Legislature(2017 - 2018)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)


Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled: TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
        HB   8-ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN PROTECTIVE ORDERS                                                                     
CHAIR BISHOP announced consideration of HB 8.                                                                                   
SENATOR MACKINNON moved Amendment 1, labelled 30-LS0127\A.3                                                                     
                          AMENDMENT 1                                                                                       
     OFFERED IN THE SENATE             BY SENATOR MACKINNON                                                                     
     TO:  HB 8                                                                                                                  
     Page 4, following line 22:                                                                                                 
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
        "* Sec. 8. AS 22.35.030 is amended to read:                                                                         
          Sec. 22.35.030. Publication of Records [RECORDS                                                                   
     CONCERNING  CRIMINAL CASES  RESULTING  IN ACQUITTAL  OR                                                                  
     DISMISSAL]. The  Alaska Court System may  not publish a                                                                  
     court  record  [OF  A  CRIMINAL  CASE]  on  a  publicly                                                                    
     available website                                                                                                          
               (1)  in a criminal case if 60 days have                                                                      
     elapsed from the date of acquittal or dismissal and                                                                        
               (A) [(1)]  the defendant was acquitted of                                                                    
     all charges filed in the case;                                                                                             
               (B) [(2)]  all criminal charges against the                                                                  
     defendant in the case have  been dismissed and were not                                                                    
     dismissed  as  part  of a  plea  agreement  in  another                                                                    
     criminal case  under Rule 11, Alaska  Rules of Criminal                                                                    
               (C) [(3)]  the defendant was acquitted of                                                                    
     some  of  the criminal  charges  in  the case  and  the                                                                    
     remaining charges were dismissed; or                                                                                       
               (D) [(4)]  all criminal charges against the                                                                  
       defendant in the case have been dismissed after a                                                                        
     suspended entry of judgment under AS 12.55.078;                                                                        
               (2)      of    a   protective   order   under                                                                
     AS 18.66.100   -  18.66.180,   restraining  order,   or                                                                
     injunction  in a  case involving  domestic violence  if                                                                
     the  publication would  likely reveal  the identity  or                                                                
     location of the party protected under the order."                                                                      
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
CHAIR BISHOP objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                  
3:39:41 PM                                                                                                                    
BRITTANY  HUTCHISON, staff  to  Senator  MacKinnon, Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature,  Juneau, Alaska,  explained that  Amendment 1  would                                                               
put  Alaska  in  further  compliance with  the  Federal  Violence                                                               
Against  Women  Act  (VAWA).  It  requires  that  all  protective                                                               
orders,  restraining orders,  or injunctions  in cases  involving                                                               
domestic  violence,  sexual assault,  or  stalking  shall not  be                                                               
published  on  the  Internet  if they  would  likely  reveal  the                                                               
identity or location of the party protected under the order.                                                                    
She  said  the  bulk  of  the  amendment  is  in  section  2  and                                                               
everything else is  conforming changes. Section 2  was written to                                                               
comply with  Title 18 of  US Code Section 22.65  (d)(2), entitled                                                               
"No  Prior   Registration  or  Filing   as  a   Prerequisite  for                                                               
Enforcement."    However,  right   below  that  (d)(3),  entitled                                                               
"Limits on  Internet Publication or Registration  Information" is                                                               
what the amendment seeks to  be in compliance with. The amendment                                                               
is worded exactly the same.                                                                                                     
3:41:26 PM                                                                                                                    
NANCY  MEADE,  General  Counsel,  Alaska  Court  System,  Juneau,                                                               
Alaska, explained that  using this language means  that the court                                                               
system would  remove the  public version  that people  can access                                                               
from  home  from CourtView  and  it  applies  to all  records  of                                                               
domestic  violence protective  orders,  as well  as stalking  and                                                               
sexual assault protective  orders. This is because  any record of                                                               
a  protective  order  would  likely  [inadvertently]  reveal  the                                                               
identity  or location  of a  protected party.  Just removing  the                                                               
petitioners'   names  could   leave   clues  as   to  the   other                                                               
information. If  something is left on  CourtView like unpublished                                                               
or anonymous  versus Click Bishop  with a Fairbanks  case number,                                                               
that does in  fact reveal the identity of the  person bringing it                                                               
as well  as the location.  She said  the court system  can remove                                                               
everything with no fiscal impact.                                                                                               
SENATOR  MACKINNON   asked  what  language  about   protecting  a                                                               
victim's identity  would instruct the court  to adequately comply                                                               
with the federal law.                                                                                                           
MS.  MEADE answered  the problem  is  that by  saying "to  remove                                                               
anything that reveals the identity  or location of the person who                                                               
files," makes it very easy to  figure out the information that is                                                               
left  out. The  court system  could be  instructed to  remove all                                                               
names  or one  name, but  removing  just one  name (thus  leaving                                                               
enough information to figure out  other names) would be violating                                                               
federal statute.                                                                                                                
She explained that in the past,  the court system applied VAWA to                                                               
foreign  (non-Alaskan)   domestic  violence   protective  orders,                                                               
because  it  is in  federal  law.  That  meant they  didn't  post                                                               
anything   about  protective   orders   that   came  from   other                                                               
jurisdictions. The legislature  can tell the court to  do more if                                                               
it  thinks VAWA  requires  more and  they will  do  it. She  just                                                               
wanted to make sure they know how language would be implemented.                                                                
3:45:05 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MACKINNON  asked if  Alaska protects  out-of-state orders                                                               
more vigorously than in-state orders in compliance issues.                                                                      
MS. MEADE answered  that provision of VAWA deals  with full faith                                                               
and credit to be given to  foreign protective orders. They can do                                                               
the  same  thing  for  Alaskan   protective  orders,  which  this                                                               
language would tell them to do.                                                                                                 
SENATOR  MACKINNON said  they  are trying  to  come into  federal                                                               
compliance with  victims who petition  the court  for protection,                                                               
and HB 8 takes them one  step closer, but the amendment is trying                                                               
to put  the state  in full compliance.  The courts  are asserting                                                               
today that there is only one way  to do it, and that is to remove                                                               
all data.  They have contacted  the Council on  Domestic Violence                                                               
and Sexual  Assault, as  well as the  Alaska Network  on Domestic                                                               
Violence and  Sexual Assault. They  are all inclined to  have the                                                               
perpetrator, or the  accused have their names public  so that the                                                               
general public  knows there could  be harm associated  with those                                                               
individuals that  are being at  least accused if  not prosecuted.                                                               
If this  amendment fails,  she wanted  to be  able to  craft new,                                                               
compliant legislation with help from the court.                                                                                 
3:47:21 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  GARDNER asked  if there  is  a proposal  to fix  Senator                                                               
MacKinnon's concern without the unintended consequence.                                                                         
MS.  MEADE  answered that  she  worked  with Senator  MacKinnon's                                                               
staff and it  would be simple if the statute  said that the court                                                               
system  may  not  publish  a  petitioner's  name  in  a  domestic                                                               
violence,  stalking, or  sexual  assault  protective order.  That                                                               
would be easy and  perhaps would get to where they  want to go if                                                               
what they  want is  to keep petitioner's  names off  the Internet                                                               
but leave respondent's names. That is not difficult to draft.                                                                   
3:48:09 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
3:48:51 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MACKINNON  said her staff  had the  language "petitioner"                                                               
and when it was submitted to  Legislative Legal they were given a                                                               
legal opinion  that said it would  not be in compliance.  So, she                                                               
wanted  to ask  Megan Wallace  to speak  to the  reasons why  she                                                               
believes it would still be out of compliance.                                                                                   
3:49:21 PM                                                                                                                    
MEGAN  WALLACE,  Legislative  Legal  Counsel,  Legislative  Legal                                                               
Services, Legislative  Affairs Agency, Alaska  State Legislature,                                                               
Juneau, Alaska, said in regard  to changing the amendment so that                                                               
only  the  petitioner's  name  would  appear  on  CourtView,  her                                                               
concern  is  that  the  federal  statute states  that  to  be  in                                                               
compliance  the publication  cannot  reveal the  identity or  the                                                               
location of the  party. She was not certain if  they take out the                                                               
language relating  to revealing  the identity  of or  location of                                                               
the party, if it doesn't  leave room for non-compliance with that                                                               
federal  law. Federal  statute  states  that publications  cannot                                                               
reveal identification or location of the party.                                                                                 
SENATOR MACKINNON  said her  goal is to  comply with  federal law                                                               
and protect victims  of domestic violence and asked  to hear from                                                               
Ms. Meade.                                                                                                                      
MS. MEADE said she didn't think  her legal opinion on this really                                                               
matters,  but  if your  legal  conclusion  is that  just  writing                                                               
"petitioners" would not  be compliant with federal  law, then you                                                               
would go  with this  wording. But with  this wording  and perhaps                                                               
what  Ms. Wallace  is  trying to  say is  that  nothing would  be                                                               
posted about a case on their Internet site.                                                                                     
It is difficult to research  what other states do definitively. A                                                               
Michigan Supreme Court opinion at  least implies that nothing can                                                               
be  posted  about  domestic violence  protective  orders  on  the                                                               
Internet under  VAWA. She wasn't  saying that is the  standard in                                                               
the U.S. and she wasn't  proffering her legal opinion, but rather                                                               
she  is  saying   how  the  wording  in  the   statute  would  be                                                               
implemented should this amendment pass.                                                                                         
3:51:54 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR STEDMAN said  this is about as clear as  mud and that the                                                               
committee  should proceed  with caution  so they  understand what                                                               
they  are voting  on.  He asked  to clarify  that  they can't  by                                                               
federal law publish the names of the accused.                                                                                   
MS.  MEADE said  it is  Legislative Legal's  conclusion that  the                                                               
portion of  federal law that  says that petitioners'  names ought                                                               
to be  protected in protective order  proceedings was interpreted                                                               
by the  court previously to apply  only to orders coming  in from                                                               
other states.  Legislative Legal  has determined that  applies to                                                               
all  protective orders  filed  in  the state,  as  well. Now  the                                                               
question is how to write that  into an amendment. You could write                                                               
"never  put a  petitioner's name  on CourtView"  and that  can be                                                               
done. But  Legislative Legal thinks  that wouldn't go  far enough                                                               
towards  putting  the state  into  compliance  with federal  law,                                                               
which says  "can't put  anything on there  that would  reveal the                                                               
identity   or  location."   That  is   the  wording   in  Senator                                                               
MacKinnon's amendment.  However,  in practice the CourtView can't                                                               
show  anything, because  displaying a  domestic violence  case in                                                               
Fairbanks with  anonymous versus  Click Bishop, alerts  people to                                                               
whom the other party is.                                                                                                        
CHAIR  BISHOP,  finding  no  further   comments,  held  HB  8  in                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB018 Sponsor Statement 02.16.17.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
HB 18
HB018 Sectional Analysis 02.16.17.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
HB 18
HB018 02.16.17.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
HB 18
HB018 Fiscal Note 2.3.17.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
HB 18
HB 018 Supporting Document - Letter Goucher 02.16.17.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
HB 18
HB 018 Supporting Document - Seward Chamber of Commerce 02.16.17.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
HB 18
HB018 Supporting Document-Chamber Flyer 01.20.17.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
HB 18
HB018 Supporting Document-Chamber Letter 01.20.17.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
HB 18
SJR 4, Sponsor Statement.PDF SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
SJR 4, Version D.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
SJR 4, Walrus Subsistence Numbers.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
SJR 4, Hearing Request Memo.PDF SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
SJR 4, Invited Testimony.PDF SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
SJR 4, California Statutes.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
SJR 4, Community and Organization Resolutions.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
SJR 4, Hawaii Statutes.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
SJR 4, Letter of Support.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
SJR 4, MMPA Section 101.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
SJR 4, MMPA Section 109.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
SJR 4, New Jersey Statutes.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM
SJR 4, New York Statutes.pdf SCRA 3/28/2017 3:30:00 PM