Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
03/01/2023 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 | |
| HB66 | |
| HB28 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 28-ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
2:00:41 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 28, "An Act restricting the release of certain
records of convictions; and providing for an effective date."
2:00:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY WRIGHT, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, provided introductory remarks on HB 28. He said the
bill was an important and necessary step to increasing
opportunities and reducing barriers for individuals who were
convicted of low-level cannabis possession. He noted that the
Alaska Court System had already initiated a process similar to
that of the proposed legislation. With the passage of HB 28, he
said, the ruling of the Alaska Court System would be protected
and codified.
2:02:07 PM
ALLAN RIORDIAN-RANDALL, Staff, Representative Stanley Wright,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Wright,
prime sponsor, paraphrased the sponsor statement [included in
the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Alaskans voted to legalize the cultivation, sale, and
possession and recreational use of marijuana for
persons 21 years of age or older in 2014. Despite this
change in state law, some Alaskans remain blocked from
employment and housing and other opportunities due to
previous marijuana possession convictions that today
are recognized as non-criminal activities.
House Bill 28 would make confidential the records of
individuals who were convicted of minor marijuana
crimes, were 21 years of age or older at the time of
the offense and were not charged with any other crimes
in the same incident. These records would
automatically be removed from Court View. The records
would also be removed from some background checks
administered by the Department of Public Safety, if
requested by the convicted individual.
According to figures provided by the Alaska Department
of Public Safety, not less than 8,000 Alaskans are
hindered in day to day life by marijuana convictions
that are eligible for the confidentiality protections
in this bill.
This bill would recategorize low level marijuana
offenses for individuals 18-21 years of age from Class
B misdemeanors to minor violations punishable by a
fine and eliminate unnecessary use of judiciary
resources for court hearings. It would also prohibit
the Alaska Court System from publishing records of
these violations on Court View, from the effective
date of the bill going forward.
With Alaskans having spoken by means of legalization
of marijuana this bill would allow those that by
todays standards would not be considered as a criminal
offender to move forward with their life without the
obstruction that can be incurred by such a conviction
on ones record while still allowing provisions for
adequate access to background or statistical
information for those appropriate agencies.
2:04:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT concluded by noting that the bill would
grant people who were being held back by a low-level infraction
the opportunity to reach their full potential. He conveyed that
[people who had been convicted of minor marijuana crimes] were
facing employment barriers, which inhibited them from taking
care of their families.
2:04:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked the sponsor to define "low level"
marijuana convictions and to elaborate on how that was holding
people back.
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT defined "low level" as infractions that
were legal today. He explained that the criminal records of
these violations on Court View were barring people from gaining
employment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked, "If it's personal use that's legal
in Alaska, would that be something that would be holding folks
back that could be expunged from their record but perhaps stay
on federally but it would allow them to get the jobs that they
deserve and they need?"
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT agreed. He said it was unfortunate that
people were "marked" for life for mistakes they made in their
past.
CHAIR VANCE commenced invited testimony.
2:06:21 PM
VITTORIO NASTASI, Director of Criminal Justice Policy, Reason
Foundation, stated that there was not a compelling public safety
interest in publicizing [on Court View] minor marijuana crime
convictions. He noted that the records in question would still
be accessible to law enforcement should HB 28 pass. He added
that the question at hand was whether to release those records
to the public upon request or in background checks for job
applications. He argued that releasing low level marijuana
possession conviction records could actually undermine public
safety by making it harder for people to engage in productive
activities such as securing housing, obtaining occupational
licenses, joining the military, gaining admission to
universities, accessing financial services, and maintaining
child custody. He reported that 90 percent of employers conduct
background checks on job applicants; further, applicants with a
criminal conviction were 50 percent less likely to receive a
call back. Furthermore, research indicated that employment and
community ties were important indicators in ceasing criminal
behavior. He summarized the bill, explaining that HB 28 sought
to address the problem by prohibiting agencies from releasing
criminal records related to cases in which the defendant was
convicted of possessing less than one ounce of marijuana upon
request of the offender. Additionally, the Alaska Court System
would be prohibited from posting records related to low level
possession convictions on publicly accessible websites [Court
View]. He opined that the proposed reform would provide needed
relief to many Alaskans.
2:09:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON pointed out that there were
commercially available background checks. He asked whether the
bill would expunge these violations from publicly accessible
websites. Additionally, he asked whether the bill was
retroactive.
MR. NASTASI said nothing in the bill would directly address
private companies with existing databases.
2:10:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether, from an employer's
perspective, there was a compelling public interest to know
whether a prospective candidate followed the law. He opined
that a minor marijuana charge, much like a speeding ticket,
represented a violation of the law.
MR. NASTASI emphasized that marijuana possession was legal and
no longer considered a criminal offense. He argued that the
collateral consequences of having a criminal record released for
minor marijuana convictions did more harm than good.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER pointed out that he had been elected to
public office despite the speeding tickets on his record. He
opined that nothing was stopping someone with a prior marijuana
possession charge from gaining employment or seeking elected
office. He argued that employers should have the right to know
whether an applicant was capable of violating the law.
2:15:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH drew a broad distinction between speeding
tickets and criminal offenses. He requested real life examples
of the hardships faced by individuals convicted of low-level
marijuana charges.
MR. WRIGHT said he spoke with many individuals on his path to
Juneau who had low level marijuana convictions, which prohibited
them from gaining employment.
2:17:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD said she was struggling with the bill
because people were supposed to be held accountable for
committing crimes. She considered an example in which heroin
was legalized and asked whether it would be fair to expunge
felony offenders' records simply because they couldn't get a
job.
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT shared his belief that people shouldnt be
marked for the rest of their life if they paid their debt to
society. He reiterated that these individuals don't have a lot
of options.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked how an employer would know whether
an applicant had poor judgement and violated the law.
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT said after speaking with many employers
about this issue, many of them wished that the box [indicating
whether an applicant had violated the law] wasn't there.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD noted that marijuana was still illegal at
the federal level.
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT opined that federal law should not dictate
what Alaskans do.
2:21:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON inquired about similar policies in
other states. He stressed that this was a serious policy
decision. He said he tended to agree with the intent of the
legislation; however, it appeared that the courts were
formulating policy on behalf of the legislature.
CHAIR VANCE said she shared the same concern. She noted that
Nancy Meade was available to speak to the decision made by the
Alaska Supreme Court and its implementation.
2:23:37 PM
DAVID MORGAN, Government Affairs Associate, Reason Foundation,
highlighted that approximately seven years after legalization,
many Alaskans were marked with criminal records for low level
marijuana possession. He stated although an early leader in
cannabis reform, Alaska lagged behind 24 other states that had
adopted reforms to facilitate the expungement or sealing of
marijuana related criminal convictions. He acknowledged that it
could sometimes be in the interest of public safety to provide
information to the public about an individual's criminal
background; however, he argued that a one-size-fits-all approach
to lifelong criminal records did not make sense. He reported
that there was no evidence that an individual convicted of
marijuana possession posed a threat to public safety. He
believed that HB 28 was an overdue step towards justice for
Alaskans harmed by the war on drugs.
2:25:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY explained that as a member of the military,
he would be kicked out if he were to smoke marijuana. He shared
a personal anecdote about a young person who wanted to join the
military despite being a marijuana user. He indicated that if
the individual was honest on his application, he would have been
denied acceptance. He believed that teens who smoke marijuana
could make good soldiers. He asked whether there was evidence
that expunging marijuana conviction records allowed people to
join the military.
MR. MORGAN deferred to Mr. Nastasi.
MR. NASTASI said to his knowledge there was no specific research
on record expungement and military service. Nonetheless, he
cited research that considered the effect of having a criminal
record on job applications and university admission. Findings
showed that between two people with identical work experience,
the individual with the criminal record was 50 percent less
likely to receive a call back.
CHAIR VANCE pointed out that while the legalization of marijuana
in Alaska had changed, it was still illegal under federal law.
She emphasized that in terms of military service, federal
standards remained in effect.
2:29:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether a minor marijuana conviction
would still show up on a federal record despite being expunged
in Alaska if the bill were to pass.
2:30:05 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:30:41 PM
CHAIR VANCE inquired about recent changes made by the Alaska
Court System, which mirrored the proposed legislation.
Additionally, she asked how the decision would be implemented.
2:31:22 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, clarified
that the bill would not expunge any records, nor would it
eliminate or vacate a person's criminal history. She stated
that HB 28 would do two things: Firstly, Section 1 and Section 2
of the bill addressed the release of criminal background checks
through the Department of Public Safety (DPS), which was the
repository for official criminal records in the state of Alaska;
secondly, Section 4 and Section 5 would make it so certain
records concerning criminal cases for marijuana possession would
not appear on the public version of Court View. She reiterated
that those records would not be made confidential, expunged, or
eliminated. She explained that court rules were often amended
periodically, adding that the list of unpublishable criminal
cases on Court View was one of the most modified rules to date.
She further noted that, per the legislature, all dismissals or
acquittals were also removed from Court View. She conveyed that
unpublished cases could always be found by an employer if he/she
went to the courthouse. In response to Representative Vance,
she stated that the Alaska Supreme Court recently decided that
[minor marijuana possession charges] was a recent category of
offenses that should not appear on the public version of Court
View. For that reason, the technology department would be
removing them as of May 1, 2023.
2:37:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether Court View was regulated
via statute or whether the court management system was solely
decided upon by the Alaska Court System.
MS. MEADE explained that Court View was the court's own case
management system. However, legislation like House Bill 11
sponsored by former Representative Tammie Wilson in 2015
directed the courts to exclude from Court View criminal cases
that ended in a dismissal or acquittal, thereby effectually
regulating Court View by statute. Additionally, in 2016, Senate
Bill 165 removed all minor consumption of alcohol cases from
Court View.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked which court rule expressly
provided authority over Court View to the Alaska Court System.
MS. MEADE cited administrative Rule 40 from the Alaska Court
Rules [Rules of Administration], which provided that the court
system shall maintain a database of all cases and make available
to the public a subset of the database with the exclusion of the
following cases: confidential cases, legislative directives,
dismissed cases, and low-level marijuana convictions.
2:40:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD sought to verify that HB 28 did not seek
to expunge criminal records.
MS. MEADE confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether applicants would still be
required to disclose any criminal convictions by checking a box
on employment applications. Additionally, she asked whether
that disclosure was required under existing state law.
MS. MEADE said she was not aware of any state law that required
the disclosure of criminal history on job applications; however,
she indicated that some applications may include that question.
She noted that the recent court decision to remove certain cases
from Court View should not change a person's answer on the job
application, as their criminal history was not being altered.
She added, "It still happened from the court's point of view."
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether employers could ask
applicants to disclose their criminal history without violating
anyone's rights.
MS. MEADE answered, "That's my understanding but I'm not exactly
that type of lawyer."
2:42:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH sought to verify that the rate of dismissals
was significantly higher than acquittals in criminal cases.
MS. MEADE answered affirmatively.
2:43:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD expressed concern that the court system
was taking it upon itself to make a legislative decision
regarding the sealing of records [from Court View]. She asked
whether that was fair.
MS. MEADE explained that the Alaska Court System had authority
over Court View, much like the governor had authority over
what's displayed on the Office of the Governor's website. She
emphasized the public version of Court View was in the purview
of the court system.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD sought to clarify the difference between
Court View and accessing court records from the courthouse. She
asked what would happen if the court system decided to dispose
of Court View entirely and whether that would affect the
public's access to courthouse records.
MS. MEADE conveyed that the Alaska Supreme Court had the
authority to dispose of Court View; however, such a scenario was
extremely unlikely, as the court system wanted to maintain a
system of transparency for the public. She emphasized that the
court system adhered to the principle of democracy and practiced
an open-door policy in all cases.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD recalled that people did not have access
to courthouses during the pandemic. She maintained her belief
that the court system was making decisions that were beyond its
scope.
MS. MEADE acknowledged that there was a short period of time
during the COVID-19 pandemic that people were not allowed in the
courthouse lobbies; however, during that time, requests for
criminal records were being responded to via phone. To further
illustrate the court system's desire to keep the public
informed, she recalled the effort to stream trials during the
pandemic.
2:47:29 PM
CHAIR VANCE inquired about the nuances between the Alaska Court
Rules decision and the proposed legislation.
MS. MEADE indicated that Section 4, lines 5-14 on page 3 of HB
28, was aligned with the court's decision to remove from Court
View the conduct that was legalized by voters eight years ago.
She noted that to be applicable, the offender must be over 21
and must have been in possession of less than 1 ounce of
marijuana; further, the possession charge must not be
accompanied by any other convictions in that case. She pointed
out that Section 4, subsection (b), was already an existing
practice; therefore, she believed that the language was
unnecessary. She further noted that per the court decision, the
cases were being removed retroactively.
2:50:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the 2021 rule change went
through the rules committee process.
MS. MEADE explained that administrative rules, like the one in
question, did not have a rules committee. Rules committee, she
explained, was preserved for substantive areas, such as criminal
rules, civil rules, appellate rules, child in need of aide
rules, and probate rules.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the authority to approve
administrative rule change belonged to the Alaska Supreme Court.
MS. MEADE answered yes.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether the Alaska Court Rules were available
online and whether an updated version could be provided to the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
MS. MEADE acquiesced. She noted that the Alaska Court Rules
were also available online via the Alaska Court System's
website.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether the DPS was impacted by the court rule
change.
2:53:30 PM
LISA PURINTON, Bureau Chief, Division of Statewide Services,
DPS, said the court rule wouldn't impact the state's criminal
history repository.
CHAIR VANCE asked Ms. Purinton to speak to the DPS fiscal note.
MS. PURINTON stated that the fiscal note from DPS cited
programming costs associated with sealing records in the state
repository.
2:55:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether the court rule change
had a fiscal impact on the department.
MS. PURINTON said the court rule had no impact on the release of
information. She explained that the rule change affected the
release of records on Court View; however, the information was
still available in the state repository and would still be
disseminated upon request, as HB 28 was not in effect.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON expressed confusion and inquired about
the cost associated with the court rule change.
MS. PURINTON reiterated that the court rule was limited to the
information available on the court's website, Court View, adding
that it had zero impact on the state's official criminal history
repository. She reiterated that until there was a statutory law
that prevented the dissemination of criminal convictions for
marijuana possession under 1 ounce, per AS 11.71.060, the
repository would still provide those records upon request. She
noted that should HB 28 pass, a one-time cost for programming
changes would be required, as referenced in the fiscal note, to
seal the necessary records.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON said he did not understand the answer.
CHAIR VANCE directed attention to Section 3, on page 2, line 27
of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER, in response to Representative C.
Johnson, explained that there were two different databases:
Court View, under the purview of the court system, and the
state's repository, which was regulated via state statute.
2:59:57 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the bill would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 28 - v.A.PDF |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/8/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/8/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 - Support Letter.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/8/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2023 1:00:00 PM SFIN 4/23/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 - AMIA Support for HB 28 - 2.9.23.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/8/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 66 - Alaska Dept. of Health Drug Facts (07-25-22).pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 28 - Sponsor Statement (02-28-23).pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 66 - Controlled Substances Reference Chart 3.1.23.pdf |
HJUD 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |