Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
05/17/2025 10:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Adjourn | |
| Start | |
| HB104 | |
| SB54 | |
| SB137 | |
| SB132 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 104
"An Act creating and relating to the address
confidentiality program; and providing for an
effective date."
10:07:44 AM
Co-Chair Foster asked the sponsor to introduce the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA MEARS, SPONSOR, introduced the bill
with prepared remarks:
There's a small but important group of people in the
state that have reasons to keep their addresses out of
the public record. This includes peace officers and
correctional officers who may be targets of
retribution due to their roles in the justice system.
It also includes victims of domestic violence,
stalking, sexual assault, and other people who have
protective orders. The purpose of a program like this
is to allow someone who faces these serious threats to
be able to participate fully in everyday life without
further endangering themselves or their families. HB
104 creates an address protection program for
survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence,
peace officers, correctional officers, and their
families. There are many times an address must be
provided in order to participate in society. This
includes voting, working, sending children to school,
and much more. HB 104 establishes a program whereby
these at risk individuals can receive mail at a
centralized, anonymized P.O. box. Mail received by the
state on behalf of enrollees will then be forwarded to
participants home address, which will remain
confidential under penalty of law.
Representative Mears asked her staff to provide a sectional
analysis of the bill.
10:09:27 AM
TALIA EAMES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DONNA MEARS, reviewed
the sectional analysis (copy on file):
Sec. 1: Adds the program to the duties of the
Department of Administration.
Sec. 2: Creates the program.
(b) requires a Post Office Box as a substitute
mailing address for enrollees and instructs the
department to forward mail to participants. It
charges the department with protecting
confidentiality and requires regulations to
govern enrollment and withdrawal.
(c) describes eligible participants as people
sheltered by a protective order for domestic
violence, stalking, human/sex trafficking or
sexual assault, and their parents, guardians,
children, and household members. It also admits
peace officers and correctional officers.
(d) prevents registered sex offenders from
enrolling in the program.
(e) requires state and municipal agencies to
accept the P.O. Box.
(f) describes the eligibility period.
(g)prevents the department from charging a fee.
(h)allows access to confidential addresses
subject to a search warrant.
(i)establishes penalties for unlawfully revealing
a protected individual's address.
(j)defines certain terms.
Sec. 3: Establishes a transition period for the
department to adopt regulations to implement the
program.
Sec. 4: Lets the department begin promulgating
regulations immediately.
Sec. 5: Sets an effective date of Jan. 1, 2026 for the
rest of the bill.
10:11:39 AM
Representative Mears provided more context for who the bill
aimed to help. She explained it pertained to individuals
who were doing various things to protect their locations
such as moving and anonymizing their voter records in
places the option was available. She explained that there
was not the ability to be anonymous in other places where
individuals needed to protect their identity. The bill
would provide additional layers in order for individuals to
be safe. She detailed that an individual could be anonymous
with their address by obtaining a P.O. box, but if the
individual was being stalked and they moved to a small
community, just knowing the community a person was living
in would be a threat to their safety. She noted there was
invited testimony to help provide more context.
10:13:24 AM
KEELY OLSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STANDING TOGETHER AGAINST
RAPE (STAR), ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in
support of the bill. She considered it to be a critical
piece of legislation. She read from prepared remarks:
Prior to working at STAR, I have worked as a victim
advocate with the prosecuting attorney's office in
Washington State and managed a domestic violence
shelter program in Montana. Both states had address
confidentiality programs, which were essential tools
used by victim advocates to assist someone with
stalking or highly bodily risk to be safer. These
efforts were combined with comprehensive safety
planning and emergency relocation plans. The address
confidentiality program helps save lives and helps
survivors cope with the constant fear of their address
being compromised. I applaud making the program
accessible to law enforcement and peace officers. I
have worked with those in law enforcement who either
go by a different professional name or to try to keep
their locations from being searched. I know people who
work in the public sector who placed their homes in a
family member's name to protect their address,
particularly in places where residential property can
easily be searched, and people can be located through
that.
Ms. Olson thanked Representative Mears for sponsoring the
legislation. She explained that it was not a program for
everyone. She noted it was not a substitute for a P.O. box
for example. She added that it was not convenient as it was
her understanding that only first class mail could be
transferred. She shared that in the 30-plus years of her
domestic violence and sexual assault advocacy, she had only
worked with a handful of people who were appropriate for
the address confidentiality program. She elaborated that
the program was beneficial for individuals whose lives were
uprooted sometimes repeatedly in their efforts to escape an
obsessed stalker. Usually, the stalker was a person of
means who was able to hire private investigators. She
expounded that the stalker may have moved on with their
life and have another relationship, but they were obsessed
with the particular person. The stalker hired private
investigators to surveil the person's immediate and
extended family members, they scoured the social media of
the person's friends and manipulated and tricked the
friends into providing information about the victim's
location. She explained that the stalker did not give up
and was not dissuaded when the victim moved to another
state.
Ms. Olson explained that in domestic violence shelters it
was not unusual for a victim to be transferred from another
state to escape stalking. She highlighted that there were
certain things that made people particularly vulnerable in
Alaska, such as property owners, voter registration, and
DMV. She noted that the program would not be suitable for
someone with shared custody agreements or where continuing
contact was forced on a person by the court. She relayed
that children were a liability in the situation because
they could be forced or manipulated into sharing a private
location. She thanked the committee for its attention to
the matter. She reiterated her support and greatly
appreciated the committee's work to increase safety for
survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and
stalking.
10:17:54 AM
Co-Chair Foster moved to the next invited testifier.
DEREK BOS, CHIEF OF POLICE, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU,
JUNEAU (via teleconference), spoke in favor of the
legislation, which created an address protection program
for survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, peace
officers, correctional officers, and their families. He
read from prepared remarks:
As a law enforcement officer, I have witnessed first-
hand the trauma sustained by victims of sexual assault
and domestic violence. That trauma is only exacerbated
when they are stalked, harassed, and continually
targeted by the offenders who initially assaulted
them. Address confidentiality protects these
individuals from further victimization. Further, law
enforcement officers are frequently the target of
unwanted harassment, stalking, and physical
retaliation by offenders, offenders' families, or
arbitrary members of the public who are just angry
with law enforcement in general. As a law enforcement
officer, I have personally experienced this. There
have been multiple occasions throughout my career
where I have been targeted at my home, by offenders
whom I have arrested. There have been other occasions
where random members of the public who are angry with
police in general, who have no relationship with me
whatsoever, have come to my home intent on causing me
physical harm, just because I am a police officer. Far
worse, there have been other occasions in which
dangerous individuals have come to my home, intent on
causing harm to my family, targeting them because they
are related to me. They've done this as a means simply
to retaliate against me. My family has been innocent
in all of this.
I would also like to highlight the 2013 assassination
of the Colorado Department of Corrections Executive
Director Tom Clements who was targeted by a prison
gang and murdered at his home in the presence of his
family because of his position. Home should be a place
of peace and relaxation. Coming home should not be a
thing that triggers stress, anxiety, or fear. In
closing, I would like to state that from a law
enforcement officer's perspective, House Bill 104 is
pivotal for supporting the safety of our survivors and
victims of sexual abuse, domestic violence, human
trafficking, as well as essential for enhancing safety
of our law enforcement and correctional officers who
protect our communities day in and day out. Again,
thank you very much for letting me testify this
morning.
10:20:58 AM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
LAUREE MORTON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, JUNEAU, read from prepared
remarks:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on HB 104,
Address Confidentiality Program. My name is Lauree
Morton. I'm the Deputy Director for the Alaska Network
on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; the
membership organization of domestic violence and
sexual assault response service providers. The Network
supports HB 104 and thanks Rep. Mears for bringing it
forward.
Address confidentiality programs are one tool in part
of a larger safety plan. Safety planning will explore
the necessity of subscribing to the program and afford
the victim an opportunity to balance the potential
gains in participating, against any detriments.
Violence frequently escalates when people who choose
to cause harm believe they are losing control of the
victim. One of the most dangerous times for victims
is when they attempt to leave. If victims are
successful in escaping, the person causing harm will
usually focus energy on finding and stalking the
victim; often searching public records for the new
address.
Stalking can include tactics like:
• Sending unwanted letters or emails
• Following or spying on the victim
• Driving by or waiting around at places frequented
by the victim such as home, work, or school
• Leaving or sending unwanted items, "presents", or
flowers for the victim to find
• Looking through the victim's property such as
trash cans, mail, or cars.
Stalking increases the risk of intimate partner
homicide by three times. Among female victims of
attempted and completed intimate partner homicide by
male partners, in the 12 months prior to the attack:
85 percent of attempted and 76 percent of completed
homicide victims were stalked.
The address confidentiality program will provide
enhanced safety options for survivors. Will the
program be used frequently? I think it will be used
occasionally when the circumstances are extreme, the
danger real, and secrecy is critical to a victim's
survival.
We appreciate the ability given to the department to
set standards in addition to protective orders when
making enrollment decisions. There are times and
situations where protective orders are not in the best
interest of the victim, when lethality is particularly
high and providing information through the protective
order is considered placing the victim at greater
risk. In such situations it will be even more
beneficial to allow the victim to enroll in the
address confidentiality program.
Thank you for taking public testimony today and for
your thoughtful consideration in moving the bill
forward.
10:24:56 AM
Representative Allard stated that she thought HB 104 was a
good bill, but she was not happy with the fiscal note. She
directed a question to Chief Bos. She provided a
hypothetical scenario where a person on the sex offender
registry was being stalked. She wondered if under the bill
the individual's address could be confidential.
Chief Bos asked for clarity on the question.
Representative Allard stated she was asking about a sex
offender.
Chief Bos replied that a sex offender was not eligible for
the address confidentiality program.
Representative Hannan thanked Chief Bos for his testimony
and work for Juneau.
Representative Jimmie stated that many survivors went back
to their home communities to reconnect with family and
cultural traditions. She asked how the program ensured they
could do so without compromising their safety.
10:27:05 AM
Representative Mears answered that if someone was returning
to their home community, their mail could go to a central
address rather that indicating they had returned to their
home community. She explained it would be a P.O. Box
located likely in Juneau or Anchorage so that it may appear
the individual was still living somewhere else.
Representative Jimmie asked about rural communities.
Representative Mears replied that the P.O. box would be
centralized in a larger city like Juneau or Anchorage so it
would appear an individual's mail was going there. Once the
mail was collected by the state it would be mailed out to
an individual's confidential address. The individual's
actual address was protected by the state so that it would
appear perhaps, they were living wherever the P.O. box was
located.
Representative Jimmie asked what resources were in place
for individuals to access programs if they were struggling
financially after relocating.
Representative Mears replied that she did not have
information on hand about other available resources. She
relayed that the program would not cost anything to
survivors.
Representative Jimmie asked how the program would
coordinate with local tribe councils and victim service
organizations to connect survivors with the service.
Ms. Eames replied the fiscal note included money for some
advertising working with different programs, which would
include heads of communities, often tribal councils in
rural communities. She added that one of the reasons the
bill was important for remote communities was that in small
villages, all a person had to know was what community an
individual was in and the first person on the street could
tell someone exactly where the individual was living. The
centralized P.O. box would be located in Juneau or
Anchorage and mail would be forwarded to the community
without mention of the community name.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the meeting would recess
shortly. He asked if any committee members had questions to
the three testifiers.
Representative Tomaszewski directed a question to Chief
Bos. He shared that he went out knocking on constituents'
doors and felt safer with an officer in the neighborhood.
He understood that sometimes police officers were required
to bring their police cruisers home. He asked there would
be something for police officers who were being targeted
where they did not have to bring their cruisers home and
park in front of their house.
Chief Bos responded that he could not speak to any other
agency, but the Juneau Police Department (JPD) would work
with an officer and would not mandate they take their
patrol car home or they would provide them with an unmarked
car or facilitate them driving a personal car to work. He
elaborated that JPD would not require an officer to take a
marked car home if there were any concerns, threats, or
known issues.
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the committee would come back
to the bill when the meeting resumed after floor session.
He reviewed the schedule for the remainder of the meeting.
10:32:50 AM
RECESSED
4:08:21 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster asked his staff to review the fiscal note
for HB 104.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER,
reviewed the fiscal note from the Department of
Administration, OMB component 2333. The note included a
request of $297,100 in personal services, $3,000 in travel,
$112,800 for services, and $10,600 for commodities, for a
total of $423,500 in FY 26. The funding source was the
general fund. The fiscal note included funding for two new
full-time positions in FY 26. He noted there was a
fluctuation in appropriations starting in FY 27, primarily
in the services and commodities lines. The department
recognized there would need to be regulation changes if the
bill went into law. The department highlighted that changes
from previous fiscal notes resulted from an increase in
personal services, services, and commodities due to
eligible participants. The second page of the fiscal note
explained that the two positions included a business
service projects manager 2 and an administrative officer.
The note included travel funding for the positions to
attend a three-day conference by the National Association
of Confidential Address Programs. Contractual services
costs were for the estimated number of participants and the
cost of getting mail to the participants. The commodities
line included a startup expense including the purchase of
equipment. The department noted that if the number of
participants increased, the cost of the program would
increase. He directed detailed questions on the fiscal note
to the department.
4:12:00 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted the Department of Administration was
available online for questions on the fiscal note.
Representative Hannan stated that the fiscal note changed,
but it was her understanding the legislation had not
changed. She asked why the calculation in the number of
participants had increased dramatically between the two
versions of the fiscal note.
BRAD EWING, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SHARED SERVICES OF
ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference),
relayed that the department had reviewed other states with
address confidentiality programs when developing the fiscal
note. He detailed that the bill was broader in scope in
terms of eligible participants when compared to other
states. He elaborated that there would likely be more
participants in the program due to the inclusion of
correctional officers and peace officers; therefore, the
department had increased the number in the fiscal note.
Representative Hannan asked what would change for the
department that would drive the cost so high.
Mr. Ewing answered that an increased number of participants
would increase postage cost and supplies for the program,
as well as department staff working with participants,
developing materials, and engaging with various agencies
and nonprofits to help share information about the program
and answer participants' questions.
Representative Hannan asked if the department was
anticipating the participants would need the same amount of
support whether they were a survivor of domestic violence
(who the outreach and services would be extended to) or a
police officer (who likely had a clear understanding of
programs and resources).
4:15:17 PM
Mr. Ewing replied that he imagined there would be
differences in the amount of work that would go into
engaging with the different potential participants in terms
of outreach, training, and materials. He did not know
exactly what it would look like, but he believed it would
be slightly different depending on the participant.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Bynum understood the intent of the bill that
was trying to protect people in bad situations. He
referenced the inclusion of peace officers and correctional
officers. He stated that extending protection to people
that may have exposure to people who may not like what they
were doing would open the door up quite a bit. He used
officers of the court and elected officials at the
municipal and state level as examples. He asked why the
bill was not constrained only to victims of sexual assault
and domestic violence.
Representative Mears replied that the core of the bill and
the impetus was for protection of individuals with
protective orders, which is where the movement started
across the nation in many states. Since then, there was
recognition that there were other individuals who could use
protection and there had been advocacy for police officers
and correctional officers. She agreed there could be an
expansion of the program, but she supported expansion as a
phase 2. Under the bill, there was no fee to participants
and the number of potential participants was unknown. She
suggested that if the bill was extended to additional
categories of individuals, perhaps a subscription program
could be established as many of those individuals would
have more [financial] means and a more stable environment.
4:19:47 PM
Representative Bynum thought it would be better if the bill
contained a narrower window. He did not intend any offense
to police and correctional officers. He started it was not
generally a secret where officers lived. He thought the
bill should be aimed at protecting individuals with court
orders. He did not want to extend the program beyond those
individuals currently, especially given the fiscal note.
He asked what was preventing someone currently from having
their mail delivered somewhere differently than their home.
He stated that many people in his community and surrounding
areas used P.O. boxes.
Representative Mears shared a story provided by Senator
Jesse Keihl who was carrying the companion bill in the
Senate. Senator Keihl knew a woman who was under a
protective order and had a P.O. box. When the woman went to
get her mail, her stalker was there waiting for her. She
noted that the woman recognized the man and was able to get
out of the situation. She highlighted that particularly in
small communities, the location of P.O. boxes was known.
She explained that if a person's mail was being forwarded
to a larger community like Anchorage or Juneau where the
mail was centralized and sent out, it was not possible to
know where they were.
Representative Bynum asked if the services were not
currently available. He noted that in his community there
were services for forwarding mail. For example, there were
many people who lived out of state for half the year and
their mail received in Alaska was forwarded. He understood
it was very important to try to protect the individuals
[the bill aimed to protect], but he wondered if the
legislation tried to make solving a problem too
complicated.
Representative Mears responded that the bill applied to
anything that would generate a public record. She explained
that sometimes services could not be used because they
required a real address. She asked her staff to elaborate.
Ms. Eames explained that there were fees associated with a
post office box and many times people fleeing violence did
not have a lot of resources and had a lot of other things
going on. She explained that having a program that
centralized the mail for them, so they did not have to
think about that issue, was significant for people in the
situation. She explained that under the bill,
municipalities had to accept the centralized mail. Under
the program, an individual would be able to use an address
they would not otherwise be able to use in a different
situation. For example, for voting purposes, individuals
could have another address they could put in that otherwise
may not be accepted. She noted that in villages where the
only way in was via boat, even if there was a post office,
it was not hard to find someone just by knowing what
community they were in.
4:25:07 PM
Representative Bynum asked about the scope of the number of
people the bill aimed at helping. He remarked that the bill
had a pretty big fiscal note of $400,000 per year and if it
was only aiming to help a small group of people, he was
trying to understand the fiscal benefit was. He wondered if
there was a way to do something in the law to make records
confidential on public records. He thought there may be a
better way to protect the individuals without creating more
bureaucracy in the state. He highlighted that the state was
strained for funds and there were many agencies helping
people in the situations. He noted there were organizations
directly helping people in Alaskan communities that would
help. He wondered if alternatives had been explored.
Representative Mears deferred the question to Keely Olson
with STAR.
Ms. Olson replied based on her experience with the address
confidentiality programs she had worked with in Washington
State and Montana. She explained that while those programs
were constrained to domestic violence and sexual assault
survivors with protective orders or a letter vouching for
them from a domestic violence/sexual assault agency or
prosecutor's office, over her 30 years of experience, she
had only worked with a handful of people who needed the
program. She elaborated that it was not a common response
and went hand in hand with a lot of safety planning. She
detailed that meant coming up with plans for monitoring
one's safety and being responsive to any kind of threat
including alarm systems, changing patterns from day to day,
and sometimes relocating.
Ms. Olson explained that the Montana address
confidentiality program resided in the secretary of state's
office and had two staff who were the only individuals with
access to the addresses. The program had been implemented
in 2006 and in 2023 it had 68 participants with only 20
receiving mail on a regular basis. The staff processed the
mail and forwarded it to the confidential address. In 2006,
the program cost $50,000 to implement, with a total cost of
$375,000 over the subsequent 17 years.
Ms. Olson stated that while she applauded making the bill
open to peace officers and law enforcement officers, she
believed that as they found out more about the constraints
of hiding their address and potential relocation that
domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking victims
were faced with, they would not find it conducive to their
daily lives. She listed precautions that someone who was
being harassed and stalked went through including
relocating (sometimes to a different community), forgoing
voting, registering their vehicle with DMV, social media,
and removing themselves from their families' and friends'
lives to protect themselves. She explained that the program
did not replace a P.O. box that most people could get if
they wanted to keep their address secure. She underscored
that there were people who would not stop looking for their
victims and who would pay money to have someone surveil and
track their victims. The address confidentiality program
was for those extreme situations. She did not believe the
fiscal note matched the everyday use of the program. She
reiterated her earlier statement that over 17 years, the
Montana program had 68 participants and only 20 people who
were receiving mail on a usual basis. She stated it was her
experience with the type of program could and should help.
4:32:28 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked the sponsor for any closing comments.
Representative Mears thanked the committee for hearing the
bill. She was available for questions offline.
HB 104 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.