HB 1 - REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE  2:27:57 PM CHAIR KELLER announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 1, "An Act relating to issuance of drivers' licenses." [Before the committee was CSHB 1(STA).] REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, as one of the joint prime sponsors of HB 1, explained that HB 1 would allow the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue a foreign person a driver's license for a period of less than five years if he/she is authorized to stay in the United States for less than five years or indefinitely, and provides that the foreign person, for a period of up to five years after such a driver's license is first issued, would be able to renew it without fee, though if the length of authorized stay is indefinite, the license shall have to be renewed yearly. When the period of authorized stay is not indefinite, the license shall be valid only for the period of authorized stay. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered his understanding that a visa is what is used to determine the length of a person's authorized stay in the U.S., and that similar legislation has been adopted in 36 other states and the District of Columbia. 2:30:17 PM FORREST WOLFE, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Lynn, one of the joint prime sponsors of HB 1, in response to a question, confirmed that the previous committee of referral removed language that would have allowed a license with a duration of less than five years to be renewed by mail. He explained that this change was made at the request of the DMV. 2:31:30 PM DEAN WAUSON - mentioning that he enforces federal immigration law, and referring to an e-mail included in members' packets - offered his belief that HB 1 would neither change the process currently undertaken by the DMV when issuing driver's licenses, nor increase costs, and opined that foreign persons whose authorized stay in Alaska is less than 90 days don't have any reason to get an Alaska driver's license. He acknowledged, however, that in instances where a foreign person's documentation doesn't reflect how long he/she is authorized to be in the U.S., DMV personnel would have to contact the federal government for that information. In conclusion, he opined that HB 1 would discourage foreign persons from coming to Alaska to obtain driver's licenses. 2:43:15 PM JEFFREY A. MITTMAN, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska (ACLU of Alaska), after mentioning that the ACLU of Alaska's written testimony regarding HB 1 is included in members' packets, pointed out that immigration is a complex issue that is reserved solely to the federal government, and warned that significant preemption issues could therefore arise should HB 1 become law, particularly given that the DMV doesn't have the necessary training, expertise, or authority to address immigration issues. The purpose of the DMV is to assess whether individuals are qualified to drive on Alaska's roads and to issue driver's licenses to those who are, not to research myriad complicated immigration statuses. Furthermore, passage of HB 1 could also result in litigation based on a lack of equal protection, because under federal law, immigrants are a suspect class with specific protections, and HB 1 would burden immigrants in Alaska with different licensing requirements that do nothing to make the roads safer - in other words, there is no nexus between being qualified to drive in Alaska, and being authorized to stay in the country. In conclusion, he characterized HB 1 as unnecessary, noted that it is not closely tailored to any legitimate state interest, and urged the committee not to pass it. MR. MITTMAN, in response to a question - relaying that he would conduct further research of case law pertaining to similar legislation and provide it to the committee in addition to the case-law information already included in the ACLU of Alaska's written testimony - offered his understanding that the trend in other states has been to allow for even greater leniency towards ensuring that anyone who is on a state's roads is a safe driver; in other words, other states recognize that the general course and better practice is for their motor vehicle division to focus on ensuring the safety of individuals who would be driving, not getting involved in immigration issues it has no expertize in or jurisdiction over. 2:49:49 PM ERLING JOHANSEN, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State Affairs Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), noting that in a letter he'd provided the committee dated January 28, 2013, he'd relayed that he didn't see any basis for a constitutional challenge of HB 1, opined that the bill isn't proposing a preemption of federal authority. Foreign persons coming to the DMV for a driver's license would have already obtained from the federal government any necessary documents regarding their authorized stay, and DMV personnel already consider a variety of documents on a regular basis. He said he doesn't envision HB 1 raising either equal protection issues or due process issues, and ventured that because it's the federal government that decides who is authorized to stay in the country and for how long, not DMV personnel, HB 1 is neutral with regard to treating people equally, though under it the period of a particular license's validity would vary. His research, he relayed, indicates that other states have laws similar to that proposed by HB 1. MR. JOHANSEN noted that on a different point - that of being issued a license, rather than that of being issued a license of lesser duration - the Iowa Supreme Court, in Sanchez v. State 692 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 2005), held that the state's driver's licensing requirement that either a social security number or federal documents authorizing a foreign national's presence in the country be provided, was rationally related to the legitimate state interest of not allowing the state's governmental machinery to facilitate the concealment of illegal aliens, and did not therefore violate Iowa's constitution or federal equal-protection rights. In conclusion, he reiterated his view that HB 1 wouldn't raise any equal protection issues. In response to a question, Mr. Johansen indicated that he'd not found any recent court cases addressing legislation similar to HB 1. MR. MITTMAN, in response to questions and comments, said that the court cases he'd cited in the ACLU of Alaska's written testimony generally address federal consideration of state laws that impact "on immigration areas." Regardless that the courts have held that it is permissible for a state to have laws restricting the issuance of driver's licenses to just those who are present in the country legally, HB 1 is proposing something significantly different, something that would impact the rights of foreign persons who are in the country legally. In Torao Takahashi v. Fish & Game Commission 334 U.S. 410, 420 (1948), for example, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot adopt a classification that prevents lawfully-admitted aliens from earning a living in the same way that other state inhabitants earn their living. It is clear from such case law, he opined, that it is impermissible - by setting up a different standard that imposes a special condition - to differentially burden someone who is lawfully present in the country. MR. MITTMAN, in response to further questions and comments, asserted that what must be considered is the jurisprudence that assesses the rights of those who are legally present in the country - the suspect classification of legally-present immigrants - because the courts are aware that there can be discriminatory laws passed against immigrants; in other words, there is already a significant body of case law that looks at differential burdens on such persons' rights. In Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 59-60 (1941), for example, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a Pennsylvania requirement that legally-present immigrants must obtain an identification (ID) card every year [that then had to be shown in order to obtain a driver's license or register a vehicle]. With cases such as Takahashi and Hines, though they do not specifically address laws such as that being proposed by HB 1, what must be considered is, what [was the court's] constitutional analysis with regard to state laws that impact immigrants. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, in response to a question, reiterated his belief that similar legislation has been adopted in 36 other states and the District of Columbia, and offered his understanding that none of those laws have been challenged. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to comments, offered his belief that not enough research regarding the legislation in those [other jurisdictions] has been conducted yet, particularly with regard to any constitutional issues they raise. 3:07:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to report CSHB 1(STA) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 1(STA) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.