03/28/2017 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB1 | |
| HJR15 | |
| HB44 | |
| HCR1 | |
| HB175 | |
| HB74 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 175 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 28, 2017
3:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Gary Knopp
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Andy Josephson (alternate)
Representative Chuck Kopp (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 1
"An Act relating to absentee voting, voting, and voter
registration; relating to early voting locations at which
persons may vote absentee ballots; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 1(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15
Encouraging repeal of the REAL ID Act of 2005.
- MOVED CSHJR 15(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 44
"An Act requiring a legislator to abstain from taking or
withholding official action or exerting official influence that
could benefit or harm an immediate family member or certain
employers; requiring a legislator to request to be excused from
voting in an instance where the legislator may have a financial
conflict of interest; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CS SSHB 44(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1
Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to voting and abstention from voting.
- MOVED CSHCR 1(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 175
"An Act ratifying an interstate compact to elect the President
and Vice-President of the United States by national popular
vote; and making related changes to statutes applicable to the
selection by voters of electors for candidates for President and
Vice- President of the United States and to the duties of those
electors."
- MOVED HB 175 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 74
"An Act relating to the implementation of the federal REAL ID
Act of 2005; and relating to issuance of identification cards
and driver's licenses; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 1
SHORT TITLE: ELECTION REGISTRATION AND VOTING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TUCK
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) STA, JUD
02/23/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/23/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/28/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/28/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/07/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/09/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/17 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/16/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/16/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/21/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/21/17 (H) Moved CSHB 1(STA) Out of Committee
03/21/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HJR 15
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSE FEDERAL ID REQUIREMENTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHNSON
03/10/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/17 (H) STA
03/14/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/17 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/21/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/21/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 44
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GRENN
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/13/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) JUD, FIN
01/23/17 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
01/23/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/17 (H) JUD, FIN
01/25/17 (H) STA REPLACES FIN REFERRAL
01/25/17 (H) BILL REPRINTED 1/25/17
01/25/17 (H) JUD WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, RULE
23(A) FOR SSHB 44
01/25/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/25/17 (H) -- Meeting Postponed to 1/27/17 --
01/27/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/27/17 (H) -- Meeting Rescheduled from 1/25/17 --
01/30/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/30/17 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/03/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/03/17 (H) Moved CSSSHB 44(JUD) Out of Committee
02/03/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/08/17 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 1DP 3DNP 3AM
02/08/17 (H) DP: LEDOUX
02/08/17 (H) DNP: KOPP, EASTMAN, REINBOLD
02/08/17 (H) AM: KREISS-TOMKINS, FANSLER, CLAMAN
02/18/17 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/18/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/18/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/21/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/21/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/02/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/02/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/07/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HCR 1
SHORT TITLE: AMEND UNIFORM RULES: ABSTAIN FROM VOTING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GRENN
01/20/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/17 (H) STA, JUD
01/20/17 (H) JUD REFERRAL REMOVED
01/20/17 (H) JUD REFERRAL ADDED BEFORE STA
01/25/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/25/17 (H) -- Meeting Postponed to 1/27/17 --
01/27/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/27/17 (H) -- Meeting Rescheduled from 1/25/17 --
01/30/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/30/17 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/03/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/03/17 (H) Moved HCR 1 Out of Committee
02/03/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/08/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/08/17 (H) Moved HCR 1 Out of Committee
02/08/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/10/17 (H) JUD RPT 1DP 3DNP 2AM
02/10/17 (H) DP: CLAMAN
02/10/17 (H) DNP: EASTMAN, KOPP, REINBOLD
02/10/17 (H) AM: KREISS-TOMKINS, FANSLER
02/21/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/21/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/21/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/02/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/02/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/07/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 175
SHORT TITLE: US PRESIDENT ELECT. COMPACT: POPULAR VOTE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FANSLER
03/13/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/13/17 (H) STA, JUD
03/16/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/16/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/23/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/23/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 74
SHORT TITLE: DRIVER'S LICENSE & ID CARDS & REAL ID AC
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/23/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/17 (H) STA, FIN
02/07/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/07/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/07/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/17 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/21/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/21/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SHEA SIEGERT, Staff
Representative Delana Johnson
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HJR 15 and
answered questions, on behalf of Representative Johnson, prime
sponsor of HJR 15.
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff
Representative Jason Grenn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Amendment 1 on behalf of
Representative Grenn, prime sponsor of CSSSHB 44(JUD)
REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HCR 1, as prime
sponsor.
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff
Representative Jason Grenn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HCR 1 on behalf of
Representative Grenn, prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE ZACH FANSLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 175, as prime sponsor,
LESLIE RIDLE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
74.
MARLA THOMPSON, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOE)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
74.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:08:29 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:08 p.m.
Representatives Birch, Johnson, Tuck, Knopp, Wool, LeDoux, and
Kreiss-Tomkins were present at the call to order.
HB 1-ELECTION REGISTRATION AND VOTING
3:09:12 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 1, "An Act relating to absentee voting,
voting, and voter registration; relating to early voting
locations at which persons may vote absentee ballots; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that CSHB 1, which was reported
out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee on 3/23/17, is
again before the committee to address a procedural error. He
relayed that an objection to Conceptual Amendment 1 had not been
removed before the bill was moved out of committee.
3:09:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP moved to rescind committee action of
3/21/17 moving CSHB 1(STA) out of committee. There being no
objection, the action was rescinded.
3:09:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX withdrew her motion to move CSHB 1,
Version 30-LS0070\O, Bullard, 3/14/17, as amended, out of
committee. There being no objection, her motion was withdrawn.
3:10:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP withdrew his Conceptual Amendment 1 to CSHB
1, Version O. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1
was withdrawn.
3:10:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP moved to adopt committee substitute (CS)
for HB 1, Version 30-LS0070\U, Bullard, 3/14/17, as a work
draft. There being no objection, Version U was adopted as a
work draft.
3:10:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP moved to report CSHB 1, Version 30-
LS0070\U, Bullard, 3/14/17 out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for purpose of discussion. He
explained that Version U is the CS introduced by Representative
Tuck, and Conceptual Amendment 1, which was withdrawn, will be
addressed in the next committee of referral.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to the motion. There
being no further objection, CSHB 1(STA) was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HJR 15-OPPOSE FEDERAL ID REQUIREMENTS
[Contains discussion of HB 74.]
3:11:52 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15, Encouraging repeal of
the REAL ID Act of 2005.
3:12:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON presented HJR 15, as prime sponsor. She
stated that the proposed joint resolution encourages the U.S.
Congress and executive branch [of the federal government] to
repeal the REAL ID Act of 2005. She explained that HJR 15
represents the reinstitution of the endorsed committee
substitute (CS) for House Joint Resolution 19, which was
introduced in 2008 during the Twenty-Fifth Alaska State
Legislature, 2007-2008. She relayed that this previous proposed
resolution was co-sponsored by 15 Representatives and 12
Senators. She maintained that HJR 15 does not represent a
partisan issue, but rather a states' rights issue that needs to
be addressed on a national level before full implementation
ensues.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON explained that the REAL ID Act of 2005
makes the state-issued motor vehicle license a federally
recognized piece of identification (ID), with the cost of
implementation being imposed on all citizens living in REAL ID
compliant states. She asserted that she introduced the proposed
legislation due to her respect for the Tenth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution and the importance of identity security. She
added that she also introduced HJR 15 because of the number of
constituent phone calls she has received from people who are
concerned about the implementation of a system not voted for by
Alaskans and forced upon the State of Alaska through the REAL ID
Act of 2005. She asked for committee support for HJR 15.
3:15:26 PM
SHEA SIEGERT, Staff, Representative DeLena Johnson, noted that
every person who has spoken or written in favor of Alaska being
compliant with REAL ID did so based on the penalties that would
ensue for noncompliance rather than the original intent of the
Act: to prevent terrorists from taking asylum in the United
States; to prevent terrorism from occurring; and to secure the
national border. He added that those favoring compliance
testified that the cost of $1.5 million to the State of Alaska
would be less of a burden than those penalties. He indicated
that the proposed resolution creates an opportunity for
discussion regarding the actual benefits of the REAL ID Act of
2005.
3:17:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked what the consequences of
noncompliance would be for Alaska, if HB 74 did not pass.
MR. SIEGERT responded that the consequences would be that people
without a federally recognized ID would not be allowed access to
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoints,
military bases, and federal buildings requiring a federally
recognized ID.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked what the mechanism would be for
verifying alternative IDs on site. He asked, "Do people really
need to worry about travel and accessing ... sites? Will they
be able to do it with the alternative forms of ID?"
MR. SIEGERT asked Representative Knopp if he is referring to the
circumstances in which the State of Alaska has not become REAL
ID compliant.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP answered yes.
MR. SIEGERT stated that he believes there is a mechanism [for
verifying alternative IDs], but he added that the problem is
that Alaska does not have the list of recognizable permissible
IDs.
3:21:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if there is any information that the
intent of the REAL ID Act includes the desire to have a national
ID card for the citizens of the country.
MR. SIEGERT responded that he did not find that in any of the
conveyable intent of the REAL ID Act. He stated that currently
there is a federally recognized piece of ID, which is a passport
card. He mentioned that the literature describing the original
intent of the REAL ID Act does not mention the desire for a
national piece of identification.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that the passport is nationally
recognized but is more for international travel. He said he did
not know the percentage of people who have passports. He
offered his belief that it is less than half.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that Alaskans have the highest
percentage of passports per capita at 65 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that nationally less than 50
percent of the population have passports.
3:24:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if the passport is a suitable
replacement for REAL ID to access airplanes and military bases.
MR. SIEGERT answered that to the best of his knowledge, yes. He
said that he defers to the Department of Administration (DOA)
for a definitive answer. He mentioned that DOA testified in its
presentation that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has
not issued the list of recognizable federal pieces of
identification.
3:26:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HJR 15,
labeled 30-LS0570\A.1, Martin, 3/20/17, which read:
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "will"
Insert "may"
Page 1, line 12:
Delete "punishing"
Insert "illegally attempting to punish"
Delete "for the actions of the state"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that under Amendment 1, page 1, lines
11-12 would read: "Whereas noncompliance with the REAL ID Act
of 2005 may result in the federal government illegally
attempting to punish". On page 1, line 12, "for the actions of
the state" would be deleted. He explained that his reason for
deleting "for the actions of the state" is because he does not
believe the federal government's actions are being affected by
Alaska's actions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that she fully supports the
proposed amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, in considering the proposed substitution
of "may" for "will" under Amendment 1, suggested that Amendment
1 be amended to state "illegally punishing" on page 1, line 12,
rather than "illegally attempting to punish", as proposed under
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that he would accept an amendment to
Amendment 1 that inserts "illegally" before "punishing". He
agreed that was his intent and offered that the wording of the
proposed amendment was from Legislative Legal and Research
Services.
3:30:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment 1,
to replace "attempting to punish" with "punishing" so that page
1, line 12 would read "illegally punishing".
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified that Amendment 1 to Amendment 1
would: remove line 6, as numbered on Amendment 1, which reads
"Delete 'punishing'"; remove "attempting to punish" on line 7,
as numbered on Amendment 1; and insert "illegally" after
"government" on page 1, line 12 of HJR 15.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX withdrew her Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 as
follows: delete line 6, as numbered on Amendment 1; insert
"illegally" after "government" on page 1, line 12 of HJR 15; and
delete "attempting to punish" in line 7, as numbered on the
Amendment 1.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that there being no objection,
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS indicated that Amendment 1, as amended, was
on the table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for Amendment 1, as amended, to be
read to the committee.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that Amendment 1, as amended, would:
delete "will" and insert "may" on page 1, line 11; insert
"illegally punishing" on page 1, line 12; and delete "for the
actions of the state" on page 1, line 12.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON read page 1, lines 11-13, of HJR 15, as
amended, as follows: "Whereas noncompliance with the REAL ID
Act of 2005 may result in the federal government illegally
punishing individual Alaskans by placing limitation on state
residents' freedom of travel and access to federal facilities."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his objection. He stated that
there being no further objection, Amendment 1, [as amended], was
adopted.
3:34:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, which
after the correction of a typographical error ("typo") read:
ADD
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State
Legislature opposes any interference by the Federal
government with the right of Alaska residents to
travel and freedom of movement, including travel by
air;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State
Legislature calls on the Governor and the Attorney
General of the State of Alaska to challenge any
proposed Federal interference with the right of
Alaskan residents to freedom of movement including
travel by air, and to vigorously defend Alaskan
residents against any attempted interference with
these rights.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his objection. He stated there
being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
3:36:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to report HJR 15, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no further objection, CSHJR 15(STA)
was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 44-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS
[Contains discussion of HCR 1.]
3:37:17 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 44(JUD)
"An Act requiring a legislator to abstain from taking or
withholding official action or exerting official influence that
could benefit or harm an immediate family member or certain
employers; requiring a legislator to request to be excused from
voting in an instance where the legislator may have a financial
conflict of interest; and providing for an effective date."
3:38:06 PM
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Jason Grenn, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Grenn, prime sponsor,
stated that initially CSSSHB 44(JUD) contained language making
the proposed legislation contingent on the passage of HCR 1. He
asserted that the proposed amendment eliminates that language
because of the opinion of Legislative Legal and Research
Services that CSSSHB 44(JUD) can now "stand on its own" and the
contingency language is not needed.
3:39:14 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:39 p.m.
3:39:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 1 [labeled 30-
LS0208\U.9, Wayne, 3/24/17], which read:
Page 1, line 3, following "employers;":
Insert "and"
Page 1, lines 4 - 5:
Delete "; and providing for an effective date"
Page 3, lines 16 - 26:
Delete all material.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX complimented Mr. Johnston on his
explanation of Amendment 1.
3:40:54 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his objection. He stated that
there being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:41:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to report CSSSHB 44(JUD), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection,
CSSSHB 44(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
HCR 1-AMEND UNIFORM RULES: ABSTAIN FROM VOTING
[Contains discussion of CSSSHB 44(JUD).]
3:42:26 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1, Proposing an
amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature
relating to voting and abstention from voting.
3:42:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN, Alaska State Legislature, expressed
his appreciation for the input from committee members in
achieving the intended objectives of the proposed legislation.
He stated that he is available for questions.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if legislators will be instructed on
what constitutes a conflict of interest. He suggested that an
objection on the House floor would not allow the opportunity for
discussion, and an immediate decision would be required of
legislators.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN responded that any legislation requires
awareness of the changes it effects. He said that since the
proposed legislation would change a practice that has been in
the Uniform Rules for decades, information would be disseminated
to the legislators clearly explaining the changes. He asserted
that any new process would require this, and Legislative Legal
and Research Services has a capable and willing staff to provide
that guidance. He stated that it is his responsibility as the
sponsor of HCR 1 to provide information to legislators
explaining the proposed procedural changes and answer questions.
3:47:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that no legislator would be
surprised by an objection, which would occur after he/she
recused himself/herself from the vote. She asserted that if
legislators reviewed the floor calendar in advance, they would
know to discuss any possible conflicts of interest with the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics before a vote.
3:47:44 PM
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Jason Grenn, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Grenn, prime sponsor,
stated that Jerry Anderson [Administrator, Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] is preemptively preparing for changes that
would occur because of CSSSHB 44(JUD). He added that Mr.
Anderson is making plans to use Interim as an educational period
for legislators.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that in his orientation on ethics
training, the current procedure for declaring conflicts of
interest was never addressed. He said he sees legislators
declaring conflicts, but he does not know the criterion or the
rules regarding the declarations, the objections, or the
subsequent voting.
3:49:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said that he did not support HCR 1 or
CSSSHB 44(JUD). He mentioned that during a recent House floor
discussion of union dues, one-third of the body declared
objections. He asserted that the legislature would get "locked
down in intractable and extensive debate on each and every
concern" about the amount of money earned, its significance to a
family's income, and the extent to which it affects a decision
to vote a certain way. He opined that this would open a
"Pandora's box." He agreed that a conflict of interest in an
employment situation could create a problem, but legislators are
extensively vetted by the public during their campaigns. He
cited the declarations of conflicts on the House floor regarding
the [state] income tax discussion. He mentioned that during
yesterday's House floor discussion regarding the Board of
Fisheries, it was decided that it is acceptable for a Board of
Fisheries member to deliberate on an issue in which he/she has a
direct financial benefit from someone with whom the board is
deliberating. He reiterated that the proposed legislation and
resolution would create problems, and the public is aware of the
conflicts that legislators have.
3:52:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that the State of Alaska requires
municipality assembly members to recuse themselves from voting
[on issues in which they have a conflict of interest]. She
maintained that assembly members are subject to very substantial
campaigns, just like legislators. She mentioned that assembly
candidates file Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
financial disclosures citing every client with whom they have
done business. She stated, "I just have a hard time
understanding how we can impose these requirements on
municipalities and say that somehow we're just different because
we're the legislature." She mentioned that yesterday's debate
[on the House floor] was about allowing Board of Fisheries
members to participate in the discussion at hand, and not even
about being allowed to vote on an issue. She stated that she
fully supports CSSSHB 44(JUD) and HCR 1.
3:54:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that at the local level if there is
a potential conflict of interest, the assembly president, with
the advice of the staff attorney, makes the determination of
allowing a vote; if other members of the assembly disagree with
that ruling, they can make a motion to override it. He asked
for clarification of the process under the proposed legislation
and resolution: a legislator declares a conflict, and the House
votes on the necessity of an abstention from voting by that
legislator. He asked if that process would occur every time
someone declared a conflict.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN responded that each legislator is required
to vote on the budget regardless of a conflict of interest.
Therefore, the declaration of financial conflicts suggested by
Representative Birch would be ruled out of order and not be
subject to the procedures under CSSSHB 44(JUD) and HCR 1. He
agreed with Representative Wool that legislators don't
understand the current rules concerning declarations of
conflicts of interest; therefore, conflicts are declared
unnecessarily. He said that CSSSHB 44(JUD) offers clearer
guidelines as to actual conflicts of interest. He added that
when a person does declare a conflict meeting the guidelines,
under the proposed legislation and resolution, the declaration
would not be debatable, and a vote would be taken to allow or
disallow the abstention.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if the Speaker of the House would be
the person to rule a declaration out of order.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN stated his belief that the chair of the
House Rules Standing Committee would make that ruling.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP suggested that in that case, the ruling on
a declaration of a conflict of interest would be made by that
person. He offered that other members of the body may object to
that ruling. He stated that the process introduced by the
proposed legislation and concurrent resolution is unclear to
him.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN responded that a [declared] conflict that
does not meet the conflict guidelines can be ruled out of order.
He clarified that it is not a majority, but a two-thirds vote
[to allow or disallow the abstention].
3:59:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if there would be potential for the
majority to "hold the minority hostage" by eliminating a
legislator from voting. He offered that a majority vote allows
for this possibility.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN maintained that one cannot take politics
out of the proposed legislation and resolution, and the
possibility offered by Representative Knopp does exist. He
stated that the intent behind HCR 1 and CSSSHB 44(JUD) is for
the 40 elected leaders to "do what's right" and to vote on the
merit of a conflict of interest. He suggested that if a
legislator does allow partisanship to affect his/her vote [on
abstention], that vote would be public record and he/she could
be exposed as "playing politics." He maintained that the
proposed legislation and concurrent resolution would add
transparency for the public.
4:01:21 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that a two-thirds threshold, as
required under HCR 1, would equally empower both the majority
and the minority.
4:02:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that he likes that [CSSS 44(JUD)]
excludes the operating budget from the conflict of interest
rules. He offered that requiring all legislators to vote on the
operating budget makes the process "cleaner and smoother." He
noted the committee had amended page 2, line 6, of HCR 1, [on
3/2/17], to state that a person cannot abstain from voting
unless there is [consent of] more than two-thirds vote. He
emphasized that under the proposed resolution, the higher
threshold of two-thirds vote is not what is required to force a
legislator to vote but what is required to prevent a legislator
from voting. He referred to CSSSHB 44(JUD), page 3, lines 7-10,
which defines "substantial benefit or harm" as "financial
interest of a substantial class of persons to which the person
belongs as a member of a profession, occupation, industry, or
region." He used himself as an example for explanation: as an
electrician, he would not have to be concerned about the class
of electricians benefiting from proposed legislation, but about
himself benefiting above all other electricians. He maintained
that the proposed legislation sets the threshold for conflicts
of interest much higher than it is currently; therefore, there
would be fewer declared conflicts. He stated that changing the
threshold of what is required to force a legislator to abstain
from voting from fifty percent to two-thirds percent also "sets
the bar higher." He added that, in addition, there would be no
deliberation; a conflict would be declared and there would be an
immediate vote.
4:05:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that he shares Representative Birch's
concerns; he "doesn't want to go down a rabbit hole of
objections and votes." He confirmed that the proposed
legislation would not apply to the operating budget or its
amendments. He offered that many potential financial conflicts
would not meet the $10,000 threshold and determining conflicts
may be complicated. He asserted that not all legislators are
familiar with every bill that comes up for a vote on the House
floor. He asked about a situation in which a legislator does
not declare a conflict, but another legislator believes that
legislator should. He asked, "Is that to be dealt with later in
an ethics issue, and that could take months ... and by that time
the vote's already counted?" He referred to Representative
Tuck's example of a legislator who is a member of a profession
declaring a conflict [if the financial benefit or harm for that
legislator is greater than that of a substantial class of
persons of that profession]. He reminded the committee that an
amendment was adopted to change the language [in Section 3,
subsection (j), paragraph (2), of CSSSHB 44(JUD)] that
Representative Tuck cited. He stated that education would be
needed and offered his hope is that legislators would know when
it is appropriate to declare a conflict. He conceded that there
will be some "growing pains," and he offered that other state
legislatures have similar rules.
4:09:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that if a group of legislators
had the two-thirds vote needed to disallow a vote, they would
have enough votes to pass or vote down a bill and would not need
to use forcing an abstention as a political tactic.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN, in response to Representative Wool, stated
that if one legislator felt that another legislator neglected to
declare a conflict of interest, then the first legislator could
file a complaint with the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics; the process for dealing with this situation would be the
same as it is currently.
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN, in response to Representatives Birch and
LeDoux, conceded that APOC filings and the campaign process
afford the public a great deal of information about a candidate.
He asserted that the proposed legislation would maintain that
transparency for future legislation on topics that had not been
considered by the public previously. He encouraged committee
members to contact his office for any other questions or
concerns.
4:12:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to report HCR 1, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HCR 1(STA) was
reported out of committee.
HB 175-US PRESIDENT ELECT. COMPACT: POPULAR VOTE
4:12:42 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 175, "An Act ratifying an interstate
compact to elect the President and Vice-President of the United
States by national popular vote; and making related changes to
statutes applicable to the selection by voters of electors for
candidates for President and Vice- President of the United
States and to the duties of those electors."
4:13:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZACH FANSLER, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 175, stated that the proposed legislation has
generated good discussion. He maintained that it is important
that there be an [electoral] system in which everyone has an
equal "say" in the voting process and in which all states
contribute to the process through as much voter participation as
possible.
4:14:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he is opposed to HB 175; each
vote already counts; and it would diminish the ability of
Alaskans to influence the national election. He maintained that
Alaska has three electoral votes; two of them are U.S. Senators;
and [the current system] gives Alaska an "out-of-balance" impact
on presidential elections. He asserted that Alaska should
recognize and utilize that opportunity as a benefit and not
diminish it through National Popular Vote. He expressed his
belief that National Popular Vote would detract from the
Electoral College approach; it would be bad for his constituents
and for Alaska. He added that in the last presidential
election, if Alaska were a member of the compact, it could have
had a 100-percent vote for the Republican candidate, but the
three electoral votes would have had to be cast for the winner
of the national popular vote. He maintained that result would
have "buried" every Alaskan vote. He reiterated that the
Electoral College is a good process and is good for the state.
4:16:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed that she is conflicted about the
proposed legislation. She stated that from the time she was a
child learning about the Electoral College, she has always
thought the system "weird." She asserted that she would have no
problem supporting a constitutional amendment to eliminate the
Electoral College; however, she expressed that she is
uncomfortable with the prospect of Alaska, through the mechanism
of the compact, having to cast its electoral votes to a
candidate for whom the majority of Alaskans did not vote. She
offered that she supports HB 175 moving to another committee for
further discussion, but she does not want her vote for HB 175 to
be considered as support of the proposed legislation.
4:18:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that he is also conflicted about HB
175. He said that National Popular Vote is a mechanism that
would essentially produce the same result as a constitutional
amendment but without the burdensome process. He relayed that
if enough states join the compact, the country would essentially
choose the President by popular vote. He said the fundamental
question is: "As a nation, do we want to elect our national
leader based on the population of the country, as opposed to 50
individual states and how they break it down?" He suggested
that if one applied this system to the election of the governor
of Alaska, instead of using the popular vote to determine the
winner, the vote would be determined by the results of each
district with each district "weighted" according to its
population. He added that Alaska's districts have equal
populations, but the states do not. He maintained that with
electoral votes being based on population, Alaska has the lowest
possible number of electoral votes - three electoral votes - and
that number is insignificant. He asserted that it is only
through the popular vote that a person's individual vote can
"tip the scale."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that he understands the appeal of using
the results of the popular vote and offered that most
democracies use a national vote count. He mentioned that voters
used to have to be landowners and could not be slaves. He cited
the historical reasons for the Electoral College, which include
counting slaves as three-fifths of a person to boost the number
of electoral votes of the southern states. He suggested that
these practices and historical justifications are antiquated.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed his belief that presidential
candidates would campaign differently if the election was
decided by popular vote. He opined that they would not just
campaign in Los Angeles and New York, because much of the
population live in rural areas.
4:22:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed that he agreed with Representative
Wool. He offered that under President George W. Bush, when the
President and both houses of the U.S. Congress were Republican,
the "stars were aligned" to open the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR). He maintained that Alaska does not get the
attention it is due, because it represents only three electoral
votes and is therefore insignificant. He offered that a popular
vote system would encourage Alaska legislators to present a
united front on issues; there is strength in numbers; and Alaska
would get the attention it deserves. He referred to testimony
regarding candidates visiting rural Colorado and attested that
was due to Colorado being a "swing" state. He asked, "When will
Alaska ever be a swing state? When will we ever have the
population density to where we're all of a sudden ...
significant [in] the eyes of these candidates?" He reiterated
that under National Popular Vote, Alaska would attract more
federal campaign money, more focus on Alaskan issues, and more
individual attention to Alaskans. He stated that he supports HB
175 because he believes Alaska would get more attention; it has
big concerns and offers big benefits to the federal government.
He mentioned that Alaska can decide to opt out later if it so
desires. He added that the conditions that led to the Electoral
College are outdated.
4:25:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that he is opposed to HB 175. He
opined that it would not encourage voter participation and
joining a compact disenfranchises voters. He maintained that he
would support a constitutional amendment but believes the
compact is the wrong mechanism.
4:26:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that she does not support HB 175.
She relayed that she believes in states' rights and the
Electoral College gives Alaska a true advantage in the national
election. She conceded that it is inevitable that the results
of the election are decided before the polls close in Alaska,
but she maintained that does not mean Alaska's votes do not
count. She expressed her belief that using the popular vote [to
decide an election] would be a disadvantage to Alaska and would
disenfranchise Alaska voters. She opined that the United States
has the best elections and the longest history of elections, and
elections in many other countries, even democracies, are fraught
with civil unrest. She asked, "Why are we trying to fix
something that isn't broken?"
4:28:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to report HB 175 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
[AN UNINDENTIFIED SPEAKER objected.]
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Tuck, Wool,
and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of HB 175. Representatives
Birch, Johnson, and Knopp voted against it. Therefore, HB 175
moved out of committee by a vote of 4-3.
HB 74-DRIVER'S LICENSE & ID CARDS & REAL ID AC
4:29:35 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 74, "An Act relating to the
implementation of the federal REAL ID Act of 2005; and relating
to issuance of identification cards and driver's licenses; and
providing for an effective date."
4:30:31 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 4:30 p.m.
4:31:06 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS mentioned that two amendments had been
prepared for adoption.
4:31:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that the amendment he is proposing
would increase the fee for REAL ID from $5 to $10. He cited the
costs listed on the fiscal note: $528,000 for implementation of
the REAL ID program and additional costs for a total of $1.5
million. He explained that the increase in the fee would
generate enough revenue to make the REAL ID program self-
supporting.
4:33:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 30-
GH1781\A.1, Martin, 3/20/17], which read:
Page 5, line 7:
Delete "$5"
Insert "$10"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:33:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she supports the concept but
wants to find out from the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) if
doubling the fee will support the program as intended.
4:34:22 PM
LESLIE RIDLE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration
(DOA), stated that assuming 50 percent of the population obtains
a REAL ID, the $10 [fee] would allow DOA to pay for the REAL ID
program in about five years.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what fee would be needed for DOA to
pay for the program concurrently, making the fiscal note zero.
MS. RIDLE said she would provide that information.
4:35:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP suggested that a $20 fee would pay for the
program in one year.
MS. RIDLE answered that she assumes that to be correct.
4:35:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the program would be profitable
after 10 years.
MS. RIDLE responded yes, unless DOA reduced the fee. She said
the capital project would have been paid off, and DOA would
continue to pay to state money from the fees.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that his first REAL ID would cost
$10, but his second REAL ID might only cost $5.
MS. RIDLE attested that DOA would need to request a fee change
from the legislature; it cannot unilaterally make that change.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked if it is possible to include a
"sunset" date for the fees in the proposed legislation.
MS. RIDLE answered, "Probably."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to Amendment 1. He
stated that there being no further objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
4:37:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH moved to adopt Amendment 2 [labeled 30-
GH1781\A2, Martin, 3/27/17] which read:
Page 3, line 18:
Delete "shall"
Insert "may [SHALL]"
Page 3, line 20:
Delete "shall"
Insert "may [SHALL]"
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH explained that Amendment 2 inserts
"permissive" language on page 3, lines 18 and 20, by replacing
"shall" with "may". He cited, as justification for the language
change, a letter from a constituent describing the following
situation: The constituent's wife is a Japanese national with
permanent resident status holding an alien registration ID green
card without an expiration date. She has been a fulltime
resident of Alaska since 1982. Since the green card has no
expiration date, it's validity is indefinite. The constituent
added that this places a significant burden on his wife
requiring her to renew her driver's license annually. The
constituent requested that "shall" be replaced with "may" so
that decisions for unique situations can be made at the DOA
application review level and to avoid having to make statutory
changes in the future.
4:39:43 PM
MS. RIDLE responded that DOA agrees with Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated his understanding that currently DOA
is limited to issuing yearly driver's licenses to foreign
nationals with indefinite visas. He said that the statute
currently states that DOA shall issue a license for the period
of the authorized stay; if the period of the authorized stay is
indefinite, DOA shall issue a license with a validity of one
year. He offered that someone with a driver's license for an
indefinite stay must renew it annually.
MS. RIDLE expressed her understanding that current practice is
that for a person of "indefinite stay," a five-year driver's
license is issued. She indicated that changing "shall" to "may"
would give DOA the flexibility to accommodate the person
referred to in the constituent letter.
4:42:26 PM
MARLA THOMPSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOE), stated that currently DMV
issues a driver's license for the period of authorized stay [of
the foreign national] or for five years for those with a
permanent card having no expiration date.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that since DMV is currently acting
contrary to the law, the law should be changed to agree with the
current practice. He said that he supports Amendment 2.
4:43:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX cited page 3, lines 19-20, of HB 74, which
read, "If the period of authorized stay is indefinite, the
department shall issue the license with a validity of one year."
She opined that changing "shall" to "may" does not give [DMV]
the authority to issue the license for longer than one year.
She stated that "may" could mean that a license may be issued
with a validity of one year or possibly may not be issued at
all. She stated that she appreciates the issue brought forth by
the constituent and the desire to address it, but that changing
"shall" to "may" on page 3, line 20, would not accomplish that.
MS. RIDLE responded that it was the opinion of the assistant
attorney general that this change would address the issue, but
she said that she would bring up Representative LeDoux's concern
with him for further consideration.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his objection to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that he agreed with Representative
LeDoux's comments, and the use of "may" would make the language
in the proposed legislation ambiguous.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS again objected to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that he does not understand the logic
behind "one year" in the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK relayed that the intent is for DOA to issue
a driver's license for the period of an authorized stay, if
known. He said that if an individual has an indefinite period
of stay, the committee wants DOA to issue a driver's license as
it would for any other Alaskan. He suggested that page 3, line
18, should read, "Unless an authorized stay is indefinite, the
department may issue the license for the period of the
authorized stay."
4:47:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered that a person with an indefinite
stay could leave the country with his/her valid license. He
suggested that DOA may wish to limit the duration of the license
to avoid that situation by requiring the reissue of a license
every year.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that green cards are issued for ten
years; J1 visas are issued for a two- to three-month period; and
other licenses may be issued for a minimum of one year. He
suggested that there is ample time for the assistant attorney
general to address this issue and the bill language.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his objection to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she objects to Amendment 2
based on her belief that an opinion from Legislative Legal and
Research Services or the assistant attorney general is needed to
ensure that the amendment accomplishes that which is intended.
She recommended that the amendment be held pending this opinion.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said his intent is to address his
constituent's concern and he supports additional legal review of
Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 2.
[HB 74 was held over.]
4:51:16 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:51
p.m.