Legislature(1997 - 1998)

05/05/1997 01:32 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                             
                            May 5, 1997                                        
                             1:32 p.m.                                         
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Joe Green, Chairman                                            
 Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman                                       
 Representative Brian Porter                                                   
 Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                
 Representative Jeannette James                                                
 Representative Eric Croft                                                     
 Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 All members present                                                           
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 * HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 36                                               
 Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska               
 relating to redistricting of the legislature, and repealing as                
 obsolete language in the article setting out the apportionment                
 schedule used to elect the members of the first state legislature.            
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
 SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 189                                     
 "An Act relating to sale of tobacco and tobacco products; and                 
 providing for an effective date."                                             
      - MOVED CSSSHB 189(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                 
 SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 159                                     
 "An Act relating to sale, gift, exchange, possession, and purchase            
 of tobacco and tobacco products; and providing for an effective               
      - MOVED CSSSHB 159(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                 
 HOUSE BILL NO. 79                                                             
 "An Act relating to the offense of possession of tobacco by a                 
 person under 19 years of age."                                                
      - HEARD SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT AND HELD                                     
 * HOUSE BILL NO. 252                                                          
 "An Act relating to criminal records; relating to notice about and            
 registration of sex offenders and child kidnappers; and amending              
 Rules 11(c) and 32(c), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure."                   
      - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                
 HOUSE BILL NO. 245                                                            
 "An Act relating to minimum sentences for assault in the fourth               
 degree that is a crime involving domestic violence; providing that            
 a prisoner may not contact the victim of the offense when provided            
 access to a telephone or otherwise immediately after an arrest; and           
 amending Rule 5(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure."                      
      - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                
 (* First public hearing)                                                      
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  HJR 36                                                                 
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN, Martin, Mulder                           
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG                 ACTION                                   
 04/23/97      1293    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/23/97      1293    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                
 05/05/97              (H)   JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 BILL:  HB 189                                                                 
 SHORT TITLE: RESTRICT TOBACCO SALES                                           
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COWDERY, Austerman                              
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG                 ACTION                                   
 03/12/97       640    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/12/97       640    (H)   LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY                       
 04/03/97       922    (H)   SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED                     
                             - REFERRALS                                       
 04/03/97       922    (H)   L&C, JUDICIARY                                    
 04/09/97              (H)   L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                         
 04/09/97              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 04/10/97              (H)   L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                         
 04/10/97              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 04/18/97              (H)   L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                         
 04/18/97              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 04/21/97      1211    (H)   L&C RPT  CS(L&C) NT 4DP 1NR                       
 04/21/97      1211    (H)   DP: COWDERY, RYAN, HUDSON, ROKEBERG               
 04/21/97      1211    (H)   NR: BRICE                                         
 04/21/97      1211    (H)   2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS, REV)                    
 04/21/97      1225    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): AUSTERMAN                           
 04/28/97              (H)   JUD AT 1:45 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 04/28/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 04/28/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 05/05/97              (H)   JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 BILL:  HB 159                                                                 
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT, Mulder, Kohring, Sanders, Ryan,           
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG                 ACTION                                   
 02/25/97       465    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/25/97       465    (H)   LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY                       
 02/27/97       519    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): SANDERS                             
 03/27/97       871    (H)   SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED                     
                             - REFERRALS                                       
 03/27/97       872    (H)   L&C, JUDICIARY                                    
 04/09/97              (H)   L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                         
 04/09/97              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 04/10/97              (H)   L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                         
 04/10/97              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 04/11/97      1085    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): COWDERY                             
 04/17/97      1132    (H)   L&C RPT  CS(L&C) 4DP 1NR 1AM                      
 04/17/97      1133    (H)   DP: COWDERY, SANDERS, RYAN, HUDSON                
 04/17/97      1133    (H)   NR: BRICE                                         
 04/17/97      1133    (H)   AM: ROKEBERG                                      
 04/17/97      1133    (H)   2 FISCAL NOTES (COURT, DCED)                      
 04/17/97      1133    (H)   4 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS, REV, LAW,               
 04/28/97              (H)   JUD AT 1:45 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 04/28/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 04/28/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 04/28/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 05/05/97              (H)   JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 JACK CHENOWETH, Attorney                                                      
 Legislative Legal and Research Services                                       
 Legislative Affairs Agency                                                    
 130 Seward Street, Suite 409                                                  
 Juneau, Alaska  99801-2105                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2450                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified regarding HJR 36.                              
 JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General                                     
 Governmental Affairs Section                                                  
 Civil Division (Juneau)                                                       
 Department of Law                                                             
 P.O. Box 110300                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska  99811-0300                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3600                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided department's position and answered              
                      questions regarding HJR 36.                              
 CASEY SULLIVAN, Legislative Administrative Assistant                          
    to Representative John Cowdery                                             
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 416                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3879                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented sponsor's position on SSHB 189.                
 NICOLE POIRRIER, Legislative Intern                                           
     for Representative Pete Kott                                              
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 204                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3765                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Read sponsor statement for SSHB 159.                     
 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT                                                      
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 204                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3764                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of SSHB 159.                                     
 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General                                    
 Legal Services Section                                                        
 Criminal Division                                                             
 Department of Law                                                             
 P.O. Box 110300                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska  99811-0300                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3428                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions during hearing of SSHB 159            
                      on that bill and CSSSHB 189(JUD).                        
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 97-76, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 0001                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee              
 meeting to order at 1:32 p.m.  Members present at the call to order           
 were Representatives Green, Bunde, Porter and James.                          
 Representatives Croft, Berkowitz and Rokeberg arrived at 1:35 p.m.,           
 1:37 p.m. and 1:42 p.m., respectively.                                        
 CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that the committee would not hear HB
 79 or HB 252.                                                                 
 HJR 36 - REAPPORTIONMENT BOARD & REDISTRICTING                                
 Number 0076                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the first item of business was House Joint           
 Resolution No. 36, proposing amendments to the Constitution of the            
 State of Alaska relating to redistricting of the legislature, and             
 repealing as obsolete language in the article setting out the                 
 apportionment schedule used to elect the members of the first state           
 JACK CHENOWETH, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services,            
 Legislative Affairs Agency, explained that since not long after               
 statehood, it has been clear that provisions covering legislative             
 apportionment are out of sync with constitutional requirements                
 first laid down by the United States Supreme Court in the early               
 1960s.  This resolution would conform Alaska's constitutional                 
 scheme to those requirements.  It would also require that in future           
 legislative districting schemes, only single-member districts would           
 be used.                                                                      
 MR. CHENOWETH noted that HJR 36 deals principally with Article VI,            
 the legislative apportionment article of the constitution.  Section           
 1 of Article VI talks about election districts, the "term-of-art"             
 used to describe the districts in which House members run for                 
 election or re-election.  Section 1 of HJR 36 deletes obsolete                
 language that refers to the first reapportionment and the reference           
 to Article XIV, Section 1, substituting a requirement that the                
 boundaries of election districts be drawn in conformity with other            
 provisions of this article after each decennial census of the                 
 United States.  A parallel change is made in Section 2 for Senate             
 MR. CHENOWETH referred to Section 3 and said he is recommending               
 substitution of the term "redistricting" throughout this article.             
 "Reapportionment" is a term generally reserved to amending or                 
 changing the number of representatives within fixed political                 
 boundaries.  For example, every ten years when the census comes               
 out, the United States Congress is reapportioned, with states                 
 gaining or losing seats based on population changes.  The shift of            
 seats from one jurisdiction to another having fixed boundaries,               
 such as state boundaries, is a true reapportionment; the number of            
 seats is reallocated among these jurisdictions.                               
 MR. CHENOWETH explained that within jurisdictions, however, the               
 process of drawing lines is a simple redistricting, which is what             
 is going on with state legislatures.  The United States Supreme               
 Court has made it clear that only resident population count can               
 serve as the basis for the line-drawing and that any effort to tie            
 this to some sort of fixed, permanent or semi-permanent lines will            
 not sit well with the courts.  This is a simple redistricting of              
 Alaska into 20 Senate seats and 40 House seats.  Section 3 of HJR
 36 simply substitutes the term "redistricting" for                            
 "reapportionment", and that change is made throughout the rest of             
 the resolution.                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH referred to page 2, line 7, and said it also                    
 substitutes the word "resident" so that "resident population"                 
 rather than "civilian population" is the basis for redistricting.             
 The limitation of tying this to a civilian population was set aside           
 by an early state supreme court case.  "And we have to go with some           
 sort of resident-based population scheme," he concluded.                      
 Number 0365                                                                   
 MR. CHENOWETH said Section 4 deletes current language that talks              
 about how reapportionment shall be developed and substitutes the              
 requirement of single-member districts.  "The Governor is to                  
 establish single-member election districts and is to establish                
 Senate districts composed of two contiguous election districts,               
 with each Senate district to elect one Senator," he explained.                
 "That's the scheme that we now have in place."                                
 MR. CHENOWETH explained that Section 5 reworks Article VI, Section            
 6.  It deletes some language that ties back to reapportionment and            
 keeps in place the only language that seems to be pertinent to how            
 lines are to be drawn, the language that the reapportionment boards           
 in the past, and the courts in their review of the work of the                
 Governor, have looked back at and used to consider these                      
 reapportionment decisions.                                                    
 MR. CHENOWETH noted that Section 6 changes the board's name to the            
 "Redistricting Board".  It maintains the requirement of a                     
 geographic spread but unties this from the notion of fixed                    
 Southeastern, Southcentral, Central and Northwestern Senate                   
 districts, which are the fixed districts used in the original                 
 constitution; it substitutes the four judicial districts                      
 established by law and authorized under Article IV, Section 1.                
 MR. CHENOWETH said Section 7 simply is a change in name from                  
 "Reapportionment" to "Redistricting".  Section 8 updates some                 
 references to the Governor, removing a gender-based pronoun and               
 substituting a neutral term.  It also makes further substitutions             
 of "redistricting" for "reapportionment".                                     
 MR. CHENOWETH said Section 9 deletes two sections of Article VI               
 made obsolete by United States Supreme Court decisions:  Section 5,           
 which talks about combining House districts in order to maintain              
 Senate districts in the old fixed-boundary scheme, and Section 7              
 (misstated as Article VII), which talks about modification of                 
 Senate districts when necessary to accommodate population shifts.             
 MR. CHENOWETH stated, "We also propose to repeal Article XIV, which           
 is a provision that sets out the initial reapportionment dating               
 from 1959.  It's not used anymore.  It has no standing anymore.               
 Article XIV is simply a device or a vehicle by which we generally             
 restate the current apportionment, so that it can be found in the             
 statute books.  It's typically an annotation of some sort that                
 describes the boundaries of the current apportionment, so at least            
 we have it someplace out in the public and they can find it.  Every           
 time there's an apportionment change, every ten years, that change            
 is made.  But ... the original language of Article XIV is of no               
 value anymore."  He concluded by saying Section 10 is a boiler                
 plate to get this before the voters in November 1998.                         
 Number 0570                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT asked whether the major change is                   
 "constitutionalizing" single-member districts.                                
 MR. CHENOWETH said yes, for both the House and the Senate.                    
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "Do you mean any change in current law            
 when you make the switch from `civilian' to `resident,' that is,              
 the law that we're forced into by the federal interpretation?"                
 MR. CHENOWETH replied, "Yes, we are following the requirements that           
 have been imposed by, chiefly, recently, state supreme court                  
 decisions that have eliminated the use of `civilian' and required             
 that we go to a resident population base.  And the state supreme              
 court has suggested ways in which it is possible to take, for                 
 example, the military count, and try to allocate some number of               
 estimated military that reflect a better split between resident and           
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether it conforms to current practice            
 in that regard.                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH affirmed that.                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the term "contiguous" and said               
 he'd read some of those cases.  Because of geography, Alaska has an           
 interpretation somewhat different from other states.  For example,            
 Alaska has one Senate district and two House districts separated by           
 700 miles of ocean; those are considered "contiguous."  He stated,            
 "So, we don't mean any change in that."                                       
 MR. CHENOWETH concurred.                                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, then, whether the sole substantive                
 change is locking in single-member districts.  If this were current           
 law and these changes had been made two years ago, would what they            
 are doing now be legal?                                                       
 MR. CHENOWETH said yes.                                                       
 Number 0714                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked for confirmation that there is           
 no constitutional problem with the existing structure, from a                 
 federal perspective.                                                          
 MR. CHENOWETH replied that what problems there might be, the state            
 courts have generally worked their way around.  They have looked at           
 decisions of the United States Supreme Court and accommodated as              
 best as they've been able to, pointing out that this is an article            
 in need of revisitation and amendment, in light of decisions from             
 the United States Supreme Court and their own practices.                      
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated the Hickel case is the only                
 related case he has read, although there may be others.  He asked,            
 "What, generically, are the concerns in the courts?"                          
 MR. CHENOWETH answered, "Well, the courts have had to fill in, if             
 you will.  They have had to assume responsibility where there was             
 no literal expression of responsibility for action taken by the               
 Governor or by the reapportionment board as recommendations to the            
 Governor.  For example, there is no authority in law to adjust the            
 terms of sitting Senators.  The courts have filled in by saying               
 that when there is a substantial change in a boundary, and a Senate           
 district is increased substantially so that new faces are brought             
 in or former constituents are let go of and put in a different                
 district, ... there is an inherent authority to cut short by two              
 years the Senate terms and require a Senator ... in a remade                  
 district to run again."                                                       
 MR. CHENOWETH indicated there is nothing of that in the state                 
 constitution, adding, "They have simply accepted the fact that that           
 needs to be done, looked at the operation of that kind of a                   
 provision in other states and adapted it ... into this."  He                  
 emphasized this is the one thing for which no express provision               
 exists in the state constitution, nor is there an express provision           
 for it in this resolution.                                                    
 Number 0845                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked why they weren't including that                
 omitted provision here.                                                       
 MR. CHENOWETH answered, "Well, I think you should.  I think a                 
 complete package would be some sort of reference in here that the             
 Governor has explicit authority to, under some kind of                        
 circumstances, cut short the terms of sitting Senators and require            
 that they run for re-election.  Now, I don't know how that's going            
 to sit in the other body, and I certainly wasn't asked to make that           
 change.  I only throw it out on the table as the one piece of this            
 puzzle that, as I went back and looked at this thing over the                 
 weekend, I thought perhaps we ought to put something in there so              
 that the courts are not relying upon some assumed authority.                  
 Having rewritten Article VI, perhaps we ought to add that in and              
 make that point clear."                                                       
 Number 0919                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted the lateness in the session and the                
 expense required for a public vote on a constitutional amendment.             
 He suggested they'd be remiss not to include as many housekeeping             
 details as possible.  He'd like to see that provision included.               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER pointed out that the Governor can make            
 the appointment to the districting board without confirmation by or           
 concurrence of the legislature.  He asked whether it would be a               
 friendly amendment to add that.                                               
 Number 1001                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said that was a good thought.  He mentioned the "two           
 concepts" and asked Mr. Chenoweth whether there is a way to tighten           
 this so that nothing is left to chance.  They'd been working this             
 way at least as long as he'd been in the state, that "every                   
 decennial election, the Senators just serve two terms, and then               
 everybody starts from scratch again; but this would codify it."               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER indicated his own suggestion about                      
 confirmation had been somewhat facetious.                                     
 CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that he was discussing the prior issue.              
 Although it wasn't essential to do it immediately, he wondered                
 whether there was a way to modify it, possibly for review at a                
 future meeting.                                                               
 MR. CHENOWETH said he believed that could be accomplished.  It may            
 only be necessary to add a sentence or a fraction of one that                 
 invites the published final plan to indicate some determination on            
 the terms of Senators then in office, or words to that effect.                
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said he perceived that to be the will of the                   
 committee, according to comments.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether there would be other witnesses.            
 CHAIRMAN GREEN replied that no one was on teleconference, but Mr.             
 Baldwin was signed up to testify locally.                                     
 Number 1114                                                                   
 JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs               
 Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, came forward             
 to testify, saying Representative Croft's questions had pretty well           
 covered what he wanted to clarify that day.  The people in his area           
 of the department generally end up advising the reapportionment               
 board.  He said, "I guess I've been through about three or four,              
 but not that many governors.  It seems like there's been more                 
 reapportionments than there have been governors because of the way            
 these things get into litigation.  And we seem to have to do them             
 more than once per ten-year cycle."                                           
 MR. BALDWIN indicated the application of the federal voting rights            
 act has made their job increasingly complicated over time.  He                
 explained, "It seems like we do the plan, we get through our                  
 courts, and then we have to get through the Justice Department for            
 pre-clearance, which then seems to make us have to go through                 
 another cycle again."  Mr. Baldwin is concerned, with this                    
 legislation particularly, about abandoning some current flexibility           
 in techniques to bring forward reapportionment plans.  He stated,             
 "If you go strictly to a single-member-district approach, then you            
 give up the ability to go to multi-member districts, if that would            
 serve our interests and perhaps assist us in gaining pre-clearance            
 from the Justice Department."                                                 
 MR. BALDWIN said he couldn't pose a particular set of facts that              
 would cause that to arise.  "But I've been having a terrible time             
 doing that for every reapportionment plan we've come up with;                 
 there's always been something new that comes up to cause us a                 
 hurdle before the Justice Department," he stated.  "So, I just ask            
 the committee to consider that fact.  As our population grows and             
 it shifts, and we know it's shifting somewhat, particularly towards           
 the Mat-Su area of the state, it's going to take a larger                     
 population for rural areas of the state; they're going to have to             
 come in and pick up, perhaps, what we call the `fringe areas' of              
 the municipalities and more higher-populated areas."                          
 MR. BALDWIN said it might be possible they'd need to go to multi-             
 member districts to solve some particular problem.  Under the                 
 current interpretation of the state constitution, they can go to              
 single-member districts if the Governor desires that.  Mr. Baldwin            
 advised members, "Not knowing who the next Governor is going to be            
 that's going to be writing the next plan, you might want to keep in           
 mind leaving that option open to him or her."                                 
 MR. BALDWIN expressed concern that being required to go to single-            
 member districts may affect rural areas more than urban areas.                
 While he wasn't saying they'd want to do multi-member districts in            
 rural areas, they may need to do so in urban districts in order to            
 make things work in the rural areas.  Or they could possibly be               
 into retrogression, which he called a "nasty word in the area of              
 voting rights."  Mr. Baldwin explained, "In other words, the                  
 minorities who are represented now would lose representation.  And            
 ... mathematically, if that works out, if demographically that                
 works out, we have to do that, that's fine.  But ... if it can be             
 done another way, the Justice Department is going to be there, and            
 I don't know what the outcome would be, lacking the flexibility               
 that we have now.  So, ... I really hate this saying, but `if it              
 ain't broke, don't fix it' might well apply here."                            
 MR. BALDWIN said he believed the testimony earlier was that the               
 requirement of districting only resident population is not intended           
 to be a change from anything now in effect.  He stated, "Our                  
 supreme court was not quite so direct in the way it said that                 
 contiguity can include expanses of water.  And I want to make sure            
 that in here you're not saying `contiguous' in its plain meaning,             
 which means right up against one another.  We can't lose that                 
 flexibility, because geography just works against us in so many               
 ways, and particularly getting things to work.  So, I'm glad that             
 you're creating a strong record for that."                                    
 Number 1380                                                                   
 MR. BALDWIN noted that it was nearly the end of session.  If this             
 resolution did not pass both houses, he asked the committee to                
 carefully consider studying this matter in the interim,                       
 particularly with regard to single-member districts.  He mentioned            
 "knowing better what's going into the building blocks of the                  
 census, which is being put together now, whether there isn't going            
 to be enough evidence there to perhaps lead to a decision that we             
 don't need to abandon this flexibility that we have now."                     
 MR. BALDWIN commented that from a Governor's perspective, single-             
 member districts are good because a veto can be done "surgically,"            
 by district.  However, from the realities of reapportionment or               
 redistricting, it may cause real problems for the next Governor.              
 Number 1432                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated they had used this method since the 1992             
 election.  He asked whether there wasn't a significant influx and             
 shifting of population in the 1980s.  He said it seems the concerns           
 Mr. Baldwin expressed were handled well in single-member districts.           
 He asked, "Do you anticipate some reason why that won't continue to           
 be handled well with single-member districts?"                                
 MR. BALDWIN said the only thing he can successfully anticipate is             
 that there will be litigation over the plan, one way or another.              
 There have been a couple of supreme court cases recently on using             
 minority voters as a criteria.  While he can't foresee the affect             
 of that, he predicts Alaska will be in a "fight over retrogression"           
 in the next reapportionment.  He explained, "When you go into these           
 reapportionment efforts, the Justice Department generally sticks              
 you with a benchmark as to ... how many minority-influence seats              
 you have, how many majority seats you have.  And if the way we go             
 into it forces us into a retrogression situation, I see long and              
 protracted litigation, with uncertain results at the end of the               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked, "With the feds?"                                 
 MR. BALDWIN replied, "I think with the minorities, and the feds               
 will be as a part of it, yes.  They will be ... in the litigation             
 as well."  He said for a state like Alaska, which is closely                  
 monitored under the voting rights act, the best situation is not to           
 have retrogression but to maintain the benchmarks, if at all                  
 possible.  While it is hard to predict what will happen, he                   
 anticipates that is what Alaska will be confronted with.  There               
 might be ways to avoid it.                                                    
 MR. BALDWIN stated, "Keeping the maximum powers in the hands of the           
 Governor to do that, (indisc.) in the board to do that, would be my           
 preferred alternative.  But it's not the best."  He pointed out               
 there is much good to be said for single-member districts.                    
 Campaigns are cheaper and easier.  It is easier to maintain "one              
 person, one vote."  Constituents don't need to feel that they can't           
 tell who their representative is, and there is a more direct                  
 relationship.  Mr. Baldwin stated, "There's all those good things,            
 but when you get right down to the problems that we have with a               
 small population, a large area of geography and much water and all            
 those factors brought to bear, tying your hands to one method of              
 redistricting might not be what would serve the interests of ...              
 the state as a whole."                                                        
 Number 1596                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested that when one looked at the demographics             
 of the districts as they were done, and the number of minorities              
 and other factors, it looked pretty good across the state.  "To               
 then say that it might be better to go to multiple-member districts           
 and potentially get back into the `doughnut' district or Valdez               
 being tied in with South Anchorage, I mean, those kinds of things             
 seem to be much more confusing and much more potential for                    
 litigation than to go to an area where the constituency is far more           
 aware of who their representative really is," he said.                        
 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES agreed with Mr. Baldwin's reasons              
 why a single-member district is important.  She indicated she'd               
 prefer not to have an option, which they may use when they don't              
 need to.  She'd never yet seen a redistricting without litigation.            
 She feels much more comfortable with a single-member district                 
 because of the "one man, one vote" issue and because the people               
 know who represents them.  She believes those are important issues.           
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated she understands about losing members           
 from rural areas.  However, in the next ten years there may be a              
 surge in the rural areas, particularly if they get some of the                
 anticipated development.  She asked whether "maybe it ought to be             
 left that the option is only a single-member district and then,               
 should we see a problem with that coming in the future, that we               
 then go to the voters to ask for a change."  She added, "Maybe                
 that's not wise, because maybe most of the voters are in the areas            
 who love to have more representation than less out there; I don't             
 necessarily think that's true."  She asked Mr. Baldwin to respond             
 to that way of looking at it.                                                 
 Number 1708                                                                   
 MR. BALDWIN replied, "I don't think it's harder to come up with a             
 list of ... why you'd want multi-member districts, first off.  I              
 think there's a list of reasons for that, too, and because of the             
 other criteria in the constitution about compactness and                      
 socioeconomic interrelatedness, which are the other criteria in the           
 constitution, it might well be able to state a case that an area,             
 for example, Juneau, which ... has in past reapportionment plans,             
 before the one we're in, has had multi-member districts, and                  
 probably for a good reason.  It's hard to see any division line               
 between the town and the [Mendenhall] Valley, for example, and                
 there have been other areas in the state that are like that, that             
 have benefitted from having multi-member districts."                          
 MR. BALDWIN said he didn't know what the process would be for the             
 voters to come back and change it at some point in the future.  He            
 stated, "I mean, we have a reapportionment, and we try to do a plan           
 and have it done so it can be in place for another ten years.  And            
 to interrupt that in the middle of a cycle, which is what we've               
 done the last couple of times because of litigation, has been very            
 disruptive to the electoral process.  Can you imagine the Division            
 of Elections scrambling to try and get their precinct lines and               
 regulations done for an election when you don't know what the                 
 districts are going to be?  It's really pandemonium."  He said he             
 wouldn't recommend an approach like that, if he understood the                
 question correctly.                                                           
 Number 1777                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned a lawsuit "determined on a national            
 level last year" about gerrymandering in the South.  In her own               
 district, she noted that they'd "zeroed out Nenana to meet some               
 population, Native population, and left me with less people in my             
 district than other districts," but within the parameters allowed.            
 She asked whether that court decision would have precluded that               
 from happening and whether Mr. Baldwin was familiar with it.                  
 MR. BALDWIN replied, "Yes, I am.  I don't think so.  Representative           
 Croft and I've argued about this a little bit; he doesn't quite see           
 it my way.  But I think that in Alaska we did our redistricting               
 considering not only race; we also considered the other traditional           
 criteria, which are compactness and socioeconomic connectedness.              
 At the same time, we did the adjustments which were required, we              
 thought, to meet pre-clearance requirements.  It's only when you're           
 doing it based completely on race, without any other criteria, that           
 you fall into the realm of those U.S. Supreme Court cases involving           
 Texas and Georgia.  So, if that was your ... sole criteria, you did           
 it just because of race considerations, then you're going to have             
 violated the U.S. Constitution."                                              
 Number 1874                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER indicated that if it wasn't the sponsors'               
 desire to get this past both bodies this year, he was only being              
 facetious regarding confirmation of the board by the legislature to           
 the extent that he believed this was a "slam-dunk" housekeeping               
 legislation.  However, if the main feature needs looked at further,           
 this would be the appropriate committee to perhaps look at "a much            
 bigger element of this whole area."                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained, "I would think that it would be              
 appropriate to try to get a procedure to put in place a board that            
 would look at redistricting from a position of what is the most               
 appropriate - under the law - district to put in place for the                
 betterment of the voters of the state of Alaska, instead of, `How             
 much partisan gerrymandering can we do and get away with it?'  And            
 I'm not saying that one party does this any better or worse than              
 the other party.  I mean, we've been here long enough to know that            
 they both do it.  So, if it is that we have a desire to work on               
 this over the interim, I would be happy to try to work on that                
 element also."                                                                
 CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated changing that would raise a concern.  He             
 asked whether Mr. Baldwin had indicated, in response to                       
 Representative Porter's mention of this earlier, that the                     
 Administration would be more concerned about the resolution if they           
 modified the strong gubernatorial input in selection of the board.            
 MR. BALDWIN suggested that may have been Mr. Chenoweth.  He said it           
 wasn't brought up while he was present.                                       
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "So, you don't see any problem with that?"              
 MR. BALDWIN laughed, then said, "I think that the constitution is             
 just fine, as far as having the Governor appoint the board.  That             
 was a decision that was hotly debated in the minutes of the                   
 constitution. ... They felt that the legislature, while a[n]                  
 exceedingly wise organization, maybe was not best suited for ...              
 making reapportionment decisions."                                            
 Number 2004                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested if they knew anything after this               
 history, it's that the legislature doesn't want to be involved in             
 rewriting its own boundaries.  While to some extent it's up to the            
 vagaries of who is in office every decade and there have been some            
 games, he can't imagine the games there would be if the legislature           
 were in charge of that.                                                       
 Number 2024                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded that he certainly wasn't suggesting           
 that.  He was suggesting trying to establish a neutral board                  
 without gubernatorial or legislative direction on how to try to               
 gerrymander the districts.  He said, "And if there's anybody here             
 that doesn't think that that isn't what's happened the last 10, 20,           
 30, 40 years, I'll talk to you after we get off the record."                  
 Number 2050                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE brought up questions he'd like to have                   
 addressed if this was worked on during the interim.  First, do                
 other states have both single-member and multiple-member districts            
 in the same body?  And have other states gone from having single to           
 multiple members?  He understood that most have gone from multiple            
 to single, for many good reasons, and while he understood the plea            
 for flexibility, "we may need a socket set here but we've got a               
 crescent wrench; maybe we don't need to keep the crescent wrench."            
 MR. BALDWIN replied that he didn't know the answer but would be               
 happy to research it.                                                         
 Number 2107                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there were further comments.  Speaking           
 as both sponsor and chairman, he announced that HJR 36 would be               
 held over and worked on during the interim.                                   
 SSHB 189 - RESTRICT TOBACCO SALES                                             
 SSHB 159 - TOBACCO PURCHASE, POSSESSION, SALE, ETC.                           
 HB 79 - MINOR IN POSSESSION OF TOBACCO                                        
 Number 2150                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN GREEN called on Representative James for a subcommittee              
 report on Sponsor Substitute for House Bill No. 189, "An Act                  
 relating to sale of tobacco and tobacco products; and providing for           
 an effective date"; Sponsor Substitute for House Bill No. 159, "An            
 Act relating to sale, gift, exchange, possession, and purchase of             
 tobacco and tobacco products; and providing for an effective date";           
 and House Bill No. 79, "An Act relating to the offense of                     
 possession of tobacco by a person under 19 years of age."  The                
 three bills had been assigned to the same subcommittee.                       
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, speaking as chair of that subcommittee,                 
 reported that they had met that morning and decided to let the                
 decisions be made by the committee as a whole.                                
 SSHB 189 - RESTRICT TOBACCO SALES                                             
 CHAIRMAN GREEN brought before the committee Sponsor Substitute for            
 House Bill No. 189, "An Act relating to sale of tobacco and tobacco           
 products; and providing for an effective date."  Version 0-                   
 LS0711\F, Ford, 4/21/97, had been adopted as a work draft at the              
 previous hearing.                                                             
 CASEY SULLIVAN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to                       
 Representative John Cowdery, spoke on behalf of the sponsor, saying           
 this bill will limit public access to tobacco products in retail              
 premises; require employees to learn the relevant statutes and sign           
 an affidavit attesting to their understanding; and increase                   
 penalties for selling tobacco to minors.                                      
 MR. SULLIVAN said one thing that passionately resonates throughout            
 Alaska is that people don't want to see tobacco going to minors.              
 This bill changes the penalties for selling or giving tobacco to a            
 person under 19 years of age from a violation that carries a fine             
 of not less than $300 to a class A misdemeanor carrying a penalty             
 of up to $5,000; a second offense would be a class C felony                   
 carrying a penalty of up to $50,000.  It is not their intent to               
 punish minors beyond the penalties now in statute, and they hadn't            
 addressed that.  It is essentially for retailers selling tobacco to           
 MR. SULLIVAN referred to testimony during the House Labor and                 
 Commerce Standing Committee hearing, which indicated banning                  
 tobacco self-service displays is a popular approach endorsed by a             
 couple of different establishments.  He said this bill is the first           
 to feature that self-service ban.                                             
 MR. SULLIVAN referred to questions from the previous hearing in the           
 present committee.  The first regarded lack of fiscal notes.  He'd            
 checked with Anne Carpeneti of the Department of Law, who said she            
 won't be issuing a fiscal note "due to the lack of history."  All             
 others received thus far have been zero fiscal notes.                         
 MR. SULLIVAN referred to a second question concerning the culpable            
 mental state of "negligence" now in AS 11.76.100.  He said that is            
 not the commensurate term to use with the stricter penalties                  
 proposed here.  For a class A misdemeanor, "knowingly" is more                
 appropriate; for the class C felony, "recklessly" is more                     
 appropriate.  Mike Ford from Legislative Legal Services had                   
 indicated that including both definitions within the bill would be            
 okay, and those are consistent with the amendment Representative              
 Porter had offered at the last hearing.                                       
 MR. SULLIVAN next referred to a question asked by Chairman Green,             
 relating to whether the penalty provisions would affect people who            
 are not retail shop owners, such as those on the streets giving a             
 few cigarettes to others.  Review with Legislative Legal Services             
 had indicated the standard of culpability for these penalties would           
 make that highly improbable, just due to the circumstances.  He               
 stated, "But in a memo that we got today, just due to the actual              
 definition of the statute, ... they would be responsible for that."           
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "If somehow caught, they would be."                      
 MR. SULLIVAN agreed.  He restated that the intent is not to punish            
 minors or people on the street.  They just want to restrict tobacco           
 to public access, as much as possible, in retail establishments and           
 to provide economic incentive for not selling to minors.                      
 Number 2315                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted the repeated comment about not wanting             
 to punish minors.  He also recalled that the sponsor had once                 
 indicated he didn't want to punish those already addicted to                  
 nicotine.  Yet a minor who attempts to purchase alcohol is subject            
 to a punishment as well as the person who sells the product.  He              
 asked the reason for differentiating between illegally purchasing             
 tobacco and illegally purchasing alcohol.                                     
 Number 2345                                                                   
 MR. SULLIVAN replied that they just don't address it in this bill.            
 He believes there are already penalty provisions for minors in                
 possession of tobacco, "a violation of $300."  He stated, "We                 
 thought that the responsibility ought to be on the people who                 
 distribute these products.  And it is.  And then there's new                  
 federal regulations, as you well know, that are coming out.  And we           
 thought that would be ... the eminent focus of our legislation."              
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked, "If a minor is using a false ID and               
 purchases, do you feel that's still adequately addressed in                   
 existing legislation?"                                                        
 MR. SULLIVAN answered that to the best of his knowledge, it is not            
 covered extensively.                                                          
 Number 2378                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted the class C felony for the second sale             
 of tobacco.  He asked what the penalties are for selling marijuana.           
 MR. SULLIVAN said he didn't know.  They had fashioned these penalty           
 provisions to be similar to those in statute for providing alcohol            
 to minors, although there is a stiffer fine.                                  
 Number 2411                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that this also covers exchanging or            
 giving tobacco.  He suggested a person giving a cigarette to a 16-            
 year-old or 18-year-old would come under the reach of the statute.            
 MR. SULLIVAN affirmed that.  He mentioned Mike Ford of Legislative            
 Legal Services and read:  "Accidentally giving a cigarette only               
 causes a crime to occur if the act is a gross deviation from what             
 ... a reasonable person would do in that situation."  He said it is           
 a culpable mental state.                                                      
 Number 2463                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how they envision enforcement happening.           
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked:  With a zero fiscal note?                               
 TAPE 97-76, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 0006                                                                   
 MR. SULLIVAN indicated they hope the penalties will encourage                 
 enforcement and discourage retail owners and employees from                   
 breaking the law.  He stated, "There's obviously an increase in               
 education that is going on right now through federal regulations.             
 Throughout all the shops in Alaska, we're seeing the `we card'                
 program and others similar to that.  I think that the education is            
 very high, and once they're also educated on the penalties that               
 will be incurred if they sell, if they deviate from this, I think             
 that you will find, with these increased penalties, that the sales            
 ... of tobacco to minors will decrease."                                      
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked:  Without catching someone in the act of                 
 selling to a minor, what would the penalty be for an owner who                
 didn't enforce it or who didn't cause employees to enforce it?                
 MR. SULLIVAN said he didn't know.                                             
 Number 0070                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER restated his concern about passing this bill            
 out with a "violation standard for a misdemeanor and a felony."  He           
 said they'd have big trouble if they had a negligence standard for            
 committing a felony, which he believes is totally inappropriate for           
 a misdemeanor.  He proposed changing that.                                    
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether the sponsor had concerns about that;             
 Mr. Sullivan's reply was indiscernible due to simultaneous speech.            
 Number 0102                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG said along that same line, he is               
 concerned that the culpable person is the employee.  The five-year            
 window where it goes from a first-offense class A misdemeanor to a            
 class C felony seemed a bit draconian.  With too stiff a penalty,             
 there is a tendency not to enforce it if it seems unreasonable.               
 Number 0123                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER agreed.  As discussed in other bills relating           
 to whether an offense should be a violation, misdemeanor or felony,           
 there is a practical side.  A person will get whatever sentence the           
 court feels is appropriate within legal guidelines.  A clerk                  
 convicted of a C felony for a second offense of selling cigarettes            
 to a minor will get no more than for a misdemeanor.  He explained,            
 "You can sentence someone on an A misdemeanor up to a year in jail.           
 A C felony is not going to get any more than that.  It might even             
 get less because of a serious suspended imposition of sentence or             
 something.  With that in mind, we're moving from a violation, which           
 is no jail time, into the criminal area."                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested making this a B misdemeanor and an            
 A misdemeanor, as opposed to an A misdemeanor and a C felony, and             
 changing the standard to "knowingly" and not "negligently," so that           
 it is consistent with other criminal offenses.                                
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether that was being offered as an                     
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that as an amendment, specifying that             
 the initial offense of selling or giving tobacco to a minor would             
 be a B misdemeanor, and the second offense would be an A                      
 misdemeanor.  In addition, under AS 11.76.100(a)(1), the word                 
 "negligently" would be replaced by the word "knowingly".                      
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there were questions or an objection             
 to the amendment.  There being none, the amendment was adopted.               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move committee substitute            
 0-LS0711\F, Ford, 4/21/97, as amended, from the committee with                
 attached zero fiscal notes and individual recommendations.  There             
 being no objection, CSSSHB 189(JUD) moved from the House Judiciary            
 Standing Committee.                                                           
 SSHB 159 - TOBACCO PURCHASE, POSSESSION, SALE, ETC.                           
 [Contains extensive comparisons with CSSSHB 189(JUD)]                         
 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next item of business was Sponsor                
 Substitute for House Bill No. 159, "An Act relating to sale, gift,            
 exchange, possession, and purchase of tobacco and tobacco products;           
 and providing for an effective date."                                         
 Number 0282                                                                   
 NICOLE POIRRIER, Legislative Intern for Representative Pete Kott,             
 read the sponsor statement into the record, noting that                       
 Representative Kott would join the meeting shortly.  She read:                
 "The state of Alaska has a serious problem with underage                      
 consumption of tobacco products.  Statistics compiled by the                  
 Department of Health and Social Services indicate that 21 percent             
 of Alaska's high school students regularly smoke and that 25                  
 percent of our ... middle school students smoked at least one                 
 cigarette in the last month.  As reported by the February 27, 1997,           
 edition of The Wall Street Journal, the Center for Disease Control            
 and Prevention has concluded that approximately one million                   
 children each year take up smoking and that unless they quit, over            
 one-third of them will die from tobacco-related illnesses.                    
 "These statistics are cause for great concern.  It is estimated               
 that 18,000 of Alaska's children will succumb prematurely to                  
 tobacco-related illnesses.  This is a tragedy, not only for the               
 individuals but for our state as a whole.  I think that we can do             
 "Under existing law, no one under 19 years of age is permitted to             
 possess tobacco.  Obviously, large numbers of our children are                
 being accorded illegal access to this product.  House Bill 159                
 would have the salutary effect of limiting that access.  This bill            
 requires that merchants, prior to the sale of tobacco, demand proof           
 of age from any prospective patron who appears to be under 27 years           
 of age.  House Bill 159 requires all clerks involved in the retail            
 sale of tobacco to sign an acknowledgment that they have been                 
 advised of this proof-of-age requirement.  In addition, House Bill            
 159 increases the penalties for underage sale or possession of                
 tobacco.  I urge your support."  Ms. Poirrier deferred to the                 
 sponsor, who had not yet arrived, to answer questions.                        
 Number 0366                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that they'd just passed out                    
 legislation that defined, by statute, that this is an A                       
 misdemeanor.  Now, they were reverting and calling it a violation.            
 He suggested that since this is a subsequent action, it may                   
 supersede their preceding action if it passed out of committee.               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated his understanding that there are two           
 different "offendee potentials," as the bills speak to different              
 parties.  One is a giver, seller, barterer or distributor, whereas            
 the other is the underage receiver or possessor.                              
 Number 0408                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed.  He said it makes it a violation for             
 a person under 21 years of age to knowingly possess tobacco or to             
 present false identification.  He asked what the current penalty              
 is, if any, for minors who purchase tobacco.                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded that he was talking about just             
 the provisions of AS 11.76.100.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked, "As stated in the bill or as existing            
 in law now?"                                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said as stated in both SSHB 159 and SSHB
 Number 0450                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to page 4, lines 9 through 18, and              
 said it talks about a person with a business license who violates             
 this section.  It isn't only talking about a minor.                           
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT added, "And similarly, as you just said, on              
 page 1, lines 13 and 14, and page 2, lines 1 and 2, a person who              
 violates it is given a violation."  He agreed there are two areas             
 where the seller is getting a violation, whereas they'd just made             
 it a misdemeanor.                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he'd be happy to supersede with this.           
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether it would be appropriate to do           
 a conceptual amendment to conform the legislation.  He said he'd              
 hoped the subcommittee would have taken up those issues.                      
 CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed and said he hadn't realized there was the               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "I sit corrected.  Representative               
 Berkowitz is correct in those areas that do have overlap with the             
 other bill."                                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members that he had a "side-by-side"             
 of the different tobacco bills.                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether that had been presented to the                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said no, they'd just made it in-house.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated his staff member, currently out            
 of town, had prepared it.                                                     
 Number 0541                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN GREEN explained to Representative Kott, "We're at the                
 point of saying that we may be duplicative or in conflict with the            
 bill we just passed out."                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, sponsor of SSHB 159, replied that he                
 couldn't comment on CSSSHB 189(JUD) because he wasn't present when            
 it was heard.  He said, "This bill makes it a violation, the ...              
 first offense being $250, within a two-year period, and subsequent            
 increasing fines."                                                            
 CHAIRMAN GREEN advised him that the previous bill was punishing               
 only for selling tobacco to minors, with a couple of different                
 classifications of misdemeanors.                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT explained, "This does not take it to a                    
 misdemeanor level.  It's just a violation and does cover not only             
 those who sell it but those who provide it to the minor.  It could            
 be someone else of legal age, outside of a retailer or wholesaler."           
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he didn't see one bill superseding the              
 other or being duplicative until voted on, on the House floor.  Two           
 levels of violation were being offered.  While he wouldn't expect             
 both bills to become law, they provided the body a choice.                    
 Number 0612                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recalled, from the House Labor and Commerce           
 Standing Committee hearing, that testimony indicated additional               
 provisions in SSHB 159 relate to authorities' ability to revoke or            
 suspend a business's endorsement for a violation.  He believes this           
 bill goes somewhat beyond the previous bill and has merit in those            
 areas.  Whereas he believed CSSSHB 189(JUD) focused on the sales              
 clerk, this focuses on the business itself, because the business              
 has a responsibility to the state and has the endorsement granted             
 by the department to conduct that type of business.                           
 CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that this also covers a person.                    
 Number 0678                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he appreciated that.  On the one hand,           
 it may be appropriate to ask legal counsel, via a conceptual                  
 amendment, to conform the two bills, if that is the sponsor's wish.           
 Or, as Representative Bunde mentioned, the bills could be forwarded           
 to stand on their own merits.                                                 
 Number 0697                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said while Sections 1 and 2 are obviously not           
 in conformance with CSSSHB 189(JUD), there is another element in              
 here.  Noting the existence of amendments to lower the age, he said           
 he'd vote for those.  He believes it would be inconsistent to have            
 two military bases where smoking is legal for 19-year-olds and 20-            
 year-olds and then to preclude them from coming into the city where           
 other adults could smoke and they couldn't.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated, "So, to the extent that we have                 
 already amended ... the one section, and the major difference in              
 the second section is the age anyway, because ... it is, by law,              
 now a violation to possess or purchase, I would suggest we just               
 delete Sections 1 and 2, and Section 3, if it is the will of the              
 committee, to the current age and pass the bill."                             
 Number 0760                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested it would be easier to vote on his           
 own amendment regarding the age first.  He offered Amendment 1, 0-            
 LS0287\P.1, Ford, 4/17/97, which read:                                        
      Page 1, line 5:                                                          
           Delete "21"                                                         
           Insert "19"                                                         
      Page 1, line 6:                                                          
           Delete "21"                                                         
           Insert "19"                                                         
      Page 1, line 7:                                                          
           Delete "21"                                                         
           Insert "19"                                                         
      Page 1, line 8:                                                          
           Delete "21"                                                         
           Insert "19"                                                         
      Page 2, line 5:                                                          
           Delete "21"                                                         
           Insert "19"                                                         
           Delete "21"                                                         
           Insert "19"                                                         
      Page 2, line 15:                                                         
           Delete "21"                                                         
           Insert "19"                                                         
      Page 2, line 31:                                                         
           Delete "21"                                                         
           Insert "19"                                                         
      Page 3, line 7:                                                          
           Delete "21"                                                         
           Insert "19"                                                         
      Page 3, line 21:                                                         
           Delete "21"                                                         
           Insert "19"                                                         
      Page 3, line 22:                                                         
           Delete "21"                                                         
           Insert "19"                                                         
      Page 3, line 30:                                                         
           Delete "21"                                                         
           Insert "19"                                                         
      Page 4, line 25:                                                         
           Delete "21"                                                         
           Insert "19"                                                         
      Page 6, line 22, through page 7, line 1:                                 
           Delete all material.                                                
      Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                        
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that this lowers the age in the             
 committee substitute from 21 to 19, which conforms it to existing             
 state law and to CSSSHB 189(JUD).                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected for discussion purposes.  He asked              
 what the testimony was in the House Labor and Commerce Standing               
 Committee that caused the change from 19 to 21.                               
 Number 0827                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT explained that the change was the result of a             
 sponsor substitute, not an amendment.  The amendment offered in the           
 Labor and Commerce Standing Committee was to return it to age 19,             
 which he believed had failed by a vote of 5 to 1.  Representative             
 Kott said, "It's my understanding that the military establishments            
 would conform to state law, although I would have to confirm that.            
 ... So, I don't think you'd have that hodgepodge of being able to             
 smoke on base and then not being able to smoke downtown."                     
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the rationale for increasing it to 21 is             
 that perhaps 3 or 4 percent of smokers begin beyond age 19, such as           
 when they get into the workplace where they are surrounded by                 
 adults with the habit.  It was just an opportunity to give them an            
 extra year to think about it.  Having said that, Representative               
 Kott advised members that he wasn't opposed to the amendment.                 
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated he had no objection to bringing the            
 age back down.  He removed his objection.                                     
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any further objection.                 
 There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER offered as Amendment 2 the deletion of                  
 Sections 1 and 2, with renumbering as appropriate.                            
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected for discussion purposes.                        
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated his understanding that this would                  
 conform it to the previous bill.  He explained, "The reason why we            
 put this in, in this fashion, is that it does establish a penalty,            
 not a flexible penalty that could be adjusted by the magistrate,              
 since it's my understanding that on first offenses, anyone caught             
 using tobacco products under the age are taken before the                     
 magistrate, at which point they are issued a $25 fine, even though            
 there is up to $250. ... You know, $25 is not that much of an                 
 incentive not to do it.  So, the incentive here is to establish a             
 firm $250, no adjustment."                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said since they had reconformed everything to           
 below age 19, he would amend his motion to delete only Section 1,             
 not Section 2.                                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested it would have perhaps been                 
 simpler if they'd deleted Sections 1 and 2 from the previous bill.            
 He said there is consistency in Representative Kott's bill.                   
 CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that there was already a motion on the floor.            
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked for clarification.                                
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "He was suggesting that we go back to the bill           
 we just passed and rescind their Sections 1 and 2, and leave these            
 here; I believe that's what you had in mind."                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied, "That's what I had in mind.  And            
 I'm not speaking for or against; I'm speaking during the discussion           
 phase here."                                                                  
 Number 1018                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated, "In my understanding, the effect of             
 it would be that Section 2 would alter, by increasing the fine                
 capability, not affect anything else that we did in the first bill.           
 Deleting Section 1 would then leave in place what we did in the               
 first bill in that whole area.  Whereas Section 3, of course, is a            
 new area."                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether he was talking about the first             
 paragraph of Section 1 or the whole section.                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said it was the whole section.                           
 CHAIRMAN GREEN specified it was (a), (b) and (c).                             
 Number 1065                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that CSSSHB 189(JUD) had just amended              
 (d) and added "(g), (h), on through."  He stated, "I don't see it             
 affecting (a), (b) and (c) as [SSHB] 159 does."  He asked                     
 Representative Porter, "If we remove Section 1, you believe that              
 would leave all ... the misdemeanor, now, penalties for selling,              
 and by leaving Section 2 in, would establish, for the first time,             
 a violation for possession?"                                                  
 Number 1107                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied, "No.  It is currently a violation,             
 ... and we didn't do anything in that area in the first bill.  What           
 it would do would set up a higher level of capability of fine ...             
 for an existing violation of possession."                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he understood Section 2.  He asked, "What           
 you're doing on Section 1 would have what effect, as compared to if           
 we didn't adopt your amendment?"                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained, "By deleting Section 1, this bill            
 then will have no impact on that particular statute, and what will            
 go forward is what we did to that particular statute in the first             
 bill, 189, which was change a violation to a two-stage                        
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "It leaves (a), (b) and (c) alone in               
 statute, because 189 never touched it, and we're getting rid of the           
 section that touched it in 159.  So, we'd leave (a), (b) and (c) of           
 [AS] 11.76.100 as it stands."                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded, "With the exception that we would            
 change `negligently' to `knowingly', which is what we did in 189              
 with the amendment."  He specified that they'd left in effect AS              
 11.76.100 in terms of what offenses it incorporates.  "And it                 
 incorporates the giving or selling of tobacco to a minor," he said.           
 "It changes the standard in that from `negligently' to `knowingly',           
 but when you get down to the (d), which establishes what kind of an           
 offense it is, it takes away the violation and adds the two-stage             
 misdemeanor (indisc.).  By deleting Section 1 of the bill we're               
 considering now, we leave all of that in place."                              
 Number 1285                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT withdrew his objection.                                  
 CHAIRMAN GREEN reminded members that Amendment 2 does away with               
 Section 1 and renumbers accordingly.  He asked whether there was an           
 objection.  There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted.                        
 Number 1352                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that page 3, lines 16 through 18,               
 says, "A prosecution for violation of this subsection may not be              
 brought unless a prosecution is also brought for violation of AS              
 11.76.100."  He was double-checking to make sure this wouldn't                
 present a conflict.                                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether the concern was about the word            
 "violation."  He then explained that a violation of the statute               
 means that one has committed the offense, not that it is or isn't             
 a "violation" or a "misdemeanor."                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said this is okay; AS 11.76.100 is a "broad           
 brush," and there is no citation of an individual subsection.                 
 Number 1414                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted the sponsor's indication that underage             
 people caught possessing tobacco receive a $25 fine, which doesn't            
 get their attention; now, with a $250 fine, it will get their                 
 attention.  He agreed tobacco use is price-sensitive.                         
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move from committee CSHB
 159(L&C), as amended, with individual recommendations and any                 
 attached fiscal notes.                                                        
 Number 1470                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.  He directed members' attention             
 to page 4, lines 13 through 18, which says, "(g) A person who                 
 violates this section is guilty of a violation and upon conviction            
 ...."  Noting that it relates to the endorsement and to                       
 restrictions on the sale of tobacco and tobacco products, he asked            
 whether they need to conform this to CSSSHB 189(JUD) as well.                 
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied that this is AS 11.76.107, selling               
 without the proper endorsement or without doing the proper carding,           
 which logically may be a violation.                                           
 Number 1535                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated, "The offense for which this (g)                 
 section refers, I think, is a person engaging in the business                 
 failing to properly instruct their employees.  I think that is                
 sufficiently different from the other offenses of actually giving             
 to the minor that I would not be uncomfortable with that                      
 designation. ... I don't feel strongly one way or the other. ...              
 But we made a crime out of the offense of giving it to the minor;             
 this is a violation for an employer not appropriately notifying his           
 employees of something."                                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated he'd stopped to make sure he was               
 correct.  He stated, "I read it as it being a violation to sell               
 this without the proper license; to not demand proof of age when              
 you should; to put your vending machine in an improper place; or to           
 not, as Representative Porter says, train your clerks correctly.              
 ... It would be appropriate to have those technical, if you will,             
 violations be a violation and the actual proved selling to a minor            
 be a misdemeanor."  He said it wouldn't be inconsistent.  He                  
 suggested the committee could make that choice.                               
 Number 1620                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to page 3, lines 19 and 29, which              
 says, "(d) A person engaged in the retail business of selling a               
 tobacco product shall notify each individual employed" of all of              
 those things.  He stated, "So, the offense that we're saying is a             
 violation is his or her failure to notify the employees that those            
 things are offenses.  If the employee violates that provision, they           
 still are guilty of a misdemeanor, as we have established."                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed but pointed out that it says, "A person           
 who violates this section"; it doesn't say "subsection".  He                  
 stated, "So, it's the entire .107. ... You're right on that, but in           
 addition, (a), (b).  [Subsection] (b) says you may not sell tobacco           
 via vending machine; so, if you do, even to someone overage, if               
 it's in the improper place, you could commit a violation.                     
 [Subsection] (c) says a person engaged shall demand proof.  If you            
 fail to demand proof of somebody who is 26, that's a violation; if            
 they're 19, that's a misdemeanor."                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT continued, "And so, all down the line, it                
 seems at least a reasonable distinction it's making between                   
 violating some of the technical I-put-my-machine-in-the-wrong-                
 place, I-didn't-card-when-I-should-have, but it didn't turn out to            
 be selling to a minor; it's just it violated these prophylactic               
 measures, if you will.  And so, in each of those, I think you can             
 make at least a reasonable argument that violating them is somewhat           
 lesser ... than doing the misdemeanor of selling, actually, to a              
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether that is the sponsor's                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that is his interpretation.                          
 Number 1743                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern about sales provisions,             
 being consistent with the prior bill.  He mentioned particular                
 concern about vending machines.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the prior bill didn't deal with vending             
 CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed but noted that it is still a sale.                      
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "It's a sale, right.  I mean, you               
 have an endorsed premise, you have the right to have the vending              
 machine, but then this is a matter of control over it. ... Here, in           
 this bill, you have a violation subject to the penalty clause only,           
 whereas in the other bill, you'd have a misdemeanor."                         
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated, "But again, if I may, Mr. Chairman,             
 the offense is for just inappropriately having the vending machine            
 someplace, not selling to the minor.  Any situation that results in           
 selling to the minor turns out to be a crime."                                
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 1 of CSSSHB 189(JUD),                
 lines 12 through 14.  He then stated, "In existing law, it says,              
 `who maintains a vending machine in violation of (a)(2) of this               
 subsection commits a violation and upon ... a conviction is                   
 punishable by a fine of not less than $300.'  Well, we got a little           
 inconsistent, 50 bucks' worth.  And the $300 is in existing statute           
 now.  But I think, Mr. Chairman, if I recall the bill sponsor's               
 endeavor, he wanted to stair-step it, rather than just keep it a              
 flat $300."                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether the sponsor would entertain a friendly           
 amendment that the first step would be $300, as it is in existing             
 law, rather than $250, with the second step being $500.                       
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he'd go along with whatever the committee            
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered Amendment 3:  "Page 4, line 14,               
 deleting `$250' and adding `$300'."                                           
 Number 1933                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for discussion purposes.  He                
 mentioned district court and asked Anne Carpeneti about potential             
 problems in terms of raising the amount above $250, which may                 
 entitle someone to a jury trial.                                              
 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section,           
 Criminal Division, Department of Law, explained, "The supreme court           
 recently held in Dutch Harbor Seafoods that a person who could be             
 fined for $250 under the civil provisions of ... the constitution             
 would be given a right to a jury trial if ... the civil fine was              
 more than $250.  That has been withdrawn by the court, and we have            
 asked them to reconsider that decision.  And they are reconsidering           
 it now. ... We are proceeding as if they hadn't made that decision            
 at this point.  But we're not very firm on that because they                  
 haven't reissued their opinion.  But they did withdraw it, and it             
 is being briefed as we speak.  We don't expect a decision before              
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "So, are you suggesting, then, in the prior             
 bill, where we still have it in statute at $300, that that should             
 perhaps be reduced?"                                                          
 MS. CARPENETI replied, "At this point, I wouldn't suggest that                
 because the opinion has been withdrawn, and when it happens, I                
 suppose, then ... we would recommend that you make adjustments.               
 But until that decision is issued finally, I wouldn't suggest that.           
 I personally wouldn't.                                                        
 Number 2092                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he wanted to be clear on what the               
 Dutch Harbor Seafoods case did, as he hadn't seen it.  He stated,             
 "Anything, whether it comes under the criminal code or not under              
 the criminal code, ... a potential fine of $250 or more would allow           
 the defendant to seek a jury trial."                                          
 MS. CARPENETI said although she hadn't read the opinion in several            
 months, she believed it was in excess of $250.  After reading that            
 opinion, they'd concluded $250 was "safe" from having a jury trial            
 hinge on it.                                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether the access to a jury trial             
 is contingent upon the amount of potential fine, rather than the              
 fine actually imposed.                                                        
 MS. CARPENETI replied, "I believe so, yes."                                   
 Number 2164                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said his concern was different.  He referred             
 to Representative Porter's amendment and noted that they'd left in            
 (a), (b) and (c) of AS 11.76.100.  He stated, "It defines where you           
 can and cannot have a vending machine and defines, as we're looking           
 at it, that is a violation, a fine of $300.  We have a violation of           
 $250 here.  So, that's one ... inconsistency."                                
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT continued, "The more important inconsistency,            
 I think, is that it restricts it in different places.  And so,                
 under the provision in current law, it says, basically, `you can't            
 sell to a minor or have a vending machine at all,' and then (b)               
 says, `but you can have it in these situations.'  So, in (b), it              
 says you can have it on a licensed premises, generally, as long as            
 it's as far as practical from the primary entrance and supervised.            
 In this section, we say, `you can have it where alcoholic beverages           
 are sold,' basically the same thing.  And it has the supervision.             
 But is says, `and inaccessible.'  So, ... they both have to be                
 supervised in a place where alcohol is served, but one has to be as           
 far as practical from the primary entrance; if you don't do that,             
 you get hit for $300.  If it's not inaccessible to the public where           
 the licensed public is closed, a different kind of thing, it's                
 $250.  And I guess you'd have to do all three to escape liability             
 by these two competing sections."                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT continued, "Not only that, the only other                
 section in .100 is a break room exception.  So, you can either have           
 it on a `licensed alcohol' with these, or a break room, and this              
 has other partially overlapping but somewhat contradictory                    
 exceptions to it."                                                            
 TAPE 97-77, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 0006                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER offered a conceptual amendment.  Considering            
 that they didn't know what the result of the jury trial issue would           
 be, he'd feel more comfortable "moving the $300 back to $250 but              
 adding, instead of the mandatory $250, the language that we had in            
 the $300, `no less than'."  He explained, "The $250, we've got a              
 fine of $250, period.  But in the section that we're concerned                
 about, that's inconsistent with the $300, it says, `no less than              
 $300,' wherever the heck it was."                                             
 An unidentified speaker said he believed it was .100(d).                      
 Number 0043                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER continued, "So, what I would suggest would be           
 that we ask the bill drafter to do two things:  Make the two fines            
 no less than $250 and the middle one there, also, no less than                
 $500, so as to be consistent.  Can you fine for more than $1,000 in           
 a violation?  I think you can.  So, no less than $1,000, also.  And           
 to adopt ... the more restrictive language for the placement of the           
 vending machine, in both areas."  He indicated he didn't know                 
 whether the new or old language was more restrictive.                         
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether they'd still have a conflict, as this            
 says "no less than $250", while the prior bill says "no less than             
 $300."  He mentioned going back to the previous bill.                         
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied, "We don't have to change that bill."           
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested they could easily rescind the               
 action on the previous bill, so that it would be on the record,               
 after Representative Porter proceeded with the current amendment.             
 CHAIRMAN GREEN concurred.                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER continued with his conceptual amendment,                
 "sans dealing with the $300."  He asked that the bill drafter adopt           
 the more restrictive of the language for placement of the vending             
 machine and add to the stepped-up violation fines of no less than             
 $250, no less than $500, and no less than $1,000.                             
 Number 0310                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected to say he interprets the more                   
 restrictive language to be "part of one and part of another, that             
 is, the `where alcoholic beverages are sold.'"  He didn't know                
 which was more restrictive, "not near the entrance" or "you can't             
 get into it when it's closed."                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the more specific one.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested they should choose, because he was             
 a little confused about which is more specific.  He asked whether             
 he could make a friendly amendment regarding that, then stated,               
 "Regarding a place where alcoholic beverages are sold, ... both               
 provisions would require supervision.  One says, `and far away from           
 the primary entrance.'  The other says, `you can't get at them when           
 it's closed.'  Which one do we ....?"                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "All of them."                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "You want to make all three?  I guess             
 it shouldn't be near the entrance and you shouldn't be able to                
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said he liked that.                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER agreed.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT continued, "And then just one more thing, so             
 that they know and we don't have a question come back:  In the                
 other area, it says, `or you can have one in an employee break room           
 or other controlled area of a private workplace that is not                   
 generally considered a public place.'  The bill we have in front of           
 us says you can either have it in a factory, business, office, or             
 other place that is not open to the public or a place that is open            
 to the public but to which a person under the age of 21 is denied             
 access.  Which of those alternatives does the committee feel is               
 more restrictive?"                                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned subsection (2) on page 3, which             
 refers to persons under the age of 21.                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that it is now 19.                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed, then suggested they could also                
 delete subsection (3), unless there is another area they'd be                 
 denied access to, which didn't have alcoholic beverages.                      
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded, "I don't know."                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether Representative Croft was                
 worried about the break room.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated he was just worried that they say              
 which is more specific.  He said, "And I don't even know in these             
 two."  He mentioned the break room or other controlled area of a              
 private workplace.                                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that would be more restrictive              
 than subsection (1).                                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed that the statute, as it stands, "with             
 section (2), employee break room or other controlled area of a                
 private work place," would be the more restrictive and, therefore,            
 the one they intend to incorporate.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded, "That's it.  And we incorporated             
 the best of both out of the first one."                                       
 CHAIRMAN GREEN and REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed.                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether this is part of a change to             
 Amendment 3 or another amendment.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said it is a new amendment.                             
 CHAIRMAN GREEN named it Amendment 4.                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether they had adopted Amendment 3,           
 "which raised it up to $300."                                                 
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "We did, yes."  He asked for a clarification             
 so that there was no question about Amendment 4.                              
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained that the noncontroversial part is             
 what they are doing to subsection (c), beginning at page 1, line              
 13, and continuing to page 2, lines 1 and 2, adding "no less than"            
 in front of the $250 figure, the $500 figure, and the $1,000                  
 figure.  In addition, they are adopting, in the placement of the              
 vending machine, "both languages, the existing statute and the                
 bill, that would end up saying, `not available after closing and as           
 far away as practical,' or whatever the wording is, `from the                 
 CHAIRMAN GREEN commented, "You can't access it."                              
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "Right.  And that's for ... places where           
 alcoholic beverages are sold.  And the more restrictive other                 
 definition, which is in place of (1) and (2) on page 3, lines 4               
 through 7, we used the language from the current statute, which is            
 11.76.100(b)(1), (b)(2), `in an employee break room or other                  
 controlled area of a private workplace that is not generally                  
 considered a public workplace', and that that's more restrictive              
 than (1) and (2) in ... those sections."                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT removed his objection.                                   
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any further objection.                 
 There being none, Amendment 4 was adopted.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to rescind Amendment 3.                 
 There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to temporarily table SSHB 159           
 for the purposes of rescinding their action on SSHB 189 and making            
 a specific amendment.  There being no objection, it was so ordered.           
 SSHB 189 - RESTRICT TOBACCO SALES                                             
 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that the committee would again hear                  
 Sponsor Substitute for House Bill No. 189, "An Act relating to sale           
 of tobacco and tobacco products; and providing for an effective               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt an amendment to page           
 1, line 14, to delete "$300" and insert "$250".  There being no               
 objection, it was so ordered.                                                 
 Number 0835                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move 0-LS0711\F, Ford,               
 4/21/97, as amended, from the committee.  There being no objection,           
 CSSSHB 189(JUD) moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.            
 SSHB 159 - TOBACCO PURCHASE, POSSESSION, SALE, ETC.                           
 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would again hear Sponsor               
 Substitute for House Bill No. 159, "An Act relating to sale, gift,            
 exchange, possession, and purchase of tobacco and tobacco products;           
 and providing for an effective date."  He noted that they had                 
 significantly amended the bill that day.                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move CSSSHB 159(L&C),                
 version 0-LS0287\P, as amended, from committee with individual                
 recommendations and attached fiscal note.  There being no                     
 objection, CSSSHB 159(JUD) moved from the House Judiciary Standing            
 Number 1024                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee               
 meeting at 3:21 p.m.                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects