Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
04/11/2023 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL 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 | |
| Presentation(s): Department of Public Safety | |
| HB99 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 99 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 99-DISCRIMINATION: GENDER ID.;SEXUAL ORIENT.
9:24:47 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 99, "An Act relating to and prohibiting
discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or
expression."
9:25:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JENNIE ARMSTRONG, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, introduced HB 99 via a PowerPoint, titled "HB 99:
LGBTQ+ Nondiscrimination" [hard copy included in the committee
packet]. She stated that HB 99 would add sexual orientation,
gender identity, and gender expression as protected classes
under the statutes governing the Alaska Commission for Human
Rights (ASCHR). She stated that all Alaskans are protected
classes; thus, this would not be treating lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals in a
special way, but it would make sure these individuals have the
same rights as everyone else. She stated that this is a cleanup
bill following the decision by the Supreme Court of the United
States in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020).
Because of this case, she explained that LGBTQ discrimination in
employment is protected across the U.S. She continued that the
proposed legislation would expand this to all the five areas
ASCHR covers. She stated that ASCHR was briefly allowed to
cover these five areas; however, for this to continue it must be
put into statute. She argued that discrimination in the state
is currently legal, and per Bostock v. Clayton County, these
protections for the LGBTQ community should be codified.
9:27:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG advised that the bill would not
interfere with religious freedoms. She continued that the five
subject areas the bill would address that ASCHR oversees, as
seen on slide 2, are: housing, financing, employment, government
practices, and public accommodation. She said that cases on
discrimination based on employment are currently being heard by
ASCHR, and she reiterated that the proposed legislation would
extend this to the other four categories. She addressed
discrimination's negative effects on society and business, as
seen on slide 3. She displayed a supplementary slide [hard copy
included in the committee packet] showing an ad from the website
Zillow, which warned that communities in some parts of Alaska
are not protected against discrimination for housing. She
argued the state is suffering from outmigration because of this.
She moved to the next slide, which shows that 80 percent of
Americans support LGBTQ nondiscrimination policies. She
continued that 9 out of the top 10 employers in the state lists
sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination policy. She
argued that the proposed legislation would bring workers to the
state. She moved to slide 5, which listed the economic benefits
from having comprehensive nondiscrimination policies. She
stated that unless a city is listed as "first class" its
assembly cannot pass a nondiscrimination ordinance, and this is
why a statutory solution is needed. She moved to the next slide
which showed the percentage of same sex couples in the state.
It also showed the percentage of the workforce in the state who
identify as LGBTQ. She pointed out that many people hide their
sexual orientation for fear of employment discrimination. On a
supplemental slide, included in the committee packet, she
displayed a study on the effects of discrimination on employment
in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG moved to slide 7, which lists the
impacts on LGBTQ Alaskans when they face discrimination. She
explained that these setbacks stop members of this community
from having a productive role in society. She noted the effects
on LGBTQ Native youth, which include homelessness. She pointed
to a letter in the committee packet which explains the effects
of this. She reiterated the importance of Bostock v. Clayton
County.
9:34:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG continued to slide 11 and listed what
is currently covered under AS 18.80, the state's human rights
statute. She argued that the definitions in Bostock v. Clayton
County need to be included in this list, as Alaska Supreme Court
case law covers all five subject areas, not just employment.
She reminded the committee that from February 2021 to August
2022, ASCHR had been able to cover all discrimination areas, and
the supreme court cases support this. She stated that this was
rescinded because it was found by the state's attorney general
that ASCHR would need statutory authority to continue the
practice, and she pointed out that HB 99 would give this
authority.
9:36:31 AM
TRISTAN WALSH, Staff, Representative Jennie Armstrong, on behalf
of the prime sponsor, Representative Armstrong, noted that the
sectional analysis shows the changes from previous versions of
the bill from past sessions. He gave the sectional analysis
[copy included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 1: This section is conforming language with
Section 2. It adds "sex" to the area of Alaska
Statutes regarding blockbusting.
Section 2: This section adds new paragraphs under AS
18.80.300 to define sex to include "gender identity or
expression" and "sexual orientation".
MR. WALSH noted that the definition of "sex" has been updated to
be consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's definition. He
stated that this version of the bill uses an updated definition
of "sexual orientation" which is more inline with the scientific
understanding of sexuality. He stated that the definition is
more comprehensive, and this should deter any future litigation
or statutory changes.
9:38:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the understanding that the bill
is supposed to be about housing; however, there has not been any
mention of blockbusting and unlawful discriminatory practices.
He concluded that the proposed legislation is not about housing,
but a change in definitions. He pointed out that the federal
Fair Housing Act already addresses this. He questioned whether
the proposed legislation would be redundant.
MS. ARMSTRONG clarified that ASCHR covers five subject areas,
and the section on blockbusting is a conforming change. She
deferred the question.
9:40:40 AM
ROB CORBISIER, Executive Director, Alaska State Commission on
Human Rights, explained that Section 1 is a conforming section.
He explained that a few years ago there was an effort to make
ASCHR a state-level partner with the Department of Law (DOL) on
discrimination cases; however, [to make this legal], it was
determined that changes needed to be made to conform state
statutes with the federal equivalent. Another barrier was that
20 percent of ASCHR's budget would need to be dedicated to
housing discrimination cases; however, this was not achieved,
and all housing discrimination cases are now deferred to Alaska
Legal Services.
MR. CORBISIER continued that currently the state does not have
the jurisdiction to make a sex-based claim as a blockbusting
claim. He explained that Section 2 in the proposed legislation
is "the heart of what the bill is and what it does," as this
would change the definition of "gender identity" in law, giving
ASCHR the authority to prosecute the cases outside of the
employment provision.
9:43:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned whether incidents of sexual
orientation or gender identity discrimination are being tracked
in the state. He suggested that this is under a federal law.
If this data is tracked, he questioned where the data is
located.
MR. CORBISIER responded that because Bostock v. Clayton County
does not articulate that the LGBTQ community is its own
protected class, the numbers are not tracked. He related that
this case says this discrimination is a component of sex, so
these cases would be tracked as sex discrimination cases only.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the understanding that the
number of these cases in Alaska is unknown, and this is the
reasoning behind the proposed legislation, even though it looks
like a housing bill. He suggested that since the fiscal note
reflects an increase in cases, there must be a number of cases
in mind.
MR. CORBISIER replied that he does not know the number of cases.
He explained that from December 2020 to August 2022, under
ASCHR's initial guidance by DOL to do all five subject matter
cases, there was not a requirement to track the numbers. He
added that during this period 80 percent of the cases were
employment based. He stated that there are not many housing
discrimination cases, and there are more public accommodation
cases.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the understanding that currently
the definitions of gender identity and sexual orientation in the
bill only apply to the term blockbusting. He questioned this
limitation, as it seems like a side issue.
9:47:09 AM
MR. WALSH responded that the definitions in Section 2 of the
proposed legislation include the entire ASCHR's chapter;
therefore, making it applicable to the areas listed in AS 18.80.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG added that the proposed legislation is
narrowly focused on ASCHR and the five subject matters it
covers. She added that the section on blockbusting is a
conforming change and deferred to Legislative Legal Services.
9:48:07 AM
MARGRET BERGERUD, Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, concurred. She stated that
currently under AS 18.80, the Alaska Human Rights Law, sex is
undefined; therefore, the proposed legislation would add a
definition of sex, under which gender identity and sexual
orientation would be added and clarified. This would then apply
under the entirety of AS 18.80, not just the blockbusting
section.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned whether there are any other
sections in AS 18.80 which would require the same language.
MR. WALSH responded that prior versions of the legislation did
not include sex in the section regarding blockbusting. He
explained the historical concept of blockbusting in terms of
race discrimination and how now it needs to be clarified in
terms of the LGBTQ community.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG pointed out that employment is listed,
and these cases are currently being taken. She reiterated that
ASCHR has been granted the jurisdiction to take cases on
housing.
9:51:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY pointed out the description of public
accommodations. He questioned whether this includes government
buildings, bathrooms, and locker rooms. He gave the scenario of
a biological male entering a female locker room and undressing.
He questioned whether this would happen under the proposed
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG deferred to Mr. Corbisier.
MR. CORBISIER replied that public accommodation does include
educational institutions and government buildings, per
regulation. He expressed uncertainty concerning Representative
McKay's question. He stated that this circumstance has not been
faced, but if it is a government practice and discriminatory, it
would fall under the jurisdiction of ASCHR.
9:54:34 AM
MR. WALSH said, "Trans persons are usually just looking for a
place to be in peace." He added that historically these people
are much more likely to be the victim. He suggested that any
idea these people would be preying on children is not reflected
in the data collected, which can be supplied to the committee.
9:55:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE shared that he has had some of the same
questions concerning the bill's place in AS 18.80. He sought to
clarify that adding definitions in Section 2 would give ASCHR
the capacity to investigate complaints or claims regarding
discrimination.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG responded in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE pointed out the term "expression" in
the proposed legislation does not have a definition. He
questioned why the term "gender identity" is not sufficient.
MR. WALSH explained that "gender expression" is a widely used
term in the LGBTQ community, scientific literature, and public
discourse. He continued that every human has both gender
identity and gender expression, and these are commonly referred
to as being "innate;" however, traditionally humans have been
defined as "binary" in the western world. He continued that as
understanding evolves, using the term "gender expression" is a
way to expand the multiple meanings of sexual identity. He
added that this language has been used in prior versions of the
bill, and he expressed the opinion that it is the most
encompassing language. He expressed the understanding that
stakeholders would support using the term, as it would supply
adequate protections for the LGTBQ community.
9:58:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE, with a follow-up question, asked for
an example of gender expression compared to gender identity.
MR. WALSH replied that "gender identity" would be, for example,
when a male identifies with the pronouns he, him, and his, while
"gender expression" would identify in a more nonbinary way; this
is ultimately how an individual would present themselves to the
world. He deferred to Representative Armstrong.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG stated that overtime there have been
different ideas on what it means to be male or female. For
example, in the past females did not wear pants. She continued
that people have various ways of self-expression, such as the
length of an individual's hair. She explained the idea of "snap
judgements," where people judge one another on each other's
self-expression. She remarked that these ideas also have
changed over time. She stated that "gender expression" means
that individuals appear in a way which best suits them.
10:02:53 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that HB 99 was held over.