Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
03/06/2025 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
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 | |
| HB71 | |
| Overview: Summer Construction Planning Update | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 71-OBSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC PLACES
1:05:45 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 71, "An Act relating to obstruction; and
providing for an effective date."
1:06:52 PM
TREG TAYLOR, Alaska Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL),
on behalf of the prime sponsor, House Rules by request of the
governor, gave a PowerPoint presentation on HB 71, titled
"Obstruction of Access to Public Places" [hard copy included in
the committee packet]. He stated that HB 71 is a "clean up" of
legislation heard during the previous session. The proposed
legislation would consolidate obstruction-type issues in the
statute and clarify the offenses for law enforcement and
offenders. He explained that 98 percent of what is covered in
the proposed legislation would already be considered a crime.
He pointed out that, although all Alaskans have the right to
move freely about the state and assemble for protests, these
rights are subject to restrictions. He expressed the idea that
HB 71 would balance these rights with the restrictions. He
expressed the opinion that this is a "pro-protest bill," as HB
71 would not override any permits to assemble issued by
municipalities in the state, and it would be neutral to the
contents of protests.
1:10:21 PM
MR. TAYLOR discussed Alaskans' freedom of movement within the
state, as seen on slide 3. He argued that the unlawful
obstruction of movement could present a threat to public safety,
as emergency vehicles may be unable to respond if a crucial
roadway were obstructed. He also noted that the unlawful
obstruction of movement could pose a threat to Alaska's economy,
as businesses would not be able to operate normally, and
citizens would not be able to reach work. He discussed the
penalties for obstruction of movement that the proposed bill
would add. He suggested that these penalties would work to
discourage any obstruction of movement.
1:11:57 PM
MR. TAYLOR moved to slide 4 and explained that the proposed bill
would target the conduct of blocking access to public places,
not the right of Alaskans to peaceably and lawfully assemble.
He moved to the next slide to show examples in other parts of
the country of unlawful obstruction of movement. The examples
highlighted the importance of content neutrality in the
legislation.
1:13:34 PM
MR. TAYLOR moved to slide 6 which showed the vulnerabilities
specific to Alaskans. He pointed out that if the Seward
Highway, Dalton Highway, Glenn Highway, or Highway 2 were
obstructed by protests, supplies and services to the surrounding
areas would be cut off.
1:15:56 PM
PARKER PATTERSON, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, Department of Law, on behalf of the prime sponsor,
House Rules by request of the governor, continued with the
PowerPoint and paraphrased the sectional analysis for HB 71,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1
• Adds new penalties to the crime of obstruction of
airports and classifies specific conduct as class C
felony or class A misdemeanor
Section 2
• Accounts for amendments in section 2 with a
conforming change
Section 3
• Establishes strict liability in a civil case for
violations of any criminal statutes created or amended
by the bill and sets out provisions for civil cause of
action
Section 4
• Creates crime of obstruction of public places, a
class A misdemeanor; it is a class C felony if conduct
creates a substantial risk of physical injury,
interferes with a person's access to governmental or
judicial services, or interferes with an emergency
response
• Permitted conduct exempt
Section 5
• Amends the crime of obstruction to navigable waters
to a class C felony if the conduct creates a
substantial risk of injury or interferes with an
emergency response
• Other obstructions class A misdemeanor
Section 6
• Repeal of existing criminal statutes encompassed by
new crime of obstruction of free passage in public
places
Section 7
• Provides prospective application of criminal
offenses amended in the bill
Section 8
• Provides for a July 1, 2025 effective date
1:19:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned whether the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution is an absolute right. He asked
whether citizens can "say anything we want."
MR. TAYLOR responded that the Supreme Court of the United States
and the Alaska Supreme Court have both clarified that this is
not considered an absolute right, and he gave an example of harm
occurring from the use of [inappropriate] free speech.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned whether there are current laws
to protect the public if a death or injury occurred from the
conduct of protesters.
MR. TAYLOR stated that there could be a civil remedy; however,
HB 71 would clarify the consequences in codified law, and this
would simplify cases. In response to a follow-up question, he
stated that HB 71 would be "an attempt to balance individuals'
constitutional rights," as it would protect both protesters and
someone in an emergency needing to avoid protesters. He stated
that under the proposed legislation it would be clear to
responding officers when protesters could be removed.
1:24:21 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed concern that the definition of
"blocking a public place" is ambiguous in the proposed
legislation. She questioned how the Alaska Supreme Court might
interpret this language.
MR. TAYLOR affirmed that it would be up to the interpretation of
the courts; however, he expressed the opinion that the language
in the proposed legislation is clear. He stated that, for
example, it would cover the instance when protesters are
stopping individuals from entering a public place. He further
explained that discretion would be exercised at three points:
the responding officers, DOL, and the courts.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed concern that discretion might not be
shown until the case reached the level of the courts, and this
would be after the fact. She asked if HB 71 could be used as a
tool to "remove unhoused people from certain locations."
MR. TAYLOR responded that if the situation met the elements
proposed in the legislation, the people would be removed.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed the belief that the proposed
legislation could be used as a method of removing and arresting
unhoused people in Anchorage. She argued that this is not "the
tool that should be used for that particular job while that
still remains a challenge for our communities."
1:29:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON questioned the definition of "civil
malice" in Section 3 of the proposed legislation. She asked
whether protesters would be allowed to obstruct the entrance to
the capitol under the proposed policies.
MR. TAYLOR answered that the "malice" language was added to
address those who encourage protesters to break the law. He
further discussed other added language that would create
carveouts, such as a carveout for [unintentional] obstruction
created with a snowplow and a carveout allowing those in charge
of premises in a public place to give approval for protests that
would shut down these premises.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON clarified that "civil malice" would be
more than simply encouraging people to protest; rather, it would
be encouraging people to break the law.
MR. TAYLOR responded in the affirmative. In response to a
follow-up question, he affirmed that those in charge of the
premises of a public place could give approval for a protest
that would shut down the premises.
1:34:28 PM
MR. TAYLOR, in response to a question from Representative
McCabe, stated that other statutes might apply to allow for the
legal removal of a protester; however, HB 71 would make it clear
to law enforcement when a protester could be arrested for a
protest. In response to a follow-up question concerning
unhoused individuals, he stated that the proposed legislation
would not make this distinction about the people obstructing the
public place in question.
1:36:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA questioned the new crimes that would be
imposed under the proposed legislation.
MR. TAYLOR responded that 98 percent of what the proposed
legislation would cover is already a crime. He continued that
the remaining 2 percent needs to be clarified, and this covers
obstruction of a public place. In response to a follow-up
question concerning how penalties under HB 71 would compare to
those for similar crimes, he said that a protester who is
knowingly preventing passage to a public facility would be
committing an arrestable offense.
REPRESENTATIVE MINA asked if HB 71 would criminalize situations
like the march [from Montgomery to Selma], which began as
peaceful but resulted in an event known as "Bloody Sunday."
MR. TAYLOR replied that the proposed legislation would
criminalize the obstruction of any public place. He gave the
example that if protesters go beyond an area permitted for a
protest, the organizers would not be liable. He continued that
a protester would be liable when there is a "knowingly intent"
to prevent passage in a public place; therefore, if a protest
stopped traffic on a highway, it would be an arrestable offence.
1:43:08 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK suggested that HB 71 would make Alaskans liable
to each other. If an individual did not "like" a particular
protest, she questioned what would stop this individual from
claiming obstruction. On a second question, she expressed
concern that the strict penalty in the proposed legislation
would not be directly tied to losses or damages incurred.
MR. TAYLOR, addressing the first question, explained that this
is an issue for every criminal statute, as it is not unforeseen
for individuals to attempt to "weaponize" statutes. He
continued that the system of justice already addresses this.
Per the second question, he stated that the proposed legislation
would clarify the law so those engaging in illegal protests
would understand the risks. He reiterated that individuals
could also seek civil remedies with other statutes.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK asked if there is any evidence that increasing
the penalty would deter people from engaging in the type of
protest targeted by HB 71. She suggested that these types of
targeted protests are not common.
MR. TAYLOR said that there is no specific evidence to prove HB
71 would deter people from obstructing public places; however,
he suggested that people would pay attention to increased fines.
He said that the intention of the proposed legislation is to
prevent organizations from creating mass protests that block
access to public places. He added that these mass protests have
been seen happening in other parts of the world. He continued
that the proposed legislation would address organized protest,
but it could also address organic protest.
1:51:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA asked if the organizers of a protest could
be charged along with the protesters under the proposed
legislation.
MR. TAYLOR responded that HB 71 would punish those who are
"knowingly" breaking the law.
1:52:31 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID asked whether it would be a chargeable offense
if someone unknowingly obstructed a public place while riding a
bicycle.
MR. TAYLOR explained that riding a bicycle on the side of a road
would not be a punishable offense under HB 71.
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID gave the hypothetical that a large protest was
happening on the side of the road, and a non-participating
person walking in the opposite direction of the protest had been
harmed. He asked whether under the proposed legislation there
could be a charge to the protesters for this harm.
MR. TAYLOR responded that there could be a violation, but HB 71
would not be targeting this type of scenario. He continued that
if the protesters were stopping the individual's passage, the
protesters could be charged.
1:56:58 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK noted to the committee that her office has
received over 300 letters in opposition to the proposed
legislation.
1:57:37 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID made closing comments.
[HB 71 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 71 Hearing Request verson A.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB 71 Highlights version A.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB 71 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB0071-1-2-012725-DPS-N.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB0071A.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| HB 71 Sectional Analysis version A.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| 20250306 HTRA Summer Construction.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
DOT& PF Summer Construction Update |
| 03.06.25 HB 71 Presentation .pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 71 |