ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 2010
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Herron
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Beth Kerttula
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 71
"An Act relating to a registry for advance health care
directives."
- MOVED CSHB 71(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 381
"An Act relating to self defense."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 355
"An Act relating to criminal fines for organizations."
- MOVED CSHB 355(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 115
"An Act establishing a permanent absentee voting option for
qualified voters; and providing for an effective date."
- FAILED TO MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 71
SHORT TITLE: ADVANCE HEALTH CARE DIRECTIVES REGISTRY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HOLMES, DAHLSTROM, MILLETT,
KAWASAKI
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/16/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) HSS, JUD
03/31/09 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/31/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/31/09 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
04/14/09 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/14/09 (H) Moved CSHB 71(HSS) Out of Committee
04/14/09 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
04/15/09 (H) HSS RPT CS(HSS) 3DP 3NR
04/15/09 (H) DP: HOLMES, SEATON, CISSNA
04/15/09 (H) NR: LYNN, KELLER, HERRON
02/19/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/19/10 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/24/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/24/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/24/10 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/08/10 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
03/08/10 (H) Moved CSHB 71(JUD) Out of Committee
03/08/10 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 381
SHORT TITLE: SELF DEFENSE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NEUMAN
02/23/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/23/10 (H) JUD, FIN
03/15/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 355
SHORT TITLE: CRIMINAL FINES FOR ORGANIZATIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GRUENBERG
02/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/10 (H) JUD, FIN
03/10/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/10/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/10/10 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/11/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/11/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/10 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 115
SHORT TITLE: PERMANENT ABSENTEE VOTING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUCH
02/04/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/09 (H) STA, FIN
03/17/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/17/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/17/09 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/18/10 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/18/10 (H) Moved CSHB 115(STA) Out of Committee
02/18/10 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/19/10 (H) JUD REFERRAL ADDED AFTER STA
02/23/10 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 3DP 2NR
02/23/10 (H) DP: SEATON, GRUENBERG, PETERSEN
02/23/10 (H) NR: P.WILSON, LYNN
03/10/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/10/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/10/10 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 381.
JIM ELLIS, Staff
Representative Mark Neuman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 381 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Neuman.
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska Liaison
National Rifle Association (NRA)
Sacramento, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged support for HB 381.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 381.
GRETCHEN STAFT, Staff
Representative Max Gruenberg
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information regarding HB 355.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Related support for HB 355.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB BUCH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the prime sponsor of HB 115.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 115, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:10:49 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Representatives Ramras, Holmes,
Dahlstrom, Gatto, and Gruenberg were present at the call to
order. Representative Lynn arrived as the meeting was in
progress. Representative Herron was excused. Representative
Kerttula was also in attendance.
HB 71 - ADVANCE HEALTH CARE DIRECTIVES REGISTRY
1:10:59 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 71, "An Act relating to a registry for advance
health care directives." [The proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 71, Version 26-LS0289\T, Kurtz/Bannister, 1/21/10,
had been reported from committee on 3/8/10.]
1:11:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved that the committee rescind its
action in reporting the committee substitute (CS) for HB 71,
Version 26-LS0289\T, Kurtz/Bannister, 1/21/10, from committee.
There being no objection, it was so ordered, and Version T was
before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, speaking as one of the joint prime
sponsors of HB 71, indicated that she and the other joint prime
sponsors have been working with the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS) to address members' concerns regarding
the fiscal note and they would continue doing so as the bill
continues moving through the process. She noted that at this
point, HB 71 will continue to have a fiscal note and thus a
House Finance Committee referral. Therefore, she requested that
the legislation be reported from committee again while she
continues to work with the other joint prime sponsors,
Representative Ramras, and DHSS to address the fiscal note
issues prior to the House Finance Committee hearing.
CHAIR RAMRAS, in response to a question, indicated that at this
time, he would not be reoffering Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recollected that Amendment 1 - which
failed to be adopted on 3/8/10 - would have replaced the word
"may", on page 3, line 3, with the word "shall".
1:14:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the CS for HB 71,
Version 26-LS0289\T, Kurtz/Bannister, 1/21/10, out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSHB 71(JUD) was again
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:15 p.m. to 1:17 p.m.
HB 381 - SELF DEFENSE
1:17:12 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 381, "An Act relating to self defense."
1:17:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HB 381 came about because of a concern from the
National Rifle Association (NRA) that some of Alaska's laws may
not protect Alaskans' rights. He offered his understanding that
the Department of Law (DOL) has suggestions as to areas of the
law needing to be reviewed. He requested that the legislation
not be moved today in order that all involved can craft
appropriate legislation.
1:20:21 PM
JIM ELLIS, Staff, Representative Mark Neuman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Neuman,
explained that the sponsor had received some concern from
constituents and the NRA with regard to existing state law that
specifies an individual has a duty to retreat when he/she knows
it can be achieved with complete personal safety to the
individual and others. The concern, he specified, is that an
individual who is under the severe stress of a self-defense
situation has to make a decision as to how a court or jury
[would view their actions of self defense]. The sponsor views
the aforementioned as an undue burden on a law-abiding citizen
and believes the best way to address the situation is the
proposed provision specifying that the individual doesn't have a
duty to retreat, which would also serve as a deterrent to
criminals. There are guidelines, he noted, in terms of the
crimes [to which the provision applies]. The sponsor feels that
Alaskans have used the current law responsibly and expansion of
it should be considered. Mr. Ellis explained that the
legislation also intends to extend that an individual doesn't
have a duty to retreat when an individual uses deadly force in
the burglary of his/her home, but there would need to be proof
that the use of force was reasonable. This would also be the
case with carjacking of an occupied vehicle. He acknowledged
that the legislation may need to be amended to better reflect
the aforementioned intent.
1:24:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN added that he wants to clarify that if an
individual arrives at his/her home or awakes at his/her home to
another individual in the home, the individual [homeowner]
should be able to assume that individual could cause harm to the
individual or his or her family. The individual should have the
full rights to protect oneself as deemed necessary. He reminded
the committee of the situation in which a church in Big Lake had
been robbed multiple times. The church had alarms and motion
sensors that [alerted] the minister [of a potential robbery].
The minister, pistol in hand, went to the church and encountered
the armed perpetrators who he shot. The minister went to court
to defend his actions. Representative Neuman opined that
Alaskans should have the right to protect themselves and their
family without having to rely on a jury to determine whether the
individual could've escaped or fled the area.
1:27:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN surmised that under HB 381 he wouldn't have
to be in fear of his life or that of anyone else in the home in
order to use deadly force against an individual who has invaded
his home.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said if he found someone in his home, he
would assume that the intruder was going to cause harm to
himself or his family. [Alaskans] should be able to protect
their homes and properties.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether he would have to meet the
"fear" requirement prior to using deadly force. Representative
Lynn recounted a situation in which he was attending a potluck,
during which he went to his car to retrieve something. Upon
returning to the potluck, he inadvertently entered the wrong
house. In that situation, he asked whether the individual in
the wrong house could have used deadly force, under HB 381.
MR. ELLIS clarified that his understanding is that HB 381 would
apply in the case of burglary, which entails "breaking and
entry." He related his further understanding that if the door
is open, it would be a different case.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN expressed the need to address the
aforementioned [situation].
1:29:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO posed a situation in which a homeowner
sleeping upstairs hears a noise downstairs. The homeowner
retrieves his/her gun and proceeds downstairs to investigate.
At the instant the burglar sees the homeowner, the burglar exits
the home at which time the homeowner shoots the burglar in the
back. He asked if the aforementioned action would be
justifiable.
[Chair Ramras passed the gavel to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
1:30:43 PM
MR. ELLIS answered, "Our intent is not necessarily that if
they're fleeing, escaping you, ... but we do not want to
necessarily second judge the actions of a person within their
own home." He noted that in the dark of night it may not always
be clear whether an intruder is fleeing or reaching for a
weapon.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO remarked that he foresaw many special
cases. He questioned whether a vehicle, a public park, a
sidewalk, or any other place an individual has a right to be
would be considered an extension of an individual's home. He
related that he is uncomfortable with allowing it to be
sufficient for an individual who feels threatened in a place
he/she has a right to be to shoot. He opined that there are
unintended consequences to this extension [or rights]. He asked
if it's not intending to harm others in the process of an
individual protecting himself/herself could be used as a
defense.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
1:33:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN replied that the aforementioned isn't a
defense and the legislation doesn't try to make it a defense.
The legislation merely attempts to provide more clarity on this
issue. He again relayed that DOL has indicated there is room
for improvement with this legislation.
CHAIR RAMRAS reminded the committee that the sponsor wants to
bring forward the legislation for discussion regarding how to
improve it.
1:34:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 2, line 27, and
suggested that the language be reviewed because he said he has
never viewed language specifying that a type of evidence doesn't
apply. He further suggested that it's possibly a typographical
error.
MR. ELLIS agreed to research that point further.
1:36:07 PM
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska Liaison, National Rifle Association (NRA),
characterized HB 381 as simple legislation that provides
protection and assurance that an individual doesn't have to
retreat when he/she is lawfully in a place and feels threatened.
Existing Alaska law already specifies that an individual has no
duty to retreat if an individual is "on premises which the
person owns or where the person resides or in a building where
the person works." From NRA's perspective, the primary
component of HB 381 would extend that no duty to retreat to the
individual's vehicle as well as any place where an individual
has a legal right to be. Mr. Judy pointed out that under the
proposed language of HB 381, in a situation in which an
individual is walking down the street and a rapist tries to drag
the individual in the alley or a kidnapper tries to drag an
individual into his/her car, the individual has no duty to
retreat. Furthermore, if the individual so chooses, he/she can
fight back with force. He characterized the aforementioned as
common sense. Mr. Judy emphasized that law-abiding citizens
shouldn't fear criminal prosecution when he/she stands his/her
ground and defends himself/herself when at a place he/she has a
legal right to be. In conclusion, Mr. Judy urged support for HB
381.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that the committee packet includes a
compelling letter from DOL regarding concerns with HB 381.
1:40:01 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law, apologized for
the late delivery of the letter and fiscal note. Ms. Carpeneti
related that DOL is confused and concerned about HB 381, which
DOL reads as contributing to violence in Alaska. Under current
law, an individual only has the duty to retreat if the
individual knows that he/she can retreat with complete safety to
the individual and others. In response to Chair Ramras, Ms.
Carpeneti said that she doesn't understand the problem being
addressed by HB 381. She characterized the state's existing
self-defense law as fairly strong. She pointed out that
individuals don't have to retreat in a number of places,
including one's home, vehicle, and place of business. However,
if the law is changed to every place an individual has a right
to be, then it's every place unless an individual is trespassing
or burglarizing a place. She expressed concern about removing
the duty to retreat under those circumstances.
MS. CARPENENTI opined that Section 2, the prima facie evidence
provisions, would encourage vigilantism because there is no time
limit. For instance, an individual could use deadly force two
hours after an individual burglarized his/her house rather than
call the police. After discussions with the sponsor's staff,
Ms. Carpeneti surmised that wasn't the intention. The
department is also concerned by the arrest provisions because
those provisions mean that a police officer can't make an arrest
without making a complicated legal decision regarding whether
the law of self defense would apply. For example, in a gang
situation wouldn't it be best to get everyone off the street and
then determine the details [with regard to whether self defense]
applies.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to Chair Ramras, specified that DOL
had the following three primary concerns. Firstly, HB 381
deletes the requirement to retreat in Alaska, even when
retreating can be done in complete safety and the individual
knows that. Secondly, the provisions related to prima facie
evidence are of concern. She explained that one must remember
that the state, the prosecution, is required to disprove self
defense beyond a reasonable doubt and the prima facie evidence
considerations will make it that much harder to do so. The
sponsor's concern, she related, was that a law-abiding person
who didn't retreat would have to prove that he/she shouldn't
have had to retreat. However, that's not the way it works;
instead the state must disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
the law-abiding person didn't have a duty to retreat. Thirdly,
the legislation specifies that a law enforcement official may
not make an arrest until it's determined that self defense
applies. The aforementioned is difficult to determine, even in
the quiet of an office with the law and the facts. She opined
that requiring this of law enforcement is asking too much,
particularly since the situation is often one in which the
police officer needs to stop the behavior, make an arrest, and
then later decide who the charge should be appropriately levied
against.
1:46:00 PM
MS. CARPENENTI, in regard to the sponsor's suggestion, said that
she would be happy to work with the sponsor and Mr. Judy on this
legislation.
1:46:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered that people are being arrested
after defending themselves. After being arrested, these
individuals have to prove they didn't have a way to escape,
which is often left to the jury to decide. Representative
Neuman related that the goal with HB 381 is to not arrest
individuals who have defended themselves.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised then that the legislation attempts to
address those situations in which an individual who felt he/she
was being attacked and defended himself/herself ultimately ended
up in trouble in court.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN indicated that to be the case and reminded
the committee of the earlier mentioned real situation of the
minister in Big Lake.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO agreed with Representative Neuman's earlier
point that a fleeing individual may be doing so simply to
reload.
1:50:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her understanding that under
current law, there would be no duty to retreat in a situation in
which the individual believes the fleeing individual is merely
moving to a location to reload. In such a situation, it would
still be considered self defense.
MS. CARPENETI concurred. In response to an earlier question,
Ms. Carpeneti stated that one doesn't have to be afraid under
current law. Deadly force, so long as it's reasonable under the
circumstances, can be used in one's own home to terminate a
burglary. In response to Representative Gatto, Ms. Carpeneti
reiterated that the state must disprove self defense beyond a
reasonable doubt.
MR. JUDY acknowledged that it's a fine line in these situations.
The notion that self defense must be disproved beyond a
reasonable doubt is contrary to the fact that when the state is
doing so, the individual who utilized self defense is in court.
Furthermore, the individual has likely hired an attorney, been
in prison for some time, and is a defendant in a court of law.
The desire is to prevent the aforementioned. "We don't want a
victim to be victimized a second time by the criminal justice
system," he opined. He mentioned that he would be happy to
continue to be involved in a dialogue to define this fine line.
1:53:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested the need to research the laws
of other states on this matter.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM noted her support of the sponsor's
intent. She then inquired as to the outcome of the situation in
which the minister encountered a burglary at his church.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN answered that the minister was found
innocent, but only after he expended a tremendous amount of
money [in the case], was imprisoned for a time. Furthermore, it
upset his family and his life.
1:55:15 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS encouraged DOL, Mr. Judy, and the sponsor to work
on HB 381.
[HB 381 was held over.]
HB 355 - CRIMINAL FINES FOR ORGANIZATIONS
1:56:54 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 355, "An Act relating to criminal fines for
organizations."
1:58:17 PM
GRETCHEN STAFT, Staff, Representative Max Gruenberg, Alaska
State Legislature, speaking on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Gruenberg, offered her understanding that DOL
doesn't keep the data as part of its formal records. The
document that notes it was "Distributed by Rep. Gruenberg"
encompasses the information the department was able to compile.
She related her understanding that many of the cases in which
this statute would've been used were settled, and thus there
isn't a lot of data for situations in which data was imposed.
Ms. Staft pointed out that HB 355 would help set the bottom line
for organizations faced with potential criminal penalties.
1:59:31 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law, confirmed that
DOL doesn't keep data collected in this form, and therefore the
document in the committee packet is anecdotal recollections of
prosecutors. Ms. Carpeneti informed the committee that the
department doesn't prosecute corporations that often and
corporations don't go to jail. When a corporation is charged
with a crime, the fine and the amount of restitution is often
negotiated. She related her understanding that the special
prosecutions that allow three times the harm in certain
circumstances are helpful, in terms of negotiating. In response
to Chair Ramras, offered her understanding that the BP case when
the field was depleted fell under statutes other than Title 12.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that the BP case fell under
Title 46, environmental crimes. In further response to Chair
Ramras, Representative Gruenberg said that the VECO case
would've fallen under this and was the reason for the original
legislation. The VECO situation wouldn't have allowed the
treble damages because the tax bill passed and there was no gain
to VECO or its clients and no loss to the state. That glitch in
the law, he said, is what compelled him [to introduce HB 355].
The amendment was suggested in conversations with Mr. Sniffen,
DOL.
2:02:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN mentioned that there is legislation under
consideration that requires certain disclosures. He asked if HB
355 would cover [corporations] that don't make those
disclosures. He further asked if, under this legislation, those
corporations could be fined for failure to disclose.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied yes, adding that it would be
covered by Title 11.
2:03:13 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS characterized HB 355 as a very important bill.
2:04:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO offered his understanding that in the past
when fines have been doubled, not even half of the damages
resulting have been received. He asked if HB 355 does more than
simply increase the fines.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Amendment 1, labeled 26-
LS1385\E.1, Luckhaupt, 3/9/10, which read:
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "$1,000,000"
Insert "$2,000,000 [$1,000,000]"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "$200,000"
Insert "$400,000 [$200,000]"
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "$25,000"
Insert "$50,000 [$25,000]"
Page 1, line 13:
Delete "$10,000"
Insert "$20,000 [$10,000]"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that both HB 355 and proposed
Amendment 1 seek to legally obtain higher fines.
2:05:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
[Chair Ramras passed the gavel to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question, posed a
situation in which a bribe was offered in exchange for a vote at
which point the bribery crime is completed because the crime is
the offering of the illegal consideration. Regardless of
whether the offeree does anything, the offeror is guilty of the
bribe. Subsequent events occur such that the offeree votes
against the bill, although the bill passes. Paragraphs (2) and
(3) wouldn't apply because there was no gain to the defendant
because the attempt to defeat the bill failed. Furthermore,
there was no loss to the victim in the case because the bill
passed. [This legislation] attempts to close the loophole.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to Representative Dahlstrom, agreed
that HB 355 would close a loophole.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG added that the crime of conspiracy is
frequently used at the federal level. The crime of conspiracy
is an illegal criminal contract in which two people come
together to do something illegal, even if there's no further
action the crime is complete. In that case, there is no gain to
the defendant and no loss to the victim. Representative
Gruenberg opined that this could be used in virtually any
conspiracy that involved a property crime.
MS. CARPENETI pointed out that Alaska's conspiracy law is very
limited, adding that she would need to research whether the
conspiracy law would apply to property crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO posed a scenario in which an individual
gives a candidate $500, which is the limit, and then gives $250
more. He inquired as to the result of the crime, the worth of
that crime.
2:10:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered that he didn't think
paragraphs (2) and (3) would apply in the case of illegal
campaign contributions. He explained that illegal campaign
contributions aren't bribes for a vote. Representative
Gruenberg opined that it's not a crime involving a pecuniary
gain or loss and thus isn't applicable.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO suggested an applicable scenario in which
the $250 continues to be compounded into newer and better
things. He asked if the [worth of the crime] would be $250 or
$250,000 because of investment connections.
MS. CARPENETI related her belief that [the worth] would be the
original amount.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG characterized this question as
referring to how far out in the future it's applied.
MS. CARPENETI offered her belief that it would be at the time of
the crime. She added that the crime of conspiracy in Alaska is
limited to felonies against a person, certain Class A or B
felonies involving controlled substances, and criminal mischief
in the first degree, which includes intentionally damaging an
oil or gas pipeline and terroristic threatening. She then
pointed out that the provisions in HB 355 would apply to
attempts of certain crimes, which would be useful. She noted
that the [department's] attorneys are supportive of HB 355.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that in a crime against the
pipeline, there would be pecuniary loss. He then related the
need to consider including conspiracy for arson.
2:13:16 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:13 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
2:15:08 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment 1,
such that the change proposed to page 1, line 7, would insert
"$2,500,000" rather than "$2,000,000".
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected, then removed his objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was
adopted.
CHAIR RAMRAS then made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2
to Amendment 1, such that the change proposed on page 1, line 9,
would insert "$500,000" rather than "$400,000". There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3 to
Amendment 1, such that the proposed change to page 1, line 11,
would insert "$40,000" rather than "$50,000".
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to why Chair Ramras is
proposing to lower the amount with Conceptual Amendment 3 while
Amendments 1 and 2 increased the amounts.
CHAIR RAMRAS revised his motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3
to Amendment 1 such that the proposed change to page 1, line 11,
would insert "$75,000" rather than "$50,000".
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES withdrew her objection.
There being no further objection, the committee treated
Conceptual Amendment 3 to Amendment 1 as adopted.
2:17:59 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4 to
Amendment 1, such that the proposed change on page 1, line 13,
would insert "$25,000" rather than "$20,000". There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 4 to Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:18:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection to the adoption of
Amendment 1, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected, and asked if the fine amounts are
justifiable.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the Legislative Research
Services report labeled LRS Report 10.206 relates the fine
amounts as adjusted for inflation. The original fine amounts
more than accounted for inflation. He noted that prior to the
earlier adopted amendments the fine amounts in HB 355 doubled
the existing fine amounts since it has been some 20 years since
these fines have been addressed. The amendments to Amendment 1
increase the fine amounts more. As the sponsor, Representative
Gruenberg said that he doesn't have a problem with those
increases because things are more sophisticated and there is
more at risk than there was 20-30 years ago. These fine amounts
merely provide the judge more discretion on what to do.
Moreover, in dealing with an organization/corporation no one is
jailed and people don't really care if a large corporation has
been convicted of a commercial felony. He characterized it as a
business decision on a cost versus profit basis. These fines,
he pointed out, make it uneconomical/unprofitable to commit the
crime. Representative Gruenberg said that he supports all the
amendments to Amendment 1.
CHAIR RAMRAS related that he believes that the amendments to
Amendment 1 strengthen Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected that these fine amounts
aren't amended every year, just every 20-25 years.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO removed his objection to Amendment 1, as
amended.
2:22:58 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced then that Amendment 1, as amended, was
adopted.
2:23:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 355, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
355(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
2:23:57 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:23 p.m. to 2:25 p.m.
HB 115 - PERMANENT ABSENTEE VOTING
2:25:06 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 115, "An Act establishing a permanent absentee
voting option for qualified voters; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 115(STA).]
2:25:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB BUCH, Alaska State Legislature, recalled that
at the last hearing there was concern that the proposal in HB
115 could lead to potential fraud in terms of fraudulently
obtaining a permanent fund dividend (PFD) or a ballot. Those
concerns have been directed to the appropriate departments,
including Tamara Cook, Director, Legislative Legal Services;
Deborah Bitney, Director, Permanent Fund Division, Department of
Revenue; and Gail Fenumiai, Director, Division of Elections,
Office of the Lieutenant Governor. With the help of those
experts, Representative Buch said that he determined that HB 115
won't create opportunities for fraud, but rather will combat it.
With regard to the concern that the legislation will cause an
increase in the fraudulently obtaining a permanent fund
dividend, he explained that HB 115 will create a list that the
Permanent Fund Division can utilize to verify residency. With
regard to the concern that there will be an increase in
residents fraudulently obtaining ballots, a voter may select one
address to receive a ballot. Since ballots can't be forwarded,
a voter who doesn't return the ballot will be removed from the
list. Whatever degree a voter is informed has no bearing on a
voter's ability to obtain a ballot. Mr. Buch concluded by
stating that under this proposed legislation, there are no
changes in the current procedure although passage would allow
the current process to be streamlined.
CHAIR RAMRAS remarked that he doesn't like HB 115.
2:27:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that there is no certainty that mail
with this return address will simply be returned because an
individual could have his/her neighbor picking up the mail while
the individual is away. More importantly, he expressed the need
to protect the public belief that the voting is legitimate.
Representative Gatto characterized this proposed legislation as
an assault on the legitimacy of the vote because so long as
votes are simply forwarded, there is less assurance that the
voting is legitimate. He indicated that it's difficult to
corrupt a vote when the vote is given at the voting booth.
Furthermore, he expressed concern with the amount of access
voters can ignore on election day by voting prior to election
day. He said that he is satisfied with existing law in this
regard. In fact, HB 115 seems to provide an opportunity to
unduly influence/corrupt the voting with undue influence of
special interests, particularly when their name doesn't
necessarily relate to the organization's purpose.
2:31:55 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that he shares Representative Gatto's
concern. He then acknowledged that the letter dated March 12,
2010, from the Permanent Fund Division specifies, "HB 115 will
not adversely impact PFD eligibility determinations." However,
he said PFD eligibility determinations aren't his concern,
rather it's the fraud he's concerned about. Chair Ramras
remarked that he, too, is uncomfortable with HB 115.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to the letter dated March
12, 2010, from the Permanent Fund Division, surmised that a
permanent absentee ballot might raise a red flag for PFD
purposes. Furthermore, it might provide the division with
additional information to prevent fraud. To address concern
with regard to PFD fraud, Representative Gruenberg suggested
that the legislation could be amended to require an annual
updated list of those individuals with the status of permanent
absentee voters to be sent to the Permanent Fund Division.
2:35:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH related that he would entertain such an
amendment if such a requirement isn't already in place. He
requested verifying whether such a requirement is already in
place.
2:35:46 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, explained that the division sends a
statewide voter list to the Permanent Fund Division annually.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that his suggestion would be
for the Division of Elections to provide a list annually of
those who request permanent absentee voter status to the
Permanent Fund Division. He asked if the Division of Elections
does anything like the aforementioned. If not, he asked if Ms.
Fenumiai would support such an amendment.
2:37:05 PM
MS. FENUMIAI answered that the Division of Elections doesn't
specifically send any absentee voter list to the Permanent Fund
Division. However, the division could do so without hardship to
the Division of Elections.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO related his respect for the Permanent Fund
Division to weed out "bad applications." Therefore, he
questioned whether it would be appropriate for the Permanent
Fund Corporation to simply renew the application annually until
it's known that the applicant is making fraudulent applications
by being out-of-state. He opined that no one would think a
permanent absentee permanent fund dividend application is a good
idea, although some may believe permanent absentee voting is
acceptable. Representative Gatto further opined that he had
difficulty separating the two because individuals who apply for
the PFD include everyone while only half the people vote. He
reiterated concern of increasing the amount of voter fraud and
special interest groups all at the same time.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH inquired as to from which agency
Representative Gatto is requesting the list.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO clarified that he isn't asking any entity
to provide a list, rather he suggesting a permanent Permanent
Fund Division application until the individual requests the
application be forwarded.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to the support for a
permanent fund dividend application that would be "good for
several years."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO replied, "One year at a time."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if individuals are allowed to
apply one year at a time.
MS. FENUMIAI informed the committee that under federal law
enlisted military personnel are allowed to apply [for absentee
voter status] and their application is good through two general
election cycles. However, all other individuals have to apply
annually.
2:41:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 so that any individual in the state can [apply for
permanent absentee voter status] for two election cycles.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected.
2:42:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated a preference for not treating the
general population the same as military personnel.
2:43:14 PM
MS. FENUMIAI, completing her earlier remarks, clarified that
military personnel were allowed to apply once for two general
election cycles until the Military Overseas and Voters
Empowerment Act was passed. However, the federal law recently
repealed the aforementioned, although it remains in state law.
2:43:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH remarked that he doesn't object to
Conceptual Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Representative Gatto,
clarified that Conceptual Amendment 1 would amend state law that
only allows serviceman to apply [for permanent absentee voter
status] for two election cycles to include any Alaskan
registered voter.
2:45:11 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and
Holmes voted in favor of the adoption of Conceptual Amendment 1.
Representatives Dahlstrom, Gatto, Lynn, and Ramras voted against
it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 failed to pass by a vote
of 2-4.
2:45:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, which would have the Division of Elections send the
Permanent Fund Division a list of those who apply for absentee
ballots.
2:46:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected for the purpose of discussion.
Upon further clarification, Representative Dahlstrom removed her
objection.
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was
adopted.
2:46:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHB 115(STA), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
2:46:57 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS and REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected.
2:47:03 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn, Gruenberg,
and Holmes voted in favor of reporting CSHB 115(STA), as
amended, out of committee. Representatives Gatto, Dahlstrom,
and Ramras voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 115(STA), as
amended, failed to be reported out of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee by a vote of 3-3.
2:47:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG served notice of reconsideration.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM related her belief that it's not in
order to serve notice of reconsideration in committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that he would check with
Legislative Legal Services. If reconsideration doesn't apply,
rescinding the committee's action would be applicable.
[CSHB 115(STA), as amended, failed to be reported from
committee.]
2:48:12 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:48 p.m.