HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE March 3, 1999 1:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Pete Kott, Chairman Representative Norman Rokeberg Representative Jeannette James Representative Lisa Murkowski Representative Eric Croft Representative Beth Kerttula MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Joe Green COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9 Urging the President of the United States and the Congress to act to ensure that federal agencies do not retain records relating to lawful purchase or ownership of firearms gathered through the Brady Handgun Bill instant check system. - MOVED CSHJR 9(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 3(RLS) "An Act relating to the crimes of murder, solicitation to commit murder in the first degree, conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree, manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide; relating to homicides of children; relating to registration as a sex offender or child kidnapper; relating to the crime of interference with custody of a child or incompetent person; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 5 "An Act relating to vouchers for education; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 83 "An Act relating to the licensing of, acts and practices of, notice filings required of, duties of, registration of, capitalization of, financial requirements for, bonding of, coordinated securities examinations of, recordkeeping by, and documents filed by certain securities occupations; relating to public entity investment pools; relating to investment advisory contracts; relating to the examination of records of certain securities occupations; relating to federal covered securities; relating to the registration of securities; relating to the general exemptions for securities and transactions; relating to offers of securities on the Internet; relating to the confidentiality of investigative files under the Alaska Securities Act; relating to the payment by certain securities occupations of expenses and fees of investigations and examinations; relating to petitions to superior court by the administrator to reduce civil penalties to judgment; exempting certain violations of the Alaska Securities Act from criminal penalties; relating to time limitations in bringing court actions for violations of the Alaska Securities Act; relating to the affirmative defense of timeliness in court actions relating to securities; prohibiting certain lawsuits involving buyers of securities; relating to time limitations for bringing court actions involving the receipt of a written offer related to securities; relating to offers to repay buyers of securities; relating to notification of certain securities occupations regarding administrative hearings; relating to fees established by the administrator; relating to a sale, a purchase, or an offer to sell or purchase under the Alaska Securities Act; relating to the locations of offers to buy or sell; relating to consent to service; amending the Alaska Securities Act definitions of 'agent,' 'broker-dealer,' 'person,' 'Securities Act of 1933,' and 'security;' defining for purposes of the Alaska Securities Act 'advisory client,' 'advisory fee,' 'advisory services,' 'Bank Holding Company Act of 1956,' 'clients who are natural persons,' 'federal covered adviser,' 'federal covered security,' 'Federal Deposit Insurance Act,' 'Home Owners' Loan Act,' 'investment adviser representative,' 'Investment Advisers Act of 1940,' 'investment advisory business,' 'investment advisory contract,' 'Investment Company Act of 1940,' 'NASDAQ,' 'National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996,' 'notice filing,' 'place of business,' 'principal place of business,' 'Securities Exchange Act of 1934,' 'securities business,' 'state investment adviser,' 'substantial portion of the business,' 'supervised person,' and 'viatical settlement'; relating to the title of the Alaska Securities Act; relating to the definitions in the Alaska Securities Act of 'assignment' and 'investment adviser'; relating to implementation of the changes to the Alaska Securities Act; and providing for an effective date." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD HOUSE BILL NO. 67 "An Act relating to release of certain persons alleged to have committed certain sexual offenses." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD HOUSE BILL NO. 3 "An Act relating to controlled substances and to the possession and distribution of certain chemicals." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HJR 9 SHORT TITLE: DESTROY BRADY BILL RECORDS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) CROFT, James, Dyson, Green, Brice, Therriault, Berkowitz, Foster, Harris, Coghill, Hudson, Morgan, Halcro, Austerman, Ogan, Kott, Cowdery, Phillips, Smalley, Whitaker Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/27/99 92 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/27/99 92 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY 1/29/99 106 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER, HARRIS, COGHILL 2/01/99 121 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HUDSON, MORGAN, HALCRO 2/01/99 121 (H) COSPONSOR(S): AUSTERMAN 2/08/99 172 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OGAN, KOTT, COWDERY 2/12/99 209 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS 2/16/99 227 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SMALLEY 2/18/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 2/18/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE 2/18/99 (H) MINUTE(STA) 2/19/99 250 (H) STA RPT 5DP 1NR 1AM 2/19/99 250 (H) DP: JAMES, SMALLEY, COGHILL, HUDSON, 2/19/99 250 (H) WHITAKER; NR: KERTTULA; AM: OGAN 2/19/99 250 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H.STA) 2/19/99 250 (H) REFERRED TO JUD 2/19/99 268 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WHITAKER 3/03/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SB 3 SHORT TITLE: CRIMES OF MURDER & CHILD MURDERS SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD, Phillips, Donley, Green, Leman, Taylor, Pearce, Lincoln, Kelly Pete, Kelly Tim, Ward, Miller, Mackie Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/19/99 13 (S) PREFILED RELEASED - 1/8/99 1/19/99 13 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/19/99 13 (S) JUD, FIN 1/22/99 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 1/22/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE 1/22/99 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 1/25/99 76 (S) JUD RPT 3DP 1NR 1/25/99 76 (S) DP: TAYLOR, HALFORD, ELLIS;NR: TORGERSON 1/25/99 76 (S) FISCAL NOTE (COR) 1/25/99 76 (S) INDETERMINATE FN (ADM-2) 1/25/99 76 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW) 2/02/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 2/02/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 2/02/99 135 (S) FIN RPT 9DP 2/02/99 135 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS, GREEN, 2/02/99 135 (S) PETE KELLY, ADAMS, WILKEN, LEMAN, DONLEY 2/02/99 135 (S) PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FNS (ADMINISTRATION-2) 2/02/99 135 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (LAW) 2/02/99 135 (S) PREVIOUS FN (COR) 2/16/99 (S) RLS AT 11:40 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 2/16/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 2/17/99 269 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE NEW TITLE 2/17/99 269 (S) PREVIOUS FN (COR) 2/17/99 269 (S) PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FNS (ADM-2) 2/17/99 269 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (LAW) 2/18/99 293 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 2/18/99 294 (S) RLS COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 2/18/99 294 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 2/18/99 294 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 3(RLS) 2/18/99 294 (S) COSPONSOR(S): PEARCE, LINCOLN, PETE 2/18/99 294 (S) KELLY, TIM KELLY, WARD, MILLER, MACKIE 2/18/99 294 (S) PASSED Y19 E1 2/18/99 295 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 2/18/99 297 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 2/19/99 248 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 2/19/99 248 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 3/03/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 5 SHORT TITLE: VOUCHER SYSTEM FOR EDUCATION SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOHRING, Coghill Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/19/99 19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99 1/19/99 19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/19/99 19 (H) HES, FINANCE 2/05/99 147 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COGHILL 2/10/99 184 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS 2/10/99 184 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 2/10/99 184 (H) HES, FINANCE 2/16/99 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 2/16/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD 2/23/99 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 2/23/99 (H) WAIVED OUT OF COMMITTEE 2/24/99 306 (H) HES REFERRAL WAIVED 2/24/99 307 (H) JUD REFERRAL ADDED 2/24/99 307 (H) REFERRED TO JUD 3/03/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 WITNESS REGISTER BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison National Rifle Association of America Institute for Legislative Action 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 455 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 446-2455 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 9. CARL ROSIER, Vice President Alaska Outdoor Council; Board Member, Territorial Sportsman Incorporated 8298 Garnet Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 789-9117 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 9. DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 111200 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200 Telephone: (907) 465-4322 POSITION STATEMENT: SCOTT T. CALDER P.O. Box 75011 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Telephone: (907) 474-0174 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 9, and testified against SB 3. JULI LUCKY, Researcher for Senator Rick Halford Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 121 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4958 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for SB 3. SENATOR RICK HALFORD Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 121 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4958 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 3. DAVID HUDSON, First Sergeant Division of Alaska State Troopers Department of Public Safety 5700 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225 Telephone: (907) 269-5655 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 3. BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director Public Defender Agency Department of Administration 900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090 Telephone: (907) 264-4400 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 3. ROBIN LOWN, Vice President Alaska Peace Officers Association P.O. Box 33885 Juneau, Alaska 99803 Telephone: (907) 463-7188 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 3. ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General Legal Services Section-Juneau Criminal Division Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 Telephone: (907) 465-3428 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 3. RANDY LORENZ, Researcher for Representative Vic Kohring Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 421 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2186 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for SSHB 5. ANNE KILKENNY P.O. Box 870163 Wasilla, Alaska 99687 Telephone: (907) 376-6225 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 5. JOHN CYR, President National Education Association-Alaska 114 Second Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-3090 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SSHB 5. CECILIA PALIVODA H.C. 60, Box 4497 Delta Junction, Alaska 99737 Telephone: (907) 895-1074 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 5. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 99-9, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Kott, Murkowski, Rokeberg, Croft and Kerttula. Representative James arrived at 1:30 p.m. HJR 9 - DESTROY BRADY BILL RECORDS CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is HJR 9, Urging the President of the United States and the Congress to act to ensure that federal agencies do not retain records relating to lawful purchase or ownership of firearms gathered through the Brady Handgun Bill instant check system. CHAIRMAN KOTT called on Representative Eric Croft, sponsor of the bill. Number 0123 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated HJR 9 deals with a conflict between the statutes authorizing the instant check system for gun purchases of the Brady Handgun Bill and the regulations promulgated pursuant to those statutes. In other words, the regulations implementing the instant check system do not fit with the statutes. The Brady Handgun Bill specifically said that there will not be a federal registry of lawful gun owners. The language from the Brady Handgun Bill reads, "all records shall be destroyed of the system with respect to the call other than the identifying number and date and all records system relating to the person or transfer." In his opinion, that language is clear. The regulations originally said that records could be kept for 18 months then it was reduced to 6 months, and as Representative Murkowski noted before the meeting started a possible further reduction was considered on February 28, 1999. He is not aware of the results of that meeting, however. It was not a matter of revisiting whether or not to keep the records at all, but just a change in the period of retention. Although the statute passed by Congress, did not say immediately destroy, there is a difference between the term "keeping" and the term "destroying". In this case, the regulations propose keeping not destroying. Number 0349 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Representative Croft if it is reduced to a 48-hour retention for example, as the result of the review, what would that do to the joint resolution. Number 0375 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied if it is reduced to zero the resolution is not needed. Forty-eight hours makes it less troublesome, but any keeping of records is troublesome from a legal standpoint because the regulations do not comply with the statutes. In addition, this is such a hot topic and a well-known concern in the gun owner community that a conscious decision should be made up front. Mr. Del Smith from the Department of Public Safety will testify that the state did not need to keep this information for audits or any other purposes when it managed the information. An audit can be done with the identifying number and date - what the statute allows. Number 0504 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Croft whether he is aware of any abuses in regards to record keeping. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied keeping records is an abuse, but he is not aware of them being used for any other purposes. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT opened the meeting up to public testimony. Number 0570 BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison, National Rifle Association of America (NRA), Institute for Legislative Action, testified via teleconference from California. He is speaking on behalf of the NRA members in Alaska in strong support of HJR 9. In 1993, the NRA worked closely with Congress in drafting the law that created the national instant check system - the Brady Handgun Bill. The main inference of the NRA was to ensure privacy for firearm owners, and one of the provisions was to destroy the records. The Brady Handgun Bill says that no governmental agency may require any record to be recorded or transferred at a governmental facility and that facility can't use a system to create a registration system or transaction, except with respect to those prohibited from receiving a firearm. The Brady Handgun Bill specifically says that all records will be destroyed for law abiding citizens, except for the transaction identification number and the date of transaction. History has shown that firearm registration systems have led to firearm confiscation mandates, and NRA members clearly understand that the creating of a gun registration system is a major step towards the destruction of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In addition, he agrees with Representative Croft that any retention - 18 months, 6 months, 48 hours - is contrary to the law for law abiding citizens. Furthermore, of the hundreds of thousands that the Brady Handgun Bill has stopped from purchasing firearms only about seven have been prosecuted. In conclusion, he reiterated the law provides that information be maintained on the bad guys and that zero information be maintained on the law abiding citizens. Number 0814 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Judy whether he is aware of any abuses of information currently being held. MR. JUDY replied keeping records is an abuse of the law and contrary to its intent, but he doesn't know whether they have been used for any particular person. Number 0848 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Judy how the Brady Handgun Bill squares with local jurisdictions and requirements for handgun registrations. Number 0874 MR. JUDY replied it is a question that hasn't been resolved. He cited the state of California maintains records of handgun purchasers. He explained the federal law only restricts the maintenance of records by the federal government. But, the extent that California is acting as an agent of the federal government, for example, is a question that hasn't been resolved. It is feasible that the state may be prohibited from maintaining records as well. A lot of gun owners would like to see that happen. Number 1016 CARL ROSIER, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC); Board Member, Territorial Sportsman Incorporated (TSI), testified in Juneau. For many years these organizations have been strong supporters of shooting sports as well as a citizen's right to purchase, use and keep firearms in a responsible manner. It is a pleasure to see the strong bipartisan support of HJR 9 reflected in the sponsorship and cosponsorship. These organizations believe that the Brady Handgun Bill clearly indicated that once the instant check was completed there is no justification or rationale for maintenance of records on a legally qualified buyer. These organizations believe that it is a subversion of the law with further potential to invade rights of law abiding citizens. Who knows how the information will be used? Who knows who might have access to those records? What prevents a 6-month retention of records from being extended to 12 months? What law abiding citizen wishes to have a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) file for a day let alone six months for simply purchasing a legal firearm? The Brady Handgun Bill was quite clear in its intent and once again federal agencies are attempting to go beyond the congressional authority granted to them. Those efforts, if not corrected, do nothing but undermine the trust of government by law abiding citizens. These organizations strongly support HJR 9 and urge the legislature to move it through the legislative process expeditiously. He said, "Let's protect the provision of our Second Amendment rights." Number 1161 DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, testified in Juneau. From 1994 to November 30, 1998, under the original provisions of the Brady Handgun Bill, the state did not retain any records of those legally authorized to purchase a weapon. The records were immediately destroyed within a couple of minutes. He cited during that time 57,500 checks were done by state and local law enforcement agencies of which 1,532 were denied. Nationally, there were 242,000 rejections out of 10.4 million requests to purchase a firearm. Number 1249 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Smith to explain the reasons why 1,532 would be denied a permit. MR. SMITH replied primarily they would be prohibited or denied a permit because of crimes committed, mental issues, or domestic violence convictions, for example. Number 1307 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Smith whether there are any municipal registration requirements for firearms in the state. MR. SMITH replied not that he knows of. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Smith whether there is a prohibition in statute prohibiting that. MR. SMITH replied he can't quote one off the top of his head. According to his understanding, the registration of firearms is neither required nor allowed. In fact, under the concealed handgun program, the state makes sure that no records are kept other than what a person qualifies with and that information is not available to anybody but the Department of Public Safety. Number 1392 CHAIRMAN KOTT called for an at-ease at 1:32 p.m. and called the meeting back to order at 1:34 p.m. Number 1401 SCOTT T. CALDER testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He referred to page 2, line 4, "WHEREAS the actions of the FBI are contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Brady Handgun Bill and further erode the constitutional right of Alaskans to keep and bear arms;". He stated it is a real important concept and the people need to hear about it more from the legislators. This type of concern is the reason for the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. One of the reasons there are social problems attributed to gun ownership, bad weather, bad parents and everything else is because there is this type of intrusion into our daily lives. He applauded the sponsor of the resolution and encouraged any method to make it stronger or find a way to participate without being threatened. CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that any infringement upon a federal constitutional right is alarming. Number 1543 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Representative Croft why a copy of the resolution is not being directed to the director of the FBI. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied he should have thought of that. He has no objection to including it. Number 1564 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a conceptual motion to include the director of the FBI in the "COPIES" section of the resolution. There being no objection, it was so moved. Number 1600 CHAIR JAMES made a motion to move HJR 9, as amended, from the committee with individual recommendations. There being no objection, CSHJR 9(JUD) was so moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. CSSB 3(RLS) - CRIMES OF MURDER & CHILD MURDERS CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is, CSSB 3(RLS), "An Act relating to the crimes of murder, solicitation to commit murder in the first degree, conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree, manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide; relating to homicides of children; relating to registration as a sex offender or child kidnapper; relating to the crime of interference with custody of a child or incompetent person; and providing for an effective date." CHAIRMAN KOTT called on Juli Lucky, staff to Senator Rick Halford, sponsor of the bill. Number 1638 JULI LUCKY, Researcher for Senator Rick Halford, Alaska State Legislature, stated the bill should be familiar to the committee members. It was heard last year as SB 218 and received seven due passes. It is basically the same bill. Senator Halford would like to send a clear message with this bill, that being "if you kill a child you will go to jail for a long time." She cited the Tellsworth case whereby a child was killed by a day care provider and the mother of that child had to go through a long trial, pleading and sentencing. She referred to a letter dated July 23, 1998 from the Department of Law to Senator Randy Phillips that says, "Indeed, were it not for the powerful and moving testimony and letters of Linda Tellsworth and her family and friends, we might not have gotten the sentence that we did in the recent case of the murder of Kyle Tellsworth." The judge in this case stated during sentencing that the criminal would probably get five and one-half years due to good time and suspended sentencing. That was the reason for sponsoring this type of legislation. Under SB 3, the criminal would have to spend substantially more time. Ms. Lucky stated the bill does the following: - adds a new form of first-degree murder when the death of a child results from the commission or attempt of kidnapping or of a sexual offense; - expands the crime of felony murder to include sexual abuse of a minor in the first and second degrees; - adds a new form of second-degree murder when a death of a child was caused with criminal negligence and the offender has a previous conviction of certain crimes against a child; - elevates criminally negligent homicide from a class C to a class B felony; - establishes a twenty year mandatory minimum sentence for a person convicted of a murder of a child under the age of sixteen; - increases the mandatory minimum sentence from five to seven years for manslaughter, when the victim is a child under the age of sixteen; - establishes a new sentencing provision, which allows for a term of un-suspended imprisonment that exceeds the presumptive term, for certain felony offenses if the victim is a child under the age of sixteen; - expands the crime of custodial interference in the first degree to include the act of keeping a child or incompetent person outside of the state; and - elevates solicitation of murder to an unclassified felony. Number 1756 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated last year the bill enjoyed unanimous bipartisan support, and asked Ms. Lucky what the differences are between last year's bill and this year's bill. MS. LUCKY replied there are a few inclusions in this year's bill. The first inclusion ups solicitation of first-degree murder to an unclassified felony bringing it in-line with crimes of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Another inclusion deals with sex offender registration. Senator Halford believes that an attempt to commit a crime of sexual abuse or assault of a minor should be registered in the sex offender registry. There are also some applicability sections that were added. Number 1812 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Lucky which sections in the bill refer to sex offender registration. MS. LUCKY replied Sections 11, 12, and 13 add offenses to the definitions that are now in the sex offender registry statute. The the definition of "aggravated sex offense", "sex offense" and "child kidnapping" are being added, respectively. The bill adds felony murder one and two to those definitions. The applicability is in Section 15. CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that the language "shall register" in on page 9, line 6. Number 1864 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he does not see a fiscal note in the bill packet. He is curious about the elevation of criminally negligent homicide from a class C to a class B felony, and the increase in the mandatory minimum sentence from five to seven years for manslaughter. He asked Ms. Lucky whether the theory behind the bill is to create a special crime for violence against a child. MS. LUCKY replied the criminally negligent homicide provision would affect the statute for everyone by upping it from a class C to a class B felony. The manslaughter provision was discussed last year and ups the sentence for crimes committed against children under the age of 16. In other words, if a person is guilty of a crime of manslaughter and those action harmed a child under the age of 16, the sentence would be the higher of the two. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he is troubled that the provision for a criminally negligent homicide is across the board and not specifically towards a child. He noted when the bill was passed last year the state was in a different financial situation. He is concerned about the fiscal impact. CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that the committee has requested fiscal notes from the Administration which have not been received yet. The committee aide will provide a copy of the fiscal notes that were transmitted with the bill. Number 1800 SENATOR RICK HALFORD, Alaska State Legislature, noted that the Department of Law requested the change in manslaughter. [THE REST OF HIS TESTIMONY IS INAUDIBLE DUE TO PAPER SHUFFLING] Number 2024 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Section 2(a)(3) and asked Ms. Lucky whether a person would be registered as a sex offender if that person commits a crime of kidnapping that is not of a sexual nature. The language reads, "...the person commits or attempts to commit a sexual offense or kidnapping against a child under 16 years of age...". MS. LUCKY replied the term "child kidnapping" is already defined in statute, and Section 12 of the bill would add the crimes dealing with kidnapping to that definition. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that even though it is referred to as a sex offender registry it really is a child kidnapper or sex offender registry. MS. LUCKY replied correct and noted Section 12 (C) is the part that already exists in statute. Number 2080 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he was not aware that kidnapping is a part of the sex offender registry. He wondered if a parent kidnaps that parent's own child would that parent be a part of the sex offender registry. Number 2096 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated he believes there is a distinction between child abduction and kidnapping. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG wondered whether that was litigated under Megan's Law in the supreme court. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT opened the meeting up to public testimony. Number 2132 DAVID HUDSON, First Sergeant, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He noted that Section 3 of the bill needs to be more specific to consider a prior qualifying conviction to demonstrate a clear nexus to the crime at hand. For example, AS 11.41 includes indecent exposure, and a defendant could argue that a prior conviction of indecent exposure has little to do with that defendant's current conduct and it should not be used to enhance that defendant's criminal liability. Number 2193 BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. The bill makes a significant change in homicide laws. Homicide has traditionally been divided into different degrees of seriousness based on mental states. The bill changes that and makes a classification based on the status of a victim as a child. Traditionally, first-degree murder was premeditated or intentional. Second-degree murder was lesser but still a very serious type of mental state. Felony murder was when a person not participating in the crime died in the commission of a serious felony. Manslaughter was reckless types of conduct, not intentional types of conduct. Criminal negligent homicide was death caused by criminal negligence. He reiterated the bill would change a well-ordered system. In addition, there are others who deserve the type of protection under the bill such as the elderly, infirm or any other vulnerable victim. An "aggravator" is already defined in statute and used to enhance sentencing when a victim is vulnerable. In addition, Section 4 would raise all criminally negligent homicides to a class B felony, such as a death from a traffic accident. This is quite a change in the law. The division has submitted an indeterminate fiscal note because there would be more trials and pleas, but the fiscal impact is indeterminable. Number 2324 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to Section 2, lines 12-20, and wondered whether the direction is changing from a person's mental state to criminal negligence. MR. McCUNE replied it makes a fairly restrictive offense involving torture or physical assault a first-degree murder by virtue of criminal negligence. The conduct language directed toward the child was placed in the bill last year at the request of the Department of Law so that it is clear it would only involve cases directed towards a child and not just that a child died in the course of another incident. Number 2424 MR. T. CALDER testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He stated he is fascinated with the remarks by Mr. McCune. The legislature doesn't have any business tampering with the criminal code. He knows that it can do it, but the history of crimes against children committed under the collar of the law is a much more serious problem. He has witnessed criminal activity under the collar of the law against his own child and has not been able to find a state official to address the problem in spite of laws that already exist. "We're just completely missing the boat here now to shuffle around the criminal code and try to tighten things up and, you know, up the ante on some of this." There are already laws on the books for this... TAPE 99-9, SIDE B Number 0001 MR. T. CALDER continued. The difficulties that citizens have when their rights have been violated by governmental entities should be the top legislative priority and really the only purpose for the existence of the legislature. He can appreciate the position of the law enforcement officer who spoke earlier and understands the frustration of making a criminal a defendant in a legal action that is not fairly judged in the interest of the people. That is a real problem, but shuffling the words around in the bill and essentially using children for this type of legal manipulation is dangerous. He stated he would be happy to provide further information on the criminal kidnap and torture of his own son by the Department of Health and Social Services, Department of Law, Department of Revenue and the court system. In conclusion, he stated if someone really wants to shuffle the criminal code around, the crime of genocide should be defined and lesser offenses. That person would be providing a valuable public service. CHAIRMAN KOTT noted there is something going on with the existing system which is why the bill is being taken up. Number 0098 ROBIN LOWN, Vice President, Alaska Peace Officers Association (APOA), testified in Juneau. The APOA supports SB 3. The association consists of 1,100 members from all law enforcement agencies in the state. Number 0128 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Lown whether the APOA has discussed any part of the bill in detail. MR. LOWN replied the association has reviewed the bill in general. It has not focused on any specific area. However, in response to today's testimony, he agrees with First Sergeant Hudson's opinion and Mr. McCune's opinion relating to intent. Number 0174 ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, testified in Juneau. The division supports SB 3. It is substantially similar to provisions in the Governor's Child Protection Bill (HB 375) that passed last year. The additions made to the bill since last year are logical and make sense. In reference to child kidnapping, the legislature adopted a bill last year in response to federal requirements to add it to the sex offender registry. It is now called the "Sex Offender and Child Kidnapping Registry". Number 0215 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Carpeneti what the Act was called. MS. CARPENETI replied it was called the Wetterling Act. In addition, the reason for suggesting an increase in criminally negligent homicide was because in statute homicides are either murder in the first or second degree unclassified felonies. Manslaughter is a class A felony, and criminally negligent homicide is a class C felony. The gap is not appropriate, particularly when car theft, failure to register as a child sex offender or kidnapper in the first degree are class C felonies. It seemed that criminally negligent homicide, causing the death of another person through criminal negligence, is serious enough to be classified as a class C felony. It also makes more sense in charging and processing cases. When considering charges of manslaughter, a class A felony, prosecutors think about resolving the case short of a trial. Therefore, they would be more likely to resolve a case with a charge of criminally negligent homicide if it was a class B felony. It makes more sense. It would up some cases to a B felony and many cases would come down from an A to a B felony. The effect wouldn't be that great in terms of corrections and costs. Number 0319 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated in reference to kidnapping one's own child, AS 11.41.300 provides a defense if that person is a relative and the victim is a child and the primary intent is to assume custody. It criminalities it at a different level. It is still criminal, but different than kidnapping. He asked Ms. Carpeneti whether that would come under the sex abuse or kidnapping registry. MS. CARPENETI replied no. It is treated as custodial interference in the first degree - a class C felony. Number 0350 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Section 3(5), and stated the bill would punish criminally negligent homicide with the death of a child and hook it to some of the fairly minor crimes in AS 11.41, such as extortion and indecent exposure. He asked Ms. Carpeneti for a good example of criminally negligent homicide. MS. CARPENETI replied reckless driving and causing a death. AS 11.41 are crimes against a person and she agrees it is a broad coverage and it is getting broader as offenses are added to it. She suggested breaking down some of the more serious offenses. She noted that assault in the fourth degree is the crime that most domestic violence cases are resolved under. It can be very serious. Number 0443 CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Section 2(2) and stated, according to his understanding, it is a two-prong test. MS. CARPENETI stated under the old common law intentional killings were generally first-degree murders. In 1988, the legislature passed AS 11.41.100(2), but it hasn't been used because it is difficult to prove a pattern or torture. The purpose of the child protection law is to elevate the safety of the children of the state and make it more serious to cause their death. The changes in the bill were suggested to make it easier to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person causing serious physical injury twice on the same child could be charged with first-degree murder. Number 0508 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that he sees how a pattern or practice could be difficult to prosecute, and asked Ms. Carpeneti whether changing the language from extreme indifference to criminally negligent is substantial as well. MS. CARPENETI replied it is two acts and the person must knowingly engage in conduct directed towards a child. It is a big change, but the working group felt that it justified persecution for first-degree murder. Number 0550 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated the language in Section 2, starting on line 12, "...knowingly engages in conduct...", doesn't incorporate a standard. MS. CARPENETI noted the language reads, "...directed toward a child...". REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the acts are separate, but the language doesn't read, "knowingly engages in criminally negligent conduct." MS. CARPENETI replied the way the bill is drafted now the result of the action must be criminal negligence. Number 0598 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to Section 5, and asked Ms. Carpeneti whether a person who knowingly takes a child out of the state and that child is killed in a reckless manner, such as a car accident, could that person be accused of second-degree murder in the state of Alaska. MS. CARPENETI replied no. There has to be two separate instances. A conviction generally includes a person being charged, found guilty, and sentenced. Thus, unless that person has been convicted of a violation in the first degree it would not count under second-degree murder. Number 0677 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether a person could be charged with second-degree murder if that person has been convicted of custodial interference then under lawful custody drives recklessly with that child. MS. CARPENETI replied yes. She suggested going through AS 11.41 and deciding which person-crimes are serious enough to justify this. Number 0713 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Carpeneti what is the punishment for second-degree murder. MS. CARPENETI replied a maximum of 99 years in jail. Number 0720 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted the bill ups second-degree murder from a minimum of 5 years to a minimum of 20 years. It needs to be looked at further. It might be an unintended consequence. Number 0752 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Carpeneti for more examples of criminally negligent conduct that might cause a death. He wondered whether drunk driving under certain conditions could be an example. MS. CARPENETI replied generally drunk driving involving a death is charged under manslaughter. Sometimes manslaughter is reduced to criminally negligent homicide if a link cannot be proved to manslaughter. There are other situations, not just vehicular homicides, but she didn't feel comfortable giving further examples before consulting with prosecutors. Number 0827 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated a drunken driving offense is normally charged with manslaughter yet criminally negligent homicide is below manslaughter. Therefore, drunk driving is a higher level of criminally negligent homicide. He asked Ms. Carpeneti whether a charge more than manslaughter would be included in criminally negligent homicide. MS. CARPENETI replied yes because it involves a degree of negligence or recklessness. Recklessness is a higher degree... REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected and asked Ms. Carpeneti whether there is an administrative term "greater included." MS. CARPENETI replied no. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he is not sure whether that is the case here in the bill. He asked Ms. Carpeneti whether there is anything that the committee should be aware of relating to this. MS. CARPENETI replied the term "greater included" is not used, but its concept is used because there are those that are lesser included. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he doesn't want those instances that are now typically charged as manslaughter to become de facto second-degree murder because of the bill. He is not sure that is the intent of the sponsor either. MS. CARPENETI referred to Section 3(5) and noted the purpose is to punish those more seriously who have caused the death of children when in the past they have caused harm to children. Number 0979 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "I thought you said earlier that if we find there's been a custodial interference with taking out of state and a separate instance occurs (indisc.) criminal negligence involved or homicide under criminal negligence in combination that there could be a charge of second-degree murder vice-a-vie homicide, I mean, manslaughter." MS. CARPENETI replied if a person has been convicted of custodial interference and after a conviction has caused the death of a child through criminal negligence then that person could be charged with second-degree murder. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG wondered whether a driving while intoxicated (DWI) homicide normally charged under manslaughter could be shifted to second-degree murder. He is not sure whether the legislature or the sponsor wants to do that. Number 1051 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Representative Rokeberg whether he wants to leave it out. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied no. He stated in this case several things are being combined to make a more severe penalty. He asked, Do we want to make those types of things second-degree murder with a 20 year presumptive minimum sentence? He said, "We ought to be darn sure what we're putting together here warrants that high minimum presumption." In other words, a conviction of vehicular homicide then a conviction of taking one's child out of state on a separate instance seems a little tough for 20 years. CHAIRMAN KOTT called on Ms. Lucky to comment on any of the issues discussed. Number 1147 MS. LUCKY reiterated the intent of Senator Halford is to use a higher penalty against those who have a past conviction of a crime against a child and cause the death of a child. She believes prosecutors will still have discretion in what they will charge someone with. Number 1180 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated, if he was a noncustodial parent and took his child to Hawaii for a week and got busted, he would hate to think that he would turn into a second-degree murderer later on because of a different fact pattern. He is not certain that is the case, but he is very concerned about it. CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that Representative Rokeberg is right on track. Number 1210 MS. LUCKY offered to the committee members an index of the statutes under AS 11.41 in terms of specifying particular crimes... CHAIRMAN KOTT interjected and asked Ms. Lucky whether there has been any discussion to separate those crimes. MS. LUCKY replied it hasn't been a discussion until now, and she has not talked with Senator Halford about it. She reiterated she has a list of crimes under AS 11.41 if the committee wishes to fine-tune certain things. There are a lot of crimes listed that would merit a more detailed discussion than just a list of the statutes. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Lucky to make that index available to the committee members. Number 1278 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Carpeneti what the presumptive minimum and maximum sentences are for class B and C felonies. MS. CARPENETI replied the maximum for a class B felony is (indisc.) and the maximum for a class C felony is five years. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Carpeneti what are the minimums. MS. CARPENETI replied class B and C felonies don't have presumptive terms for the first conviction. A presumptive term for a class C felony for a second conviction is two years. A presumptive term for a class B felony for a second conviction is four years. Number 1332 CHAIRMAN KOTT closed the meeting to public testimony. CHAIRMAN KOTT referred the bill to a subcommittee. He appointed Representative Rokeberg as chairman, and Representatives Green and Kerttula to the subcommittee and charged it with looking at these issues further in cooperation with the sponsor. The subcommittee is to report back to the full committee at the earliest time possible. Number 1391 CHAIRMAN KOTT called for an at-ease at 2:30 p.m. and called the meeting back to order at 2:36 p.m. SSHB 5 - VOUCHER SYSTEM FOR EDUCATION CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is SSHB 5, "An Act relating to vouchers for education; and providing for an effective date." CHAIRMAN KOTT explained that the bill was waived out of the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee, and that committee has requested that it be returned, if it passes out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee. CHAIRMAN KOTT called on Randy Lorenz, staff to Representative Vic Kohring, sponsor of the bill. Number 1470 RANDY LORENZ, Researcher for Representative Vic Kohring, Alaska State Legislature, explained Representative Kohring was here earlier, but had to leave due to a conflict with a House Finance Standing Committee meeting. He will discuss the constitutionality of the bill today. The main stumbling block for this bill is the Sheldon Jackson College v. State of Alaska decision. There are two primary interests that render that decision moot in Alaska's history. Firstly, Sheldon Jackson was a grant to a college as compared to an elementary or secondary school. The Education Act of 1965 throws out different directions to all states requiring the appropriate education for all school children. Secondly, the Sheldon Jackson decision looked at the student as a conduit for funds to be directed to private institutions. He referred to Black's Law Dictionary and cited the term "direct" is the immediate, approximate, by the shortest course, without circuitry operating by an immediate connection or relations instead of operating through a medium. Therefore, the Sheldon Jackson decision was misinterpreted by the state supreme court. He referred to a report from the Department of Law dated February 22, 1999 and stated in both situations it only looks at the Sheldon Jackson case and refuses to look at over 20 court cases since the early 1970's that say that part of the constitution cannot be enforced. He cited in Traverse City School District v. Attorney General (1971) the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting public funds for private education was unconstitutional, void and unenforceable because it prevented free exercise of religion guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and violated the equal protection of law provisions of the U.S. Constitution. He cited in Warren v. Nusbaum (1972) the U.S. Supreme Court decided that state constitutions were parallel to the First Amendment therefore any First Amendment case should control the state's constitutional interpretation. He cited in Campbell v. Manchester Board of School Directors (1994) the court unanimously overturned a prior ruling stating that judicial prudence has evolved greatly since 1961 in directions unpredicted at the time. Therefore, the constitutional issue must be examined a new in light of more recent teachings. He cited in Kotterman v. Killian (1999) the court ruled that primary beneficiaries of credits are tax payers who contribute to the school tuition organizations. Parents who might otherwise be deprived of an opportunity to make meaningful decisions about their children's education and the children themselves... Private school are at best only incidental beneficiaries by creating the program the legislature hoped to encourage the development of an educational setting that would invigorate learning, improve academic achievement, and provide additional choices for parents and children. The Blaine Amendment was a clear manifestation of religious bigotry and party of a crusade of the contemporary Protestant Establishment to counter what was perceived as a growing Catholic menace. It would be hard to divorce the amendment's language from the insidious, discriminatory intent that prompted it. He has 18 more court cases that say the use of public funds for a child's education in a private school is not a violation of the constitution. The problem is there is no avenue to ask the Alaska Supreme Court how it feels. The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear in numerous cases that it is not a violation of the constitution. Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the U.S. Department of Education can make sure that establishment clause is protected and that there is a separation of church and state through its normal procedures. He noted that Representative Kohring would like the committee members to review the court cases associated with this bill then send it back to the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee for the final details, then bring it back to the House Judiciary Standing Committee to ensure it meets the constitutionality of the state and U.S. supreme courts. Representative Kohring would like for it to go to the judges through its normal process. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT opened the meeting up to public testimony. Number 2020 ANNE KILKENNY testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su. She noted the state doesn't have money to burn. Every dollar spent on litigation is one less dollar available for education and other more productive purposes. Please don't let the bill move from the committee until it has been amendment to pass constitutional muster. Number 2084 JOHN CYR, President, National Education Association (NEA)-Alaska, testified in Juneau. The position paper presented by NEA-Alaska does not really speak to the constitutionality of public money for private, religious and home schools, but it is clear that Article VII, section 1 of the Alaska Constitution says, "No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution." It is a higher threshold than almost any other state constitution. There is a direct prohibition against this in the state constitution. He cited in 1996 the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court upheld the Cleveland voucher system when there isn't a prescription against public funds going towards a private education. The decision was later reversed by the Court of Appeals of Ohio, 8th District. He further stated similar voucher proposals have been held unconstitutional in Vermont, Maine and Puerto Rico. In addition, most states have a prohibition against state funds going to religious institutions. The language seems clear on its face beyond the fact that educationally it is not good policy. He stated it will cost between $40 million to $50 million before one child comes out of a public school and goes to a religious, private or home school. There are somewhere between 10,000 to 12,000 kids in private or home schools which equates to about $4,000 per kid which equates to a lot of money. He asked the committee members to not move the bill further. It is bad public policy and violates the state constitution. It has also been found to violate almost every state constitution around the U.S. In addition, according to polls, the public is opposed to vouchers. No one wants their tax dollars going to support religious or privates schools that they don't agree with, especially because there is no control over private or home schools. There are no standardization or exit tests, for example. The bill calls for violating the state constitution and giving money without any hope of knowing whether or not these kids would meet the standards expected as a state. Number 2469 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Cyr whether NEA-Alaska intends to submit a legal opinion. MR. CYR replied NEA-Alaska would be more than happy to research the issue and get back to the committee... TAPE 99-10, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR JAMES stated it seems that the benefit of choosing where to go to school is to the children and not to the institution. MR. CYR replied under the bill the parents and children do not get to choose. The school gets to choose. The school decides whether a child is acceptable to go to a private school. The courts have ruled that those schools can exclude students on the basis of gender and achievement, for example. The courts have also ruled that just because the money is being passed through a parent to a school, the only place the parent can spend that money is in a private, religious or home school situation. He called it a shell game and noted that courts look dimly at that type of game. Number 0110 CHAIR JAMES stated she is not defending the bill. It has problems, but she is in favor of parental choice. She asked Mr. Cyr whether he believes that the state has the obligation to pay for every child's education in a district rather than those who just sign up for public school. Number 0146 MR. CYR replied he believes that the state has an obligation to make available an affordable, free public education to every child. In addition, there is an obligation to society. He said, "For those kids for whom we are not doing a good job educating, we're going to pay as a society later." The argument of parents paying taxes and choosing not to send their children to a public school is specious. It is a personal choice that can't be relegated. For example, he doesn't own an airplane but some of his taxes go towards keeping airports open. He thinks he should pay for that because it makes Alaska a better place. Number 0309 CECILIA PALIVODA testified via teleconference from Delta Junction. She teaches her children at home using her own curriculum and funds. The public school system provides an atheistic school program and by exercising her right of freedom she does not accept that and provides an education to her children herself. In doing that she is denied funding. She purchases everything on her own. She home schools six children at this time. The curriculum covers everything from classical music to literature. Her children have designed and built a barn at the age of 13 and 15. As an atheist, she would be happy with the public school curriculum, but as a Christian she is not. Why should she be denied funding to school her children equally to others? she asked. Her children deserve an education just as much as children in public schools. If the public schools were nondenominational that would be one thing, but an atheistic curriculum is another. Number 0497 CHAIRMAN KOTT closed the meeting to public testimony. CHAIRMAN KOTT explained that the committee is charged with the responsibility of determining whether a voucher system is constitutional in relation to the state and U.S. constitutions. He announced he would get the list of court cases from the prime sponsor's staff and determine whether or not they are relevant. Most of the cases he mentioned earlier are from outside and might be considered persuasive, but not binding based on the state constitution. Number 0559 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he is curious about the intent of the bill and asked Mr. Lorenz who is the sponsor of HJR 6. MR. LORENZ replied HJR 6 is sponsored by Representative Kohring because the state constitution as it stands now allows for a voucher system. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he finds nothing in the bill packet to corroborate that statement. The language seems to be relatively clear. He is willing to review minutes from the state constitutional convention and other legal opinions, but it seems right now that it is the opinion of the sponsor versus Legislative Legal Counsel and the Attorney General. In terms of a balance, he wonders how much effort the House Judiciary Standing Committee should put into this issue. Number 0716 CHAIRMAN KOTT stated the House Judiciary Standing Committee will give the matter a good working over. It is not the intent to delve into the public policy side of it. At the next meeting, the committee members will debate the bill's constitutionality. In looking at the arguments from the Sheldon Jackson case, the bill is patently unconstitutional. But, would an existing court use the same arguments under the setting of the bill and marry them against the state constitution dealing with public education? he asked. That is the direction for the next meeting at which time it will also be decided on whether or not to refer the bill back to the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee. Number 0799 MR. LORENZ stated, in an effort to not waste any time, the best way to approach this is to send the bill back to the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee for changes before determining its constitutionality. A lemon test is set up to look at how a program would be implemented to determine its constitutionality. There are many changes than could be made to the bill and those changes could render it unconstitutional. Number 0869 CHAIRMAN KOTT replied the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee had an opportunity to make any changes to the bill. The House Judiciary Standing Committee will work with the existing bill. If it is send back to the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee, it will be requested back. There is no guarantee there will be any changes. If the House Judiciary Standing Committee determines that there are constitutional problems, the bill will not leave the committee and go back to the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee. Number 0924 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he appreciates the willingness of Chairman Kott to take up the issue. For the record, he wants to announce that he is not opposed to vouchers per se. The people in the state should have more choices. He asked that the committee members be provided with the minutes of the state constitutional convention related to the appropriate article, a copy of the Sheldon Jackson decision, and that the sponsor gets a pro bono legal opinion to argue his side of the case. Otherwise, it requires the House Judiciary Standing Committee members to do all of his work. CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that the minutes from the state constitutional convention are available regarding the section on public funding. Number 0989 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted there was a significant amount of discussion on whether to add direct or indirect public funding by Delegate Coghill. He would be glad to provide a copy of those minutes to the committee members. He also has a copy of the Mathews v. Quinton (ph) case and the Sheldon Jackson case that he would provide to the committee members. Those are the only two court cases that he has found relating to Alaska. CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that the bill would be held over for further consideration. Number 1039 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next meeting will be on Wednesday, March 10, 1999. It will be a joint meeting with the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee to cover appointments. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting at 3:07 p.m.