HB 62-MARRIAGE WITNESSES  3:05:16 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 62, "An Act relating to solemnization of marriage." CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted the outstanding amendments on HB 62. 3:05:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, [labeled 32- LS0272\A.4, Dunmire, 3/8/21], which read: Page 1, following line 2: Insert new bill sections to read: "* Section 1. AS 25.05.261(a) is repealed and reenacted to read: (a) Marriages may be solemnized by any person in the state. * Sec. 2. AS 25.05.261(c) is repealed and reenacted to read: (c) Nothing in this section creates or implies a duty or obligation on a person authorized to solemnize a marriage under (a) of this section to solemnize any marriage." Page 1, line 3: Delete "Section 1" Insert "Sec. 3" Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 2, line 24: Delete "AS 25.05.041(a)(3) and 25.05.041(a)(5)" Insert "AS 22.15.100(3); AS 25.05.041(a)(3), 25.05.041(a)(5), 25.05.081, 25.05.281, and 25.05.371 are repealed." REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, prime sponsor of HB 62, objected. 3:05:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Amendment 2 would accomplish two things: firstly, it would remove the form and $25 fee that are required to sign a marriage license; secondly, it would clarify that no person is obligated to solemnize a marriage. Based on the discussion on Amendment 1 to HB 62 [on 3/9/21], he withdrew Amendment 2. 3:06:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3, [labeled 32- LS0272\A.6, Dunmire, 3/8/21], which read: Page 1, line 3, through page 2, line 24: Delete all material and insert:  "* Section 1. AS 25.05.301 is amended to read: Sec. 25.05.301. Form of solemnization. In the solemnization of marriage no particular form is required except that the parties shall assent or declare in the presence of each other and the person solemnizing the marriage and in the presence of at least two competent witnesses that they take each other to be husband and wife. A competent witness for this purpose is a person of sound mind capable of understanding the seriousness of the ceremony. At the time of the ceremony, the person solemnizing the marriage shall complete the certification on the original marriage certificate. The person solemnizing the marriage and the two attending witnesses shall sign the original marriage certificate and the necessary copies. The person solemnizing the marriage  may not also act as an attending witness." REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected. 3:06:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 3 would clarify that the person solemnizing the marriage may not additionally act as the witness. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his opposition to the proposed amendment because the purpose of the bill is to remove the witness requirement. Eliminating the witness requirement would particularly help with destination weddings, for which, under current law, two additional people must fly to Alaska to fulfill that obligation. He explained that Amendment 3 would maintain the witness requirement; furthermore, it would keep the officiant from acting as a witness, which is allowed under current Alaska law. Because the proposed amendment adds to the witness requirement rather than removing it, he reiterated his opposition to Amendment 3. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN maintained his objection. 3:08:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN acknowledged that there are occasions when the person presiding over the wedding also signs as the witness; however, he shared his belief that such occurrences do not satisfy the original intent of the statute. He pointed out that other more significant areas of law require a witness signature, later adding that the decision to marry a person [could] impact family court, inheritance, probate court, and many other things. He maintained that it's appropriate to require marriage witnesses because it's a legally significant decision. 3:09:40 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and Eastman voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 3. Representatives Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 3-3. 3:10:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 4, [labeled 32- LS0272\A.5, Dunmire, 3/8/21], which read: Page 1, line 1, following "Act": Insert "relating to the Legislative Ethics Act;  and" Page 1, following line 2: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Section 1. AS 24.60.030(a) is amended to read: (a) A legislator or legislative employee may not (1) solicit, agree to accept, or accept a benefit other than official compensation for the performance of public duties; this paragraph may not be construed to prohibit (A) lawful solicitation for and acceptance of campaign contributions;  (B) [,] solicitation or acceptance of contributions for a charity event, as defined in AS 24.60.080(a)(2)(B);  (C) [, OR] the acceptance of a gift under AS 24.60.075 or 24.60.080; or  (D) a legislator from accepting a benefit  in exchange for solemnizing a marriage under  AS 25.05.261(a)(4); (2) use public funds, facilities, equipment, services, or another government asset or resource for a nonlegislative purpose, for involvement in or support of or opposition to partisan political activity, or for the private benefit of the legislator, legislative employee, or another person; this paragraph does not prohibit (A) limited use of state property and resources for personal purposes if the use does not interfere with the performance of public duties and either the cost or value related to the use is nominal or the legislator or legislative employee reimburses the state for the cost of the use; (B) the use of mailing lists, computer data, or other information lawfully obtained from a government agency and available to the general public for nonlegislative purposes; (C) the legislative council, notwithstanding AS 24.05.190, from designating a public facility for use by legislators and legislative employees for health or fitness purposes; when the council designates a facility to be used by legislators and legislative employees for health or fitness purposes, it shall adopt guidelines governing access to and use of the facility; the guidelines may establish times in which use of the facility is limited to specific groups; (D) a legislator from using the legislator's private office in the capital city during a legislative session, and for the 10 days immediately before and the 10 days immediately after a legislative session, for nonlegislative purposes if the use does not interfere with the performance of public duties and if there is no cost to the state for the use of the space and equipment, other than utility costs and minimal wear and tear, or the legislator promptly reimburses the state for the cost; an office is considered a legislator's private office under this subparagraph if it is the primary space in the capital city reserved for use by the legislator, whether or not it is shared with others; (E) a legislator from use of legislative employees to prepare and send out seasonal greeting cards; (F) a legislator from using state resources to transport computers or other office equipment owned by the legislator but primarily used for a state function; (G) use by a legislator of photographs of that legislator; (H) reasonable use of the Internet by a legislator or a legislative employee except if the use is for election campaign purposes; (I) a legislator or legislative employee from soliciting, accepting, or receiving a gift on behalf of a recognized, nonpolitical charitable organization in a state facility; (J) a legislator from sending any communication in the form of a newsletter to the legislator's constituents, except a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate or a newsletter or material in a newsletter that is clearly only for the private benefit of a legislator or a legislative employee; or (K) full participation in a charity event approved in advance by the Alaska Legislative Council; (3) knowingly seek, accept, use, allocate, grant, or award public funds for a purpose other than that approved by law, or make a false statement in connection with a claim, request, or application for compensation, reimbursement, or travel allowances from public funds; (4) require a legislative employee to perform services for the private benefit of the legislator or employee at any time, or allow a legislative employee to perform services for the private benefit of a legislator or employee on government time; it is not a violation of this paragraph if the services were performed in an unusual or infrequent situation and the person's services were reasonably necessary to permit the legislator or legislative employee to perform official duties; (5) use or authorize the use of state funds, facilities, equipment, services, or another government asset or resource for the purpose of political fund raising or campaigning; this paragraph does not prohibit (A) limited use of state property and resources for personal purposes if the use does not interfere with the performance of public duties and either the cost or value related to the use is nominal or the legislator or legislative employee reimburses the state for the cost of the use; (B) the use of mailing lists, computer data, or other information lawfully obtained from a government agency and available to the general public for nonlegislative purposes; (C) storing or maintaining, consistent with (b) of this section, election campaign records in a legislator's office; (D) a legislator from using the legislator's private office in the capital city during a legislative session, and for the 10 days immediately before and the 10 days immediately after a legislative session, for nonlegislative purposes if the use does not interfere with the performance of public duties and if there is no cost to the state for the use of the space and equipment, other than utility costs and minimal wear and tear, or the legislator promptly reimburses the state for the cost; an office is considered a legislator's private office under this subparagraph if it is the primary space in the capital city reserved for use by the legislator, whether or not it is shared with others; or (E) use by a legislator of photographs of that legislator." Page 1, line 3: Delete "Section 1" Insert "Sec. 2" Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected. 3:10:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that Amendment 4 would add a subparagraph (D) to Section 1, which would allow a legislator to accept a benefit in exchange for solemnizing a marriage under AS 25.05.261(a)(4). She said in discussion with the bill sponsor, they agreed that an acceptable form of benefit would include transportation to the wedding and/or dinner at the reception; however, they also considered extreme examples of benefits that would appear questionable to the public. She welcomed a committee discussion regarding appropriate benefits for a public official who solemnizes a marriage. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN reviewed examples of benefits that he and Representative Vance had identified as reasonable for a public official to accept: a helicopter ride to perform the ceremony at a remote location; a meal after the wedding; a boat ride, during which the ceremony takes place. He explained that because the definition of benefit is broad, it raised further questions. He said he liked the notion that a public official solemnizing a wedding should not have to pay to participate; however, he questioned where the line would be drawn. He reiterated that he liked the concept but expressed concern that the proposed amendment could make it too easy for someone to accept a three- day cruise. He suggested addressing that concern in the House Judiciary Committee to allow for reasonable benefits, which are incidental to performing the service, to be accepted. 3:14:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which a legislator received a one-thousand-dollar honorarium or three- day cruise. He asked if the legislator would be required to disclose that income in the public record. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN was unsure of the answer. He said if he were offered a three-day cruise that cost $1,000, he would call Jerry Anderson, Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, and ask how to proceed. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that he had called Jerry Anderson to discuss this particular amendment. He shared his understanding that a benefit of $1,000 should be declared publicly. He stated his belief that if legislators were expected to declare honorariums, the transparency would help them make good decisions on whether to accept such benefits. 3:17:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN sought to clarify how the committee would forward on Amendment 4. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that he and Representative Vance both serve on the House Judiciary Committee. He relayed their plan to move HB 62 out of the House State Affairs Committee and consider this discussion in Judiciary. He restated his support for the concept; however, he emphasized that the concept must be right. He said the process of getting the concept right would involve discussions with Jerry Anderson and further work on the intent language to allow someone to accept a reasonable benefit but not a cash payment. 3:18:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed her interest in considering how the public would view legislators' activity. She said she would like to avoid "[setting] public officials in a place above the average person in Alaska who is going to perform a ceremony." She pointed out that legislators are held to higher scrutiny in the public eye and expressed her desire to maintain accountability and transparency. She withdrew Amendment 4 with the intent to reconsider it in the next committee of referral. 3:19:32 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 62 would be held to the end of the meeting. HB 62-MARRIAGE WITNESSES  3:43:57 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the committee would resume HOUSE BILL NO. 62, "An Act relating to solemnization of marriage." CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS advised the committee to provide closing remarks on the bill. 3:44:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that the bill is centered on whether it's beneficial to require marriage witnesses. He maintained that if there were no witnesses to the signing of a marriage license, it would provide the opportunity to question what took place and the surrounding circumstances. He expounded on the value of preserving marriage witnesses, suggesting that they could aide in future litigation. He conveyed the "profound impact" that marriage has on individuals' legal standing and financial future and expressed his opposition to removing the witness requirement. 3:45:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE remarked: ...marriage is seen as an institution and I'm very traditional when it comes to protecting the institution, but the Libertarian in me says that should be between that couple and god and the government should stay out of it. However, a marriage license is required by the state because there are legal benefits to being married. ... And the reason that I can't support this is because there are legal benefits to marriage that involve insurance and money and things like that. My question is why are we lowering the threshold to provide proof of this union that contains great benefit? REPRESENTATIVE VANCE went on to share that her preference would be to increase [the "threshold"] to provide proof that the individuals [getting married] are who they say they are. For those reasons, she said she would not be supporting the bill. 3:47:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN expressed his appreciation for the reduction in government that is present in the bill. With respect to the documentation of marriage, he opined that now, [people] are documented more than ever. He noted his support for ensuring the identity of the couple and suggested including that in a future amendment. Nonetheless, he shared his plan to support the bill with the notion that it would be amended in the House Judiciary Committee. 3:48:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN informed the committee that HB 62 was created because Alaskan businesses had expressed that government regulations made it difficult to engage in the business [of marriage]. He conveyed that people want to get married and celebrate their union in the beauty that Alaska offers; however, the two-witness requirement creates a burden on business. He noted that the bill does not remove the requirement that the wedding officiant must sign the marriage certificate, which satisfies the purpose of a witness. He pointed out that the witness requirement does not increase or decrease the seriousness of the vows that people enter into when they choose to get married. He further highlighted the common practice of documenting marriage with pictures and videos, which remove any potential risk of uncertainty regarding who got married. He reiterated that HB 62 is attempting to bring Alaska into the twenty-first century and would allow businesses to continue to provide valuable services and increase tourism in the state. For all those reasons, he urged support for the bill. 3:51:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report HB 62 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying [zero] fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE objected. 3:52:03 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kaufman, Tarr, Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of reporting HB 62 out of committee. Representatives Eastman and Vance voted against it. Therefore, HB 62 was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.