Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
03/25/2015 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 | |
| HCR1|| HJR3 | |
| HCR1 | |
| HJR3 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HCR 1-GOVERNOR: TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND JURIS.
HJR 3-CONGRESS: NATIVE TRIBAL JURIS. & AUTHORITY
1:04:03 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1, Urging the Governor to
acknowledge officially the sovereignty of Alaska tribal
governments, to create clear and consistent policies for
increased state collaboration and partnership with tribes, and
to direct the attorney general to conduct a complete review of
the state's litigation against Alaska Native tribes; urging the
Governor to acknowledge the inherent criminal jurisdiction of
Alaska tribal governments over tribal members within the
boundaries of their villages; urging the Governor to cooperate
with tribes' efforts to transfer Native land to trust; and
urging the Governor to support multilateral negotiations between
tribal governments, nontribal municipalities, and the state
government to delineate clearly tribal geographical
jurisdictions, and HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3, Urging members
of the Alaska delegation to the United States Congress to
introduce substantially similar legislation to the Alaska Safe
Families and Villages Act of 2013; urging the United States
Congress to affirm the criminal jurisdiction of Alaska tribal
governments over tribal members within the boundaries of their
villages; urging the United States Congress to cooperate with
tribes' efforts to transfer Native land to trust; and supporting
multilateral negotiations between tribal governments, nontribal
municipalities, and the state and federal governments to
delineate clearly tribal geographical jurisdictions. [The
committee continued its specific discussions on HCR 1 and HJR 3
later in the meeting.]
1:04:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that the two resolutions [HCR 1 and HJR 3] before the committee
are being put forward in tandem because they essentially are the
same vehicles with HCR 1 being delivered to Governor Bill
Walker, and HJR 3 being delivered to the United States
Congressional Delegation. The intent of the resolutions is to
bring attention to the increased role that tribal entities in
the State of Alaska can provide in terms of better law
enforcements and criminal justice services at the local level,
and also to recognize the fact that the current system of highly
centralized being provided through state agencies in large
measure has in many instances failed to succeed. He pointed out
that by recognizing that Alaska tribes can play a greater role
in providing criminal justice services in Alaska has merit and
deserves the attention of the legislature, executive branch, and
Congressional Delegation. He noted that in a number of Alaska
communities per se are still facing severe problems related to
poverty, alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, sexual
assault, suicides and a number of other social ills that in some
communities are moving forward at an epidemic level. He opined
that these two resolutions, and the fact that Alaskan tribes can
play a larger role in committing to criminal justice services
fits in that category. He pointed to the State of Texas that
has taken a number of measures to instill "smart justice"
policies, and in doing so reduced the recidivism rate by 25
percent, save approximately $3 billion in building new prisons,
reduced its prison rates by 10 percent, and crime rate by
approximately 20 percent. He said in arguing that Alaska tribes
deserve more recognition, clearer and more consistent policies
with Alaska State agencies, deserve attention at the
Congressional level the Women and Safe Families Act would have
provided had it been approved, are very worthy of the
legislature's consideration. He pointed out that in the last 25
years there have a number of studies from various commissions,
boards, and entities that have all essentially pointed to the
same thing - if Alaska had more culturally sensitive law
enforcement measures at the village level, that in looking
through the eyes of reformative justice created not only just
the offenders but also the victims and community itself. In
that manner, recidivism could be brought down and reduce the
high percentage of young Alaska Native males that enter into
Alaska's criminal justice system. He suggested that at the
misdemeanor level with minor offenses and then graduate up into
felony offenses that end up populating the Department of
Corrections (DOC) primarily at the rate of $158 per day or
almost $60 thousand a year.
1:09:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON explained that the two resolutions have a
lot of merit in promoting criminal justice measures at the
tribal level in small Alaskan communities. He further explained
that in downsizing state government to offer Alaskan tribes a
greater role in misdemeanor cases and minor offenses at the
local level, the legislature can reduce the amount of outflow of
villages into the criminal justice arena. He noted that at the
same time save the State of Alaska money and help to get rural
Alaska directly on the pathway to reformative justice. He said
it includes rural Alaska and the rest of the state
notwithstanding.
1:10:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether these resolutions relate to
two separate systems of justice, one for Alaska Natives and one
for everyone else.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that the resolutions are non-
binding, and that HCR 1 calls for better communication and
recognition between the state agencies and the tribal entities
that are providing "circle sentencing" or tribal court services
at the local tribal community level. He stated that in no
manner do the resolutions suggest that tribal court services
associate itself with felony offenses, of which are under the
purview of the Alaska State Troopers and the law of the land.
He suggested that tribes be active in terms of more minor
offenses at the community level. He remarked that CSHCR 1, asks
that the state take engaging state agencies in working with the
tribes on a community-by-community basis to have a better
relationship and recognition. Possibly, he related, some of the
minor offenses could be dealt with in a culturally sensitive
manner in the local village that arrests certain behavior. He
used the example of the 14-year old young man in Togiak who shot
a dog and was deported almost immediately to the McLaughlin
Youth Center Facility. Subsequently, he offered, six weeks
later the boy was allowed to go home. Fortunately, that
individual did not go down the pathway of the "broken window
theory" of engaging in a more serious offenses only to become a
felon in the criminal justice system doing no one any good and
costing the state a lot of money. He said the two resolutions
entertain a better dialogue for better communication between
Alaska tribes and state agencies and that possibly at the
Congressional level there could be a bill similar to the bill
offered a couple of years ago that provided for recognition of
more criminal jurisdiction for Alaska tribes. He said the
resolutions are not providing answers or saying that they
provide the framework that might be in place between DOC or the
Department of Public Safety and a local village. He reiterated
that the resolutions encourage the Department of Public Safety
to work more closely with local villages to employ measures
regarding minor offenses that could be dealt with at the local
tribal level.
1:14:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to the sponsor's comments regarding
tribal government and asked whether he meant the city councils
in various villages.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that Alaska has 229 federally
recognized tribes which is approximately 40 percent of all of
the tribes in the United States. He related that these tribes
function at various levels as some have active tribal courts,
some are just forming tribal courts, and some have no tribal
courts at all. He explained that communities like Kake, and
other communities with more active tribal courts, have seen
positive results in the engagement of local tribal entities
regarding misdemeanor and minor offenses which do not involve
felonies.
1:15:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to non-Natives living in primarily
Native areas and asked about cultural sensitivity for them. He
further asked if non-Natives are subject to the tribal
government.
HCR 1-GOVERNOR: TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND JURIS.
1:15:41 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX directed the committee's attention to HOUSE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1, Urging the Governor to acknowledge
officially the sovereignty of Alaska tribal governments, to
create clear and consistent policies for increased state
collaboration and partnership with tribes, and to direct the
attorney general to conduct a complete review of the state's
litigation against Alaska Native tribes; urging the Governor to
acknowledge the inherent criminal jurisdiction of Alaska tribal
governments over tribal members within the boundaries of their
villages; urging the Governor to cooperate with tribes' efforts
to transfer Native land to trust; and urging the Governor to
support multilateral negotiations between tribal governments,
nontribal municipalities, and the state government to delineate
clearly tribal geographical jurisdictions.
1:15:47 PM
TIM CLARK, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon, Alaska State
Legislature, said that everything HCR 1 would ask of the
governor would depend upon the state government specifically
negotiating agreements with tribes to go over every detail of
what the tribal jurisdiction would be, including what crimes.
He remarked that most likely these agreements would have an
actual laundry list of various misdemeanors and other crimes
that the state would agree to for greater tribal authority.
Also, he explained, the agreements would include clear
statements that the state would retain concurrent jurisdiction.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that Anchorage is probably the
largest Native village in Alaska and questioned how this would
affect the Natives living in Anchorage.
MR. CLARK replied that as the sponsor envisions it, the
resolution would not have a great effect on the Native
population in Anchorage. He pointed out that the resolution is
completely focused on Alaska Native villages and remote
communities. In those areas, he remarked, the resolution is
important regarding increasing their well-being, authority,
responsibility, accountability, and capacity. The above would
help them in dealing with not only some civil criminal
jurisdiction at the local level, but also to have their court
systems and institutions brought up to a level that can
effectively deal with crime committed within the community
borders, he stated.
1:18:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked for the definition of the
sovereignty of Alaska tribes in the title of the resolution. He
pointed out that the dictionary definition is "governing without
interference."
MR. CLARK said the resolutions in their current form, having
emerged from the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee, no longer touch on specific concepts of tribal
sovereignty. He noted that the resolutions simply depend upon
the state making very detailed specific agreements with tribal
communities over an increase of their capacity to deliver
justice at the local level.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER surmised that the title is in error.
MR. CLARK responded that the title is an artifact from the first
original versions of the [resolution] that did go into matters
of tribal sovereignty. In fact, he stated, the sponsor has been
in discussions with the Legislative Legal and Research Services
attorneys and the Revisor who writes the short titles. He
advised that the Revisor cannot change the title to reflect the
resolution more accurately until it passes one body of the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that Mr. Clark repeat what he
said previously.
MR. CLARK reiterated that in discussion with the Revisor it was
his view that it was highly unusual to change the short title of
the bill before it passed one body of the legislature.
1:21:39 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX advised the resolutions are not passing out of
committee so the issue can be reviewed.
1:21:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he would like to build context for
his next question and referred to the WHEREAS [on page 1, lines
12-14], in which discusses the crisis at hand in dealing with
poverty, lack of economic opportunity, alcoholism, drug abuse,
domestic violence, and sexual assault. He opined that he has a
hard time understanding how the resolution would address those
issues. On the other hand, the message is consistent through
the resolution that the answer is in local enforcement and local
justice, he pointed out. He offered that local enforcement and
local justice is important rather than just to have federal
justice and federal enforcement, which would be a terrible
situation for Alaskans. He reiterated that he understands the
concerns but does not understand how the connection to a tribal
government would address the issues any better than ... the
constitution and local control is very specific in Article X,
Section 2, which read:
Sec. 2. All local government powers shall be vested
in boroughs and cities. The State may delegate taxing
powers to organized boroughs and cities only.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER continued that he believes in giving some
justice responsibility to the boroughs and setting the
equivalent of county courts to work on borough enforcement in
policing. He questioned whether the sponsor had considered
going that route as legislatively it could be accomplished by
enhancing borough courts.
MR. CLARK described the resolutions as a more direct approach
wherein the issue of attempts to alleviate crime and social ills
in remote communities has been discussed for decades. Often, he
explained, what has been identified as a contributing factor is
a kind of distance delivery of justice to these communities. He
said he does not mean only federal law enforcement, but state
law enforcement as well. Unfortunately, he stated, the state
has struggled to place law enforcement officers actually in
remote villages within boroughs, incorporated small cities, and
dozens and dozens of villages that exist in the unincorporated
borough. He described the resolutions as steps currently within
the authority of the administration to turn over certain
responsibilities to these local communities when it comes to
minor crimes, but serious crimes nonetheless. It could be
accomplished in the above manner, rather than looking on the
general well-being and peace in their towns through the
responsibility of a trooper who might be 200-300 miles away.
The communities can look upon themselves and their neighbors to
be more engaged in helping to improve community well-being. He
noted there have been commissions after commissions assigned to
review these issues over the years and almost everyone on those
commissions agreed that when greater control is allowed with
increased accountability at the local level the results would be
a swifter response to violence and criminal activity, increased
crime prevention, and increased rehabilitation rather than
punitive sentencing models. He expressed that these allowances
which could help stop certain individuals from entering into a
long career of trouble.
1:26:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he is not looking for a response from
Mr. Clark but wanted his question clear on the record. He
pointed out that all of the reports the legislature has seen
enhance and point out the need for local control, quick
response, and local enforcement. His stated that his concern is
whether the sponsor has pursued the avenue available under the
Alaska Constitution, which is to organize as a borough and
municipality and go through the legislature to increase local
control that way, rather than coming at it through the
resolution.
MR. CLARK answered that the sponsor will look into his
suggestion as a possible avenue.
1:28:12 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked for clarification regarding the title and the
term sovereignty. She advised that while reviewing HCR 1 she
noticed a different title than in CSHCR 1, and pointed out that
the new title does not include the term sovereignty.
MR. CLARK said he does not have the short title in front of him,
but knows he was able to persuade the Revisor to change one but
not the other. The revisor's argument for changing one was that
the word sovereignty did not exist in any place in the original
resolution.
CHAIR LEDOUX said that issue can be researched.
1:29:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked whether essentially the resolution
is adding a tool to the toolbox as it is not mandating that
communities accept tribal enforcement. He noted that within his
district, there are many communities with city governments and
sometimes there are villages that do not hold elections and do
not have a city government. He described them as non-
functioning possibly because they forgot to have their election.
He pointed out that there are situations where tribal
communities do have their act together and are functioning and
surmised that for the communities desiring tribal enforcement
the option is there.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated that Representative Foster's
description is a fair characterization the resolutions. He said
he advocates a "go slow" approach, increasing the dialogue
between CSHCR 1 and state agencies with the particular
communities in question. He surmised the exchange would be on
an individual basis, similar to legislation passed last year
regarding Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs), as it is at
the discretion of the various parties involved. He agreed that
some communities will be better prepared to have tribal court
activities while others may not have a tribal court at all. He
offered his understanding that there are approximately 100
tribal courts scattered around the state and some function
regularly. He remarked it is important that any increased
tribal activity take place clearly, with the best interests of
the individual community, and its leadership taking the lead.
1:33:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN quiered whether it is the sponsor's
general expectation this might strictly relate to members of the
tribe that are participating in any kind of a tribal court
system. He surmised it would not apply to an individual who was
not a member of the tribe. In addition, he noted, even for
those that were members of the tribe it would only apply if they
had agreed to be subject to that jurisdiction. Essentially, he
pointed out, it would not replace state jurisdiction and by
voluntary agreement a member of the tribe could agree to proceed
before the tribal court through that voluntary agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON replied it was a fair way to describe it
as there are smaller villages which are comprised of 100 percent
tribal members. He further replied there are some medium size
villages with a broader mix of tribal and non-tribal members,
but the individual circumstances would dictate the relationship
between the particular state agency and the individual
community.
1:34:42 PM
MR. CLARK offered that CSHCR 1 makes reference to a civil
diversion agreement. He advised that late in Governor Sean
Parnell's administration, the Department of Law (DOL) was
involved with the negotiation of civil diversion agreements with
the Tanana Chiefs Conference as well as other tribal
associations and entities. He opined that they never reached an
agreement but did go some distance so that someone arrested by
an Alaska State Trooper or VPSO would be given the option of
his/her situation either diverted to the tribe and their
authorities, or to continue through the state criminal justice
system. He noted there are all sorts of ways these questions
can be addressed, but to date he has not heard that the state is
entertaining any requirement that a non-tribal member would be
subject to the tribal justice system.
CHAIR LEDOUX reiterated that when a person is not subjected to
it unless they agreed. She offered a situation in a small
village where a non-tribal member is living, and questioned why
the sponsor would not want to give that person the option of
going through the system also.
MR. CLARK answered that a draft diversion agreement he reviewed
was in fact that case. Members of the community, both tribal
and non-tribal, would have recourse to the tribal justice system
if a state agreement were in place and a non-tribal member could
also make that choice, he remarked.
1:37:25 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX stated that the details are not ironed out because
as she understands CSHCR 1, it is basically saying that local
control is the best way to go. She suggested that local control
in many of the communities are tribes, and to let the governor
and the tribes work something out.
MR. CLARK responded "That is exactly right." The sponsor is
simply advocating for this approach to seek more deliberative
justice, more capacity, and institution building and more
responsibility, and accountability at the local level.
1:38:17 PM
MR. CLARK continued with his presentation and stated the
resolution is designed to mark the state's willingness to work
together with Alaska Native tribes on methods to alleviate crime
and social ills in their communities. He described the
resolution as encouraging the governor to establish clear
policies across state agencies for increased collaboration and
partnership with tribes as there is a room for a great deal of
improvement in terms of working together on these issues. The
resolution encourages the governor to negotiate agreements with
Alaska Native tribes that would increase their authority,
responsibility, and capacity to enforce laws and deliver justice
at the local level. He referred to [page 3, lines 15-17] that
ask the governor to conduct a complete review of the state's
litigation against tribes, which to some extent is underway. It
is the sponsor's feeling that in the event the state does turn
in a more collaborative posture with tribes that some of the
litigation underway would not be necessary. Similar to the
other measures, this could save the state money in times when
the treasury is a bit distressed.
1:40:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he is interested in what category of
litigation would not be pursued with a more collaborative
approach. He reiterated Article X of the Alaska State
Constitution in which there sections addressing the problem. He
pointed out that one of them is the home rule power option where
an organized borough can form a home rule charter for a borough
under the guidance of law to set that up. He advised this
statement is in [Article X], Section 11, which read:
Sec. 11. A home rule borough or city may exercise all
legislative powers not prohibited by law or by
charter.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER continued that the section goes a long way
toward sovereignty, and noted it is an option. He reiterated
whether the sponsor had considered that avenue.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that the harsh reality in
greater rural Alaska is that in roughly 10 years Alaska has
increased state agency spending by 105 percent. He explained
that there are 75 communities without VPSOs, and the Alaska
State Troopers are stretched far too thin. The Department of
Public Safety budget caps the amount of money going into the
VPSO program by taking 6 VPSO oversight troopers and exchanging
them for general troopers who will provide some of those duties.
He expressed that the resources are not there to effectively
perform the law enforcement services required. He contemplated
that he does not see some of the poor areas forming into a
borough as the areas must have the will to become a borough, and
have the financial viability to get something through the local
boundary commission to actually form a borough. He opined that
many small remote communities with infrequent, if not any at
all, law enforcement presence are fending for themselves in many
respects. He reiterated that both resolutions are discussing
minor offenses and in moving forward, he does not see a better
solution in the small communities than tribal courts being more
present.
1:44:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out that if a borough incorporates
it has the power to tax the borough land. He opined that
Representative Edgmon's argument is increased accountability and
responsibility for people in a local community and stated that
he believes that is the spirit of the Alaska State Constitution
and would like the opportunity to purse the options.
1:45:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked DOL's general impression of the
legislature telling DOL to review its court cases. He further
stated that in his dealing with DOL he would think there may be
resistance from them and asked if DOL had reviewed court cases
and found some to be inappropriate.
1:45:57 PM
MARY LUNDQUIST, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Opinions,
Appeals & Ethics Section, Civil Division, Department of Law,
said that currently the attorney general is going through a
process of reviewing litigation with tribes and that it is an
ongoing process. She stated she does not think the legislature
urging the governor and attorney general to engage in that
process would be taken the wrong way because it is currently
underway.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER questioned whether during the review
process DOL had found certain litigation inappropriate.
MS. LUNDQUIST responded that she is not personally involved in
the ongoing review process and may not be the best person to
answer the question. She opined that largely the litigation
between the tribes and the state is a fundamental dispute about
the relative jurisdiction of the state and tribes. The issue of
whether some cases may fall to the wayside based on a more
collaborative relationship is entirely possible, but she is not
aware of any specific cases, she advised.
1:47:26 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned in the event unorganized boroughs were
to get organized whether that would mean they would have a
separate system to form courts. She asked what powers boroughs
have as far as courts and law enforcement.
MS. LUNQUIST replied that she is not intimately familiar with
the workings of municipalities, but opined that the Anchorage
Municipality does have a court function. She said she would
have to look carefully at that question as they could certainly
develop their own ... a city can develop their own enforcement
system for their criminal laws. She related that incorporating
boroughs would be able to do some of the activities being
encouraged by the tribes under the resolution.
1:49:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered that he recognized Representative
Edgmon's comments about small size, poverty, and challenges in
many of the villages during these budget times. He opined that
the reality has been that many villages are too small to have a
VPSO, and that he believes the legislature is scaling back the
VPSO program further under the current budget. The tribes
continue to play a significant role in those communities at
levels at which the committee does not fully understand. He
noted that the idea of getting more integrated is a positive
effort and he does not see this as a challenge to state
sovereignty as it is working with the state. He questioned Ms.
Lundquist regarding the power of municipal governments to create
their own courts, particularly on criminal matters. He then
referred to Article IV, Section 1 of the Alaska State
Constitution, which read:
Section 1. The judicial power of the State is vested
in a supreme court, a superior court, and the courts
established by the legislature. The jurisdiction of
courts shall be prescribed by law. The courts shall
constitute a unified judicial system for operation and
administration. Judicial districts shall be
established by law.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN continued that there is a specific
reference that the courts shall constitute a unified judicial
system for operation and administration. He opined that within
Alaska that part of the unified court system is in order that
municipalities to have prosecutorial authority. In that manner,
municipalities still have to go to state courts with its cases
so there is only one justice in the state. He requested Ms.
Lundquist's thoughts regarding municipalities creating its own
court system in light of the constitutional provision regarding
a unified judicial system.
1:51:09 PM
MS. LUNDQUIST reiterated that she is not intimately familiar
with municipal laws and noted the provision in the constitution
requiring a unified judicial system. She related that at least
some of the prosecutorial authority would lay in municipalities
and stated she could research this issue for the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered that in the event she has a basis
for believing a municipality or city has the authority to create
their own court system separate from the unified court system,
he would like to see the research. He reiterated that they can
exercise prosecutorial functions, but not court functions.
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony.
1:52:26 PM
MARY BISHOP, referred to a document entitled What Does Indian
Country Really Mean in Alaska, within the committee packets.
She said she will support HCR 1 if it is amended, and opposes
HJR 3 which puts the legislation into the February realm and she
prefers to go slow. She opined that Alaska can through lack of
vigilant (indisc.) can unintentionally unravel the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and that fortunately over the last
few decades many efforts have been unsuccessful. The first
versions of the two resolutions asked for support of moving land
into trust status. She noted that many people think that Alaska
cannot have Indian Country under the Alaska v. Native Village of
Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 520 (1998), decision in
which the United States Supreme Court said no Indian Country
existed in Alaska. She stated that it can through a different
legal method (indisc.) The state was brought into a lawsuit
Akiachak Native Community v. Department of the Interior, No.
1:06-cv-00969 (RC), 2014 WL 2885910 (D.D.C.), which describes
its distinct potential for unravelling ANCSA and establishing
Indian Country. She said Attorney General Richards received an
extension until mid-July to either file the state's brief in
opposition, choose the option to drop the case entirely, or
address the issue through Congressional action. She explained
that the case allows placing Alaskan tribal lands into federal
Indian Country status, free of state taxation and regulation.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether Ms. Bishop was reviewing version E,
as some of Ms. Bishop's comments may be addressed to the
original version of the resolution as opposed to version E which
is a much more limited form than previously.
1:57:27 PM
MS. BISHOP said "That's true," and she pointed out that Alaska
can still get Indian Country if it is not careful in how the
legislature addresses the resolution. For example, she stated,
the resolution encourages the committee to look at the
reservation, but also includes a RESOLVE that opposes
establishment of trust lands in Indian Country. She opined that
it should address state action and not federal action regarding
the crucial issues of rural justice. She referred to the
[3/13/15 testimony to the House Judiciary Standing Committee]
presentation of Sam Gottstein, and was pleased that she did not
hear about the need to move tribal lands into federal trust.
Instead, she advised, she heard an advocacy to work with methods
probably now available in the state, thereby, avoiding the
federal government and the United States Department of Interior.
She quoted from Mr. Gottstein's paper, "The State of Alaska is
better positioned to find a long-term and meaningful solution to
Alaska Native tribal jurisdictional issues than Congress."
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that the committee is in public
testimony with respect to CSHCR 1, which does not deal with
Congress at all.
1:59:40 PM
MS. BISHOP said she agrees with Mr. Gottstein in that he
emphasized that it can be done through the state and not through
the federal government. She stated that is consistent with the
press release by former Attorney General Michael Geraghty where
he describes an agreement between the state and the tribes
allowing, in certain cases, "tribal civil remedies in lieu of
state criminal prosecution." She opined this would perhaps meet
the concerns expressed by Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justice
[Dana Fabe as relayed in the Gottstein paper].
CHAIR LEDOUX advised Ms. Bishop that public testimony is limited
to three minutes and her testimony had gone significantly over
that limit.
MS. BISHOP reiterated that she encourages the committee to go
slow, pass an amendment to HCR 1, and reject HJR 3.
2:02:01 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
further wished to testify.
2:02:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that his questions need not be
answered at this time, but noted that the resolution appears to
be asking action by the governor and quiered why this method was
chosen.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON referred to the comment about going slow
with the resolutions and opined that these resolutions speak to
encouraging a process that is underway as the Alaska Supreme
Court is moving forward on a number of items CSHCR 1 would
promote. He remarked that the resolution is saying it is
appropriate for state agencies now to begin working more
directly with tribes on an individual basis. He further
remarked that as research continued they did not find any one
statute they could put anywhere ... create any kind of iron clad
requirements or "must haves" or any requirements that would move
this dialogue further along. In that regard, he pointed out
that it is more appropriate to have the resolution and receive
approval of the legislature and lend gravitas to that discussion
that for all intents and purposes is going to take place whether
these resolutions get passed or not.
2:05:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related that other things to consider
are whether the current administration would be interested, by
executive order, and possibly some departmental realignment to
assist in this process.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON opined that he can't speak for Governor
Bill Walker's administration. He paraphrased what has been
described as not only their support, but also for approaching it
judiciously in knowing that Alaska tribes are being dealt with
involving landscape jurisdictional issues, authority of tribes,
and building relationships between the state and tribal
entities.
2:06:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to CSHCR 1, page 1, lines 12-
14, where suicide was specifically mentioned and asked if the
sponsor would consider a friendly amendment to include the word
"suicide" within page 1, lines 12-14.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that the amendment was an
acceptable addition to the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 2, lines 3-4, and
requested the actual figures regarding the words "dramatically
higher."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then referred in general to "resolves"
and mentioned it could be of assistance to ask the governor or
attorney general to report back to the legislature as to whether
the sponsor's suggestions were accomplished.
CHAIR LEDOUX advised Representative Gruenberg that she is
keeping questions regarding the two resolutions separate.
CHAIR LEDOUX held CSHCR 1 in committee.