Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
03/24/2023 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 | |
| HB68 | |
| HB66 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 68-CRIME OF SEX/HUMAN TRAFFICKING
1:02:47 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 68, "An Act relating to sex trafficking;
establishing the crime of patron of a victim of sex trafficking;
relating to the crime of human trafficking; relating to
prostitution; relating to sentencing for sex trafficking, patron
of a victim of sex trafficking, and human trafficking;
establishing the process for vacating judgments for certain
convictions of prostitution and misconduct involving a
controlled substance; relating to the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault; relating to permanent fund
dividends for certain individuals whose convictions are vacated;
and providing for an effective date."
1:04:20 PM
CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on HB 68.
1:04:41 PM
KATIE BOTZ stated her support for HB 68. She shared some of the
traumatic life experiences she endured during her childhood,
including sexual assault at the age of 12 and suicidal ideations
that resulted from witnessing [the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001]. Additionally, she recounted her experience
in chat rooms on the "dark web."
1:12:46 PM
CINDY ROQUE recalled several encounters from her time as a child
protection officer for the Office of Children's Services (OCS),
Department of Family and Community Services. She explained that
cell phones were provided by OCS to allow children to visit
their parents. She expressed concern about how the state-
provided cell phones were being used by vulnerable children.
She went on to discuss the lack of background checks for Lyft
and Uber drivers and urged the legislature to implement
fingerprinting at such agencies.
1:16:44 PM
RACHEL SMITH expressed her opposition to the bill, as a former
sex worker. She stated that if HB 68 had been implemented
during her time as a sex worker, she would have had an
unclassified felony on her record, which would not have allowed
her to seek employment outside of the food service industry.
She shared her belief that with such limited options, she would
have had no other choice than to return to sex work. She opined
that the bill would bar sex workers from exiting the trade. She
urged a "no" vote on HB 68.
1:17:57 PM
MAXINE DOOGAN, Community United for Safety and Protection,
disclosed that she was a sex worker of 30-plus years and planned
to continue for 30-plus more. She stated her opposition to HB
68, as it relied on the continued criminalization of sex workers
under the guise of rescuing sex trafficking victims. She
reported that police crackdowns on the trade did not reduce
incidents of prostitution or sex trafficking. Rather than
taking a punitive approach, she urged the committee to expand
the immunity section to encourage clients to report crime and to
remove the use of condoms as evidence, which would decrease
public health costs. She advocated for the repealing of the
criminalization of prostitution.
1:19:28 PM
ANTONIA LEONARD expressed concern about the language in the
proposed legislation. She characterized the bill as "musical
theater" attempting to play on the heartstrings of those who
were passionate about ending domestic violence and sex crimes.
1:21:58 PM
TERRA BURNS, Community United for Safety and Protection, stated
her opposition to HB 68. After being trafficked as a minor in
Alaska, she went on to work in Alaska's sex industry for several
decades before conducting her graduate research at UAF on the
lived experiences and policy recommendations for people in
Alaska's sex trade. She expressed her concern about the
proposed legislation, offering to provide an independent
sectional analysis upon request.
1:23:35 PM
KAT MCELROY expressed strong opposition to HB 68. She shared
her belief that it was nobody's business if she, as a citizen of
Alaska, decided to sell her sexual services. She emphasized
that prostitution was not sex trafficking. She opined that in
an attempt to further criminalize prostitution, the bill was
attempting to make felons out of sex workers and their clients.
Further, she remarked that HB 68 conflated prostitution with sex
trafficking. Her greatest concern, she said, was that the bill
would put the State of Alaska at odds with the people most able
to report sex trafficking. She urged the legislature to better
serve the state and its people by engaging sex workers in its
efforts to create public safety.
1:26:27 PM
TIM LYONS disclosed that he was the owner and operator of three
night clubs in Alaska, one of which featured drag and adult
theme productions. He conveyed that his employees,
entertainers, and actors were equally terrified by the criminal
implications loosely defined in HB 68. He expressed his
confusion as to why the adult entertainment industry was being
targeted in the bill, as Alaska's industry had demonstrated a
responsible track record by keeping the element of sex
trafficking out of its venues. He highlighted his membership in
the national Club Owners Against Sex Trafficking (COAST)
organization, reporting that the adult industry accounted for
less than 1 percent of sex trafficking occurrences in the U.S.
He offered to follow up with the relevant data.
1:28:39 PM
MATTHEW LOHRSTORFER urged a "no" vote on HB 68. He questioned
why the legislature would want to criminalize consenting adults.
He believed that the bill would discourage reporting of sex
trafficking by clients out of fear of felony charges. He argued
that criminalizing an already marginalized community was
illogical. He stated his strong opposition to the bill.
1:29:53 PM
JULIE SMYTH expressed her opposition to HB 68. She recalled the
aftermath of the 2012 trafficking legislation, which resulted in
an independent sex worker being charged with trafficking. She
suggested that police and prosecutors could not be trusted to
follow the legislative intent. She shared a personal anecdote.
She urged a "no" vote on the bill.
1:31:42 PM
TATIANA ROTHCHILD, Volunteer, Community United for Safety and
Protection, PhD candidate in political science at Northeastern
University, shared that she worked in the anti-human trafficking
field for over a decade. She expressed her opposition to HB 68,
opining that the expansion of the definition of sex trafficking
would directly harm sex trafficking victims and sex workers.
She shared her belief that the bill would increase charges
brought against sex trafficking victims. By including language
that allows for others in a "place of prostitution" to be
charged with trafficking, she said, the legislation would open
doors for sex workers to be charged with trafficking even
without evidence of force, fraud, or coercion. She opined that
HB 68 would drive the sex workers and victims further
underground where they face more violence and discourage clients
from reporting to law enforcement.
1:33:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it was Ms. Rothchild's
contention that the bill would increase the number of charges
brought against sex workers for simple prostitution.
MS. ROTHCHILD expressed concern that sex workers could be
charged with trafficking without engaging in trafficking.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether Ms. Rothchild was familiar
with how many sex workers had been charged with prostitution in
Alaska.
MS. ROTHCHILD did not have the figures on hand.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that a small number of
Alaskans had been charged with prostitution in recent years. He
asked how HB 68 would change that.
MS. ROTHCHILD clarified that she was concerned about sex
trafficking charges being brought against sex workers or people
who were not involved in trafficking.
1:36:11 PM
ATHENA FLOWERS stated her opposition to HB 68. She opined that
the bill was not addressing the issue of sex trafficking
specifically. As a sex worker herself, she attested to
participating in the industry willingly. She shared her belief
that HB 68 would take away the bodily autonomy of sex workers.
She said urged the committee to rewrite the bill to target sex
trafficking rather than consenting adults.
CHAIR VANCE closed public testimony on HB 68. She assured
testifiers that she heard their concerns, adding that a
forthcoming committee substitute would distinguish between
prostitution and sex trafficking. She invited Diane Casto to
discuss Section 30 and the inclusion of sex trafficking under
the purview of the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault (CDVSA) ("the council").
1:39:57 PM
DIANE CASTO, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence &
Sexual Assault, provided a detailed history of the CDVSA, noting
that much of the work done by the council was focused on
allocating funding to empower communities and create programming
that catered to the needs of Alaskans.
1:43:17 PM
MS. CASTO continued to explain that the CDVSA was currently
funding 34 agencies from Utqiagvik to Unalaska. She recounted
how the CDVSA became the primary home for helping victims of sex
trafficking, noting, however, that it changed the primary work
objective of the council, as trafficking was an enterprise and
different than domestic violence between intimate partners. She
admitted that the council could take this on, but it would take
time and resources to do the work, which would be difficult to
accomplish without diminishing the primary work done by the
CDVSA. Ms. Casto indicated that the council was considering its
options and had reviewed its report on human and sex trafficking
in which the CDVSA was identified as the lead agency in various
areas of recommendation. Additionally, she believed that the
gaps in victim services needed to be better understood.
1:51:50 PM
CHAIR VANCE directed attention to Section 29 and Section 37 of
the bill, which addressed the vacation of judgement.
1:52:45 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, offered a
summary of how the court system planned to implement Section 29.
She noted that there had been no convictions for practicing
prostitution since 2017; however, in total, the aggregate number
of convictions in the court system's system was 1,000.
Therefore, if HB 68 were to pass, any person convicted of
prostitution could submit a petition to the courts to vacate the
judgement. She explained that absent opposition from
prosecution, the bill allowed the court to grant the petition
without further proceedings. She noted that the case would then
be removed from Court View as long as the individual had not
been convicted of any felony charges in the case. Returning to
page 22, lines 21-22, she pointed out that as drafted, HB 68
would allow anyone with a misdemeanor conviction for misconduct
involving a controlled substance under AS 11.71.050 or AS
11.71060 to request that same vacation of judgment if the
individual had been a victim of sex trafficking. She noted that
the court system had a total of 20,000 such cases listed in
Court View.
1:58:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked for an example of misconduct involving
a controlled substance and how that differed from a felony drug
possession charge.
MS. MEADE explained that two categories of people could get
relief under this provision: those with a prostitution
conviction and those with a misdemeanor drug charge.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY sought to confirm that a person convicted of
both prostitution and a felony drug conviction would not be
eligible for the vacation of judgement. He asked whether that
was accurate.
MS. MEADE clarified that if the court granted the vacation of
judgment for a person convicted of either prostitution or a
misdemeanor drug charge [if the individual was a victim of sex
trafficking at the time], the case would be pulled from Court
View; however, it would only be removed if the same case did not
involve a felony charge of any sort.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY sought to verify that a person convicted of
misconduct involving a controlled substance for heroin or meth
would not be eligible for the vacation of judgement.
MS. MEADE confirmed that a felony drug charge would make a
person ineligible for the vacation of judgement even if the
individual could prove that he/she was a victim of sex
trafficking at the time.
2:03:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the 4-day timeframe
allotted to the prosecuting attorney [to respond to the vacation
of judgement]. He asked whether 45 days was an appropriate
amount of time.
MS. MEADE said she had no view on that. She shared her
understanding that in the vast majority of cases, the
prosecuting attorney would not file a response.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the fiscal note from the
Alaska Court System, pointing out that 20,000 defendants could
file a petition under this provision. He surmised that the
corresponding zero fiscal note from the Department of Law (DOL)
suggested that department had no intention of opposing the
petitions. For that reason, he opined that the 45 days seemed
unnecessary and wasteful. He asked whether there was a better
option than holding each petition for 45 days.
MS. MEADE explained that the 45-day timeframe was added to
ensure that the petitions weren't waiting in limbo indefinitely.
She welcomed a change if DOL was in agreement. With regard to
the court system's fiscal note, she noted that even if 10
percent of the 20,000 convicted individuals filed a petition
with no opposition from DOL, the court system would need a clerk
to process those 2,000 documents.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned how the court would respond to
a number of cases in which, after close scrutiny of the cases,
the offenders appeared ineligible. Without DOL opposing the
petition, he asked whether the court system would choose to
grant the petition.
MS. MEADE explained that it would be fairly impossible for the
courts to draw any conclusion from the case file as to whether
the offender was a victim of sex trafficking at the time of
conviction. She confirmed that the petition would likely be
granted absent evidence that the petitioner was not a victim of
sex trafficking.
2:11:25 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:11 p.m. to 2:16 p.m.
2:16:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked Mr. Skidmore to respond to
Representative Eastman's question.
2:18:13 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division, DOL,
referring to Section 29 of the bill, he explained that that the
45-day timeframe was requested by the department to allow for
enough time to pull records from archives when necessary. He
suspected that the department would not be responding to every
petition; nonetheless, he assured the committee that each
petition would be reviewed, analyzed, and evaluated on
legitimacy. Regarding DOL's zero fiscal note, he shared his
belief that any efforts to respond to the requests for a
vacation of judgement could be absorbed by the department's
current resources.
2:20:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how DOL could feasibly respond to
up to 20,000 requests at no cost to the department.
MR. SKIDMORE pointed out that "20,000" was a figure representing
the total number of convictions that qualified for the vacation
of judgement; however, DOL was operating under the presumption
that far fewer requests for vacation would actually be
submitted.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether DOL's assertion that the
department would not be responding to most of the petitions
would effectively create a "cottage industry" for attorneys.
MR. SKIDMORE suspected that of the 20,000, far fewer convictions
occurred as a result of being sex trafficked. He reiterated
that the department would need to analyze the petitions on a
case-by-case basis, which would not require significant
resources, he believed. As to whether a cottage industry would
emerge in private practices, he had no opinion.
2:25:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the department would
prioritize the allocation of resources to oppose a petition if
the case was deemed ineligible for the vacation of judgement.
MR. SKIDMORE said it would not be prioritized over prosecution
of homicides or sexual assaults, for example, but an opposition
would be filed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the necessary resources,
cost, and degree of success with which the department would
oppose ineligible petitions. He asked how the department would
disprove a fraudulent claim.
MR. SKIDMORE declined to predict the potential conditions of
each petition. He reiterated that a zero fiscal note was filed
because the prosecuting authority planned to respond to
petitions as they come in; however, he maintained that it should
not be a significant drain on the department's resources.
2:27:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD inquired about the historical rates of
requests for repealing or sealing cases.
MR. SKIDMORE said he did not have relevant figures on hand. He
presumed that in accordance with Section 29, the court system
would be developing simple, one-page petitions that required
minimal effort from DOL.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether, as drafted, the bill language made it
clear that any vacation of judgement for misconduct involving a
controlled substance required proof that the offender had been a
victim of sex trafficking at the time of conviction.
MR. SKIDMORE answered yes, citing page 2, lines 18-20, and page
23, lines 6-11.
2:31:42 PM
CHAIR VANCE expressed concern that judgments could be easily
vacated without proof of sex trafficking.
MR. SKIDMORE maintained that as drafted, a person convicted for
an offense under AS 11.71.050 or AS 11.71.060 would be eligible
to receive a vacation of judgement if, by preponderance of the
evidence, it was demonstrated that the individual was a victim
of sex trafficking.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether a preponderance of evidence had been
established in cases of sex trafficking.
MR. SKIDMORE said that was not something that could be
determined through legislation, as the rules of evidence were
evaluated by the courts.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether vacated judgements would be removed
from courthouse documents, in addition to Court View.
MR. SKIDMORE was unsure how the court system would handle the
vacation of judgement in terms of public record.
2:35:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY observed that the burden would fall on the
victims of sex trafficking to have their convictions vacated.
He opined that it was unfair to make victims put forth the
effort of hiring an attorney and filling out paperwork.
MR. SKIDMORE said that's typically how the legal system works.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked how many cases of prostitution had
been brought forward in recent years.
MR. SKIDMORE reported that there was a total of 1,000
convictions on record; however, since 2017, there had been zero
convictions.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY remarked, "It seems to me unfair that there
are people walking around with prostitution on their record
prior to 2017 when they could have been victims of sex
trafficking when no one had that on their record after 2017."
MR. SKIDMORE emphasized that efforts of enforcement could not be
equated on a year-to-year basis.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inquired about the harm of vacating all
1,000 prostitution convictions prior to 2017.
MR. SKIDMORE surmised that Representative Gray was suggesting
that prostitution should be legalized.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY interjected, clarifying that he did not say
that. He inquired about the harm of vacating all 1,000
prostitution convictions prior to 2017.
MR. SKIDMORE reiterated that such an approach could be taken if
prostitution were legalized. Otherwise, he indicated that
vacating all 1,000 convictions would send a message that the
legislature did not think prostitution should be criminalized.
2:42:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD opined that there were ramifications to
the continuous sealing of records of vacation of judgements,
likening it to "pandoras box." She asked whether this would be
a continuous practice in the legislature.
MR. SKIDMORE said it would be a policy call.
2:45:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether any patrons of sex workers
had been convicted in Alaska since 2017.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that the crime of prostitution was
defined as both the selling and the purchasing of sex;
therefore, no patrons had been convicted since 2017.
CHAIR VANCE pointed out that charges and convictions were
distinguishable. She asked why the vacation of judgement for
misconduct involving a controlled substance was included in the
bill.
MR. SKIDMORE said the provision in question was added last year
in the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee. In presenting the
bill this year, the intent was to preserve the work done on
previous version of the bill, as some contributing members were
still in the legislature.
2:48:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether the ability to vacate a
conviction would incentivize victims to come forward.
MR. SKIDMORE conveyed that finding victims to come forward was
the biggest challenge in the prosecution of sex trafficking
cases. He said he was unsure whether the vacation of judgement
was enough to motivate victims.
2:50:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether identifying oneself as a
victim of sex trafficking would be considered sufficient
evidence by the court.
MR. SKIDMORE answered yes, the victim's statement would be
evidence or "factual assertion" - considered by the court.
2:53:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that unless DOL could
furnish proof that the individual was not a victim of sex
trafficking, the victim's statement would satisfy the
preponderance of proof.
MS. MEADE said it would depend on the evidence offered by DOL.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it was more difficult to
"prove a negative."
MS. MEADE agreed with that statement in general.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the timeframe for refiling
a petition that was denied.
MS. MEADE shared her understanding that the second petition
would be summarily denied unless it included new or additional
facts.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that a follow-up
petition could be filed at any time.
MS. MEADE answered yes. She supposed that a subset of
individuals could file a second petition with additional facts;
however, she was unsure how it would be handled.
2:57:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked, "If someone comes in to have their
drug offense removed is there any note in the court system
that they have claimed themselves to be a victim of sex
trafficking?"
MS. MEADE explained that the petition itself would become the
official record. She anticipated that the petition would be
added to the case file.
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 68 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 68 - Letters of Support (submitted 03-23-23).pdf |
HJUD 3/24/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 - Letters of Opposition (submitted 03-23-23).pdf |
HJUD 3/24/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 66 - v.B.pdf |
HJUD 3/24/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 - Amendment #3 (B.1) by Rep. Gray.pdf |
HJUD 3/24/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 - Amendment #4 (B.2) by Rep. Gray.pdf |
HJUD 3/24/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |