Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/15/2017 10:00 AM 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 | |
| HB13 | |
| HB200 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 13-NO ST. FUNDS FOR FEDERAL REGISTRY
5:2:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 13, "An Act prohibiting the expenditure of state
or municipal assets to create a registry based on race or
religion."
5:12:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, advised
that this bill arose from a series of statements made by the
national administration before the national election, after the
national election, and after the inauguration. Essentially, he
explained, Title 44.99, is called "Miscellaneous Laws" and this
bill adds a prohibition to spending state assets by aiding
federal agency in creating registries based on race, religion,
ethnicity, or national origin. It is noteworthy, he related,
that the section falls under "other prohibitions on uses of
state assets," such as aiding the federal government in any
infringement of Alaskan's Second Amendment rights to keep and
bear arms and due process rights. He suggested that this
legislation be viewed as a civil liberties and anti-federal
overreach provision.
5:14:40 PM
PAUL KELLY, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that HB 13 prevents state and municipal
resources from being spent in order to violate the privacy of
Alaskan residents on issues that should not be of public
interest, including race, religion, ethnicity, and national
origin. This bill is a preventative measure meant to stop an
injustice before it happens and, he commented that it should
save money for the state and its municipalities while securing
liberties that should be protected by state and federal
constitutions. He referred to Korematsu v. United States, [323
U.S. 214 (1944) contained within the committee packet], and
explained that Fred Korematsu was an American citizen of
Japanese ancestry who went into hiding rather than submit to
Japanese internment camps required by the Department of the Army
during World War II. Mr. Korematsu was arrested and he then
took his case all the way up to the United States Supreme Court
which, in the end, ruled against him. He surmised that many
people regard this as one of the worst decisions of the United
States Supreme Court, and it proved that the justice system is
rarely expedient when rights are violated, and that justice is
not always guaranteed in the end. Mr. Korematsu spent more than
three years in custody until he and his family were released at
the end of the war.
MR. KELLY advised that the state stands to save money with this
legislation, there is a zero fiscal note, and this bill prevents
unfunded mandates of the federal government from consuming state
and municipalities resources. Another reason to support the
bill, he related, is to protect the liberty of constituents
because they may arrive from the Philippines, Canada, Mexico,
Europe, Russia, Japan, and Viet Nam, and Alaska's residents hold
privacy and other constitutional rights sacred. In summary, he
said, this bill is about the following: prohibiting the state or
its municipality from using its assets to create a registry
based on race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin; it
spares Alaskans the expense, hassle, and uncertainty, of using
the courts to defend their rights; it saves Alaska's state and
municipalities resources that would be used to support an
unfunded mandate; and it reduces government intrusion.
5:18:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that the school districts must have
some sort of records as to who speaks what language, and while
the records are not necessarily based on race, religion,
ethnicity, or national origin, they may be based simply on
language, which offers a good idea of the student's origin. She
asked how that interplays with this legislation.
MR. KELLEY responded that this legislation addresses federal
mandates, and Legislative Legal and Research Services found that
although this information is sometimes collected within state
and municipal agencies, it is never published other than in its
aggregate form, such as a percentage of different races,
ethnicities, religions, or national origins, in a statistical
sense.
5:20:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to Mr. Kelly's statement that
"it's never published" and asked whether the school district has
the information.
MR. KELLEY replied that he was unsure exactly what information
the school districts keep, but if the issue is the importance of
what language someone speaks, it would not be necessary to know
where they come from, simply the language they speak.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed that the language someone speaks
is probably a pretty good indication of their origin.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON explained that the research request
included advising of the "benign registries" made currently, and
Legislative Legal and Research Services reported that the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) does gather some
of that information, and this bill does not allow Alaska's own
assets to be used when there is a federal imposition for a
registry request based solely on race and religion alone. The
concern, he said, was that the administration wanted a list of
Muslim Americans and Hispanic Americans, and this bill is
actually a response to those race based registries.
5:22:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that it appears from Representative
Josephson's testimony that this only relates to a federal order
and asked why he wouldn't want to craft it so that if someone
had this idea to do it in Alaska, such as the mayor of Anchorage
or governor of Alaska, the bill doesn't prohibit them from
creating those lists as long as it's not related to a federal
mandate. She opined that California Governor Earl Warren,
before he became the darling of the liberals as the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, was "kind of a racist" with
respect to the Japanese citizens.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to an article from The Hill
magazine published two months ago, and the Ambassador to the
United Nations, Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina,
repudiated the idea of a registry. Although, he noted, when
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was asked about it, Mr.
Tillerson said that while he ruled out a blanket ban on Muslim
immigration to America, he would need more information before
deciding whether to support a registry of Muslims.
Representative Josephson said he would have the same concern
about the mayor of Anchorage or the governor of Alaska if they
had made statements in that manner, but they haven't. Given
that section the legislation was applied was about federal
overreach, he said the concern was with the federal government's
request for registry.
5:24:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP related that he certainly agrees with the
spirit of the legislation, yet commented that this is more
difficult than it appears because the state takes federal money
in its education system and justice system, and both the
Department of Corrections (DOC) and Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED) have exhaustive lists on these issues.
He advised that DOC can produce printouts on pretty much
everything this bill tells them not to do, and he would be
interested to know whether that is required as part of the
federal penal system or receiving federal funding. He pointed
out that in the state's education system, when applying for a
student loan or graduate school, a person fills out all these
blanks and some of it is to determine what kind of funding the
person was eligible, and if they fit into a minority status it
can actually open up doors, so they are not all nefarious
reasons. In the legislature's fervor to do good, he said he
wanted to be sure it didn't accidentally cross over into doing
something harmful due to the federal nexus to state funding type
issues.
5:25:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted that although constituents have
said they would not support, for example, the efforts of
immigration and customs to perform a "roundup," he did not want
to get into those issues because there could be circumstances to
support a roundup of someone who was dangerous. He pointed out
that the focus in this legislation was on any federal effort to
say, "This registration is based on this and this alone." He
referred to a report by Tim Spangler, [Legislative Legal and
Research Services, contained within the committee packets], who
found no evidence that anything was done in isolation just
because of one's race or religion, and that no one cared to have
that data in isolation with no other purpose. For example, he
related, it is a known fact that someone of a particular race
may be medically predisposed to a certain disease, which may be
a relevant area of race data. Certainly, he said, there is a
lot of data on race, but not solely on race or religion and that
is what this bill targets.
5:27:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the definition of a registry is "a
place or an office where registers or records are kept," and she
thought this may be the vehicle to get rid of the massive
unconstitutional databases kept on students, families, and
teachers within Alaska's schools, and asked the goal of the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that the goal was partly
preventative, and partly to note that this is a historical
moment, and that the people of Alaska would not tolerate the
registry of individuals for the reasons alone that they are of
that race or religion, and not for benign reasons.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON suggested adding the word "solely" to
the following language as a friendly amendment on CSHB 13(STA),
Version O, [AS 44.99.040(a)((1)(C), page 1, line 14 and page 2,
line 1,] to read as follows:
(C) create a registry [solely] based on
race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin; or
5:29:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that "it's cool" to go back and
look at the contributions of African Americans and the building
of the Alaskan Highway, and offered that she could probably list
a dozen of special days based on a specific race Alaska has
celebrated, such as Black History Month. She asked whether this
bill has anything to do with public safety because this is
probably the biggest repeal of state government of any bill she
had ever seen, and asked whether the ultimate goal was to have
no registries. She then referred to the Pioneer Homes where
staff enters the race and religion of new residents into the
database due to various reasons. She again asked the goal of
the bill.
5:31:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN intervened and advised Representative Reinbold that
Representative Josephson had previously answered her question,
which is that it is not to have a registry, it is only a
registry where the specific order from the president or federal
government is, "Thou shalt create a registry of ethnicity." He
explained that creating that registry is different from keeping
track of ethnicity or different features regarding students in
school because that order is that if Alaska is going to get
federal funds for schools, it must keep this certain amount of
data in exchange for receiving federal funds. This bill, as
Representative Josephson testified, is strictly, if an order
comes down from the federal government saying "Thou shalt create
a registry of these people" this bill addresses that situation
only, and it does not go more broadly. He said that
Representative Josephson was not looking at wiping out every
registry.
5:32:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON remarked that Chair Claman was
precisely correct. Legislative Legal and Research Services
research found that none of the entities it quiered reported
that they desegregate the data in a manner that would identify
people based on race, ethnicity, religion, or country of origin
of individuals. Basically, he explained, that means no one is
gathering this data just to say "Here's a list of people from
Syria that live in Alaska." He referred to the celebration of
Black History Month, and offered that it would be an odd thing
for the federal government to say, that before the nation could
celebrate Black History Month it needed every African American
to enter their names on a registry. He stressed that that is
what he is trying to avoid.
5:33:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered a scenario that the federal
government could decide that a person from Syria or wherever,
may cause a health concern. Also, she said, "ANSWERS" was a
federal mandate so "you can't have a double standard here" where
the federal government wanted ANSWERS to collect a tremendous
amount of data on Alaska's students, which is a registry. She
offered that it appears to be a double standard that if the
federal government is going to ask Alaska for people who may
have originated from a certain place or religion, it probably is
for a public safety, health concern, or potentially a public
threat of some antagonists in another country such as ISIS. She
asked what Representative Josephson thought "if it's a public
safety concern to people, which is a specific group of specific
origin, and possibly even a specific religion where they are
following the laws of their country and trying to impose them
over here." In the event it is a public safety concern, she
asked whether that weighs into the ability to have some sort of
information for public safety and homeland security.
5:35:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that the federal government,
no doubt does that, and he is glad to some degree that the
federal government knows where people are traveling which is
legitimate state and national security interest. Except, he
reiterated, this bill reads that Alaska does not need to
participate when it is solely based on race with no other
putative or obvious reason. Research found that juvenile
justice and public assistance have records on race, but it was
always linked to some other public governmental policy purpose
and it was not just a naked, "We want a list of Muslims and, we,
the federal government, insist on it, and please give us that
list." He pointed out that this bill should not be described as
alarmist because the national administration, although it had
been tamped down a little bit lately, said that, indeed, it does
intend to do these things. He explained that part of the goal
is that when future generations look back on the Thirtieth
Alaska State Legislature and see that the legislature caught a
Korematsu situation, that it made a statement, and that it did
something about the Korematsu situation.
5:36:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said Representative Josephson made a
distinction as to whether it's the sole purpose of anyone of
these individual categories, but it seems like the distinction
is "too easy of being evaded." For example, he could have a
database of religion except not for the sake of religion because
that would be a violation. Rather, he decided that he would
have a category of religion because he wanted to study minority
religions, and find ways to promoting the fact that are not many
minority religions. Thereby, giving distinction to some kind of
recognition, and whether with that type of add on would satisfy
Representative Josephson's sole reason for prohibition.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that these are the kinds of
tests courts engage in frequently and are skilled in knowing
whether something is pretextual or legitimate. Presumably, he
said, a court would apply a test to something like that and
reach a conclusion as to whether the interest was legitimate or
pretextual.
5:38:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he understands that a court would
try to identify the intent, but he was specifically asking the
sponsor how that scenario lines up with his intent for how the
bill would be used. He asked whether he would find it to be
legitimate or a subterfuge.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON commented that it would depend on the
facts and the circumstances, and said he didn't want to muddy
the water too much but that he had spent a fair amount of time
looking at school prayer litigation, and referred to Wallace v.
Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985). For example, he offered, if there
was a moment of silence legislation, [he would consider] what
was said in committee, and whether this was really about a
prayer in public school. Given that the court had previously
said that was a violation of the separation of church and state,
the court would look to see whether there was something
pretextual or whether it was just meant to be meditative and
truly a moment of silence. He explained that the intention of
this bill is to preclude these registries based solely on race,
religion, ethnicity, and national origin, with no obvious other
reason that is apparent in the administrative order, the
executive order, or the law.
5:40:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that basically the committee was
reading into this now, even though no member had offered an
amendment, that it would be based solely on race, religion,
ethnicity, or national origin. She offered a scenario of the
federal government's concern regarding the great deal of
terrorism involving Muslim Americans and, as a matter of
national security, it would keep a registry. Under this bill,
she remarked, that would be something the government could still
order so what was the purpose of the bill.
5:41:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that Alaska obviously cannot
stop the federal government from doing anything, but Alaska
could watch the federal government and someone could intervene
by seeking an injunction stating that the federal government was
painting every Muslim in Alaska with the same brush, and it was
against the law in Alaska [in the event this bill is enacted
into law]. Or perhaps, people would cower in the same manner as
when Japanese Americans were rounded up by not responding. He
pointed to the "very poignant bench" in Pocket Park, next to the
Terry Miller Building, which expresses shame for the fact that
the citizens of Juneau watched this happen, but he acknowledged
that perhaps there was nothing they could do about it. The
bench was designed to mark that sort of concern. He expressed
that the federal government could do something, but it doesn't
mean that Alaskans must follow.
5:42:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that she hates to sound
politically incorrect, but she pointed to "national origin" and
offered a scenario of this country being at war with another
country. Mr. Korimatsu was an American citizen and this doesn't
just apply to American citizens, and she offered her belief that
it might be relevant when at war with another nation to know
where those people live in America.
MR. KELLEY replied that nothing in this bill prevents Alaska
from aiding in keeping track of the nation's citizenship, but
national origin is the issue. For example, Mr. Korimatsu was an
American citizen and probably shouldn't have been considered a
threat, but there would be no record that he was of Japanese
ancestry.
5:43:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether Representative Josephson
has any problem with the federal government using state or local
resources to track groups such as ISIS.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that he does want ISIS
tracked and has no problem with that.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD described the state's most important
mandate as public safety, and the delicate balance in privacy
rights and public safety, and that she understands the
government's need to know the perpetrators and the targets.
World history has shown religions persecuted in the past, such
as the Jewish religion or Christians, and if religions are being
persecuted, possibly by another religion, the important concept
is where the government intervenes to put public protections in
place. Possibly, she said, the government would want to know
who was a Christian if they were receiving immense attacks, such
as in India.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON related that he didn't have a comment.
5:47:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 13.
5:47:32 PM
KAYLA EPSTEIN, advised she was speaking for herself and she
supports the bill. She related that she is Jewish and is "very
sensitive" to the fact that it has never worked out to the
benefit of anyone to keep a list of someone by their religion.
She remarked that she has seen no evidence verifying that the
keeping of lists of persecuted people benefited those people in
any manner. Also, she pointed out that if a person was
Christian and worried about being persecuted, she has not seen
that a list would work to their advantage. At the time the
United States was at war with Italy, Japan, and Germany, the
plight of the Japanese people was clearly a matter of greed and
discrimination. At that time, the federal government had been
extremely careful watching these groups before the war, watching
organizations advocating the destruction of America, and were
well aware of the Italian, German, and the Japanese individuals
who posed a threat, and they were arrested. She explained that
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had been notified by the
military that the Japanese people were of no threat, except he
ignored that information due to the political pressure from, for
example, Governor Earl Warren of California, and proceeded to
allow Japanese people to be rounded up. She stated that she is
"totally in favor" of this bill.
5:49:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 13.
5:49:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised from Representative Josephson's
response to Representative LeDoux that he had decided not to put
the distinction of "citizenship" on the list.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON advised that he had said the national
government is free to do what it will, but that if the federal
government asked this state or its municipalities to use assets,
treasurer and human resources, to make such a list it would
violate this law if it passed. He described this law as a good
thing as a matter of principle.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he thought Representative Josephson
had made a distinction not to put citizenship on this list of
things that are not for the government's knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON replied that the word "citizenship" was
not considered and he was unaware whether it was an absence of
considering the word, or that a legitimate decision that
"citizenship" would not be included in the list. He opined that
it was the former, and he would have to give it some thought.
MR. KELLEY advised that the important aspect of this bill is not
tracking national origins. For example, with someone who is an
American citizen, there is no interest in knowing whether they
might be Muslim or from Syria. Although, he said, perhaps there
is an interest in knowing what citizenship someone holds when
they arrive in America. For example, a current Syrian citizen
in America on a visa, there may be the distinction that perhaps
there was a legitimate government interest in tracking their
citizenship, but not the national origin and especially not of
American citizens.
5:52:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered a situation where citizenship
information may not be available, what would be the procedure in
obtaining that information. He described that it is important
information to have, at least statistically, as there would be a
strong correlation between national origin and citizenship.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that fundamentally it is not
the job of a state to entertain such ideas. In the event the
federal government wanted to go house-by-house to see who should
or shouldn't be here, those actions would be a massive
historical chapter for which the federal government would have
to account. President Franklin D. Roosevelt is regarded broadly
as one of the better presidents, yet it is widely known that he
has a very black mark for his treatment of Japanese Americans.
He said, "And as you've noted in a letter to the floor about
Korimatsu being one of the worst decisions." Fundamentally, he
stated, Alaska does not have to be involved in deputizing in
order to gather that sort of information.
5:54:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that whether deputized or not,
citizenship is important to Alaska because its citizenship is
fundamental to its state election laws in order to identify
citizenship correctly.
5:54:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that people will not be able to
say "African American or Russian American or Greek American, or
whatever," that it's just going to be American if no resources
are allowed at the municipality or state level, and the state
wouldn't have knowledge of that information. She asked whether
that was Representative Josephson's understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said, "No." He explained that those
are terms in the nomenclature and each generation will have to
decide its comfort level with that sort of terminology. Also,
he pointed out that Representative was talking about how things
are spoken in the vernacular and that is not what this bill is
about.
5:55:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she would like to know the bottom
line of this bill, and also an explanation as to the language
"(REAL ID Act of 2005)" on page 2, line 2.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that the importance of the
reference to REAL ID Act is that it speaks to how "wonderfully
appropriate" this bill is placed in Title 44, because it is
about overreach. This legislation is akin to the REAL ID Act in
that it is designed to stop federal overreach.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON advised that the intent of this bill is
about the fact that it flies in the faces of our Founding
Fathers to require a list. For example, he advised, President
George Washington famously spoke at the Providence Rhode Island
Synagogue about the importance of Jewish Americans and how
welcomed they were as citizens of the country. President
Washington did not tell the Jewish American citizens to put
their names on a tracking list. This bill was designed, in
keeping with President Washington, to state there cannot be a
benign registry based solely on race, religion, ethnicity, or
national origin, and he stressed that almost by definition there
must be some ill motive that is an un-American motive.
5:57:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD described concern that the bill stripped
local control by telling municipalities that even if its
taxpayers wanted to spend money keeping track of an organization
such as ISIS, it could not. In addition, she said, she is
concerned that the state collects a tremendous amount of data,
and commented that any data can be used for good or evil. She
then asked whether Representative Josephson would allow a
friendly amendment that in the cases where Alaska's citizens
were at risk, if a list needed to be compiled to protect
Alaska's citizens, whether he would support the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered "No." First of all, he
explained, he is not on the committee and the committee can
amend this bill in any manner it prefers. Secondly, he pointed
out that he would not want local governments or factions to
decide to target a group based on religion because it was
"freaked out" about a certain group and felt it needed to
intervene. He described, that would be a blemish akin to what
President Roosevelt was stuck with for all time.
[HB 13 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB200 Draft Proposed CS ver U 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Sponsor Statement 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Explanation of Changes ver U 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Sectional Analysis ver U 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Bill Highlights 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Sectional Analysis ver O 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Supporting Document-Washington Supreme Court Ruling 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Supporting Documents-Top 2 Primary FAQs for Candidates - Elections & Voting - WA Secretary of State 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Additional Document-Top Two Primaries Nationally 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Supporting Document-Letters 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Additional Document-Legal Opinion 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Additional Document-Leg Research Report Voter Turnout 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Supporting Document-Additional Letters of Support 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Opposing Document-Letters of Opposition 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Opposing Document-Letter and Articles Kenneth Jacobus April 10th, 2017 4.15.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Opposing Document-Letter and Article Kenneth Jacobus April 11th, 2017 4.15.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Amendments #1-2 4.15.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Amendments #1-2 HJUD Final Votes 4.15.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB013 ver O 4.14.17.PDF |
HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 Sponsor Statement 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 Explanation of Changes 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 13 |
| HB13 Supporting Document - Timeline for Korematsu's Resolution 2.17.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 Supporting Document-Korematsu v US 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 Supporting Document-Research Document 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 HJUD PowerPoint Presentation 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 HJUD PowerPoint Presentation 4.14.17.pptx |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 Fiscal Note OOG-OMB 4.14.17.PDF |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 13 |