04/28/2001 09:06 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 28, 2001
9:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 187(FIN)
"An Act relating to absentee and special needs voting."
- MOVED CSSB 187(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 42
"An Act relating to the consumption, purchase, furnishing,
delivery, offer for sale, and sale of alcoholic beverages and to
driver's licenses and identification cards used to purchase
alcoholic beverages."
- MOVED CSHB 42(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 213
"An Act relating to initiative and referendum petitions; and
providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the budget reserve fund and to the Alaska heritage
fund; and providing for an effective date for the amendments.
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to initiative and referendum petitions.
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 187
SHORT TITLE:ABSENTEE AND SPECIAL NEEDS VOTING
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WARD
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/10/01 1048 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/10/01 1048 (S) STA, FIN
04/19/01 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/19/01 (S) Moved CS(STA) Out of
Committee
04/19/01 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/20/01 1194 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP NEW TITLE
04/20/01 1194 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, PHILLIPS,
DAVIS
04/20/01 1194 (S) FN1: ZERO(GOV)
04/23/01 1214 (S) FIN RPT CS 7DP 2NR NEW TITLE
04/23/01 1214 (S) DP: KELLY, DONLEY, GREEN,
OLSON, WILKEN
04/23/01 1214 (S) WARD, LEMAN; NR: AUSTERMAN,
HOFFMAN
04/23/01 1214 (S) FN1: ZERO(GOV)
04/23/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/23/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
04/23/01 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/25/01 1261 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1OR 4/25/01
04/25/01 1264 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/25/01 1264 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/25/01 1264 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/25/01 1264 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
187(FIN)
04/25/01 1264 (S) PASSED Y14 N6
04/25/01 1265 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
04/25/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
04/25/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/26/01 1288 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
04/26/01 1289 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/26/01 1289 (S) VERSION: CSSB 187(FIN)
04/27/01 1264 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/27/01 1264 (H) STA
04/28/01 1308 (H) STA RPT 3DP 2NR 1AM
04/28/01 1308 (H) DP: WILSON, JAMES, FATE; NR:
HAYES,
04/28/01 1308 (H) COGHILL; AM: CRAWFORD
04/28/01 1308 (H) FN1: ZERO(GOV)
04/28/01 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 42
SHORT TITLE:PRIVILEGE TO PURCHASE ALCOHOL/I.D. CARDS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GREEN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/10/01 0049 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/10/01 0049 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/10/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/10/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/17/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/17/01 (H) Heard & Held
04/17/01 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/28/01 1300 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 1DP 1DNP 3NR
1AM
04/28/01 1301 (H) DP: FATE; DNP: COGHILL; NR:
CRAWFORD,
04/28/01 1301 (H) HAYES, JAMES; AM: WILSON
04/28/01 1301 (H) FN1: (ADM); FN2: (ADM)
04/28/01 1301 (H) FN3: (COR); FN4: (LAW)
04/28/01 1301 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
04/28/01 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
LORETTA BROWN, Staff
to Senator Jerry Ward
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 423
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 187 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Ward.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
PO Box 110017
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0017
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with CSSB 187(FIN).
JEFF LOGAN, Staff
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 403
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Green.
CHUCK HOSACK, Deputy Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
3300B Fairbanks Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 22.
KEVIN HOGAN
(No address provided.)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 22.
DR. BOB JOHNSON
(No address provided.)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 22.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 403
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 42.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-51, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:06 a.m. Representatives
Coghill, James, Fate, Wilson, and Crawford were present at the
call to order. Representative Hayes and Stevens arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
SB 187-ABSENTEE AND SPECIAL NEEDS VOTING
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 187(FIN), "An Act relating to absentee
and special needs voting."
Number 0103
LORETTA BROWN, Staff to Senator Jerry Ward, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SB 187 on behalf of the sponsor. Ms.
Brown explained that SB 187 requires the director of the
Division of Elections to notify the voting public of all
absentee in-person voting stations 45 days before an election.
Currently, the opening is left to the discretion of the
director. This legislation will create regulations stating that
no new stations may be opened after the 45-day period.
Therefore, everyone would have an even playing field in regard
to knowing where the absentee voting stations will be open.
Furthermore, the public would be informed in a timely manner.
This legislation also requires that the absentee voting stations
may not be opened more than 15 days before an election. She
explained that with a 45-day notice, there is actually a 30-day
period during which the public is notified before the actual
voting begins. This legislation does not take away the
discretion that can be used during the 15-day period before the
election; the absentee voting stations can operate at their
discretion.
MS. BROWN, in response to Chair Coghill, specified that [the
legislation] anticipates public notice, not personal notice. In
response to Representative Wilson, Ms. Brown said this
legislation would not impact absentee voting by mail.
Number 0404
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD expressed his difficulty in seeing a
need for this legislation. If the division had the ballots
completed early, then the opportunity for more people to vote
would be better.
MS. BROWN pointed out that the Division of Elections is not the
only group that notifies voters. Candidates and other
organizations notify voters and advertise. Therefore, if there
is mix up in regard to the location and opening times of a
voting station, then there is the possibility that a [voter] is
confused.
Number 0506
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist, Division of
Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, pointed out that
the Division of Elections already provides public notice of the
location and time of absentee in-person voting. Historically,
the notice [begins] about three weeks prior to the election,
which is about six days prior to the voting period. The
division feels that such is an adequate period of time to notify
the public. Ms. Fenumiai related her belief that if people are
notified 30 days in advance, they wouldn't remember.
Furthermore, the locations of the absentee in-person voting
stations are usually set by June 1, which is around the same
time as the division secures the polling places and recruit
election workers. She clarified that absentee voting stations
are those locations where all 40 House district ballots are
available as compared to an absentee voting official, which may
have ballots for one specific jurisdiction.
MS. FENUMIAI recalled references to absentee voting starting
early. However, in the six years she has been with the
division, it has happened once and that was during last year's
general election. The ballots arrived earlier than ever before.
She explained that the division has the statutory authority to
begin absentee in-person voting only in the regional election
offices, which are located in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and
Nome. The six recognized political parties were notified that
absentee in-person voting would start a week early than
scheduled because the ballots were available. It was thought it
would be a good service to voters.
Number 0733
CHAIR COGHILL asked if Ms. Fenumiai viewed the 15-day period
before an election as problematic.
MS. FENUMIAI noted that absentee in-person voting has always
started 15 days before the election. In further response to
Chair Coghill, she agreed that the struggle would be in relation
to the 45-day period. Ms. Fenumiai pointed out that SB 187
would require the division to publish the location, date, and
time of [absentee in-person voting] 45 days prior to the
election and the bill also repeals the division's ability to
start absentee in-person voting early at the four regional
election offices in the case that the ballots arrive early. She
reiterated that such has only happened once in six years.
Number 0789
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES related her belief that in order to get
more people to vote, known [locations, times, and dates] would
be better. She felt that there are a couple of problems with
getting people to vote, which include that people are apathetic
about the issue or merely forget to vote. "Not only do we want
people who want to vote, we want informed people to vote," she
emphasized. She indicated that specific timelines would provide
people with order on which they could depend. Therefore, she
requested that Ms. Fenumiai provide a better case as to why the
proposed timelines would destroy some of the things the division
is able to do.
MS. FENUMIAI clarified that she didn't believe that [the
timelines] would destroy anything the division is trying to do.
Rather, she believes that advertising 30 days prior to the
voting starting is perhaps too soon for people to remember or be
effective for the voter to remember. She reiterated that these
[absentee in-person] voting stations are set around June 1 and
listed on the Internet at the division['s site]. She emphasized
that the division doesn't object to noticing the locations, it's
merely the timing that seems too long. In further response to
Representative James, Ms. Fenumiai clarified that it's not an
issue of not knowing where the locations will be but rather the
effectiveness of the public notice.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES countered by relating her belief that
having the notice earlier would provide people with the
opportunity to know earlier.
Number 1209
REPRESENTATIVE FATE inquired as to the hardship that a 45-day
and a 30-day notification would create for the division.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that there might be an increase to the on-
year election costs in the division's budget by about $10,000.
She informed the committee that $35-$40,000 is spent for each
election advertising. In further response to Representative
Fate, Ms. Fenumiai said that such a change wouldn't be a
hardship on personnel.
Number 1281
MS. BROWN informed the committee that the legislation originally
had a 60-day notification. Although Ms. Brown acknowledged that
the division already has these voting stations scheduled and
set, the desire is to [avoid] a change at the last [minute].
Therefore, the 45-day period would allow other organizations the
ability to have time [to include voting locations and times] in
their mailings and telephonings and know the voting stations
won't change [or] be added.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES inquired as to whether the division has
changed polling locations at the last moment, without proper
notice.
MS. BROWN said, "I'm not real sure. Senator Ward feels there
have been cases."
MS. FENUMIAI pointed out that polling places are a bit different
than stations. There [have been] unusual circumstances under
which polling places can't open for election day and thus there
are emergency closures. However, the division does its best to
notify voters of polling place changes, which have to be cleared
with the Department of Justice. In regard to the absentee
voting stations, those are listed in regulation. Furthermore,
it is too difficult to set up an absentee voting station three
weeks prior to the election and thus the absentee voting
stations are established around June 1 when polling place
election recruiting is done.
Number 1405
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES related his understanding, then, that the
absentee polling station is already in statute and thus [only]
an extraordinary circumstance would cause a station not to be
available. Therefore, he inquired as to what justification this
legislation has to change the requirement to a 45-day
notification period. He recalled speaking with voters during
his "door knocking" and those voters mentioned that they didn't
think of the election until the last 10 days. Therefore, he
viewed this legislation as adding another layer of bureaucracy
that he didn't believe was necessary.
MS. BROWN agreed that [the location of the absentee voting
stations] is in regulation, but she pointed out that the
director of the Division of Elections has discretion in
changing, moving, and opening [absentee voting stations].
Therefore, this legislation places [the 45-day requirement] in
statute [and thus] doesn't allow that to happen.
MS. FENUMIAI reiterated that the director of the division has
the discretion to begin absentee in-person voting early only in
the four regional election offices. This [occurs] only if the
ballots are available for distribution. Those four locations
are the only locations that such happened in the 2000 general
election. Ms. Fenumiai informed the committee that there are 14
absentee ballot stations that are operational during a primary
election and 15 are operational statewide during a general
election. This legislation doesn't impact the dates of
operation, it only states that absentee in-person voting can't
start any earlier than the 15th day.
Number 1562
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON requested that Ms. Fenumiai provide the
committee with an example of an emergency that would necessitate
a change.
MS. FENUMIAI reiterated that such would be the case with polling
places, which is a different issue than an absentee voting
station. With regard to a polling place, a school that was
under construction may have been secured. However, the
construction isn't completed by the time of the election and
thus an emergency polling place change would have to be done.
In such a circumstance, voters are mailed notification of the
change. Furthermore, a notice directing voters to the new
location is usually posted at the original location.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised then that the only objection Ms.
Fenumiai has is the 45-day requirement. She inquired as to why,
when ballots are available early, voting would be allowed early
in some areas versus statewide.
MS. FENUMIAI reiterated that the statute only provides the
director with the authority to open absentee in-person voting
early at the four regional election offices, which serve as
absentee voting stations.
Number 1697
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES recalled hearing some "flap" regarding the
elections at the University of Alaska - Anchorage and thus she
inquired as to what that was about.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that the University of Alaska - Anchorage
wanted to have an absentee voting station on campus. The
division attempted to do so in the past, but was unable to
recruit workers. This last year the division was successful and
thus had [an absentee voting station] open for the primary and
general elections the Monday prior to the election and election
day.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked, "You wouldn't have known 45 days out
to notice ... that there was going to be one there?"
MS. FENUMIAI said that the division did have adequate time to
have [45 days notice]. In further response to Representative
James, Ms. Fenumiai affirmed that this proposed requirement
wouldn't have impacted that situation.
Number 1778
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to what timeframe the
department would accept.
MS. FENUMIAI informed the committee that when the legislation
was in the Senate, the division proposed a 30-day notification
requirement.
MS. BROWN explained that a 30-day notification requirement would
result in notification occurring only 15 days before absentee
voting could take place and thus it is really only two weeks
before, which could be problematic for mailings and phone calls.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that it could be problematic getting
the mail out. Fifteen days seems a bit short. Therefore, she
felt that 45 days would be appropriate.
Number 1892
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES pointed out that what is done currently
doesn't cause any new phone calls, aggravations, or hassles. If
it takes more than 15 days for [a candidate] to get something
out to the voters through the mail house, then most [candidates]
wouldn't be here. Representative Hayes felt that 15 days is
burdensome, cumbersome, too long, inefficient, and causes a lot
of problems.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES respectfully disagreed.
MS. FENUMIAI remarked that the division wants to do public
notice as it is the division's job and thus [the division] is
attempting to determine when the notice would be most effective
for the voter.
Number 1960
CHAIR COGHILL pointed out that the division is looking at this
matter from the perspective of the voter, while the candidates
may take a little different tact because they notify voters
themselves. Chair Coghill inquired as to the will of the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSSB 167(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES also objected and explained that he is
attempting to draft a conceptual amendment that would reduce the
45-day notification to a 30-day notification.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES withdrew her motion.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES moved a conceptual amendment on page 2,
line 1, [of CSSB 187(FIN)] to change the reference from [45
days] to "30 days".
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected. She explained the difficulty
she incurs due to the lack of a local printer on the island that
she lives. Therefore, she emphasized the need for 45-day
notification because there are people that don't have access to
things [that are easily accessible in] other parts of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE objected and related the example of a person
being at a fishing camp without communication during the time
prior to the election. He agreed with the need for early
notification.
CHAIR COGHILL remarked that perhaps this illustrates, for the
division, the dichotomy of notifying voters as well as
campaigns. Chair Coghill recognized that the objections were
maintained and thus a roll call was in order.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Crawford and Hayes
voted for Representative Hayes' conceptual amendment.
Representatives Fate, James, Wilson, and Coghill voted against
Representative Hayes' conceptual amendment. Therefore,
Representative Hayes' conceptual amendment failed with a vote of
2-5.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSSB 187(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSSB 187(FIN) was
reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took a brief at-ease from 9:37 a.m. to 9:39 a.m.
HB 42-PRIVILEGE TO PURCHASE ALCOHOL/I.D. CARDS
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 42, "An Act relating to the consumption,
purchase, furnishing, delivery, offer for sale, and sale of
alcoholic beverages and to driver's licenses and identification
cards used to purchase alcoholic beverages." [Before the
committee was CSHB 42, Version 22-LS0043\P, Ford, 4/16/01.]
Number 2258
JEFF LOGAN, Staff to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State
Legislature, testified on behalf of the sponsor. Mr. Logan
informed the committee that Version O included a provision
whereby people convicted of alcohol-related offenses were
included under the auspices of the bill. The Department of Law
and other departments estimated that such would include about
14,000 alcohol-related offenders. The cost of processing those
additional 14,000 increased the fiscal note considerably.
Therefore, in an effort to decrease the fiscal note in hopes of
the bill's passage, the sponsor decided to limit the scope of
the bill to those refusing to take a breathalyzer; or [being in
violation of AS 28.35.030] refusing to submit to a chemical
test; or being convicted of operating a motor vehicle, aircraft,
or watercraft while intoxicated.
CHAIR COGHILL related his understanding that the bill is limited
to criminal action.
MR. LOGAN agreed.
Number 2326
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON related her understanding that the
legislation says that an individual refusing to take a
breathalyzer test [or chemical test] would be arrested.
MR. LOGAN clarified that is already in the statute.
"Essentially, what we're saying is: If you are convicted for
operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or if
you refuse to take a breathalyzer, you fall under this
legislation," he explained. However, the previous version
included those intoxicated persons that were involved in a fight
at a bar. The scope of this version of HB 42 was restricted to
drunk driving and refusing to take the breathalyzer.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to what this bill would do to
drunk drivers and those refusing to take the breathalyzer that
is different than normal.
MR. LOGAN explained that this bill adds the requirement that
such persons have a different driver's license and there are
restrictions in relation to the privilege of purchasing alcohol.
Furthermore, the current version allows municipalities and local
governments to impose a local option whereby those
identifications would have to be checked.
MR. LOGAN, in response to Chair Coghill, clarified that the bill
is saying that [changes to] the driver's licenses will be
imposed. However, the municipality can have a local option
election whereby the licensee or the employee of the licensee
selling the alcohol would be required to check the license in
order to know that the license is different from those having
the privilege to purchase alcohol.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if there have been discussions with the
department regarding how the license may be colored or changed.
MR. LOGAN pointed out that the language merely specifies a
"distinctive color," which he indicated would be left to the
department.
Number 2500
CHUCK HOSACK, Deputy Director, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration, explained that if this legislation
passes, the division would envision issuing a card that looks
like the driver's license or ID card. The division plans to
have a colored stripe, such as a light red stripe, that would
run diagonally across the license.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES related her understanding that if a
municipality opted to check and refuse service to anyone that
has such a license, then the municipality would be requiring
that the individual couldn't use his/her driver's license for
identification. She asked if that understanding is correct or
is the division assuming that these are people that don't have a
driver's license.
MR. HOSACK answered, "It could be either." He explained that
some of these people may not be able to get their driver's
license back because their license is revoked, and therefore an
ID card with a stripe would be issued. An individual with a
first offense can be eligible to get his/her driver's license
back after 90 days, but the privilege to purchase alcohol would
be revoked for a year. Therefore, that individual would have a
driver's license with a stripe, which would signify the
individual's inability to purchase alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES related her understanding that under this
legislation if an individual has done something to lose his
license, that individual can't purchase [alcohol]. She also
related her understanding that the revocation of an individual's
ability to purchase alcohol isn't anywhere else in law.
MR. HOSACK agreed that there is no other provision that would
prevent such an individual from purchasing alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "This bill, then, says that anyone
who has lost their license by one of these things cannot buy
liquor any more; ... that's statewide."
MR. HOSACK replied yes.
MR. LOGAN indicated agreement with Representative James that
under this bill everyone would be treated the same [in that an
individual losing his/her license for an alcohol-related offense
can't purchase alcohol].
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES understood, then, that such individuals
would have a separate identification card that would have a
stripe across it. This ID card would be shown when attempting
to purchase alcohol because the individual wouldn't have a
driver's license. On the other hand, would [the passage of this
legislation allow] an individual who has the ability to purchase
alcohol the ability to show other forms of identification, such
as a passport. She inquired as to whether a local government
could make decisions that only impacted that area.
MR. HOSACK answered that this legislation is aimed primarily at
the driver's license and, as he reads it, doesn't preclude
showing other forms of identification that has a date of birth
listed.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES surmised that this ID card would be the
identification that would be shown as a person boards a plane.
MR. HOSACK replied yes and specified that this ID card could be
used for anything that requires identification.
Number 2740
KEVIN HOGAN testified via teleconference. He began by
commending the sponsor because he viewed this legislation as
model legislation. However, Mr. Hogan didn't view the committee
substitute as an improvement over the original bill. The local
option provision doesn't seem to provide any benefit at all nor
does reducing the scope of the legislation. Mr. Hogan expressed
the need for judicial discretion in regard to setting the
duration of the revocation of the ability to purchase alcohol.
He reiterated his praise for this legislation.
MR. HOGAN turned to the problem surrounding ID cards for out-of-
state residents, the military, et cetera. He felt that such
could be dealt with through an affidavit process with a sticker
attached to the form of ID, with an expiration date.
CHAIR COGHILL remarked that judges have some discretion now in
that they have the ability to impose a "no tolerance" on
individuals. Chair Coghill announced that the public testimony
would be closed.
Number 2908
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES related her experience in Washington State
where she owned a convenience store. One of her customers had
severe alcohol problems that led a judge to rule that this man
couldn't be on the premises where alcohol was sold. She
characterized that as a desperate attempt by a judge to help.
Representative James asked whether this legislation creates a
situation in which committing one of these crimes automatically
results [in a special ID card because the ability to purchase
alcohol has been revoked] or does the judge have the discretion
to impose it or not.
MR. LOGAN explained that the legislation would make it
mandatory.
TAPE 01-51, SIDE B
CHAIR COGHILL opened the public testimony again.
Number 2966
DR. BOB JOHNSON testified via teleconference. He informed the
committee that has practiced medicine in Kodiak for 40 years. A
large part of his practice involved addiction treatments. He
noted his membership on the governor's Review Board on
Alcoholism; he was also its president for a number of years.
Dr. Johnson was also the founder of the Kodiak Treatment
program, also known as the Hope House Treatment Program.
Therefore, Dr. Johnson said that he is aware of addiction
problems.
DR. JOHNSON remarked the he was surprised with Mr. Hogan's
testimony because he thought [Mr. Hogan] was aware that punitive
treatment for alcoholism doesn't work. No matter the number of
punitive measures applied, it doesn't impact the addiction.
Punitive measures don't treat the problem or the person.
However, treatment does work. Dr. Johnson pointed to the
failure of the Holstead Act in the 1930s. Dr. Johnson said, "I
think this bill is way off in left field. I don't think it
should've been introduced at all." He didn't believe that it
would be effective, but would merely add another layer of
bureaucracy on top of a very difficult social and ethical
problem. Therefore, he encouraged the committee not to pass
this legislation out of committee. However, if this legislation
were to pass, he suggested that serious consideration be given
to the recommendations of the Alaska Civil Liberties Union
(AkCLU) that speak to the unfair [aspects of this legislation].
DR. JOHNSON, in response to Chair Coghill, clarified that he was
speaking on his own behalf as a physician with much experience
in this area.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked that Dr. Johnson speaks from a
great deal of knowledge and has been an important person with
the development of treatment for alcoholism in Kodiak.
MR. LOGAN, in response to Representative James' earlier
question, corrected his earlier statement by saying that the
court may revoke a person's privilege as specified in the bill.
The language on page 2, line 22, [of Version P] specifies "If a
person is convicted of operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, or
watercraft while intoxicated in violation of AS 28.35.030 or
refusal to submit to a chemical test under AS 28.35.032, the
court may revoke the person's privilege to purchase alcoholic
beverages."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if this legislation is utilized in
any other state.
MR. LOGAN replied, "Not that we know of."
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES recalled that at the last hearing on HB 42
there were a number of questions, but the same CS is before the
committee and there are no answers to the questions. Therefore,
he inquired as to whether Mr. Logan intended on answering those
questions or should the questions be asked again.
MR. LOGAN said that he thought the questions had been answered.
He mentioned that there may be a solution to Representative
Hayes' question regarding military personnel.
Number 2680
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN, Alaska State Legislature, testified as
the sponsor of HB 42. Representative Green informed the
committee that there was discussion with military personnel
regarding whether this [ID] would be problematic. The only
response from the military was that when military personnel are
caught driving while intoxicated, anything done outside the
military setting is minor compared to what is done within the
military system.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES recalled hearing testimony that indicated
that this proposed ID card would be the primary form of
identification over all other types.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that the proposed ID wouldn't be
the primary form of identification. He pointed out that it is
up to the local municipality whether this ID is adopted.
CHAIR COGHILL pointed out that the bill specifies that [this
proposed ID] will be statewide, while the municipality will have
the ability to vote in regard to whether it checks the ID, that
is enforces this.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to the following language in
Section 4, subsection (b), and inquired as to what violations
are encompassed in AS 28.35.030 and 28.35.032.
MR. LOGAN explained that AS 28.35.030 refers to the violation of
operating a vehicle while intoxicated while AS 28.35.032
addresses the breath test. He also pointed that the language in
subsection (b), lines 25-31, take into account whether the "...
consumption of an alcoholic beverage was a substantial factor in
the commission of the offense and the person has, within five
years preceding the date of the present conviction, been
convicted of violating ..." the aforementioned statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that the language in subsection
(b), lines 25-31, refers to when "the court shall revoke the
person's privilege to purchase alcoholic beverages."
MR. LOGAN interjected that this language addresses the
recidivists.
Number 2495
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD referred to page 2, lines 16-21, [AS]
04.16.165 and noted that [Version P] changes the offense for the
person who knowingly furnishes or delivers an alcoholic beverage
to a person whose privilege to purchase alcoholic beverages is
revoked. The offense originally revoked the person's privilege
to purchase alcoholic beverages for a period of six months.
However, [Version P] changes that offense to a civil penalty of
$500. Representative Crawford said, "It still seems to me that
if ... a person comes into your home and you provide them with
an alcoholic beverage that you're ... liable if you haven't
checked their ID."
MR. LOGAN highlighted the language "knowingly furnish". If a
homeowner/host doesn't know that [one of their guests] has
offended, then the homeowner/host doesn't knowingly furnish or
deliver the alcoholic beverage. He specified that [checking
IDs] isn't a requirement that one must do in his/her own home.
However, [AS] 04.16.167 seems to clarify that [the legislation]
is addressing the [required] identification check by licensees.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD remarked, "It seems to me like that was
dealing with two different things: one it says it's a person
and the other says it's a licensee. It doesn't seem like it's a
further clarification; it just seems like it's separating
those." Representative Crawford felt the language was
ambiguous.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that [AS] 04.16.167 doesn't
specify the penalty. She questioned whether the penalty would
be located in the local law.
The committee took an at-ease from 10:09 a.m. to 10:24 a.m.
Number 2312
REPRESENTATIVE FATE expressed the following concerns. First, he
was concerned with the punitive nature of this on the first
offense. He understood the intent to be to address chronic
offenders, which may provide a justification for the punitive
nature of the legislation. Second, he was concerned [AS]
04.16.165. He noted that off-the-record discussions mentioned
the possibility of deleting that entire [provision]. Third,
this legislation provides municipalities with the option to come
under this state law or not, but he expressed concern with the
possibility that those unorganized areas that fall under the
state [law] would [automatically] fall under this without a
voice.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE remarked that although this legislation may
be a step forward, it never mentions illicit drugs.
Furthermore, there is no mention of what this would cost
proprietors in regard to litigation, not to mention the cost the
state would incur with litigation [that is bound to happen].
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD noted that he shared the same concern as
Representative Fate in regard to [AS] 04.16.165, which he, too,
would like to delete. He also expressed the desire to have [the
punishment] occur with the second offense rather than the first
offense.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that the amendment would have to be done
conceptually because of the statutorial numbering. After some
discussion, Chair Coghill announced that Representative Crawford
had [moved that the committee adopt] the amendment [Amendment
1].
Number 2122
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested that eliminating this section
would result in people knowingly giving alcoholic beverages [to
those whose ability to purchase alcohol has been revoked].
Although the fine seems hefty, it seems to be the only "backup"
in keeping people from buying alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that the bill was drafted in an
attempt to prevent these people from obtaining alcohol in the
first place. In particular, this bill tries to prevent the
drunk driver from getting on the road, especially the repeat
offenders. Although he acknowledged that this legislation may
be a Draconian measure, he thought Draconian steps should be
taken to stop this serious problem. Representative Green said,
"My feeling is that this, as it was written, is not going to
stop drunk driving. It hopefully will reduce drunk driving, and
if we can do that, that's a step forward ...." Representative
Green announced that he would be willing to delete the language
[on page 3, lines 16-19] if it would help get the legislation
moving. Therefore, he reluctantly accepted the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD applauded Representative Green's effort
to reduce drunk driving. However, taking this into people's
homes is a privacy measure that most Alaskans aren't going to be
able to countenance. He didn't believe that the legislation
would pass with the language [on page 3, lines 16-19].
Therefore, he felt that [adoption of the amendment to delete the
language on page 3, lines 16-19] would be a good comprise.
The committee took a brief at-ease at 10:34 a.m.
Number 1767
CHAIR COGHILL explained that the amendment [Amendment 1] would
delete lines 16-21, on page 3. He asked if there was any
objection to the amendment. There being no objection, the
amendment [Amendment 1] was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE offered a conceptual amendment [conceptual
Amendment 2] in which the punitive damages would take effect on
the second offense.
CHAIR COGHILL clarified that Representative Fate's amendment
would fall under Section 4.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE clarified that the conceptual amendment
[conceptual Amendment 2] would change the language such that an
individual with a second offense would lose the privilege [to
purchase alcohol] rather than an individual with a first
offense.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that [adoption of such an
amendment] would significantly reduce the potential of reducing
the number of drunk drivers on the highway. He reiterated his
desire to address the repeat offenders. However, he pointed out
that a first-time offender [probably has been a drunk driver
many times prior]. Again, he reluctantly agreed to the
conceptual amendment [conceptual Amendment 2] in order for the
bill to move.
Number 1615
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that she agrees with the concept
of the bill. However, the application of the bill is
problematic [and punitive]. Representative James referred to
page 2, subsection (b) and the language that specifies "the
court may revoke the person's privilege to purchase alcoholic
beverages." That language provides judicial discretion. She
echoed Representative Green's comments regarding the [belief]
that by the time a person is stopped for drunk driving, the
person has probably driven drunk numerous times. She pointed
out that for repeat offenses the language specifies that "the
court shall revoke the person's privilege to purchase alcoholic
beverages." Therefore, it seems that the language in [Version
P] already does what the amendments are attempting. However,
she announced that she wouldn't object to [conceptual Amendment
2].
CHAIR COGHILL informed the committee that there are revocation
notices for the first offense and that is ratcheted up for the
second and third offense. Therefore, there are already some
fairly significant punitive penalties and thus this legislation
would propose a marked ID card with the first offense. The
amendment before the committee would propose [the marked ID
card] for the second offense. He noted that the next committee
of referral for HB 42 is the House Judiciary Standing Committee,
which has been working with drunk driving.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if there was any objection to conceptual
Amendment 2. There being no objection, conceptual Amendment 2
was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that his earlier-stated concern
regarding areas that aren't municipalities is no longer of
concern.
Number 1326
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked whether the legislation maintained
the local option to have this [special ID].
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that the legislation, if passed,
would be a state law that the local municipalities could opt to
enforce or not.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS understood that a city council would,
then, meet to determine whether this is something that would be
enforced in their community. This wouldn't be enforced in a
community until the community council [local governing body] had
voted to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed with Representative Stevens'
understanding.
Number 1186
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES pointed out that the legislation specified
that a ballot question [at the borough level] must be utilized
when determining whether to establish this identification
system. He specified that he was looking at page 2, lines 7-9.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE pointed out that in Fairbanks there is a
city government and borough government, but there are areas
outside of Fairbanks that are in unincorporated jurisdictions.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that he felt that would be a concern
for the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE hoped that question would be reviewed in the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said, "The question is: ... if you are a
city with a police force, you make that decision. If you are a
village with a VPSO (Village Public Safety Officer), you can
make that decision; you'd have a ballot vote as well, I assume.
If you are a borough, you could cover everything and make that
decision be enforced by the state troopers."
CHAIR COGHILL noted that the amendments may have had some
significant fiscal impacts, and therefore would need to be
examined in the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
Number 0806
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to report CSHB 42, Version 22-
LS0043\P, Ford, 4/16/01, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 42(STA) was reported from the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:49
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|