblical passages that she considered a foundation for the
witness requirement. He said if a tradition - religious or
otherwise - calls for witnesses, then that is appropriate, but
it is not the state's affair. The state's interest is in making
sure there is a record of someone getting married and "ways to
confirm that actually happened." He said the officiant already
witnesses the marriage, and that person is much more easily
identified than the other two witnesses, who could be "two
people standing on the street corner that they just bring in."
He questioned the purpose of the witness requirement. He said
the purpose of the witness for the PFD is to prevent fraud. He
said he has not heard "for years and years" of an instance where
anyone has said two people "didn't get married on that day" or
"they didn't marry that person." He said he likes the idea of
minimizing the role of government here. He opined that
[Representative Vance] made a case for following tradition in a
church that requires two witnesses but not for there being a
reason to do so because it is a document the state wants.
1:56:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that Representative Snyder was participating
via Teams.
1:57:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to report HB 62, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
1:57:23 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted there was an objection.
1:57:27 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Snyder (via Teams),
Kreiss-Tomkins, Drummond, and Claman voted in favor of the
motion to report HB 62, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representatives Eastman, Kurka, and Vance voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 62(JUD) was reported out of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
1:58:59 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 1:59 p.m.