HB 375-REVISOR'S BILL  MS. PAM FINLEY, revisor of statutes, informed members that this bill was drafted pursuant to statute and was introduced by the Legislative Council. The purpose of the legislation is to clean up errors in the statutes or provisions that have become obsolete. She said when drafting this bill, she tries to avoid any policy choices in the bill because the revisor's bill does not usually get the kind of attention that most bills do. MS. FINLEY said HB 375 contains two sections of interest, the first being Section 1. Currently, the statutes say that when a bill has a specific effective date, the bill goes into effect that day. Unfortunately, sometimes the Governor does not sign the legislation until after the effective date. The practice in the revisor's office has been to treat the date signed as an immediate effective date because that is the date closest to the legislature's intent. Last year, legislation that lowered the blood alcohol content to .08 passed with a July 1 effective date. The Governor did not sign the bill until July 3, so it went into effect July 4. In the meantime, someone was arrested on July 1 and is claiming the sections that had a July 1 effective date should have a "90 days out" effective date. She noted the judge will decide on that matter and HB 375 is not intended to affect the lawsuit, but the matter did bring to her attention the fact that the statutes have not been reflecting actual practice. Therefore, Section 1 reflects actual practice since at least 1984. SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the legal argument is that because the law could not take effect on the stated date, the standard 90 day effective date provision would apply. MS. FINLEY said she assumes that is the legal argument. She then explained the second bill section that is of interest is Section 2. She said it appears to change the statute of limitations but does not. She explained that a floor amendment was passed last year. Prior to that amendment, the civil statute of limitations for sexual assault and sexual abuse was three years. The regular statute of limitations for torts was two years. Because of the rule about minors, if the sexual abuse occurred when the person was a minor, the three-year limit did not start running until the victim turned 18. Furthermore, if a person was sexually assaulted a certain number of times before the age of 16, the statute of limitations of three years did not start running until the plaintiff discovered the crime. The purpose of that exception is to allow for suppressed memories of children. The floor amendment repealed and re-enacted the special three-year statute of limitations to get rid of any civil statute of limitations for sexual abuse or assault that was a felony, however it did not deal with the misdemeanors. Therefore, since the misdemeanors no longer have the special three-year statute of limitations, they fall under the two-year statute of limitations for torts in general. The result is that Alaska now has a two-year statute of limitations for a sexual assault misdemeanor for civil cases. The other parts of that in other sections that deal with misdemeanors were written with the assumption that Alaska still had a three- year statute of limitations. MS. FINLEY explained that Section 2 amends the exceptions for minors regarding the statute of limitations. Subsection (b) on the top of page 2 references the fact that no statute of limitations applies to felony sexual assaults and it lowers the statute of limitations for the other offenses to two years. She noted the old law defined what is meant by "sexual assault" and "sexual abuse" by a reference to the criminal statutes. The new law doesn't define it. She suggested this may be an issue the legislature may want to revisit. She said those two sections are the only two of interest. VICE-CHAIR DONLEY noted the bill has a zero fiscal note and no further committee referrals. He said it appears the only problematic section is Section 2 and it makes the statutes consistent with a floor amendment. He noted he is not sure that he agrees with the floor amendment and asked the will of the committee. SENATOR THERRIAULT said he usually likes to have the opportunity to review the revisor's bill since it contains such a "scattering" of things and he has not done that. VICE-CHAIR DONLEY announced that HB 375 would be held in committee until Wednesday.