Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120

04/27/2021 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ HB 163 FORM OF SIGNATURE ON VEHICLE TITLE TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
+= HB 102 STATE INSUR. CATASTROPHE RESERVE ACCT. TELECONFERENCED
Moved HB 102 Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
+= HB 157 APOC; REPORT REFERENDA/RECALL CONTRIBUTOR TELECONFERENCED
Moved HB 157 Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
+= HB 118 EXPANDING PRISONER ACCESS TO COMPUTERS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+= HB 5 SEXUAL ASSAULT; DEF. OF "CONSENT" TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
**Streamed live on AKL.tv**
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
             HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                           
                         April 27, 2021                                                                                         
                           3:06 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
                             DRAFT                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair                                                                                   
Representative Matt Claman, Vice Chair                                                                                          
Representative Geran Tarr                                                                                                       
Representative Andi Story                                                                                                       
Representative Sarah Vance                                                                                                      
Representative James Kaufman                                                                                                    
Representative David Eastman                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 163                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to vehicle title applications."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 102                                                                                                              
"An  Act  relating to  the  state  insurance catastrophe  reserve                                                               
account; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HB 102 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 157                                                                                                              
"An  Act requiring  the  disclosure of  the  identity of  certain                                                               
persons,  groups,  and nongroup  entities  that  expend money  in                                                               
support of or  in opposition to an application filed  for a state                                                               
referendum  or recall  election; and  providing for  an effective                                                               
date."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HB 157 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 118                                                                                                              
"An Act  relating to state identifications  and driver's licenses                                                               
for  persons in  the custody  of the  Department of  Corrections;                                                               
relating  to  the  duties of  the  commissioner  of  corrections;                                                               
relating to living conditions for prisoners; and providing for                                                                  
an effective date."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 5                                                                                         
"An Act relating  to sexual abuse of a minor;  relating to sexual                                                               
assault; relating  to the code  of military justice;  relating to                                                               
consent; relating  to the testing  of sexual  assault examination                                                               
kits; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 163                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: FORM OF SIGNATURE ON VEHICLE TITLE                                                                                 
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SCHRAGE                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
04/05/21       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
04/05/21       (H)       CRA, STA                                                                                               
04/13/21       (H)       CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124                                                                              
04/13/21       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/13/21       (H)       MINUTE(CRA)                                                                                            
04/15/21       (H)       CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124                                                                              
04/15/21       (H)       Moved HB 163 Out of Committee                                                                          
04/15/21       (H)       MINUTE(CRA)                                                                                            
04/16/21       (H)       CRA RPT 6DP                                                                                            
04/16/21       (H)       DP: MCCABE, PRAX, MCCARTY, DRUMMOND,                                                                   
                        SCHRAGE, HANNAN                                                                                         
04/27/21       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 102                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: STATE INSUR. CATASTROPHE RESERVE ACCT.                                                                             
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
02/18/21       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/18/21       (H)       STA, FIN                                                                                               
04/08/21       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
04/08/21       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/08/21       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
04/27/21       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 157                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: APOC; REPORT REFERENDA/RECALL CONTRIBUTOR                                                                          
SPONSOR(s): RASMUSSEN                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
03/31/21       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/31/21       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
04/17/21       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
04/17/21       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/17/21       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
04/27/21       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 118                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: EXPANDING PRISONER ACCESS TO COMPUTERS                                                                             
SPONSOR(s): KREISS-TOMKINS                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
03/01/21       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/01/21       (H)       STA                                                                                                    
03/18/21       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/18/21       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/18/21       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/23/21       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/23/21       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/23/21       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
04/01/21       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
04/01/21       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/01/21       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
04/27/21       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 5                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: SEXUAL ASSAULT; DEF. OF "CONSENT"                                                                                  
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
02/18/21       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21                                                                                
02/18/21       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/18/21       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
03/26/21       (H)       SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED                                                                          
03/26/21       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/26/21       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
03/27/21       (H)       STA AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
03/27/21       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/27/21       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
04/13/21       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
04/13/21       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/13/21       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
04/20/21       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
04/20/21       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/20/21       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
04/27/21       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Introduced HB 163, as the prime sponsor.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
LAUREN MACVAY, Chief Executive Officer                                                                                          
True North Federal Credit Union                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing on HB 163, provided                                                                   
invited testimony on the proposed legislation.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
JEFFERY SCHMITZ, Director                                                                                                       
Division of Motor Vehicles                                                                                                      
Department of Administration                                                                                                    
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions pertaining to HB 163.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
PALOMA HARBOUR, Fiscal Management Analyst                                                                                       
Office of Management & Budget                                                                                                   
Office of the Governor                                                                                                          
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions during the hearing on HB
102.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff                                                                                                         
Representative Sara Rasmussen                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing on HB 157, answered                                                                   
questions on behalf of Representative Rasmussen, prime sponsor.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director                                                                                              
Alaska Public Offices Commission                                                                                                
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions pertaining to HB 157.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
LAURA BROOKS, Division Operations Manager                                                                                       
Division of Health and Rehab Services                                                                                           
Department of Corrections                                                                                                       
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions during the hearing on HB
118.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
JAMES STINSON, Director                                                                                                         
Office of Public Advocacy                                                                                                       
Department of Administration                                                                                                    
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions  during the hearing on HB
5.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General                                                                                          
Office of the Attorney General                                                                                                  
Department of Law                                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions  during the hearing on HB
5.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
RENEE MCFARLAND, Deputy Public Defender                                                                                         
Alaska Public Defender Agency                                                                                                   
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions  during the hearing on HB
5.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:06:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS  called  the  House State  Affairs                                                             
Standing   Committee    meeting   to    order   at    3:06   p.m.                                                               
Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman,  Vance, Kaufman, and Kreiss-                                                               
Tomkins  were  present at  the  call  to order.    Representative                                                               
Eastman arrived as the meeting was in progress.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
           HB 163-FORM OF SIGNATURE ON VEHICLE TITLE                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:08:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  announced that the first  order of business                                                               
would be  HOUSE BILL NO. 163,  "An Act relating to  vehicle title                                                               
applications."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:08:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CALVIN  SCHRAGE,  Alaska  State  Legislature,  as                                                               
prime sponsor,  introduced HB  163.   He paraphrased  the sponsor                                                               
statement,   which   read   as  follows   [original   punctuation                                                               
provided]:                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     House Bill  163 eliminates the current  requirement for                                                                    
     ink  signatures on  applications for  titles and  title                                                                    
     transfers within  the Department of Motor  Vehicles. HB
     163  gives  flexibility  to  the  DMV  to  begin  using                                                                    
     electronic signatures.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     HB   163  does   not  force   the  use   of  electronic                                                                    
     signatures. AS  28.10.211(b) states  that "applications                                                                    
     for  title  or  transfer  of  title  must  contain  the                                                                    
     signature  in ink  of the  owner, or  if there  is more                                                                    
     than one  owner, the signature  in ink of at  least one                                                                    
     of the owners and the name  of each owner stated in the                                                                    
     conjunctive or in the disjunctive."  HB 163 deletes the                                                                    
     words "in ink" in both places.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Under the  Uniform Electronic Transactions Act  of 2004                                                                    
     (AS 09.80.010-09.80.195)  electronic signatures satisfy                                                                    
     the general definition of  a signature unless otherwise                                                                    
     prohibited.  Since   the  current   statute  explicitly                                                                    
     requires "ink"  signatures for title  applications, the                                                                    
     DMV cannot accept electronic signatures.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     HB  163  will  give  the  Department  the  latitude  to                                                                    
     determine for  itself if it wants  to accept electronic                                                                    
     signatures in  the cases of  title transfers  and title                                                                    
     applications.  Covid  has  taught  us  that  electronic                                                                    
     signatures  can provide  extra convenience  to Alaskans                                                                    
     in remote or  rural parts of the state  and can provide                                                                    
     long-term efficiencies for the DMV.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:11:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LAUREN  MACVAY,  Chief  Executive  Officer,  True  North  Federal                                                               
Credit Union,  said she  was speaking  in favor of  HB 163.   She                                                               
stated that  although simple, the bill  would open the door  to a                                                               
significant amount  of progress.   She explained  that electronic                                                               
signature was used for many  important things in Alaska; however,                                                               
vehicle titling required a "wet"  signature.  She reported that a                                                               
growing number of other states  were implementing electronic lien                                                               
and  titling  solutions to  various  degrees,  but the  "in  ink"                                                               
language  in  AS  28.10.211(b)(1)   was  preventing  Alaska  from                                                               
exploring the  benefits of modern  technology, which  had impacts                                                               
on  the DMV  and its  operation, as  well as  True North  and its                                                               
members.   She explained that  "ESign" had enabled True  North to                                                               
acquire members  all throughout the  state, despite  its branches                                                               
being in  Juneau and Anchorage.   Further, True North  could open                                                               
new  memberships  and  close  consumer   and  home  equity  loans                                                               
electronically, which was  a huge benefit when  the pandemic hit.                                                               
She  emphasized  that  the  credit   union  could  not,  however,                                                               
complete   any  loan   electronically  that   required  a   title                                                               
application to  secure the  lien.  When  that occurred,  the loan                                                               
was  held  up  until  the   original  signatures  were  obtained.                                                               
Another option, she explained, was  to put the burden of securing                                                               
the title  work back on the  borrower, then closing the  loan and                                                               
providing  the borrower  with the  title application,  from which                                                               
point that  individual would  be required to  go through  the DMV                                                               
process.   She added that  in that  scenario, the title  would be                                                               
forwarded back to the credit union  at the end.  She said neither                                                               
scenario was a  good option, and both  created inconveniences for                                                               
everyone involved.   She stated  that if  True North was  able to                                                               
secure  electronic  signature  of title  paperwork,  the  process                                                               
would be far  more convenient for members and  more efficient for                                                               
the credit union.  She reiterated  that by removing the words "in                                                               
ink"  from statute,  the proposed  legislation  would remove  the                                                               
critical  first   barrier  to  progress.     She  encouraged  the                                                               
committee to move the bill forward for that reason.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:14:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR   sought  to  understand   the  relationship                                                               
between the  Division of  Motor Vehicle  (DMV) component  and the                                                               
bank  component.   She  specifically  inquired  about a  scenario                                                               
involving a cash transaction at the DMV.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:15:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JEFFERY   SCHMITZ,   Director,   Division  of   Motor   Vehicles,                                                               
Department  of  Administration,   asked  Representative  Tarr  to                                                               
rephrase her question.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR proposed  a  scenario in  which someone  was                                                               
[buying] a car from another  individual with cash and without the                                                               
involvement of  a bank.  She  asked how the title  transfer would                                                               
occur in that circumstance.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SCHMITZ stressed  that the  proposed legislation  would only                                                               
remove  the  impairment  created  by the  "in  ink"  requirement;                                                               
further, the business procedures  that would be implemented after                                                               
changing the  language had not been  vetted in detail due  to the                                                               
current statutory  language.  He  reiterated that there  had been                                                               
no evaluation on  how a title transfer or  cash transaction would                                                               
actually  transpire; therefore,  he declined  to comment  on that                                                               
scenario.   He  maintained  that the  proposed legislation  would                                                               
simply "open the door" to vetting  the process.  He surmised that                                                               
a customer-to-customer transaction would  likely be completed via                                                               
portal and the DMV would be informed that the transfer occurred.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:18:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN  understood that  in order to  borrow money                                                               
from  True North  to  buy  a car,  the  loan  could be  completed                                                               
electronically;  however, the  title transfer  would require  its                                                               
physical presence at  the DMV for a signature.   He asked if that                                                               
was correct.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MACVAY  answered, "Yes."   She explained  that the  loan note                                                               
could  be  signed  electronically,  but the  loan  would  not  be                                                               
disbursed  until  the title  application  was  received with  the                                                               
signed title in hand.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN understood that  the next step in borrowing                                                               
involved placing  a lien  on the title,  which would  be released                                                               
after the  loan was paid  off entirely.   He questioned  how that                                                               
process would change if electronic signatures were allowed.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. MACVAY said  currently, when a borrower paid off  a car loan,                                                               
the lien  on the  title would  be signed off  and released.   The                                                               
title would  then be mailed back  to the borrower.   However, she                                                               
noted that people  did not always open their  mail from financial                                                               
institutions, which had resulted in titles being thrown away.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN  asked   how  electronic  signature  would                                                               
change that process.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MACVAY  indicated  that  there were  many  answers  to  that                                                               
question depending on  the type of system the [DMV]  would set up                                                               
and  how [True  North] would  interface with  it.   She explained                                                               
that  there  were  purely electronic  lien  and  titling  systems                                                               
through  which  the  lien  could  be  released.    That  type  of                                                               
paperless system  would be  much faster  and more  efficient, she                                                               
said;  consequently, she  believed that  the end  game should  an                                                               
entirely paperless method.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:23:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN   considered  a  scenario  in   which  the                                                               
borrower sold  the car before  the loan was  paid off.   He asked                                                               
how  electronic  signature  would  allow the  old  owner  to  get                                                               
his/her  lien released  and allow  the new  owner to  receive the                                                               
title as expeditiously as possible.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MACVAY believed  electronic  signature  would be  beneficial                                                               
because True North  would be able to note that  the lien had been                                                               
satisfied, which would allow the  owner and the buyer to complete                                                               
the transaction.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:25:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SCHRAGE   expressed  his  appreciation   for  the                                                               
opportunity to  present HB  163.   He said  he looked  forward to                                                               
seeing the bill  advance in the near future, as  it would provide                                                               
flexibility to  the DMV  and help  Alaskans better  conduct their                                                               
businesses, as well as modernize state statute.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced [that HB 163 was held over.]                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
         HB 102-STATE INSUR. CATASTROPHE RESERVE ACCT.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:25:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  announced that  the next order  of business                                                               
would  be HOUSE  BILL  NO. 102,  "An Act  relating  to the  state                                                               
insurance  catastrophe  reserve  account; and  providing  for  an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:26:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   KREISS-TOMKINS   opened    public   testimony.      After                                                               
ascertaining  the no  one  wished to  testify,  he closed  public                                                               
testimony and invited questions from the committee.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:27:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  asked whether  the  funds  in the  State                                                               
Insurance   Catastrophe  Reserve   Account  were   available  for                                                               
appropriation by the legislature.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:27:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PALOMA HARBOUR,  Fiscal Management Analyst, Office  of Management                                                               
& Budget,  Office of the  Governor, answered  yes.  She  said the                                                               
legislature could  appropriate this  funding for any  purpose, as                                                               
there was no such thing as a dedicated fund.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN assumed  that the  funds were  swept into                                                               
the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR)  at the end of the fiscal                                                               
year.  He asked if that was correct.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  HARBOUR replied,  "That is  not correct."   She  stated that                                                               
just because  the funding could  be appropriated did not  mean it                                                               
required further  appropriation to  spend.   For that  reason, it                                                               
was not subject to the sweep, she said.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  questioned   whether  Legislative  Legal                                                               
Services was of the same opinion as Ms. Harbour.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS  invited  closing comments  from  committee                                                               
members on HB 102.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:29:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TARR  pointed out  that if legislators  could find                                                               
additional bills  like HB  102 that saved  the state  millions of                                                               
dollars, their work would be easier.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VANCE agreed.    She believed  that the  proposed                                                               
legislation  exemplified   the  wise  financial   decisions  that                                                               
Alaskans had been  waiting for.  She added that  she was happy to                                                               
support this bill.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN  agreed  that  there  were  many  positive                                                               
aspects of  the bill and stated  his support for it;  however, he                                                               
indicated  that it  would  not come  without  risk because  "when                                                               
everyone  self-insures, it  only takes  a couple  of catastrophic                                                               
losses for  somebody to  come back  and say,  'what were  you all                                                               
thinking.'"   He said he  would be  remiss not to  recognize that                                                               
the decision  came with some  degree of risk,  but it would  be a                                                               
risk worth taking.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STORY  thanked the  bill sponsoring  for providing                                                               
the  10-year history  of [state  property  premiums and  losses].                                                               
Additionally,  she thanked  Representative Claman  for addressing                                                               
the potential risk.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN appreciated  the administration's  effort                                                               
in   bringing  down   costs,  as   reflected   in  the   proposed                                                               
legislation.  Nonetheless, he believed  that per the Constitution                                                               
of the  State of Alaska, the  money would be swept  from the CBR,                                                               
which would  allow the legislature  to "make proposals  like this                                                               
bill in the  form of a permanent fund that  isn't subject to that                                                               
penalty."   He said he  would be  inclined to create  a dedicated                                                               
fund for  this purpose  because it  would make  sense financially                                                               
and  legally; however,  he said  the legislature  was "trying  to                                                               
have [its]  cake and  eat it  too."  For  that reason,  he stated                                                               
that he would be hesitant to support the bill at this time.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:33:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KAUFMAN, in  response to  Representative Eastman,                                                               
suggested amending the bill.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   KREISS-TOMKINS  echoed   the   initial   comments.     He                                                               
characterized  the bill  as "terrific  policy," and  said he  was                                                               
very  glad  to see  the  administration  bring  it forward.    He                                                               
acknowledged  the  risk but  believed  the  legislature would  be                                                               
paralyzed if it allowed the  sweep to dictate its every decision.                                                               
He pointed  out that  the sweep had  almost always  been reversed                                                               
without fail.   Further,  he opined that  failing to  reverse the                                                               
sweep did not serve a productive purpose.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:35:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN  moved to  report HB  102 out  of committee                                                               
with  individual  recommendations  and  the  accompanying  fiscal                                                               
notes.  Without objection, HB 102  was moved from the House State                                                               
Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
        HB 157-APOC; REPORT REFERENDA/RECALL CONTRIBUTOR                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:36:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  announced that  the next order  of business                                                               
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 157,  "An Act requiring the disclosure of                                                               
the identity  of certain persons,  groups, and  nongroup entities                                                               
that  expend  money  in  support   of  or  in  opposition  to  an                                                               
application filed for a state  referendum or recall election; and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   KREISS-TOMKINS   opened    public   testimony.      After                                                               
ascertaining  the no  one  wished to  testify,  he closed  public                                                               
testimony.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:36:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CRYSTAL  KOENEMAN, Staff,  Representative Sara  Rasmussen, Alaska                                                               
State Legislature,  on behalf of Representative  Rasmussen, prime                                                               
sponsor  of HB  157, stated  that additional  documents had  been                                                               
disbursed  to the  committee in  response to  questions from  the                                                               
previous  bill hearing.   She  specifically  referenced the  flow                                                               
chart,  which outlined  the  various  reporting requirements  for                                                               
candidates, initiatives, recalls, and referendums.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:37:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS welcomed questions from the committee.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:38:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. KOENEMAN, in response to  Representative Kaufman, provided an                                                               
overview of  the flow  chart on  page 4  of the  document titled,                                                               
"Additional Info  - Response to  STA" [included in  the committee                                                               
packet].   She  explained that  for candidates,  the expenditures                                                               
and  contribution   tracking  began  when  they   declared  their                                                               
candidacy and paid  the initial fee to the  Division of Elections                                                               
(DOE).     Similarly,  for  initiatives,  the   expenditures  and                                                               
contribution  tracking began  when  the  initial application  was                                                               
properly filed  with the  lieutenant governor  through DOE.   For                                                               
recalls, the expenditures  and contributions began if  and when a                                                               
special  election was  called, which  was the  final step  in the                                                               
process.     Lastly,  for   referendums,  the   expenditures  and                                                               
contribution tracking  began when  it appeared  on the  ballot of                                                               
the first  statewide primary, general,  or special  election held                                                               
more than 180  days after adjournment of  the legislative session                                                               
at which the act was passed.   Consequently, she pointed out that                                                               
if the funding  gathered for a recall or  referendum was expended                                                               
prior to certification, it would never be reported.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:42:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN, in  reference  to the  last  step of  the                                                               
referendum  process,  sought  to  clarify what  "180  days  after                                                               
adjournment of the legislative session" meant specifically.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. KOENEMAN said she was unsure.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:43:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
HEATHER  HEBDON,   Executive  Director,  Alaska   Public  Offices                                                               
Commission, explained  that the  process of  getting a  recall or                                                               
referendum on  the ballot  was not  overseen by  APOC; therefore,                                                               
she could not offer further clarity.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KOENEMAN  surmised that  it  was  at  the  end of  the  full                                                               
legislative  session.   Nonetheless, she  offered to  verify with                                                               
DOE.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:44:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, in  reference to the flow  chart, sought to                                                               
confirm that  the proposed legislation  would move  the reporting                                                               
requirements from  the final step  to the first step  for recalls                                                               
and referendums.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KOENEMAN confirmed.    She  said the  bill  would align  the                                                               
reporting requirements  for recalls and referendums  with that of                                                               
candidates  and  initiatives;   therefore,  the  reporting  would                                                               
commence at the beginning.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:44:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the  language on page 6, lines                                                               
15-16,  which   read,  "(iii)  a  recall   application  under  AS                                                               
15.45.480 or who file a  recall application under AS 15.45.480;".                                                               
He opined  that the language  appeared duplicative and  asked why                                                               
it was drafted in that way.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KOENEMAN explained  that the  language  was referencing  any                                                               
group of two or more  individuals who organized [for] the purpose                                                               
of filing a  recall or those who had filed  a recall application.                                                               
She noted that it was  conforming language, as recommended by the                                                               
drafters.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN questioned  whether  this language  would                                                               
apply  to "anyone  who  files a  group to  put  forward a  recall                                                               
application."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. KOENEMAN answered  yes.  She expounded that  any groups, non-                                                               
group  entities, individuals,  persons,  and  etcetera that  this                                                               
language applied  to would be  subject to the  modified reporting                                                               
requirements.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:47:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KOENEMAN,  in response  to  a  question from  Representative                                                               
Eastman, explained that current  statute specified a threshold of                                                               
$500.    She elaborated  that  the  reporting requirements  would                                                               
commence when  the initiative, committee, person,  group, or non-                                                               
group entity  received contributions  exceeding $500  or expended                                                               
more than $500.  Additionally, she  said there was a threshold of                                                               
$5,000 for candidates.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  asked  whether   the  bill  sponsor  had                                                               
considered bringing the $500 threshold up to $5,000.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KOENEMAN  said  the  bill  sponsor  was  not  interested  in                                                               
modifying the  existing structure.   She indicated that  the goal                                                               
was to align  statutes so the requirements  would be identifiable                                                               
across the board.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS informed  the committee  that an  amendment                                                               
had come  in after the  deadline due to an  administrative error.                                                               
Given  that  the  sponsor  of  the  amendment  was  on  the  next                                                               
committee  of  referral,  he  said  his  preference  was  not  to                                                               
consider the  amendment.  Nonetheless, he  invited Representative                                                               
Vance  to highlight  any  themes or  policy  issues that  members                                                               
should be aware of, given that many  of them would also be in the                                                               
next committee of referral.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:50:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that she  had spoken with the bill                                                               
sponsor  about  adding municipalities  to  the  statute, so  that                                                               
there would  be consistent transparency statewide.   She conveyed                                                               
that municipalities  could choose  to follow  statutory reporting                                                               
requirements  or  not;  therefore,  this  would  not  impose  the                                                               
requirements on  a municipality that  had not already  elected to                                                               
follow  the statutory  guidelines.   She  believed the  amendment                                                               
would merit a conversation.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS  said  he  looked  forward  to  potentially                                                               
having that conversation in the near future.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
3:52:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined  that the bill would  "[lump] a lot                                                               
of   things  together   into  one   basket."     He  shared   his                                                               
understanding  that recalls  were of  a different  nature because                                                               
there had not been a successful  recall from office.  He believed                                                               
that  the  reporting requirements  for  recalling  a governor  or                                                               
lieutenant  governor would  not make  sense for  the recall  of a                                                               
local official,  for example, because  there were  less resources                                                               
available for those  efforts.  He indicated that  he was hesitant                                                               
to  move forward  with the  proposed legislation.   He  concluded                                                               
that citizens  should be able to  organize the recall of  a local                                                               
official without involving attorneys with deep pockets.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:54:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KAUFMAN   inquired  about  the   relative  dollar                                                               
amounts and questioned putting them  in statute due to inflation.                                                               
He  believed   that  political  issues  related   to  money  were                                                               
associated with larger  amounts than $500 or  $5,000.  Therefore,                                                               
he  suggested  reconciling  the  financial  thresholds  to  allow                                                               
grassroots efforts  to organize without being  "bogged down" with                                                               
higher level accounting.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS   said  he  appreciated   the  legislation;                                                               
further,  he  acknowledged   the  comments  from  Representatives                                                               
Eastman and  Kaufman, adding that  there were  good conversations                                                               
to  be  had   about  the  appropriate  level   of  reporting  and                                                               
regulation for small, grassroot political efforts.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:56:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN  moved to  report HB  157 out  of committee                                                               
with  individual  recommendations  and  the  accompanying  fiscal                                                               
notes.   Without objection,  HB 157  was moved  out of  the House                                                               
State Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
         HB 118-EXPANDING PRISONER ACCESS TO COMPUTERS                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:56:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  announced that  the next order  of business                                                               
would  be  HOUSE  BILL  NO.   118,  "An  Act  relating  to  state                                                               
identifications and driver's licenses  for persons in the custody                                                               
of the Department  of Corrections; relating to the  duties of the                                                               
commissioner of  corrections; relating  to living  conditions for                                                               
prisoners; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS,  prime sponsor  of  HB  118, reminded  the                                                               
committee that the  proposed legislation had been  amended in the                                                               
previous  hearing  [4/1/21];  however, after  conversations  with                                                               
committee members  and additional  collaboration between  his and                                                               
Representative  Vance's  offices,  he   would  be  reopening  the                                                               
amendment process.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:57:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VANCE moved  to  adopt Amendment  3, labeled  32-                                                               
LS0024\B.6, Radford, 4/19/21, which read:                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 26, following "care":                                                                                     
          Insert "but may not be used to directly access                                                                    
      the Internet by computer terminal or other automated                                                                  
     means not requiring the assistance of or intervention                                                                  
     by another person"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:58:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VANCE thanked  the  chair  for accommodating  her                                                               
questions and  concerns.  She  conveyed that she had  spoken with                                                               
the  Department  of Corrections  (DOC)  about  its intention  for                                                               
providing access to  computers.  She explained  that the proposed                                                               
amendment  specified that  inmates  may not  directly access  the                                                               
Internet, indicating  that the computers  would only  be utilized                                                               
for rehabilitation and the purposes  specifically outlined in the                                                               
bill.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS  attested  to Representative  Vance's  work                                                               
with the department on Amendment 3.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:59:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at-ease.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
3:59:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS   noted  that   the  department   would  be                                                               
available  shortly.   He said  he  could relay  both written  and                                                               
verbal  correspondence that  confirmed  that  the department  was                                                               
aware of Amendment 3 and had no objection to it.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:00:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   CLAMAN   directed   attention  to   Section   4,                                                               
subparagraph  (I),  on   page  6  of  HB   118,  which  addressed                                                               
prisoners'  access  to  computers  and  specified  the  rules  of                                                               
compliance.    He  asked  why   that  subsection  needed  further                                                               
clarification.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE indicated  that the goal of  Amendment 3 was                                                               
to establish consistency across  every correctional agency rather                                                               
than each facility abiding by different criteria.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   CLAMAN   expressed    concern   that   different                                                               
facilities  would  have different  needs  and  that the  proposed                                                               
language  would   restrict  their  ability  to   make  reasonable                                                               
decisions regarding the appropriate access for each facility.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
4:01:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VANCE relayed  that the  language in  Amendment 3                                                               
was  written  by [DOC]  to  capture  their intent  for  providing                                                               
computer  access,  such  as  employment,   and  education.    She                                                               
understood  that the  proposed language  would not  prohibit "the                                                               
activities that they feel that they need moving forward."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS inquired  about  the  agency's position  on                                                               
Amendment 3.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:03:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LAURA  BROOKS, Division  Operations Manager,  Division of  Health                                                               
and Rehab Services, DOC, explained  that concerns had been raised                                                               
about  how  inmates might  access  the  internet; therefore,  the                                                               
language in Amendment  3 was intending to clarify  that there may                                                               
be occasions in which an  offender could access the internet, but                                                               
only with staff  supervision.  She considered the  example of the                                                               
electronic Medicaid  application process,  adding that  an inmate                                                               
would only  be eligible to  do that under the  direct supervision                                                               
of a  staff member.   Otherwise,  the computers/tablets  would be                                                               
channeled through a  secure platform that would  not allow direct                                                               
access to the Internet.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:04:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN  understood that  the existing  language in                                                               
subparagraph (I) provided DOC with  the authority to regulate the                                                               
allowable access.  He asked whether Ms. Brooks agreed.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. BROOKS said, "That's correct."                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN  concluded that in  the past, the  goal was                                                               
to limit  computer access in  prisons; however, as time  went on,                                                               
the lack of computer access  in prisons hurt the inmates' ability                                                               
to engage  in reform  programs.  He  maintained his  concern that                                                               
the   language  in   the  proposed   amendment  regarding   staff                                                               
supervision may  not be necessary  in the future due  to advances                                                               
in technology.  He said he  could understand some of the interest                                                               
in this  precaution today but  given the slowness with  which the                                                               
legislature  made  adaptations to  realities  on  the ground,  he                                                               
believed the language in Amendment  3 would be overly restrictive                                                               
going forward.   He opined that presently,  staff supervision was                                                               
an  appropriate inclusion  under  subparagraph  (I); however,  by                                                               
requiring  it  in  statute,  DOC  would not  be  able  to  easily                                                               
dispense with it.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. BROOKS acknowledged his concern  about tying the department's                                                               
hands.  However,  she said she could not foresee  a time when DOC                                                               
would  provide inmates  with access  to the  Internet due  to the                                                               
potential of  them accessing  victims.   She believed  that given                                                               
the  anticipated programming,  the  language in  Amendment 3  was                                                               
appropriate  because it  would allow  the  department to  provide                                                               
supervision  when  an  inmate needed  access  to  something  that                                                               
required internet access.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN   questioned  what  would  happen   if  an                                                               
application for  benefits required internet access.   He surmised                                                               
that the  language in Amendment  3 would require that  the inmate                                                               
be supervised while filling out the application.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BROOKS  confirmed  that  it  would  require  that  level  of                                                               
supervision.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:08:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked why DOC  would object to  an inmate                                                               
having  access  to the  internet  aside  from the  concern  about                                                               
contacting victims.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. BROOKS  said there were  many security concerns that  she did                                                               
not  want to  mention  publicly.   She  conveyed that  primarily,                                                               
allowing internet  access would be  a serious breach  of security                                                               
due to the massive amount of information available online.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   EASTMAN  asked   whether   the  department   was                                                               
concerned that in five years,  inmates would have increased tools                                                               
and techniques for  hacking and could misuse  the internet access                                                               
should they ever achieve it.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BROOKS replied,  "That's probably  always a  concern."   She                                                               
reiterated  that the  department  wanted to  ensure  that if  the                                                               
tablets were  used for accessing  the Internet, the  access would                                                               
be well supervised.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  inquired about "the  intervention," which                                                               
was referenced in Amendment 3.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. BROOKS stated that the  intervention would be a "side-by-side                                                               
review," meaning  that a medical  social worker  or institutional                                                               
probation  officer  would  sit   with  the  inmate  while  he/she                                                               
completed the paperwork.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:11:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN  asked whether the  language "intervention                                                               
by another person" was too broad.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. BROOKS  acknowledged that possibility.   She  reiterated that                                                               
the department's goal was to  make the proposed legislation safe;                                                               
therefore, if  the committee felt  that the wording needed  to be                                                               
adjusted,  DOC  would  not  object.     She  explained  that  the                                                               
department wanted  to ensure that  the use [of tablets]  would be                                                               
available  for the  intended purpose  of rehabilitation  and that                                                               
they would be protected and confined to only that purpose.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:12:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his  surprise that there seemed to                                                               
be a  sense that DOC did  not recognize the obvious:  that no one                                                               
wanted  inmates contacting  victims.   He  assured the  committee                                                               
that if a victim were to  be contacted, the commissioner would be                                                               
replaced, as  it would be  a career-ending public  relations (PR)                                                               
story.  He emphasized that  Ms. Brooks and Commissioner Dahlstrom                                                               
knew that,  and the committee should  know that too.   He pointed                                                               
out  that the  verbiage  could be  endlessly  litigated, but  the                                                               
commonsense understanding should be  the accepted assumption that                                                               
there  would  be  no  circumstance   in  which  DOC  would  allow                                                               
prisoners to freely  communicate with victims or  anyone else via                                                               
the Internet.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said he had no  distrust in his heart.  He                                                               
explained that he  had wanted to know  whether additional wording                                                               
would clarify the amendment.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:14:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TARR  referenced a letter from  the American Civil                                                               
Liberties  Union  (ACLU) of  Alaska  [included  in the  committee                                                               
packet], which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Providing meaningful  access to technology  is arguably                                                                    
     more important  than establishing  statutory permission                                                                    
     to do  so.  There is,  for instance, nothing in  HB 118                                                                    
     to require  DOC to meet certain  standards for computer                                                                    
     access,  and nothing  to  permit  DOC from  arbitrarily                                                                    
     restricting access to computers.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR   highlighted  the  importance   of  reentry                                                               
services for successful reintegration  in the community; further,                                                               
she  said  [reentry  services] were  deeply  meaningful  for  the                                                               
continuation  of addiction  treatment, for  example.   She shared                                                               
her understanding  that the proposed legislation  would provide a                                                               
critical service.   She believed  that on one end,  access should                                                               
be restricted to  protect victims, while on the  other end, there                                                               
should  be  meaningful  access  to allow  for  the  provision  of                                                               
services and the  best opportunity for success  upon release into                                                               
the community.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS concurred.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:15:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VANCE  thanked  DOC   for  collaborating  on  the                                                               
language in  Amendment 3.   She  explained that  her goal  was to                                                               
clarify the statutory  intent for legal matters  and to "maintain                                                               
the public trust."   She believed that  the legislature's primary                                                               
obligation was to  ensure the public's safety  and that providing                                                               
rehabilitation came  second to that;  further, she said  that the                                                               
legislature lived  in the middle  ground of providing both.   She                                                               
stated that  she wanted to make  it clear to the  public that the                                                               
intent  was not  to allow  unbridled access  to the  internet and                                                               
that computer access would be specific to reentry needs.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:17:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN  opposed the language  in Amendment 3.   He                                                               
believed that  the intent  was well-taken  but that  the language                                                               
was confusing.   He said he  had great confidence that  DOC would                                                               
only approve what was appropriate  and that the existing language                                                               
in HB  118 provided all the  necessary direction.  He  added that                                                               
he completely agreed with the  chair's comments and believed that                                                               
it would be  a mistake to include restrictions  that would hinder                                                               
the   already  challenging   efforts  of   rehabilitation.     He                                                               
reiterated that  he did not  support Amendment 3 because  DOC had                                                               
all  the necessary  authority to  restrict access;  further, that                                                               
the department already  did that exceptionally well.   He further                                                               
noted that  under the  Constitution of the  State of  Alaska, one                                                               
purpose for  criminal justice administration was  not higher than                                                               
other.   He added that  rehabilitation was one of  several goals,                                                               
all  of  which  were  to be  balanced  equally  or  appropriately                                                               
depending on the circumstances of the person, victim, or crime.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   KREISS-TOMKINS   considered   the   scenario   posed   by                                                               
Representative  Claman in  which  the platform  would only  allow                                                               
access to one  URL, such as the Medicaid  enrollment website, and                                                               
there  would be  zero percent  chance of  contacting a  victim or                                                               
performing  other  nefarious  activity.    He  asked  Ms.  Brooks                                                               
whether an inmate  would be directly supervised  in that scenario                                                               
if accessing  that one  URL was  in was in  the best  interest of                                                               
his/her rehabilitation or reform.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. BROOKS  believed that it  was the department's first  duty to                                                               
protect  the  public and  that  rehabilitation  and reentry  fell                                                               
below that.  She said if  the committee wanted to make changes to                                                               
the wording  it would be  a policy  call.  She  reemphasized that                                                               
DOC would  protect the public  to the  best of its  ability while                                                               
providing this computer access.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS  pointed  out that  in  the  aforementioned                                                               
scenario there  would be  a zero  percent chance  of jeopardizing                                                               
public safety  because of the technical  platform being utilized.                                                               
He  asked  whether  direct  supervision would  be  ideal  if  the                                                               
inmates were  doing something for their  reform or rehabilitation                                                               
and the risk was mitigated to zero.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. BROOKS said having staff  supervise that type of access would                                                               
be the safest  route.  She said  she did not know  if there could                                                               
ever  be  a  zero  percent chance  [of  risk];  therefore,  staff                                                               
supervision  would  be  required  to mitigate  as  much  risk  as                                                               
possible.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:22:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, recalling his  previous experience in law                                                               
enforcement,  said he  didn't know  that  there would  ever be  a                                                               
warden  or  prison  supervisor  who  would be  able  to  make  an                                                               
affirmation  of  zero  percent  risk.   He  said  that  level  of                                                               
certainty was not realistic with today's technology.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
4:23:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKIN believed  that ultimately,  it came  down to                                                               
how much  [the legislature] trusted DOC  to do its job  well.  He                                                               
added  that he  trusted  the department's  personnel to  evaluate                                                               
those risks.  He announced that HB 118 was held over.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
            HB  5-SEXUAL ASSAULT; DEF. OF "CONSENT"                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:24:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  announced that the final  order of business                                                               
would  be  SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE  FOR  HOUSE  BILL  NO. 5,  "An  Act                                                               
relating to sexual abuse of  a minor; relating to sexual assault;                                                               
relating to  the code of  military justice; relating  to consent;                                                               
relating to the  testing of sexual assault  examination kits; and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
4:25:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  Tarr,   prime  sponsor   of  HB  5,   noted  that                                                               
additional  support   documents  had  been  distributed   to  the                                                               
committee  [hard copy  included in  the committee  packet].   The                                                               
material addressed the rape by  fraud provisions and included the                                                               
2019  Felony Sex  Offense Report.   She  concluded by  quoting an                                                               
attorney  who said,  "Rape  is  like a  murder  where the  victim                                                               
doesn't die."  She believed  that statement captured the severity                                                               
of the crimes being considered in this legislation.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:26:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  moved to  adopt Amendment 1,  labeled 32-                                                               
LS0065\G.1, Radford, 4/20/21, which read:                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, following line 2:                                                                                                  
     Insert new bill sections to read:                                                                                          
        "* Sec. 3. AS 11.41.432(b) is amended to read:                                                                      
          (b)  Except as provided in (d) - (f) [(d) OR (e)]                                                                 
     of this section, in a  prosecution under AS 11.41.410 -                                                                    
     11.41.427, it is not a  defense that the victim was, at                                                                    
     the time  of the alleged  offense, the legal  spouse of                                                                    
     the defendant.                                                                                                             
        * Sec.  4. AS 11.41.432 is  amended by adding  a new                                                                  
     subsection to read:                                                                                                        
          (f)  It is a defense to a crime charged under                                                                         
     AS 11.41.410(a)(5)   or    11.41.420(a)(5)   that   the                                                                    
     offender  is married  to the  person and  neither party                                                                    
     has filed  with the  court for separation,  divorce, or                                                                    
     dissolution of the marriage."                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 19:                                                                                                           
          Following "Act,":                                                                                                     
          Insert "AS 11.41.432(b), as amended by sec. 3 of                                                                      
     this Act,  AS 11.41.432(f), enacted  by sec. 4  of this                                                                    
     Act,"                                                                                                                      
          Delete "sec. 3"                                                                                                       
          Insert "sec. 5"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 20:                                                                                                           
          Delete "sec. 4"                                                                                                       
          Insert "sec. 6"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, lines 20 - 21:                                                                                                     
          Delete "sec. 5"                                                                                                       
          Insert "sec. 7"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 21:                                                                                                           
          Delete "sec. 6"                                                                                                       
          Insert "sec. 8"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 22:                                                                                                           
          Delete "sec. 7"                                                                                                       
          Insert "sec. 9"                                                                                                       
          Delete "sec. 8"                                                                                                       
          Insert "sec. 10"                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 23:                                                                                                           
          Delete "sec. 9"                                                                                                       
          Insert "sec. 11"                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 24:                                                                                                           
          Delete "sec. 11"                                                                                                      
          Insert "sec. 13"                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 25:                                                                                                           
          Delete "secs. 1 - 9 and 11"                                                                                           
          Insert "secs. 1 - 11 and 13"                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 26:                                                                                                           
          Delete "Section 10"                                                                                                   
          Insert "Section 12"                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN, in  explanation of  Amendment 1,  opined                                                               
that  two individuals  who were  married and  engaging in  sexual                                                               
relations  should  not  be  prosecuted   "under  these  kinds  of                                                               
situations."  He believed that  spouses should be exempt from the                                                               
criminal sanctions [in the rape by fraud provisions].                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated  that she did not  support Amendment 1                                                               
because it  would be applied to  the rape by fraud  section.  She                                                               
explained  that the  rape by  fraud provisions  were intended  to                                                               
apply  to a  circumstance  in which  the offender  misrepresented                                                               
his/her  physical identity  and recklessly  disregarded that  the                                                               
victim  would  not  have  consented   to  engaging  in  a  sexual                                                               
relationship  had  the  offender's   real  identity  been  known.                                                               
Moreover,  she said  she could  not  think of  a circumstance  in                                                               
which [rape by fraud] would apply to a married couple.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  asked Representative  Eastman to  provide a                                                               
scenario  that he  was attempting  to solve  or prevent  with the                                                               
proposed amendment.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     There have  been situations where,  you know,  a spouse                                                                    
     is  thinking that  their partner  is having  an affair,                                                                    
     and as part  of catching their partner in  the act they                                                                    
     switch places  and pretend  to be  the person  that ...                                                                    
     they think their spouse is having an affair with.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN claimed  that these  kinds of  situations                                                               
had  happened and  would continue  to  happen.   He continued  by                                                               
recounting the story line from  a Shakespeare play, titled "All's                                                               
Well  That Ends  Well."    He believed  it  was  not possible  to                                                               
conceive  of all  the  situations  in which  [the  rape by  fraud                                                               
provisions] could be  used against an innocent  spouse.  Further,                                                               
he believed  that charging  a spouse with  rape for  having slept                                                               
with [his/her spouse] would be wrong.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR   KREISS-TOMKINS  asked   Mr.   Stinson   whether  he   had                                                               
encountered a  scenario that  Amendment 1  would apply  to during                                                               
his time in criminal law.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:33:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JAMES STINSON,  Director, Office  of Public  Advocacy, Department                                                               
of  Administration, said  he had  not encountered  that scenario.                                                               
He understood  that the rape  by fraud provisions were  trying to                                                               
capture a person  who had impersonated a  different actual person                                                               
that  was  in  a  relationship  with  someone.    Ultimately,  he                                                               
believed that the proposed amendment  would come down to a policy                                                               
call on  whether it should be  considered rape in the  event of a                                                               
spousal relationship wherein one  of the individuals thought that                                                               
he/she  was  having an  affair  with  somebody but  was  actually                                                               
sleeping with his/her spouse.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
4:34:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOHN SKIDMORE,  Deputy Attorney General,  Office of  the Attorney                                                               
General, Department  of Law, said  in his 22 years  of experience                                                               
he  had  never  encountered  a  case that  was  similar  to  what                                                               
Representative  Eastman had  laid out  in his  hypothetical.   He                                                               
shared   his  understanding   that  Representative   Eastman  was                                                               
proposing  that a  person had  engaged in  sexual relations  with                                                               
his/her  spouse  while believing  that  the  spouse was  a  third                                                               
person; further,  that person would  not have  actually consented                                                               
to  having sex  with the  actual spouse.   He  said despite  what                                                               
Shakespeare wrote,  it did  not seem like  a realistic  case that                                                               
would   be  referred   for  prosecution.        Nonetheless,   if                                                               
hypotheticals could  be strained  to the point  that it  would be                                                               
[referred to prosecution], he asked  why the legislature would be                                                               
interested  in passing  a law  that protected  an individual  who                                                               
could  only   have  sexual  relations  with   another  person  by                                                               
trickery.   He said he  was having difficulty  understanding that                                                               
concept, and  that it would  be up to  the committee to  make the                                                               
policy call.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:36:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN echoed  Mr. Skidmore's  observations.   He                                                               
said  he  was having  a  hard  time conceiving  the  circumstance                                                               
described by Representative Eastman;  further, he opined that the                                                               
application  to  marriage  defense  in  that  scenario  was  used                                                               
inappropriately.   He explained that  in the last few  years, the                                                               
legislature  had spent  a lot  of time  looking in  detail at  AS                                                               
11.41.432(b), which  was the provision  relating to  the marriage                                                               
defense,  as  well  as  other   subsections  on  defenses  in  AS                                                               
11.41.432.    He  believed  that  Amendment  1  was  proposed  in                                                               
reference   to   a  narrow   and   "somewhat   bizarre"  set   of                                                               
circumstances that  were hard  to imagine.   Further,  he pointed                                                               
out that  [the legislature] had  worked hard to try  to eliminate                                                               
the  marriage defense  except in  limited circumstances,  such as                                                               
the  Alzheimer's  scenario.   He  concluded  by  reiterating  his                                                               
opposition to the proposed amendment.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
4:38:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE  inquired about  the flexibility  in statute                                                               
when considering Alzheimer's cases pertaining to consent.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE  relayed  that AS  11.41.432  described  that  "the                                                               
marriage defense is an affirmative  defense when the offender was                                                               
married  to the  person, neither  party is  filed for  divorce or                                                               
separation  or dissolution.    The  the victim  in  that case  is                                                               
capable of  consenting and does,  in fact, consent  while capable                                                               
of understanding the  nature of consequences."   He recalled that                                                               
the  concerns  that  had  been   raised  during  the  legislative                                                               
testimony were  related to  the difficult  situations in  which a                                                               
person  was  capable of  consenting  on  Monday but  on  Tuesday,                                                               
because of the nature of  Alzheimer's disease, was not capable of                                                               
consenting.   He opined that  from that standpoint, there  was an                                                               
affirmative defense; further, that  prosecutors had discretion in                                                               
any  case that  was presented  to  them to  determine whether  it                                                               
appropriately  met the  elements  and could  be  proven beyond  a                                                               
reasonable doubt.   He  believed that  the statute  contained all                                                               
the necessary flexibility as written.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE questioned how  the proposed amendment would                                                               
affect that discretion in those types of scenarios.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE  clarified that  Amendment  1  did not  pertain  to                                                               
Alzheimer's.    Instead,  he explained  that  the  amendment  was                                                               
trying to  look at a scenario  in which one spouse  was trying to                                                               
commit  a fraud  on  the other  spouse  by impersonating  someone                                                               
else.   He  said  he struggled  with the  concept  that a  spouse                                                               
wouldn't recognize his/her own spouse.  He remarked:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     But assuming for  arguments sake that ...  I can change                                                                    
     my  appearance in  some capacity  that  I can  actually                                                                    
     fool  the person  with whom  I have  the most  intimate                                                                    
     relationship  on the  planet with,  my spouse  - I  can                                                                    
     fool  that  person  into   thinking  that  I'm  another                                                                    
     person.   In  that scenario,  this amendment  would say                                                                    
     ...  the  spouse that  is  the  victim didn't  want  to                                                                    
     engage in  a sexual  act with  their actual  spouse but                                                                    
     was only  willing to engage  in that sexual act  with a                                                                    
     third  person  outside  of the  marriage  and  in  that                                                                    
     circumstance  now, what  this  amendment  would say  is                                                                    
     'well,  if  you  really   have  a  relationship  that's                                                                    
     dissolved that significantly and  they are incapable of                                                                    
     recognizing who  their own spouse  is, and  they engage                                                                    
     in a sexual act with them  and they only did it because                                                                    
     of fraud, this amendment would  now say that's going to                                                                    
     be protected.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE   concluded  that  the  policy   question  for  the                                                               
committee was whether  to protect the conduct of  the spouse that                                                               
committed that fraud.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
4:43:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN  asked if  Amendment 1  were to  pass, what                                                               
the impact  would be of  making "this"  a defense rather  than an                                                               
affirmative defense.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.   SKIDMORE  believed   that  the   difference  was   that  an                                                               
affirmative  defense required  the  defendant to  put forth  some                                                               
evidence  that   established  that  scenario;   alternatively,  a                                                               
defense  didn't require  the defendant  to  put forward  anything                                                               
affirmatively but required the prosecution to disprove it.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:45:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about  the statute of limitations                                                               
that would apply to the rape  by fraud provisions should the bill                                                               
pass into law.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  stated that sexual  assault did not have  a statute                                                               
of limitations.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN   pointed  out  that  Mr.   Skidmore  had                                                               
mentioned that  [the rape by  fraud provisions] would  only apply                                                               
when a spouse  would not have consented to  sexual relations [had                                                               
he/she known the  true identity of the offender];  however, as he                                                               
understood it, that  concept was not clearly stated  in the bill.                                                               
Additionally, he recalled testimony  from a previous hearing that                                                               
had indicated  that a person's  prior behavior did not  equate to                                                               
consent.  He asked for further clarification.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that previous  conduct did not necessarily                                                               
equate to  consent for  a particular  incident.   Nonetheless, he                                                               
explained that as a prosecutor,  his obligation would be to prove                                                               
that  the  victim  did  not  consent.   He  anticipated  that  if                                                               
Amendment 1  were adopted, in any  case in which he  would try to                                                               
bring a charge  under the [rape by fraud  provision], the defense                                                               
attorney would  argue "this was  their spouse, you're  telling me                                                               
they weren't  considering [having]  sex with  their spouse?"   He                                                               
believed that  was the consent  issue that the  prosecution would                                                               
be faced  with under  this subsection.   He continued  to explain                                                               
that identity  was the  factor in  question under  this provision                                                               
and  whether  the  victim  truly  did  not  perceive  the  actual                                                               
identity of the  offender.  He added that dressing  up as someone                                                               
else would not be enough.  He remarked:                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     I could  try and  make myself look  like Brad  Pitt ...                                                                    
     and so,  if I attempted  to do  that, I don't  think my                                                                    
     wife  would ever  be fooled  into thinking  that I  was                                                                    
     Brad  Pitt.    And  so,   the  question  is  if  I  was                                                                    
     pretending to  be him,  and I tried  to engage  in some                                                                    
     sort of sexual act with my  wife ... did she consent to                                                                    
     that sex with me or was she truly fooled...                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE    EASTMAN    maintained   his    concern    about                                                               
criminalizing   conduct  that   was  taking   place  within   the                                                               
[confines] of marriage, which he believed shouldn't be criminal.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:53:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN maintained objection                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:54:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote was  taken.   Representative Eastman  voted in                                                               
favor  of the  adoption of  Amendment 1.   Representatives  Tarr,                                                               
Story, Claman,  Vance, Kaufman, and Kreiss-Tomkins  voted against                                                               
it.  Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 1-6.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
4:54:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VANCE moved  to  adopt Amendment  2, labeled  32-                                                               
LS0065\G.4, Radford, 4/26/21, which read:                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 6:                                                                                                            
          Delete "person"                                                                                                       
          Insert "victim"                                                                                                       
          Delete "defendant"                                                                                                    
          Insert "offender"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 12:                                                                                                           
          Delete "defendant"                                                                                                    
          Insert "offender"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 14:                                                                                                           
          Delete "defendant's"                                                                                                  
          Insert "offender's"                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, line 15:                                                                                                           
          Delete "defendant"                                                                                                    
          Insert "offender"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:55:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VANCE explained  that Amendment  2 would  provide                                                               
consistency  in  the bill  language  by  replacing "person"  with                                                               
"victim" and replacing "defendant" with "offender" on page 5.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS questioned  whether  the inserted  language                                                               
differed  from other  criminal law  statutes.   Additionally,  he                                                               
asked why the  bill was not originally drafted  with the proposed                                                               
language in Amendment 2.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she did not know the answer.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS  asked  Mr. Stinson  whether  the  language                                                               
proposed in  Amendment 2 was  consistent with other  criminal law                                                               
statutes.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:57:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. STINSON  said he was  unsure whether  there would be  a legal                                                               
significance.   He explained  that the  person being  charged was                                                               
designated  as the  "defendant"  whereas the  victim witness  was                                                               
referred to as the "victim"  or "alleged victim" during course of                                                               
the proceedings.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CLAMAN,   after  a   quick  perusal   through  AS                                                               
11.41.410,  AS  11.41.420,  and  AS  11.41.425,  noted  that  the                                                               
statutory  language  referred  the  "offender"  rather  than  the                                                               
"defendant."   Therefore, he  believed that  changing "defendant"                                                               
to  "offender,"  as  proposed  in  Amendment  2,  would  be  more                                                               
consistent with the  language in AS 11.41.410.   However, he said                                                               
he was fairly certain that that  the use of the word "victim" was                                                               
unusual  because it  would imply  a  conviction.   He shared  his                                                               
belief  that   deleting  "person"  and  inserting   "victim,"  as                                                               
proposed in Amendment  2, would draw the conclusion  that a crime                                                               
had been committed.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed  out that referring to  a party as                                                               
a "petitioner" did  not necessarily mean that  their petition was                                                               
valid.   Nonetheless, he agreed  with Representative  Claman that                                                               
to decide  that a crime  had been  committed ahead of  time would                                                               
prejudice the entire process.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
5:01:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
RENEE MCFARLAND,  Deputy Public Defender, Alaska  Public Defender                                                               
Agency, noted  that sexual  assault and sexual  abuse of  a minor                                                               
statutes used the word "offender"  in reference to the defendant.                                                               
Further, sexual abuse of a  minor statutes used the word "victim"                                                               
in  provisions  pertaining  to  individuals  being  charged  with                                                               
conduct  involving  their  children  or people  in  positions  of                                                               
authority.   She  also  noted under  AS  11.41.470, "victim"  was                                                               
defined as "the  person alleged to have been  subjected to sexual                                                               
assault in any degree or sexual  abuse of a minor in any degree."                                                               
Additionally, the  current definition  of "without  consent" used                                                               
the  word  "defendant."    Ultimately,  she  concluded  that  the                                                               
statutory language  used "offender"  in reference to  the offense                                                               
at issue, "defendant" when addressing  consent, and "victim" when                                                               
discussing certain aspects of sexual abuse of a minor.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
5:03:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out  that in "common language," there                                                               
was an  ongoing effort to  transition the verbiage  from "victim"                                                               
to "survivor."   She acknowledged that the effort  was outside of                                                               
the law; nonetheless,  it was part of the  cultural change around                                                               
these  issues.    Regarding  the use  of  "offender"  instead  of                                                               
"defendant," she said  she was comfortable with the  change if it                                                               
would maintain consistency.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  asked Mr.  Skidmore whether  the Department                                                               
of Law (DOL) had a position on Amendment 2.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE reported  that the  word  "victim" was  used in  AS                                                               
11.41.410(a)(4)(B)  and AS  11.41.420,  as  well as  subsequently                                                               
defined in  AS 11.41.470(7).   He said  DOL had no  objections to                                                               
the use  of the word  "victim."   He submitted that  the statutes                                                               
were  somewhat  inconsistent  in  their use  of  "person"  versus                                                               
"victim."  He said he understood  Amendment 2 to be an attempt at                                                               
clarifying the  definition of consent  in terms of who  was being                                                               
discussed.   He  believed  it  would be  a  policy  call for  the                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
5:06:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KAUFMAN  surmised   that  the   ideal  statutory                                                               
language  would  be  the  most  neutral  wording  that  correctly                                                               
identified the  "players."  He  asked Mr. Skidmore  whether there                                                               
was a benefit  to using the terms "person"  or "defendant," which                                                               
were more neutral, as opposed to "victim" and "offender."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  agreed with the  concept of using the  most neutral                                                               
terms in statute in addition  to providing clarity.  He continued                                                               
to defer  to the committee  on whether Amendment 2  would provide                                                               
clarity.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  maintained his objection.   He said  he was                                                               
in favor  of using neutral legal  language and that it  was up to                                                               
the defense  and the prosecution  to make their case,  as opposed                                                               
the statutory language.   Further, he pointed out  that there had                                                               
been no confusion around the existing language.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
5:09:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated  that the purpose of  Amendment 2 was                                                               
to clarify who was being  described in the definition of consent.                                                               
She pointed out that the  terms "victim" and "offender" were used                                                               
in  Section 4  of SSHB  5; therefore,  she believed  the proposed                                                               
amendment would  create consistency.   Nonetheless,  she deferred                                                               
to the will of the committee.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE STORY  inquired about the bill  sponsor's position                                                               
on Amendment 2.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR said  she was  opposed  at this  time.   She                                                               
expressed  interest in  continuing  to  work with  Representative                                                               
Vance on the language as the bill moved forward.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
5:11:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE  withdrew Amendment  2.  She  announced that                                                               
Amendment 3 would not be offered at this time.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
5:12:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR  moved to  adopt  Amendment  4, labeled  32-                                                               
LS0065\G.6 Radford, 4/26/21, which read:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 9:                                                                                                            
          Delete "who is"                                                                                                   
          Insert "whom the offender has"                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 11, following "person":                                                                                   
          Insert   "based   on   the   offender's   physical                                                                
     identity,   not   on    characteristics,   traits,   or                                                                
     accomplishments   of  or   similar   facts  about   the                                                                
     offender,  with  reckless  disregard  that  the  person                                                                
     would not  have consented to the  sexual penetration if                                                                
     the person knew the offender's real identity"                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, following line 11:                                                                                                 
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
        "* Sec. 2. AS 11.41.410(b) is amended to read:                                                                      
          (b)  Sexual assault in the first degree,                                                                          
               (1)  under (a)(1) - (4) of this section, is                                                                  
      an unclassified felony and is punishable as provided                                                                      
     in AS 12.55;                                                                                                           
               (2)  under (a)(5) of this section, is a                                                                      
       class A felony and is punishable as provided in AS                                                                   
     12.55."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 31:                                                                                                           
          Delete "who is"                                                                                                   
          Insert "whom the offender has"                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 2, following "person":                                                                                    
          Insert   "based   on   the   offender's   physical                                                                
     identity,   not   on    characteristics,   traits,   or                                                                
     accomplishments   of  or   similar   facts  about   the                                                                
     offender,  with  reckless  disregard  that  the  person                                                                
     would not have  consented to the sexual  contact if the                                                                
     person knew the offender's real identity"                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 19, following "AS 11.41.420(a), ":                                                                            
          Insert "AS 11.41.420(b), as amended by sec. 2 of                                                                      
     this Act,"                                                                                                                 
          Delete "sec. 2"                                                                                                       
          Insert "sec. 3"                                                                                                       
          Delete "sec. 3"                                                                                                       
          Insert "sec. 4"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 20:                                                                                                           
          Delete "sec. 4"                                                                                                       
          Insert "sec. 5"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, lines 20 - 21:                                                                                                     
          Delete "sec. 5"                                                                                                       
          Insert "sec. 6"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 21:                                                                                                           
          Delete "sec. 6"                                                                                                       
          Insert "sec. 7"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 22:                                                                                                           
          Delete "sec. 7"                                                                                                       
          Insert "sec. 8"                                                                                                       
          Delete "sec. 8"                                                                                                       
          Insert "sec. 9"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 23:                                                                                                           
          Delete "sec. 9"                                                                                                       
          Insert "sec. 10"                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 24:                                                                                                           
          Delete "sec. 11"                                                                                                      
          Insert "sec. 12"                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 25:                                                                                                           
          Delete "secs. 1 - 9 and 11"                                                                                           
          Insert "secs. 1 - 10 and 12"                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 6, line 26:                                                                                                           
          Delete "Section 10"                                                                                                   
          Insert "Section 11"                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
5:12:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR  stated that  Amendment  4  was designed  to                                                               
"tighten"  up  the language  in  the  rape by  fraud  provisions.                                                               
Additionally,  she  said it  would  reclassify  the crime.    She                                                               
relayed that  lines 5-9 of  Amendment 4 were intended  to clarify                                                               
that  rape by  fraud would  apply to  situations in  which people                                                               
misrepresented  their  physical  identity  to  gain  consent  for                                                               
sexual   penetration   or   sexual   contact,   as   opposed   to                                                               
circumstances  wherein   someone  was  dishonest   about  his/her                                                               
education status  or income,  for example.   She said  the second                                                               
part of the  amendment addressed the sentencing  provisions.  She                                                               
noted  that   sexual  assault   in  the   first  degree   was  an                                                               
unclassified  felony with  a 15-20-year  prison sentence  for the                                                               
first offense.   Amendment 4,  she explained, would make  rape by                                                               
fraud a class A felony, whereas  sexual contact by fraud would be                                                               
a class B felony.   She reasoned that the crime  of rape by fraud                                                               
involved some  premeditation, so  situating it  a class  A felony                                                               
would differentiate  it between  sexual assault involving  use of                                                               
force and other circumstances.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
5:20:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked,  "should  the ...  meaning of  the                                                               
amendment  basically be  'with reckless  disregard  for the  fact                                                               
that'?"                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR  stated that  the  offender  would act  with                                                               
reckless disregard that  the person would not  have consented had                                                               
the offender not concealed his/her physical identity.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  questioned   whether  it  was  "reckless                                                               
disregard that it might be possible."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TARR believed that was correct.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked whether "non-consent"  would become                                                               
an element of the crime.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood that  consent would be in question                                                               
in addition to  whether the person acted  with reckless disregard                                                               
to the sexual assault that took place.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  asked, "to  what  extent  does that  the                                                               
person would not have consented  does that need to be established                                                               
as part of the crime."                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
5:24:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  said from  DOL's perspective,  the lack  of consent                                                               
would absolutely  be an  element of  the crime.   He  pointed out                                                               
that sexual conduct  between two adults was not in  and of itself                                                               
illegal  -  only  the  lack  of consent  made  it  illegal.    He                                                               
explained that  the lack of  consent in this case  was determined                                                               
by the fact  that a fraud had occurred, and  the fraud meant that                                                               
there wouldn't have  been consent had the person  known the other                                                               
individual's true identity.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  expressed  his   confusion.    He  asked                                                               
whether rape by  fraud was a situation in which  the act of fraud                                                               
had deprived the victim of being  able to consent or "if they had                                                               
wanted  to consent  if they  knew the  offender's real  identity,                                                               
does that negate the crime?"                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE sought  to verify  that Representative  Eastman was                                                               
asking  whether it  was a  crime if  [the victim]  didn't consent                                                               
because of the fraud  and would it not have been  a crime if [the                                                               
victim] knew the person's real identity.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered yes.   He asked if the victim had                                                               
known  the real  identity and  would have  consented under  those                                                               
circumstances,  would  the  crime  of  rape  by  fraud  have  not                                                               
occurred.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE remarked:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Yes, I  think if they  actually know the  person's real                                                                    
     identity,  or  if  they had  known  the  person's  real                                                                    
     identity and  they would have consented  had they known                                                                    
     the  real person's  identity, then  I  don't think  you                                                                    
     have a crime of sexual  assault because they were still                                                                    
     consenting to  the sexual conduct.   What the  crime of                                                                    
     sexual  assault  under  this particular  subsection  is                                                                    
     trying to get at is  the circumstance in which a person                                                                    
     did  not want  to  consent to  that  conduct with  that                                                                    
     person, but  if they  were consenting under  some other                                                                    
     circumstance, that's  kind of what we  talked about for                                                                    
     the earlier  amendment.   How in  the world  would that                                                                    
     ever  get  reported to  law  enforcement?   If  they're                                                                    
     consenting   to  it,   then   what  is   it  that   law                                                                    
     enforcement's investigating?                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  observed that  there were  "dimensions upon                                                               
dimensions"  of hypotheticals  with  this  particular section  of                                                               
statute.  For  that reason, he said he found  it discomforting in                                                               
terms of [the legislature's] ability  to anticipate all scenarios                                                               
and consequences,  intended or otherwise.   Nonetheless,  he said                                                               
he appreciated that  Amendment 4 was trying to  narrow and refine                                                               
[the language].                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
5:28:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   KAUFMAN  inquired   about  the   term  "physical                                                               
identity,"  as  opposed to  "identity."    He questioned  whether                                                               
"physical" was the appropriate wording.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TARR reported that  she had discussed that wording                                                               
with  Legislative  Legal  Services  in an  attempt  to  carefully                                                               
select the  language.   She explained  that the  drafter believed                                                               
that  adding  "physical" would  help  clarify  the intent.    She                                                               
addressed  the  built-in  protections  in  the  criminal  justice                                                               
system, explaining that the police  would have to investigate and                                                               
feel  that  they found  sufficient  evidence  to prove  beyond  a                                                               
reasonable doubt  that a  crime had  occurred; further,  it would                                                               
have to get "screened in"  by the prosecutors.  Consequently, she                                                               
stated that many  of the "what if" scenarios would  never come to                                                               
fruition because of the built-in protections along the way.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked  Mr. Skidmore to comment  on the use                                                               
of "physical" versus "actual" or some other adjective.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. SKIDMORE  acknowledged that  in reading  Amendment 4,  he had                                                               
the same  concern about how to  differentiate "physical identity"                                                               
from "characteristics,  traits, or  accomplishments," as  some of                                                               
those could  be physical.   He suggested that "actual"  or "true"                                                               
could  be an  appropriate  replacement and  provide  the type  of                                                               
clarity that the committee was looking for.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
5:34:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE  believed that  the language in  Amendment 4                                                               
was getting  closer to capturing the  intent.  She asked  for the                                                               
bill   sponsor's  perspective   on   replacing  "physical"   with                                                               
"actual."   Additionally, she asked Mr.  Skidmore whether "actual                                                               
identity" would provide more flexibility for the prosecution.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SKIDMORE was  unsure whether  it would  broaden opportunity.                                                               
He did, however, believe that it  would provide clarity as to the                                                               
committee and the sponsor's intent.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  asked for Mr. Stinson's  perspective on the                                                               
relative  merits of  "actual" versus  "physical" and  the clarity                                                               
afforded by one versus the other.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.  STINSON said  he could  understand the  tension with  either                                                               
word.   He shared his  understanding that the  legislative intent                                                               
was  to prevent  a  situation where  a  person was  impersonating                                                               
someone's girlfriend,  boyfriend, spouse, significant  other, and                                                               
etcetera.  He  believed that Amendment 4 was  closer to capturing                                                               
that intent;  however, he pointed  out that it could  still allow                                                               
for a situation  in which an individual  impersonated a celebrity                                                               
to  gain  consent to  engage  in  sexual relations  with  another                                                               
person.  Nonetheless, he noted  that there would still be obvious                                                               
protections  built  in  to  whether   that  would  get  reported,                                                               
charged, and so forth.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
5:39:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   CLAMAN   suggested   allowing  more   time   for                                                               
Representative Vance and Representative  Tarr to discuss and come                                                               
to  an agreement  on the  issue  before moving  forward with  the                                                               
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
5:40:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 5 was held over.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
5:41:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS provided closing remarks and reviewed the                                                                  
upcoming schedule.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
5:41:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:41                                                                  
p.m.                                                                                                                            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 163 Letter of Support - Continental Auto Group 4.11.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 163
HB 163 Letter of Support - State Farm 4.22.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 163
HB 163 Letter of Support - Alaska USA Federal Credit Union 04-12-2021.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 163
HB 163 Letter of Support - True North FCU 4.9.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 163
HB 163 Hearing Request - H STA 4.14.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 163
HB 163 Sponsor Statement.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 163
HB 163 Version A.PDF HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 163
HB 163 Fiscal Note - DOA - DMV 4.10.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 163
HB 163 Letter of Support - Alaska Credit Union League 04-09-2021.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 163
HB 102 Fiscal Note - DOA 4.8.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 102
HB 102 Response to Questions - DOA-DRM 4.13.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 102
HB 157 Fiscal Note - DOA 4.9.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 157
HB157 Additional Info - Response to STA 4.25.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 157
HB 118 Letter of Support - UA UAF Lit Council 4.22.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 118
HB 5 Fiscal Note - DPS 3.23.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 5
HB 5 Letters of Opposition - 4.26.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 5
HB 5 Fiscal Note - DOL 3.19.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 5
HB 5 Letters of Support 4.26.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 5
HB 5 Additional Info - Age and Offender Tabe for SAM 1 and SAM 2 - Tarr 4.22.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 5
HB 5 Additional Info - Consent Tabular Analysis - Tarr 4.23.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 5
HB 5 Additional Info - Felony Cases Filed with Sex Offense Charges - AK Court System 4.25.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 5
HB 5 Additional Info - Felony Sex Offenses Report - Tarr 4.22.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 5
HB 5 Fiscal Note - DOA 3.23.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 5
HB 5 Fiscal Note - DOC 3.22.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 5
HB 5 Amendment G.1 - Eastman 4.20.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 5
HB 5 Amendment G.4 - Vance 4.26.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 5
HB 5 Amendment G.5 - Vance 4.26.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 5
HB 118 Amendment B.6 - Vance 4.19.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 118
HB 5 Amendment G.6 - Tarr 4.27.21.pdf HSTA 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM
HB 5