SB 80-2023 REVISOR'S BILL  1:03:21 PM CHAIR VANCE announced that the first order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 80, "An Act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as recommended by the revisor of statutes; and providing for an effective date." 1:03:48 PM SENATOR ELVI GRAY-JACKSON, Alaska State Legislature, presented SB 80, on behalf of the Senate Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by request of the Legislative Council. She paraphrased the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: This is the revisor's bill, which the revisor is required by statute to prepare and submit to the Legislative Council (AS 01.05.036). Its purpose is to clean up the statutes, without making any policy changes. Some sections amend provisions that have become obsolete due to other legislative action. Some sections correct drafting errors or oversights in previous legislation. Most of the errors corrected in this bill were discovered by legislative drafters or the revisor in reviewing the statutes. Some were discovered by the Department of Law or others and brought to the revisor's attention. This bill was reviewed by the relevant agencies in the executive branch before it was introduced. The Department of Law has identified no legal issues with the bill and supports these proposed amendments to the Alaska Statutes. The draft legislation was reviewed and approved by the Legislative Council on February 21, 2023, and forwarded to the Senate Rules Committee for introduction. I urge your support of the 2023 Revisor's Bill. 1:05:56 PM KATHRYN KURTZ, Assistant Revisor, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), stated that the revisor's bill was an important tool for maintaining the Alaska Statutes in good order. She explained that a revisor could clean up some issues under the authority of AS 01.05.031; however, those powers were limited to editing and revising without changing the meaning within statute. For that reason, the proposed legislation was an opportunity to address issues that "require something more," such as: adding and deleting words; repealing obsolete paragraphs and subsections; and changing references to federal law to reflect renumbering by the federal government. 1:07:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked why Ms. Kurtz didn't want to present the sectional analysis. MS. KURTZ reminded committee members that, in the interest of time, the sectional analysis was included in the committee packet. Alternatively, she offered to present the sectional upon request. REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked Ms. Kurtz to present the sectional analysis. 1:07:41 PM MS. KURTZ presented the document, titled "2023 Revisor's Bill Sectional Summary," [included in the committee packet]. 1:14:49 PM CHAIR VANCE inquired about section 9, which deleted an obsolete date reference in AS 34.45.430. She asked why "before or after September 7, 1986" was replaced with "of a period of time." MS. KURTZ clarified that "of a period of time" was existing language. She noted that if any of the proposed changes caused concern or made a substantive difference, it could be removed from the bill. CHAIR VANCE expounded on her question, suggesting that "a period of time" was less clear than a specific date. 1:17:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether SB 80 complied with the single subject rule. MS. KURTZ answered no; however, there was an exception to the single subject rule for budget bills and revisor's bills. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked which exemption, under Article 2, Section 13, of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, SB 80 qualified under. MS. KURTZ said she was confident that the proposed legislation qualified under the exception for revisor's bills. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a law, which was no longer being followed, could be eliminated without causing a substantive change to the law. MS. KURTZ said the statutory assignment was to address obsolete provisions in statute. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN requested the definition of "obsolete." MS. KURTZ stated that the examples in SB 80 were illustrative. She expounded on those specific examples. 1:20:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled legislation from a previous legislative session that attempted to remove a requirement for the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) to maintain offices in every Senate district. He questioned the purpose of such a bill if a revisor's bill would provide the same opportunity for cleanup. MS. KURTZ explained that revisor's bills were extremely conservative in scope, limited to corrections within the statutory mandate to delete, repeal, or update obsolete provisions; correct errors in oversight; and improve the former substance of the law. She acknowledged that there may be other obsolete or unfunded provisions in statute; however, that would fall into the category of a policy choice for the legislature, she said. 1:23:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether Ms. Kurtz had worked on a previous revisor's bill that included a "compound effective date." MS. KURTZ said she could not recall. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why a "complex" effective date was required in SB 80. He questioned whether Section 2 could be made effective immediately. MS. KURTZ responded, "Because the section that the change is being made to has not yet taken effect, so it would be incongruous to have a change take effect before the actual subsection takes effect." She added that it made the change align with the effective date of the subsection. 1:25:08 PM CHAIR VANCE returned to Section 9 and asked whether changing "period of time" to "date" [on page 4, line 1] would change the meaning or intent. MS. KURTZ said she appreciated the chair's desire to phrase statutes succinctly; however, she expressed concern about changing "a period of time," which might encompass multiple days, to the word "date." She suggested that "a period of time" was broader, and as such, she was not comfortable making that additional change. REPRESENTATIVE GRAY, in response to Chair Vance, shared the example of "180 days" as a period of time, as opposed to a specific date. He opined that a period of time may be more applicable in certain cases. 1:28:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the significance of removing Section 7 from the bill. MS. KURTZ explained that without Section 7, the reference would remain at "50 U.S.C. 3808 (Military Selective Service Act)", leaving the reader of the statutes to locate the relevant law. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the reference to a repealed law would impact the applicability. MS. KURTZ declined to offer a definitive answer to the hypothetical, adding that she was confident about recommending the two changes to U.S.C. cites because she had reviewed the language. 1:30:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked: So, are you drawing a distinction then between if the federal law changes, they repeal one section, then move it to another section, versus if they repealed it and don't move it another section. DO you think that's legally significant for the purposes of Alaska law? MS. KURTZ shared her belief that it was useful to the reader to direct him/her to the spot where it currently appears. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a statutory reference to federal code [that was moved or repealed] was legally significant from an attorney's perspective. MS. KURTZ shared her belief that there was a distinction between a federal statute that had been repealed and a federal statute that had been renumbered for the purposes of SB 80. 1:33:22 PM CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on SB 80. After ascertaining that no one online or in person wished to testify, she closed public testimony. She invited closing remarks from the bill sponsor and members of the committee. 1:34:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN deliberated the substantive nature of "housekeeping" items. He expressed his "exquisite" concern that the [collective] understanding of "housekeeping" was now being added to how the legislature might deal with things that weren't related to one subject. 1:36:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER moved to report SB 80 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. 1:36:59 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Carpenter, C. Johnson, Gray, and Groh voted in favor of SB 80. Representatives Eastman and Vance voted against it. Therefore, SB 80 was reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.