Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
02/24/2020 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB124 | |
| HB201 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 124 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 201 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 124-ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AND NOTARIZATION
1:03:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 124, "An Act relating to
the recording of documents; relating to notaries and
notarization, including notarial acts performed for remotely
located individuals; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR CLAMAN passed the gavel to Representative Stutes for the
duration of the presentation of SSHB 124.
1:04:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN introduced SSHB 124, as prime sponsor. He stated
that SSHB 124 would establish a secure process for remote online
notarization to facilitate commercial transactions throughout
the state. He announced that since the introduction of the
proposed legislation on April 15,2019, his office had met with
the lieutenant governor and representatives from the notary
commission to ensure that the proposed legislation would align
with and strengthen the daily operations of the notary
commission.
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that notaries are responsible for
supervising the signing of documents and attesting to the
authenticity of the documents and the identities of the parties
involved. He said that a system for remote online notarization
would be particularly useful in Alaska, given the state's
immense size and the fact that many of its communities are not
connected by road. Currently, commercial transactions within
Alaska often necessitate delays as parties ship documents back
and forth for the purpose of notarization. He stated that SSHB
124 would allow individuals to have documents notarized without
delays from their homes and offices. He remarked that the
sensitive nature of notarized documents requires that any
updates to notarial law must maintain the integrity and security
of the process. He added that SSHB 124 would update Alaska
notarial law with adequate provisions to keep the process secure
and consistent with notarial law in a growing number of states
which have adopted standards for remote online notarization.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the use of electronic records in
commercial, governmental, and personal transactions has become
increasingly prevalent in Alaska and throughout the world in
recent years. He remarked that SSHB 124 would allow Alaskans to
keep up with trends and perform notarizations with greater ease.
He summarized that SSHB 124 would strengthen Alaska's economy by
creating a process for remote online notarization and improving
the efficiency and convenience of transactions in the state.
1:06:35 PM
DAVID CLARK, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, explained changes made from the original bill
version on behalf of Representative Matt Claman, prime sponsor
of SSHB 124. He stated that SSHB 124 would update Alaska's
current notarial laws by allowing notaries the option to perform
online notarizations for remotely located individuals and
ensuring that online notarizations remain secure. He pointed
out that through a series of meetings with the notary
commission, which is housed in the Office of the Lieutenant
Governor, the following modifications have been made to SSHB
124. He explained that Section 3 is a new section that would
provide for AS 09.80 (Uniform Electronic Transactions Act) to
apply to AS 40.17. He said that this would require the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to accept electronic
notarial acts that are performed for remotely located
individuals.
MR. CLARK stated that Section 5 would raise the current bond
requirement for a notary public applicant from $1,000 to $2,500.
He pointed out that Section 10 would strengthen identity
confirmation for remote notarial acts through a three-step
process. First, a client must furnish a government issued
identification card. Second, the notary public must ensure that
a third party has confirmed the accuracy of the furnished
government issued identification card. Third, the notary public
would be required to use at least one type of remote identity
proofing.
MR. CLARK explained that Section 11 would be amended to require
a notary public to maintain at least one journal in a tangible
medium to chronical all remote notarial acts. He added that
Section 11 would also allow a notary public to maintain one or
more electronic journals in a secure electronic medium. He
remarked that the lieutenant governor has never retained nor
stored notary journals prior to this. He remarked that,
accordingly, subsection (f) and subsection (g) were removed from
the Sponsor Substitute; subsection (f) would have allowed a
notary public to store his/her journals with the notary
commission, and subsection (g) would have required the state to
transmit the notary public's journals to the notary commission
upon death or adjudication of incompetence.
1:08:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked the bill sponsor to walk her through
what the notarization process would be under the proposed
legislation. She asked whether she would go to an existing
notary if she was in a remote location, such as Kodiak, and she
needed to send a notarized document to Anchorage.
1:09:07 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN replied that in this situation the process would
probably require an individual to go to a location that has
online communication and could communicate via secure electronic
means between Kodiak and an office in Anchorage. He explained
that the individual would have the document physically with
him/her to sign in Kodiak. In response to a follow-up question,
he remarked that it would be like a video networking app, such
as FaceTime, but he thinks it would be more secure. He said
that he suspects that if someone were physically in front of a
notary in Kodiak, he/she would still have to sign the document
in that location, in which case the electronic notarizing
wouldn't come into play as the physical document would be
signed.
CHAIR CLAMAN expressed that SSHB 124 would allow for people to
sign a document over a secure connection with a notary that is
in a different location. He clarified that when an individual
is signing a document, the notary's job is to attest to the
validity of the signature on the document. He explained that
under a remote notarization, the document would have to be in
front of the individual signing it, but the signing would be
done over the video link and the notary would observe from a
different location. The notary would confirm the identity of
the individual and issue a certification saying the document was
signed and witnessed by the notary.
1:11:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether Chair Claman envisioned that
this would take place in locations that do not have notaries.
She remarked that many of the remote areas that do not have
notaries, and would benefit most from the proposed legislation,
also have a problem with Internet service, and she thinks that
the system might not necessarily work in areas where it would be
most critical.
CHAIR CLAMAN replied that Representative LeDoux's question
identified a broader issue with electronic technology; without
Internet service it won't be possible to utilize remote
notarizations. He remarked that these individuals would be
facing the same challenges they are today, even if they do not
have a notary in their location. He summarized that the
proposed legislation would not solve all those problems, but
there would be many times when the Internet service is available
and remote notarization from another location would be possible,
thus providing more access to notarization for remote locations.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether every current notary would
be required to have a special encrypted access to the Internet
for the remote notarization process.
CHAIR CLAMAN replied that this would not be a requirement for
notaries. As an example, he recalled that when he was
practicing law with a private law firm, a lot of the assistants
were notaries public, but they did not want to notarize anyone
except for those that came into the office. He suggested that
he expects there to be many notaries who would choose not to get
involved in the electronic certification process. He stated
that other notaries, such as those that work for title companies
and have to routinely notarize title documents for properties,
would be very likely to be set up for online remote
notarization, as they would be much more likely to come across
scenarios in which someone in a remote location can't get to the
location to sign the documents.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether special equipment would be
required for the individuals in remote locations wishing to have
a document notarized electronically.
CHAIR CLAMAN answered that he would let someone with more
expertise on that topic answer the question.
1:15:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX repeated her question for Terry Bryan to
answer.
1:16:02 PM
TERRY BRYAN, President, Yukon Title Company, answered that the
fine tuning of the equipment that would be necessary for
electronic notarizations would be the result of the regulations
that would be written by the Office of the Lieutenant Governor;
however, he said that in the 25 states where electronic
notarizations have been implemented, a traditional Internet
connection on a device with video capability would be sufficient
for the communication. He remarked that a cell phone camera or
laptop camera would suffice in most situations. He added that
notarization could be accomplished through audio-video
communication, whether it be on a fishing boat, in a hunting
camp, or even in Afghanistan.
1:17:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there had been any
discussion on how the electronic notarization process could
potentially be abused, and whether there would be a way to undo
a notarization after the fact if it was found to be fraudulent.
1:17:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN replied that Section [10] of SSHB 124 proposes a
three-step requirement be met during the identification process
to satisfy that the individual is who he/she says he/she is. He
remarked that he thinks it would be in the regulations that a
fraudulent notarization could be undone.
1:18:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked that he would like to know more
about how the reversal process might work. He recalled a story
in which "someone had been deemed dead according to the courts,
and then the courts weren't recognizing them because they were
dead," and he said that he would like to make sure something
like that wouldn't happen.
1:18:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES returned the gavel to Chair Claman.
1:19:20 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there was no further
discussion from the committee, opened invited and public
testimony.
1:20:12 PM
ERROL CHAMPION, Broker, Chair, Legislative Issues Committee,
Alaska Association of Realtors, offered testimony in support of
SSHB 124 [letter of support included in committee packet]. He
complimented Chair Claman on the work he had done to improve the
integrity and security of the proposed legislation, specifically
within Section 10. He pointed out that the identification
process would now require the following three steps: First, the
viewing of a government issued identification card; second,
credential analysis of the government issued identification
card; and third, one type of identity proofing. He remarked
that while there was still possibility for an error, he thinks
these were important improvements which had been made to SSHB
124. He remarked that he is positive the proposed legislation
would be a good think for Alaskans, and he urged the adoption of
SSHB 124.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that his reference earlier to Section 6 had
been mistaken; Section 10 was the section to which he had meant
to refer.
1:21:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether Mr. Champion could provide
the committee with an idea of the impact SSHB 124 would have on
his industry if it were to pass.
1:21:55 PM
MR. CHAMPION replied that the proposed legislation would be
utilized by people in his industry quite frequently. As an
example, he recalled a situation in which someone trying to sell
a home had the deal fall through, because he was in the Far East
on active duty in the military and could not find a notary to
sign the deed. He remarked that today's society is very mobile
and often, when a transaction is ready to be closed, the two
parties required to sign are located far apart, which requires
hard copies and takes up to a few extra days. He summarized
that SSHB 124 would expedite that process and bring Alaska in
step with approximately 35 other states that currently allow
electronic notarization.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Mr. Champion whether he could speak
to the possibility of allowing individuals, such as a service
member in the military, to use a notary from another state that
already allows electronic notarization.
MR. CHAMPION answered that this has been an option all along,
and often when an individual is in another state which offers
electronic notarization this can be accommodated. He stated
that in remote areas where there is no notary available, it
results in a situation in which that person's only option is to
present themselves physically in front of a notary, and it
cannot be done.
1:23:50 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that the authority of a notary public to
notarize a signature is a jurisdictional matter, and "in
California somebody could notarize my signature in California,
but I'm not sure that they could notarize my signature in
Alaska."
1:24:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN repeated his previous question to Mr.
Champion.
1:24:44 PM
MR. CHAMPION answered that he did not feel qualified to answer
that question, as it seems to be a judicial matter of whether
the state would recognize a notarized signature recorded in
another jurisdiction, which he doubts.
1:24:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether someone would be able to use
the electronic notarization system in another country that has
notaries, in order to get around lengthy processes and
requirements. She explained that her understanding is that
getting a document authorized in a foreign country and then
having it recognized in the U.S. is very involved, and "by the
time you've done that, you know, your deal's probably long
blown."
1:26:06 PM
MR. CHAMPION replied that he is not a title officer, but he
thinks that electronic notarization would avail itself over any
kind of legal requirement for a notarized signature and could be
used anytime its needed, even in countries where a notarization
system doesn't exist.
1:27:18 PM
HOWARD HANCOCK, Chief Title Officer, Fidelity Title Agency of
Alaska, LLC, offered testimony in support of SSHB 124, which he
described is in sync and consistent with model bills on the
topic that have been passed or in the legislative process in
other states around the country. He stated that his company
expects that several of its staff members would be commissioned
as remote online notaries, which would eliminate the need to
mail out documents and streamline the real estate title and
closing process. He strongly urged the support and passage of
SSHB 124.
1:28:46 PM
TERRY BRYAN addressed a previous question from Representative
LeDoux regarding electronic notarization for individuals in
foreign countries. He stated that SSHB 124 would allow an
Alaska notary, who is commissioned as an electronic notary, to
notarize anyone electronically worldwide. He remarked that if
someone were on a fishing charter or located internationally,
then the requirement would be for the notary to be an Alaska
notary, present in the state of Alaska at the time of
notarization. He expressed that this would facilitate real
estate and other transactions and would improve the flow of
commerce in Alaska dramatically. He stated that approximately
20 percent of the real estate transactions conducted by Yukon
Title Company require a "mail out" in which the buyer or
seller's documents are sent out via mail in order to be
notarized at that individual's location. He remarked that this
adds several days to many transactions.
1:30:38 PM
JORDAN BARTELS, Title Officer, Yukon Title Company, offered
testimony in support of SSHB 124. He reiterated what Mr. Bryan
had said about the mail out requirement for approximately 20
percent of the transactions processed by Yukon Title Company.
He remarked that SSHB 124 would streamline the titling process
for many Alaskan's who live in remote locations, and he strongly
supports the proposed legislation.
1:31:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on SSHB 124.
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that SSHB 124 would be held over for
further review.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 124 v. S 2.17.2020.PDF |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 v. A 4.12.2019.PDF |
HJUD 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Sponsor Statement v. S 2.20.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2020 1:00:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Sponsor Statement v. A 4.12.2019.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Sectional Analysis v. S 2.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2020 1:00:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Explanation of Changes v. A to v. S 2.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2020 1:00:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Supporting Document - Letters Receieved by 2.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2020 1:00:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Fiscal Note DNR-RO 2.14.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 201 Work Draft Committee Substitute v. S 2.18.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 v. U 2.10.2020.PDF |
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 Sponsor Statement 2.10.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 Summary of Changes v. U to v. S 2.24.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |
| HB 201 Fiscal Note LAW-CIV 2.8.20.pdf |
HJUD 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |