HOUSE BILL NO. 3 "An Act relating to issuance of driver's licenses." 2:29:20 PM Vice-Chair Fairclough moved CSHB 3 (STA) 27-LS0010\X. REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, SPONSOR, explained that the bill was very different from legislation that had been introduced the previous session. Currently a person in the country with a passport, visa, or green card that expired the following day could still get a driver's license in Alaska that would last for five years. He explained that HB 3 would allow the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue a license that would match the term of the non-citizen's legal presence document. He stated that a visa that expired in six months time would mean that the driver's license would expire at the same time. THOMAS REIKER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, explained that the Department of Homeland Security was responsible for determining whether a foreign national could stay in the U.S. and that it was important to ensure that legislation would not contradict any ruling made by the federal government. The bill would put an end to the contradiction by allowing the DMV to issue driver's licenses for less than five years when the length of a person's authorized stay was less than five years. The legislation would ensure that a person's license would expire on the same date as their legal presence. A person who was authorized to stay in the U.S. indefinitely would have a license that expired in one year and it would require annual renewal until they received a definite length of legal stay. Annual renewal fees would be waived and applicants could renew by mail for up to five years to prevent an overly burdensome process for people who had an indefinite length of authorized stay. The bill did not include ID cards which were controlled by regulation. The DMV had sufficient statutory authority to change the ID cards and intended to match the terms that would be implemented for licenses under the legislation. He emphasized that the bill did not make changes to the application process for driver's licenses and did not require a person to offer proof of their authorized length of stay to obtain a license. However, a person who applied for a license with a visa, passport, or other immigration document would receive a license that was linked to the length of stay listed on the document. 2:34:20 PM Representative Wilson wondered how the license extension process would work by mail. Mr. Reiker responded that a person would need to be physically present when they applied for their initial license and that renewals could be done by mail. He believed that a copy of extension paperwork provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would be sufficient documentation for a license extension by mail. Representative Lynn clarified that the bill was primarily focused on visitors to the U.S., not immigrants. Representative Wilson asked whether a person that received an extension on their length of stay could provide the same paperwork repeatedly to obtain future extensions of their driver's license. Mr. Reiker confirmed that an applicant would be required to send in documentation that provided a new authorized length of stay or that extended the indefinite period. Representative Gara wondered whether a person could obtain a license if they had submitted a valid immigration application and were in Alaska because they were a victim of domestic violence. Representative Lynn responded that a person could obtain a driver's license for the period of time they were authorized to stay. An indefinite status would allow them to receive a license for a one-year period. Mr. Reiker agreed. Representative Gara communicated that a person with a pending application would not have obtained an authorized period of stay. Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the default was one year. Mr. Reiker replied that the term "indefinite" was slightly misleading. He explained that a more accurate word was "pending." A person would be able to obtain a license for one year if they could provide proof that they had applied for authorized stay status. In order to extend the license after the one-year period the person would have to provide proof that their status had been adjudicated. Representative Gara relayed that under the current bill only a person with an authorized stay would be permitted to obtain a driver's license. He believed the language would need to be changed if the goal was to include people who had a valid application underway. Mr. Reiker responded that the sponsor would be okay with changing the language from "indefinite" to "pending." He believed the change would address the concern that had been raised. Representative Gara explained that the language would also need to be amended to say something other than "authorized" because a pending application would mean that it had not yet been authorized. WHITNEY BREWSTER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), discussed that HB 3 allowed the DMV to promulgate regulations to shorten the length of time that it issued a driver's license for. The zero fiscal note reflected that the legislation would not impact the existing procedures of the DMV. The only change would be that the license would expire at a different time than the standard five-year period. Currently the DMV required proof of legal name, date of birth, resident address, and social security number (if one existed). Immigrants would typically present the DMV with a permanent resident card and international visitors typically provided a passport and accompanying visa. The documents were commonly seen at the DMV and under the legislation a license would expire at the time of the legal document expiration. She believed it was important to note that the DMV received and honored letters from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on a regular basis. The documents would continue to be honored by the division. She explained that there was a specific category for victims who were granted temporary legal stay while their cases were under investigation and that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and law enforcement were familiar with the process. She had met with the USCIS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement regarding the specific topic and felt satisfied that victims were protected and would not face immediate deportation. 2:43:39 PM Vice-Chair Fairclough believed she had attended the same meeting. Ms. Brewster replied in the affirmative. Vice-Chair Fairclough relayed that she had met with law enforcement and the federal government during the interim to discuss concerns she had expressed about the bill the prior session. She had been assured that a victim of domestic violence or sex trafficking would be given a valid residency status for a temporary period within 24 hours to 48 hours. She believed the particular issue had been sufficiently managed. She wondered why the State Affairs Committee had changed language in the bill from "shall" to "may." She also asked DOL about the definition of "indefinite" in regards to the bill. Mr. Reiker noted that DMV had some concern that the five- year length of time was laid out in statute and that the division was not authorized to promulgate regulations for driver's licenses. The sponsor did not want to be restrictive of DMV and decided that the bill should read "may" and not "shall." Representative Paul Seaton and others had expressed concerns that the bill would be overly burdensome on people with an indefinite or pending authorized stay. In order to address the concerns language had been included to allow the division to waive renewal fees and to enable people to complete the renewal process by mail. Vice-Chair Fairclough read from the original legislation, "If a period of authorized stay is indefinite the department may not issue the license with the validity of greater than a year." She explained that the original premise was for the DMV to have the ability to issue a license for anywhere up to a year and the current version of the legislation would give individuals a one-year license regardless of their length of stay in Alaska. Mr. Reiker replied that she was correct. Their office learned in a discussion with U.S. Immigration and Customs Services for the State of Alaska that the office provided 30-day to 90-day extensions to people with indefinite status. They did not want people in the middle of the process to be required to apply for a new license every 30 days. Additionally, they did not want the department to take on the cost of issuing a new license every 30 days. Vice-Chair Fairclough emphasized that the department had expressed its need for flexibility around its ability to determine the length of time a license would be issued. She thought the intent of the bill was to match licenses to other documentation. She was not opposed to the language and she did not want a person who had applied for a valid stay in the U.S. to have to go through a hurdle every 30 days and did not want to burden the department, however, a mandate that required the department to issue one-year licenses would deny the it flexibility. She repeated her earlier question to DOL regarding the definition of the term "indefinite" for the purposes of the legislation. 2:50:27 PM ERLING JOHANSEN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference), responded that in relation to the bill the term "indefinite" meant "non-finite" terms. A pending application and a continuing authorization were both examples of a non-finite term. Vice-Chair Fairclough remarked that for Webster's the term meant continuing on and on, which was different than the definition that had been presented to the committee. The provided definition indicated that there was something pending that was awaiting an action that would determine when the indefinite period ended. Mr. Reiker agreed with the interpretation. He also believed that their Webster's working definition for indefinite was "not definite." He understood that it could also be interpreted to mean "in perpetuity." Representative Guttenberg noted the Department of Administration's zero fiscal note. He wondered what it would take to familiarize DMV employees with documentation and whether staff would phone the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) [now called United States Citizenship and Immigration Services] or go online in order to authorize the issuance of a new driver's license. He wondered how the department was prepared to handle the new procedures that would be required under the legislation. Ms. Brewster responded that the DMV was currently receiving immigration documents and that there would not be a substantial change from the current process. The change would be to the expiration date of the license that would match the date on the provided documents. The training that would be required would be minimal and could be absorbed in the current DMV budget. She elaborated that DMV had a strong relationship with USCIS and they would have no problem asking for assistance if necessary. Representative Edgmon discussed that the bill could impact Alaskan communities like Sand Point, King Cove, Akutan, and Unalaska, in a way that had not been anticipated. He asked how the DMV would handle communities that did not have year-round DMV service. Ms. Brewster noted that Unalaska was the only community listed that had a year-round DMV. She did not believe a substantial change would occur in the areas where there were a number of cannery workers. She explained that the requirements to obtain a driver's license were in statute and would not change. The requirements included proof of legal name, date of birth, residence, and social security card (if one existed). The only significant change would be that a person's license would expire at the time of the legal stay listed on the authorization documentation. 2:56:35 PM MR. JEFFREY MITTMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ALASKA (via teleconference), testified that the union's concern was related to the potential for differential treatment of immigrants. The union believed that the bill raised constitutional issues related to the equal protection rights of immigrants. Immigrants were a suspect class under most federal discrimination law and would receive a different and second-class type of license. There could be a reasonable government interest in providing the differential class of license in the event that the term of stay was related to a person's safety, ability to drive, or the DMV mandate of issuing licenses. He explained that because the purpose of a driver's license was to identify that a person was a safe driver the idea of a second-class type of license raised significant concerns that a court may have contention with. Representative Gara was concerned that a person who had a valid application in for legal presence in the U.S. would not be covered under the bill's "authorized stay" language. Mr. Mittman responded that the union believed that there were some language problems with the bill and the problem at hand put the DMV in the position of making a determination that would be best made by a federal INS or immigration agency. He explained that it was an open question that did not relate to a person's ability to safely drive a vehicle or understand road laws. The union believed that the new law would deny an individual the right to obtain a license under a procedure that all other individuals were entitled to. Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered whether Mr. Mittman saw any reference to the immigration issue in the legislation before the committee. Mr. Mittman responded that the issue was related to an individual's length of stay. Information had been provided that pertained to lawful presence requirements that many states could constitutionally implement. However, the union believed that it would be a reasonable assumption that a differential type of license would be related to a person's immigration status. He explained that presumably every U.S. citizen was able to stay in the country for an indefinite period that was until their death. Presuming the intention of the bill was to provide differential licenses to people who may not be citizens or lawful permanent residents the presumption would be that the majority of the people would be in some sort of immigrant status. Vice-Chair Fairclough discussed that DMV was specifically required to provide a license for five years and that there were reasons that the division might want to limit a driver's license that were outside of immigration issues. She explained that the law before the committee was taking a step to meet the specific need and that she had also introduced a piece of legislation that worked to provide DMV with the flexibility to issue a license for a period that was different than five years. Mr. Mittman answered that there could be a constitutionally appropriate and non- discriminatory reason for having a differential license. His concern was that as HB 3 was currently drafted the bill was susceptible to discriminatory treatment that could violate federal constitutional standards. Representative Wilson did not understand why there would be an objection to the issuance of licenses for a different period of time. She recognized that it would be one thing to issue a license that looked notably different from the standard license, but that everyone in the room had a different expiration date on their license. Mr. Mittman replied that the change made by the State Affairs Committee that lessened the burden on renewing a license was an improvement on the original bill. The differential treatment was related the more burdensome process that individuals who could be of immigrant status would have to undergo on an annual basis. Additionally, there was concern about regulatory processes that may provide discretion for a DMV employee to require a person who they thought looked like an immigrant to provide differential documentation. 3:04:16 PM Representative Joule asked whether a citizen in the United States had a bit more of an advantage than a non-citizen. Mr. Mittman remarked that there were constitutionally permissible instances where citizens had certain rights, privileges, or opportunities that non-citizens did not. The union believed that the federal government would not find it appropriate to treat an immigrant differentially in the case of the issuance of a driver's license. Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered whether a driver's license was a right or a privilege. Mr. Mittman replied that in many states a driver's license was a privilege. However, once a state instituted policies or procedures for individuals obtaining licenses, there could not be inappropriately discriminatory processes for providing the privilege. Vice-Chair Fairclough believed that driving in the state of Alaska was a privilege. Representative Wilson noted that a problem was created because a driver's license was used as a legal document for things unrelated to driving. Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony. Representative Gara asked whether a person that fled a domestic violence situation or persecution in their home country and had a valid application in for legal presence in the U.S. would be covered under the bill's "authorized stay" language. Mr. Johansen understood that a person who was in the U.S. legally that experienced trouble providing proof of identity could go to the appropriate federal agency for temporary authorization or application pending paperwork that would be accepted by the DMV. He explained that his understanding was in part based on a meeting he attended with state and federal agencies earlier in the year. Ms. Brewster understood that under the legislation a person that applied for legal status from USCIS would receive a pending letter and that the DMV would issue a license for one year as required in the indeterminate section of the bill. Representative Gara was happy provided that the department made a commitment to its understanding of the issue. Ms. Brewster replied that was her commitment to the committee. Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the zero fiscal note. 3:10:55 PM Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to report CSHB 3 (STA) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. CSHB 3 (STA) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with previously published zero impact note: FN #1 (DOA).