HOUSE BILL NO. 28 "An Act restricting the release of certain records of convictions; and providing for an effective date." 2:40:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY WRIGHT, SPONSOR, thanked the committee for hearing the legislation. He shared that he wanted to talk about hope and why the bill was important. He stated that the bill gave people the hope they needed to move on with their lives. First, the bill would remove names from the CourtView website and make them inaccessible. The bill would mean individuals would not lose job opportunities based on a CourtView search. Additionally, the bill would enable individuals to rent an apartment without receiving a call back that the place was already rented. Second, the bill would limit accessibility to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) database records. The bill created hope for individuals trying to move on with their lives. He stated the individuals had paid their debt to society and the bill provided opportunity to move forward. He asked his staff to provide further details. ALLAN RIORDAN-RANDALL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY WRIGHT, thanked the committee for hearing the bill. He explained that the bill recognized there were still convictions on the books, which would not exist by current statute. The convictions could be burdensome on individuals and could be deceiving to the untrained eye when viewed online. He explained it could cause adverse action for the individuals. The bill contained provisions for certain organizations and agencies to access records in whole or in part under certain circumstances listed in the legislation. Mr. Riordan-Randall reviewed the sectional analysis (copy on file): SECTION I: It is the intention of the legislation to reduce barriers to employment and other basic daily functions for individuals who under past statute were convicted of low-level marijuana related crimes. SECTION II: Describes when, why and to what agencies or organizations information protected in this bill may be released. SECTION III: Persons aged 21 years or older shall in the provisions of this bill have records of low level marijuana convictions as detailed in this section, which by today's statutes are not a criminal act, made to be inaccessible other than as listed in section II. Individuals having this action taken shall pay a fee of not less than $150. SECTION IV: Records relating to the individuals and occurrences in this bill shall not be publicly published by the Alaska Court System. Information shall be made available on how to obtain information removed from public view. SECTION V: An effective date for this act shall be 1st of January 2024. 2:46:31 PM Co-Chair Foster moved to invited testimony. VITTORIO NASTASI, DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY, REASON FOUNDATION (via teleconference), introduced himself and read from prepared remarks: The academic research is clear, people with criminal records face significant difficulty engaging in productive activities such as finding a job and securing housing. House Bill 28 would help address these barriers for Alaskans who have low level marijuana possession convictions. People who have been convicted for behavior that is no longer considered criminal in Alaska. The bill would not result in the expungement of any criminal records. In other words, the records won't be erased, they will still be available to some extent. The legislation simply places limitations on the release of these records if eligible individuals formally request that the records be withheld. The additional requirement of $150 for this privilege will likely reduce the positive impact of the bill. Research suggests that requiring petitions and the payment of fees greatly reduces the efficacy of policies aimed at sealing or expunging criminal records. A recent study published in the Harvard Law Review found that only 6.5 percent of those who are eligible under Michigan's expungement program pursued expungement when they were required to apply and pay fees. Similarly low participation rates have been observed in other states where release is not automatic. It is for this reason that a growing number of states have established automatic record release programs. Given the experiences of other states it is likely that only a small fraction of eligible Alaskans will be aware that their records may be withheld and will actually request that they not be released. Consequently, the fiscal note on this bill likely overstates the administrative burden that DPS will incur. Moreover, requiring a $150 fee creates an additional barrier to low income individuals who tend to benefit the most from record release. The fee will also likely fail to raise substantial revenue. Despite being a relatively small step compared to the actions of other states, House Bill 28 would provide much needed relief to those who make the effort request that their records be withheld. However, the minimum $150 fee was an unnecessary complication to an otherwise good bill. Thank you for your time and consideration. Representative Galvin thanked the bill sponsor for putting the bill forward. She believed the bill was an important step for individuals to move towards becoming whole. She wondered why the fee had been put in place and if it was truly to cover costs. She asked if there had been conversations about savings if the opportunity was in place to take away challenges the individuals were experiencing with jobs, housing, and healthcare. She reasoned if individuals were able to have access to the aforementioned items, the state would not have to pay unemployment costs for individuals without access to a job. She thought it would far outweigh the state's ability to collect a few dollars to pay for administrative costs, which sounded like they would not be very high. Mr. Riordan-Randall replied that the purpose of the fee was to offset the cost to the state. He deferred to DPS for further detail pertaining to the fiscal note. Representative Galvin reiterated her question for the department. Mr. Riordan-Randall clarified that the fee had been added by the House Judiciary Committee. LISA PURINTON, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, replied that the fee had been added by the House Judiciary Committee as a policy decision. She explained that DPS had submitted a fiscal note to the original bill to pay for a change to the programming in the state's criminal history repository. She detailed that DPS maintained the official state criminal history record and DPS was the repository for individuals to come for background checks for the official record. She noted it was separate from the Court System CourtView database. The state's criminal history repository was a mainframe database from the 1980s and the programming cost to make the change had been included in the original fiscal note. The department also anticipated part-time temporary funding for a two-year position because it anticipated the bulk of the requests (to have a conviction restricted from access for certain background check processes) to come during that timeframe. The department estimated there were roughly 8,500 records that could potentially fall under the criteria under HB 28 for the limited marijuana convictions because the state's repository went back to statehood for those convictions. Ms. Purinton explained that the database did not always have a straight statute to indicate the definition for the conviction. She elaborated that sometimes the database only included a four letter code indicating a marijuana conviction. She detailed that the amount listed in statute had sometimes specified one ounce and other times the amount had been up to eight ounces; therefore, it would require the department to do some research when individuals came in to petition to have their information removed. The department did not have the resources to do research for potentially 8,500 records. The House Judiciary Committee had added the fee to help offset the potential cost. The department had not projected out beyond two years because the number of individuals who would make the request was unknown. 2:55:33 PM Representative Galvin thought she heard that somehow the way the department was collecting data made it more complicated and would require extra research time. She assumed that going forward the bill looked at collecting the data differently so it did not require extra research. She wondered if the House Judiciary Committee had considered the savings that would come to the state if even one person was given the opportunity for a job, housing, healthcare, and mental healthcare. Ms. Purinton answered that the only thing DPS fiscal note considered was the cost to the department. The department had not looked at any broader impact to the state. The bill was specific to AS 11.71.060 subsection (a)(1) or (a)(1)(a) and some of the court judgements received for a conviction did not always have granularity at the subsection level. The department had been working closely with the Department of Law and the Alaska Court System to ensure there was unification in how the specifics of the subsections were used. Historically that had not always been the case, which made historical records more challenging. Co-Chair Foster hoped to get through the invited testimony. He asked members to hold their questions for the bill sponsor and department until the next hearing on the bill. LACY WILCOX, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALASKA MARIJUANA INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, appreciated Representative Galvin's comment about taking into account the cost that had already been incurred for a 6A possession (a single possession of marijuana). She relayed that Alaska had a pretty strange relationship with legalization. She noted that from 1975 to 1990 marijuana had been decriminalized in Alaska. She believed the state recriminalized marijuana from 1990 to 1998 and during the war on drugs the state had assessed a $100 fine for simple citation or up to 90 days in jail. She underscored that those impacted had paid the price already. She did not support the $150 fee included in the bill to make the state whole. She believed the state had made money on the back of a cycle of legalization, decriminalization, simple possession citation, and 90 days in jail. She supported the bill and policy but requested a look at removing the fee for people who had already paid their debt. HB 28 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following meeting.