02/28/2006 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB222 | |
| SB216 | |
| SB284 | |
| SJR20 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SJR 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 284 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 216 | ||
| = | SB 222 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 28, 2006
8:39 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ralph Seekins, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Hollis French
Senator Gretchen Guess
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 222
"An Act relating to breaches of security involving personal
information, consumer report security freezes, consumer credit
monitoring, credit accuracy, protection of social security
numbers, disposal of records, factual declarations of innocence
after identity theft, filing police reports regarding identity
theft, and furnishing consumer credit header information; and
amending Rule 60, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20
Proposing an amendment to the section of the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to marriage.
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 284
"An Act relating to sentencing for the commission of a felony
while under the influence of alcohol."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 216
"An Act relating to bail."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 222
SHORT TITLE: PROTECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) THERRIAULT, GUESS
01/09/06 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/05
01/09/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/09/06 (S) L&C, JUD
01/24/06 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
01/24/06 (S) Heard & Held
01/24/06 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/14/06 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/14/06 (S) Moved CSSB 222(L&C) Out of Committee
02/14/06 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/16/06 (S) L&C RPT CS 4DP 1AM NEW TITLE
02/16/06 (S) DP: BUNDE, DAVIS, ELLIS, SEEKINS
02/16/06 (S) AM: STEVENS B
02/22/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/22/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/22/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/27/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/27/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/27/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
BILL: SJR 20
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
02/14/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/06 (S) JUD, FIN
02/16/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/16/06 (S) <Pending Referral>
02/21/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/21/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/21/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/28/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 284
SHORT TITLE: SENTENCING FOR ALCOHOL-RELATED CRIMES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) THERRIAULT
02/13/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/06 (S) JUD, FIN
02/28/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
John George
American Council for Life Insurers
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 222
John Burton
Choice Point
1000 Alderman Dr
Alphretta, GA 30005
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 222
Ed Sniffen, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 222 and added
some concerns
Margot Knuth
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Dixie Hood
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Kristen Bomengen
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Cid Blase
Kodiak, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
John Monagle
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 20
Ida Barnick
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 20
Sue Schrader
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Paul Grant
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Diane Mayer
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Janell Hafner
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Candace Brower
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Michael Macleod-Ball, Director
Alaska Civil Liberties Union
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Seina Aniheta
Fairbanks, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Kate Sunwood
Fairbanks, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
William Hill
Fairbanks, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 20
Fred Traber
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
Glen Biegel
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 20
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 20
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:39:22 AM. Present were Senators
Hollis French, Charlie Huggins, Gene Therriault, Gretchen Guess,
and Chair Ralph Seekins.
SB 222-PROTECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 222 to be up for consideration.
8:39:54 AM
JOHN GEORGE, American Council of Life Insurers, informed the
committee that life insurance policies follow a person all
around the country unlike automobile or homeowners insurance
policies. Once a person dies, the company must ensure proper
identification in order to finish the business that the policy
dictates and a social security number is an ideal method of
identification. He said the restrictions posed in SB 222 would
not work for life insurance companies.
8:42:39 AM
MR. GEORGE said SB 222 would impair the ability of life
insurance companies to do business. He recommended carving out
life insurance companies so that they would not apply to the
bill since they already are controlled extensively by
regulations.
8:44:05 AM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH asked the reason that life insurance
institutions have not moved forward to more sophisticated
methods of identification other than a social security number,
such as fingerprinting or retinal scans.
MR. GEORGE responded it would not be practical or convenient to
do so. A social security number follows a person throughout
their life and insurance companies require it when they pay out
regardless.
8:45:44 AM
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT said it was not the intent of the
sponsors to limit internal use of the social security number.
MR. GEORGE agreed the bill does not specifically state that a
company could not use the social security number internally but
questioned whether the bill would allow it.
8:47:37 AM
MR. JOHN BURTON testified that he was representing Choice Point,
a data information company that provides information and
verification to a cross section of the economy, such as
financial institutions, insurance companies, banks, local law
enforcement and state and federal government agencies. He
highlighted Section 45.48.800 in the bill and said Choice Point
opposes any regulation or prohibition on consumer credit
information. He said credit header data is a consumer's name,
address, social security number and date of birth. They do not
contain credit information.
8:50:12 AM
MR. BURTON continued saying credit header data is the backbone
of a database that Choice Point provides to financial
institutions and others for fraud prevention, tips and leads for
locating people, and for US Patriot Act compliance. He said no
state today has restrictions on credit header data because
federal law already regulates it. He believes SB 222 to be
unnecessary legislation.
8:52:43 AM
MR. BURTON added his next concern regards restriction on social
security numbers and the use of them. Section 45.48.500 appears
to mirror California law on social security access. Choice Point
has no objection over California law but they have problems with
paragraph (6)(b), which he said relates back to credit header
data.
8:54:23 AM
Financial institutions, law enforcement, banks, and insurance
companies facilitate thousands of transactions daily. The
economy is built on the ready and regulatory flow of information
from business to business. A social security number is a unique
form of identification and if it weren't a social security
number, it would be some other form of identification and the
issue would be the same. He said he could not imagine a scenario
where a bank would have to secure permission to utilize a
person's social security number for identification and fraud
prevention purposes for every single transaction.
8:56:11 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said banks do not use social security numbers
in order to cash checks or do regular business. He asked Mr.
Burton the reason for using the bank example.
MR. BURTON agreed that his comments should be more directed
toward the overreaching fraud prevention and verification
services that Choice Point provides. He said the social security
number still remains the most accurate and reliable method of
identification.
8:58:18 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Burton whether California had a
provision like (6)(b).
MR. BURTON did not know.
SENATOR FRENCH asked what the effect would be for passing that
provision as far as common banking transactions.
MR. BURTON said every single transaction would require consent
and that would seriously slow down the ability to do business.
9:00:30 AM
SENATOR FRENCH suggested it would be just one more piece of
paper to sign when setting up an account.
MR. BURTON asserted it would place a tremendous burden on
everyone involved. He spoke briefly about his concern of
ensuring the legislative intent of the bill. He added his
opinion that some definitional changes need to be made before
the bill is passed out.
9:04:12 AM
ED SNIFFEN, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL)
testified the DOL supports the efforts to curb identity theft.
He expressed concern over Article 1 and noted it does not
provide a requirement for state government to comply with the
terms of the bill. He said it is imperative for state agencies
to take extreme caution to protect personal information.
He expressed concern that the state might have liability for an
inadvertent disclosure simply due to the sheer volume of
information that the state is required to deal with daily. He
cautioned against making the state a target for litigation. He
suggested an amendment to AS 45.48.060 that would provide that
an action could not be brought against a governmental entity.
The state would still be required to comply with all the terms
of the bill.
9:07:46 AM
MR. SNIFFEN explained that there are ways to require the state
to comply with the requirements but not have a liability issue.
He noted there wasn't an agency set up to address the regulatory
issues as noted in Section 45.48.303(3)(A)(B)(C).
9:09:17 AM
MR. SNIFFEN summarized with a reference to Section 45.48.410 and
said the provision that requires additional governmental
prohibition seems unclear as to whether that would also include
a requirement imposed by state regulation.
9:11:18 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for clarification whether his concern
was over the word "expressly."
MR. SNIFFEN replied yes. It seems unclear because there are
arguments that could be made that express authorization needs to
come from the Legislature and may not be sufficient to come from
the agency.
9:13:38 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS closed public testimony and held SB 222 in
committee.
SB 216-BAIL RESTRICTIONS
9:16:44 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 216 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS reminded the committee that previous
bill hearing lacked the testimony of Portia Parker and Susan
Parkes. He called them both to the witness stand.
9:17:27 AM
SUSAN PARKES, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL),
and PORTIA PARKER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Corrections (DOC), introduced themselves for the record.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked Ms. Parkes to advise the committee of the
reason SB 216 was on the docket.
MS. PARKES said it was due to publicity that surrounded a
notorious incident of a temporary release in Palmer. Under the
current statute, a judge temporarily reduced bail, which allowed
the release of a prisoner to attend a funeral. The prisoner cut
off his electronic monitoring device and failed to return. It
was several weeks before he was found.
9:19:29 AM
SB 216 would prevent judges from ordering a temporarily bail
reduction, and Section 1 would increase unlawful evasion to a
class C felony.
SENATOR HUGGINS noted there was more than one case in recent
history that highlighted the need for the legislation. He asked
Ms. Parker to comment.
MS. PARKER said temporary releases are problematic for the DOC
for a variety of reasons; primarily the entire booking process
has to be redone. Additionally, there are the problems of
offenders not returning, particularly in Fairbanks where fifty
percent of all offenders do not return. From a DOC point of
view, temporary releases are not necessary because there is no
justification for it, either they can make bail or not. The DOC
has the ability and capacity to provide an escort and transport
for necessary things such as funerals and medical treatment.
9:24:07 AM
MS. PARKER continued most of the temporary releases are done for
substance abuse assessments. The DOC can accommodate those on
site and already do.
9:25:25 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS expressed support for the bill.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT asked whether there was a reason not to
have an immediate effective date.
MS. PARKES said no. An immediate effective date could apply to
anyone currently in the system.
9:27:27 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved Amendment 1. Provide for an immediate
effective date. Hearing no objections, Amendment 1 was adopted.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH asked Ms. Parker of the fifty percent
releases who did not return in Fairbanks, the number of them
that were charged with a crime.
MS. PARKER did not know.
SENATOR FRENCH said SB 216 would make it harder to charge them
with a crime because they would have to be indicted.
9:29:29 AM
MS. PARKER countered SB 216 would not allow temporary releases
at all.
SENATOR FRENCH said it wouldn't lead to temporary releases from
a court but it would lead to temporary releases from the DOC so
there will still be unlawful evasions. He asked the definition
of "work release."
MS. PARKER responded a furlough is considered a temporary
release. A furlough can be to go into a residential treatment
facility or a halfway house. A furlough can be for work release
as well.
SENATOR FRENCH asked whether the DOC allows pre-conviction work
releases.
9:31:34 AM
MS. PARKER said it depends on the kind of release.
SENATOR FRENCH noted when a person leaves a halfway house to go
to work they would not be in custody.
MS. PARKER argued they would still be incarcerated.
SENATOR FRENCH countered when a person walks away from work
while on release, it is unlawful evasion, but when a person
leaves in the middle of the night, it is escape in the fourth
degree. He said the Glenwood Center in Anchorage was a minimum-
security facility that sits in the middle of town and is easy to
walk away from.
9:33:04 AM
MS. PARKES explained in Anchorage they have third party releases
to the halfway houses, which is different than official
detention. More typical of what she sees pre-trial is that the
halfway house is third party and people often disappear when
they are living under third party conditions.
SENATOR FRENCH posed a hypothetical situation of a post-
conviction person living in a halfway house on work release. If
that person did not come back from work release it would be
unlawful evasion and SB 216 would make that a blanket felony,
whether that person was incarcerated for a misdemeanor or a
felony.
MS. PARKES said that is correct.
SENATOR FRENCH voiced preference for making a distinction
between people incarcerated for a felony and those incarcerated
for a misdemeanor. He said misdemeanor offenses usually do not
involve a gun or serious assault or felony DWI and would not be
as serious. He offered to work with the sponsor on that point.
9:35:29 AM
MS. PARKER agreed.
9:36:15 AM
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS asked for clarification whether there
were any situations where only the courts were allowed to give a
temporary release where the DOC cannot.
MS. PARKER said the DOC does not allow temporary releases at all
for pre-trial or pre-sentence.
SENATOR GUESS stated SB 216 would not allow for temporary
releases but a person could still request for an escort for
something that they need to do.
MS. PARKER said that is correct.
CHAIR SEEKINS held SB 216 in committee.
SB 284-SENTENCING FOR ALCOHOL-RELATED CRIMES
9:38:16 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 284 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, sponsor, noted that current language in
the bill requires that the penalty would be for the lifetime of
the defendant. He said he would consider adding language that
provides for time up to the lifetime of the defendant. It could
be up to the discretion of the court as to the length of time
the defendant would be ordered to abstain from drinking alcohol.
9:41:01 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted page 1 line 9 allows for consumption of
alcohol by prescription of a medical professional for healthcare
purposes.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS asked for the definition of "alcoholic
beverage."
MR. STANCLIFF advised he would research with the drafter to
ascertain whether there was an existing definition in statutes.
9:44:24 AM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH suggested adding multiple DWI convictions
to the list for lifetime ban of alcohol.
CHAIR SEEKINS held SB 284 in committee.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced a brief recess at 9:45:25 AM.
SJR 20-CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE
9:55:20 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SJR 20 to be up for consideration.
KRISTEN BOMENGEN testified in opposition to SJR 20. She
described her career and life as one steeped in public service,
including volunteering for Hurricane Katrina and serving as an
international election observer for Ukraine. She said she puts
as much effort as possible into serving her community, state,
country and world. She said it was important for the committee
to know that she was more than a lesbian.
MS. BOMENGEN described her 13-year relationship with her
partner. While she was employed as an assistant attorney
general, her uninsured partner suffered extensive medical
issues, which put them in serious financial distress for years
afterwards.
10:00:03 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS interrupted Ms. Bomengen to ask her to summarize.
MS. BOMENGEN continued describing the extensive medical
treatments sustained by her uninsured partner. She expressed
concern over whether SJR 20 would serve to allow a hospital to
keep her from visiting her partner during a medical emergency.
She urged committee members to consider the harm that could be
caused by the resolution and urged them to reject it.
10:02:13 AM
CID BLASE testified in opposition to SJR 20. As a school
teacher, she said her favorite subject to teach was history
because she could show her students the many amendments that
have been made to the United States Constitution creating laws
for the equal treatment of all, which benefit the people as a
whole. She suggested SJR 20 would reverse the historical tide of
making access to rights, benefits, obligations, and qualities of
life more equal. She said she wants to continue teaching her
students that Alaska sets good examples for other states.
10:04:44 AM
MARGOT KNUTH testified in opposition to SJR 20. She informed the
committee that she worked for the State of Alaska for 23 years
both in the Department of Law and in the Department of
Corrections. She said she is pleased with the Alaska Supreme
Court decision, which would allow her the same rights and
benefits as her colleagues.
MS. KNUTH described a letter to Dear Abby wherein Abby sided
with the parents who allowed their gay son and his longtime
partner to sleep in the same room while visiting, much to the
dislike of the son who was not married but was visiting with his
girlfriend and was not awarded the same courtesy. Abby noted,
like the parents did, that while the unmarried son and his
girlfriend had the option of marriage and weren't, the gay son
would have married if the option were available. She said the
unanimous Alaska Supreme Court decision was similar to the
thinking of those parents and, she said, if that makes sense to
five justices of the Alaska Supreme Court as well as Dear Abby,
it should be appropriate. She urged the committee to reject the
resolution.
10:08:15 AM
JOHN MONAGLE testified in support of SJR 20. He said the
taxpayers have a right to vote on the issue.
IDA BARNICK testified in support of SJR 20. She said the voters
have decided that marriage is between a man and a woman and
should not be interpreted any other way.
SUE SCHRADER testified in opposition of SJR 20. She said she and
her husband have enjoyed the benefits from his 15-year
employment with the State of Alaska. The benefits have provided
financial security and peace of mind, she noted, and they are a
good offset for the high cost of living in Alaska. The City and
Borough of Juneau and the University of Alaska offer domestic
partnership benefits without incurring excessive costs. Many
large companies such as IBM, Microsoft, Ford, Wells Fargo, and
Coors Brewing Company know that providing such benefits help to
attract and retain skilled employees.
MS. SCHRADER suggested the court wisely and appropriately ruled
to protect the rights of a minority group, a principle at the
heart of government. She said she could not comprehend how SJR
20 could strengthen her marriage. She suggested the issue was
not about letting the people vote and asked the committee how
the majority of voters in Alabama or Mississippi would have
voted on school segregation in 1956. She said she was proud that
the Alaska State Constitution protects the rights of minority
groups and that the judges uphold those constitutional rights.
She asserted it was an issue of fairness in a democratic society
and said it was wrong to seek to amend the Constitution to
deprive Alaskans of equal protections.
10:13:41 AM
DIXIE HOOD testified in opposition to SJR 20. She asserted that
representation of the people of the State of Alaska has been
undermined by political opportunism. Proposing an amendment to
the Alaska State Constitution to further deprive many Alaskans
of their civil rights is unjust and contrary to the ideals of
democracy, she stated. Discrimination based on self-interest,
ignorance or righteousness is all too common and has no place in
Alaska. She urged the committee to reject the resolution.
PAUL GRANT testified in opposition to SJR 20. He suggested it
was a discriminatory resolution that seeks to write
discrimination into the Alaska State Constitution. He said
African Americans would not be allowed to vote and segregation
would still be allowed in schools today if that issue were put
on the ballot in southern states. He suggested the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee was avoiding its responsibility for
upholding the anti-discriminatory provisions of the Constitution
by allowing SJR 20 to go forward.
SENATOR THERRIAULT questioned Mr. Grant's statement regarding
African Americans not being allowed to vote and said that wasn't
true since it would have been pre-empted by the United States
Constitution.
MR. GRANT said that was exactly the point. The judiciary was the
body that decided against the will of the people against
constitutional and statutory provisions. He cited the
interracial marriage case of Loving versus Virginia in which the
United States Supreme Court said state laws that prohibit
interracial marriage are unconstitutional. He said had the issue
been put to a popular vote, Virginia law would have
overwhelmingly been supported by voters in the South.
10:19:07 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said Senator Therriault's point was there is no
Supreme Court decision that addresses the topic of SJR 20.
MR. GRANT countered the Alaska Supreme Court decision is
standing. There is also the recent Romer versus Evans case in
Colorado.
10:20:00 AM
DIANE MAYER testified in opposition to SJR 20. She said it was
poorly drafted, confusing, and difficult to interpret. She
questioned the meaning of it and its affects. She asked the
definition of "qualities of marriage" and said the resolution
was misleading since same-sex couples are denied marriage in the
State of Alaska. She said the Alaska Supreme Court decision was
not about the benefits of marriage, it was about equal access to
the benefits of employment.
MS. MAYER said:
You can't sign up for life or health insurance for
your family, joint or survivor annuities, a death
benefit, or health insurance in retirement for your
life partner simply because of a marriage certificate.
To receive these benefits you have to successfully
compete for a job, you have to go to work every day,
you have to be productive, satisfactorily accomplish
your assignments. These benefits are all provided as
benefits of employment though they are currently
granted only to those employees who are allowed to
marry.
MS. MAYER said Article 1 of the Constitution states that all
persons have a natural right to the enjoyment of the rewards of
their industry. She asserted that the benefits in question are
linked to employment and not marriage. The opportunity for
family stability is a result of the person's industriousness in
the workplace, she stated. She urged the committee to uphold the
Alaska State Constitution and reject the resolution.
MS. MAYER pointed to a report from the Conference of Young
Alaskans held in January 2006. Fifty-five young Alaskans met to
th
commemorate the 50 anniversary of the Alaska State
Constitution. In their report they overwhelmingly voted to
approve language that specifically stated support of a diverse
culture. Item 4 in their report specifically says, "Because it
directly inhibits the rights of individuals, the Alaska State
th
Legislature shall repeal the 25 Amendment to the Alaska State
Constitution defining marriage."
th
SENATOR HUGGINS asked Ms. Mayer whether she supported the 25
Amendment.
MS. MAYER said no.
10:26:33 AM
JANELL HAFNER testified in opposition to SJR 20. She said the
Alaska Supreme Court decision could be read in conformity with
the Alaska State Constitution.
CANDACE BROWER testified in opposition to SJR 20. She strongly
urged members to dissolve the resolution in committee.
10:28:29 AM
MICHAEL MACLEOD-BALL, Executive Director, Alaska American Civil
Liberties Union testified. He disagreed with earlier comments of
some committee members that their job is to pass the resolution
on to the people for a vote. He said they are mistaken to say
that the Alaska State Legislature has no real substantive role
to play in the matter and that its only duty is to simply pass
the question along to the people. He said it ignores the clear
obligation of the Legislature to vet the very serious matter of
amending the foundation document of Alaska State laws.
He encouraged the committee members to protect the individual
rights of all Alaskans. He said pollsters get the answers they
want when they design the question in the right way. A rigged
question will get a rigged answer, he said. He said the
question, in this case, is misleading and he is still unsure
what SJR 20 means.
10:31:55 AM
MR. MACLEOD-BALL said one thing it would do is amend the
Marriage Amendment but the court decision accepted the Marriage
Amendment in full and interpreted the Equal Protection Clause
and said the existing employment benefit system for state
workers was discriminatory under the Equal Protection Clause of
Article 1. He suggested the real problem was with the question
that the proponents of SJR 20 would propose to offer to the
voters.
He said:
If you insist on passing on your obligation to stop
this now, then at least you ought to ask an honest
question about what you want to achieve. You want to
change the outcome of the case that was decided in
October and that means you want to change the meaning
of the Equal Protection Clause. If you want to let the
people decide, then at the very least, ask them the
right question. Do you want to restrict the Equal
Protection Clause so that it no longer applies to
unmarried individuals? Do you want to exempt unmarried
individuals from the benefits of equal protection? In
that case, I think, you will have sidestepped your
obligation to protect individual rights in this body
but at least you will have framed the issue arising
out of the case that came down in October and you'll
have raised it in the context of the Equal Protection
Clause, which I think is the more appropriate
question.
10:33:48 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS took exception Mr. Macleod-Ball's suggestion
that he was a party to a "rigging."
CHAIR SEEKINS advised Mr. Macleod-Ball that he could not respond
to Senator Huggins' comment.
SENATOR GUESS said:
Then I will speak up on it. I think it was a metaphor
and people need to listen to the entire argument. I
think the point that I heard was the question you ask
is very important and is something that actually we
haven't spent any time in this committee on, nor has
the person that we hired spent time explaining why the
question and why it's framed the way responds to the
[Alaska] Supreme Court decision.
She said she used to write polling questions for a living and it
is the case of spinning the question to get the desired result.
CHAIR SEEKINS said it was not the intent of the sponsors to
trump equal rights protection; and that SJR 20 was a legitimate
question to pose to the voters.
10:38:48 AM
SEINA ANIHETA expressed concern as an employee of the University
of Alaska that SJR 20 would jeopardize the ability of the
University to attract and retain highly trained workers. She
said the resolution in its broadness would have unintentional
effects.
KATE SUNWOOD testified in opposition to SJR 20. She contended
the resolution was ambiguous and unclear of intent. She said SJR
20 would wipe out people's opportunity to purchase medical
insurance.
10:41:07 AM
WILLIAM HILL testified in support of SJR 20. He suggested that
non-traditional marriages create at-risk youths. He said every
child in the state should have the opportunity to live in the
traditional atmosphere of a male husband and female wife since
that is what creates stable citizens. All cultures in the world
agree that marriage and family are traditional. For the sake of
at-risk youth, he said, Alaska citizens should do everything
possible to discourage non-traditional families, rather than
encourage them by providing benefits for them.
FRED TRABER testified in opposition to SJR 20. He said his
partner and he have been together for over 30 years. They
jointly own property, have well respected careers, and make a
positive contribution to their community. He said they have
decades of experience with discrimination and it has been their
experience that intolerant and mean-spirited people promote
discrimination and bigotry. There is no credible reason for the
legislative body of the people to put a ballot proposition
promoting discrimination before the people.
10:45:57 AM
GLEN BIEGEL commented on SJR 20. He said he supported the
resolution and that the Alaska Supreme Court overrode
precedence, original intent, lower court rulings, legislative
action, public intent, common sense, and the plain language of
the Alaska State Constitution. He suggested the problem was with
the judiciary and said they are not interested in being
constrained and will make their own interpretations. SJR 20 is
an attempt to redress a judiciary that does not understand the
Constitution.
He said the resolution is not apparent that it applies only to
public groups. He said the Alaska Supreme Court might also
ignore the amendment and create a new type of relationship and
therefore grant that relationship benefits.
10:49:31 AM
MR. BIEGEL summarized by suggesting there were difficulties with
the resolution being over broad. He suggested the Alaska Supreme
Court caused the need for SJR 20.
Chair Seekins held SJR 20 in committee.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Seekins adjourned the meeting at 10:51:35 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|