03/20/2020 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB124 | |
| SB8 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 124 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 20, 2020
2:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Coghill, Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes (via teleconference)
Senator Lora Reinbold (via teleconference)
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 124
"An Act relating to the recording of documents; relating to
notaries and notarization, including notarial acts performed for
remotely located individuals; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED SSHB 124 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 8
"An Act restricting the release of certain records of
convictions; amending Rule 37.6, Alaska Rules of Administration;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 123
"An Act relating to electric-assisted bicycles."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 124
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AND NOTARIZATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CLAMAN
04/05/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/05/19 (H) JUD, FIN
04/08/19 (H) JUD WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, RULE
23(A) UC
04/12/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/12/19 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/15/19 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/15/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/15/19 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/17/20 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
02/17/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/20 (H) JUD
02/21/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/21/20 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/24/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/24/20 (H) Heard & Held
02/24/20 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/26/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/26/20 (H) Moved SSHB 124 Out of Committee
02/26/20 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/28/20 (H) JUD RPT 4DP 1DNP
02/28/20 (H) DP: DRUMMOND, STUTES, KOPP, CLAMAN
02/28/20 (H) DNP: EASTMAN
03/13/20 (H) NOT TAKEN UP 3/13 - ON 3/16 CALENDAR
03/17/20 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/17/20 (H) VERSION: SSHB 124
03/18/20 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/18/20 (S) JUD
03/19/20 (S) JUD WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE,RULE
23
03/20/20 (S) JUD AT 2:00 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 8
SHORT TITLE: ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) BEGICH
01/16/19 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/19
01/16/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/19 (S) JUD
01/25/19 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
01/25/19 (S) Heard & Held
01/25/19 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/04/20 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/04/20 (S) Heard & Held
03/04/20 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/06/20 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/06/20 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/16/20 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/16/20 (S) Heard & Held
03/16/20 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/20/20 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 124.
DAVID CLARK, Staff
Representative Matt Claman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a sectional analysis for HB 124 on
behalf of the sponsor.
TERRY BRYAN, President
Yukon Title Company; Member
Alaska Land Title Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 124.
MERCEDES COLBERT, Staff
Senator Tom Begich
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 8 on behalf of the
sponsor.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Offices
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
8.
SENATOR TOM BEGICH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SB 8.
ACTION NARRATIVE
2:02:45 PM
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:02 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kiehl, Hughes (via teleconference),
Micciche, and Chair Coghill. Senator Reinbold joined the meeting
(via teleconference) shortly thereafter.
HB 124-ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AND NOTARIZATION
2:03:46 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced consideration of SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR
HOUSE BILL NO. 124, "An Act relating to the recording of
documents; relating to notaries and notarization, including
notarial acts performed for remotely located individuals; and
providing for an effective date."
2:04:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 124, said the bill would establish a
secure process for remote online notarization to facilitate
commercial transactions in Alaska. It would add substance to the
words, "Alaska is open and ready for business." The
legislature's current work to address the COVID-19 pandemic
highlights the importance of this legislation. It makes it
possible for individuals who are self-quarantined to safely
execute legal documents from their homes and in the electronic
presence but not the physical presence of a notary public.
He said HB 124 was presented initially to the House Judiciary
Committee in April 2019. Since then, his office has met
regularly with the lieutenant governor's office to ensure that
the bill aligns with the strengths and the daily operations of
the Notary Commission. He expressed gratitude to Senator Hughes
who carried the Senate version, which also sits in this
committee. Notaries are responsible for supervising the signing
of documents and attesting to the authenticity of a document and
the identities of the parties involved. Setting up a system for
a remote, online notarization is particularly useful in Alaska
given the state's immense size and the fact that many
communities are not connected by roads.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that commercial transactions within
the state are often delayed as parties ship documents back and
forth for the purpose of notarization. HB 124 would allow
individuals to have documents notarized from their own homes and
offices without these delays.
2:06:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered an example of how the bill will
help Alaskans. He described a military family that was in the
process of selling the family home while the husband was
deployed overseas. The wife could sign documents, but because
she was not able to get the documents to her husband, the family
lost the sale. If remote notarization had been in place, the
husband could have had the document notarized from the base
where he was stationed.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said given the sensitive nature of
notarized documents, any updates to notarial law must maintain
the integrity and security of the process. HB 124 will update
Alaska's notarial law to keep the process secure and make sure
that it is consistent with notarial law in the growing number of
states that permit remote online notarization. Use of electronic
records in commercial, governmental, and personal transactions
is becoming increasingly prevalent in Alaska and around the
world. This bill will allow Alaskans to keep up with these
trends and perform notarizations with greater ease. This bill
will help strengthen Alaska by creating a process for remote
online notarization and improving efficiency and convenience of
transactions in the state.
2:08:06 PM
DAVID CLARK, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said HB 124 updates Alaska's
current notarial laws by giving notaries the option to perform
online notarizations for remotely located individuals. It would
also make sure that these online notarizations remain secure.
Through a series of meetings with the Notary Commission in the
Office of the Lieutenant Governor, the sponsor has made the
following revisions to HB 124:
• Section 3: This section was added to establish that
the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (AS 09.80)
applies to AS 40.17, and the Department of Natural
Resources shall accept notarial acts as described in
section 10 of this bill.
• Section 5 Amends AS 44.50.034(a): Raises the bond
requirement for a notary public applicant from $1,000
to $2,500.
• Section 10: Similar to section 13 of version A, except
that it establishes three requirements for identifying
a remotely located individual: (1) viewing a
government-issued identification card, (2) credential
analysis of the government-issued identification card,
and (3) one type of identity proofing.
• Section 11: Subparagraph (b) is amended to add that a
notary public must maintain at least one journal in a
tangible medium to chronicle all remote notarial acts.
The notary public may also keep one or more electronic
journals to chronicle remote notarial acts.
Additionally, because the Lieutenant Governor's office
has never retained or stored notary journals, it
removes subparagraph (f), which would allow a notary
public to transmit a journal to the Office of the
Lieutenant Governor for retention, and subparagraph
(g), which would require the estate to transmit the
notary public's journal(s) to the Office of the
Lieutenant Governor upon death or adjudication of
incompetence of the notary public.
2:09:59 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked whether the companion bill includes these
changes.
SENATOR HUGHES answered that she was aware of and did not object
to the changes. She commented that Representative Claman's staff
did a good job updating members on the changes.
CHAIR COGHILL asked invited testifiers to comment on the bill.
2:10:58 PM
TERRY BRYAN, President, Yukon Title Company; Member, Alaska Land
Title Association, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in support of HB
124, which would allow online notarization. He thanked staff and
the Lieutenant Governor's office. He said that it is a pleasure
to see bipartisan coordination and cooperation. He offered his
view that HB 124 is good legislation.
2:12:04 PM
CHAIR COGHILL noted that Senator Reinbold had joined the meeting
via teleconference.
2:12:12 PM
MR. BRYAN said the current regulations for notarization have
been incorporated into the bill. He has vetted the process
through the Lieutenant Governor's office, the Department of
Natural Resources Recorder's Office, the Alaska Real Estate
Commission, and the Alaska real estate and mortgage lending
industries while confirming the compatibility of HB 124 with
other states that have enacted or proposed similar legislation.
He pointed out that this bill is not exclusively for real estate
or insurance related industries. It also supports all segments
of Alaska's economy and consumers that use or require a notary
process. At present, 23 states have enacted remote online
notarization statutes and 11 more are in the process of doing
so. He offered his view, which is shared by the stakeholders,
that passage of HB 124 will improve the flow of commerce while
enhancing consumer protections. This need has been brought to
the forefront by the current pandemic. The development of
appropriate and necessary regulations by the Lieutenant
Governor's office should be eased by his office's current
engagement with the Association of Secretaries of State, who
have developed a detailed set of recommended guidelines and
parameters for writing and creating regulations. This could help
provide a template for implementation of this legislation while
taking into consideration the needs and uniqueness of Alaska and
its citizens. The Alaska Land Title Association and other
industry associations stand in support of HB 124, as currently
written.
2:14:10 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked if the industry supported the increase in
the bonding requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN deferred to Mr. Bryan to answer. He noted
that these bonds are referred to as signature bonds or unsecured
bonds, but that is not seen as a barrier to performing work.
MR. BRYAN answered that the Alaska Land Title Association is
very comfortable with the increase, which has not been changed
in many years. It is representative of bond requirements in
other states.
2:15:56 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked how the process to notarize signatures would
work remotely. When the bill speaks to credential analysis of an
identification and the definition of identity proofing, it
speaks to a third person assisting the notary. He asked for a
sense of model regulations and how the process would work.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN deferred to Mr. Bryan to describe the
regulations. He commented that the regulations will be
consistent with other states and not simply developed in Alaska.
MR. BRYAN said the Alaska Land Title Association worked with the
sponsor to provide the Lieutenant Governor the flexibility to
tailor the regulations and maintain compatibility with other
states and yet allow the addition of other restrictions related
to third-party analysis. He explained that the state could
contract for electronic software programs to be used for
credentialed analyses. For example, a person could hold real
driver license identification up to a cell phone or camera which
can provide a high level of authenticity, much greater than the
visual eye. There are several models of identity proofing,
including using private knowledge. For example, one question
might ask which of five addresses was used for a car loan. A
follow-up question could ask the person to select addresses the
person is familiar with, including one with perhaps a childhood
address. A certain set of private questions would be used to
increase confidentiality and protection using information not
normally found in a person's wallet or at one's home.
SENATOR KIEHL said that gives him a better idea of the process
and regulations.
2:20:26 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked how often notaries have been called for
mistakes in identifying someone.
MR. BRYAN answered that he is not aware of any in his 20 plus
years and his office has over 40 notaries. It has not been an
issue.
2:21:07 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked why the requirement on page 7, lines [1-
4] in subsection (c) is only for remotely located individuals
outside the U.S., but it is not required for domestic.
(c) If a notarial act is performed under this
section, the certificate of notarial act required
under AS 44.50.060 must state that the notarial act
was performed using communication technology. A
statement is sufficient if it states substantially as
follows: "This notarial act involved the use of
communication technology."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN explained that much of the language came
from the Uniform Laws Act.
CHAIR COGHILL pointed out that the provision on page 6,
[paragraph](1)(A), (B), and (C) has the same requirement for
domestic notarizations.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he didn't read it that way.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN clarified that the language on page 5,
lines 29-30 requires the use of communication technology.
2:23:25 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said the language on page 6 talks about
remotely located individuals outside the U.S. and the language
on page 7 in subsection (c) requires a statement that says,
"This notarial act involved the use of communication
technology." He said he believes that requirement only applies
to individuals living outside the state but not for domestic
notarial acts.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he did not have an explanation.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Bryan if he had an answer.
MR. BRYAN said the industry understands that there would not be
any differentiation between those living in Alaska, in the Lower
48, or outside the U.S, such that the same verification that
identifies it as an electronic notarial action would be a
requirement. He said that he did not notice the omission but the
intent is for the process to be the same.
CHAIR COGHILL commented that the language needs to conform.
2:25:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN agreed with Mr. Bryan that it appears to
be a drafting oversight. He referred to page 5, noting there is
clearly a requirement in subsection (a) that an individual can
comply by using communication technology. He said a person could
not comply with this section without using communication
technology.
CHAIR COGHILL referred to page 6, lines 16-18, which read, "(2)
the notary public is able reasonably to confirm that a record
before the notary public is the same record in which the
remotely located individual made a statement or on which the
individual executed a signature;". He mentioned the language in
paragraph (B) and questioned whether he was missing the point.
2:26:15 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE restated that a foreign individual must state
on the record that the notarial act involved the use of
communication technology but that doesn't seem to be required
for a domestic notarial act. He said he didn't understand why
more would be required for a foreign transaction than a domestic
transaction because the notary wouldn't necessarily know the
identity of someone in the next town any more than one located
on the other side of the world.
2:27:03 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said his reading was slightly different. The
section related to remotely located individuals located outside
of the U.S. is found [on page 6], Sec. 44.50.075](b)(4), which
has its own subparagraphs (A) and (B). The statement that the
notarial act was performed using communication technology is
located in [Sec. 44.50.075](c). He said we jumped from
subsection (b)(4)(B) to subsection (c) and he believes
subsection (c) applies to all notarial acts performed remotely.
2:27:50 PM
CHAIR COGHILL suggested asking the Legislative Legal drafter to
review the language in Sec. 44.50.075.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN acknowledged that Senator Kiehl had a
point. The language on page 5, line 29 says that complying with
the law would be under AS 44.50.062(5)(A). The language on page
6, line 6, under subsection (b)[(1)(B)], also says complying
with the law would be under AS 44.50.062(5)(A). But the language
in subsection (c) on page 7 talks about a notarial act under AS
44.50.060, which is a slightly different statute.
He referred to Sec. 44.50.062(5)(A) starting on page 3 that has
to do with the signature and Sec. 44.50.060 on page 3 that
applies to the foreign notarization and opined that the
distinction between the foreign and the domestic notarial
transactions is that each one references a different section of
statute.
CHAIR COGHILL related his understanding that AS 44.50.060
relates to the duties of a notary public. The new section would
add language to certify that the tangible copy is accurate.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN agreed.
2:30:03 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he believes that Senator Kiehl is correct.
In Section 10, subsection (a) states that a remotely located
individual may comply with AS 44.50.062(5)(A) by using
communication technology to appear before a notary public.
Subsection (b), beginning on page 5, line 31, includes
substantial language but separates out the foreign located
individual. Subsection (c) [on page 7 lines 1-4] is still part
of Section 10, and it applies to foreign and domestic
transactions. He said he was satisfied that all notarial actions
that would be performed electronically using communication
technology will require that statement.
2:31:02 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Bryan if he agreed.
MR. BRYAN responded that he was not able to track the cites, but
he agreed that [requiring that statement for all transactions]
was the intention.
2:32:08 PM
SENATOR HUGHES said she was satisfied with the bill.
2:32:11 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said she too was satisfied with the bill.
2:32:23 PM
CHAIR COGHILL solicited a motion.
SENATOR MICCICHE said that he does not have any concern with the
bill and he supports electronic conveyance of notarization.
2:32:59 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to report HB 124, work order 31-LS0627\S,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached zero
fiscal note(s).
CHAIR COGHILL found no objection and SSHB 124 was reported from
the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:33:26 PM
At-ease.
SB 8-ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
2:35:01 PM
CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 8, "An Act restricting the
release of certain records of convictions; amending Rule 37.6,
Alaska Rules of Administration; and providing for an effective
date." [The committee adopted Version S as the working document
during the 3/16/20 hearing.]
2:35:11 PM
MERCEDES COLBERT, Staff, Senator Tom Begich, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced herself.
2:35:45 PM
At-ease.
2:36:18 PM
CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting.
2:37:02 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt Amendment 1, S.4.
31-LS0208\S.4
Radford
3/16/20
A M E N D M E N T 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR MICCICHE
TO: CSSB 8(JUD), Draft Version "S"
Page 3, line 8:
Delete "a new section"
Insert "new sections"
Page 3, following line 8:
Insert a new section to read:
"Sec. 22.35.035. Records concerning minor
offenses. (a) The Alaska Court System may not publish
on a publicly available website a court record of a
minor offense case if
(1) 10 years have elapsed since the final
disposition of the case; and
(2) the only charges filed in that case
were minor offense charges.
(b) This section does not apply to a case in
which a criminal offense is charged along with a minor
offense.
(c) In this section, "minor offense" means
(1) an offense classified by statute as an
infraction or a violation;
(2) an offense for which a bail forfeiture
amount has been authorized by statute and established
by supreme court order;
(3) a municipal motor vehicle or traffic
offense for which a fine amount has been established
in a fine schedule adopted by municipal ordinance
under AS 28.05.151;
(4) an offense under a statute or municipal
ordinance for which a conviction cannot result in
incarceration or the loss of a valuable license and
for which a fine schedule has been established under
AS 29.25.070(a);
(5) an offense under a statute or municipal
ordinance for which a conviction cannot result in
incarceration, a fine greater than $1,000, or the loss
of a valuable license;
(6) a violation of a fish and game
regulation charged as a strict liability offense; or
(7) a commercial fishing offense listed in
AS 16.05.722 charged as a strict liability offense."
CHAIR COGHILL objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR MICCICHE said this is a philosophical point for him. The
bill would restrict the release of certain records of
convictions for the simple possession of marijuana when no other
crime was committed. However, there was no way to legally obtain
marijuana, which means the person had to break two laws:
purchasing the marijuana from a drug dealer or friend and using
the substance. He said that he understands the purpose of the
bill and thinks he can support it. However, it seems ironic that
the convictions will be removed from CourtView because the
person broke at least one law to acquire the marijuana and
simple violations remain on CourtView forever.
He related his understanding that the sponsor does not object to
Amendment 1, which if 10 years have elapsed since the final
disposition, [the Alaska Court System] may not publish on
CourtView the minor offense as listed in subsection (c)], which
he summarized. He related his understanding that a person could
still obtain the information from the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) but it would not be listed on CourtView.
2:40:17 PM
MS. COLBERT stated that Senator Begich was neutral on Amendment
1 and asked the record to reflect that he had some minor
offenses that were at least 10 years old that would be subject
to Amendment 1. She said Senator Begich did due diligence by
checking with Legislative Legal Services and the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics to ensure that no issue arose.
Ultimately, because so many Alaskans would benefit, he would not
benefit any more than anyone else.
2:41:05 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked the record to reflect that he also had
minor offenses that were more than ten years old.
CHAIR COGHILL remarked that some people, including himself, did
not get caught committing minor offenses.
SENATOR KIEHL agreed.
2:41:34 PM
SENATOR HUGHES said she might have a speeding ticket that would
be removed if SB 8 passes. She asked how labor intensive this
would be for the court system and if it would trigger a fiscal
note. She asked if the term "valuable license" was defined in
statute.
2:42:35 PM
CHAIR COGHILL deferred to Senator Micciche and Nancy Meade with
the Alaska Court System to respond.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he asked the questions because he would
not have supported the bill if it was burdensome. He deferred to
Nancy Meade to further respond.
2:43:15 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Offices, Alaska
Court System, Anchorage, Alaska, confirmed that the Alaska Court
System can remove those 10-year-old minor offenses without a
fiscal impact. She estimated that it would take 20 hours to
write the program and do a daily run. The court system can do
this with existing resources. The bill has an extended effective
date so it would not result in any impact. She advised that the
language on page 1, line 14 of Amendment 1, subsection (c),
defines "minor offense." This language mirrors the Alaska Court
System's definition of minor offense, which is found at the
beginning of the court system's rules of minor offense
procedures. Under the bill, the statute and rule would be the
same so there should not be any confusion.
2:45:06 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE related his understanding that a "valuable
license" would be if a person lost a license.
MS. MEADE referred to lines 21-23 [paragraph (4)]. She said the
offense cannot result in the loss of a license, because a
conviction that results in the loss of a license escalates to
something more than a minor offense. This provision ensures that
only the offenses not subject to harsh punishment, such as
taking away a person's license, are minor offenses.
2:46:13 PM
SENATOR HUGHES observed that there were different types of
licenses and asked how the term "valuable" was defined and who
would make the determination.
MS. MEADE said she didn't know which particular licenses were
described as valuable, but she recalled that it included a
professional license. For example, if a conviction caused a
person to lose his or her medical license, the status of the
offense would elevate to more criminal than minor. She said
valuable license is not defined, but the language is taken from
a court decision related to minor consuming. The court
determined that when a minor lost his or her driver's license,
it was the loss of a valuable license. Therefore, minor
consuming alcohol could not be considered a minor offense. She
pointed out that has subsequently been changed since minor
consuming currently is a violation and the individual does not
lose his or her driver's license. She explained that once an
individual can lose his or her license, the person has more at
stake, so the court does not consider it to be a minor offense.
2:48:12 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said she did not support the bill or Amendment
1.
MS. MEADE said the Alaska Court System was neutral on the bill.
2:48:54 PM
CHAIR COGHILL removed his objection.
SENATOR REINBOLD objected.
2:49:19 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Kiehl, Hughes, Micciche,
and Coghill voted in favor of Amendment 1 and Senator Reinbold
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a 4:1
vote.
2:50:15 PM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to adopt Amendment 2, S.5.
31-LS0208\S.5
Radford
3/20/20
A M E N D M E N T 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES
TO: CSSB 8(JUD), Draft Version "S"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "certain types of criminal history
background checks"
Insert "publication on a publicly available
Internet website"
Page 1, line 12, through page 3, line 7:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, line 10, following "possession.":
Insert "(a)"
Page 3, following line 17:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) The Alaska Court System shall
(1) issue a notice on its publicly
available Internet website that court records under
(a) of this section have been removed from the
publicly available Internet website; and
(2) provide information on how to obtain a
criminal history record that includes the information
removed under (a) of this section."
CHAIR COGHILL objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR HUGHES explained that Amendment 2 maintains the focus on
removal of the records from CourtView but would not keep the
Department of Public Safety from releasing the record. It also
directs the court system to add a notice on its homepage that
certain conviction records may have been removed. A link would
inform the party how to obtain a full record from the
department.
She said she had compassion for people who were trying to find
work and had taken ownership of their mistakes. She also
believes that the legislature should do what it can to ensure
that prior offenders remain ex-offenders and not repeat
offenders. However, as Senator Micciche pointed out, possession
of marijuana was illegal when the person was initially charged
and convicted and for the state to disregard that someone broke
the law makes it an accomplice in a lie of omission. She
elaborated that purchasing marijuana would have been an illegal
black market purchase unless the person grew his or her own
marijuana.
SENATOR HUGHES said she was not endorsing or opposing the voter
initiative with Amendment 2, but rather asking if the state
should participate in hiding the person's crime. It would set
bad precedent, she said. Potential employers need to know that
their applicants have the highest regard for the law. She
speculated on who might want to know about the conviction and
offered her view that Amendment 2 was a fair compromise. It
allows the record to be removed from CourtView, but it informs
the public that some records may have been removed and provides
instructions on how to obtain a full record. She maintained that
it would still assist the bill sponsor with his efforts to help
Alaskans who have a history of past marijuana possession to find
meaningful employment. She offered her view that Amendment 2 did
not hurt the spirit or goal of SB 8.
2:54:53 PM
CHAIR COGHILL maintained his objection and asked the bill
sponsor to speak to Amendment 2.
2:55:03 PM
SENATOR BEGICH stated that Amendment 2 effectively renders the
bill meaningless. He disagreed that it was a compromise. He
explained the intent of SB 8 is consistent with actions being
taken throughout the nation. For example, Chicago has taken
similar actions that potentially affect millions of people. He
acknowledged that possession or use of marijuana used to be a
crime, but it is not a crime today. He pointed out that in
Virginia it was a crime just a few decades ago to marry someone
not of the same race. A person could not vote under the age of
21 until the U.S. Constitution was changed to allow it. He said
society is changing and evolving. He said that he defers to the
will of the committee but appreciated the opportunity to comment
on Amendment 2.
2:57:51 PM
SENATOR HUGHES respectfully disagreed with the bill sponsor that
Amendment 2 would harm the bill. She offered her view that it
would still help achieve the goal of the bill. She thought it
would be rare that someone would take the extra steps to go to
the Department of Public Safety to obtain additional information
on any minor offenses. Even if someone did and saw that the
person had been convicted of possession of marijuana, everyone
knows that it is legal now. She offered her view that removing
it from CourtView signals that it is no longer a law. She
offered her view that a small number of people will be impacted
by this and they would still be able to obtain jobs.
2:59:20 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD stated support for Amendment 2 and remarked
that she did not agree with the comparisons the bill sponsor
made since not everyone agrees that legalization of the
possession of marijuana is a positive or beneficial change.
3:00:21 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he had additional comments but the
committee time was over.
CHAIR COGHILL held SB 8 in committee with Amendment 2 pending.
3:01:04 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Coghill adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 124 Sponsor Statement v. S 2.20.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2020 1:00:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Explanation of Changes v. A to v. S 2.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2020 1:00:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Sectional Analysis v. S 2.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2020 1:00:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Supporting Document - Letters Receieved by 2.21.2020.pdf |
HJUD 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2020 1:00:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| HB 124 Fiscal Note DNR 2.28.20.PDF |
SJUD 3/20/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 124 |
| SB 8 Support Letter - AMIA - 2.25.20.pdf |
SJUD 3/18/2020 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/20/2020 1:30:00 PM |
SB 8 |
| SB 8 Amendment S.4 3.20.20.pdf |
SJUD 3/20/2020 1:30:00 PM |
SB 8 |
| SB 8 Amendment S.5 3.20.20.pdf |
SJUD 3/20/2020 1:30:00 PM |
SB 8 |