Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
04/25/2023 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 | |
| HB99 | |
| Presentation(s): Investing in Water/sewer Infrastructure in Alaska | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 99 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 99-DISCRIMINATION: GENDER ID.;SEXUAL ORIENT.
8:11:37 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that the first 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."
8:12:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JENNIE ARMSTRONG, Alaska State Legislature,
recapped that HB 99 would give lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals the same protections
as all residents of the state. This concerns the rights
guaranteed by the Alaska State Commission on Human Rights
(ASCHR) in relation to employment, housing, financing,
governmental practices, and public accommodation. She stated
that "sex" is already a protected class in the statutes
governing ASCHR, and the proposed legislation would change this
definition to reflect the definition supported by the Supreme
Court of the United States.
8:14:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 99,
labeled 33-LS0386\B.4, Bergerud, 4/17/23, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 1, following "prohibiting":
Insert "employment"
Page 1, line 2, following "expression":
Insert "; and relating to blockbusting"
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 18.80.220(d) is amended to read:
(d) In this section,
(1) "dependent child" means an unmarried
child, including an adopted child, who is
dependent on [upon] a parent for support and who
is
(A) [EITHER (1)] less than 19 years
old;
(B) [(2)] less than 23 years old and
registered at and attending on a full-time basis
an accredited educational or technical
institution recognized by the Department of
Education and Early Development; or
(C) [(3)] of any age and totally and
permanently disabled;
(2) "sex" includes sexual orientation and
gender identity or expression."
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 2, line 8:
Delete "includes"
Insert "does not include"
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS objected.
8:17:32 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:17 a.m. to 8:44 a.m.
8:44:00 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that the meeting was back on record.
He stated that because of technical difficulties the committee
meeting was relocated to room 106.
8:44:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, addressing Amendment 1, stated that the
bill sponsor has made a very good argument for the need for HB
99 based on Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020).
After reviewing the case, he expressed the opinion that the case
had been decided under a careful and narrow scope, and it should
not go beyond Title 7 to other federal and state laws. He
related that the decision did not address bathrooms, locker
rooms, or anything similar. He expressed the understanding that
Bostock v. Clayton County was specific to employment
discrimination only. He explained that this matter is not
settled and still evolving in the courts, and he advised that
there should be a clearer understanding of the law before making
"such sweeping legislation." He cited a case in Texas and
advised that the proposed legislation be tailored by the
amendment to only deal with the question of employment.
8:47:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG expressed the opinion that
discrimination is happening everywhere. She stressed that it is
affecting active-duty service members, and Alaska has the
highest number of veterans per capita. She argued that
discrimination is affecting the state's economy, and if the
state wants more businesses, these businesses need to ensure
their employees equal protection. She suggested that what the
proposed legislation would do is not new or dramatic. She
reiterated that ASCHR has taken on these cases in the past
without incident, and this would simply go back to that. She
argued that it is the job of the state to protect its residents,
not the job of the federal government. She expressed opposition
to Amendment 1.
8:49:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE declared a conflict of interest and
requested to be recused from the conversation.
CHAIR MCCORMICK objected to the request. There being no further
objections, the request was denied.
8:49:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned why the proposed legislation is
limited to gender identity and expression, as it could be
expanded to political expression, for example. He suggested
that this is "a hidden way of getting your definition in there
by putting it into blockbusting, which is a real estate issue."
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG deferred the question.
8:50:50 AM
ROB CORBISIER, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on Human
Rights, stated that political affiliation is a protected class
in some jurisdictions; however, it is not in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE pointed out that he had said political
"expression" and not political "affiliation." He voiced the
understanding that the sponsor had said that "sexual expression"
was an outward expression of identity. He reiterated his
question concerning political expression, and he opined that if
the legislation is "all inclusive" this should be included.
8:52:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG responded that she identifies as LGBTQ,
and this is why she is bringing the bill forward. She continued
that she has not heard of any incidences of discrimination
because of political expression; however, there are many stories
of discrimination of individuals in the LGBTQ community. She
voiced that there are 13,000 LGBTQ individuals in the state who
"feel fear." She argued the economic impacts and stated that
she supports equal protection for everyone. She stated that the
proposed legislation is not adding a protected class, but only
redefining "sex" in relation to this.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, in a follow-up question, pointed out the
many types of protections in the law. He argued that this would
add "gender identity and expression" to the law; therefore, it
would be a perfect place to add "political expression." He
stated that he has heard many stories of people being
discriminated against for their political beliefs.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG, for the record, clarified that the
proposed legislation would not be adding new words to the
statute. She stated that "gender identity and expression" will
not be in the statute, as the proposed legislation is only
changing the definition of "sex." She stated that "political
expression" does not currently fall under this definition.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE pointed out that on page 2, line 3 of the
bill, it relates that new paragraphs are added, and he expressed
concern over line 19.
8:56:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned whether Legislative Legal
Services could be consulted on the matter. She observed that
the political protections being referenced are under the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. She
expressed the understanding that the conversation is about
protected classes, which is different than free speech.
8:57:49 AM
MARGARET BERGERUD, Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, responded that the First Amendment
protects political expression in regard to actions the
government may take. She continued that the Alaska Human Rights
Act, which would be amended by the proposed legislation, extends
protections past the government to private actors. She
suggested that individuals could be discriminated against for
political expression under the Alaska Human Rights Act.
8:59:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned why the state would not
protect these classes in the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE responded the bill does not go far enough.
He concurred with Ms. Bergerud, that the First Amendment would
only protect in regards to the government. He continued that if
gender expression is protected in a private place, all
expressions should be included.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned whether [the Alaska Human
Rights Act and] ASCHR would protect political expression.
MS. BERGERUD responded that ASCHR does not protect political
affiliation. She stated that it focuses on immutable
characteristics.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that immutable
characteristics and political expression are clearly distinct
from one another. She expressed opposition to the proposed
amendment.
9:01:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY expressed support for Amendment 1. He
expressed the opinion that HB 99 would only protect "going one
way." He questioned who would protect his granddaughters in a
locker room when a male transitioning into a female undressed in
the locker room. He pointed out that the word "sex" would be
redefined, and he argued that "we are not God ... and just
because a man puts on a dress does not make him a woman." He
continued that Amendment 1 would help the bill "survive." He
expressed the opinion that by protecting one class, the entire
society would be exposed.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG responded that the majority of violence
in the country is perpetrated by straight men, not the LGBTQ
community. As she identifies as LGBTQ, she expressed resentment
that this community is portrayed as predators. She argued that
children in Anchorage are not affected, as they are already
living under these regulations, along with half of the state.
She stated that "God made me too and I am not trying to play
God," rather she is doing her job as a legislator representing
the people in Alaska.
9:04:50 AM
TRISTAN WALSH Staff, Representative Jennie Armstrong, Alaska
State Legislature, commented that when the definition of "sex"
is examined in the statute, it is defined to include language
which is in Bostock v. Clayton County; and the intent of the
proposed legislation [is to include this language].
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG pointed to the handout, titled "Sexual
Violence & Transgender/Non-binary Communities" [copy included in
the committee packet], which reports that it is the LGBTQ
community who faces discrimination and violence, and they are
not the perpetrators.
9:05:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS spoke to her objection to Amendment 1 to HB
99. She expressed the understanding that the discussion is
happening because of Bostock v. Clayton County, and the need to
extend this protection of rights. She argued that the proposed
legislation would not exclude anyone from criminal behavior;
however, it would protect the rights of individuals to live and
work in Alaska. She expressed opposition to the amendment.
9:06:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE expressed the understanding that [from
December 2020 to] August 2022 ASCHR was already taking cases in
regard to discrimination for housing, finance, and government
accommodation.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG responded in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE questioned whether HB 99 or Amendment 1
would create a new protected class.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG responded in the negative. She
reminded the committee that there are already several protected
classes, which are: race, religion, color, national origin, age,
sex, physical or mental disability, marital status, changes in
marital status, pregnancy, and parenthood. She stated that
sexual orientation and gender identity would fall under the
protected class of sex. She stated that this is not a request
for "extra, just equal."
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE expressed the understanding that
Amendment 1 would retain the language of the currently protected
class of sex and define this to include sexual orientation and
gender identity and expression, similar to the bill in its
original form; however, the amendment would limit protection to
employment only. He questioned whether the nature of the
amendment would result in codifying discrimination.
9:09:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that this issue was reviewed during
the drafting process of the amendment. He stated that the
amendment would recognize Bostock v. Clayton County, and it
would also recognize that President Joe Biden had issued an
executive order, of which the U.S. Supreme Court placed an
injunction against. He explained that this is still in the
courts, with Alaska being a party to the lawsuit. He expressed
the opinion that this type of legislation should not be acted on
because of [the injunction and the impending lawsuits].
9:10:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE expressed the understanding that the
proposed legislation would only affect ASCHR.
MR. CORBISIER responded in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE clarified that ASCHR was taking these
cases until a certain timeframe. He expressed the understanding
that ASCHR is an organization which hears from individuals who
feel they have been discriminated against, and it does not
preclude criminal activity on the part of any person. The
proposed legislation would not create a protected class, rather
it would allow ASCHR to hear cases on all types of
discrimination. He expressed concern that the amendment would
narrow this view, and those being discriminated against would
not have an outlet. He expressed opposition to Amendment 1 to
HB 99.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG commented that in August 2022, when the
protections were lifted from ASCHR, there had not been a request
to wait for interpretation of case law, and it was related that
statutory action was needed to reinstate ASCHR's protections.
9:13:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY expressed the understanding that ASCHR has
not taken a position on the proposed legislation. He expressed
the understanding that during a meeting one of the commissioners
had commented about the legislature politicizing the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG stated that the bill was presented to
ASCHR last week, and at that time it had not taken a position.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY remarked that this is his understanding and
reiterated that one member had related the process was being
politicized by the legislature. He expressed the opinion that
if these protections are already in some places in Alaska, the
bill is unnecessary. He questioned the number of incidences of
discrimination in other parts of the state which do not have
these protections.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG deferred the question.
MR. CORBISIER responded that ASCHR has not taken a position. He
stated that the bill sponsor presented the bill during an ASCHR
meeting the previous week. He stated that there were comments
made by commissioners at the end of the meeting; however, the
commission has not approved the minutes from this meeting.
MR. WALSH indicated that the document from the Williams
Institute, titled "Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual
Orientation and Gender Identity in Alaska" [copy included in the
committee packet], shows on page 3 of a 2015 survey a report of
evidence of discrimination in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG joined in to say that people across the
state are facing discrimination. She reminded the committee
that only first class cities are able to pass nondiscrimination
ordinances; therefore, half of the state still needs protections
in place.
9:16:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS maintained her objection.
9:17:08 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCabe and McKay
voted in favor of Amendment 1 to HB 99. Representatives Mears,
Ruffridge, Himschoot, and McCormick voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-4.
9:17:51 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
9:17:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to report HB 99 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal
note.
9:18:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY objected.
9:19:07 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Himschoot, Mears,
Ruffridge, and McCormick voted in favor of the motion to move HB
99 out of committee with individual recommendations and the
attached zero fiscal note. Representatives McCabe and McKay
voted against it. Therefore, HB 99 was reported out of the
House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee by a
vote of 4-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DEC VSW Overview HCRA 04.20.23.pdf |
HCRA 4/20/2023 8:00:00 AM HCRA 4/25/2023 8:00:00 AM HCRA 5/2/2023 8:00:00 AM |
DEC |
| HB 99 Letters of Opposition as of 1400 4.21.23.pdf |
HCRA 4/25/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |
| HB 99 Letters of Support as of 1400 4.21.23.pdf |
HCRA 4/25/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |
| HB99 Ver B Supporting Document-Williams Institute UCLA Study 4.18.2023.pdf |
HCRA 4/25/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |
| HB 99 Letters of Support as of 0930 4.24.23.pdf |
HCRA 4/25/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |
| HB99 ver B Supporting Document-National Sexual Violence Resource Center 4.17.2023.pdf |
HCRA 4/25/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |
| DEC RUBA Scoring chignik-spring-2023.pdf |
HCRA 4/25/2023 8:00:00 AM |
DEC |
| HB 99 Ver B CRA PPT-UPDATED 4.24.2023.pdf |
HCRA 4/25/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |