HB 212-DRIVER'S LICENSING EXEMPTION: MILITARY  9:00:56 AM CHAIR LYNN announced the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 212, "An Act relating to an exemption from driver licensing requirements for spouses of members of the armed forces of the United States." 9:01:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON, as joint prime sponsor, introduced HB 212. He said the proposed legislation would provide benefit for service members. Every year hundreds of [military] service members come to Alaska and are allowed to use their driver's licenses from other states, while their spouses are not, and that is not the case in many other states. He said the proposed legislation does not give anybody a free driver's license; the benefit would be extended only to spouses 18 years of age or older, who have a legitimate driver's license from another state. In response to the chair, he explained that 18 is the age at which Alaska allows a person to possess a driver's license. He said HB 212 simply gives to the spouse that which is allowed the service member. He offered an example of a military spouse in Fairbanks who was "detained unnecessarily" and found to be driving with a license from another state beyond 90 days. He said the intent of the bill is to show that Alaska is military-friendly and to recognize the driver's license requirements of other states. 9:06:00 AM CHAIR LYNN opined that HB 212 is a "pretty good bill." He related that when he served in the military, he and his wife had no problems using their California driver's licenses in the various places in which they lived. He said he had not been aware, before seeing HB 212, that the same is not true in Alaska. 9:06:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked if the bill differentiates between a military spouse who is working versus one who is not working. 9:07:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON indicated that the issue is not whether the spouse of the military member is working, but that he/she has followed his/her spouse to Alaska. 9:09:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS clarified she wants to know if there currently is a law that someone who works in Alaska has to acquire an Alaska driver's license within a certain amount of time. She offered her understanding that there is, and that the amount of time is 30 days. She questioned whether that law would conflict with the proposed legislation. 9:10:10 AM NATHAN SOLORIO, Intern, Representative Doug Isaacson, Alaska State Legislature, offered his understanding that irrespective of employment status, any driver who moves to Alaska must obtain an Alaska driver's license within 90 days; the only exception is for members of the military stationed in Alaska. 9:10:58 AM REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES rephrased Mr. Solorio's statement. 9:11:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 1, line 1, following "spouses": Insert "or same-sex partners" Page 2, line 1, following "spouse" in both places: Insert "or same-sex partner" Page 2, line 3: Delete "or spouse" Insert "or the member's spouse or same-sex  partner" Page 2, line 4, following "jurisdiction;": Insert "to claim to an exemption under this  paragraph, a member's same-sex partner shall submit an  application for an exemption and, with the application  for exemption, two affidavits, one from the same-sex  partner and one from the member, stating that the  member and the same-sex partner  (A) are at least 18 years of age and are  each competent to enter into a contract;  (B) have been in an exclusive, committed,  and intimate relationship with each other for the last  12 consecutive months and intend to continue that  relationship indefinitely;  (C) have maintained a household together at  a common primary residence for the last 12 consecutive  months and intend to maintain a household together  indefinitely;  (D) consider themselves to be members of  each other's immediate family;  (E) are not related to each other to a  degree of closeness that would preclude them from  marrying each other in this state if they were of the  opposite sex;  (F) are not legally married to another  person;  (G) have not executed an affidavit  affirming same-sex partner status with another person  within the last 12 months;  (H) are each other's sole domestic partner  and each is responsible for the welfare of the other;  and  (I) share financial obligations, including  joint responsibility for basic living expenses and  health care costs;" 9:11:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected. 9:11:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said Amendment 1 is offered in the spirit of inclusivity. 9:12:06 AM The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:12 a.m. 9:12:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said Amendment 1 would extend the benefits that are offered under HB 212 to same-sex partners. He said the amendment was offered in the previous committee of referral, and he noted that Representative Gruenberg was present in the room and could speak to the proposed amendment. 9:13:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER spoke to his objection. He said the proposed amendment would necessitate a change in the bill title. Further, he opined there is no question that anyone who considers Amendment 1 would say it changes the focus of the bill. He explained he objects to Amendment 1 because there are only 90 days in the legislative session and because the proposed amendment is "not really germane to the bill." He said he thinks the word "spouse" is used hundreds of times in statute, and he remarked upon the possibility of "almost countless discussion." 9:14:26 AM REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON stated his objection to Amendment 1. He said during the last committee of referral, the Department of Law (DOL) testified. He offered his understanding that DOL said "spouse" is defined in statute, and if that definition is changed in statute, it would apply to the use of the word spouse in HB 212. He opined that Amendment 1 is trying to change the scope of HB 212, almost to the point where it would need to be a constitutional amendment. He said he would not want to see those who could benefit from the proposed legislation to be deprived of that benefit while the legislature waits for "legal wrangling" or "a vote, if that ... comes to it." He said DOL could come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee to weigh in on the issue, if the committee wishes. 9:16:26 AM REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, Alaska State Legislature, said the issue of same-sex partners is of concern to a considerable number of people in Alaska and across the country. He said under current law in Alaska, "spouse" excludes same-sex couple. He mentioned an Alaska Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) case that was before the Alaska Supreme Court and another case named, Schmidt, and he indicated that the Alaska Supreme Court decided in both cases that to deny same-sex couples equal protection of the law is a denial of the Alaska right of equal protection. Both those decisions were based on the Constitution of the State of Alaska. He said there are a number of federal cases "holding similarly for federal benefits and things that involve federal rights." He noted that a recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case held that the exclusion of homosexuals on jury panels is a denial of equal protection of the law. He offered his understanding that that decision was made in Nevada, and both the governor and the attorney general refuse to defend that law. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "This is something that society is rapidly changing its views on." He said Amendment 1 is carefully crafted so that it does not reach the issue of whether it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. He said the proposed amendment uses language from state regulations that were adopted after the ACLU case, which does not "say they are married," but says "they are entitled to the benefit of the law ...." He stated, "This amendment does not go beyond the scope of the term, as used in AS 28.15.021; it would not make any other changes." He indicated Amendment 1 does not seek to open the door to change other laws. He expressed appreciation to Representative Kreiss-Tomkins for proposing Amendment 1, and he surmised that the entire [Democratic] Caucus feels the same on the issue. He noted that HB 212 was not scheduled to be heard by the House Judiciary Standing Committee; therefore, he suggested that if this issue is addressed by adopting Amendment 1, the proposed bill would not need another committee of referral to hear it before being heard on the House floor. Representative Gruenberg stated he supports HB 212, but "cannot support the affect, if not the intent, that's discriminatory." He warned that any acceptance of discrimination opens the door to further discrimination. 9:21:39 AM CHAIR LYNN opined, "This subject certainly is ... a surprising issue overall, but issue or not, I don't think it's germane, really, to who gets a driver's license and who doesn't, which is the main part of this bill." 9:21:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER maintained his objection to Amendment 1. 9:22:03 AM CHAIR LYNN requested a vote, but upon determining there was further committee comment, voided the roll. 9:22:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered his understanding that the intent [of Amendment 1] - implied, if not said - was to "continue the effort to pull it into Judiciary and continue this discussion by the minority." He opined that "that makes it clearly a political move." He restated his objection to Amendment 1. 9:23:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES said that "in the midst of the court wrangling" she does not think it is wise to "take this on." She referred to Representative Keller's previous mention of the word spouse in statute and of the need to change the bill title that would be brought about under Amendment 1. She said this would be problematic, and she stated her intent to vote "no" on Amendment 1. 9:23:47 AM A roll call vote was taken. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Gattis, Hughes, Isaacson, Keller, and Lynn voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 1-5. 9:24:25 AM AMY ERICKSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration (DOA), stated that the division would have no problem implementing [the proposed changes under] HB 212. Regarding Representative Gattis' question about acquiring a license if a person is employed or not employed, she ventured the discussion pertains to vehicle registration. She said a person who is from out of state must register his/her vehicle within 60 days, unless the person is employed, in which case he/she would have to register the vehicle within 10 days. REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked if, under HB 212, a military spouse who gets pulled over by the police would have something on his/her license showing that military spousal status. CHAIR LYNN remarked that military spouses have dependent identification (ID) cards that can be shown with a driver's license. MS. ERICKSON offered her understanding that "you would provide a military ID just to show the law enforcement officer that you have reason to not have an Alaska license." 9:26:13 AM JOMO STEWART, Project Manager, Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation (FEDC), testified in support of HB 212. He said Fairbanks is a military town and Alaska is a fairly military- dependent state, and FEDC supports any easing of burden on military staff and their spouses. 9:27:12 AM CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 212. 9:27:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 212 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 212 was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.