02/02/2022 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB119 | |
| HB155 | |
| HB3 | |
| SB31 | |
| SB129 | |
| SB118 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 2, 2022
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Roger Holland, Chair
Senator Mike Shower, Vice Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Robert Myers
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 119
"An Act relating to oaths of office; and requiring public
officers to read the state constitution, the Declaration of
Independence, and the United States Constitution."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 155
"An Act relating to court-appointed visitors and experts;
relating to the powers and duties of the office of public
advocacy; relating to the powers and duties of the Alaska Court
System; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 3(JUD)
"An Act relating to the definition of 'disaster.'"
- MOVED SCS CSHB 3(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 31
"An Act relating to binding votes by or for a legislator under
the Legislative Ethics Act."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 129
"An Act relating to information on judicial officers provided in
election pamphlets."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 118
"An Act establishing the committee on nullification of federal
laws; and providing a directive to the lieutenant governor."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 119
SHORT TITLE: OATH OF OFFICE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) REINBOLD
04/07/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/07/21 (S) EDC, JUD, STA, FIN
04/23/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/23/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/23/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
04/28/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/28/21 (S) Moved CSSB 119(EDC) Out of Committee
04/28/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
04/30/21 (S) EDC RPT CS 4DP 1NR SAME TITLE
04/30/21 (S) DP: HOLLAND, HUGHES, STEVENS, MICCICHE
04/30/21 (S) NR: BEGICH
04/30/21 (S) FIN REFERRAL REMOVED
04/30/21 (S) CRA REFERRAL ADDED AFTER EDC
05/11/21 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
05/11/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/13/21 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
05/13/21 (S) Moved CSSB 119(EDC) Out of Committee
05/13/21 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
05/14/21 (S) CRA RPT 1DP 1DNP 2NR
05/14/21 (S) DP: HUGHES
05/14/21 (S) DNP: GRAY-JACKSON
05/14/21 (S) NR: MYERS, WILSON
01/31/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/31/22 (S) Heard & Held
01/31/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/02/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 155
SHORT TITLE: COURT SYSTEM PROVIDE VISITORS & EXPERTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TUCK
03/29/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/21 (H) JUD, FIN
04/05/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/05/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/05/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/07/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/07/21 (H) Moved HB 155 Out of Committee
04/07/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/09/21 (H) JUD RPT 4DP 3NR
04/09/21 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS, DRUMMOND, SNYDER,
CLAMAN
04/09/21 (H) NR: EASTMAN, VANCE, KURKA
05/05/21 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM ADAMS 519
05/05/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/05/21 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/06/21 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM ADAMS 519
05/06/21 (H) Moved HB 155 Out of Committee
05/06/21 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/07/21 (H) FIN RPT 7DP 2NR
05/07/21 (H) DP: ORTIZ, EDGMON, LEBON, THOMPSON,
WOOL, JOSEPHSON, MERRICK
05/07/21 (H) NR: CARPENTER, RASMUSSEN
05/13/21 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
05/13/21 (H) VERSION: HB 155
05/14/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/14/21 (S) JUD, FIN
01/28/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/28/22 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
01/31/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/31/22 (S) Heard & Held
01/31/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/02/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 3
SHORT TITLE: DEFINITION OF "DISASTER": CYBERSECURITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHNSON
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, JUD
02/23/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/23/21 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/02/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/02/21 (H) Moved CSHB 3(STA) Out of Committee
03/02/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/21 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 1DP 1NR 5AM
03/08/21 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS
03/08/21 (H) NR: TARR
03/08/21 (H) AM: CLAMAN, STORY, EASTMAN, VANCE,
KAUFMAN
03/10/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/10/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/10/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/15/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/17/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/17/21 (H) Moved CSHB 3(JUD) Out of Committee
03/17/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/19/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/19/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/20/21 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 5DP 2AM
03/20/21 (H) DP: VANCE, DRUMMOND, KREISS-TOMKINS,
SNYDER, CLAMAN
03/20/21 (H) AM: EASTMAN, KURKA
04/19/21 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/19/21 (H) VERSION: CSHB 3(JUD)
04/21/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/21 (S) STA, JUD
04/26/21 (S) MOTION TO WAIVE PUBLICATION NOTICE,
RULE 23 FAILED Y12 N7 E1
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/04/21 (S) Heard & Held
05/04/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/06/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/06/21 (S) Moved CSHB 3(JUD) Out of Committee
05/06/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/07/21 (S) STA RPT 2DP 1NR 1AM
05/07/21 (S) NR: SHOWER
05/07/21 (S) DP: HOLLAND, COSTELLO
05/07/21 (S) AM: REINBOLD
05/12/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/12/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
05/14/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/14/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
01/28/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/28/22 (S) Heard & Held
01/28/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/02/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 31
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBITING BINDING CAUCUSES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) SHOWER
01/25/21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
01/25/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/21 (S) STA, JUD
03/18/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/18/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/18/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/04/21 (S) Moved CSSB 31(STA) Out of Committee
05/04/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/07/21 (S) STA RPT CS 2DP 2NR 1AM SAME TITLE
05/07/21 (S) DP: SHOWER, REINBOLD
05/07/21 (S) NR: COSTELLO, HOLLAND
05/07/21 (S) AM: KAWASAKI
05/10/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/10/21 (S) Heard & Held
05/10/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/02/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 129
SHORT TITLE: ELECTION PAMPHLET INFORMATION RE: JUDGES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MYERS
04/21/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/21 (S) JUD, STA
05/05/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/05/21 (S) Heard & Held
05/05/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/12/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/12/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
05/14/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/14/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
01/28/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/28/22 (S) Heard & Held
01/28/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
01/31/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/31/22 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
02/02/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 118
SHORT TITLE: CMTE ON NULLIFICATION OF FEDERAL LAWS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) REINBOLD
04/07/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/07/21 (S) STA, JUD
04/13/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/13/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/13/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/04/21 (S) Moved SB 118 Out of Committee
05/04/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/07/21 (S) STA RPT 1DP 4NR
05/07/21 (S) NR: SHOWER, COSTELLO, KAWASAKI, HOLLAND
05/07/21 (S) DP: REINBOLD
05/14/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/14/21 (S) -- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
02/02/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
GREGG BRELSFORD, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 3.
REPRESENTATIVE DELENA JOHNSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 3.
CHRIS LETTERMAN, Chief Information Security Officer
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on Amendment 1 to HB 3
defining "serious cyber incident."
MIKE COONS, representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 31 because a
binding caucus disenfranchised voters in his district.
CLAIRE RADFORD, Attorney
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on the title change for
SB 129.
KELLI TOTH, Staff
Senator Lora Reinbold
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 118 and the sectional analysis
on behalf of the sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:13 PM
CHAIR ROGER HOLLAND called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kiehl, Myers, Hughes, and Chair Holland.
Senator Shower arrived shortly thereafter.
SB 119-OATH OF OFFICE
1:34:06 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 119
"An Act relating to oaths of office; and requiring public
officers to read the state constitution, the Declaration of
Independence, and the United States Constitution."
[CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 119(EDC) was before the committee. The
committee previously heard SB 119 on January 31, 2022.]
1:34:26 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND opened public testimony on SB 119; finding none,
he closed public testimony on SB 119.
SENATOR SHOWER joined the committee.
1:34:54 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 119 in committee.
HB 155-COURT SYSTEM PROVIDE VISITORS & EXPERTS
1:34:59 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of HOUSE BILL NO. 155
"An Act relating to court-appointed visitors and experts;
relating to the powers and duties of the office of public
advocacy; relating to the powers and duties of the Alaska Court
System; and providing for an effective date."
[The committee previously heard HB 155 on January 31, 2022.]
1:35:20 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND opened public testimony; finding none, he closed
public testimony on HB 155.
1:36:04 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held HB 155 in committee.
HB 3-DEFINITION OF "DISASTER": CYBERSECURITY
1:36:08 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL
NO. 3(JUD) "An Act relating to the definition of 'disaster.'"
[The committee previously heard HB 3 on January 28, 2022.]
1:36:21 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND opened public testimony on HB 3.
1:37:05 PM
GREGG BRELSFORD, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in
support of HB 3. He provided his background, including that he
previously served as the borough manager for the Bristol Bay
Borough (BBB) from 2018 to 2020 and as the interim city manager
for the City of Dillingham in 2021. He emphasized the importance
of HB 3 since it would expand the existing state law definition
of disaster to include cyber attacks.
1:38:44 PM
Mr. BRELSFORD related that he was BBB's manager when cyber
terrorists made ransom demands against the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough (MSB) and the City of Valdez. This was a wake-up call to
Alaskan communities and the Alaska Municipal League due to the
potential harm cyber attacks could cause. The Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS) and the Alaska Court System
(ACS) also suffered damaging cyber attacks last year. He said
increases in cyber attacks represent a serious concern
throughout the state. HB 3 would provide a reasonable and timely
response by recognizing the scope and seriousness of cyber
attack risks and threats. The bill would allow the state's
system to respond to cyber attacks quickly.
1:39:53 PM
MR. BRELSFORD suggested the committee consider adding the
language "or a political subdivision of the state" to line to
subparagraph (F) on page 2, line 31. He stated that the language
beginning on line 29 would read:
"...; in this subparagraph, "critical infrastructure"
means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual,
so vital to the state or a political subdivision of
the state that the incapacity or destruction of the
systems and assets would have a debilitating effect on
security, state economic security, state public health
or safety, or any combination of those matters;
1:40:43 PM
MR. BRELSFORD explained that all of the proposed preceding
language explicitly reads "or a political subdivision of the
state." He said adding this language to subparagraph (F) would
provide continuity and clarity.
MR. BRELSFORD acknowledged that some people might be concerned
that adding "cyber attack" to the definition of disaster would
expand the governor's power. First, he opined that HB 3 would
not do so because it would merely clarify that the state could
exercise its power to address one of the newest threats to
governmental operations. Second, as borough manager, he served
as the COVID-19 incident commander of the two largest municipal
governments in Bristol Bay during the first two years of COVID-
19. For one month, about 10,000 fishery workers and fishermen
descended into Bristol Bay from all over the world for the
commercial sockeye salmon fishery.
MR. BRELSFORD related that for two summers, Bristol Bay became
the hottest COVID-19 risk zone in the state. His staff worked
with the executive branch's disaster policy cabinet, including
the Alaska Department of Military & Veterans Affairs (DMVA)
Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. He
characterized the executive branch's efforts as competent,
tireless, and working in good faith with the BBB and others in
the state to jointly mitigate COVID-19 risks and threats. Based
on his first-hand experience, he was not concerned that the
executive branch might misuse its already existing disaster
response capabilities.
1:43:43 PM
SENATOR HUGHES referred to page 2, line 31 of HB 3, Version W,
and asked if his suggestion was to add "or political
subdivision" after "state."
MR. BRELSFORD restated his suggested language. On page 2, line
31 of HB 3, Version W, after state, add, "or a political
subdivision of the state ...."
SENATOR HUGHES noted the language uses the phrase "or a
political subdivision of the state ...." She asked whether this
language should also be added to the last page of the bill
regarding the debilitating effect. She noted that Mr. Brelsford
mentioned the Valdez cyber security attack was an attack of a
political subdivision rather than the state.
MR. BRELSFORD agreed with Senator Hughes. He acknowledged that
he considered it, decided that adding the language on page 2,
line 31 would cover it, but now he was unsure. He emphasized
that the goal was to ensure the expanded definition in the bill
would apply to the state and to a political subdivision of the
state.
SENATOR HUGHES suggested that the sponsor or cybersecurity
expert might help the committee sort through this issue.
1:46:00 PM
SENATOR KIEHL recalled speaking with Legislative Legal attorneys
and perhaps the sponsor when the committee considered the bill
last year. He explained that the mentioned provisions relate to
a cyber attack's effect on the state. He referred to the
language on page 2, line 3, "in or against the state ...."
Subsequent language in subparagraph (F) refers to the systems
owned or operated by the state. Thus, subparagraph (F) speaks
not to state systems but to the cyber attack's effect on those
systems. Since subparagraph (F) refers to the broader use of
state, it is comparable to the language on page 2, line [3].
Therefore, he said he believes the language is acceptable.
1:47:16 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND closed public testimony on HB 3.
1:47:20 PM
At ease
1:48:17 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting. He related that Senator
Kiehl explained that the language in the bill refers to the all-
encompassing state, so it would not be necessary to add language
to have it apply to a political subdivision.
1:48:42 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether the sponsor was comfortable that
the language in the bill would ensure that the state's economic
security or state's public health or safety would also apply to
a political subdivision.
1:49:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DELENA JOHNSON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, speaking as sponsor of HB 3, stated that she worked with
the Alaska Municipal League on the language related to a
political subdivision. She related her understanding that when
the bill refers to the state, it means the all-encompassing
state. When the bill refers to political subdivisions, it means
the state's oversight and administration of the political
subdivisions, including cities or municipalities.
1:50:22 PM
SENATOR HUGHES referred to page 2, line 31, to the language
"vital to the state ..." She referred to the language on page 3,
line 1, "would have a debilitating effect" and interpreted it to
mean that it could specifically refer to one borough of the
state being affected. She asked if HB 3 had been in effect when
MSB experienced the cybersecurity attack, whether it would have
allowed a disaster declaration to move forward.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON answered yes. She explained that if a
cyber attack were widespread and critical, it would apply. Even
though the cyber attack affecting the Mat-Su Borough was
widespread and debilitating, lasting for months, the borough
could not independently ask the FBI to investigate the
cybersecurity attack. Eventually, the FBI became involved.
Still, suppose the disaster declaration statute had referred to
a political subdivision. In that case, MSB could have worked
directly with the FBI instead of resorting to a much more
complicated process to get assistance.
1:52:50 PM
SENATOR HUGHES stated that based on the discussion, she
understood that the language on page 2, line 31, and page 3,
line 1 included a political subdivision of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON reiterated that she worked with the
legislative drafters and the Alaska Municipal League to develop
this language. She said she was unsure whether it would be
harmful to add the language but decided that as long as the
record reflects that this language would apply to a political
subdivision of the state, the committee has done its due
diligence.
1:54:23 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND solicited amendments on HB 3.
1:54:30 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 32-
LS20041.W.8.
32-LS0041\W.8
Dunmire
5/11/21
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR KIEHL
TO: CSHB 3(JUD)
Page 2, line 17, following "attack":
Insert "or serious cyber incident"
Page 2, line 22:
Delete "cyber event"
Insert "serious cyber incident"
Page 2, line 29, through page 3, line 2:
Delete ""critical infrastructure" means systems
and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to
the state that the incapacity or destruction of the
systems and assets would have a debilitating effect on
security, state economic security, state public health
or safety, or any combination of those matters;"
Insert "(i) "critical infrastructure" means
systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so
vital to the state that the incapacity or destruction
of the systems and assets would have a debilitating
effect on security, state economic security, state
public health or safety, or any combination of those
matters;
(ii) "serious cyber incident" means an
incident that has a confirmed effect on the
confidentiality, integrity, or availability of systems
and data, has legal or privacy implications, affects
other agencies, or requires security experience or
resources not otherwise available;"
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.
1:55:00 PM
SENATOR KIEHL related that the bill addresses cyber attacks and
cyber events. Amendment 1 would delete "cyber event" and replace
it with "serious cyber incident" and define it. He explained
that the National Institute for Standards and Technology and the
federal General Services Administration have definitions for
"serious cyber incidents." He related that the bill would define
both terms, consistent with federal agency definitions. He said
the sponsor did not object. He reminded members that a cyber
attack or serious incident must meet the current statutory
definition of a disaster. He referred to page 1, lines 4-5 of HB
3, which read, "(2) "disaster" means the occurrence or imminent
threat of widespread or severe damage, injury, loss of life or
property, or shortage of food, water, or fuel resulting from
...." He said the definition of "cyber incident" means "an
incident that has a confirmed effect on the confidentiality,
integrity, or availability of systems and data ...." He
cautioned that this definition would not apply to a personal
account being hacked or if BASIS were to go down and the
legislature could not use it.
1:56:29 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked the sponsor to state their view of
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE D. JOHNSON said that she was "okay" with
Amendment 1; the definition would add clarification.
1:57:52 PM
CHRIS LETTERMAN, Chief Information Security Officer, Department
of Administration, Juneau, Alaska, stated that the
administration reviewed Amendment 1 and did not have any
concerns. He said Amendment 1 provides helpful, clarifying
language.
1:58:42 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND removed his objection; heard no further objection,
and Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:59:05 PM
SENATOR MYERS stated that he was initially skeptical when HB 3
was brought to the committee, since the Alaska Disaster Act has
such broad powers. He wondered how to constrain the language to
ensure that it only applies to events that warranted a disaster
declaration, including a pipeline, electrical grid, or a bank
attack that disabled those systems. In the past 24 months, the
Division of Elections and the Alaska Court System suffered
terrible attacks but they did not rise to a disaster declaration
level. He acknowledged that his concerns were not related to HB
3 but to the Alaska Disaster Act, which should be updated. He
recognized that such an undertaking would likely not happen this
year. Still, he said it was important to remember that disaster
declarations must be applied appropriately.
2:01:20 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND solicited the will of the committee.
2:01:29 PM
SENATOR SHOWER moved to report HB 3, work order 31-LS0041\W, as
amended, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal notes.
CHAIR HOLLAND heard no objection, and SCS CSHB 3(JUD) was
reported from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:01:51 PM
At ease
SB 31-PROHIBITING BINDING CAUCUSES
2:04:08 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 31 "An Act relating to binding
votes by or for a legislator under the Legislative Ethics Act."
[The committee substitute (CS) for SB 31(STA) was before the
committee. SB 31 was previously heard on May 10, 2021.]
2:04:31 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated that he introduced SB 31 because he and
several legislators suffered painful experiences in this body.
He explained that the Alaska legislature has a binding caucus
rule. Members who wish to join a caucus must agree to vote for
all budgets and procedural rulings by the presiding officer or
be punished. He said procedural votes can be used to shut down
political opponents. For example, he said he was punished for
his debate speech when he chose to represent his constituents
instead of the caucus or leadership team. He argued that this
happened even though freedom of speech is a protected right.
SENATOR SHOWER related that Alaska statutes established felony
penalties for anyone who causes an elected official to vote for
something or to withhold their vote. Surprisingly, Alaska has
had a binding caucus for decades, which does not make sense to
him since legislators should only be accountable to their
constituents.
SENATOR SHOWER said he spoke to legislators in every state about
his experience with the binding caucus, except one state that
responded by email. He found that every legislator thought
binding caucuses were unconstitutional or objectionable. He
wondered if Alaska's system was unethical, immoral, or illegal.
He recalled that Mississippi or Missouri's oath of office states
that "they will not vote for or against" certain things. He said
he believes that the binding caucus forces legislators to make a
choice, even a wrong choice, if they must vote against their
constituents to fulfill the binding caucus. He introduced SB 31
so legislators could not be coerced into agreeing to vote in
exchange for something. Instead, Alaska will operate as other
states do. It would codify in statute that binding caucuses are
prohibited, and legislators cannot be forced into these
agreements.
2:09:58 PM
SENATOR HUGHES recalled from a previous hearing on SB 31 that
violations would be considered violations against the Ethic's
Act. Since the language states "may not commit or bind," she
asked if this meant legislators who joined a caucus were binding
other legislators. She wondered whether there could be multiple
Ethic's Act violations occurring, and if so, what penalties
would apply for legislators joining a caucus.
SENATOR SHOWER said he initially thought the bill should impose
a felony since penalties for bribery or coercion of a public
official in Alaska are felonies. He characterized the
repercussions for not adhering to the binding caucus as
stressful. Not only did it affect legislators, but staff could
lose their positions since leadership allots personal and
committee staff. Furthermore, the legislature cannot bind a
future legislature, yet binding caucuses bind legislators. He
offered his view that a bad person could abuse that power.
Although he is not locked into specific penalties, he thought
consequences should be imposed, and he was open to the
committee's suggestions.
2:12:27 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked for the current penalties related to
violations of the ethics statutes to help determine the penalty
provisions in SB 31.
2:12:57 PM
SENATOR SHOWER said he was unsure. He noted that he had
encountered some resistance to imposing a felony or other
criminal penalty. Others thought it might hamper the
legislature's ability to conduct business. Further, the courts
have ruled that the legislature does not need to follow the
statutes. He emphasized the importance of having some penalty;
otherwise, he thought people would continue to require binding
caucuses.
2:13:58 PM
SENATOR HUGHES expressed an interest in the short answer on
punishment for violating the Ethics Act.
2:14:18 PM
At ease
2:21:51 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.
2:15:23 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said he was torn because he was not a fan of
binding caucuses and did not join one. He indicated he would
like a deeper understanding of the binding caucus. He wondered
if it meant that Senator X could not speak to the Senate State
Affairs Standing Committee chair and say that if their amendment
passed, they would vote for it on the floor, but if not, they
would vote no. He asked whether that would be illegal.
SENATOR SHOWER offered his view that what he described was
already illegal.
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that that was not the
case since his scenario discussed the policy implication of an
amendment regarding where a member stands on a piece of
legislation.
2:16:27 PM
SENATOR SHOWER posited that this was splitting hairs.
CHAIR HOLLAND agreed.
SENATOR SHOWER offered to research it further. He agreed that
Senator Kiehl's scenario would not apply. He stated that the
bill does not limit discussion between members on bills since
bills do not fall under binding caucuses. Instead, binding
caucuses are limited to budget appropriations and procedural
votes on the floor.
2:17:24 PM
SENATOR KIEHL was unsure that the language on page 1, lines 8-10
related to a binding caucus. He turned to violations. He agreed
that a handshake in advance of session about voting for the
budget or on a procedural motion would be a violation under this
bill. He asked about consequences afterwards that are
understood. He related that in other states, the understanding
is implicit that if a majority member votes against the budget,
and there wasn't a handshake, repercussions would still occur.
For example, these member's offices will be moved across the
street, and some staff will get pink slips. It just happens that
way. He asked how SB 31 will work if tradition determines the
outcome.
2:18:48 PM
SENATOR SHOWER acknowledged that unintended consequences could
happen. He said one thing he was attempting was to prevent the
formation of a caucus. He admitted it isn't possible to stop
humans from bad behavior. For example, murder is outlawed, yet
people are routinely murdered. However, he spoke against having
an organization that dictates how someone must vote. He
explained that SB 31 would ban binding caucuses for
organizational purposes, making it more difficult for a Senate
President or Rules Chair to punish a senator since leadership
would need to garner enough votes to expel or punish the
senator. Currently, the Senate President can make those
decisions, and legislators who join a binding caucus but do not
adhere to procedural votes or vote for the budget have no
recourse.
2:21:59 PM
SENATOR HUGHES stated that during the at-ease, the committee
agreed to have an attorney answer questions, including
identifying penalties for violations of the Ethics Act at a
subsequent hearing.
2:22:55 PM
SENATOR SHOWER solicited questions from members. He expressed a
willingness to work with members on the bill.
2:23:31 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND opened public testimony on SB 31.
2:23:59 PM
MIKE COONS, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, spoke in support
of SB 31 because a binding caucus disenfranchised the voters in
his district. He stated that Senators Shower, Hughes, and
Reinbold's constituents had their voices suppressed due to the
binding caucus. As a result, tens of thousands of voices in the
community were not heard. He offered his support for SB 31. It
reminded him of the reaction when a bill was before the
legislature that allowed for concealed carry weapons. Some
people thought it would create the Wild West, but it has not.
Some arguments for retaining a binding caucus were cohesiveness
when passing the budget or a procedural vote because otherwise,
Alaska would be like the Wild West. However, that hasn't
happened. He said the current Senate does not have a binding
caucus, and while dissent and disagreement occur, people are not
silenced by a binding caucus. The House majority has a binding
caucus, and he has heard some members fear they will lose their
leadership positions if they don't abide by the caucus. He
offered his view that the Senate was exemplary. He stated that
SB 31 would create a clear means for all members to vote their
consciences and support their constituents without anyone
punishing them. He offered his support for establishing penalty
provisions, and if the legislature decided to institute felony
penalties, violators could be indicted and prosecuted.
2:27:51 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND closed public testimony on SB 31.
2:28:00 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 31 in committee.
SB 129-ELECTION PAMPHLET INFORMATION RE: JUDGES
2:28:05 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 129
"An Act relating to information on judicial officers provided in
election pamphlets."
[This was the third hearing for SB 129. The committee previously
heard SB 129 on May 5, 2021 and January 28, 2022. The committee
adopted a committee substitute (CS) for SB 129, Version O; and
public testimony was opened and closed on January 28, 2022.]
2:28:31 PM
SENATOR HUGHES stated that the first time a judge is up for a
retention election, the election pamphlet must include a list of
items. Currently, all judges must submit their business,
professional, and educational backgrounds. These judges do not
need to submit certain items during subsequent retention
elections. She recalled that the Alaska Judicial Council (AJC)
found that the relevancy of the experience diminishes over time.
However, if it is good to have the information initially, it
remains relevant because the voters may forget details about
them. She related her understanding that the voter turnover rate
is high. Thus, some voters may never have reviewed the
biographical information on judges seeking retention. Further,
it would standardize the information required. She asked the
sponsor to consider requiring the exact biographical details for
subsequent judicial retention elections.
2:31:00 PM
SENATOR MYERS responded that he made this change based on advice
from AJC. For example, judges are prohibited from participating
in partisan political events and running for political office.
He related that other things would still apply, including
education or continuing education. He explained that he was
balancing the applicability, relevant information, and space
available in election pamphlets. He wants to provide sufficient,
relevant information to allow voters to make decisions. Still,
providing too much information in the voter pamphlet could lead
to voters tuning out the information. For example, time spent as
a trial lawyer might not be relevant once a judge has spent
considerable time on the bench.
2:33:05 PM
SENATOR HUGHES offered her view that it is a fairness issue for
voters since they should view the same pertinent information.
SENATOR MYERS suggested that some voters might be prompted to
search for additional information. He noted that AJC retains
that information, maintains a website, and he hoped that the
election pamphlet would direct voters to the specific judicial
background information on AJC's website.
2:35:16 PM
At ease
2:35:42 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting. He asked about the reason
for the title change.
2:36:25 PM
CLAIRE RADFORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency Juneau, Alaska, responded that the
title was amended because Section 1 was added related to AS
15.58.030(g). This differs from the original version of the
bill.
2:36:59 PM
SENATOR HUGHES said she was still unsure why the title change
was necessary.
2:37:16 PM
MS. RADFORD read the previous title of SB 129, work order 32-
LS0751\B, "An Act relating to information on judicial officers
provided in election pamphlets." Section 1, AS 15.58.030(g) was
amended in Version O, related to the information a judge files.
The title was changed to "An Act relating to information on
judicial officers seeking retention in office." She stated that
the title change reflects the broader title.
2:38:35 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 129 in committee.
SB 118-CMTE ON NULLIFICATION OF FEDERAL LAWS
2:38:48 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 118
"An Act establishing the committee on nullification of federal
laws; and providing a directive to the lieutenant governor."
2:39:09 PM
KELLI TOTH, Staff, Senator Lora Reinbold, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented SB 118 on behalf of the
sponsor. She stated that this bill was previously heard in the
Senate State Affairs Committee, so some members may be familiar
with SB 118.
2:39:43 PM
MS. TOTH expressed concern about federal executive branch
overreach, putting the state's rights, state sovereignty, and
individual rights at risk. SB 118 would establish a committee on
Nullification of Federal Laws and provide a directive to the
lieutenant governor. She said upon receipt, the committee would
consider federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders and
recommend whether to nullify them in their entirety. The
committee shall consider whether the statute, regulation or
executive order is outside the scope of the powers delegated to
the federal government in the Constitution of the United States.
The committee may review existing federal statutes, regulations,
and executive orders and determine constitutionality and
recommend whether to nullify in its entirety specific federal
statutes, regulations, or executive orders. The committee would
recommend that the legislature nullify the federal action by
concurrent resolution.
2:40:59 PM
MS. TOTH related that if the legislature adopted a concurrent
resolution to nullify a federal statute, regulation, or
executive order based on constitutionality by a majority of the
membership of each house, the state and the citizens of the
state may not recognize or be obligated to abide by the federal
law or executive order.
2:41:25 PM
MS. TOTH stated that SB 118 would provide a directive to the
lieutenant governor to forward a copy of the enrolled version of
the bill to "the President of the United States, the president
of the United States Senate, the speaker of the United States
House of Representatives, and each member of the Alaska
congressional delegation."
2:41:54 PM
MS. TOTH, on behalf of the sponsor, paraphrased the sectional
analysis.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Section One: Establishes a committee on Nullification
of Federal Laws as a permanent interim committee of
the legislature composed of:
a. President of the senate, or the President's
designee
b. Six members of the senate appointed by the
president of the senate with no more than four members
being of the same political party.
c. The Speaker of the House of Representatives or the
speakers designee
d. Six members of the house of representatives
appointed by the speaker with not more than four
members being of the same political party. Section
Two: Adds a new section, Directive, the Lt. Governor
shall forward a copy of the enrolled version of this
bill to the President of the United Sates, the
President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of
the United States House of Representatives , and each
member of the Alaska congressional delegation.
2:42:49 PM
Section Two: Adds a new section, Directive, the Lt.
Governor shall forward a copy of the enrolled version
of this bill to the President of the United Sates, the
President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of
the United States House of Representatives , and each
member of the Alaska congressional delegation.
MS. TOTH, in closing, stated that the bill would preserve state
sovereignty.
2:43:03 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked if she would like to discuss the fiscal
notes.
MS. TOTH declined to review the fiscal notes at this time.
2:43:19 PM
SENATOR MYERS noted the membership of the proposed Committee on
Nullification of Federal Laws. He related that the legislature
is organized by coalitions rather than majority parties. He
asked why the bill uses political parties instead of majority
and minority caucuses as the Uniform Rules uses.
CHAIR HOLLAND related his understanding that she would like to
collect questions for the sponsor. He noted that she was welcome
to respond.
2:44:07 PM
MR. TOTH offered to collect questions for the sponsor.
2:44:13 PM
SENATOR SHOWER related that the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee would be considering a bill that speaks to that point.
He related that [SB 66], sponsored by Senator Begich, would
require committee membership of at least one member of the
minority of each house. He explained that the bill's essence is
to ensure that the minority has a voice.
2:44:51 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that he had several questions for the
sponsor. He directed attention to the task and scope of the task
for the bill. He explained that since WW II, Congress had passed
an average of 2 million words of new federal law each year. He
expressed concern about the Committee on Nullification of
Federal Law's ability to read all of the laws and regulations
and make recommendations. Further, he reported that the federal
government issues 3,000 to 4,000 new regulations published in
the Federal Register each year. He asked how many people would
need to be hired to accomplish it.
2:45:52 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referred to page 2, line 9, to subsection (f),
which read "Upon receipt of a federal statute ...." He was
unsure who would be submitting the documents and what it means
to process them.
2:46:33 PM
SENATOR KIEHL turned to policy questions. First, the US
Constitution has a supremacy clause. He was unsure how SB 118
would purport to bypass the supremacy clause. He noted that
members swore an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution.
Second, language on page 2, line 21, subsection (i) states that
if the legislature adopts a concurrent resolution to nullify a
federal statute, regulation, or executive order, the citizens of
the state may not recognize or be obligated to abide by the
federal law. He offered his view that the legislature would be
overstepping its authority.
2:48:01 PM
SENATOR MYERS pointed out that state and federal policy differs
regarding marijuana. He offered his belief that marijuana has
been legal in Alaska since 2014. The state has not been
challenged because the federal government has declined to
prosecute violations. However, if that changed and the federal
government decided to prosecute, he wondered how that would
affect Alaskans. The bill indicates that citizens could ignore
federal law, yet a federal agency, such as the Drug Enforcement
Agency (DEA), could still take action. He asked whether the
state would defend citizens in court or have a showdown between
the DEA and the Alaska State Troopers.
2:49:44 PM
SENATOR SHOWER offered his view that the federal government did
not have the resources to enforce laws, such as the marijuana
laws. One thing for the sponsor to consider is that the state
would decline to assist federal agents in enforcing federal
laws. He said the easiest way to address this would be to refuse
to provide funding.
2:51:09 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND agreed that other states have already taken that
approach.
2:51:17 PM
SENATOR HUGHES said she worked with then-Representative
Gruenberg, now deceased, on countermand amendment language. At
the time, the state questioned federal overreach and state's
rights when the federal government violated the 10th Amendment.
She recalled that approach required multiple states to agree on
federal overreach. She stated that the legislature would pass
resolutions related to overreach on resource development. She
asked how other states have addressed federal overreach.
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether the Committee on Nullification of
Federal Law would meet during the interim, identify overreach
issues, and put their recommendation into a concurrent
resolution for consideration by the full body.
2:53:40 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 118 in committee.
2:53:54 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Holland adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:53 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 119 Sponsor's Statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 119 |
| SB 119 Sectional Final.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 119 |
| SB 31 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 31 |
| SB 31 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 31 |
| HB 3 Amendment (SJUD).pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| SB 129 SJUD Amendment O.3.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 129 |
| SB 129 SJUD Amendment O.4.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 129 |
| SB 129 SJUD Amendment O.2.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 129 |
| SJC - SB 119 Testimony, 2022-2-1.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 119 |
| HB 3 Public Testimony.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| SB 119 SJUD Public Testimony through 2.12.22.pdf |
SJUD 2/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 119 |