Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
03/21/2024 01:30 PM Senate TRANSPORTATION
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 | |
| HB81 | |
| SB255 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 255-OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC PLACES; TRESPASSING
2:03:07 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 255 "An Act relating to the
obstruction of airports and runways; relating to the obstruction
of highways; establishing the crime of obstruction of free
passage in public places; relating to the obstruction of public
places; relating to the crime of trespassing; relating to the
obstruction of navigable waters; and providing for an effective
date."
This is the second hearing of this bill in the Senate
Transportation Committee.
2:04:05 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN opened public testimony on SB 255.
2:04:29 PM
KAY BROWN, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 255. She said SB 255 impinges on the peoples
constitutionally protected right to gather in a public place
without a permit. She said the bill criminalizes this
constitutionally protected behavior, the right to assemble as
citizens and to protest and speak out. She opined the bill is an
attempt to intimidate, dissuade and discourage people from
assembling, by establishing this new crime of obstructing free
passage in a public place. She said she hopes the bill does not
pass, but that if it does, she said the definition of public
place is far too broad. She said it appears that significant
criminal and civil liabilities could be triggered by standing on
a sidewalk and blocking someone's path. She noted SB 255,
Section 9 evokes unreasonable inconvenience, without definition,
could result in Class B misdemeanor conviction, which she said
is outrageous. She said SB 255, Section 4 also has significant
problems, including that it lacks a clear definition of nominal
damages. Ms. Brown asked for consideration of the effect SB 255
would have on the unhoused who occupy public places and may
arguably impede movement at times. She concluded SB 255 is
unnecessary and an unconstitutional violation of the rights of
citizens.
2:07:08 PM
MORGAN LIM, Advocate, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates,
Juneau, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. He said this
bill would criminalize Alaskans who exercise their freedom of
speech and assembly, and the language of the bill is so broad
that it renders constitutionally protected speech illegal and so
vague that those who would wish to follow or enforce the law
would be unclear as to the legislation's scope. He noted under
SB 255, people could be charged for obstruction of free passage
in public places if they knowingly make a public place
impassable or significantly inconvenient or hazardous for
passage; and it is unclear what impassable, significantly
inconvenient or hazardous for passage mean. He said the vague
language of the bill is an attempt to crack down on Alaskans'
ability to protest, demonstrate and freely assemble in public
places. He noted that vague and overly broad laws could be
applied selectively by law enforcement against parties engaged
in disfavored speech and that there is no way for the state to
neutrally apply this bill. He said the bill raises more
questions than answers about what conduct is permissible in
public. Moreover, he said a new obstruction of free passage
crime appears to criminalize homelessness in public spaces and
could be weaponized by law enforcement to target marginalized
groups including the un-housed, exacerbating rather than
alleviating Alaska's housing crisis. He submitted that this
legislation does not make Alaska safer or address the current
problem for people protesting across the state. Instead, he
said, it is government overreach that sends a threatening
message to protestors, intending to chill free speech.
2:09:33 PM
MATT JACKSON, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 255. He began by reading: Congress shall make
no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of
the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances. He opined that is
all that needs be known about SB 255, that it is a blatant
violation of first amendment rights. He said the bill is clearly
intended to chill dissent and he said the first amendment was
specifically intended to protect against bills like SB 255. He
noted Section 4 describes the liability for civil action under
this Act, for no less than $50,000 to a person who suffers
damage to property. It appears that someone who caused $5 in
damages while exercising the right to protest could be liable
for no less than $50,000. He noted that the median income in
Alaska is $34,000. He concluded this is just one example of the
issues this bill raises of the intimidating effect of SB 255 on
the constitutionally protected right to free speech and
encourages the committee to oppose SB 255.
2:11:35 PM
AARON BRAKEL, representing self, Douglas, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 255. Mr. Brakel said SB 255 is a non-Alaska
solution to a non-Alaska problem. He related his experience
earlier in the day of being directed to vacate a public sidewalk
outside the Dimond Courthouse and that the directive originated
with the Department of Law building manager. He characterized
the gathering as an assembly of people speaking in front of
their state capital. He said SB 255 is an unacceptable bill and
is a sign of things to come. He opined that the bill could
create an entirely litigious, ridiculous situation. He said SB
255 exists so people who are assembling with concerns can be
targeted by big concerns, both individually and in groups.
2:13:55 PM
MICHAELA STITH, Climate Justice Director, Native Movement,
Juneau, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. Ms. Stith
characterized SB 255 as an attempt to criminalize nonviolent
protest. She said the bill is against the First Amendment right
to peaceable assemble, and the right to petition the government
for a redress of grievances. She evoked Martin Luther King Jr
and recalled that he said: We adopt the means of non-violence
because our end is a community at peace with itself. We will try
to persuade with our words, but if our words fail, we will try
to persuade with our acts. She said non-violent action is core
to American identity and core to what it means to be Alaskan.
She sought to remind those present that the right to peaceably
assemble is a unique freedom provided in this country. She put
forth specific concerns with Sections 8 and 7 addressing the
obstruction of highways, a common form of non-violent protest in
the United States. She emphasized that banner drops and highway
blockades make a statement to persuade when people are not heard
by other means. She maintained that it is a right to participate
in non-violent direct action. She said it was not clear to her
whether a conviction under SB 255 would result in the loss of
the right to vote in federal elections. She concluded that SB
255 is a violation of First Amendment rights and urged that it
not be passed.
2:16:12 PM
Cathy Walling, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska testified in
opposition to SB 255. Ms. Walling invited the committee to
uplift the voices of previous testifiers, and to uphold peaceful
assembly and protection of First Amendment rights by opposing SB
255.
2:17:22 PM
KIRA LENA LAJARNIE, Climate Justice Organizer, Native Movement,
Anchorage, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. She said
when government bodies and assemblies are not adequately
representing the will of the people, the people have to have a
way for redress. She said SB 255 is a clear conflict of
interest; if the people want to protest government actions that
are not serving them, the government could simply choose not to
grant them a permit to assemble. The bill could promote
authoritarian government actions and suppress freedom of speech.
The First Amendment clearly protects this right. She said that
if people have the protection to gather for their beliefs in
religious places of worship, people must also be able to gather
on the streets, even if they don't have the means to buy a hall
of worship. She concluded that the public has the right to
public spaces.
2:18:39 PM
SARAH FURMAN, Member Organizer and Administrative Coordinator,
Fairbanks Climate Action Coalition, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified
in opposition to SB 255. Ms. Furman said SB 255 is a clear
violation of freedom of speech and assembly, protected in the
constitution. The language in the bill is vague, will
criminalize people directly and indirectly in constitutionally
protected activities. She said the ability for US citizens to
assemble and protest is fundamental to democracy and there are
examples throughout history when the people needed to use this
right to fight injustices: the civil rights movement, women's
suffrage movement, etc. Looking back, she said, we uplift these
people and their leaders for moving the country forward. We
don't say: oh, they shouldn't have blocked that sidewalk in
their pursuit of fundamental rights. She concluded: these are
the kind of laws that authoritarian and fascist governments use
against their people, and we don't want to do that.
2:19:52 PM
ELEANOR GAGNON, Advocate, Fairbanks Climate Action Coalition,
Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. She said
public spaces exist for people to gather. She agreed with
earlier testimony describing the language of SB 255 as vague and
offered a range of interpretation for the definition of
obstruction and the potential for subjective application. She
emphasized that the lack of clear definitions contributes to the
dangers of SB 255. She said the people who are most likely to be
harmed by SB 255 are those unhoused, and they need public spaces
the most. She implored the committee that denying access to safe
spaces for the unhoused is a crime.
2:20:56 PM
AURORA BOWERS, Narrative Strategist, Fairbanks Climate Action
Coalition, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255.
Ms. Bowers said she was eleven when 911 happened and that event
and those that followed set the course for her life. She joined
nonviolent protests against the invasion of Iraq. She described
her childhood involvement and experience as empowering and said
the experiences demonstrated to her the power of a citizen. She
said that, though the demonstrators weren't able to affect the
change they desired, they exercised a core right of Americans
and Alaskans. She pointed out that those gatherings of fifteen
or fifty pacifists could have been charged with criminal
activity under SB 255. She urged opposition to SB 255.
2:22:31 PM
PATTI SAUNDERS, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in opposition to SB 255. Ms. Saunders said she is a former
lawyer and that she spent three years in law school learning
about things like the Bill of Rights, the rights of citizens and
what democracy meant. She said reading SB 255 engendered horror
in her heart and mind when she realized the governor was trying
to impose this in Alaska. She emphasized that it was not some
nutjob that proposed the bill, but our governor. She opined that
SB 255 guarantees litigation. She predicted someone will be
arrested and someone will be sued because this bill violates the
constitution. She predicted a costly outcome and eventual
Supreme Court action. She said SB 255 is a solution looking for
a problem and there is no evidence that demonstrations, rallies,
gatherings, exercises of free speech or assembly have caused any
problems in Alaska. She asserted there is no reason for the
bill, even if was constitutional. She said she cannot believe
the man who serves at the head of our state government proposed
this. She implored the committee to oppose SB 255.
2:24:53 PM
MOLLY LEMEN, Interfaith Organizer, Fairbanks Climate Action
Coalition, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255.
Ms. Lemen expressed concern that SB 255 seems, on it's face, to
protect people's freedom of movement and access to emergency
care but will in fact be used against peaceful protesters as an
excuse to force people to vacate a premises when their opinions
are inconvenient, restricting the right to peacefully assemble.
She queried: who would determine what constitutes unreasonable
inconvenience and how can such broad language be equitably
enforced?
2:25:49 PM
JEFF CHEN, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 255. Mr. Chen said protests and rallies, like
journalism, like serving as a senator, like filibusters and
conversations with families, are tools used in democracies for
making change. He emphasized that he, coming from an immigrant
family, holds these things dear. He urged better definitions in
SB 255. He characterized the bill as an overreach of government,
an impingement on free speech and he encouraged broad
opposition.
2:27:18 PM
ANDRES CAMACHO, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 255. Mr. Camacho affirmed prior testimony and
noted that the expression of shared values is an essential
promise of this country. He affirmed the system of checks and
balance that allows for many ways to be heard, in buildings and
rooms like this, as well as in greater public places. He
expressed appreciation for the opportunity to demand, to cry
out, to express the needs and values of a community. He
suggested that there is still a lot to be done to fulfill an
essential promise of this country: to honor the voices of all
those that live here. He said SB 255 strips away a key part of
that process.
2:29:36 PM
MICHAEL GARVEY, Advocacy Director, American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in opposition
to SB 255 on behalf of the ACLU in Alaska. He said the
organization is wholly opposed to the bill and views it as an
unconstitutional and overbroad bill that would chill all
Alaskans' fundamental rights to freedom of speech and assembly.
By creating a new crime, increasing penalties for existing
crimes and establishing extreme civil penalties, SB 255 would
deter Alaskans from exercising these rights. The proposed civil
penalties, which he said are not based on actual losses or
damages and could apply to a broad range of behavior,
potentially including sharing information about a protest on
social media, are the minimum amounts that could be imposed
without having to prove that a person acted negligently or
unreasonably or with ill intent. He said this form of strict
liability likely means that our constitutional rights to free
speech may not be a defense. Additionally, when the government
regulates speech and expression, it must do so in a narrowly
tailored way that satisfies a compelling government interest. SB
255 was proposed to prevent hypothetical scenarios and is based
on a right to free passage that is not found in either the
federal or state constitution. He further noted that, in order
to uphold Alaskans' due process rights, the government must
clearly define conduct that it prohibits. Implementing the
concept of obstruction of free passage in public places would
require law enforcement and prosecutors to make judgment calls
about what conduct qualifies [for prosecution], because the
[current] definition could capture a lot of unremarkable
activity. He said the standard is too vague to clearly
understand and too subjective to avoid uneven enforcement. He
concluded that SB 255 is an overbroad solution in search of a
problem and, top to bottom, a violation of constitutional
rights. For these reasons, he said, the ACLU of Alaska urges the
committee not to advance SB 255.
2:31:40 PM
ED MARTIN, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 255. Mr. Martin sought to share with the
committee his findings that SB 255 originated with a publication
by the Yale Law Journal, 2014. He said he was not surprised that
there have been attempts to limit free speech, assembly, free
access and choice of residence. Mr. Martin expressed frustration
with local Kenai leadership that reflected what he considered to
be similar attempts to limit citizens' rights.
2:34:39 PM
PHIL MOSER, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 255. Mr. Moser said SB 255 would have been
applicable to the march from Selma to Montgomery and to other
civil rights efforts in the 1950's and 1960's. He said he was
present during Juneau's version of the Freedom Convoy, the
protest against vaccinations in 2022. He asserted that, had SB
255 been in effect for that event, he would have been able to
sue many people and organizations, including several state
legislators and community leaders. He pointed out that
legislation which is intended to support one ideology can also
be used to support opposing viewpoints.
2:37:22 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN closed public testimony on SB 255.
CHAIR KAUFMAN invited questions from committee members noting
that individuals representing Alaska State Troopers, Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF), and Department
of Law are available to answer them.
2:37:51 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether there is a state law that explicitly
permits the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOTPF) to plow snow onto the sidewalks.
2:38:18 PM
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities (DOTPF), Juneau, Alaska, answered
questions during the discussion of SB 255. Mr. Mills offered to
find the regulations that address berms and clearing of snow and
provide that to the committee.
2:38:37 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said DOTPF may have an explicit statutory
authorization, but the City and Borough of Juneau does not have
regulations allowing snowplow drivers to pile snow on the
sidewalks. He asked whom to sue when his sidewalk is plowed in,
whether the suit would be against the drivers in their personal
capacity for $10,000 each, or in their professional capacity as
city employees.
2:39:15 PM
PARKER PATTERSON, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law (DOL), Juneau, Alaska, answered questions
during the discussion of SB 255. Mr. Patterson said he would
have to investigate city ordinances. He said he would get back
to the committee.
2:39:34 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that he checked with the city attorney and
there is no authorization.
MR. PATTERSON said that he would have to personally research it
before offering an opinion.
SENATOR KIEHL said there may be even more overbreadth in the
liability section than public testimony indicated today.
2:40:35 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN held SB 255 in committee.
#
2:41:00 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Kaufman adjourned the Senate Transportation Standing
Committee meeting at 2:41 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 81 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 1:30:00 PM STRA 3/21/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB 81 Sectional Analysis .pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 1:30:00 PM STRA 3/21/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB 81 Fiscal Note DOA DMV 2.14.24.pdf |
STRA 3/21/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB 81 Letters of Support.pdf |
STRA 3/21/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| SB 255 Public Testimony recieved as of 3.20.24.pdf |
STRA 3/21/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 255 |