Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
03/21/2024 01:30 PM Senate TRANSPORTATION
Note: the audio
and video
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HB81 | |
SB255 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
*+ | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 255-OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC PLACES; TRESPASSING 2:03:07 PM CHAIR KAUFMAN reconvened the meeting and announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 255 "An Act relating to the obstruction of airports and runways; relating to the obstruction of highways; establishing the crime of obstruction of free passage in public places; relating to the obstruction of public places; relating to the crime of trespassing; relating to the obstruction of navigable waters; and providing for an effective date." This is the second hearing of this bill in the Senate Transportation Committee. 2:04:05 PM CHAIR KAUFMAN opened public testimony on SB 255. 2:04:29 PM KAY BROWN, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. She said SB 255 impinges on the peoples constitutionally protected right to gather in a public place without a permit. She said the bill criminalizes this constitutionally protected behavior, the right to assemble as citizens and to protest and speak out. She opined the bill is an attempt to intimidate, dissuade and discourage people from assembling, by establishing this new crime of obstructing free passage in a public place. She said she hopes the bill does not pass, but that if it does, she said the definition of public place is far too broad. She said it appears that significant criminal and civil liabilities could be triggered by standing on a sidewalk and blocking someone's path. She noted SB 255, Section 9 evokes unreasonable inconvenience, without definition, could result in Class B misdemeanor conviction, which she said is outrageous. She said SB 255, Section 4 also has significant problems, including that it lacks a clear definition of nominal damages. Ms. Brown asked for consideration of the effect SB 255 would have on the unhoused who occupy public places and may arguably impede movement at times. She concluded SB 255 is unnecessary and an unconstitutional violation of the rights of citizens. 2:07:08 PM MORGAN LIM, Advocate, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, Juneau, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. He said this bill would criminalize Alaskans who exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, and the language of the bill is so broad that it renders constitutionally protected speech illegal and so vague that those who would wish to follow or enforce the law would be unclear as to the legislation's scope. He noted under SB 255, people could be charged for obstruction of free passage in public places if they knowingly make a public place impassable or significantly inconvenient or hazardous for passage; and it is unclear what impassable, significantly inconvenient or hazardous for passage mean. He said the vague language of the bill is an attempt to crack down on Alaskans' ability to protest, demonstrate and freely assemble in public places. He noted that vague and overly broad laws could be applied selectively by law enforcement against parties engaged in disfavored speech and that there is no way for the state to neutrally apply this bill. He said the bill raises more questions than answers about what conduct is permissible in public. Moreover, he said a new obstruction of free passage crime appears to criminalize homelessness in public spaces and could be weaponized by law enforcement to target marginalized groups including the un-housed, exacerbating rather than alleviating Alaska's housing crisis. He submitted that this legislation does not make Alaska safer or address the current problem for people protesting across the state. Instead, he said, it is government overreach that sends a threatening message to protestors, intending to chill free speech. 2:09:33 PM MATT JACKSON, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. He began by reading: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. He opined that is all that needs be known about SB 255, that it is a blatant violation of first amendment rights. He said the bill is clearly intended to chill dissent and he said the first amendment was specifically intended to protect against bills like SB 255. He noted Section 4 describes the liability for civil action under this Act, for no less than $50,000 to a person who suffers damage to property. It appears that someone who caused $5 in damages while exercising the right to protest could be liable for no less than $50,000. He noted that the median income in Alaska is $34,000. He concluded this is just one example of the issues this bill raises of the intimidating effect of SB 255 on the constitutionally protected right to free speech and encourages the committee to oppose SB 255. 2:11:35 PM AARON BRAKEL, representing self, Douglas, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. Mr. Brakel said SB 255 is a non-Alaska solution to a non-Alaska problem. He related his experience earlier in the day of being directed to vacate a public sidewalk outside the Dimond Courthouse and that the directive originated with the Department of Law building manager. He characterized the gathering as an assembly of people speaking in front of their state capital. He said SB 255 is an unacceptable bill and is a sign of things to come. He opined that the bill could create an entirely litigious, ridiculous situation. He said SB 255 exists so people who are assembling with concerns can be targeted by big concerns, both individually and in groups. 2:13:55 PM MICHAELA STITH, Climate Justice Director, Native Movement, Juneau, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. Ms. Stith characterized SB 255 as an attempt to criminalize nonviolent protest. She said the bill is against the First Amendment right to peaceable assemble, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. She evoked Martin Luther King Jr and recalled that he said: We adopt the means of non-violence because our end is a community at peace with itself. We will try to persuade with our words, but if our words fail, we will try to persuade with our acts. She said non-violent action is core to American identity and core to what it means to be Alaskan. She sought to remind those present that the right to peaceably assemble is a unique freedom provided in this country. She put forth specific concerns with Sections 8 and 7 addressing the obstruction of highways, a common form of non-violent protest in the United States. She emphasized that banner drops and highway blockades make a statement to persuade when people are not heard by other means. She maintained that it is a right to participate in non-violent direct action. She said it was not clear to her whether a conviction under SB 255 would result in the loss of the right to vote in federal elections. She concluded that SB 255 is a violation of First Amendment rights and urged that it not be passed. 2:16:12 PM Cathy Walling, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska testified in opposition to SB 255. Ms. Walling invited the committee to uplift the voices of previous testifiers, and to uphold peaceful assembly and protection of First Amendment rights by opposing SB 255. 2:17:22 PM KIRA LENA LAJARNIE, Climate Justice Organizer, Native Movement, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. She said when government bodies and assemblies are not adequately representing the will of the people, the people have to have a way for redress. She said SB 255 is a clear conflict of interest; if the people want to protest government actions that are not serving them, the government could simply choose not to grant them a permit to assemble. The bill could promote authoritarian government actions and suppress freedom of speech. The First Amendment clearly protects this right. She said that if people have the protection to gather for their beliefs in religious places of worship, people must also be able to gather on the streets, even if they don't have the means to buy a hall of worship. She concluded that the public has the right to public spaces. 2:18:39 PM SARAH FURMAN, Member Organizer and Administrative Coordinator, Fairbanks Climate Action Coalition, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. Ms. Furman said SB 255 is a clear violation of freedom of speech and assembly, protected in the constitution. The language in the bill is vague, will criminalize people directly and indirectly in constitutionally protected activities. She said the ability for US citizens to assemble and protest is fundamental to democracy and there are examples throughout history when the people needed to use this right to fight injustices: the civil rights movement, women's suffrage movement, etc. Looking back, she said, we uplift these people and their leaders for moving the country forward. We don't say: oh, they shouldn't have blocked that sidewalk in their pursuit of fundamental rights. She concluded: these are the kind of laws that authoritarian and fascist governments use against their people, and we don't want to do that. 2:19:52 PM ELEANOR GAGNON, Advocate, Fairbanks Climate Action Coalition, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. She said public spaces exist for people to gather. She agreed with earlier testimony describing the language of SB 255 as vague and offered a range of interpretation for the definition of obstruction and the potential for subjective application. She emphasized that the lack of clear definitions contributes to the dangers of SB 255. She said the people who are most likely to be harmed by SB 255 are those unhoused, and they need public spaces the most. She implored the committee that denying access to safe spaces for the unhoused is a crime. 2:20:56 PM AURORA BOWERS, Narrative Strategist, Fairbanks Climate Action Coalition, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. Ms. Bowers said she was eleven when 911 happened and that event and those that followed set the course for her life. She joined nonviolent protests against the invasion of Iraq. She described her childhood involvement and experience as empowering and said the experiences demonstrated to her the power of a citizen. She said that, though the demonstrators weren't able to affect the change they desired, they exercised a core right of Americans and Alaskans. She pointed out that those gatherings of fifteen or fifty pacifists could have been charged with criminal activity under SB 255. She urged opposition to SB 255. 2:22:31 PM PATTI SAUNDERS, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. Ms. Saunders said she is a former lawyer and that she spent three years in law school learning about things like the Bill of Rights, the rights of citizens and what democracy meant. She said reading SB 255 engendered horror in her heart and mind when she realized the governor was trying to impose this in Alaska. She emphasized that it was not some nutjob that proposed the bill, but our governor. She opined that SB 255 guarantees litigation. She predicted someone will be arrested and someone will be sued because this bill violates the constitution. She predicted a costly outcome and eventual Supreme Court action. She said SB 255 is a solution looking for a problem and there is no evidence that demonstrations, rallies, gatherings, exercises of free speech or assembly have caused any problems in Alaska. She asserted there is no reason for the bill, even if was constitutional. She said she cannot believe the man who serves at the head of our state government proposed this. She implored the committee to oppose SB 255. 2:24:53 PM MOLLY LEMEN, Interfaith Organizer, Fairbanks Climate Action Coalition, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. Ms. Lemen expressed concern that SB 255 seems, on it's face, to protect people's freedom of movement and access to emergency care but will in fact be used against peaceful protesters as an excuse to force people to vacate a premises when their opinions are inconvenient, restricting the right to peacefully assemble. She queried: who would determine what constitutes unreasonable inconvenience and how can such broad language be equitably enforced? 2:25:49 PM JEFF CHEN, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. Mr. Chen said protests and rallies, like journalism, like serving as a senator, like filibusters and conversations with families, are tools used in democracies for making change. He emphasized that he, coming from an immigrant family, holds these things dear. He urged better definitions in SB 255. He characterized the bill as an overreach of government, an impingement on free speech and he encouraged broad opposition. 2:27:18 PM ANDRES CAMACHO, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. Mr. Camacho affirmed prior testimony and noted that the expression of shared values is an essential promise of this country. He affirmed the system of checks and balance that allows for many ways to be heard, in buildings and rooms like this, as well as in greater public places. He expressed appreciation for the opportunity to demand, to cry out, to express the needs and values of a community. He suggested that there is still a lot to be done to fulfill an essential promise of this country: to honor the voices of all those that live here. He said SB 255 strips away a key part of that process. 2:29:36 PM MICHAEL GARVEY, Advocacy Director, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255 on behalf of the ACLU in Alaska. He said the organization is wholly opposed to the bill and views it as an unconstitutional and overbroad bill that would chill all Alaskans' fundamental rights to freedom of speech and assembly. By creating a new crime, increasing penalties for existing crimes and establishing extreme civil penalties, SB 255 would deter Alaskans from exercising these rights. The proposed civil penalties, which he said are not based on actual losses or damages and could apply to a broad range of behavior, potentially including sharing information about a protest on social media, are the minimum amounts that could be imposed without having to prove that a person acted negligently or unreasonably or with ill intent. He said this form of strict liability likely means that our constitutional rights to free speech may not be a defense. Additionally, when the government regulates speech and expression, it must do so in a narrowly tailored way that satisfies a compelling government interest. SB 255 was proposed to prevent hypothetical scenarios and is based on a right to free passage that is not found in either the federal or state constitution. He further noted that, in order to uphold Alaskans' due process rights, the government must clearly define conduct that it prohibits. Implementing the concept of obstruction of free passage in public places would require law enforcement and prosecutors to make judgment calls about what conduct qualifies [for prosecution], because the [current] definition could capture a lot of unremarkable activity. He said the standard is too vague to clearly understand and too subjective to avoid uneven enforcement. He concluded that SB 255 is an overbroad solution in search of a problem and, top to bottom, a violation of constitutional rights. For these reasons, he said, the ACLU of Alaska urges the committee not to advance SB 255. 2:31:40 PM ED MARTIN, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. Mr. Martin sought to share with the committee his findings that SB 255 originated with a publication by the Yale Law Journal, 2014. He said he was not surprised that there have been attempts to limit free speech, assembly, free access and choice of residence. Mr. Martin expressed frustration with local Kenai leadership that reflected what he considered to be similar attempts to limit citizens' rights. 2:34:39 PM PHIL MOSER, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 255. Mr. Moser said SB 255 would have been applicable to the march from Selma to Montgomery and to other civil rights efforts in the 1950's and 1960's. He said he was present during Juneau's version of the Freedom Convoy, the protest against vaccinations in 2022. He asserted that, had SB 255 been in effect for that event, he would have been able to sue many people and organizations, including several state legislators and community leaders. He pointed out that legislation which is intended to support one ideology can also be used to support opposing viewpoints. 2:37:22 PM CHAIR KAUFMAN closed public testimony on SB 255. CHAIR KAUFMAN invited questions from committee members noting that individuals representing Alaska State Troopers, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF), and Department of Law are available to answer them. 2:37:51 PM SENATOR KIEHL asked whether there is a state law that explicitly permits the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) to plow snow onto the sidewalks. 2:38:18 PM ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF), Juneau, Alaska, answered questions during the discussion of SB 255. Mr. Mills offered to find the regulations that address berms and clearing of snow and provide that to the committee. 2:38:37 PM SENATOR KIEHL said DOTPF may have an explicit statutory authorization, but the City and Borough of Juneau does not have regulations allowing snowplow drivers to pile snow on the sidewalks. He asked whom to sue when his sidewalk is plowed in, whether the suit would be against the drivers in their personal capacity for $10,000 each, or in their professional capacity as city employees. 2:39:15 PM PARKER PATTERSON, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Law (DOL), Juneau, Alaska, answered questions during the discussion of SB 255. Mr. Patterson said he would have to investigate city ordinances. He said he would get back to the committee. 2:39:34 PM SENATOR KIEHL said that he checked with the city attorney and there is no authorization. MR. PATTERSON said that he would have to personally research it before offering an opinion. SENATOR KIEHL said there may be even more overbreadth in the liability section than public testimony indicated today. 2:40:35 PM CHAIR KAUFMAN held SB 255 in committee. # 2:41:00 PM There being no further business to come before the committee, Chair Kaufman adjourned the Senate Transportation Standing Committee meeting at 2:41 p.m.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
HB 81 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 1:30:00 PM STRA 3/21/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 81 |
HB 81 Sectional Analysis .pdf |
HFIN 5/4/2023 1:30:00 PM STRA 3/21/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 81 |
HB 81 Fiscal Note DOA DMV 2.14.24.pdf |
STRA 3/21/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 81 |
HB 81 Letters of Support.pdf |
STRA 3/21/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 81 |
SB 255 Public Testimony recieved as of 3.20.24.pdf |
STRA 3/21/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 255 |