Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
03/03/2023 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 | |
| HB66 | |
| HB67 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 67 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 67-HARASSMENT; SEX OFFENDERS & OFFENSES
1:14:18 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 67, "An Act relating to criminal law and
procedure; relating to the crime of stalking; relating to
consecutive sentencing for violation of conditions of release;
relating to the duty to register as a sex offender; amending the
definition of 'sex offense'; amending the definition of 'crime
involving domestic violence'; relating to multidisciplinary
child protection teams; amending Rule 6(r), Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
1:14:49 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division DOL,
on behalf of the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by
request of the governor, introduced HB 67. He paraphrased the
transmittal letter [included in the committee packet], which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Under the authority of Article III, Section 18, of the
Alaska Constitution, I am transmitting a bill relating
to increase protection for victims of sex offenses and
domestic violence.
This legislation eliminates gaps in Alaska's criminal
justice system and improves our law to help victims.
Specifically, the bill removes incentives for sex
offenders from out of state to relocate to Alaska;
helps our law enforcement personnel better monitor the
activities of sex offenders within our state; more
appropriately groups violations of protective orders
for stalking and sexual assault with violations of
protective orders for domestic violence; ensures
adequate sanctions for repeat violations of conditions
of release; reduces the trauma victims experience by
participating in our justice system; and ensures
professional can engage with children involved in sex
offenses to provide help to those children.
For too long Alaska has had the unfortunate
distinction of having the highest rates of sexual
assault in the United States According to GBI data.
Alaska's sexual assault rate is more than four times
he national average, and more than double that of the
next closest state. Given these statistics, it is
deeply troubling that our existing laws has critical
gaps that allow convicted sex offenders to go
undetected, makes Alaska a refuge for sex offenders,
and leaves our most vulnerable citizens exposed.
This legislation eliminates Alaska as an option for
sex offenders from other states seeking to avoid
registration requirements by updating Alaska's
registration requirement to be more in line with the
federal scheme. Under existing law, a sex offender who
is required to register in their state of conviction
is not always required to register in Alaska. This
makes Alaska attractive to sex offenders who seek to
avoid registration. This legislation closes that gap
and simply says: "If you are required to register in
your home state and you come to Alaska, u will be
required to register here, regardless of when you were
convicted." This change will respect the decision made
in the person's home state that required the person to
register, as well as protect Alaskans. A sex offender
should not be allowed to avoid registration simply by
moving to Alaska.
This legislation also protects victims of stalking by
increasing the level of offense where a person stalks
someone in violation of a stalking or sexual assault
protective order. Under current law, a person can be
convicted of stalking in the first degree, which is a
felony, for stalking someone when violating a domestic
violence protective order. However, it is only a
misdemeanor for violation of a stalking protective
order. This legislation would close the gap and
include stalking someone in violation of a stalking or
sexual assault protective order among the conduct that
will elevate the offense to stalking in the first
degree (class C felony).
The legislation further protects victims and the
public by mandating additional sanctions when
defendants repeatedly violate conditions of release.
Unfortunately, defendants often disregard the
conditions and bail imposed by the court. This conduct
returns our jails into revolving doors and is a drain
on Alaska's justice system. To help address this
growing problem, the legislation requires that the
court impose additional jail time for each conviction
of violation of conditions of release under AS
11.56.757. This additional sanction will send a
message that bail and conditions imposed by the court
are to be followed and that there are consequences for
failing to do so.
The legislation also reduces the stress that victims
are forced to experience when required to testify at
grand jury. More than 30 other jurisdictions allow
grand jury proceedings without requiring the victim to
testify, and insists those victims relive their trauma
before the grand jury a room of strangers. This is
required even though the victim provides statements to
law enforcement usually mere days earlier. This all
makes the grand jury process cumbersome and
inefficient and causes a hardship on the victim and
witness. This legislation relaxes the rules and allows
key witnesses, typically the officer in the case, to
summarize the testimony of other witnesses. This will
permit prosecutors to call fewer witnesses at the
grand jury phase of the case, reducing the need for
victims to relive their trauma so soon after the crime
occurred. It will also make the process more efficient
and reduce the backlog that was created when grand
juries were suspended due to COVID-19.
Finally, the legislation makes changes aimed at
protecting our most vulnerable citizens: our children.
The legislation allows multidisciplinary child
protection teams to accept referrals of cases where
there has been sexual contact or sexual penetration
that occurs between children under the age of 13.
Typically, when children who are under 13 engage in
this type of behavior, prosecution or adjudication is
not considered appropriate or effective. Rather the
mental and physical well-being of both children
becomes the singular goal. However, without this
change, the multidisciplinary child protection teams
cannot engage at all. Giving multidisciplinary child
protection teams, who are the experts in this field
the statutory authority to accept referrals of these
cases will make it easier to appropriately address
this behavior in young children and provide the
children with any needed therapeutic assistance.
This legislation will close the gaps in our laws and
better protect Alaskans. The legislation will provide
tools for us to monitor offenders and protect Alaskans
from future victimization.
1:31:28 PM
CHAIR VANCE sought questions from members of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Mr. Skidmore to address Section 1
of the bill.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that Section 1 would overturn the
decision in State v. Powell, effectually allowing a recorded
witness statement to be presented at a grand jury.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the language, "The
legislature finds that it is not now, nor has it ever been," on
page 1, lines 10-11 of the bill.
MR. SKIDMORE conveyed that the language in question related to
the overturning of the State v. Powell decision. The language
would allow the use of video testimony at grand jury and protect
instances in which those recordings had been used in the past,
without which, those particular jury proceedings could be viewed
as flawed and potentially overturned, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 1,
subsection (b), of the bill and asked, "If there's a situation
where a prosecutor is not signing off on evidence going to a
grand jury, wouldn't this language basically say that no one can
present that information before a grand jury?"
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that the purpose of the language was to
ensure that prosecutors were only presenting evidence that would
be admissible at trial to the grand jury. He confirmed that a
prosecutor must be present at grand jury proceedings for the
filing of an indictment to provide legal advice to the grand
jury.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which a
prosecutor didn't want to present evidence to the grand jury.
He asked whether there was an exception in statute to ensure
that the evidence would come before the grand jury despite the
prosecutor not wanting to present it.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that it was the prosecutor's
responsibility to ensure that the evidence met the evidentiary
standard of being admissible at trial, which was a legal
determination, as opposed to a want or desire of the prosecutor.
1:38:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY directed attention to Section 5 of the bill
and asked whether someone who was convicted of public urination
in Texas, would be required to register as a sex offender in
Alaska.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that if a person was required to register as
a sex offender in another state, he/she would be required to
register in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked, "Why don't we just make it so that
these crimes in other states that we would like them to register
for here why don't we make that a crime here?"
MR. SKIDMORE pointed out that there were 50 different states
with 50 different approaches to classifying sex offenses. He
added that it would be impossible to ensure that Alaska Statutes
were identical to 50 other states, as that would require
constant monitoring for amendments and updating for consistency.
He clarified that the concept was not to criminalize the same
conduct of all 50 states; instead, it was to dissuade people
from moving to Alaska to avoid registration requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inquired about the process for amending
court rules.
1:42:49 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, explained
that for all court rules other than the Rules of Administration,
the Alaska Court System ("the court") had a rule referred to as
"rule making," for which the court appointed a committee
corresponding to each category of rules, i.e. Criminal Rules
Committee, Civil Rules Committee, Appellate Rules Committee,
etcetera. The rules committees met anywhere from 4-6 times per
year and were staffed with a full-time, court rules attorney,
she said. She continued to explain that the committees were
comprised of well-respected attorneys in the subject matter and
were tasked with discussing proposals and making recommendations
to the Alaska Supreme Court the entity with the authority to
adopt or decline rule changes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether the rule change proposed in
Section 12 had been considered by a rules committee.
MS. MEADE answered no, the rule change had not been reviewed by
the Criminal Rules Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared his understanding that the
legislature had the ability to amend court rules. He inquired
about the procedure for legislative court rule changes and asked
whether the change proposed in HB 67 was unique.
MS. MEADE acknowledged that per the Constitution of the State of
Alaska ("the constitution"), the legislature had the right to
amend the rules of practice and procedure with a two-thirds
vote. She explained the legislative process for amending court
rules, noting that the change proposed in HB 67 was "a more
direct reach by the legislature into the process of changing
rules."
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked for the definition of hearsay.
MS. MEADE defined hearsay as "a statement made outside of court
that's used in court to prove the truth of what that statement
is." She reported that hearsay was generally inadmissible at
trial, as it was not considered reliable in and of itself;
however, there was a list of admissible exceptions.
1:48:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether court rules were allowed
to contradict Alaska Statutes.
MS. MEADE acknowledged that court rules and statutes were
related; however, she emphasized the difference between
substance and procedure. She explained that the legislature was
in charge of creating substantive law, while the court was
responsible for creating procedures to effectuate those
substantive laws. She noted that it was permissible for court
rules to contradict state statute if the legislature passed a
procedural statute, in which case the court could amend the
procedural statute via court rule.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER sought to verify that Ms. Meade had
indicated that statutes could be overridden or changed via court
rule.
MS. MEADE confirmed that court rule could take precedence over
statutes on procedural matters. She shared an example.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER considered an example in which a
statute and a court rule were conflicting. He asked who decided
which took precedence.
MS. MEADE reiterated that for procedural matters, the court
would apply its own procedures. She supposed that the conflict
could be resolved through litigation. In regard to Section 12
of HB 67, she observed no conflict with a substantive law.
1:52:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON sought to confirm that the proposed
court rule change in HB 67 was not procedural.
MS. MEADE clarified that it was procedural. She reiterated that
she did not see a conflict with any existing substantive law.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON sought to confirm that because the
statute was making a procedural change, the court could choose
to accept or reject it.
MS. MEADE said if the proposed legislation were to pass the
legislature with a two-thirds majority vote, it would become a
court rule. She stressed that the court was not interested in
conflict with the legislature by acting contrary to its
determination.
1:54:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the legislature was
entitled to determine its internal procedures.
MS. MEADE answered in the affirmative
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether that authority for a branch
of government to determine its internal procedures was granted
under the separation of powers doctrine.
MS. MEADE answered yes. She shared, for example, that the court
would abstain from opining on any litigation about the propriety
of the legislature's rules of conduct.
1:56:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked Ms. Meade to summarize the State v.
Powell decision.
MS. MEADE, firstly, directed attention to Section 12 of HB 67,
which proposed a direct amendment to court rules by providing
that hearsay would be admissible at grand jury. She highlighted
page 11, line 22 of the bill, explaining that in a prosecution
for a sex offense, hearsay made by a child victim may be
admitted in front of the grand jury if the child was under 10
years of age. In the State v. Powell case, the victim was 14,
so the child victim's testimony could not be admitted in front
of the grand jury under that exception. The argument in the
Powell case, she said, centered on whether the hearsay rule
could be admitted in front of the grand jury in general.
Ultimately, the court decided that the hearsay exception for
certain recorded testimony by child victims under 16 years of
age only applied at trial, not grand jury.
1:59:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH, referring to Section 12, asked whether
evidentiary questions other than hearsay were involved.
MS. MEADE deferred to DOL.
2:01:21 PM
MR. SKIDMORE, in response to Representative Groh, confirmed that
there were other evidentiary rules that would constrain the
evidence admissible at grand jury.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked Mr. Skidmore to provide examples of
the other evidentiary rules.
MR. SKIDMORE offered the example of "relevance 401," which
required that the information was relevant to the determination
in front of the grand jury. He noted that there were a number
of other significant rules, such as privileges and inadmissible
character evidence.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH inferred from page 11, lines 13-14 of the
bill, that a variety of potential rules and objections went
substantially beyond hearsay.
MR. SKIDMORE answered yes, after a grand jury proceeding the
defense could file other motions contesting the admissibility of
that evidence at trial and therefore, questioning the
admissibility of that evidence at grand jury.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH concluded that the rule change offered in
Section 12 of HB 67 went far beyond hearsay. He asked whether
that was accurate.
MR. SKIDMORE did not understand the question.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH sought to confirm that the language on page
11, lines 13-14, would allow substantial evidence other than
hearsay, such as relevance and privileges, to be admissible
before the grand jury.
MR. SKIDMORE shared his belief that the language would not allow
such information to be admitted, unless the prosecutor believed
it was admissible at trial. He added that the provision was
limited to only expanding the ability to summarize evidence,
which some referred to as hearsay.
2:04:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked whether the prosecutor's "belief" was
subjective.
MR. SKIDMORE answered no, he explained that in Alaska, the
defense had the opportunity to review a transcript of the grand
jury proceeding and could file a motion to dismiss an
indictment's validity based on the admission of irrelevant
evidence.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH inquired about the practical effect of
inserting the language, "the prosecutor believes", on page 11,
line 13, of HB 67.
MR. SKIDMORE said the language would simply clarify that the
prosecution was presenting admissible evidence. He added that
the language was intended to provide clarity - not to change
substantive operations.
2:08:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked why the court system wasn't being used
as the vehicle for amending the court rule change proposed in
Section 12.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that the courts required multiple years
to amend court rules via the committee process, which may or may
not be adopted by the Alaska Supreme Court. He believed that
waiting multiple years to reverse the State v. Powell decision
was problematic, opining that the legislature was capable of
effecting that faster.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether this rule change had been
proposed to the Criminal Rules Committee.
MR. SKIDMORE answered no, as the committee had been tied up in
discussions about other rules.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked how often the grand jury returned an
indictment.
MR. SKIDMORE did not know the answer. He anecdotally reported
that in Alaska, the grand jury offered returns of indictment 75
percent of the time whereas in other states, the rate was 98
percent.
2:13:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the proposed court rule
change would prevent the grand jury from calling a child to
testify if it was in the best interest of the case.
MR. SKIDMORE answered, "Absolutely not."
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked why the proposed court rule
change was not limited to evidence concerning children.
MR. SKIDMORE suggested that, similar to children, victims of
sexual assault shouldn't be required to relive their trauma. He
indicated that it was within the legislature's authority to
decide how victims ought to be treated for purposes of grand
jury.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether grand jury members could
decipher admissible evidence from inadmissible evidence.
MR. SKIDMORE answered no, which was why grand jury proceedings
were recorded, transcribed, and provided to the defense.
2:19:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to page 9, line 4, and
asked to what extent indecent viewing of a picture was being
classified as a sex offense.
MR. SKIDMORE offered to follow up with the requested
information.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that nothing would
preclude the prosecutor from bringing a victim in front of the
grand jury.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that prosecutors could be
criticized for bringing a young victim in front of the grand
jury and asked whether, in practice, that would deter them from
doing so.
MR. SKIDMORE said prosecutors were subject to criticism
regardless.
2:24:35 PM
CHAIR VANCE sought to verify that the bill would allow law
enforcement to summarize a recorded witness statement.
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that it would allow an officer to
summarize statements made to the officer, either recorded or
not.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether a transcript would be provided in
addition to the summary.
MR. SKIDMORE said, as the bill was currently drafted, either
version would be acceptable.
CHAIR VANCE asked why a broad approach was being taken, as
opposed to a more proscriptive approach.
MR. SKIDMORE recalled that a survey was conducted of policies in
other states and in 29 of them, as well as the federal
government, a broad approach was utilized.
2:28:01 PM
CHAIR VANCE invited Ms. Schroeder to provide a sectional
analysis of HB 67.
2:28:25 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
DOL, on behalf of the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by
request of the governor, presented the sectional analysis for HB
67, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1. This is a legislative findings and intent
section. The section clarifies that evidence the
prosecutor believes will be admissible at trial should
be admissible at grand jury. The section also
overturns the decision in State v. Powell, 487 P. 609
(Alaska App. 2021) to the extent that it held that
testimony may not be summarized at grand jury under
Alaska Rule of Evidence 801(d)(3).
Section 2. This section amends stalking in the first
degree (class C felony) to include situations where an
individual continues to stalk someone in violation of
a stalking or sexual assault protective order.
Section 3. If a person is being sentenced for a
violation of a condition of release under AS
11.56.757, this section requires the court to impose
some additional time for the underlying offense and
any additional crimes of violation of a condition of
release.
Section 4. This section amends AS 12.63.010(b) to
require a person who must register as a sex offender
to report additional information, such as professional
licensing information and passport information, to the
Department of Public Safety.
Section 5. This section makes a conforming amendment
in AS 12.63.010(d) to account for the changes made in
section 6.
Section 6. This section adds two new subsections to AS
12.63.010 that require a person who must register as a
sex offender to notify the Department of Public Safety
if the person plans to leave the state or is away from
any address provided to the department for seven days
or more.
Section 7. This section amends AS 12.63.020(a) to
clarify the duration of the tolling period for sex
offenders who are in noncompliance with the chapter.
The tolling will be day for day.
Section 8. This section corrects a cross reference AS
11.61.123 and makes sexual penetration with a corpse
and sex trafficking in the first and second degrees
registerable.
Sectional Analysis Page 2 Prepared by Department of
Law
Section 9. This section amends the definition of
"crime involving domestic violence" to include the
crimes of unlawful contact and interfering with a
report of a crime of domestic violence.
Section 10. This section amends AS 47.14.300(a) to
allow multidisciplinary child protection teams to
assist in the evaluation and investigation of cases
involving reports of sexual contact and sexual
penetration where both the perpetrator and the victim
are children under the age of 13. The purpose of this
section is to be able to provide both children the
resources necessary to address this type of behavior.
Section 11. This section makes the applicability
section in ch. 4, FSSLA 2019 (HB 49), retroactive as
it pertains to the requirement for sex offenders who
have to register in another state to also register in
Alaska when they are present in Alaska regardless of
when they were convicted.
Section 12. This section is a direct court rule
amendment allowing witnesses to summaries the
testimony of other witnesses before the grand jury if
the prosecutor believes that that evidence would be
admissible at trial.
Section 13. This section repeals AS 12.40.110, which
allows out of court statements provided by children in
sex offense cases to be presented to the grand jury.
The amendments made in sec. 10 of the bill, alleviate
the need for this statute.
Section 14. This section is the applicability section.
Section 15. This section is the conditional effect
section for the court rule change.
Section 16. This section makes the bill effective July
1, 2023.
2:34:16 PM
CHAIR VANCE sought questions from members of the committee.
2:34:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to page 6, line 30 of
the bill, and asked why the term "the period" was replacing
"each year."
MR. SKIDMORE explained that the language was trying to implement
a more equitable and fair system for people on the [sex
offender] registry by aligning a registrant's period of
noncompliance with the length of the toll, as opposed to tolling
all sex offenders or child kidnappers who failed to comply with
an extension of one year.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about Section 6 of the bill.
MR. SKIDMORE said the provision concerned sex offenders or child
kidnappers who planned to leave the country or travel out of
state. The idea, he said, was to require sufficient notice to
allow the department to communicate the registrant's plans to
enter another state or country.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it was the state's
intention to notify other states of the registrant's plans to
travel to or through them.
MR. SKIDMORE deferred the question to Ms. Purinton.
2:38:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether evidence could be
withheld from the grand jury if the prosecutor believed it would
be inadmissible at trial.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that prosecutors would not submit
evidence that was believed to be inadmissible. If the grand
jurors were asking for that evidence, he added, it would be the
prosecutor's job to explain why certain information was not
being presented to them.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked who ultimately determined the
admissibility of evidence at trial.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that the courts were the ultimate arbiter of
that information if an objection was made by the defense.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked who determined the admissibility
of evidence at trial.
MR. SKIDMORE reiterated that the prosecution, having received
legal training, would select the proper evidence to present to a
grand jury, which was subject to review by the defense lawyer.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked what authority enabled the
prosecuting attorney to determine the admissibility of evidence
at the grand jury.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that the prosecutor was statutorily
required to bring cases forward to the grand jury; further, the
prosecutor was obligated, via case law and ethics rules, to
present evidence to the grand jury. Suggesting that someone
other than the prosecutor would be making that determination, he
said, would fundamentally change the system as it was designed.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER maintained his concern about the added
language in Section 12, "the prosecutor believes," which was a
judgement call made by the prosecuting attorney. He insisted
that per Article 1 of the constitution, the grand jury had the
constitutional right to review all information regardless of its
admissibility at court.
MR. SKIDMORE disagreed with Representative Carpenter's
assessment. He clarified that the grand jury did not have the
right to any and all available information, reiterating that
only admissible evidence was allowed to be presented by the
prosecutor. He emphasized that the constitution did not possess
contrary language in that regard.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether a specific statutory
provision was leading Mr. Skidmore to that conclusion.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that his answer was based on a compilation
of case law, statutes, and rules. He offered to follow up with
Representative Carpenter to provide the requested information.
2:51:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that if the bill were
to pass, information could not be brought before a grand jury
unless the prosecutor signed off on it.
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that the bill was not impacting the
evidential screening process conducted by the prosecutor, which
was an existing practice.
2:54:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked which states constitutionalized the
right to a grand jury.
MR. SKIDMORE listed Ohio, Hawaii, and Texas, among others.
2:55:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY posed a hypothetical scenario.
MR. SKIDMORE indicated that the hypothetical example posed by
Representative Gray was unrelated to the proposed legislation.
3:00:17 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 67 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 67 - Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HJUD 3/3/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 67 |
| HB 67 - v.A.PDF |
HJUD 3/3/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 67 |
| HB 67 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/3/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 67 |
| HB 67 - Highlights.pdf |
HJUD 3/3/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 67 |
| HB 67 - Fiscal Notes (1-6).pdf |
HJUD 3/3/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 67 |
| HB 67 - List of Presenters & Availiable for Questions.pdf |
HJUD 3/3/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 67 |
| HB 66 - Braes letter-public testimony.pdf |
HJUD 3/3/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |