HB 51-AGGRAVATING FACTORS AT SENTENCING  2:09:12 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." 2:10:18 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 2:11:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 3 to HB 51, labeled, 32- LS0325\A.3, Radford, 1/24/22, which read as follows: Page 4, line 7: Delete "or national origin" Insert "[OR] national origin, or immunization  status" REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Amendment 3 would add "or immunization status" to the list of aggravating factors at sentencing. 2:12:24 PM MAX KOHN, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the prime sponsor, Representative Josephson, expressed opposition to the adoption of Amendment 3. He explained that the aggravating factors in AS 22, commonly known as "hate crimes," refer to immutable characteristics and do not relate to an immunization status. He suggested that other statutes may exist which could be changed to accommodate immunization status, if it is the wish of the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned the bill sponsor's opinion on whether sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. MR. KOHN expressed the opinion that immutable characteristics generally occur at birth; nonetheless, he offered to follow up to the committee with additional information to fully answer the question. CHAIR CLAMAN acknowledged that there may exist differences in perspectives [on the question regarding immutable characteristics]. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that the premise of the proposed legislation is to protect certain individuals from violence predicated on hate, regardless of whether characteristics are immutable. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that an individual may be targeted with violence because of immunization status. 2:15:45 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Vance voted in favor of Amendment 3 to HB 51. Representatives Drummond, Snyder, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-4. 2:16:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 4 to HB 246, labeled, 32- LS0325\A.4, Radford, 1/24/22, which read as follows: Page 4, line 7, following "identity,": Insert "pregnancy," REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that pregnancy is notably absent from the list of aggravating factors. MR. KOHN provided that the prime sponsor is in opposition to Amendment 4. He stated that case law has shown to include pregnant people in Alaska, such that a defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, the victim of the offense was particularly vulnerable or unable to resist the offense. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the cases involved with pregnancy pertain to either the pregnant person or the child not yet born. MR. KOHN expressed the understanding that the law considered both lives. 2:20:21 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance and Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 4 to HB 51. Representatives Drummond, Snyder, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 2-4. 2:21:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 5 to HB 51, labeled, 32- LS0325\A.5, Radford, 1/25/22, which read as follows: Page 4, line 7, following "ancestry,": Insert "nationality," REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected. MR. KOHN provided that the prime sponsor is not in opposition to Amendment 5. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS questioned instances of hate crimes which were motivated by nationality. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded that the amendment is designed to protect all nationalities. He suggested that research may reveal crimes which have occurred against citizens of Israel. CHAIR CLAMAN questioned the difference between "nationality" and "national origin." REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded that "national origin" could be interpreted as citizenship at the time of birth, while "nationality" could be interpreted to be where someone is born. He deferred to the drafter of the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN requested that Representative Eastman confirm his assertion that "nationality" and "national origin" may share some overlap but not necessarily apply to the same subset of people. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN requested legal counsel to make the distinction. 2:24:24 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Snyder, and Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 5 to HB 51. Representatives Drummond, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 5 failed by a vote of 3-3. 2:25:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 6 to HB 51, labeled 32- LS0325\A.6, Radford, 1/25/22, which read as follows: Page 4, line 7, following "ancestry,": Insert "citizenship," REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected. MR. KOHN provided that the prime sponsor is not in opposition to Amendment 6. 2:26:40 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Vance, Snyder and Claman voted in favor of Amendment 6 to HB 51. Representatives Drummond and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 6 was adopted by a vote of 4-2. 2:27:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 7 to HB 51, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0325\A.7, Radford, 1/25/22, which read as follows: Page 4, line 7: Delete "creed" Insert "religion [CREED]" REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that the amendment proposes a grammatical change as "creed" is no longer common parlance. MR. KOHN provided that the prime sponsor is not in opposition to Amendment 7. CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether there exists a difference between [spiritual practice] and religion. He postulated that religion may fit within the definition of "creed." REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed the belief that [spiritual practice] is the opposite of religion, as it does not necessarily have a basis in doctrine. He expressed the opinion that a sincerely held belief would most likely meet the definition of religion. CHAIR CLAMAN requested that Representative Eastman cite the source of the definitions being discussed. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded that the definitions have been sourced from the dictionary in consultation with the drafter. REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER expressed opposition to the amendment, as it would narrow the definitions, possibly excluding those who practice agnosticism or atheism. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN argued that the drafter would agree that atheism is a protected class. He stated that "creed" could be inclusive of individuals as part of civic organizations who may swear an oath. 2:32:47 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Vance voted in favor of Amendment 7 to HB 51, as amended. Representatives Drummond, Snyder, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 7 failed by a vote of 2-3. 2:33:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 8 to HB 51, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0325\A.8, Radford, 1/25/22, which read as follows: Page 4, line 7, following "creed,": Insert "status as a conscientious objector," REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that there had been instances of wartime drafts and instances of poor treatment of conscientious objectors. MR. KOHN provided that the prime sponsor is in opposition to Amendment 8. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that the amendment was timely in the absence of wartime. 2:35:20 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Vance voted in favor of Amendment 8 to HB 51, as amended. Representatives Snyder, Drummond, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 8 failed by a vote of 2-3. 2:36:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 9, to HB 51, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0325\A.9, Radford, 1/25/22, which read as follows: Page 4, line 7, following "creed,": Insert "status as a dissident," REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that dissidence is protected in other laws and should be included in the modification of the statute being considered. MR. KOHN provided that the prime sponsor is in opposition to Amendment 9. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked the reason a person dissenting should enjoy protection while those who are treasonous would still be pursued. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that a dissident would apply only to lawful dissidence and would not apply to criminal dissidence. He added that a dissident is one opposed to government policies. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether any other states include dissidents in hate crime legislation. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that he is unaware of any other states with such legislation, as the need for this protection is a recent development. CHAIR CLAMAN added that sentencing structures may vary among different states. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for an example of a dissident who would have benefitted from the proposed protection. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to an individual who had been targeted because of having worn a political [themed] hat. CHAIR CLAMAN questioned the hat. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that it bore the words "Make America Great Again" and added the protection should apply to any attire. CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the example was that of the hat or that of the individual wearing the hat. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that the individual in the picture was "going to take some time to recover from their physical injuries which were very much tied to their political attire when they were attacked." REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked the name of the individual in the example offered by Representative Eastman. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered he is not aware of the name of the person in the photo; however, he knows of "other people." He expressed the opinion that it is unfortunate that the need exists for the proposed amendment. He referred to a shooting which had occurred at a Republican [Party] baseball training event and characterized the occurrence as an indicator of behaviors which should be included in the statute. 2:41:53 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Vance voted in favor of Amendment 9 to HB 51, as amended. Representatives Drummond, Snyder, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 9 failed by a vote of 2- 4. 2:42:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved Amendment 10 to HB 51, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0325\A.10, Radford, 1/25/22, which read as follows: Page 4, line 7: Delete the second occurrence of "or" Insert "[OR]" Following "origin": Insert ", refusal to participate in a boycott,  divesting from, sanctioning, or condemning another  person, or refusal to invest in another person" REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to some ongoing campaigns targeting specific nations. He stated that the right to abstain from participating in a boycott should be protected in the statute. MR. KOHN provided that the prime sponsor is in opposition to Amendment 10. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN encouraged including the protection as drafted in the amendment. 2:45:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to a quote, which he supposed was attributed to the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The quote related that most cases are brought in order to decide where a line should be drawn. He said that a "litany" of amendments has been presented, with the suggestion that each of the proposed classes among the amendments deserve protection. He pointed out that the protected classes have demonstrable instances of hate or crime against them; however, there are not likely substantive instances [of hate or crime] to support the current and previously proposed amendments. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE recalled previous testimony of four instances of hate crime per year specifically targeting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. She questioned whether four crimes would amount to a substantive level. She argued that the other classes in the proposed amendments should enjoy the same protections. She suggested that larger issues should be considered. CHAIR CLAMAN cautioned that the most recent comments pertained more to the proposed legislation, as a whole. He recommended the committee direct attention to the proposed amendment. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that boycott, divestment, and sanction campaigns have a negative impact on Alaskans. 2:51:21 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance and Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 10 to HB 51, as amended. Representatives Drummond, Snyder, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 10 failed by a vote of 2-4. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that the previously proposed amendments are not germane to the crimes which are being committed against the protected classes in the statute and against those proposed in HB 51. He expressed his support for the bill. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed her support for HB 51. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN spoke about his observations of changes taking place in society which have resulted in more individuals being targeted for political beliefs. He expressed a strong belief that steps should be taken to stop this violence. CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the sentencing structure related to felonies, along with aggravating and general factors, exist to address serious crimes, such as assault. He pointed out that the question exists as to whether the assault rises above an average assault, which is still a serious crime. He expressed the opinion that there has been value in the preceding discussion; however, he cautioned against addressing relatively recent developments in society. 2:58:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to report HB 51, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 51(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.