ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 5, 2001
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 167
"An Act relating to license plates for Alaska National Guard
personnel and for antique motor vehicles; relating to gold rush
license plates; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 167(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 200
"An Act establishing July 3 as Drunk Driving Victims Remembrance
Day."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act relating to the location of legislative sessions; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 195
"An Act requiring governmental entities to meet certain
requirements before placing a burden on a person's free exercise
of religion."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act relating to state aid to municipalities and certain
other recipients, and for the village public safety officer
program; relating to municipal dividends; relating to the public
safety foundation program; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 167
SHORT TITLE:MOTOR VEH. LIC.PLATES: NATL GRD/ANTIQUE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)DYSON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/09/01 0516 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/09/01 0516 (H) STA, FIN
04/03/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/03/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/05/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/05/01 (H) Moved CSHB 167(STA) Out of
Committee
04/05/01 (H) MINUTE(STA)
BILL: HB 200
SHORT TITLE:DRUNK DRIVING VICTIMS REMEMBRANCE DAY
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/19/01 0650 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/19/01 0650 (H) STA
04/05/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 28
SHORT TITLE:MOVE SECOND LEGISLATIVE SESSION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)OGAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0031 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/01
01/08/01 0031 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0031 (H) STA, FIN
01/08/01 0031 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
01/12/01 0073 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
04/03/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/03/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/05/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 195
SHORT TITLE:FREEDOM OF RELIGION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)DYSON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/19/01 0649 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/19/01 0649 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/05/01 0869 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILSON
04/05/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 104
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 167 and as
cosponsor of HB 195.
HEATHER NOBREGA, Staff
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative
Norman Rokeberg, sponsor of HB 200.
CHRISTINE TALBOT
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 200.
BRIAN CLARK
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 200.
CINDY CASHEN
Mothers Against Drunk Drivers
315 Gold Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 200.
PAM WATTS, Executive Director
Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 200.
DAVID STANCLIFF, Staff
to Representative Scott Ogan
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative Scott
Ogan, sponsor of HB 28.
REPRESENTATIVES ERIC CROFT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 400
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as a sponsor of HB 195.
ROBERT ROYCE, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Department of Law
1031 West Fourth Street, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 195.
GARY WATERHOUSE, Pastor
Juneau and Sitka Seventh Day Adventist Churches
4343 Mendenhall Loop Road
Juneau, Alaska 00901
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 195.
AL SUNDQUIST, President, Alaska Chapter
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
3384 Mount Vernon Court
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 195.
EDWARD C. FURMAN
PO Box 2361
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 195.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-34, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Representatives Coghill,
Fate, Stevens, Wilson, and Crawford were present at the call to
order. Representatives James and Hayes arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 167-MOTOR VEH. LIC.PLATES: NATL GRD/ANTIQUE
Number 0054
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 167, "An Act relating to license plates for
Alaska National Guard personnel and for antique motor vehicles;
relating to gold rush license plates; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 0140
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, came
forward to testify as sponsor of HB 167. He began by saying he
believes HB 167 has "no downside." A number of automobile
hobbyists approached him several years ago asking that the law
be changed to allow them to use (if they can find them) old
Alaska license plates that match the year of manufacture of
their antique or collectable cars. About half of the other
states allow this, he said. If HB 167 passes, the automobile
owners will ask the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to check
to see if there is a duplicate number among the current plates.
If there is not and the old plate is legible, then DMV will
allow the person to use the old plate with a sticker indicating
the current registration. He said DMV is comfortable with the
idea and does not see it as a problem.
Number 0280
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON explained that when he started out to
sponsor HB 167, one of his colleagues in the Senate said there
are people who want to be able to get the so-called "gold rush"
type license plates as vanity plates with their initials or
whatever on them. His friend in the Senate added that provision
to the bill, "and the bill kind of went in a ditch,"
Representative Dyson said. When he resurrected the idea for
this session, the bill still contained the part pertaining to
gold rush plates. He asked the House State Affairs Standing
Committee to amend HB 167 by taking the gold rush plates out of
it. He thinks there is very little demand for those, and that
part of the bill places the most of a fiscal note on HB 167.
Number 0366
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON then said DMV had asked that a small change
be made so that people who have Alaska National Guard license
plates would not be required to turn them in at the end of their
term of service and DMV would not be burdened with the
bookkeeping and "going out and chasing them down." From his
perspective, HB 167 largely has to do with allowing people to
use year-of-manufacture license plates on their collector cars,
and the section on the National Guard plates is being added as
an accommodation to DMV.
Number 0420
CHAIR COGHILL asked if the part pertaining to the gold rush
plates was subsection (w), page 2, line 11.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied that there also was mention in
paragraph (4), line 30, of that same page.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if cost and/or the impracticability were the
reason for deleting it.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied, "Yes, sir."
Number 0460
CHAIR COGHILL said he would take that as a conceptual amendment
and ask a drafter to delete subsection (w) and paragraph (4),
taking out the gold rush plates. There being no objection, the
conceptual amendment [Amendment 1] was adopted. Chair Coghill
asked if there was anyone who wished to speak on HB 167, and
said he personally likes the bill, "now that it is a little
lighter economically."
Number 0536
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES moved to report HB 167, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
Number 0552
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked about the fiscal note, which he
assumed would change considerably in response to Amendment 1.
CHAIR COGHILL said he thinks the fiscal note will go down to
zero. He called attention to the second sentence of the fiscal
note, which says, "Due to the low number, this is not
anticipated to have a fiscal impact." That being the case, he
thought the committee could zero out the fiscal note.
Number 0597
CHAIR COGHILL then called for the question. There being no
objection, CSHB 167(STA) was moved out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying zero fiscal note.
HB 200-DRUNK DRIVING VICTIMS REMEMBRANCE DAY
Number 0632
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 200, "An Act establishing July 3 as Drunk Driving
Victims Remembrance Day."
Number 0669
HEATHER NOBREGA, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg, Alaska
State Legislature, came forward to testify on behalf of
Representative Rokeberg, sponsor of HB 200. She explained that
HB 200 would establish July 3 as Drunk Driving Victims
Remembrance Day. The date is just before the major Fourth of
July holiday weekend when there are many accidents related to
drunk driving. It also is the day that Jessie Withrow was
killed last summer. Alaska would be the first state in the
union to establish such a day and it would be a great way to
remember the victims of drunk driving. She said the sponsor
hopes to bring awareness of the problem by creating this day and
it will be recognized in several ways, which Mothers Against
Drunk Driving will describe.
Number 0775
CHRISTINA TALBOT came forward to testify. She said she met
Jessie Withrow in high school, that they had been friends for
about seven years, and "I'm going to get all weepy here."
Jessie was always very involved in community service and working
for people's rights and changing things, and working for the
future of the State of Alaska, Ms. Talbot said. "I was always
really impressed by her," she said, even though she didn't
realize the kinds of things Jessie did until after she died
because Jessie "didn't make a big deal about it."
MS. TALBOT said drunk driving is a huge problem in this state
and in this country, but it is not something people think about
until somebody they know is killed. She said that like most
people, she didn't think about it. "Then I lost Jessie, and
suddenly it was really a personal problem," she said.
MS. TALBOT continued:
So what I hope is that when you bring the flag down l
..., people will look at it and say, "What happened?
Why is this flag down? What happened that we lost
something that was so important to the State of Alaska
that we had to lower the flag?" In losing people, we
are losing our future. Jessie wanted to come back and
live in this state and work for it. And we're using
young people all the time. We need to let people
know, make them aware that this is a problem that we
need to work on and it needs to be changed. So I'd
really like to see this bill passed because I believe
that when people look at the flag, they will look
around and they will ask people what happened, what is
so important, and what is causing this huge sorrow for
the State of Alaska. Thank you very much.
Number 0941
CHAIR COGHILL expressed appreciation for Ms. Talbot's coming
before the committee to honor not only her friend, but also to
warn Alaskans, which he thinks is totally appropriate.
Number 0963
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he thinks all share the concern, but
why choose the day just before the one on which we celebrate
independence and freedom in the nation?
MS. TALBOT said it is a day when a lot of people go out and
start drinking to celebrate the Fourth of July, "and it's an
important day, and that's part of why it's important to have it
on that day, because people will be looking at the flags ...,
and also because it is the day when many people do go out and
they use alcohol as part of the celebration and we'd like to
encourage then to think about that before they go out and get
drunk."
Number 1043
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if the proponents had considered that
it might detract from the day that the nation celebrates its
freedom.
MS. TALBOT said that was a concern, but she did not believe that
it will. "We're not trying to take away from the Fourth of
July," she said. "We just want to remind people that everyone
should have a chance to celebrate it."
Number 1096
BRIAN CLARK came forward to testify. He said Christina is his
fiancée and Jessie was also a very good friend of his, and he
wished to add his support to this. He showed the committee
pictures of Jessie and said he thinks it is very important to
have a day like this that is focused on the people who have been
lost. He continued:
So much of the discussion of the drunk driving issue
has been focused as it must be on the offenders, but
we need also to remember the people who have been
taken from us whose stories have been brought to such
a tragic and preventable end. These pictures are
memories of Jessie because that's all that we have,
and her memory doesn't belong -- and can't be allowed
to belong -- to the man who took her from us. And so
I'd like to see is have a day that is dedicated to the
remembrance of these people whose potential could so
have enriched our lives and [who] will never have a
chance.
I think that it's appropriate on the day when we are
preparing for our celebrations that people should have
... a moment's thought on the possible consequences of
one bad decision, one irresponsible action,; [that it]
will make people ... prepare to celebrate a little bit
more responsibly and maybe they'll remember to think
about taking keys from people that are participating
in their celebrations and all the other little things
and then go on the Fourth of July and have a great
time. But it's a very dangerous time of year. It's a
holiday when a lot of people drink at a time in the
year when up north, as we are, it's light all night
and so people think, "Hey, why not go out and hit the
road." and so I think that it's an excellent time for
prudence.
Number 1262
CHAIR COGHILL observed that many people have had friends who
died in similar circumstances, "and, in fact, my own brother
died on the third of July."
Number 1304
CINDY CASHEN, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), came forward
to testify. She said:
MADD feels HB 200 would activate a useful tool in
preventing drunk driving by bringing to our fellow
Alaskans' attention the dangers of drunk driving
through ceremonial events. The lowering of our flag
draws our attention. We wonder why the flag is at
half-mast and we talk about it with others. MADD
holding a candlelight vigil on that day, placing
announcement in public areas, are effective ways of
reminding ourselves not to drink and drive.
I am here before you this morning because I speak not
only on behalf of MADD but also on behalf of the
victims who are no longer here and those who are left
behind. On April 19, my father, Ladd Macaulay, along
with his boss, Martin Richard, was killed by a drunk
driver. The drunk driver has had a prior conviction
in 1992, but records show he was unable to attend his
treatment because of the waiting list. His blood
alcohol content was .258. He had had a hard day at
work and felt he deserved a few drinks. While we were
reeling from the shock of his death, our family as
well as other families across this state watched in
horror as victim after victim fell to drunk driving.
Drunk driving knows no discrimination. After Dad and
Martin were killed on April 19, Donna Hobson, a
grandmother walking with her husband on a bike trail,
was thrown 20 feet into a pond when she was struck by
a drunk driver, With her husband pleading for help,
the drunk driver refused and ran as Mr. Hobson's wife
lay near death. As of this date, Donna suffers from
chronic and intense pain.
July 2: On Chena Hot Springs Road, there are the
crosses of six people killed when an eastbound pickup
crossed the centerline and struck two other vehicles,
one of them head-on. The 39-year-old driver died
instantly along with his three passengers, He also
took the lives of Christopher McFadden, 21, and Bruno
Gugliemi, 24, as they were driving to a restaurant
with their young wives.
On July 3, a young woman, Jessie Withrow, was
bicycling on a Minnesota Drive sidewalk in Anchorage
when she was struck and killed by a drunk driver. The
driver, who already had six DWI convictions, also had
a 2-year-old in the truck with him.
After admitting to drinking four beers and two shots,
a 48-year-old drunk driver drove his truck the wrong
way down a one-way street on Northern Light Boulevard
in Anchorage on July 5, two days later. The drunk
driver hit a Ford Escort head-on. causing the
passenger, Gloria Steelman, 19, massive head injuries
and Jacqueline Fetherolf, 20, the driver, also
injuries. The drunken driver had five previous DWIs
....
On July 12, one week later, the grandparents of 11-
year-old Kenneth Kramer and his cousin, 15-year-old
Kevin Blake, intended to take the boys fishing.
Grandpa David Glazen let Kevin drive as he had
received his learner's permit recently. Kenneth was
seated directly behind his cousin when a drunk driver
rammed into them, killing both boys instantly. The
grandparents survived, but wished they had died
instead of their grandsons. The drunk driver had
earlier driven his vehicle into Portage Lake, had been
pulled out by a tow truck driver, and had gotten back
into his truck and driven off. Kevin's last words to
his grandmother were, "What is that man doing,
Grandma?" as the drunk driver bore into them. The
drunk driver's blood alcohol content was .175. This
was his first DWI.
On September 3, a 29-year-old intoxicated woman struck
and killed her friend and then fled the scene in
Unalaska. After six weeks of investigation, police
determined the drunk driver had lied about the
injuries of her friend, Robert Shapsnikoff, that she
indeed played a part in his death by running over him
with her truck.
On September 30, 17-year-old Heather Dowdy was killed
after suffering numerous injuries when struck on the
Old Steese Highway. The 32-year-old Fairbanks drunk
driver had a blood alcohol content of .29 and had slid
his truck into oncoming traffic, killing Heather, a
Lathrop High School student.
On October 14, a 28-year-old Wasilla man, Chris Moore,
was killed when the vehicle he was driving rolled
over. October 4, in Anchorage, a husband and wife
were severely injured when their Harley Davidsons were
struck by a drunk driver who had six prior DWIs. The
drunk driver tried to escape but was caught by Mark
and Tammy Thorn's friends. Tammy almost died from
internal injuries, and was hospitalized along with her
husband and two other victims at Providence hospital.
I don't need to explain to you the devastation this
has caused, not only to the friends and families of
these victims, but the rest of our state. We are all
horrified by the unnecessary bloodshed that occurred
this past summer. July 3 was the date Jessie was
killed. Jessie's death was in the middle of all the
heartbreaking days of last summer. Jessie's death
happened during our nation's celebration of freedom
and liberty. It is ironic she lost hers, but it is
appropriate we pick her day as a day of remembrance.
Alaskans need to protect ourselves from ourselves. We
need to be constantly and on a regular basis be
reminded not to drink and drive. We need laws passed
to protect our children, our parents, our
grandparents, our friends, and our co-workers. We
don't want any more stories like Ladd, Martin, Donna,
Jackie, Christopher, Bruno, Jessie, Gloria,
Jacqueline, Gloria, Kenneth, Kevin, Robert, Heather,
Chris, and Tammy's. By having a drunk driving
Remembrance Day, we can save the lives of those who
might otherwise die, such as Jessie, needlessly in
painfully. Through actions such as lowering our
flags, producing public announcements, holding
candlelight vigils, we bring attention and awareness
to celebrate life in a safe manner. MADD strongly
supports this bill and as a victim, I do as well.
Thank you for your time.
Number 1769
MS. CASHEN added that the wording "traffic accident" is used in
the language of HB 200. She said MADD is adamant about not
using the word "accident" in drunk driving cases, because the
group does not consider these to be accidents, but crimes. She
urged the committee to consider making an amendment to change
that language to something other than "accident."
CHAIR COGHILL suggested the word "incident."
MS. CASHEN said anything but "accident" would be acceptable.
Number 1825
PAM WATTS, Executive Director, Advisory Board on Alcoholism and
Drug Abuse, came forward to testify. She said the advisory
board encourages support of HB 200. The group believes this
legislation will help Alaskans remember the true high cost that
society pays for the negative consequences of alcohol. She
testified:
The board believes we all have a responsibility to do
what we can to reduce the incidence of drunk driving
injuries and fatalities. Legislation to increase
access to substance abuse treatment, to increase
penalties for drunk driving, and other alcohol related
offenses ... and to increase the taxes to more closely
reflect the financial burden Alaskans bear will not
fully compensate for the loss to families and friends
of drunk driving victims. We encourage your support.
MS. WATTS said she appreciates the concern about having this day
be the day before the Fourth of July. "I certainly am a strong
supporter of veterans, having been a readjustment counseling
therapist for about five years for the Veterans Administration,"
she testified. Although the loss of lives because of drunk
driving is not the same as the loss of lives on the battlefield,
she said, "I think that the true loss in terms of sheer numbers
to drunk driving of the lives of Americans is staggering as
well. So I would encourage your support to recognize July 3 as
Drunk Driving Victims Remembrance Day."
Number 1947
CHAIR COGHILL noted that the subject is a troubling one to have
to consider, and he wanted to make sure that the emotional
nature of the issue does not prevent having an open discussion
on this.
Number 1974
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked why advocates decided to have a day
instead of a week or a month, and why they decided to pursue
this as a bill rather than as a resolution.
MS. NOBREGA said she could not answer either of those questions,
but could find out.
Number 2016
MR. CLARK said he had participated in the formation of HB 200,
and the reason for presenting this as a bill rather than as a
resolution is that a resolution would only establish the day for
the year. The idea behind this as a bill is for the State of
Alaska to take ownership of this problem and to recognize it on
an annual basis, he said.
Number 2063
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES volunteered that her head "is just kind of
churning here" listening to Cindy Cashen's enumeration of all of
the drunk driving accidents. She said she is very supportive of
doing this, and she thinks the real benefit is that it gives
those folks who have lost someone a time to think about that and
to get the message out. She does not have problems with the
date, July 3. She added:
I just wanted to put on the record that I sat through
committee after committee after committee of people
just reaching and stretching and searching for a way
to solve this problem, and quite frankly, I have
little faith that any of those methods is going to
stop the particular kind of folks that cause these
accidents. ... We can, however, I believe, stop young
people from getting involved in alcohol consumption in
the beginning. We can encourage people to be
responsible. ... Every little thing we do helps.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES also expressed concern about
inconveniencing law-abiding citizens in the effort to curb
offenders. "We have to come up with something better," she said.
"And I'm perfectly happy to support this. I think it's a good
idea." She suggested the observance could even be expanded to
include other victims of the misuse of alcohol, not just those
involved in traffic incidents.
Number 2331
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if anyone knew on how many days the
Alaskan flag flies at half-mast. "First," he said, "let me say
that I completely concur with the desire here ... but this is
public policy ... and I take this very, very seriously. The
flying at half-mast does bother me a little bit as it relates to
other events where our flag must fly or doesn't fly at half-
mast." He said he thought Representative James had a good
suggestion, since many boating accidents and drownings are
caused by alcohol, and they often occur around major holidays in
summer such as the Fourth of July. He noted that other
controlled substances are a problem in Alaska, and he worries
about those, too, being involved in these accidents. "I just
have a problem," he said. "not with the subject matter, but with
the public policy of the half mast." He also expressed concern
about the possibility of detracting from the Fourth of July.
Number 2469
CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. Nobrega if there had been any research
done or consideration of other dates.
MS. NOBREGA said she did not know.
Number 2490
CHAIR COGHILL noted that his staff was working with the
governor's office to find the answer to Representative Fate's
question about the occasions when the state flag flies at half-
mast.
Number 2499
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he supports HB 200. The flag often
is lowered when somebody on a state level dies, but he thinks it
often does not have much impact. He thinks the comment that
people may ask and have some learning experience is valid. He
said what is important about lowering the flag on July 3 is that
it become a focus for other activities, and he asked what else
is going to happen then.
Number 2554
MS. CASHEN said MADD considers lowering the flag to be an
educational tool. The organization is not looking at the
chronic drunk driver and does not expect this to affect that
person. "What we are looking at, instead, is our youth, our
children," she said. MADD plans to hold candlelight vigils,
make public announcements, and participate in community Fourth
of July activities, especially those for children. "We would do
this in a positive manner," she said. "We wouldn't say, 'Don't
drink and drive!' We would say, 'MADD encourages you to have a
safe and happy holiday.'
MS. CASHEN said it attracts children's attention when the flags
are at half-mast. MADD would capitalize on that and use the
news as an educational tool to say, "This is a day of
remembrance for those who have died due to alcohol. We
encourage you to have a safe and happy holiday."
MS, CASHEN continued, "The Fourth of July is in my viewpoint the
biggest holiday, the most celebrated holiday in Alaska. I know
it is in my town, in Juneau. We don't want to take away from
that celebration; we want to add to it. Alcohol abuse does not
add to it; it detracts." Focusing on July 3 as a day of
remembrance would be a positive, educational tool for the
children, the state's future drivers, she said. She concluded:
Our goal is that by the time these children get their
drivers license, they don't think of drinking and
driving in the same sentence. Flying the flag at half
mast on a day before we celebrate our liberty has
great meaning, and we would like to take that and use
that on an annual, regular basis to teach our youth
how to have a safe and happy holiday. MADD is not
against drinking. We're against drinking and driving,
and we're against underage drinking.
CHAIR COGHILL added, "As a matter of policy, so is the State of
Alaska."
Number 2715
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she thinks it would be a positive and
timely thing to have the day of remembrance on July 3. Drinking
is the number-one challenge in Alaska, and although chronic
abusers of alcohol probably are not going to be affected, she
thinks this will say something. It can be a very positive thing
that everybody will hear, and she is going to vote for it.
Number 2788
CHAIR COGHILL said he had heard from Bob King in the governor's
office that the state flag is lowered about six times a year for
occasions other than a specific person's death, so it apparently
is state policy now, although he had not been aware of it.
Number 2813
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he is in complete agreement with HB
200. He would like to see the word "accident" changed to
"crime" in the bill, which "shines a laser light on the
problem"[of drunk driving}. He stated his belief that the bill
should be moved with the conceptual amendment to change
"accident" to "crime". He did not think it was a good idea to
diffuse it by adding other alcohol-related concerns, he added.
Number 2876
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she certainly understands the problem
of drunk driving but she is still enumerating in her mind all of
the other victims, including children, of what she calls "the
dead drunk." Just focusing on drinking and driving doesn't get
to the problem, which is that excessive drinking is wrong. She
said she would vote for HB 200, but still feels a pang about not
dealing with the real problem.
Number 2955
CHAIR COGHILL declared a brief at-ease at 9:51 a.m. The meeting
was called back to order at 9:52 a.m.
CHAIR COGHILL proposed amending HB 200 by changing the language
on line 6, striking the word "accident" and replacing it with
the word "incident". He said the criminal action was implied.
TAPE 01-34, SIDE B
Number 2962
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if there would ever be a time when
driving over the .10 [blood alcohol concentration level] wasn't
a crime. "What we're trying to do here is tell the truth, and
driving drunk is a crime, period," he said, adding that he
thought the word used should be "crime".
Number 2938
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned recognizing people who were
gravely injured, saying she did not know how broadly or narrowly
the bill should be focused. She did not have a problem with the
language.
Number 2864
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that the way in which the first
sentence bill is worded would mean that the death of a drunk
driver also would be commemorated.
MS. CASHEN explained that MADD considers a drunk driver who is
killed to be a victim, too. She added that it would please MADD
if the language involved the drunk driving "victim," which
includes those who are living as well as those who have died,
and also "crime," because drunk driving is a crime, "and we need
to teach our children it's a crime," she said. "It's not an
incident. It's not an accident. It's a crime."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she likes that wording.
Number 2757
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON remarked, "If we're going to go to the
trouble of doing this, we really need to make a statement here
... by saying a 'crime,' a 'traffic crime involving a drunk
driver victim,' because it is a crime to drive drunk, period."
Number 2734
CHAIR COGHILL indicated willingness to withdraw his motion. He
said there is no doubt that any time there is a death involved,
it is a serious matter. However, there are incidents in which
there is no criminal proceeding, and he thought that should be
left to the courts.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked where HB 200 goes next.
Number 2690
CHAIR COGHILL determined that HB 200 next goes to the House
Rules Standing Committee. He said he was willing to hold it for
further discussion because he would like to know what the other
six days are for which the state flag is lowered.
Number 2674
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD maintained that he believes "crime" is
the proper word to use and would like to make that conceptual
amendment, to read, "as a result of a traffic crime involving a
drunk driver".
REPRESENTATIVES FATE and HAYES objected.
Number 2625
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he wanted to have a clear statement
from the Legislative Legal Division about the appropriateness of
using the word "crime." He thought it was taking jurisdiction
away from the courts in establishing criminality. Stating that
he was basically in favor of the bill, Representative Fate said
he wanted to be assured that it would not face a lot of
litigation in the future or encounter problems in the Senate.
Number 2590
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES expressed concern about using the word
"crime." He said he would like the bill to have a House
Judiciary Standing Committee referral. He said the House State
Affairs Standing Committee could make the public policy call,
but that there were judicial areas that should be addressed,
too.
Number 2560
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she understood "where Representative
Fate is coming from on this issue, because our basic principle
in this nation is that we're innocent until proven guilty...."
She wondered if by putting in the word "crime" the committee
might be eliminating some of the deaths that it wants to
include. She said she does like the language that Cindy Cashen
proposed, and what she would really like to do is refer HB 200
back to Chair Coghill and have him return with a committee
substitute (CS) that meets the concerns expressed.
Number 2469
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he would like to withdraw his
amendment and enter another amendment "where we just delete 'a
traffic accident involving' and that way it would be, 'as a
result of a drunk driver'." He said he would like to ask Ms.
Cashen if that would be acceptable to her.
CHAIR COGHILL restated the amendment as follows:
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "traffic accident involving a"
Therefore, the language would read: "commemorate the
individuals who died as a result of a drunk driver".
Number 2420
MS. CASHEN suggested the following language: "to commemorate
the victims of drunk driving." She thought that might satisfy
Representative Fate, since it takes out the word "crime" and
puts the emphasis on the victims of drunk driving.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that would be fine with him.
Number 2394
MS. CASHEN provided two other pieces of information. She said
April is Child Abuse Month, so there already is special
recognition of the role of alcohol in relation to that problem.
Also, the dates the Alaska flags are flown at half-mast are
April 9 in honor of Prisoners of War and those Missing in
Action, November 9 in honor of women veterans, December 7 for
those who died in the attack on Pearl Harbor, and June 3 for
individuals who died in the attack on Dutch Harbor.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if there was any objection to the amendment
with Ms. Cashen's suggestion incorporated, which would read "to
commemorate the victims of drunk driving."
Number 2334
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected. She asked that it be "checked
out."
CHAIR COGHILL noted that the committee had spent a full hour on
HB 200, and that even the public policy issue of flying the flag
at half-mast still needed to be discussed. He set the bill
aside to the call of the chair and indicated willingness to work
on it with anyone who wished to do so. [HB 200 was held over.]
HB 28 - MOVE SECOND LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Number 2300
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next item of business before
the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 28, "An Act relating to
the location of legislative sessions; and providing for an
effective date." He said his intention was not to hear or
discuss the bill today, but simply to have it presented.
Number 2360
DAVID STANCLIFF, Staff to Representative Scott Ogan, Alaska
State Legislature, came forward to testify on behalf of
Representative Ogan, sponsor of HB 28. He explained that many
of Representative Ogan's constituents have asked why the
legislature cannot conduct more of its business closer to the
more populated part of Alaska. He explained that there is an
initiative in statute, the so-called FRANK Initiative, that was
put there to make sure that if the capital is ever moved, that
the public is informed on all expenses and everything that it
would take to move the capital. Moving the legislature
occasionally might be a viable alternative, but that also is
very expensive. So Representative Ogan decided "that maybe what
we should do is give the legislature the authority to by
concurrent resolution approve a change in legislative location
for the first part of each two-year session based on
solicitation from communities."
MR. STANCLIFF said he had done some rough calculations on what
the legislature brings to Juneau's economy, and found that
legislators and their staff generate a little more than $5
million. He suggested that hosting the legislature meet in
Anchorage or Fairbanks would not be "nearly as risky a
proposition financially as the Olympics," and recalled that
Anchorage "got very excited about the Olympics at one time" and
had been willing to commit to major building projects. He said
he thought that Fairbanks, Anchorage, the Mat Valley, the
Peninsula, or some other municipality would be interested in
attracting $5 million worth of business in a four-month period
and might try to accommodate the legislature by offering the
facilities, amenities, and the things that the legislature might
need. At that point the community would offer to the
legislature a proposal of what they had to offer, and the
legislature would consider if it was fiscally or logistically
possible to move the session there. Under HB 28, the
legislature would have the authority to approve doing so by a
concurrent resolution.
Number 2111
MR. STANCLIFF offered reasons for considering doing so. He said
HB 28 "would probably be one of the best things the legislature
could do ensure that the capital always remained in Juneau,"
because if people "had the legislature occasionally in their
part of the world, they would not be nearly as apt to want to go
to the extreme of moving the entire capital." In addition,
meeting in other parts of the state would contribute to a
healthy perspective. "We're really a state of many states," he
said, and many people do not see the diversity of Alaska's
Native cultures, economy, and geography. Furthermore, many
voters feel it is unfair that their government is so remote.
"Our people tell us that they would like to be more involved,"
he said. "The constituents that many of us represent and work
for do not have the same access to government as people here in
Southeast do," as it is too expensive and time-consuming for
them to travel to the legislature. "If you want to truly address
the urban-rural divide, bringing the legislature closer to rural
Alaska would be a wonderful thing to do," he added. He
continued:
For any major policy decision such as a fiscal plan,
you have to have public trust. And if the legislature
stays in Juneau in a distant place, then the ideas
seem distant also. And if you were to ... show a good
faith effort to take government to the people, I think
it would go a long way in building more trust.
Passing around the legislature and the legislative
process spreads a little bit of the economy that comes
with them. If you have families you can't bring down
or kids you have to dislocate from other school
systems, its a very costly project, but its costly in
terms of more than just dollars. It's costly
emotionally.
Number 1784
CHAIR COGHILL asked if any municipalities have expressed
interest in taking advantage of the opportunity HB 28 would
present.
MR. STANCLIFF said he did not think any of them will take the
idea seriously until HB 28 is passed out of committee.
CHAIR COGHILL asked him to let Representative Ogan know that he
would be interested in knowing about any municipality that was
anticipating what it might do.
MR. STANCLIFF noted that there is a referendum being sponsored
in the Matanuska Valley to move the legislature there.
Number 1725
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he would appreciate knowing if there
is any other state that moves its legislature around.
Number 1700
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked how the legislature would go about
deciding, if there was a bidding competition between
communities.
MR. STANCLIFF said he thinks the community that offers the least
expensive option would rank very high, but also that there would
be some effort made to move to places where the legislature had
not been. He said he thinks communities have the ability to
make offers to the legislature that would involve little or no
cost to it.
Number 1540
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how many places to stay a community
would have to provide.
MR. STANCLIFF said Juneau provides homes for approximately 200,
and he thought Anchorage or Fairbanks could easily accommodate
that type of influx, especially during the winter.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how Gavel to Gavel would be
provided.
MR. STANCLIFF replied, "Hopefully, the same. We would still
want to have coverage because rural Alaska especially depends
heavily on that, because they don't get down here hardly at
all." He expected that it would continue with electronic feeds
from the alternative location.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON volunteered that North Carolina has had
several places besides Raleigh as its capital, and that the
legislature usually meets in each of those other locations for a
day once each session. Also, she said, if the session moved to
other locations, there would still be family upheaval for many
legislators and staff, and that it would not make any difference
to rural Alaska because there would be so few places that could
accommodate it. The problem is simply displaced, she said.
Number 1402
CHAIR COGHILL sent best wishes to Representative Ogan, who was
in the hospital, and said he looked forward to his coming before
the committee to answer questions about HB 28.
MR. STANCLIFF said Representative Ogan had asked the House State
Affairs Standing Committee to consider, "Is there any good
reason you wouldn't want to grant the authority to a future
legislature to consider ... such a proposal from another area of
the state, because that's all this does." [HB 28 was held
over.]
HB 195 - FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Number 1300
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business before
the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 195, "An Act requiring
governmental entities to meet certain requirements before
placing a burden on a person's free exercise of religion."
Number 1270
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 195, came forward, accompanied by Representative Eric Croft,
cosponsor. [After a brief return to HB 167, the hearing for HB
195 was continued and thus their testimony is found in the
subsequent minutes listed for the same date.]
HB 167 - MOTOR VEH. LIC.PLATES: NATL GRD/ANTIQUE
Number 1270
Attention was returned briefly to HOUSE BILL NO. 167, "An Act
relating to license plates for Alaska National Guard personnel
and for antique motor vehicles; relating to gold rush license
plates; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he wished to correct something he had
said earlier in the meeting concerning HB 167. He had said the
accommodation on National Guard license plates was the request
of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). That was incorrect,
he said. The request originally came from a constituent and,
when asked, DMV said that would not be a problem, would help
them, and would change the law to reflect current DMV practice.
CHAIR COGHILL said it seemed to him that the request now was
coming "from us rather than from them."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON agreed, but said he had misspoken and
wished to set the record straight.
HB 195 - FREEDOM OF RELIGION
CHAIR COGHILL returned attention to HOUSE BILL NO. 195, "An Act
requiring governmental entities to meet certain requirements
before placing a burden on a person's free exercise of
religion."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON commented that HB 195 probably should be
titled, "Standards for Religious Freedom Restoration Act." In
this country, since 1963, the standard for government
intervention in religion has been that there must be "a
compelling state interest," he explained. Further, if it is
demonstrated that there is a compelling state interest for the
state to interfere in somebody's practice of religion, then that
the government must take the least restrictive way of dealing
with it.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON explained that in the 1990 case, Employment
Division of Oregon v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court
decision eliminated the "compelling interest" and "least
restrictive" provisions from federal law. "Virtually
immediately, the United States Congress wheeled into action and
on almost unanimous vote of both houses, put through a religious
freedom Act restoring those two criteria to the government's
restriction of religious practice," Representative Dyson said.
The Supreme Court then overturned that congressional action,
saying this is a state issue and not the purview of the federal
government. The court encouraged the states to restore this
historic standard for government intervention in religion, and
that is what HB 195 does. Several other states already have
done so.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON credited Representative Croft for
"heroically" carrying the bill last session, noting that
Representative Croft had asked him to work on it this session
with him. Representative Dyson suggested that questions be
directed to Representative Croft. He added, "I think you will
hear some discussion from some parts of the administration
waving red flags on this." He encouraged the committee to focus
on whether this standard caused problems before 1990. He said,
"Indeed, if there are any problems with us having this kind of
protection for religion in our country, those problems would
have shown up in the pre-1990 time frame.
Number 0971
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
cosponsor, pointed out the irony that "it was the liberal Warren
Court that put in this protection, and it was the conservative
Scalia and Rehnquist court that took it out."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the protection now in place is easy to
administer. It says that it is all right to limit a person's
practice of religion as long as that was not the intent of the
law. There are no exceptions. By contrast, the protection
sought in HB 195 opens the way for discussion and questions. It
has to be applied case-by-case, considering how much of a burden
is being put on a person's religious practice and how much of a
problem that practice creates for the government. "It's
inherently messy," he acknowledged. He concluded:
We are proud in this state of our constitutional
rights. I think our constitution is in some cases a
model, and our court ... has continued to apply the
test of compelling state interest even after the
federal court retreated. But ... Representative Dyson
and I wanted to make sure that we didn't retreat from
that standard, to buttress that position.
Number 0645
CHAIR COGHILL asked if HB 195 was prescriptive and not prompted
by any current problem.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he knows of no current problems with
unconstitutional impingement of religious freedom in Alaska.
"What we are trying to do here," he explained, "is make sure
that this very clear standard that has worked well is in place
as future cases come up." He added that the American Civil
Liberties Union "has come down very firmly on the same side on
this, as has Edward Kennedy and a number of other strange
bedfellows, and I'm delighted to be in their company on this
issue."
CHAIR COGHILL told the House State Affairs Standing Committee
members that a policy call is what he wanted from them. He
suggested leaving "all the Supreme Court cases" for the
scheduled House Judiciary Standing Committee hearing. He added:
I want to make very clear the policy call that we're
asking about, and that is we're going to restrict the
government to the point where they have to show reason
to lay a burden on the exercise of religion, and those
tests are going to be a "compelling interest" and a
"least restrictive means."
CHAIR COGHILL asked Representative Dyson for examples of
compelling interest and least restrictive means.
Number 0482
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON directed attention to committee members'
packets. He noted that when the standard was established in
1963, the court said three questions must be asked. The first
of those was, does the government create an infringement on a
constitutional right to practice religion? That is, has a
government action somehow impaired someone's practice of
religion? For example, a rabbi was holding Sabbath services in
his garage. The government came along and said, "You're not
zoned to have religious ceremonies here, and you can't do that."
There had been no complaints from neighbors and no one had
objected.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said the second question is whether the
government has a compelling state interest that justifies
burdening the religious activity in question. The term
"compelling" means "very important, or of the highest
magnitude," he explained. He described the case of two drug
counselors in Oregon who said they were of a Native American
religion and that using peyote was part of their religious
service. "The government said they could not be drug counselors
and use hallucinogens at coffee break; there is a compelling
state interest why that doesn't work," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said the third question is, "If a
compelling interest does exist, are there alternative means by
which the government can achieve its goal and thus not burden
the religious action?" For example, if religion requires a
person to wear some kind of headgear and that person's job
requires wearing a crash helmet, then the crash helmet can go
over the headgear.
Number 0233
CHAIR COGHILL said he would like to postpone discussion to allow
witnesses to testify.
Number 0150
ROBERT ROYCE, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Department of Law, Anchorage, testified by
teleconference. He called attention to Section 2 of HB 195,
where, under "Findings," paragraph (2) says:
In 1990, the United States Supreme Court retreated
from over 200 years of respect for the right to free
exercise of religion in Employment Division v. Smith
... by holding that the government no longer had to
make reasonable exceptions to general laws in order to
accommodate the religious beliefs of its citizens;
MR. ROYCE said he thought that finding is "somewhat inaccurate"
because the Smith decision recognized several exceptions to its
holdings and because the Supreme Court in that case was not
dealing just with the accommodation of religious beliefs, "which
are always 100 percent protected;" it [also] was dealing with
religiously motivated activity that resulted in violation of a
generally applicable criminal law.
MR. ROYCE explained that in the Smith case, the Supreme Court
considered a free exercise claim brought by members of the
Native American Church who were denied unemployment benefits
when they lost their jobs because they had used peyote. Their
practice was to ingest peyote for sacramental purposes, and they
challenged the Oregon statute.
TAPE 01-35, SIDE A
MR. ROYCE cited the Sherbert v. Verner case, which established
the so-called Sherbert Balancing Test. He said that test would
have asked whether Oregon's prohibition would have substantially
burdened a religious practice, and, if it did, whether the
burden was justified by a compelling governmental interest. The
application of that Sherbert Balancing Test would have produced
an anomaly in the law, a constitutional right to ignore neutral
laws of general applicability.
MR. ROYCE noted that the Smith decision itself recognized
several exceptions. The first exception would be the "hybrid
rights exception," which is set out in the Wisconsin v. Yoder
case. Wisconsin had a mandatory school attendance law and Amish
parents refused for religious reasons to send their children to
the school. The court allowed them an exception to that
generally applicable law because there was a combination of the
right to free exercise of religion and also the right of parents
to control their children's education. Another exception is in
the Smith case, where the government is providing monetary
benefits, unemployment compensation, and the balance again tips
in favor in favor of the individual.
MR. ROYCE said in the Sherbert case, the Thomas case, and the
Hobie case, the court explained that the compelling state
interest was appropriate because there was already an
individualized mechanism set up by the government. For example,
when somebody leaves a job, there is an unemployment hearing to
determine whether there was good cause, and the court says you
can't deny somebody benefits that are available to everybody
unless you meet the compelling interest test.
MR. ROYCE returned to the Smith case, saying:
The court said where there's a generally applicable
and neutral law, such as Oregon's, the sounder
approach and the approach in accord with the vast
majority of our precedents is to hold the test
inapplicable to free exercise challenges. So under
Smith; neutral, generally applicable laws that only
incidentally affect religious exercise do not require
justification by compelling state interest.
Number 0281
CHAIR COGHILL said he wanted to keep the discussion in the House
State Affairs Standing Committee on a broader policy level
because HB 195 is scheduled to go on to a House Judiciary
Standing Committee hearing. He asked Mr. Royce to help in
getting the language right. He asked him if he thought that
"retreating from 200 years of respect for the right to exercise
freedom of religion" was too broad a statement?
MR. ROYCE said yes; the majority opinion in the Smith decision
did not overrule any prior precedent. It either distinguished
them or tried to reconcile them; which, he said, is not an easy
thing to do in covering 200 years of free exercise jurisprudence
and in a somewhat unclear area of the law.
Number 0366
CHAIR COGHILL sought further clarification, asking, "So the
assertion then is debatable, ... the assertion that 200 years of
law had been retreated from?"
MR. ROYCE replied, "Yes. There are arguments on both sides."
Number 0395
CHAIR COGHILL said he wanted it on the record that the assertion
is debatable. The other thing he said he wished to clarify was
the bar that keeps a government from placing a burden. "I think
we need to get to that," he said.
CHAIR COGHILL told Mr. Royce, "I'd like to hear from you some
more on this particular bill. It's not my intention to move it
out today; we're running up against the clock ...." He
explained that he wanted to take testimony from some people in
the room, "not to cut you off, but to give you an idea of what
other people might say as well."
MR. ROYCE concurred, but said he would like to make an
additional point.
CHAIR COGHILL invited him to go ahead and make the additional
point.
Number 0461
MR. ROYCE said even though the free exercise clause of the
Alaska constitution is identical to the free exercise clause of
the federal constitution, the Alaska Supreme Court is not
required to adopt or to apply the Smith test, and they have, in
fact, expressly declined it. He continued:
The important point is that the Alaska Supreme Court
has adopted the Sherbert Test to determine whether the
free exercise clause under the Alaska constitution
requires an exemption from a ... neutral law, but the
elements are different than what is proposed in HB
195. The court says to get a religious exemption, ...
you have to have religion involved, the conduct in
question is religiously based, and the claimant must
be sincere in his or her religious belief. Once those
requirements are met, religiously impelled actions can
be forbidden only where they pose some substantial
threat to public safety, peace, or order. ...
That's not the same test that is set out in HB 195.
House Bill 195 says "any burden," not just "a
substantial burden" that's required under federal case
law; and you have [in HB 195] a "clear and convincing
evidence" standard that isn't under current
jurisprudence in Alaska law; and you have [in HB 195]
the "least restrictive means" test, which has not been
applied by the Alaska Supreme Court. So I think the
bill is improper because it is changing the way the
judiciary would have to evaluate free exercise claims.
Number 0592
CHAIR COGHILL said he thinks that is the public policy call the
legislature is considering making, and that he thinks the
legislature is well within its right to do that. "It would
certainly be a discussion between us and the judiciary somewhere
along the line, there's no doubt," he said.
Number 0645
GARY WATERHOUSE, Pastor, Juneau and Sitka Seventh Day Adventist
Churches, came forward to testify. He said part of his
responsibilities also are as the representative of the Northwest
Religious Liberty Association, which includes Alaska,
Washington, and Oregon. He said he had a statement prepared by
Greg Hamilton, president of the Northwest Religious Liberty
Association, which Mr. Hamilton had asked him to read to the
committee.
CHAIR COGHILL said time was too short to allow for the seven-
minute oral presentation, but that the committee would take that
statement on record. He asked Mr. Waterhouse if he was correct
in assuming that they were in agreement with HB 195.
MR. WATERHOUSE said they were in agreement with it, and that it
was fine with him to distribute written copies of the letter.
However, "there is an amendment that we are suggesting in the
paper, and that is in the last part of the paper that you have."
CHAIR COGHILL asked if he would make sure the committee had that
as well as the written testimony. He said he would commit to
him to entertain that amendment.
MR. WATERHOUSE said he would be available for a later committee
meeting.
Number 0849
AL SUNDQUIST, President, Alaska Chapter, Americans United for
Separation of Church and State, testified by teleconference. He
said:
We are opposed to HB 195, the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act. Some interest groups aligned with
the so-called "religious right" have signaled their
intentions to use such laws as the Religious Freedom
Protection Act currently being proposed in Alaska as a
means to restrict the civil rights of others. We are
deeply concerned with this possibility. For example,
in Swanner v. [Anchorage] Equal Rights Commission, the
court held that it did not abridge the free exercise
of religion to force a landlord to rent to unmarried
couples. In pursuance of applicable anti-
discrimination laws, we are concerned that HB 195
could be used to try to overturn this wise decision,
pitting a new religion claim against the present civil
rights protections. For these reasons, Americans
United opposes the Religious Freedom Protection Act in
its current form and urges you to vote no on HB 195.
Thank you.
Number 0964
CHAIR COGHILL asked if they "had come up with any proposed
language that might help you keep it from doing the harm that
you say it might?"
MR. SUNDQUIST said he thought so, but did not have it with him
at the moment. He said he would be happy to work with the
legislature on modifying the language.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if he had been in touch with the sponsor of
HB 195.
MR. SUNDQUIST said he had not.
CHAIR COGHILL suggested that he do so. He added:
I think you'll find him a very reasonable man and I
think that you could have a very profitable discussion
on that issue. I don't think he's interested in doing
harm to people; I think he's just trying to put a test
on the government with some bar for them to go over
before they can compel somebody.
Number 1060
EDWARD C. FURMAN came forward to testify. He said when Patrick
Henry, a Founding Father of the federal constitution, was alive,
he saw a terrible thing: a man being whipped because he would
not take a license. Mr. Furman emphasized the need to look at
the common law and the state constitution. The attorney general
has turned his back on Alaska's constitution, he said, and has
let American politics and lawyers come into our state and deny
our constitutional right.
CHAIR COGHILL expressed appreciation for Mr. Furman's testimony.
He said constitutional rights are part of the issue "and what
bar we are going to place on government and what the compelling
interests are." He asked Mr. Furman if he could come back to
testify again.
MR. FURMAN said he could.
CHAIR COGHILL said he was not going to cut off public testimony
and still wanted to hear from department people who were
present. He stated his intention to put HB 195 at the top of
the calendar for the next meeting of the committee. [HB 195 was
held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:57
a.m.