Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/12/2018 03:15 PM House STATE 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 | |
| HB409 | |
| HJR30 | |
| SB196 | |
| Presentation on Penalties for Marijuana Possession | |
| HB409 | |
| Approval of Introduction of Potential Committee Legislation | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 409 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 204 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 196 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 409-DMV ID CARDS & REGISTRATION FEES
3:17:05 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 409, "An Act relating to identification
cards; relating to vehicle registration fee rates; relating to
changes of address; relating to driver's license fees; and
relating to financial responsibility for motor vehicles."
3:17:21 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 409; and
after first determining no one wished to testify, closed public
testimony on HB 409.
3:18:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for an explanation of the violations
that one would need an SR-22 [certificate of financial
responsibility] insurance for life.
3:18:24 PM
MICHAEL STANKER, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Department of Law (DOL), stated there were two
instances where a person would need an SR-22 [proof of financial
responsibility] for life. Under AS 28.20.330, if a person
failed to pay a judgment stemming from an automobile accident
with a suspended license and later satisfied the judgment, the
person would need SR-22 for life. The second instance pertained
to DUIs [driving while under the influence]. If a person had
four or more DUIs or refused to submit to a chemical test, the
person would need an SR-22 as long as the person was licensed to
drive. He explained the increased penalties for DUIs, that the
first DUI or refusal to submit to a chemical test would
necessitate SR-22 coverage for five years, the second offense
for ten-years, and the third offense for 20 years. All other
SR-22 requirements would be imposed for three years, for
example, in instances in which people had their licenses
suspended or revoked for another reason and their license was
later reinstated. The SR-22 provision would apply for those
involved in vehicular accidents while their licenses were
suspended and driving without insurance so when their licenses
were reinstated these drivers must obtain SR-22 for three years.
3:20:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for clarification on the SR-22
requirements for a first DUI and whether the penalty was similar
to that of a first refusal [to submit to a chemical test].
MR. STANKER answered yes; the first DUI or refusal would result
in SR-22 coverage for five years.
3:20:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL related that the DUI and refusal [to submit
to a chemical test] were parallel offenses. He asked for
clarification on the first instance, which is the one HB 409
would address.
MR. STANKER said that the bill seeks to address the situation in
which a person involved in motor vehicle accident was sued, a
judgment was issued, but the person failed to pay the judgment
within 30 days. The court would notify the DMV and the person's
license would be suspended until the judgment was paid, unless
it fit one of the exceptions. Exemptions would include that the
driver entered into a payment plan with the judgment creditor,
or consent to reinstate the license was given; in those
circumstances the person would need SR-22 proof of financial
responsibility for life.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL pointed out that the penalty for non-payment
within 30 days was worse than for a driver convicted of three
DUIs. He assumed that was the reason AS 28.20.330 was being
amended.
3:22:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether Representative Wool was
correct.
MR. STANKER answered yes. He stated that for the third DUI or
refusal conviction, the driver would be subject to SR-22 for 20
years; that a driver with four or more DUI convictions is
subject to a lifetime requirement, which is the same penalty
that a person who failed to pay off a judgment within 30 days
would receive.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK hoped that the penalty provisions could be
fixed. He expressed concern that a 21-year-old who was in a car
accident but did not pay the judgment timely must spend the rest
of his/her life providing SR-22 proof of responsibility [or
high-risk insurance]. The penalty did not have anything to do
with risk or driving ability but rather whether the driver paid
the judgment within the 30-day required timeframe. The penalty
was the same for someone with multiple DUIs, he said.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed.
3:24:27 PM
MR. STANKER, in response to Representative Knopp, agreed that
under the current statute if a person does not pay within 30
days his/her driver's license is suspended until the judgement
is satisfied in whole unless they fell within one of the
exceptions previously mentioned.
3:24:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether an uninsured driver involved a
motor vehicle accident who had [his/her license suspended] for
three months must also obtain SR-22 for three years.
MR. STANKER answered yes; that a person whose license was
suspended as a result of an accident - either for personal
injury or a dollar threshold amount - would be required to
provide SR-22 for three years after the suspension period ended.
3:25:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL (audio difficulties) related a scenario
requiring SR-22 for life, in which an insured driver had an
accident, a judgment for monetary damage was issued and the
driver did not pay timely. That driver would be required to get
high-risk insurance. He asked whether an uninsured driver would
be punished as severely as the insured driver in such a
scenario.
MR. STANKER answered that one exception to mandatory lifetime
SR-22 proof of responsibility applies if an insurance company
was liable for payment but did not cover a portion of the
monetary damage. In that instance, the driver would be liable
and must provide SR-22 for life. The three-year requirement for
SR-22 would apply if a driver should have had insurance but
failed to do so and his/her actions resulted in a suspended
license. He concluded that these two scenarios were related but
were also different.
3:27:36 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:29 p.m. to 3:29 p.m.
3:29:35 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS passed the gavel to Vice Chair LeDoux.
[HB 409 was set aside.]
HB 409-DMV ID CARDS & REGISTRATION FEES
4:05:39 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked to return to the hearing on HB 409.
4:06:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL, with respect to proposed Section 11, noted
the penalty [under AS 28.20.330(b)] was reduced from lifetime to
requiring proof of financial responsibility [SR-22] for 10
years; however, he thought 10 years seemed a bit severe for
someone who did not pay the [penalty] within 30 days when the
penalty for a first time DUI offense was five years. He stated
that the penalties seemed [inequitable] or onerous.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed; however, if the driver has
insurance the person would not pay since liability insurance
does not have any deductibles.
4:07:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL responded that he was uncertain what
circumstances would cause someone to be assessed a judgment. He
recalled earlier testimony that a driver could have insurance,
be involved an accident, assessed a judgment, not pay it within
30 days, and be subject to SR-22 for life. He thought that was
a correct assessment.
MR. STANKER restated the question, that if a person had
insurance, [and was involved in a crash] but the insurance did
not cover some portion of the civil judgment, that the driver
could have his/her license suspended and be subject to a
lifetime of SR-22. He acknowledged he was not well versed with
automobile insurance; however, he agreed with the scenario and
lifetime SR-22 requirement.
4:09:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she would like to hear from the
Division of Insurance because in her experience as an attorney
in private practice she did not think liability insurance had
deductibles.
4:09:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested that liability insurance probably
had capped amounts, including ones for injuries so some
responsibility could fall on the person causing the accident.
He also expressed concern with the penalty provision requiring
lifetime SR-22 for failure to pay judgments timely. He said it
seemed extreme especially since it related to financial
obligation and not due to the driver's ability. He speculated
that the penalty would benefit the insurance industry. He
compared it to a debtor's prison, such that the person is bound
for life whereas someone who had been drinking and driving has
lots of extra chances, yet these drivers put the public at risk.
4:11:33 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that what Representatives Tuck and
Wool have said also resonated with him. He asked whether [the
lifetime requirement for] SR-22 made logical sense.
4:11:55 PM
MARLA THOMPSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration, stated the reason for a judgment
(audio difficulties) usually has resulted from drivers without
any insurance having an accident, were sued, lost the lawsuit,
and were subject to a judgment. At that point, the DMV would
suspend the driver's license for three years and most people
adhere to a payment plan, if so, the driver's license would be
reinstated. If the driver missed (audio difficulties) [then
offline] ....
4:13:07 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS (audio difficulties).
4:13:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for further clarification on a
scenario with $50,000-100,000 policy with a judgment for
$150,000 ... (audio difficulties) would the driver have to pay
the SR 22 [financial responsibility].
MR. STANKER answered that he could not comment on the insurance
aspect of the question. He said as the statute was currently
written, that if a person was liable for money owed via a
judgment, the party would fall into the circumstance of license
suspension and would be subject to lifetime SR-22 requirement.
4:14:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, with respect to drivers with SR-22
insurance, asked whether the insurance had a limit or cap.
MR. STANKER said he was not familiar with that insurance and
deferred to Ms. Thompson or the Division of Insurance.
4:15:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX restated her earlier scenario in which a
driver had a $100,000 policy but was subject to a judgment for
$150,000, whether the driver would be required to submit to SR-
22 for life. She recollected that SR-22 also had a limit, which
she thought was the minimum amount of insurance, so she thought
this simply made no sense whatsoever.
4:15:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL related his understanding of SR-22, relating
it was special risk insurance, so drivers must pay higher rates
for the same coverage. He compared penalties for imposing SR-22
for insured or uninsured drivers having the same incident and
subsequently being required to obtain SR-22 financial
responsibility, with the former subject to SR-22 for three years
and the latter subject to life. He asked for further
clarification on whether that was correct.
MR. STANKER answered yes; adding that this statute was enacted
in 1959 and has not been updated since then.
4:17:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL was unaware that the state had SR-22
provisions in statute in 1959. He questioned the discrepancy in
the length of time of penalties for similar infractions. He
viewed the lifetime SR-22 requirements as not making distinction
between insured or uninsured motorists; yet the three-year
penalties were automatically imposed for uninsured motorists
involved in accidents with damages. It seemed to him that if
the insurance rates doubled it was less likely for the driver to
pay off the damages.
4:18:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification on the minimum
amount of insurance required by law.
MS. THOMPSON answered that the driver must have liability
insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered her belief that liability
insurance policies range from $50,000 to $1,000,000. She asked
for further clarification on the minimum amount of liability
insurance.
MS. THOMPSON was unsure but thought it was $25-$50-$100
thousand.
4:19:01 PM
MR. STANKER said he was unsure of the amount.
MS. THOMPSON offered to look it up and report to the committee.
4:19:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification that the state
required a minimum amount of insurance and that it was
relatively low amount.
MS. THOMPSON agreed.
4:19:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related a scenario in which a person had
the minimum insurance required, and the judgment exceeded the
coverage by $50,000 and the driver was required to provide SR-22
coverage; however, the high-risk insurance would not be above
the minimum requirement either.
MS. THOMPSON responded that SR-22 provided [a certificate of]
financial responsibility or a financial responsibility filing.
In further response, she said the amount depended upon the
carrier and was not a specific amount, but rather was high-risk
insurance and only certain carriers provided it.
4:20:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how much insurance the state
required with SR-22, noting she thought the state required the
same amount of insurance, but it was more expensive under the
SR-22 insurance.
MS. THOMPSON agreed.
4:20:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned the logic in requiring someone
to carry high risk insurance when the coverage has the same
insurance limits. She was unsure if she was missing something.
MS. THOMPSON was unsure if it was logical but that is the way
the statute is written. She said most of the people required to
submit to SR-22 insurance are uninsured drivers. She explained
the process, such that these drivers do not have insurance, have
motor vehicle accidents, and the other parties' uninsured
motorist coverage pays the damages. Subsequently, these drivers
are sued, which results in judgments against them. These
drivers must submit to SR-22 requirements for three years, but
if they default on the final judgement, they are then required
to have lifetime SR-22 requirements.
4:22:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed concern that it would also pick
up motorists with the minimum amount of insurance.
MS. THOMPSON offered to compile data to better understand what
customers are affected by the SR-22 provisions.
4:22:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered her belief that someone will still
be affected even if it was not many drivers. She did not agree
with the statutory provisions as currently written.
MS. THOMPSON agreed.
4:23:10 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered to "drill down" on SR-22 but was
interested in members' comments.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered to work with Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins' office to improve the statutes related to SR-22 for the
public.
4:24:07 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he was still interested in the data
even though he agreed with Representative LeDoux's comments. He
wondered how many youths may have been subject to lifetime SR-22
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL related a personal scenario that illustrated
how he could have been affected by SR-22 insurance that he
thought would have been unjust.
4:25:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK requested an SR-22 chart to allow the
committee to better compare what circumstances warranted SR-22
provisions. He also asked whether an insurance company would be
breaking the law if they chose to charge regular rates instead
of SR-22 rates.
4:26:07 PM
ANNA LATHAM, Deputy Director, Division of Insurance, Department
of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), stated
that HB 409 does not affect Title 21, the Division of Insurance
statutes, but falls under Title 28. She offered to research and
respond to the committee.
4:26:41 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the Division of Insurance
would have the expertise.
MS. LATHAM answered that the SR-22 requirements are all set by
the DMV under Title 28; however, if the committee has questions,
the division will work with DMV to respond.
4:28:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed concern that this may adversely
affect some youth in rural Alaska and this warrants additional
work.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 409 would be set aside.
[HB 409 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 409 Sponsor Statement 4.10.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| HB409 Sectional Analysis 4.9.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| HB409 ver D 4.6.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| HB409 Fiscal Note DOA 4.9.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 409 |
| SB204 Sponsor Statement 04.06.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 204 |
| SB204 ver A 04.06.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 204 |
| SB204 Fiscal Note ADM 04.06.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 204 |
| SB204 Letters of Support 1 04.06.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 204 |
| SB204 Letters of Support 2 04.06.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 204 |
| SB196 Sponsor Statement v. O.A 4.2.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 196 |
| SB196 Sectional Analysis v. O.A 4.2.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 196 |
| SB 196 v. O.A 4.2.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 196 |
| SB196 Summary of Changes v.O.A 4.2.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 196 |
| SB196 Fiscal Note OMB 4.2.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 196 |
| SB 196 - NFIB Support 4.2.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 196 |
| SB 196 Graph 4.2.2018.pdf |
HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 196 |
| HJR030 Sponsor Statement 2.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR030 ver D 2.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 Fiscal Note LEG 4.9.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/10/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 Supporting Testimony 4.12.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/12/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/19/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 30 |