HB 51-AGGRAVATING FACTORS AT SENTENCING  2:38:28 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 51, "An Act relating to aggravating factors considered at sentencing." He stated that Legislative Legal Services has permission to make any technical or conforming changes to the bill. The committee took an at-ease from 2:41 to 2:43 p.m. 2:43:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed the intention to offer amendments to HB 51 before the committee in a different order. He cited the Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure, Sections 397, 155, and 156, which dictate the order and timing in which amendments could be considered. 2:46:14 PM CHAIR CLAMAN offered background regarding the practice of considering amendments in the House Judiciary Standing Committee. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN acknowledged the practice of the committee. CHAIR CLAMAN stated that no request for a particular order of consideration of amendments had been made. 2:48:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed that the amendments bore sequential order assigned by Legislative Legal Services. CHAIR CLAMAN confirmed Representative Kreiss-Tomkins's observation as correct. 2:49:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN requested to move Amendment 7 to HB 51. CHAIR CLAMAN offered that Representative Eastman could move or withdraw Amendments 1-6. 2:50:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to appeal the ruling of the chair regarding the order in which amendments could be considered. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Drummond, Snyder, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman voted in favor of upholding the ruling of the Chair. Representatives Kurka, Vance, and Eastman voted against it. Therefore, the ruling of the Chair was upheld by a vote of 4-3. 2:51:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 1 to HB 51, labeled, 32- LS0325\A.1, Radford, 1/24/22, which read as follows: Page 1, line 3, through page 6, line 12: Delete all material and insert:  "* Section 1. AS 12.55.155(c)(22) is repealed." Page 6, line 15: Delete "AS 12.55.155(c), as amended by sec. 1 of this Act," Insert "The repeal of AS 12.55.155(c)(22) by sec. 1 of this Act" REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 1 would repeal Section 1. 2:53:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor of HB 51, expressed strong opposition to the proposed amendment. He stated that, if adopted, a scenario could occur in which an individual could intentionally hurt another who was disabled, or because of the individual's faith, with impunity. He stated that only three other states have similar legislation. REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked whether the bill proposed aggravating factors which could increase sentencing of certain crimes, and he asked how the crimes described by Representative Josephson would be committed with impunity. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that a person could target one of the listed cohorts openly and transparently, and a judge would be obligated to give the presumptive sentence, unless there exist other aggravators. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the proposed bill would not criminalize new conduct. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that he had previously testified that HB 51 would not criminalize new conduct. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed the belief that "locking people up for longer" is not necessarily a solution, and the amendment supports this. He withdrew Amendment 1. 2:56:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 2 to HB 51, labeled, 32- LS0325\A.2, Radford, 1/24/22, which read as follows: Page 4, line 7: Delete "or national origin" Insert "[OR] national origin, or political  affiliation; in this paragraph, "political  affiliation" includes belonging to a political party,  endorsing a political party, or attending a political  event" REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed concern that individuals are not able to freely express political affiliations and beliefs without retaliation. He suggested that political affiliation should be listed as a class protected against hate crimes. REPRESENTATIVE KURKA referred to previous testimony by Ms. Willis as a victim, during the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting on January 21, 2022. He questioned whether the victim's political activism had been the basis of the attack. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON explained that three separate violent attacks had occurred against Ms. Willis. He expressed disagreement with the suggestion that the crimes were politically motivated. He expressed the opinion that the attacks were a result of her planning the Pride in the Park event. REPRESENTATIVE KURKA expressed disagreement with Representative Josephson's characterization of the crime being motivated by the victim's sexual orientation, rather than the potential for political motivation. 3:00:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether a crime could be committed against individuals who did not identify as a member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transexual (LGBT) community, but who had participated in advocacy and events on behalf of that community. She asked whether there exists data regarding such individuals. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON expressed the understanding that the crime committed against Ms. Willis had been motivated by her sexual orientation. He argued that had she identified as straight, she may not have suffered the attack. He stated that the law would not consider whether an individual was a member of the LGBT community, only that the perpetrator thought that the individual was. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether Representative Josephson was familiar with any crime committed against someone based on the perception of the victim's sexual orientation. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON commented that, if there is evidence the defendant had knowledge of the victim being sympathetic to the civil rights of an LGBT member, but the victim is not a member of the LGBT community, then it would not be categorized as a hate crime under the proposed bill. He added that other aggravating factors could be found to exist. 3:04:00 PM CHAIR CLAMAN offered that social activists are not necessarily representing any political party, but rather a perspective on a social issue. REPRESENTATIVE KURKA moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2, such that, beginning on line 4, following each reference to the word "party" insert the words "or ideology" before the comma. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the conceptual amendment would imply an endorsement of an individual's political ideology. REPRESENTATIVE KURKA revised Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2, such that, beginning on line 5 following "solely", the second reference to the word "party" and insert the words "or ideology" before the comma. REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected to Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that, to his knowledge, the only state that has legislation protecting political ideology is Iowa. He postulated that the lack of other existing legislation like this exists because there is no evidence of a problem. 3:10:12 PM CHAIR CLAMAN cautioned that the language endorsing "a political party or ideology" could be interpreted by the court as vague or ambiguous, and this could lead to enforcement issues. REPRESENTATIVE KURKA shared a personal story of discrimination he experienced because of his participation in a political rally. 3:12:49 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Kurka, and Vance voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2. Representatives Drummond, Snyder, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-4. 3:14:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA expressed his support for Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that the experience shared by Representative Kurka had not been an experience of a violent crime, and he expressed his dismay at the comparison of the two experiences being discussed as similar. REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER concurred. CHAIR CLAMAN expressed opposition to Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his dismay at the lack of data supporting the existence of political violence. He suggested that it remains to be an important matter. 3:17:02 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Kurka, and Vance voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Kreiss- Tomkins, Drummond, Snyder, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-4. [HB 51 was held over.]