Legislature(2025 - 2026)GRUENBERG 120
04/25/2025 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 | |
| HB180 | |
| HB137 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 180 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 137-PFD/CHILD SUPPORT
4:48:56 PM
CHAIR GRAY announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 137, "An Act relating to permanent fund dividends
for individuals owing child support; and relating to
applications and qualifications for permanent fund dividends for
individuals owing child support."
4:49:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ASHLEY CARRICK, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, gave a summary of HB 137, which would allow the
state to apply for a Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) on behalf of
eligible residents who are behind on child support and have not
filed their own PFD application.
CHAIR GRAY expressed his support for the bill and welcomed
additional comments from committee members.
4:50:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated her belief that the bill is
admirable but concerning. She expressed concern about how the
department would determine eligibility with regard to residency
and equal protection rights.
CHAIR GRAY asked Ms. Nauman to address these concerns.
4:52:45 PM
EMILY NAUMAN, Director, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency (LAA), asked Representative Vance to restate her
concerns.
4:53:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the bill would create an
equal protection issue by relieving the debt for people who owe
child support.
MS. NAUMAN explained that the common question in an equal
protection case is whether two similarly situated groups of
people are treated differently. Notably, in order for a law to
be a valid under the state's equal protections test, the law
must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and bare a substantial
relationship to a legitimate governmental objective. So,
relieving the debt of a person who owes child support versus a
person who owes some other type of debt would need to be shown
as a reasonable government objective, which is being established
on the record as the bill moves through the committee process.
She added that interests like this are rarely overturned on
equal protections grounds.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether this would create a special
privilege for anyone who owes a type of debt that the state
should determine them eligible for the PFD and apply for the
dividend on their behalf.
MS. NAUMAN said this is a policy call, as the legislature could
amend the bill to apply to anyone who owes a debt. She added
that under current law, there is a mechanism for certain classes
of debts to be paid from seized dividends by the Alaska Court
System (ACS) and the Department of Revenue (DOR).
4:56:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed concern that this could be
considered an improper taking without due process.
MS. NAUMAN said she has no constitutional concerns on this
matter. These people are presumably eligible for the dividend
and have made an affirmative decision not to apply, so the money
is not their property. Nonetheless, she highlighted a concern
about a person who could lose benefits in another state if the
State of Alaska presumed that person to be a resident of Alaska
and mistakenly applied for the PFD on their behalf;
additionally, she questioned whether the payment of debt is a
legitimate public purpose.
4:59:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP added historical context with reference to
HB 216, which established the restorative justice account to
garnish dividends from felons or repeat offenders who are
incarcerated. He said this could be considered a taking, but
there have been no challenges. He opined that HB 137 is "in the
same vein" and viewed it as victim restoration. He posited that
the structure of HB 137 had already been laid by previous
legislation and asked whether Ms. Nauman concurred.
MS. NAUMAN agreed that its similar to the restorative justice
account program. The only difference is that there is less
variability with the restorative justice account because the
incarcerated individuals are known entities, and therefore,
there is no application process and DOR simply multiplies the
number of people by the amount of the dividend and deposits that
into the restorative justice account.
5:04:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK noted that on page 2, lines 6-9, the bill
would notify both the individual in arrears and the individual
owed child support that the dividend application is being filed.
At that time, either person may submit evidence of eligibility.
In functional practice, the individual owed child support would
likely initiate the process by reaching out to the department.
Additionally, she pointed out that the PFD is not a person's
property until it is applied for.
5:06:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA shared a personal anecdote involving her
dividend being garnished for a defaulted car loan. She reasoned
that it would make sense to extend that justification for people
who owe child support and stated her support for the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE pointed out [HB 216] concerns felons, which
is an important distinction. To Representative Carrick, she
asked why a person's debt would be absolved without them
applying for the dividend and likened it to relieving a
"deadbeat" dad's responsibility. She reiterated her opposition
to moving the bill out of committee.
5:09:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID stated his support for the bill and
shared that one of the primary users of small claims court is
payday lenders who go after people who are in arrears. He
presumed that there would be a judicial determination of child
support, as the person who owes it is in the arrears, as well as
a societal interest in meeting the needs of the children whose
families are owed child support. He reiterated his support for
the bill.
5:11:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP shard his understanding that on average,
some of these parents owe 10 times more than felony level
financial crimes, which start at $750. He said the policy call
is whether to hold "deadbeat" dads accountable or restore the
family unit. Personally, he said he is compelled to help these
families in tough situations.
5:13:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK expressed her appreciation for the
discussion and willingness to take Representative Vance's
concerns into consideration. She opined that the bill is
narrowly tailored enough to solve this pervasive problem and
offered to tailor the language further.
5:14:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to report HB 137 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE objected. She opined that that the person
in arrears should be an active participant in paying the debt.
REPRESENTATIVE UNDERWOOD opined that the bill is headed in the
right direction despite not fully hitting the mark. She
expressed her hope that the bill could be further narrowed to
ensure that there are no constitutional or other unintentional
issues.
5:19:08 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Underwood, Mina,
Eischeid, Kopp, and Gray voted in favor of HB 137.
Representative Vance voted against it. Therefore, HB 137 was
reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote
of 5-1.
CHAIR GRAY authorized Legislative Legal Services to make any
necessary technical or conforming changes.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|