Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120

01/29/2016 01:00 PM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:04:20 PM Start
01:05:06 PM HB221
01:54:53 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
-- Public & Invited Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
        HB 221-ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN PROTECTIVE ORDERS                                                                     
1:05:06 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced  that the only order  of business would                                                               
be HOUSE BILL NO. 221, "An Act relating to protective orders."                                                                  
1:05:14 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON,  Alaska State Legislature, explained                                                               
that the bill is essentially  a technical fix in its application.                                                               
He point  out that  he is  an Alaska Native,  born and  raised in                                                               
Rural  Alaska, and  has had  the opportunity  as a  legislator to                                                               
work directly  with the criminal justice  agencies overseeing the                                                               
Department  of Corrections  (DOC)  and the  Department of  Public                                                               
Safety (DPS).   The role of tribal courts is  growing, he opined,                                                               
in  terms of  providing justice  and  other services  out in  the                                                               
"local"  areas.   Last  year  two  resolutions passed  from  this                                                               
committee with  tribal attached  to them  and, he  explained, the                                                               
purpose of HB 221 is to  allow tribal court to take an additional                                                               
step under Alaska  law to increase its duties.   He extended that                                                               
he is  a strong proponent  of the  tribal courts that  the Alaska                                                               
State Constitution permits.                                                                                                     
CHAIR LEDOUX asked what tribal courts  in Alaska might be able to                                                               
issue the orders under this bill.                                                                                               
1:08:13 PM                                                                                                                    
TIMOTHY CLARK,  Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon,  Alaska State                                                               
Legislature,   answered  that   over   the   years  tribes   have                                                               
demonstrated  strong  institutions  and capacity,  including  the                                                               
Tanana  Chiefs Conference  in the  Interior, the  Central Council                                                               
Tlingit &  Haida Indian  Tribes of Alaska  in the  Southeast, and                                                               
others in  several locations around  Alaska.  He opined  that the                                                               
Department of  Law (DOL)  has been in  close contact  with tribal                                                               
courts in  recent years, and  that DOL  attorneys may add  to his                                                               
MR. CLARK  offered that the  bill relates  to the removal  of the                                                               
"Alaska  Exemption" to  The Violence  Against Women  Act of  1994                                                               
(VAWA),  that  was repealed  in  2014  due  a bill  sponsored  by                                                               
Senators  Lisa Murkowski  and then  Senator Begich.   He  said it                                                               
brought   attention  to   the  state's   obligation  to   enforce                                                               
protection  orders  from   other  jurisdictions  including  other                                                               
state,  territorial, and  tribal courts.   Under  Alaska statute,                                                               
law enforcement is  only compelled to enforce a  tribal, or other                                                               
states, protection  order when  that order  has first  been filed                                                               
with a clerk of an Alaska  court.  However, he noted, with Alaska                                                               
now subject to  VAWA, the federal law supersedes state  law and a                                                               
protection order issued by a  foreign jurisdiction (other states,                                                               
territory, or  tribal court) no  longer must be registered  in an                                                               
Alaskan court before enforcement.   He advised that in July 2015,                                                               
Attorney  General Craig  Richards at  the behest  of Commissioner                                                               
Gary Folger,  Department of Public  Safety, issued an  opinion on                                                               
this  subject  discussing the  state  now  being subject  to  the                                                               
federal  law.   Within  that opinion,  Attorney General  Richards                                                               
recommended in two  places that the state  reconcile its statutes                                                               
with the now prevailing federal  law obligation.  Essentially, he                                                               
explained, HB 221 follows  the attorney general's recommendations                                                               
for compliance that  is hoped to clarify the duties  of state law                                                               
enforcement by  removing these conflicts,  and lowering  the risk                                                               
of potential  lawsuits.  In  addition, he  stated, HB 221  adds a                                                               
presumption of  validity on the  part of law enforcement  so they                                                               
are encouraged  to enforce a  protective order issued  by another                                                               
jurisdiction so  long as it  appears authentic  on its face.   He                                                               
described that provision  as an error on the side  of caution and                                                               
that  presumption   of  validity  does  exist   in  other  states                                                               
addressing these  matters.  He  continued that  Legislative Legal                                                               
and Research  Services agreed that  in no location was  it stated                                                               
very   clearly  or   all  in   one  place   what  defines   other                                                               
jurisdictions.   He  pointed out  that this  bill clearly  states                                                               
that the  other jurisdictions  include another  state, territory,                                                               
United States Military Tribunals, and tribal courts.                                                                            
MR.  CLARK, in  response to  Chair LeDoux,  answered that  HB 221                                                               
does  not  include  foreign  judgements.    He  related  that  as                                                               
Attorney General  Richards emphasized  in his opinion,  "it gives                                                               
officers access to tribal and  foreign protection orders anywhere                                                               
in Alaska, even if  the victim does not have a  copy of the order                                                               
at hand."   Therefore, he said, the state  continues to encourage                                                               
people to file protection orders with  a clerk of an Alaska court                                                               
who then sends it to a central registry.                                                                                        
1:15:13 PM                                                                                                                    
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER in audience.                                                                                               
1:16:22 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  CLARK,  in response  to  Chair  LeDoux,  stated that  he  is                                                               
unaware of  anyone from the  general public planning  to testify.                                                               
He offered that Representative Gruenberg  direct his questions to                                                               
him as he may  be able to provide an answer  if the Department of                                                               
Law (DOL) is unavailable.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would prefer an attorney.                                                                      
1:17:46 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN  asked  whether  Mr.  Clark  had  received                                                               
comments from any of the tribes or Native organizations.                                                                        
MR. CLARK answer no.                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN  questioned whether  any comments  had been                                                               
received from individuals objecting to this change.                                                                             
MR. CLARK responded no.                                                                                                         
1:18:29 PM                                                                                                                    
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER in audience.                                                                                               
1:20:00 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG  noted   that  the   attorney  general                                                               
suggests  that  the  legislature amend  conflicting  statutes  to                                                               
bring  Alaska into  compliance with  VAWA,  as most  legislatures                                                               
have  done.   He  asked  whether there  is  anything within  that                                                               
statement  the department  wants  to bring  into compliance  with                                                               
VAWA that is not contained in the bill.                                                                                         
MR. CLARK  answered that months  ago he provided this  version of                                                               
the bill  to DOL,  who performed a  thorough evaluation,  and its                                                               
response was that it had no problem with the bill.                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked John  Skidmore or  Mary Lundquist                                                               
whether there  is anything  the department  now feels  should, or                                                               
should not, be included in the bill.                                                                                            
1:21:11 PM                                                                                                                    
MARY  LUNDQUIST,  Senior  Assistant Attorney  General,  Opinions,                                                               
Appeals  &  Ethics  Section,  Office  of  the  Attorney  General,                                                               
Department  of  Law  (DOL),  answered  that  she  is  unaware  of                                                               
anything  in  VAWA that  would  require  other changes  to  state                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked whether there is  anything in the                                                               
bill that should not be included.                                                                                               
MS.  LUNDQUIST opined  that there  is  nothing in  the bill  that                                                               
should  not be  included  to bring  Alaska  into compliance  with                                                               
1:22:15 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that  Ms. Lundquist provide a list                                                               
of tribal courts  that could try cases subject to  full faith and                                                               
credit under this bill.                                                                                                         
MS.  LUNDQUIST offered  that the  list  of tribes  able to  issue                                                               
protective  orders  under  this   bill  would  be  all  federally                                                               
recognized tribes  in the State  of Alaska.   She advised  that a                                                               
new  list  on the  federal  register  was  issued and  she  could                                                               
provide the  list to the  committee, if  so desired.   She stated                                                               
there are 229  tribes in the State of Alaska  and whether each of                                                               
those  tribes  issue  protective   orders,  or  not,  is  another                                                               
question  because there  are  various  degrees of  sophistication                                                               
amongst the tribes.                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Lundquist  to send the list of                                                               
229 tribes to the committee.                                                                                                    
MS. LUNDQUIST agreed.                                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  asked  whether DOL  will  receive,  as                                                               
tribes assume this responsibility,  an indication from individual                                                               
tribes that they are taking on this responsibility.                                                                             
MS. LUNDQUIST opined that DOL  will not be separately notified as                                                               
the tribes  have been  issuing protective  orders for  many years                                                               
and the state  recognizes those orders.  She said  there will not                                                               
be any  special notification provisions  when a tribe  decides to                                                               
issue protective  orders, or even  if it has issued  a protective                                                               
1:24:26 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG asked  whether, currently,  there is  a                                                               
mechanism  requiring  tribes   assuming  this  responsibility  to                                                               
notify the  State of  Alaska so  the state is  aware in  order to                                                               
assure this is not a fraud.                                                                                                     
MS. LUNDQUIST replied  that, currently, there is  no mechanism by                                                               
which a  tribe would notify the  state that it is  exercising its                                                               
authority to  issue tribal protection  orders.  She  offered that                                                               
the tribe would  be issuing protective orders  under its inherent                                                               
1:25:39 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  LEDOUX asked  Representative Gruenberg  where he  is going                                                               
with this line of questions.                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  said  he is  exploring  whether  there                                                               
should be  some mechanism  to require the  tribes to  notify that                                                               
they are undertaking this jurisdiction.                                                                                         
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether this  includes other tribes outside of                                                               
MR. CLARK answered "Yes it does."                                                                                               
CHAIR LEDOUX  questioned whether,  conceivably, there  could even                                                               
be a  mechanism for every  tribe in  the United States  to notify                                                               
the State  of Alaska that  it might at  some point in  the future                                                               
issue protective orders.                                                                                                        
MR.  CLARK  stated that  such  a  requirement would  be  counter-                                                               
productive to  the provision  in the  Violence Against  Women Act                                                               
(VAWA) that  is meant  to stream-line the  ability of  tribes and                                                               
other jurisdictions to  have its protection orders  enforced.  He                                                               
pointed out  that HB 221  eliminates the current statute  step of                                                               
the  requirement  that protective  orders  be  filed in  a  state                                                               
court.   The idea,  he emphasized, is  that an  individual facing                                                               
danger from  a person  against whom they  had a  protective order                                                               
could receive more immediate law enforcement support.                                                                           
1:28:11 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said that  other state courts  have the                                                               
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction  and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA),                                                               
and federally the Parental Kidnapping  Prevention Act (PKPA).  He                                                               
explained that  normally a child must  be in the State  of Alaska                                                               
for  six   months  before  the   court  can   entertain  anything                                                               
concerning  its   jurisdiction,  with   an  exception   being  an                                                               
emergency situation  for the protection  of the child.   He asked                                                               
about the  interplay between that  body of state and  federal law                                                               
and HB 221, because there is  a narrow exception permitted of the                                                               
above-statutes.  He expressed  concern regarding someone bringing                                                               
a child  into Alaska and  moving into a tribal  jurisdiction, and                                                               
thereby evading the normal requirements of the other state law.                                                                 
1:29:52 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. LUNDQUIST  advised that she  is not intimately  familiar with                                                               
UCCJEA  or PKPA.   She  surmised that  Representative Gruenberg's                                                               
concern was about  taking a child into a jurisdiction  in which a                                                               
tribe  could issue  a protective  order.   She  advised that  the                                                               
protective orders  issued by  tribes in Alaska  "would be  ... by                                                               
the tribe  and whether it  involved a  tribal member that  held a                                                               
subject matter jurisdiction of the tribe would be determined."                                                                  
CHAIR  LEDOUX reiterated  to  Representative  Gruenberg that  she                                                               
does not  understand his line of  questioning in that all  HB 221                                                               
does  is remove  the  requirement that  the  protective order  be                                                               
filed [with  a state court], and  stressed that she does  not see                                                               
how his questioning is germane to this particular bill.                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that he  wants to be sure that this                                                               
cannot  be used  as an  "end run"  over the  other jurisdictional                                                               
requirements of the law.                                                                                                        
CHAIR LEDOUX reiterated that she does  not see how taking out the                                                               
word "filing" changes things.                                                                                                   
1:31:53 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether  there is anything in federal                                                               
law requiring a tribe to  register with the federal government or                                                               
provide notice  that it  has established a  tribal court  and the                                                               
tribal court is  now issuing [protective] orders  relating to the                                                               
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).                                                                                              
MS. LUNDQUIST opined  there is nothing in VAWA  requiring a tribe                                                               
to  give prior  notice to  the  federal government  that it  will                                                               
exercise  its  inherent  authority to  issue  protective  orders.                                                               
Under VAWA, 18 USC 2265(e) which read as follows:                                                                               
     (e) Tribal Court Jurisdiction.-                                                                                            
     For  purposes of  this section,  a court  of an  Indian                                                                    
     tribe shall  have full civil jurisdiction  to issue and                                                                    
     enforce   protection  orders   involving  any   person,                                                                    
     including the  authority to enforce any  orders through                                                                    
     civil contempt  proceedings, to exclude  violators from                                                                    
     Indian land,  and to use other  appropriate mechanisms,                                                                    
     in matters  arising anywhere in  the Indian  country of                                                                    
     the  Indian  tribe  (as defined  in  section  1151)  or                                                                    
     otherwise within the authority of the Indian tribe.                                                                        
MS.   LUNDQUIST  explained   that   the   law  recognizes   broad                                                               
jurisdiction on behalf  of the tribes to  issue protective orders                                                               
in that tribes have full  civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce                                                               
protective orders involving any person.                                                                                         
1:33:09 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN surmised  that the  only requirement  of a                                                               
tribe is  to be federally recognized,  and that there is  a means                                                               
by which  the federal government  or U.S. Department  of Interior                                                               
recognizes  tribes.   He further  surmised that  once a  tribe is                                                               
federally recognized, the  tribe has inherent power  that it may,                                                               
or may not, exercise.                                                                                                           
MS. LUNDQUIST  answered that Representative Claman  is correct in                                                               
that  if the  tribe  is federally  recognized  it holds  inherent                                                               
jurisdiction.    She pointed  out  that  the U.S.  Supreme  Court                                                               
federal  case  law  recognizes tribal  jurisdiction  over  tribal                                                               
lands and tribal members.  In  the event there was one person who                                                               
was a  member of  the tribe  that was  subject to  the protective                                                               
order,  she opined,  the tribe  would have  inherent jurisdiction                                                               
over that.                                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE   CLAMAN   pointed   out   that   federal   tribal                                                               
recognition doesn't require a tribe  to give notice it is issuing                                                               
orders to  the federal government.   He questioned  whether there                                                               
would be  a conflict  between a state  law requiring  such notice                                                               
and federal law that doesn't.                                                                                                   
MS. LUNDQUIST  opined that it  would be somewhat  inconsistent to                                                               
require  prior  notice by  the  tribe,  and  noted that  it  runs                                                               
counter to  the intent of  VAWA to remove restraints  on issuance                                                               
of tribal  protection orders, and  even foreign orders  in having                                                               
those foreign orders recognized in other states.                                                                                
1:35:11 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG  said   that   this   uses  the   term                                                               
"protective  order"  loosely.    Under  AS  18,  Alaska  Domestic                                                               
Violence and  Sexual Assault orders are  specifically defined and                                                               
opined that six  months can be extended to 12  months.  He stated                                                               
he does not  see anything here that is  similarly definitional as                                                               
to  what  a  tribal  protection  order  is,  and  that  he  could                                                               
conceivably  see  a system  where  a  protective order  could  be                                                               
permanent.   He asked what  is there  that defines what  a tribal                                                               
order might be.                                                                                                                 
1:36:04 PM                                                                                                                    
JOHN  SKIDMORE,   Division  Director,  Legal   Services  Section,                                                               
Criminal Division, Department of  Law (DOL), explained the answer                                                               
to  the  question  is  found  within  VAWA  where  it  defines  a                                                               
protective  order   and  it   contemplates  the   precise  notion                                                               
Representative Gruenberg asked  about.  He said there  could be a                                                               
permanent and lifetime protective order,  and with regard to what                                                               
the  protective  order  says,  the  law  controlling  it  is  the                                                               
jurisdiction issuing  it.   For example,  he offered,  should the                                                               
State of Washington have a  lifetime protective order it would be                                                               
in existence  for that person's  lifetime.   The way it  works in                                                               
Alaska, he explained,  is that Alaska is the  enforcing state and                                                               
Alaska  looks at  whether there  is a  crime on  its books  for a                                                               
violation of  that order and  the answer is  yes.  He  noted that                                                               
Alaska does  not care  what Washington says  about the  length of                                                               
the protective order, Alaska enforces  it as Washington says that                                                               
it  is a  valid  order.   However,  Alaska  does analyze  whether                                                               
"that" is  a crime in Alaska.   He referred back  to the question                                                               
regarding  custody,  and  advised   that  Alaska  does  not  have                                                               
violations  of protective  orders based  on child  custody, which                                                               
are the other two federal  acts Representative Gruenberg referred                                                               
to.   He  explained that  Alaska is  only interested  in contact,                                                               
threats, or  whether or  not a person  has weapons  because those                                                               
are  the  violations  of  protective  orders  Alaska  enforces  -                                                               
nothing to do with child custody.                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  surmised that the only  portions of the                                                               
protective  order   Alaska  enforces   are  injunctive   and  not                                                               
MR. SKIDMORE  answered yes, under  Alaska criminal law  the state                                                               
enforces the injunctive.  He  then pointed out that the custodial                                                               
is enforced under Alaska law,  but [custodial] is not an enforced                                                               
criminal charge as  enforcing a protective order.   He said there                                                               
are other statutes  Alaska looks at for child  custody, but those                                                               
are  not the  statutes implicated  by the  charge of  violating a                                                               
protective order.                                                                                                               
1:38:47 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked whether HB  221 will limit  it to                                                               
criminal enforcement or also govern civil enforcement.                                                                          
MR. SKIDMORE  responded that both  types of enforcement  would be                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said his  question is related  to civil                                                               
1:39:33 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. LINDQUIST  replied that she is  in the civil division  of the                                                               
Attorney  General's  office,  and  asked  to  have  the  question                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  stated  his  question,  from  a  civil                                                               
custodial  point of  view in  seeking  a civil  enforcement of  a                                                               
domestic violence  protective order  enforced in a  tribal court.                                                               
He offered a  scenario of the State of Idaho  issuing a five year                                                               
protective order  adjudicating custody of the  child that remains                                                               
on the  books and  effective for  five years.   In  that Alaska's                                                               
order  is normally  six to  12 months,  he asked  whether HB  221                                                               
would require  the Alaska court,  tribal or otherwise,  to extend                                                               
that child  custody protective  order for  the period  of Idaho's                                                               
five years rather than Alaska's six to twelve months.                                                                           
1:41:52 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  LUNDQUIST advised  she is  not familiar  with child  custody                                                               
laws and does not know the answer to that question.                                                                             
CHAIR  LEDOUX asked  whether Representative  Gruenberg's question                                                               
goes to  this bill or simply  to current law.   She stressed that                                                               
the  discussion  in this  committee  should  only relate  to  the                                                               
changes to the  law promulgated in this specific bill  and not to                                                               
general questions with respect to  the law of restraining orders,                                                               
protective  orders, etcetera.   She  asked Ms.  Lundquist or  Mr.                                                               
Skidmore to answer the question.                                                                                                
MS.  LUNDQUIST   responded  that   VAWA  has   preempted  certain                                                               
provisions of  state law and  HB 221  is designed to  bring state                                                               
law into  conformance with  VAWA.  She  agreed with  Chair LeDoux                                                               
that the questions regarding any  interplay between child custody                                                               
orders and protective orders are a  bit astray.  She advised that                                                               
if there is  a conflict, it currently exists and  this bill won't                                                               
have any effect on that.                                                                                                        
CHAIR LEDOUX,  in response to Representative  Gruenberg's request                                                               
to continue, asked whether his  follow up question relates to the                                                               
changes in the law from this bill.                                                                                              
1:44:09 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  referred to page 4,  lines 16-17, which                                                               
read as follows:                                                                                                                
          (1) issued by a court of the United States,                                                                       
     a court of another state or territory, a United States                                                                 
     military tribune, or a tribal court;                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it  discusses the petition filed in                                                               
divorce or dissolution statutes under  AS 25.24.200, which is not                                                               
particularly  dealing  with  state  custody under  Title  47,  or                                                               
criminal  law under  Title 11.   He  said, "It  changes that  the                                                               
dissolution  statute must  consider a  protective order  filed in                                                               
another  jurisdiction   and  recognized  in  this   state."    He                                                               
explained  that it  has to  be recognized  and that  it draws  in                                                               
these jurisdictional  issues, and it is  the same in Sec.  9.  He                                                               
further  explained that  with his  line of  questioning he  would                                                               
like  to ascertain  the effect  this has  in the  adjudication of                                                               
dissolution cases.   It  very definitely is  civil and  these are                                                               
private custody disputes, he said.                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG opined  that  the  7/30/15 letter  from                                                               
Attorney General  Craig Richards  to Commissioner Gary  Folger is                                                               
at the heart of what the  committee is discussing.  He then asked                                                               
about  the "Alaska  Exemption" and  whether it  was from  federal                                                               
1:47:10 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. CLARK advised that the  Alaska Exemption is an exemption from                                                               
Chapter  2265 of  the  Violence  Against Women  Act  (VAWA).   He                                                               
explained  that  it removes  the  requirement  that a  protection                                                               
order  from another  jurisdiction  is no  longer  required to  be                                                               
filed in Alaska state court in order to be enforced.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that  the exemption existed and                                                               
then it  was done  away with  the exemption to  require it  to be                                                               
1:48:00 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. CLARK explained  that it is just the opposite.   He said that                                                               
by doing away with the Alaska  Exemption from Chapter 2265 of the                                                               
Violence Against Women  Act, Alaska can no longer  require that a                                                               
protection order from another jurisdiction  is filed with a state                                                               
court clerk before state law  enforcement is compelled to enforce                                                               
that protection order.                                                                                                          
1:48:35 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR LEDOUX commented  that this line of  questioning is totally                                                               
beyond the discussion of this bill.                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to  Mr. Clark's comment that it                                                               
only applies to  other states and not to  foreign custody orders,                                                               
such  as Canada.   He  asked  where it  is so  limiting that  the                                                               
orders this relates to are only domestic foreign orders.                                                                        
MR.  CLARK advised  that Attorney  General Richards  and he  have                                                               
been  using "foreign  jurisdictions" as  a term  of art,  and not                                                               
being an attorney he may be in error.                                                                                           
CHAIR LEDOUX  expressed that his  question seems to apply  to the                                                               
entirety of  the statute,  and HB 221  is simply  eliminating the                                                               
phrase "filed."   She stressed that the  statute currently exists                                                               
and further stressed  that he limit his questions  to the changes                                                               
made  by  eliminating  the  requirement for  the  filing  of  the                                                               
protective order.                                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  responded  that  he  understands,  and                                                               
asked where it  says this only applies to  protective orders from                                                               
another state  or territory  of the  United States,  and wouldn't                                                               
apply to a foreign order from Morocco.                                                                                          
1:50:47 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SKIDMORE pointed out that  the language is located in Section                                                               
2 of HB 221, page 2, lines 2-4, which read:                                                                                     
               (c) In this section, "protective order"                                                                          
     means an order issued,  [OR] filed, or recognized under                                                            
     AS 13.26.207 - 13.26.209,  AS 18.65.850 - 18.65.870, or                                                                    
     AS 18.66.100 - 18.66.180.                                                                                                  
MR.  SKIDMORE  advised  that the  Alaska  Statutes  discuss  only                                                               
protective orders filed  within the United States and  not from a                                                               
foreign county.                                                                                                                 
CHAIR LEDOUX  opened public testimony  and after  ascertaining no                                                               
one wished to testify, closed public testimony.                                                                                 
1:52:09 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took a brief at ease.                                                                                             
1:53:00 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG referred  to AS  13.26.207 -  13.26.209                                                               
and commented that  he did not see anything that  "limits it like                                                               
that" and wanted it  on the record.  He commented  that he has no                                                               
reason to dispute Mr. Skidmore, but  he could not find it at this                                                               
CHAIR  LEDOUX  reiterated  that  HB  221  is  only  changing  the                                                               
requirement of filing.  She  opined that Representative Gruenberg                                                               
was interested  in a discussion  regarding the whole idea  of who                                                               
honors  protective orders,  from which  jurisdictions, and  when,                                                               
which does not relate to the subject of this particular bill.                                                                   
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that HB 221 would be held in committee.                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted his question is that the intent                                                                  
of the bill ...                                                                                                                 
CHAIR LEDOUX reiterated that the bill is held in committee.                                                                     

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 221 - Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 1/29/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 221
HB 221 - Sectional Summary.pdf HJUD 1/29/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 221
HB 221 - Version W.pdf HJUD 1/29/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 221
HB 221 - Supporting Documents - VAWA Enforcement AG Opinion 7.30.15.pdf HJUD 1/29/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 221
HB 221 - Supporting Documents - USCODE Title 18 Chapter 2265.pdf HJUD 1/29/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 221
HB 221 - Fiscal Note - DPS-CDVSA-01-23-16.pdf HJUD 1/29/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 221
HB 221 - Fiscal Note - LAW-CRIM-01-23-16.pdf HJUD 1/29/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 221