03/06/2007 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB38 | |
| HB6 | |
| HB3 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 171 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 6, 2007
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 38
"An Act relating to legislators and candidates for the
legislature and to certain campaign contributions made in
exchange for certain agreements."
- MOVED CSHB 38(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 6
"An Act relating to campaign contributions by groups that are
not political parties; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 6(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to issuance of identification cards and to
issuance of driver's licenses; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED HB 3 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 171
"An Act relating to the terms of legislators, the date and time
for convening regular legislative sessions, adoption of uniform
rules of the legislature and to certain of those rules, the date
for organizing the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, and
deadlines for certain matters or reports to be delivered to the
legislature or filed; prohibiting bonuses for legislative
employees; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 38
SHORT TITLE: IMPROPER CONTRIBUTIONS TO LEGISLATORS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GARA, CRAWFORD, GARDNER, DOLL,
KAWASAKI, BUCH, DOOGAN, GRUENBERG
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/01/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/01/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/01/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM SPEAKER'S CHAMBER
02/03/07 (H) EXEC. BRANCH ETHICS:INTERESTS & ACTIONS
02/27/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/27/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/06/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 6
SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HARRIS, RAMRAS, HAWKER, CHENAULT,
SAMUELS, FAIRCLOUGH, NEUMAN, OLSON, DAHLSTROM, SEATON, JOHNSON
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, JUD
02/03/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM SPEAKER'S CHAMBER
02/03/07 (H) LEGISLATIVE DISCLOSURES/OUTSIDE INCOME
02/13/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/13/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/15/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/15/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/15/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/06/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 3
SHORT TITLE: REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE/I.D.
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, JUD
02/27/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/27/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/01/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/01/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/06/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As joint prime sponsor of HB 38, reviewed
the changes made in Version K.
TOM WRIGHT, Staff
House Majority Office
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed Amendment 1 to HB 6.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 3.
DAN RODGERS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 3.
MICHAEL MACLEOD-BALL, Executive Director
Alaska Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of ACLU in opposition
to HB 3.
SCOTT McMURREN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in
opposition to HB 3.
BILL SCANNELL
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the Identity Project
in opposition to HB 3.
MATTHEW KERR
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in
opposition to HB 3.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:03:53 AM. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johnson, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Johansen, Gruenberg, and Doll arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 38-IMPROPER CONTRIBUTIONS TO LEGISLATORS
8:05:00 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 38, "An Act relating to legislators and candidates for
the legislature and to certain campaign contributions made in
exchange for certain agreements."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 38, Version 25-LS0219\K, Luckhaupt, 3/5/07, as a
work draft.
8:05:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVES ROSES and JOHNSON objected.
8:05:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, as joint
prime sponsor of HB 38, reviewed the changes made in Version K.
He said that currently, political campaign contributions "can't
constitute bribery." He directed attention to the added
language on [page 1, lines 7-9 of Version K], which would change
that law to say:
unless the contribution is made or received in
exchange for an agreement to alter an elected
official's or candidate's vote or position on a
legislative, statewide, or municipal matter
REPRESENTATIVE GARA specified that giving someone a campaign
contribution because he/she already supports a cause believed in
by the contributor is not illegal and would not be under this
change.
8:07:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Representative Coghill,
stated that under criminal law, when a person purposely [changes
his/her vote or shifts to another cause] in exchange for a
contribution, and has done so knowingly, there is an
understanding between both parties that "I'm giving you the
money and you're changing your position." He said he tried to
keep the language narrow.
8:09:14 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked Representative Gara to confirm that a
legitimate change in view point on the part of a candidate would
not be considered criminal.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that it would not, because there
would not be an understanding between two parties regarding the
change of view point.
8:10:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL suggested having proof of such an
interchange would be helpful during prosecution.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said yes, but he added that prosecution
would not be easy. He relayed that it may be necessary to "have
some people on wire" or turning on other people. In response to
a question from Chair Lynn, he said holding a fundraiser would
follow the same guideline; if the candidate agreed to change
his/her position upon accepting money to hold the fundraiser,
then that would be a crime. Upon further reflection, he added:
That's interesting. I think this just criminalizes
the contribution. So, I suppose if somebody was going
to throw a fundraiser for you, well they're probably
going to donate to you too, but I suppose they
wouldn't be prosecuted under this if they organized
the fundraiser and didn't contribute any in-kind
donations or something, because there has to be a
contribution.
CHAIR LYNN said, "So, holding the fundraiser would not be a
contribution in kind. You hire the room, you get the hors
d'oeuvres. ... That's a contribution in kind, basically."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that would be a contribution and would
count. He said, "I suppose you could try and avoid this by
holding the fundraiser and not donating a single penny in
anything. I hadn't thought about that, honestly." He said the
committee may want to think about including fundraisers in its
discussion of the bill.
CHAIR LYNN said that issue could be considered in the next
committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested that the term contribution include
holding fundraisers.
8:13:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said the concept of prosecuting both the
giver and the receiver may be difficult but "important to try."
He stated concern regarding candidates' changing their minds and
[that being perceived as being the direct reaction to] a
contributor that at any time in the past had an influence over
that candidate. He offered his understanding that
Representative Gara is saying that it is not the altering of a
[candidate's] position that is the problem, but rather it is the
agreement that is made that is the problem.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said, "Right."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated:
... In the nine years I've been down here, I've
actually altered my position on a couple things. And
it might be that somebody who contributed to me might
actually have had some influence on me, ... in getting
me facts and information. So, I'm concerned; I don't
want to make them or me a felon.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he thinks the reason Representative
Coghill would not be prosecuted is that he has "never made an
agreement to alter" his position. He reiterated that the bill
mandates that there must be an intentional agreement between the
parties.
8:15:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL observed that the level of proof has to
be high regarding a class B felony. He stated his support of
Version K.
8:16:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what the difference is in federal
law compared to the proposed legislation.
8:16:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA recollected that the federal law is a long-
established statute, which was developed by judicial common law
and does not "make the crime scene very readily apparent." He
said he cannot say what the standard of the federal law is, but
he remarked that it "looks different than this" and has been
"filled in by court decisions." He said it is not a bribery
statute, but is an "improper influence through money statute."
He recalled that the wording of the federal statute is not as
specific. In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Johnson, he said the burden of proof may be less
onerous. For example, it is not necessary to prove that [a
candidate] changed his/her position.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would appreciate that comparison
to be made in the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
8:18:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL cited AS 11.56.110, which read as
follows:
Sec. 11.56.110. Receiving a bribe.
(a) A public servant commits the crime of
receiving a bribe if the public servant
(1) solicits a benefit with the intent that the
public servant's vote, opinion, judgment, action,
decision, or exercise of discretion as a public
servant will be influenced; or
(2) accepts or agrees to accept a benefit upon an
agreement or understanding that the public servant's
vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision, or exercise
of discretion as a public servant will be influenced.
(b) Receiving a bribe is a class B felony.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said the language of paragraph (1) is
broad. He said he does agree that it should be a felony if
people exchange votes for dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee address the time frame between the contribution and
the action. He said that time frame causes him concern, because
he sees opportunity for abuse. He related that he doesn't want
there to be opportunity a couple years down the line for someone
to say, "Ah, ... I gave him money and he voted the way I wanted
him to," which could start an investigation six months before an
election, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that he is not concerned about
that, because this just relates to criminal investigations; it's
not like an ethics complaint. He said there would be no
indictment without proof.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said there are search warrants issued
before anyone is notified. He stated that he just wants to
avoid a witch hunt.
8:23:02 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he thinks the committee is moving in the right
direction.
8:23:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVES JOHNSON and ROSES removed their objections to
adopting Version K as a work draft. There being no further
objection, Version K was before the committee.
8:23:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report CSHB 38, Version 25-
LS0219\K, Luckhaupt, 3/5/07, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 38(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:23:51 AM to 8:26:56 AM.
HB 6-CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
8:27:17 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 6, "An Act relating to campaign contributions by groups
that are not political parties; and providing for an effective
date."
8:27:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 6, Version 25-LS0055\K, Bullard, 2/1/07, as work
draft. There being no objection, Version K was before the
committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:28:36 AM to 8:28:38 AM.
8:28:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 25-
LS0055\K.12, Bullard, 3/5/07, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 15:
Delete ", address, principal occupation, and
employer"
Insert "and [,] address [,]"
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "[AND"
Insert "and"
Page 2, lines 3 - 5:
Delete all material and insert:
"(D) for contributions in excess of $100
[$250] in the aggregate during a calendar year, the
principal occupation and employer of the contributor;
[AND]"
Page 2, line 16:
Delete "$250"
Insert "$100"
Page 2, lines 18 - 29:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, lines 19 - 24:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) for all contributions described in (2)
of this subsection, the name and [,] address [,] of
each contributor and the date [,] and amount of each
contribution from [CONTRIBUTED BY] each contributor
and, for all contributions described in (2) of this
subsection in excess of $100 [$250] in the aggregate
during a calendar year, the principal occupation and
employer of the contributor; and"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for discussion purposes.
8:29:26 AM
TOM WRIGHT, Staff, House Majority Office, Alaska State
Legislature, addressed Amendment 1 as follows:
First of all, we have taken out Section 2 .... So, as
it stood in the initiative, contributions ... - the
individual contributions - don't have to be reported.
You still have to say, "I received one contribution -
$50, $60, whatever - but you don't have to list the
name, address, so on, and so forth, for that
contribution. And this is just for groups. Anything
over $100, you still have to have the name, address,
principle occupation, and employer, as stated within
current statute.
What we've also done is conformed reporting
requirements for candidates - nongroups - even those
candidates who ... had the $5,000 exemption [and]
didn't have to report their expenditures or
contributions. ... [We've] taken the threshold that
is currently applied to groups and applied it to
everybody else, so there is a model of consistency.
So, you've got anything over $100 - groups, nongroups,
candidates, formerly exempt candidates - you have to
provide name, address, principle occupation, and
employer. And the only reason we did that ... was
just to have some consistency. Because right now,
candidates don't have to report ... occupation [or]
employer over $250, and we just said, "Let's just make
it consistent so everybody's dealing from the same
sheet of music."
8:31:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said Amendment 1 satisfies his prior
concerns regarding political action committees (PACs) and the
use of name and address lists toward union busting.
CHAIR LYNN noted that there are also other groups that would
suffer from having their members' names and addresses made
public.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated his support of Amendment 1.
8:32:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection to Amendment 1.
There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:33:48 AM
MR. WRIGHT, in response to a request from Representative Doll,
reviewed the changes made by the adopted Amendment 1 in more
detail.
8:36:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 25-
LS0055\K.5, Bullard, 2/14/07, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 1, following "contributions":
Insert "relating to the definition of 'group' and
'nongroup entities';"
Page 4, lines 9 - 14:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 5. AS 15.13.050(b)
(b) If a group intends to support only one
candidate or to [CONTRIBUTE TO OR] expend on behalf of
one candidate 33 1/3 percent or more of its funds, the
name of the candidate shall be a part of the name of
the group. If the group intends to oppose only one
candidate or to [CONTRIBUTE ITS FUNDS IN OPPOSITION TO
OR] make expenditures in opposition to a candidate,
the group's name must clearly state that it opposes
that candidate by using a word such as "opposes,"
"opposing," "in opposition to," or "against" in the
group's name. Promptly upon receiving the
registration, the commission shall notify the
candidate of the group's organization and intent. A
candidate may register more than one group to support
the candidate; however, multiple groups controlled by
a single candidate shall be treated as a single group
for purposes of the contribution limit in
AS 15.13.070(b)(1).
* Sec. 6. AS 15.13.065(a) is amended to read:
(a) An individual, a group that is a political
party, and a nongroup entity may make a contribution
[INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS, NONGROUP ENTITIES, AND POLITICAL
PARTIES MAY MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS] to a candidate. An
individual [, GROUP,] or nongroup entity may make a
contribution to a group, to a nongroup entity, or to a
political party.
* Sec. 7. AS 15.13.072 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(i) A candidate may not accept a contribution
from a group that is not a political party.
* Sec. 8. AS 15.13.074(c) is amended to read:
(c) A person or group that is a political party
may not make a contribution
(1) to a candidate or an individual who
files with the commission the document necessary to
permit that individual to incur certain election-
related expenses as authorized by AS 15.13.100 when
the office is to be filled at a general election
before the date that is 18 months before the general
election;
(2) to a candidate or an individual who
files with the commission the document necessary to
permit that individual to incur certain election-
related expenses as authorized by AS 15.13.100 for an
office that is to be filled at a special election or
municipal election before the date that is 18 months
before the date of the regular municipal election or
that is before the date of the proclamation of the
special election at which the candidate or individual
seeks election to public office; or
(3) to any candidate later than the 45th
day
(A) after the date of the primary election
if the candidate was not nominated at the primary
election; or
(B) after the date of the general election,
or after the date of a municipal or municipal runoff
election.
* Sec. 9. AS 15.13.074(h) is amended to read:
(h) Notwithstanding AS 15.13.070, a candidate
for governor or lieutenant governor [AND A GROUP THAT
IS NOT A POLITICAL PARTY AND THAT, UNDER THE
DEFINITION OF THE TERM "GROUP," IS PRESUMED TO BE
CONTROLLED BY A CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR OR LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR,] may not make a contribution to a candidate
for another office, to a person who conducts a write-
in campaign as a candidate for other office, or to
another group of amounts received by that candidate
[OR CONTROLLED GROUP] as contributions between
January 1 and the date of the general election of the
year of a general election for an election for
governor and lieutenant governor. This subsection does
not prohibit
[(1) THE GROUP DESCRIBED IN THIS SUBSECTION
FROM MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CANDIDATES FOR
GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR WHOM THE GROUP
SUPPORTS; OR
(2)] the governor or lieutenant governor [,
OR THE GROUP DESCRIBED IN THIS SUBSECTION,] from
making contributions under AS 15.13.116(a)(2)(A)
* Sec. 10. AS 15.13.074 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(j) A group that is not a political party may
not make a contribution to a candidate.
* Sec. 11. AS 15.13.400(8) is amended to read:
(8) "group" means
(A) every state and regional executive
committee of a political party; and
(B) any combination of two or more
individuals acting jointly who organize for the
principal purpose of influencing the outcome of one or
more elections and who take action the major purpose
of which is to influence the outcome of an election; a
group that makes expenditures or receives
contributions with the authorization or consent,
express or implied, or under the control, direct or
indirect, of a candidate shall be considered to be
controlled by that candidate; a group whose major
purpose is to further the nomination, election, or
candidacy of only one individual, or intends to expend
more than 50 percent of its money on a single
candidate, shall be considered to be controlled by
that candidate and its actions done with the
candidate's knowledge and consent unless, within 10
days from the date the candidate learns of the
existence of the group the candidate files with the
commission, on a form provided by the commission, an
affidavit that the group is operating without the
candidate's control; a group organized for more than
one year preceding an election and endorsing
candidates for more than one office or more than one
political party is presumed not to be controlled by a
candidate; however, a group that expends [CONTRIBUTES]
more than 50 percent of its money on [TO] or on behalf
of one candidate shall be considered to support only
one candidate for purposes of AS 15.13.070, whether or
not control of the group has been disclaimed by the
candidate;
* Sec. 12. AS 15.13.400(13) is amended to read:
(13) "nongroup entity" means a person,
other than an individual and other than a group that
is not a political party, that takes action the major
purpose of which is to influence the outcome of an
election, and that
(A) cannot participate in business
activities;
(B) does not have shareholders who have a
claim on corporate earnings; and
(C) is independent from the influence of
business corporations.
* Sec. 13. AS 15.13.070(c) is repealed."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON spoke to Amendment 2. He said it would
prohibit any PAC from donating to a candidate. He said PACs are
the ultimate special interest entities and "we still don't know
where the money comes from if it's [a contribution] less than
$100, even with this amendment." He said voters cannot find the
meaning behind PACs online and cannot make an intelligent
decision without that information.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 2,
explaining that although he would love to see total transparency
in what "we" do, he is also a realist.
8:39:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report CSHB 6, Version 25-
LS0055\K, Bullard, 2/1/07, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
8:40:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [objected] to note that there had been
an amendment [labeled 25-LS0055\K.6, Bullard, 2/14/07], which
had been discussed at the last committee hearing on HB 6, but
which had not been adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection. There being no
further objection, CSHB 6(STA) was reported out of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:40:33 AM to 8:43:17 AM.
HB 3-REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE/I.D.
8:43:19 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 3, "An Act relating to issuance of identification cards
and to issuance of driver's licenses; and providing for an
effective date."
CHAIR LYNN handed the gavel over to Vice Chair Roses.
[Although Representative Doll moved to adopt HB 3, at the
request of the chair, Representative Coghill reminded the
committee that HB 3 is the original bill and thus can be brought
before the committee without a motion.]
8:44:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, as prime sponsor, presented HB 3. He said
the bill would require that a person applying for an Alaska
driver's license have a legal presence in the United States. He
said the state welcomes legal visitors. He relayed that under
HB 3, the only people who would not qualify for an Alaska
driver's license or identification card are those who are not in
the United States legally.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN held up a copy of a New York State driver's
license [blown up to approximately 16x24 size]. He said, "This
is the license of a person who got a driver's license ... with a
five-year expiration date who would only remain in the United
States legally with two more days." He said that is currently
allowable, he thinks that is ridiculous, and the proposed
legislation would fix that.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said the purpose of the bill is not meant to
be a debate over the federal Real ID Act. He admitted one
factor required toward having a legal presence to qualify for a
driver's license is to comply with that Act, but he said even if
there were no Real ID Act, the bill would still make common
sense "to require a legal presence to get an Alaska driver's
license."
8:49:16 AM
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration, echoed that HB 3 is erroneously
referred to as "the Real ID bill," while the purpose of it is to
deny licenses to illegal aliens. He said a study done by the
Institute [for Communitarian Policy Studies) at George
Washington University graded licensing practices in all 50
states by checking for the following four standards: the use of
a biometrics program; the verification of an applicant's social
security number; the requirement of proof that applicants are
legally in the United States; and the practice of ascertaining
that the amount of time in which an applicant is temporarily in
the United States corresponds with the expiration date of the
driver's license given that applicant. He said Alaska failed to
meet all four standards.
MR. BANNOCK said subsequent to that study, Alaska's DMV began
using a system for comparing a person's social security number
against the national social security number database. He said
HB 3, in addition to allowing driver's licenses and
identification cards to those legally in the United States, will
also set the expiration date of the driver's license issued to
legal visitors temporarily in the United States to correspond
with the date of their departure.
8:53:19 AM
MR. BANNOCK indicated that he had distributed a questionnaire to
the committee, which asked the following questions: One, "Do
you believe that U.S. citizens should be allowed a driver's
license?"; two, "Do you believe that a person lawfully allowed
in the United States should be allowed a driver's license?";
three, "If yes, should the expiration date of the driver's
license be consistent with the ending date of their lawful
visit?"; and four, "Should the DMV refuse to issue a driver's
license to an illegal alien?" The response to questions one and
two were overwhelmingly "yes," he said, and although not
unanimous, the majority of those asked answered yes to questions
three and four. He stated that a yes answer to all those
questions means a person is in support of HB 3.
8:53:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Bannock if he is familiar
with HB 19, regarding ignition interlock devices.
MR. BANNOCK answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG queried, "The purpose of that bill was
to ... try to make certain that a certain group of people were
not driving without a license in this state, right?"
MR. BANNOCK replied that he does not concur with that assessment
of HB 19.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recollected that there is other
legislation, among which HB 19 is an example, to stop people
from driving in Alaska without a license. He said he wants to
know potentially how many more people will be driving without a
license if HB 3 were to become law.
8:55:03 AM
MR. BANNOCK said a source on the internet suggests that there
may be about 5,000 illegal aliens in Alaska - a number which he
said is probably based upon a formula. He stated that he has no
reason to believe that those illegal aliens currently hold
driver's licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Bannock if he knows how much
it will cost the state to "prosecute all these people."
MR. BANNOCK said, "I don't know that there's anything in this
bill about prosecution."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "You have a regulation in place
now that does this particular thing, don't you?"
MR. BANNOCK answered in the negative.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG continued, "Well, you have a particular
regulation in place - and we've discussed it at some length -
that will authorize you to make the same checks for the legality
of the person's presence in the state, don't you? And you
implemented that last summer?"
MR. BANNOCK clarified as follows:
Speaking specifically to the portion of the expiration
of the driver's license as it pertains to our
international customers, today an international
customer gets a five-year driver's license, based on
Alaska statute. There's no regulation that prohibits
that customer, if they are here and they have what --
the regulations you speak of are simply the list of
documents that the Division of Motor Vehicles is
statutorily authorized to accept for establishing
their name and their date of birth.
CHAIR LYNN asked that the discussion pertain to HB 3 and not
"all the regulations that may or may not be in place for the
DMV."
MR. BANNOCK, in response to Representative Gruenberg, said the
regulation to which he had referred is 02 AAC 90.420.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "And does that not direct your
employees to check to see whether people are undocumented
aliens, and does it not purport to allow you to refuse to issue
licenses to undocumented aliens?"
8:57:04 AM
MR. BANNOCK replied, "If you don't have an item on the list
proscribed by regulation, you don't get a driver's license or
ID."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "That group is primarily aimed
at undocumented aliens, isn't it?"
CHAIR LYNN asked Representative Gruenberg to clarify for the
record the difference, if any, between the terms "undocumented
alien" and "illegal alien."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his understanding that
undocumented aliens include illegal aliens. He asked Mr.
Bannock for confirmation.
MR. BANNOCK directed attention to language in the bill on page
2, [beginning on] line 10, which read: "documentary evidence of
the person's legal status and presence in the United States."
He said that is a phrase that will be used repeatedly. He noted
that there are items on the list that only a person legally in
the United States would have. He said, "By statute, all
driver's licenses are issued for ... a ... five-year block,
regardless of the person's length of stay, and clearly we would
not attempt to write a regulation that was in direct conflict to
the statute that authorizes a five-year driver's license."
8:58:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Bannock to confirm that
people could be "undocumented" and still be legally in the U.S.
MR. BANNOCK said he does not know.
CHAIR LYNN asked, "If they have a legal presence in the United
States, one would suppose they have some kind of document to
show that they have a legal presence, is that correct?"
8:59:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that is an excellent question. He
asked Mr. Bannock, "A person could be legally in the United
States but just be stopped bureaucratically from getting the
necessary documentation. This is a net that could sweep far
broader than people who are in this country illegally, couldn't
it?"
MR. BANNOCK said he cannot answer that question.
Notwithstanding that, he said, "That position is not consistent
with what [the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE)] tells us."
8:59:45 AM
CHAIR LYNN stated his understanding that if a person comes into
the country legally, he/she would have to have a passport or
visa or asylum.
9:00:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained, "Sometimes people are in
this country entirely legally, and because of a bureaucratic
snafu, their documentation expires; they're in the country
legally but they're waiting to get the documentation. And those
people would be denied the right to get a driver's license,
wouldn't they, Mr. Bannock?"
MR. BANNOCK responded as follows:
I don't know that that's completely accurate. If, as
you say, there was a bureaucratic snafu ..., then
perhaps their driver's license that they were issued
when they were given their valid documentary evidence
... would expire. And then, when their legal status
is ... reconfirmed, they would be welcome to reapply
for a driver's license. I can't speak to your
specific, because I'm not familiar with that.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the DMV has received money from
the state for "additional electronic equipment." He stated his
understanding that the DMV is currently using that equipment to
enter people's private identifications into a database.
MR. BANNOCK answered, "Yes, we have received money; no, we are
not practicing what you've described."
CHARI LYNN reiterated that he would like to bring the discussion
back on topic.
9:01:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said the issuance of a driver's license has
a far greater significance than simply allowing a person to
drive; it is an accepted means of identification, as well. He
said he would feel more confident knowing that "they've had to
pass some kind of test in order to be able to get that privilege
to use that as formal identification."
9:03:04 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked Representative Roses to clarify if the test he
is talking about has to do with checking a person's identity and
legal presence in the United States.
9:03:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said, "Exactly."
9:03:51 AM
MR. BANNOCK stated his hope that the committee would focus on HB
3 and hold any debate related to the Real ID Act until such time
as that topic is presented.
9:04:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON echoed Mr. Bannock's remark, offering his
understanding that there may be a law suit being filed against
the Real ID Act.
CHAIR LYNN said he has heard the law suit has no merit, but
"beyond that, we cannot discuss ongoing litigation."
9:05:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that a judge would be the
one to determine whether or not the law suit has merit.
CHAIR LYNN clarified that it is his opinion that the lawsuit has
no merit.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that he holds the opposite
opinion.
9:06:00 AM
DAN RODGERS, testifying on behalf of himself, said he is an
attorney in Anchorage, Alaska, who does pro bono work on behalf
of immigrants seeking asylum in the United States because of
persecution. He said he is also on the board of directors of
the Alaska Immigration Justice Project. He continued as
follows:
All of the pro bono clients I've represented over the
years have ultimately been granted asylum. This is
because they have come from really bad circumstances.
Some have had death threats made against them and
their families; one has been repeatedly tortured.
Unfortunately, due to backlogs, the asylum process
takes much longer than it should; oftentimes it takes
years instead of months. My clients all obtained
valid work permits, pending their asylum applications.
This bill, I believe, would have prevented them from
getting a driver's license. These are hard-working
people coming from bad countries or bad circumstances,
and they need a driver's license to get to work, and I
just think it would be a shame for the State of Alaska
to put an additional road block in these people's
lives as they're trying to make a new life here in the
United States, where they've escaped persecution
elsewhere.
MR. RODGERS, in response to a question from Chair Lynn, said:
There's two ways they can be in the asylum process:
One would be an affirmative application that they
file. Other times, they're in removal proceedings in
the immigration court. ... There's often not a piece
of paper that says, ... "I'm here legally in the
United States." But they cannot be removed until the
immigration judge says that you're removed.
CHAIR LYNN said that essentially means those people are in the
United States illegally and are waiting to be removed after due
process.
MR. ROGERS responded that he would not say those people are in
the United States illegally. He explained that [the federal
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS)] laws
allow them to be in the United States, pending the resolution of
their asylum applications or removal proceedings.
CHAIR LYNN concluded that that means those people would be in
the United States legally and, thus, could qualify for a
driver's license.
MR. ROGERS replied, "Under this bill, I can't tell, because I
don't know if they have any valid documentation."
9:08:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON questioned whether there is some type of
documentation required in order for the people to work.
MR. ROGERS answered yes - a work permit.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if, under HB 3, that would not
qualify as "documented legal."
MR. ROGERS paraphrased Section 3, subsection (h), on page 2,
lines 4-8 of the bill, which read as follows:
(h) The department may not issue an
identification card under (a) of this section to a
person who has not presented to the department valid
documentary evidence that the person is a citizen of
the United States, a national of the United States, a
legal permanent resident of the United States, or a
conditional resident alien of the United States.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked, "So, a work permit would be a
conditional resident?"
MR. ROGERS answered no. He explained that a conditional
resident, under [federal] law, is a spouse of a citizen whose
status is pending "the running of the time period."
9:09:30 AM
MR. BANNOCK, in response to Chair Lynn, proffered:
My opinion would go to: That sounds like documentary
evidence of the person's legal status and presence in
the United States. Indeed, certainly the intent of
what I am calling the international customer is
exactly what the speaker is speaking to, and we intend
to honor that.
CHAIR LYNN said, "So, ... you say there's no problem in people
of this type seeking asylum."
MR. BANNOCK replied, "That is certainly my testimony today, sir,
thank you."
9:10:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his understanding that Mr.
Bannock is not certain what will be included within the phrase
"valid, documentary evidence of the person's legal status",
shown on page 2, [lines 10-11]. He then directed attention to
page 2, lines 19-21, which read:
The department may by regulation specify what is
valid, documentary evidence under this subsection
except that the department may not specify that a
Metricula Consular card is valid, documentary
evidence.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the language on lines 19-21 would
give the DMV the ability to "make that determination." He
asked, "How much training would it require, and what would it
cost the state, to train your workers to make the determination
that even you cannot make at this time?"
9:10:57 AM
MR. BANNOCK told Representative Gruenberg that the DMV works
closely with "immigration" as part of employee training, and he
has not put a price on that training, because "it's training
that we do on an ongoing basis." He concurred with
Representative Gruenberg's interpretation of statute. He
reiterated his concurrence with the testimony of [Mr. Rogers],
calling it "in context with exactly what HB 3 is calling for."
9:11:58 AM
MICHAEL MACLEOD-BALL, Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU), said he understands Chair Lynn's point that HB 3
does not directly address the Real ID Act; however, he stated
that there is no way to "completely divorce this bill from the
fact that the passage of this bill would, in part, implement the
requirements of the federal Real ID [Act] legislation." He
stated:
The only way - at least to my knowledge - that this
legislature would have to go on record in a
substantive way to decline to implement the privacy-
invading provisions of [the] Real ID [Act] would be to
do something like refuse to pass this legislation.
And so, I am here primarily to go on record on behalf
of the ACLU of Alaska and ... urge this body not to
pass HB 3.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL said that beyond the issue related to the Real
ID Act, there are valid reasons not to pass HB 3. One reason,
he suggested, would come from questioning whether it is
appropriate for the Department [of Administration] to be the
enforcement arm of [ICE] in Alaska, particularly without any
federal funds to support that action. He asked the committee to
consider if it would assign the DMV with the task to ensure that
everybody complied with their taxpaying obligations to the
federal government before issuing them driver's licenses.
Furthermore, he asked the committee to consider whether it would
be appropriate to ensure that all drivers had not been overpaid
under the social security system before issuing them licenses.
He suggested questioning what makes a person's immigration
status so unique that the DMV should act as the enforcement arm
to it. He said his own answer to that question is that the
federal government decides who is legally present in the United
States, and that job ought not be "farmed out to the state." He
questioned how the "rank and file ... employees of the DMV" can
be expected to make these kinds of decisions when Mr. Bannock is
not able to "give an authoritative answer to a question that's
posed by a lawyer who practices in this area on a day-to-day
basis."
CHAIR LYNN told Mr. McCloud-Ball that he had exhausted his
allotted time for testimony. He stated that the job of the DMV
is to issue driver's license by following certain criteria. The
proposed legislation would add a requirement for legal presence
to be one of those criteria.
9:15:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the few people waiting to testify
are experts in the field and they should be given time to speak
to this important issue. He reminded the committee that Mr.
Bannock has testified that the cost of implementing "this Real
ID" will be up to $10 million.
9:16:55 AM
CHAIR LYNN reiterated that the committee is not discussing the
Real ID Act; it is discussing HB 3.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked, "But if you don't pass this,
they can't enforce Real ID; they're part and parcel, and I'd ask
that the chair give them a little more time so that they can be
heard."
CHAIR LYNN said everyone who testifies is given three minutes,
and can submit their complete testimony in writing.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL noted that he would need approximately one
minute to finish his testimony.
CHAIR LYNN held to his original statement regarding the time
limit for testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that Mr. McCloud-Ball be
given a minute to complete his testimony.
CHAIR LYNN said he is overruling that request.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG appealed the ruling of the chair.
9:17:17 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johansen, Johnson,
Doll, Roses, Coghill, and Lynn voted in favor of upholding the
ruling of the chair. Representative Gruenberg voted against it.
Therefore, the ruling of the chair was upheld by a vote of 6-1.
9:19:40 AM
SCOTT McMURREN testified on behalf of himself in opposition to
HB 3. He stated that HB 3 is specifically crafted to allow the
state DMV to comply with the REAL ID Act, which he said is an
affront to his right to privacy and is both "un-Alaskan" and un-
American. The bill would allow the DMV to demand any
documentation it wants from Alaskans, based upon the desires of
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). He continued:
Already, DHS is looking forward to using the data for
a variety of things: parking tickets, library fines -
it can happen. But as a state, we cannot roll over
and play dead regarding the privacy of our citizens.
As a state, Alaska cannot put at risk the private and
confidential information DHS is asking for.
I'm sorry, I do not trust the federal government to
develop and maintain a database on me and say it's all
for security. Conversely, I do trust Duane Bannock at
the DMV. I bought two used cars from him. He helped
me renew my license, although, unlike former governor
Frank Murkowski, Duane made me pay my own renewal
fees. Mr. Bannock and the Alaska [State] Legislature
need to act with transparency and integrity in this
matter. We must nix HB 3 and reject REAL ID.
MR. McMURREN concluded that HB 3 is "a bad idea that needs to
die a slow and lingering death followed by a proper Christian
burial."
CHAIR LYNN asked Mr. McMurren if he is the one that "filed suit
in this matter."
MR. McMURREN [laughing], responded, "No, I'm not an expert of
any sort ..., but thank you for elevating my status in this
matter."
9:22:09 AM
BILL SCANNELL testified on behalf of the Identity Project in
opposition to HB 3. He expressed his respect for Mr. Bannock as
an individual. He said the bill should be called, "The Real ID
enabler bill." He stated that the REAL ID Act is not solely a
federal issue; it is also an Alaskan issue. He continued:
... Although it appears to have just a number of anti-
immigrant and anti-illegal paragraphs and sections in
it, what HB 3 does is it gives the right over to the
DMV forever to determine what documents are and aren't
acceptable to get a driver's license. This is an
authority, once [you've] given it away - that's it -
Mr. Bannock and DMV can implement REAL ID by fiat. As
we know, this is going to cost millions of dollars.
As we know, this is going to be not just a matter of a
small bit of hassle for "illegals," but a major bit of
hassle for Alaskans to come up with all these
documents. I believe that it's vital, ... in the
interest of transparency and openness, which is ...
what the November election was all about, that we need
to have a clear and open debate about the REAL ID Act.
... And for that reason, we need to shelve HB 3 right
now. ... My personal opinion: I'm against it. I
don't know what the opinion of the chair is. But
let's have a frank and open discussion about national
ID cards and whether we want it for Alaskans, and then
we can come back and talk about granting the DMV the
authority to do what it will, in terms of
documentation.
9:24:26 AM
CHAIR LYNN reiterated that to his mind, HB 3 is not a debate on
the pros and cons of a national ID card, but is simply a bill
requiring a person to be legally in the United States in order
to get an Alaska driver's license.
9:24:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Scannell to tell the
committee why he says it will make it more difficult for people
to get a driver's license.
MR. SCANNELL related his wife's experience getting an Alaska
driver's license, concluding, "There was no joy in getting a
driver's license." He stated the important role of the DMV is
to keep the roads safe and ensure that people are licensed; it
is not to act as federal agents.
9:26:58 AM
MATTHEW KERR testified on behalf of himself in opposition to HB
3. He read his written testimony as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Good morning, committee members! My name is Matthew
Kerr and I flew here to Juneau yesterday at my own
significant expense to speak on my own behalf. I was
born and raised in Alaska and a small-business owner
for the past thirteen years. I will speak very quickly
due to the committee time limitations.
This bill is our state's implementation of the
national "Real ID Act." That name isn't really
descriptive - the bill doesn't have much to do with
real IDs or false IDs, so I came up with some other
titles that describe its effects more accurately.
The first one that came to mind is the "Illegal
Immigration and Identity Theft Promotion Act." Duane
Bannock from the DMV testified last year that they
plan to implement the requirements of this bill by
scanning and retaining image copies of every document
used to obtain an ID or driver's license in this
state. This means that the Alaska DMV would be
retaining copies of more documents per person than the
U.S. passport office. I don't want my state government
doing that.
I have over a decade of database system design
experience. I also worked as a State contractor last
year in the same capacity. It's a terrible idea to
keep this much sensitive information together in one
place, widely accessible and subject to future
whimsical rulings by Homeland Security. If I was a
dishonest person, I could have walked out of the State
department I worked in with personal information of
tens of thousands of Alaskans. Nevada and Georgia both
experienced thefts of DMV data, from internal and
external sources. In November 2005 Oregon police found
a laptop at a methamphetamine house containing a half-
million DMV records.
The question I pose to you is: how much would a DVD
filled with images of Alaskans' birth certificates,
passports, and social security cards sell for in
Tijuana, and how would that affect illegal immigration
and terrorism?
As an Alaskan driver, I would prefer that the other
drivers next to me have cracked open an American
driver's manual at some point in their lives,
liability insurance, and have a driving record
accessible to law enforcement - unlike the legislative
aide that totaled a State of Alaska van in May 2001,
carrying a Russian driver's license that (quote)
"state computers could not verify" (unquote). Drivers'
licensing exists to promote public safety, not as an
individual benefit.
Finally, HB 3 could be named the "Increased Government
Spending and Bureaucracy Act." The National Governors
Association estimates total cost at $11 billion over
five years for all states to implement this law. I
don't believe there is a fiscal note attached to this
bill, and there very much should be.
Instead of bloated bureaucracy, I have a very simple
and nearly free solution to illegal aliens at the DMV:
when someone shows up with dubious paperwork, the
employee can make a phone call to the Feds and let
them deal with immigration law.
A driver's license does not confer any additional
benefit to a person, legal or illegal, that a foreign
passport and foreign driver's license don't already
provide. This includes driving a car, buying a beer,
opening a bank account, or flying on a domestic
flight. An Alaska ID is not enough to complete an I-9
employment eligibility form. The primary benefit of a
license to the rest of us as the driving public. I
challenge you to cogently explain how this bill will
do anything at all to reduce illegal immigration or
prevent terrorism. This bill doesn't achieve any
goals. Why would we pass it?
Bills against Real ID are pending in Arizona, Georgia,
Hawaii, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire,
Oklahoma, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico - many of them
introduced by conservative Republicans. Don Young
voted against Real ID when it was introduced as a
standalone bill in Congress. Besides our Congressman
and these other states, Real ID is also opposed by the
Gun Owners of America, the American Conservative
Union, the National Conference of State Legislatures,
and the National Governors Association. Even a former
Idaho Republican Butch Otter, originally a co-sponsor,
later called the Real ID Act a "terrible idea." I ask
that you too vote against this legislation. I would be
thrilled to answer any questions from the committee.
9:30:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned if there is a fiscal note
for HB 3.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:30:46 AM to 9:31:05 AM.
9:31:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that there is a fiscal note in
the committee packet. He asked Mr. Kerr how many states have
passed legislation urging the repeal of the REAL ID Act.
MR. KERR said he knows Maine passed legislation that opposed the
REAL ID Act in its entirety; however, he said he does not have
statistics pertaining to the other states.
9:31:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked Mr. Kerr how many states have passed
legislation similar to HB 3, requiring people to prove that they
are legally in the country in order to be issued a driver's
license.
9:32:34 AM
MR. KERR said he doesn't know. He added that not all states
have implemented "the requirements that are required by the REAL
ID Act."
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he is trying to separate the issue of
the bill from the issue of the Real ID Act. He said:
We don't stop people from driving on the road if they
have an international driver's license; we're talking
about being issued an official driver's license from
the State of Alaska. So, if we had support
documentation saying, "No, there is no other state in
the United States that requires this," then I would
have a tendency to say, "Okay, I see what you're
saying."
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES indicated that he has questions for Mr.
Bannock related to the fiscal note.
9:33:51 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked Mr. Kerr if he considers himself an expert
witness on the subject of driver's licenses and the REAL ID Act.
MR. KERR said although he knows many people who have had
experiences at the DMV that most Americans have not experienced,
he is not an expert in immigration or DMV law.
9:35:05 AM
MR. KERR, in response to Representative Gruenberg, related that
last year he worked with a state employee who was a temporary
skilled worker from another state and was issued a driver's
license valid until the expiration date of his stay in Alaska.
Before the time was up, he filed with the federal government to
extend his stay for several more years. The government took
several months to respond and there was a period of three months
when that worker was legally present but not able to hold a
valid driver's license during that time.
9:35:45 AM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
9:36:27 AM
MR. BANNOCK, in response to Representative Roses, addressed the
issue of the fiscal note as follows:
The National Governors Association did come with a
figure of $11 billion for implementation of [the REAL
ID Act], and, in fact, last week, when the 170 pages
of rules for [the REAL ID Act] were unveiled, the cost
has been suggested to be in excess of $23 billion over
a five-year period.
Let me just retro back that this is not the REAL ID
Act. ... As I've shared with you, and perhaps others,
this is a piece of the pie of REAL ID Act, and I'll
... repeat my comments that I'm told that there is
legislation being considered right now that would be
the subject of [the REAL ID Act].
MR. BANNOCK explained the $20,000 fiscal note he provided is
specific to the changes that are in HB 3. He continued:
This $20,000 cost is attributed to programming, so
that I can go inside my computer system and actually
collect ... the expiration date of your driver's
license. Because, you see, today it is hard
programmed that every driver's license will expire on
the applicant's ... birthday, five years from now.
Under HB 3, we will now adjust that expiration date on
our international customers. And that is why, in the
context, it is apples and oranges to attempt to
compare this fiscal note - indeed HB 3 - to [the REAL
ID Act].
MR. BANNOCK, in response to Representative Roses' question
regarding how many other states require legal presence, said he
can say with certainty there are more than 40 states that
currently have laws in place similar to HB 3, and he said he
could find out the exact number.
9:38:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES remarked:
Part of the $20,000 [fiscal] note that we're talking
about: some of that would also be taken up with an
additional fiscal note that came with another bill
that we had that passed out of this committee that
required people to automatically renew their license
at age 21. So, you're going to have to adjust those
expiration dates as part of that bill as well, is that
correct?
MR. BANNOCK confirmed that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked, "And so, ... this flexing
possibility is shared between those two items. Is that
correct?"
MR. BANNOCK responded that that is not totally correct. He
explained as follows:
On that particular issue that you're speaking of, a
large majority of driver's licenses currently expire
on an applicant's twenty-first birthday just by the
nature of our business - people that get a driver's
license in their sixteenth year.
9:39:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked if the DMV makes and retains copies
of the documentation shown by people to prove they have met the
standard, or if it keeps that documentation just long enough to
issue a license.
9:40:33 AM
MR. BANNOCK replied that the DMV keeps the application, on which
there is written proof that the applicant's birth certificate,
for example, was seen; however, a copy of the proof is not kept
in perpetuity.
CHAIR LYNN asked Mr. Bannock if the same process would apply
regarding identification shown to indicate legal presence.
MR. BANNOCK said the DMV has gone on record to state that that
is its plan. He added, "We have not implemented that plan yet,
but we are in the planning stage to indeed do that." He noted
that the digital images on the new driver's licenses are stored
at the State of Alaska "main frame." He said the State of
Alaska holds a tremendous amount of personal information that is
not even related to the DMV. For example, he suggested that
main frame holds medical records, mortgage records, and a host
of other records.
9:42:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he thought Mr. Bannock had said that
the DMV would not store or keep copies "of these documents" and
now it sounds as if there are documents being stored. He asked,
"If I came in as an immigrant, and I presented you with
documents to show that I have legal status in this country, and
I was trying to seek a driver's license, and I showed you proof
of that documentation, would you then make copies of that to
store as part of your records? What, if any, of that
information would you keep?" He added, "Either now, or under
this bill."
9:42:48 AM
MR. BANNOCK said HB 3 does not address that question.
Notwithstanding that, he said the business practice of the DMV
is to look at the document and hand it back to its owner over
the counter. He stated that the DMV's plan is to keep an
electronic copy of that proof; however that practice is not
going on today.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES expressed appreciation for the
clarification.
9:43:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Bannock to be frank. He
noted that the DMV received $120,000 last year through the
capital budget, and Mr. Bannock specified that the purpose of
the money was to comply with the REAL ID Act, to be able to scan
information into a computer to retain records electronically.
He asked Mr. Bannock to confirm that is true.
MR. BANNOCK responded, "Almost 100 percent correct,
Representative Gruenberg. 125 was the number, and that ... is a
matter of record, yes, sir."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 2, line 10,
and page 2, lines 19-20, which contain the phrase "valid
documentary evidence". He said the requirement is that the DMV
rely exclusively on documentary evidence regarding the person's
status. He asked, "So, if the person has trouble getting
documents, even though there's no question as to whether the
person is there legally, you couldn't accept that evidence,
because it's not in documentary form, right?"
9:44:53 AM
MR. BANNOCK said that is exactly what the case is today. He
said the most common document seen is a birth certificate. The
DMV must see that certificate. Requiring that documentary
evidence is not new, he noted.
9:45:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Couldn't this lead to a lot of
additional, expensive appeals and a lot of time by your
[division] and the hearing officers? You'd have to prosecute
these appeals and adjudicate them. How much would that cost?"
MR. BANNOCK responded, "... That's not my position."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked:
It's not? Aren't those administrative hearing
officers employees of your [division]? Didn't you
testify in the administration subcommittee that you
wanted them to remain in your [division] and not
become part of the Office of Administrative Hearings?
Those are part of your budget, too, aren't they, sir?
MR. BANNOCK replied that the DMV has not formulated a position
on that particular subject. He indicated that both he and the
commissioner of the Department of Administration, Annette
Kreitzer, have told Representative Gruenberg that "that
particular issue is going to be discussed." He stated that he
does not concur with the assessment that [HB 3] will lead to
more appeals.
CHAIR LYNN stated, "I don't want any adversarial relationships;
I just want to solicit ... and receive information."
9:47:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL requested that the bill be held in order to
address possible unintended consequences.
9:48:01 AM
CHAIR LYNN handed the gavel over to Vice Chair Roses.
9:48:27 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES asked Mr. Bannock how many people "run into
this kind of scenario" with the DMV "on a yearly basis."
9:48:36 AM
MR. BANNOCK said he cannot give him an exact number. He noted
that [the issue surrounding] the enlarged license plate
previously used by Chair Lynn as a visual aide illustrates the
reason he thinks HB 3 is necessary. In response to a follow-up
question from Vice Chair Roses, he said the number would be
based on the "seasonality of migrant workers that come to
America." He said there are a lot of international customers
who show up in Alaska and get five-year driver's licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that if there is additional time,
Mr. McCloud-Ball be given a minute to complete his testimony.
VICE CHAIR ROSES ruled that request out of order, because he
said the matter had already been ruled; however, he said he
would allow Representative Gruenberg to ask Mr. McCloud-Ball a
question.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. McCloud-Ball if there are any
other problems that he sees with HB 3.
9:50:46 AM
MR. MACLEOD-BALL stated that the proposed legislation will not
stop illegal immigrants from driving. He asked the committee to
consider the point of view of both the insurance industry and
consumer organizations regarding whether [HB 3] is "the best way
for the state to proceed." He also suggested that if the state
is concerned with illegal immigrants, it would be better to
mandate that they be issued driver's licenses. That way, he
explained, everybody would be identified, making it easier to
"track illegals." He stated, "With this bill, the only people
who will be tracked by the government will be those who are ...
law-abiding citizens."
9:51:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Macleod-Ball to confirm that
he is saying the proposed bill will drive illegal immigrants
further underground, making it more difficult to apprehend them.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL answered yes. He said, "If this bill passes,
clearly illegal immigrants will not be licensed, they will not
be insured driving on the roads, and they will be more difficult
to ... keep track of." He added that from ACLU's perspective,
the important point is that the only people that will be tracked
will be law-abiding citizens of Alaska and the U.S.
9:52:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that he does not find Mr.
Macleod-Ball's reasoning solid, because it would mean that
everything the state does to regulate illegal drugs, for
example, that would drive [the drug dealers] underground, would
need to be "relaxed." He said when he went in for his driver's
license, the DMV would not have issued it to him without seeing
his certified birth certificate. He said these processes exist
because of "people wandering across our borders and taking
advantage of things that we tax ourselves for," and he agreed
that the burden quite often falls upon those who are naturalized
in the U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is not interested in "making it
more unfair for people who visit Alaska." He stated that he is
not a big fan of "what Congress is doing" related to the REAL ID
Act or of Big Brother. He indicated that [HB 3] is just one
piece of an accountability factor. He suggested that if
Alaskans must prove their identity in order to receive a
driver's license, then those who come from outside Alaska must
do the same. He stated, "I don't have any problem with this as
a ... way to do it." Representative Coghill said he would
support HB 3.
9:57:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked all the testifiers:
If the purpose is to identify people who are not in
this country legally, why tie this to the driver's
license? Is the only reason this is tied to the
driver's license because that's the most commonly
accepted form of identification? Is that the reason
why ... some people want to make this a requirement of
getting driver's licenses, because it is more widely
used than other forms of identification?
9:58:01 AM
MR. BANNOCK said he believes that Representative Gruenberg has
touched upon a large reason why legal presence is tied to
driver's licensing. He indicated that there are other views in
regard to legal presence. He said the concept of tying legal
presence to a driver's license is "certainly not reinventing the
wheel." He suggested that perhaps a driver's license has ceased
to be solely "a ticket to drive a car" and has morphed into
"proving who we are."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that one
state was considering identifying undocumented aliens on the
face of the driver's license, rather than denying them the right
to drive.
MR. BANNOCK said that is one option. He said Tennessee
implemented that program, but then "halted that program and
reversed themselves" at the request of law enforcement. He said
he does not know if the state of Utah is still offering such a
program or not.
10:00:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HB 3 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
10:00:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. He said he would like time
to prepare an amendment "along the lines of the Tennessee idea."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN told Representative Gruenberg that he would
like to discuss his amendments in the next committee of
referral, which was the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
10:01:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reminded committee members that
Representative Doll had requested that the bill be held, and she
is not on the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
VICE CHAIR ROSES stated his understanding that Representative
Doll could go before the House Judiciary Standing Committee to
testify and share any concerns she may have.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Representative Doll is a member of
the House State Affairs Standing Committee and has the right to
be heard now.
10:02:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she would like to hear testimony from
people who work with immigration policies in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN noted that the bill was introduced on
January 16, [2007], and he asked that a roll call vote be taken
to address the motion on the table.
10:02:42 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johnson, Roses,
Coghill, Johansen, and Lynn voted in favor of moving HB 3 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note. Representatives Gruenberg and Doll voted against
it. Therefore, HB 3 was reported out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
10:03:30 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:03:37 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|