Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/28/2019 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB96 | |
| HB71 | |
| HB82 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 82 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 82-DISCRIMINATION: GENDER ID.;SEXUAL ORIENT.
4:34:18 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 82, "An Act adding to the
powers and duties of the State Commission for Human Rights; and
relating to and prohibiting discrimination based on sexual
orientation or gender identity or expression."
4:35:01 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 4:35 p.m.
4:35:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, relayed
that HB 82 would add to Title 18 that it is the policy of the
State of Alaska not to discriminate based on sexual orientation,
gender identity, or expression; in the event someone does,
he/she can be brought before the Alaska State Commission for
Human Rights (ASCHR); and failing conciliation, he/she can be
sued for various remedies. Several states have similar laws in
place as does the City and Borough of Juneau and the
Municipality of Anchorage. Recently the Fairbanks City Council
passed a similar ordinance by a vote of 4-2; it was vetoed by
the mayor, who asked that the question be placed on a ballot.
Representative Josephson added that the issue of anti-
discrimination addressed under HB 82 is the "last frontier" of
the civil rights movement. He maintained that since Alaska is
The Last Frontier it is appropriate that it add this protection
for the tens of thousands of people in Alaska who regard
themselves as within this population.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to slide 1 of the PowerPoint
presentation to review the goals of the proposed legislation,
which read as follows:
• To add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity or
expression" to the list of classes protected under
Alaska law
• To ensure that all Alaskans enjoy the right to
participate in commerce and active lives in our
communities
• To strengthen Alaska's civil rights statutes
• To shape Alaska into a shining model for protection of
human rights
• To protect one of the fastest growing communities of
individuals in Alaska from discrimination and afford
them the same protection as all other Alaskans
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON added that the protections would relate
to housing, lending, employment, and the like. He stated that
after the U.S. Civil Rights Act [of 1964] became law, the U.S.
Supreme Court in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
wrote that non-discrimination represents good commerce.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON turned to the timeline on slide 2,
entitled "Alaska's Civil Rights History in Brief," and noted
that during the Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature, 2017-2018,
the House State Affairs Standing Committee advanced a similar
bill, [House Bill 184], by a bipartisan vote. He pointed out
that the Alaska Equal Rights Act of 1945, championed by
Elizabeth Peratrovich, predates the U.S. Civil Rights Act; he
maintained that HB 82 would be an extension of that effort.
4:42:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON moved on to slide 3, entitled "Policy
Overview: Local Trends," and noted the three large communities
of Alaska recognizing protections of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, transsexual, queer/questioning (LGBTQ) citizens and
the efforts of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) listed on
the slide, which read as follows:
Alaska Communities that protect LGBTQ citizens:
square4 Anti-discrimination ordinances are in place in 3
Alaska communities:
square4 Juneau (Adopted August 2016)
square4 Anchorage (Adopted September 2015 and upheld by
Anchorage voters April 2018)
square4 Sitka (Adopted December 2017)
square4 Anti-discrimination ordinance passed but vetoed by
mayor:
square4 Fairbanks
square4 NGOs and community organization working to end
discrimination in Alaska include:
square4 Fair Anchorage Campaign by the ACLU Alaska
square4 Human Rights Campaign Alaska
square4 Identity Alaska
square4 Alaskans Together for Equality
square4 Pride Foundation
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON mentioned that the City of Bethel has
an ordinance prohibiting discrimination for employment based on
sexual orientation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to slide 4, entitled "Policy
Overview: Other States with Similar Laws," and pointed out
Alaska's sister states who have followed the proposed policy:
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode
Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Washington, DC, and
Wisconsin.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON provided a sectional analysis of HB 82
by reviewing slides 5-12 shown below, [original punctuation
provided]. He discussed Section 1 on Slide 5, which read as
follows:
SECTION 1:
ADDS 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION' AND 'GENDER IDENTITY OR
EXPRESSION' TO THE LIST OF CATEGORIES PROTECTED BY THE
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
THE ALASKA STATE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS PASSED A
RESOLUTION IN 2016 REQUESTING THIS CHANGE BUT LACK
AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT IT ON THEIR OWN
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON relayed that there are two areas of law
that one would see such codification: Title 6 of the Alaska
Administrative Code (AAC), relating to how cases are brought
before ASCHR; and Title 18 in Alaska Statutes, which is the
substance of existing state law naming discriminatory practice
violations. He relayed that Title 18 also lists the remedies,
such as restraining orders and backpay.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON continued with slides 6, 7, and 8 to
describe Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the proposed legislation,
which read as follows:
SECTION 2:
ADD CATEGORIES OF 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION' AND 'GENDER
IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION' TO THE LIST OF PROTECTED
CLASSES WHICH THE LEGISLATURE FINDS TO BE A CAUSE FOR
PUBLIC CONCERN
SECTION 3:
ADDS 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION' AND 'GENDER IDENTITY OR
EXPRESSION' TO THE LIST OF CATEGORIES THAT THE STATE
PROTECTS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT, CREDIT
AND FINANCING, PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION AND
MATTERS RELATED TO PROPERTY SALE, LEASE AND RENTAL
IN CURRENT ALASKA STATUTE OTHER PROTECTED CLASSES ARE
HIELDED FROM DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE, RELIGION,
COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, SEX, PHYSICAL OR MENTAL
DISABILITY, MARITAL STATUTES, CHANGES IN MARITAL
STATUS, PREGNANCY, OR PARENTHOOD
SECTION 4:
ADDS 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION' AND 'GENDER IDENTITY OR
EXPRESSION' TO THE CATEGORIES OF PROTECTED CIVIL
RIGHTS
'CIVIL RIGHT IS AN ENFORCEABLE RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE,
WHICH IF INTERFERED WITH BY ANOTHER GIVES RISE TO AN
ACTION FOR INJURY. DISCRIMINATION OCCURS WHEN THE
CIVIL RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL ARE DENIED OR INTERFERED
WITH BECAUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S MEMBERSHIP IN A
PARTICULAR GROUP OR CLASS? CIVIL RIGHTS REFER TO LEGAL
PROVISIONS THAT STEM FROM NOTIONS OF EQUALITY.'*
*HTTPS://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/WEX/CIVIL_RIGHTS
SECTION 5:
PROHIBITS UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE BASED ON
'SEXUAL ORIENTATION' AND 'GENDER IDENTITY OR
EXPRESSION'
A 2011 SURVEY OF LGBTQ INDIVIDUALS IN ANCHORAGE FOUND
THAT 62% OF RESPONDENTS HAD HIDDEN THEIR SEXUAL
ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY OR GENDER TRANSITION AT
WORK
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON relayed that Section 6 addresses
religious exemption; in the area of religious organizations and
ministerial jobs, the proposed bill would have no application.
Section 6 is described on slide 9, which read as follows:
SECTION 6:
PROVIDES A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FOR EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION AND A
MINISTER EMPLOYED BY THE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to Section 7 on slide 10,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
SECTION 7:
PROHIBITS UNLAWFUL PRACTICES IN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS
BASED ON 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION' OR 'GENDER IDENTITY OR
EXPRESSION'
LGBTQ INDIVIDUALS IN A 2011 ANCHORAGE SURVEY WHO WERE
DENIED ACCOMMODATIONS:
? 13.1% DENIED SERVICE IN A RESTAURANT
? 6% DENIED USE OF PUBLIC RESTROOM
? 3.4% DENIED ROOM IN HOTEL
? 8.2% DENIED MEMBERSHIP TO GYM OR FITNESS CLUB
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON reminded the committee of the history
of certain people in Southeast Alaska being denied
accommodations due to the color of their skin.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON moved on to slide 11 to describe
Section 8, which read as follows:
SECTION 8:
PROHIBITS UNLAWFUL PRACTICES IN THE SALE OR RENTAL OF
REAL PROPERTY BASED ON 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION' OR 'GENDER
IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION'
? A 2015 SURVEY OR TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS IN ALASKA
REPORTED THAT 32% OF RESPONDENTS EXPERIENCED SOME FORM
OF HOUSING DISCRIMINATION IN THE PAST YEAR AND 43%
HAVE EXPERIENCED HOMELESSNESS AT SOME POINT IN THEIR
LIVES
? A 2011 SURVEY OF LGBTQ INDIVIDUALS IN ANCHORAGE
FOUND THAT 18.7% OF RESPONDENTS HAD BEEN HARASSED BY A
LANDLORD OR OTHER TENANT BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL
ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY/EXPRESSION
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON reviewed Section 9 on slide 12, which
read as follows:
SECTION 9:
PROHIBITS UNLAWFUL PRACTICES IN FINANCING AND
EXTENDING CREDIT BASED ON 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION' OR
'GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION'
A 2011 SURVEY OF LGBTQ INDIVIDUALS IN ANCHORAGE FOUND
THAT 3.7% OF RESPONDENTS WERE DENIED A LOAN OR LINE OF
CREDIT WHEN OTHERWISE QUALIFIED
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON briefly described Section 10 on slide
13, which read as follows:
SECTION 10:
PROHIBITS UNLAWFUL PRACTICES BY THE STATE OR ITS
POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS BASED ON 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION'
OR 'GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION'
INCLUDES ALL STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND
WILL END DISCRIMINATION IN SCHOOLS, IN COURTS, BY
POLICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICIALS AND BY GOVERNMENT
SERVICES AND AGENCIES
4:48:29 PM
ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska
State Legislature, referred to slide 14 to describe Section 11
and to explain the concept of "blockbusting." The slide read as
follows:
SECTION 11:
PROHIBITS UNLAWFUL PRACTICES IN BLOCKBUSTING, OR
PRACTICE BY A REAL ESTATE AGENT TO CLOSE A TRANSACTION
BASED ON 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION' OR 'GENDER IDENTITY OR
EXPRESSION'
'BLOCKBUSTING' MEANS AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY
PRACTICE BY A REAL ESTATE BROKER, REAL ESTATE
SALESPERSON, OR EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF A BROKER OR
ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL, CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, OR
ORGANIZATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUCING A REAL ESTATE
TRANSACTION FROM WHICH ANY SUCH PERSON OR ITS
STOCKHOLDERS OR MEMBERS MAY BENEFIT FINANCIALLY, TO
REPRESENT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THAT A CHANGE HAS
OCCURRED OR WILL OR MAY OCCUR FROM A COMPOSITION WITH
RESPECT TO RACE, RELIGION, COLOR, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN
OF THE OWNERS OR OCCUPANTS OF THE BLOCK, NEIGHBORHOOD,
OR AREA IN WHICH THE REAL PROPERTY IS LOCATED, ANDTO
REPRESENT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THAT THIS CHANGE MAY
OR WILL RESULT IN UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCES IN THE
BLOCK, NEIGHBORHOOD, OR AREA IN WHICH THE REAL
PROPERTY IS LOCATED, INCLUDING THE LOWERING OF
PROPERTY VALUES, AN INCREASE IN CRIMINAL OR ANTISOCIAL
BEHAVIOR, OR DECLINE IN THE QUALITY OF THE SCHOOLS OR
OTHER FACILITIES
(AS 18.80.30 (1))
MS. SORUM-BIRK relayed that blockbusting is the practice of
persuading owners to sell property cheaply due to the fear of
people of another race or class moving into the neighborhood,
thereby, creating a margin of profit based on reselling at a
higher price. This was seen historically in certain
neighborhoods in which a real estate agent would attempt to
convince a resident to sell his/her house at less than the
assessed value due to an African American moving into the
neighborhood. The real estate agent could, thereby, turn a
profit.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON added that ASCHR has stated that
although there may be remedies [for discrimination based on
gender identity or expression], such as through the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the proposed
legislation is the remedy that ASCHR must have to protect the
civil rights of these individuals.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how HB 82 would affect women's
shelters that did not want to accept people who identify as
women but are not biologically women. She asked additionally
how HB 82 would affect sports teams; for example, a man who
identifies as a woman and wants to complete in women's sports.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON expressed his belief that the proposed
legislation would not address domestic violence shelters but
would research this issue. He said that a sporting event is not
the subject of the proposed legislation; nothing in HB 82 would
affect eligibility for a sporting event.
4:52:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether there has been a documented
case of blockbusting regarding the LGTBQ community.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to the November 2011 Anchorage
survey, entitled "Anchorage LGBT Discrimination Survey:
Preliminary Report," included in the committee packet, and cited
the following statistics: 10.1 percent of the LGBT community
was denied a lease when otherwise qualified; 20.9 percent were
turned down for a job when otherwise qualified; and 73.1 percent
reported having to hide their sexual orientation, gender
identity, or gender transition to avoid employment
discrimination. He mentioned that he does not have any specific
information on Representative Wool's question.
MS. SORUM-BIRK relayed that she is not aware of cases [of
blockbusting] in Alaska; however, there have been cases
nationally.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW offered his understanding that the intent of
HB 82 is to prohibiting discrimination "across the board" and
not just for housing.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON replied that under HB 82, the broad
civil rights intent described in the preamble language would be
advanced through the protection of LGBTQ against discrimination
in housing, employment, lending, and public accommodation.
4:56:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW stated that his comment concerns the title
of HB 82, which read:
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED
'An Act adding to the powers and duties of the State
Commission for Human Rights; and relating to and
prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation
or gender identity or expression.'
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW maintained that the title of HB 82 is very
broad and the stated goals of the legislation, on slide 1, do
not mention housing. He asked whether HB 82 would cover broad
community issues.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that like the U.S. Civil
Rights Act, the proposed legislation would require that in
employment or business, the merchant must subscribe to the
greater tenant of the Act; however, every action of an
individual would not be monitored for politically correct (PC)
compliance with some greater civil rights tenant. He stated
that HB 82 would add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity
or expression" repeatedly to existing law; it would add this
class to the many classes already protected - physical and
mental disability, marital status, race, religion, color,
national origin. Beyond that there would be no expansion of the
civil rights [U.S.] Code [Title 42, Chapter 21].
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for a legal opinion on women's
shelters and sports teams in respect to the proposed
legislation. She expressed her understanding that it is not
illegal to discriminate against a person if there is a rational
basis for doing so unless the person is in a protected class;
race, religion, and national origin have always been those
protected classes; and to discriminate against someone in a
protected class requires a compelling state interest. She said
that her concern is that adding "sexual orientation" and "gender
identity or expression" puts these categories into the protected
class, which would require a compelling state interest and
everything else that follows.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that in the case of gender,
it is not a compelling interest but an important interest - or a
middle tier test; therefore, women are not as protected as a
racial minority. He agreed that "compelling interest" is the
test; under HB 82, the classifications [of sexual orientation
and gender identity or expression] would be added to the
protected class in the ASCHR code; the Alaska State Supreme
Court would recognize that when applying a tough test. He
acknowledged that the test could be overcome.
[HB 82 was held over.]