Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
05/11/2022 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| HB62 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| * | HB 325 | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 11, 2022
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Roger Holland, Chair
Senator Mike Shower, Vice Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Robert Myers
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 62(JUD) AM
"An Act relating to the Legislative Ethics Act; relating to
solemnization of marriage; and relating to consent to marriage."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 325
"An Act relating to domestic violence."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 62
SHORT TITLE: MARRIAGE: WITNESSES/SOLEMNIZATION/CONSENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CLAMAN
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, JUD
02/25/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/25/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/04/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/04/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/04/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/09/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/11/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/11/21 (H) Moved HB 62 Out of Committee
03/11/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/12/21 (H) STA RPT 4DP 2DNP 1AM
03/12/21 (H) DP: CLAMAN, STORY, TARR, KREISS-TOMKINS
03/12/21 (H) DNP: EASTMAN, VANCE
03/12/21 (H) AM: KAUFMAN
03/19/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/19/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/24/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/24/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/24/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/29/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/29/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/31/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/31/21 (H) Moved CSHB 62(JUD) Out of Committee
03/31/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/05/21 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NEW TITLE 4DP 3DNP
04/05/21 (H) DP: DRUMMOND, KREISS-TOMKINS, SNYDER,
CLAMAN
04/05/21 (H) DNP: EASTMAN, VANCE, KURKA
03/09/22 (H) SUSTAINED RULING OF CHAIR Y21 N14 E4 A1
03/11/22 (H) TECHNICAL SESSION 3/11 - ON 3/14
CALENDAR
03/16/22 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/16/22 (H) VERSION: CSHB 62(JUD) AM
03/18/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/18/22 (S) HSS, JUD
04/05/22 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/05/22 (S) Heard & Held
04/05/22 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
04/19/22 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/19/22 (S) Heard & Held
04/19/22 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
04/26/22 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/26/22 (S) Moved SCS CSHB 62(HSS) Out of Committee
04/26/22 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
04/27/22 (S) HSS RPT SCS(HSS) 4NR SAME TITLE
04/27/22 (S) NR: WILSON, REINBOLD, BEGICH, HUGHES
05/06/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/06/22 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/09/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/09/22 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/11/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 62.
BREANNA KAKARUK, Staff
Representative Matt Claman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for HB 62
on behalf of the sponsor.
JOE CONNELLY, Owner
Chugiak Peaks Photography
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
62.
CIAN MULHERN, Reverend
Celtic Ministries
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
62.
JERRY ANDERSON, Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to travel and
hospitality compensation for officiating a wedding during the
hearing on HB 62.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:07 PM
CHAIR ROGER HOLLAND called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. Senators Myers, Hughes,
Shower, Kiehl, and Chair Holland were present at the call to
order.
HB 62-MARRIAGE: WITNESSES/SOLEMNIZATION/CONSENT
1:33:42 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL
NO. 62(JUD) am "An Act relating to the Legislative Ethics Act;
relating to solemnization of marriage; and relating to consent
to marriage."
[SCS CSHB 62(HSS) was before the committee.]
1:34:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, presented the sponsor statement for HB 62.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Mr. Chair and members of Senate Judiciary, thank you
for hearing House Bill 62.
At present, during the solemnization of marriage,
couples must assent to the marriage in the presence of
each other, the person solemnizing the marriage, and
at least two additional witnesses. Afterward, all
parties must sign the marriage certificates. House
Bill 62 would eliminate the requirement for two
additional witnesses at the marriage solemnization to
help support Alaska's destination wedding industry
while preserving the integrity of marriage. HB 62 adds
a requirement that a person verify that the parties
intend to marry each other. Thus, both the person
solemnizing and the person verifying sign the marriage
certificate and provide contact information.
Finally, HB 62 repeals the statute that allows a child
who is 14 or 15 years old to marry, thus banning child
marriage under age 16 with no exceptions. It limits
marriage of minors who are at least 16 years of age to
those who want to marry a person who is no more than
three years older. Thus, a minor may only marry if (1)
they have parental consent and court approval or (2)
they have court approval after the court finds that
the parents are (a) arbitrarily and capriciously
withholding consent, (b) absent or otherwise
unaccountable, (c) in disagreement among themselves on
the question, or (d) unfit to decide the matter.
Alaska is one of 20 states that require two wedding
witnesses. Twenty-three states and the District of
Columbia do not require wedding witnesses. Wedding
witnesses played a more critical role in past
centuries when record keeping was not reliable.
Witnesses could be contacted to verify the wedding had
taken place if records were damaged or missing. Today,
in contrast, record keeping is reliable and the role
of a wedding witness is ceremonial. In Alaska, while
the person solemnizing the marriage must meet certain
criteria, no form of witness verification is required
just a name and signature. HB 62 would allow Alaska to
compete with states like Hawaii and Florida, which
require no wedding witnesses and lead the nation in
destination weddings.
Destination weddings are a significant and growing
business in Alaska. As shown in the chart we
distributed, non-resident weddings (where both parties
are non-residents) already comprise approximately 10%
of marriages in Alaska. The two-witness requirement
makes Alaska a less attractive location for many who
travel from farther away or who do not want the
financial burden of a larger wedding. Couples who come
to the state without their own witnesses are tasked
with finding strangers to witness their wedding. The
burden of supplying these witnesses often falls to
those who work in Alaska's wedding industry to ask
friends and family to witness the weddings of their
out-of-town clients. The two-witness requirement can
also place an increased financial burden on the
couple. For example, for a remote location wedding,
such as on a glacier, the couple must pay extra
aircraft seating costs to transport the two witnesses.
At present, destination weddings bring in an estimated
$1 million in revenue to Alaska in the form of
approximately 500 destination weddings a year. This
revenue figure doesn't even account for the fact that
more than 90% of the out-of-state couples who come to
Alaska to get married stay for days and weeks to
explore our great state. The resulting benefit to
Alaska's tourism industry is substantial. HB 62 will
help Alaska's tourism industry by allowing Alaska to
compete with states on a level field.
As a result of a house floor amendment, the
legislation makes an important change to Alaska law
regarding child marriage, as described earlier. There
is increased concern about the connection between
child marriage and human trafficking and sex
trafficking. Reducing or even eliminating child
marriage in Alaska is an important step toward
improving public safety and combatting trafficking.
1:38:12 PM
Research shows that the substantial majority of child
marriages90% or moreinvolve a minor under the age of
18 and an adult who may be several years older
sometimes as much as 20 years older. As you will hear
from the invited testimony, a substantial majority of
child marriages end in divorceapproximately 80%--
compared to a divorce rate of approximately 50% for
adult marriages.
As we look to strengthen our economy and improve
public safety, changing Alaska's child marriage law to
reflect our community values is a much-needed step
forward for our state.
1:38:56 PM
BREANNA KAKARUK, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sectional analysis
for HB 62 on behalf of the sponsor.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Section 1 AS 24.60.030(a). Prohibited conduct and
conflicts of interest. Amends the Legislative Ethics
Act to allow a legislator to accept travel and
hospitality for solemnizing a marriage.
Section 2 AS 25.05.171(b). Persons capable of
consenting to marriage: Minimum ages, and consent of
parent or guardian. Amends subsection (b) to limit
exceptions to minors who are at least 16 years of age
who want to get married and marry a person who is no
more than three years older. A minor may only marry if
(1) they have parental and court approval or (2) they
gave court approval after the court finds that the
parents are (a) arbitrarily and capriciously
withholding consent, (b) absent or otherwise
unaccountable, (c) in disagreement among themselves on
the question, or (d) unfit to decide the matter.
Section 3 AS 25.05.301. Form of solemnization.
Eliminates the requirement of two witnesses at a
marriage solemnization ceremony and adds a person who
"verifies" the marriage by (1) communicating with both
parties to confirm their intent to marry; and (2)
signing the marriage certificate. The person verifying
the marriage is not required to witness the ceremony.
1:40:14 PM
Section 4 AS 25.05.321. Certificates. Eliminates the
requirement for two witnesses to sign the marriage
certificate and adds a person who "verifies" the
marriage by signing the marriage certificate.
Section 5 AS 25.05.321. Certificates. Specifies that
the person solemnizing the marriage and the person
verifying the marriage must put their contact
information on the certificate forms.
Section 6 AS 25.05.361. Unlawful solemnization of
marriage. Deletes language to conform with changes
made in section 2 of the bill.
Section 7 AS 25.05.020. Arrival at majority upon
marriage. Deletes language to confirm with changes
made in section 2 of the bill.
Section 8 Repeals AS 25.05.041(a)(3) and (a)(5)
statutes that relate to marriage witnessesto conform
with changes made in section 3 of the bill. Repeals AS
25.05.171(a) statutes that relate to allowing
marriage involving a 16- or 17-yearold person with
parental consentto conform with changes made in
section 2 of the bill.
1:41:29 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated that some constituents raised concerns
that provisions in the bill move away from more conservative,
traditional marriages, marriage ceremonies, and witnessing
marriages.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that he previously sponsored a
bill that allowed elected officials to perform marriage
ceremonies. The bill allowed anyone elected to public office to
perform a marriage ceremony. He stated he had performed several
ceremonies that he would characterize as traditional ones. He
said even before that law passed, a person could obtain a 3-day
temporary marriage commissioner certificate that would allow the
person to perform a wedding. He related that the previous bill
intended to protect the rights of religious individuals who had
priorities for their religion. They did not wish to be forced to
marry someone outside their traditions. For example, a rabbi
might limit performing a marriage ceremony to members of his
synagogue. Further, that law would also allow someone to decline
officiating at a gay couple's wedding.
1:44:28 PM
SENATOR SHOWER remarked that his father-in-law officiated at his
daughter's wedding and a Justice of the peace (JP) officiated at
his wedding.
1:44:52 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to a chart in members' packets that
showed the number of resident and non-resident weddings. He
asked the sponsor whether he had any data on destination
weddings. He noted that the military, mining, and fishing
industry brings in significant non-residents. He wondered if the
data could separate the people coming to Alaska as a wedding
destination from residents getting married here.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that one wedding photographer
would testify about weddings. He said he spoke to four or five
wedding photographers who indicated that their schedules were
booked for this summer. He related his understanding that there
were numerous destination weddings in Alaska.
1:46:46 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referred to the legislative ethics portion of the
bill and asked whether the language was necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN explained that Representative Vance
requested those provisions. She was worried that the travel and
hospitality costs might get out of control. For example, she
wondered what would happen if someone asked a legislator to
perform a wedding on an eight-day cruise on one of the cruise
ships. The question was if the legislator could accept an eight-
day cruise, including meals, as a gratuity for performing the
ceremony. The goal was to allow some level of transportation as
gratis, including flying an officiant to a glacier to perform a
wedding ceremony and attend the reception. He stated he wanted
to ensure that people would not need to declare it. However, if
a legislator took an expensive cruise, they probably would need
to disclose it. Still, the spirit was to recognize incidental
expenses would not need to be disclosed on the ethics
disclosure.
1:49:56 PM
JOE CONNELLY, Photographer and Owner, Chugiak Peaks Photography,
Anchorage, Alaska, stated that he supported the provision that
would raise the minimum age for marriage, which wasn't part of
the original bill. He indicated his testimony would focus on the
state's requirement to have two witnesses sign a form just
before or after a marriage ceremony.
MR. CONNELLY said he has worked as a wedding photographer in
Alaska since 2006. He related that 400-500 couples come to
Alaska to get married, many of whom do not bring any family or
friends. Further, about 4,000-4,500 local weddings occur in
Alaska, many without family or friends present. Some people
don't want a large group present at their wedding, so requiring
two witnesses to verify their marriages creates an unfair
burden. Often marriage commissioners are tasked with finding
witnesses for people to fulfill the state requirement. Witnesses
may not know the bride or groom but do this as a favor to the
marriage commissioner. Many people choose Alaska as a
destination wedding location because of its remoteness, beauty,
independence, and grandeur. He stated that anyone over 18 and of
sound mind could pick up a one-day commissioner license.
However, the couple must bring two witnesses along, even if it
means the witnesses also must hike to the top of a mountain or
fly to a glacier.
Mr. CONNELLY remarked that hiking and flying might seem unusual,
but it's a daily occurrence for Alaskan weddings.
1:53:45 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reported that approximately 22 states require two
witnesses, 22 states require none, and six require one witness.
He wondered if it would be beneficial to go from requiring two
witnesses to one or from two to zero.
MR. CONNELLY responded that it would be beneficial not to
require any witnesses. He stated that the process requires the
couple to obtain a marriage license, and the person solemnizing
the marriage must sign the original marriage certificate. An
officiant must be 18 years of age and of sound mind as
determined by the clergy or their representative. The officiant
could attest to the marriage if there were any doubt that the
wedding happened. He noted that the couple also would have
photos of their wedding.
MR. CONNELLY reported that many states, including Hawaii and
Florida, do not have witness requirements. Those states have not
encountered problems because they don't require any witnesses to
sign the marriage certificate. He offered his view that weddings
in those states are no less important or successful, nor do they
lead to increased marriage fraud. He indicated that the original
requirement for witnesses goes back hundreds of years. The
Church of England could not keep track of the records. Since the
Bureau of Vital Statistics maintains digital records of marriage
licenses, it is now more of a formality and tradition.
1:56:40 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked whether the photographer could be a witness.
MR. CONNELLY responded that he could be a witness. He noted he
often officiates the wedding. He described a hypothetical
wedding at Hatcher Pass, in which the bride and groom traveled
to Alaska without any family or friends. The photographer,
bride, and groom hiked six hours to a remote setting. The
photographer would be able to marry them if they brought along
an additional witness. Under the bill, the photographer could
set up a tripod, marry the couple and capture the wedding on a
video, but not need additional people.
1:57:53 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated he would not oppose the bill because he
has strong libertarian convictions. He related that while
serving in the military, he saw that many young men and women
would get married. However, many of these marriages resulted in
divorce. He wondered if removing the witness requirements would
also remove some cross-checks. He said he supports increasing
the minimum age for marriage to 18 years of age. He asked
whether the witnesses would provide some type of stability for
these young military couples by helping them decide if they were
doing the right thing.
MR. CONNELLY responded that two 18-year-old military members do
not look to their buddies or parents for approval. Witnesses
check a box and sign, but don't have to be related to the bride
and groom. The state also doesn't require someone to talk sense
into the couple. Instead, the state only requires that two
random adults be physically present. He said this requirement is
irrelevant.
2:01:09 PM
SENATOR SHOWER expressed skepticism that someone would just
solicit witnesses by randomly asking people to be witnesses for
a wedding.
MR. CONNELLY answered that he observed it happening all the
time.
SENATOR SHOWER expressed surprise.
MR. CONNELLY said it happens every single week.
SENATOR SHOWER remarked that he was horrified.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that was one reason to remove
the witness requirement.
MR. CONNELLY agreed it could be awkward for a bride and groom to
ask random people to sign as witnesses to their marriage, such
as a mom and grandma out for a stroll, pushing a stroller. It is
why he initiated the whole process to remove the requirement.
2:01:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that Senator Shower's question was
more specific to the child marriage concept, such as when a 16-
year-old wants to marry an 18-year old. The version that passed
the House required parents to consent to the marriage but did
not require a court proceeding. The Senate Health and Social
Services Standing Committee (SHSS) changed it by requiring the
court to be involved in that decision. He acknowledged that the
court noted it does not happen often. He related one instance in
which the parents gave their consent, and the judge subsequently
sent them out of the room because he wanted to ensure that no
one was pressuring the underage child. The judicial review helps
provide additional protection to ensure the youth understand
what they are doing. It is essential to have the court involved
if child marriages are not banned.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN acknowledged that he had heard stories
that some parents pressured their children to get married, but
it doesn't always work out very well.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN indicated that Senator Shower also raised
an issue regarding military personnel. He was aware of some
instances where soldiers going off to war would get married a
week before departure. However, when they return six months
later, their wives are gone and have sold their property. He
acknowledged that this bill would not solve all the problems. He
surmised that commanders probably held conversations with those
under their command to ensure that they understood what they
were doing. He wondered whether it was the state's role to
intervene or if the community needed to ask those questions. He
recalled that a family friend married early in his military
career, and the marriage ended, so he understands that sometimes
people don't think through their decisions.
2:05:36 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that he appreciated that the bill addresses
those under 18. He offered his view that having marriage
witnesses may not be necessary, especially since the couple
might select random witnesses or pay them. He recalled being
asked to officiate at a marriage ceremony by a couple he did not
know. He said he used the three-day waiting period to talk about
marriage commitment. He asked whether the bill retains the
three-day waiting period requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that the bill does not change
the three-day waiting period requirement.
2:07:05 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to page 5 of HB 62. He indicated that the
person verifying the ceremony was supposed to confirm that each
party intends to marry the other. He wondered why the language
used "intends" instead of consents" since the committee
discussed parents consenting to underage marriages ang ways to
ensure someone was not getting duped.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that using the word "intent" was
purposeful because it implies greater thought. He related that
he had been debating intent on a bill related to sexual
assault. In that context, the question was related to what level
of action or inaction is enough to reflect consent. It would
depend on the level of passive participation that counts as
consent. He said marriage means substantially more than that.
One hopes that it means the person wants to make a real
commitment to their partner and intends to do this.
2:09:22 PM
SENATOR MYERS offered his view that consent seemed stronger
than intent.
2:09:37 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND turned to invited testimony.
2:10:14 PM
CIAN MULHERN, Celtic Ministries, Wasilla, Alaska, stated that
military members are considered Alaska residents since their
license reads Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson (JBER) or some
other base. Thus, military members getting married are not
considered out-of-state weddings.
2:11:10 PM
REVEREND MULHERN spoke in favor of raising the minimum age to
18. He explained that couples sometimes choose witnesses
randomly. He stated that often no one knows the witnesses, if
they are convicted felons, or in good standing. It is often
impossible to locate the witnesses later since no personal
identifier is required or appears on the marriage certificate.
It doesn't mean the witnesses ensure that the officiant
appropriately performed the wedding ceremony.
2:13:11 PM
JERRY ANDERSON, Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, Anchorage, Alaska, indicated that he had reviewed the
bill.
2:13:41 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked him to explain Section 1, subparagraph (D).
MR. ANDERSON responded that subparagraph (D) harmonizes other
sections of the Legislative Ethics Act regarding accepting
hospitality and travel outside of a gift. He stated that it also
comports with AS 24.60.085 related to restrictions on earned
income and honoraria. That section relates to an appearance or
speech by a legislator, so adding subparagraph (D) was
beneficial.
2:14:58 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked what reporting requirements were necessary
if someone were to pay for his travel from Fairbanks to
Anchorage to officiate at a wedding ceremony.
MR. ANDERSON answered that there would be no reporting
requirement under the current Legislative Ethics Act or HB 62.
2:15:31 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked him to confirm that reporting requirements
were not required under current law, and reporting would still
not be necessary if the bill were to pass.
MR. ANDERSON answered yes. He explained that just as for
restrictions on earned income or an honorarium, legislators are
not required to disclose travel expenses.
2:15:58 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked if this would only apply in Alaska or if
the legislator could travel to Hawaii.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered that the permission only applied
to Alaska. If a legislator or other person wanted to officiate
at a friend's wedding in Hawaii, they would need permission from
the State of Hawaii.
2:16:27 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked for suggestions on prudent limitations. For
instance, he surmised that it would not be acceptable for
someone to pay for a legislator's expensive cruise in Southeast
Alaska just to officiate a friend's wedding during the cruise.
CHAIR HOLLAND envisioned a scenario where a legislator might be
invited to fly to a lodge during sockeye season to officiate a
wedding. He wondered if the flight would pose a problem.
2:17:38 PM
MR. ANDERSON responded that AS 24.60.085 covers that question. A
legislator would not be able to seek or receive compensation
significantly greater than the value of the services rendered,
taking into account the higher rates generally changed by
specialists in a profession. The committee would consider that
standard.
2:18:27 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND imagined it would be an expensive helicopter
flight to the Chukchi Sea if a couple wanted to be married while
wading in the water.
2:19:18 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held HB 62 in committee.
2:19:30 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Holland adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:19 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|