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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
<Public Testimony Removed from Agenda>
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled 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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
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                                                               
CHAIR VANCE asked whether the DPS  was impacted by the court rule                                                               
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                                                               
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
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