This meeting of the House Judiciary Committee will now come to order.
The time is now 1.02 p.m. on Wednesday, January 28th, 2026.
We are meeting in the Grunberg Room, Capital Room 120.
The following members are present.
Representative Eischeid, Representative Castello, representative Mina, and myself,
and my self-representative gray chair.
Let the record reflect that we have a quorum
to conduct business.
I would like to recognize the staff
supporting this meeting.
We have Sophia Tenney from House Records,
Andrew Giamolte, House records in training,
Kyla Tupo from the Geno LIO,
and Dylan Hitchcock Lopez, my committee aide.
We have two items of business on today's agenda, House Bill 24,
aggravating factors at sentencing, and House bill 20 prohibit fees for paper documents.
As our first item of Business, we will take up House
Bill twenty-four, aggravate factors that sentencing for its second hearing in our committee.
This bill was introduced last session, so therefore we would like Representative Joseph
On HB 24, before we open public testimony, so at this time, I would like to invite Representative Josephson and his staff, Ken Alper, to the witness table.
Please put yourself on the record and begin your refresher.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.
I'm Andy Josephsen. I represent House District 13. It's South Midtown Anchorage.
on this bill, and you heard at that time from myself,
and, you also heard from a woman named Tammy Willis,
who was the victim of a violent assault
that was sort of, it's undisputed,
was connected to her sexual orientation.
You also hear from
a former US prosecutor for the state named Karen Leffler,
Karen Loeffler talked about the importance of this bill as well.
The bill, first of all, the catalyst for the bill were events that occurred just
before New Year's, well, just before Christmas in 2019.
Miss Willis was a three-time victim.
The third time was the worst where she was fluently assaulted.
I say that because when you're cut open and you need situring,
that's absolutely felony conduct.
It's probably a B felony in that range with a dangerous instrument, et cetera.
a keen isyl.net community. Both City Councils offered resolutions and support, including our
own Justin Rufferge, who served on the City council at the time, I think of...
Also, the Bro Assembly supported taking action.
My partner in that effort was Gary Kanop, who was a member of this body for about four
years and tragically died in a plane crash in around 2020, I think.
on three different legislatures spanning nine hearings.
So I believe Ms. Willis has offered testimony five times
as to what happened to her.
What the bill does is it adds four words
to a section C22 of 1255-155.
That's where the aggravators and mitigators are.
So when there's a presumptive sentence of X,
say two years, for example.
and I'd have to check whether it applies to a first felony offense, but certainly a second felony
offense. Then the prosecutor can put on evidence before a jury that an aggravator applies. And if
the jury finds that aggravater, the judge can then choose, his or her discretion, to enhance the
The four words are sexual orientation and gender identity.
They would be added to the list already in the law at section 22, as I noted.
And that includes color creed,
fizzler, mental disability, ancestry, or national origin,
as well as race and sex.
You know, the statistics which we presented on the 15th of May nationally are not promising.
They're discouraging.
In Alaska, these are outlier events.
The FBI has identified, based on reports that they occur.
But we think in the instance that happened, for example, in 2019, that this is a tool in
the toolbox, both for the prosecutor and the court system, as a reflection of a public
Upset over over this kind of conduct and singling out a member of the community based on
Their sexual orientation or gender identity, so that's what brings us here
Thank you. Are there any questions? Oh for the record
I would like to state that vice chair cop joined us at 104 p.m.
Are There any Questions for The Sponsor Representative Costello
Thank you, so Representative Josephson, my question has to do with how aggravating factors are addressed in our criminal system.
Can you actually layer them or do we have to choose one when we're pursuing an aggravate factor?
consideration by the jury, and there are 37 on the state side, penalty enhancements.
There are also lots of mitigators, so for example if you look at the bill because of the way the drafting manual works they reprint the whole bill in this instance.
And, for example, number six says that the defendant's conduct created a risk of imminent
physical injury to three or more persons other than accomplices.
So if you're going to injure three more people, you could get in more trouble than if
you were going injure one or two.
So this is in that group.
It's just that it is adding these four words to subsection 22 where the Defendant knowingly
character, or their race, sex, characters, not the right word, but a characteristic.
So that's what this does.
I'm going to follow up for Representative Costello because the way I interpret your question
would be, could you get an agrading factor because...
person's race, and then an additional aggravating factor
because of their sexual orientation,
and an intentional aggravate factor
because their religion.
Like, could you get multiples of this or statement?
To the chair, I think that you could,
but it'd be a very strange fact pattern, right?
So you'd have to show that discreetly
that each of these things applied.
As I noted to the
the body on May 15th of last year.
There was a case called Wisconsin versus Mitchell
where a former Chief Justice Rehnquist said,
these are not unconstitutional.
So any consideration of that I think is dispelled
by that case.
In that cases, three African Americans had attacked
a white person and the evidence supported it.
They did so because he was white.
Are there any other questions for the sponsor?
Seeing no other questions,
I will now like to open public testimony
on House Bill 24.
Public testimony on house bill 24 is now open.
If there's anyone in the room who would like
to testify, please come forward,
put yourself on the record and begin your testimony.
Seeing No One in The Room will move online.
Seeing, No one online,
Neither anyone online or in the room to testify public testimony on house bill 24 is now closed
At the last hearing of
House bill twenty four I said in amendment deadline of May 20th twenty twenty five
Having received no proposed amendments. I would now like to offer time for final comments on this bill
I'll wait them. Um, I think I take well
I won't wait them.
This bill is stuck by me because it was so obvious
that Miss Willis's assailant had come after her.
You have to understand a rock was thrown through her window
in one instant, shattering the windshield.
The rock said, dike on it.
The assailant then, later, different day,
follows her to her garage door in the dark.
There he pushes her and stabs her,
There's nothing in our law, and most people could not be targeted in that way because most
people don't have that orientation.
And there's anything in the law that reflects public disgrace with that kind of conduct.
So I think that this, again, is a tool, fortunately, we don t need often.
It's used by 31 states, 31 States have this.
Any comments for Ms. Mitty?
I will make a comment.
I appreciate the sponsor for bringing this bill forward.
I understand the need for the addition of this language.
And I'll just use it as an example.
I have an intern in my office, Carly Thrun,
and she, on our first staff meeting,
volunteered to help with my social media.
And, I told her that was fine,
just what she would see by managing the social media, and it's not about me, it
about people like me. I mean I'm a public figure, so of course you know this
comes with the territory, but just I think that there is, there's hate for
I think if someone kills somebody or assault somebody for this one and
only reason that the aggravating factor is appropriate and I'm grateful that you
brought the bill forward.
I appreciate that our laws recognize that if you're part of an identifiable group and
that people who are whatever group that is as long as it's identifiable if you are attacked for
that reason that for a long time in our country we've taken a very dim view of that and I also
look to the local governments who address this issue immediately at this time you mentioned the
city of Soldotna and the borough assembly and yeah I intend to support moving this bill thank you
Any other final comments?
Mr. Chair
At this time I move that house bill 24 work order 34 dash LS 0 2 5 0 backslash n
Be reported out of the judiciary committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal modes
Hearing no objection house Bill 24 Work Order 34-L s
0 250
is reported out of the Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal notes. We will now take a brief at ease while we sign the paperwork.
on the record, our second item of business
is to bring House Bill 20,
prohibit fees for paper documents
up for its first hearing in our committee.
At this time, I would like to invite the sponsor,
Rep Sadler, and his intern, Kai Elkins,
to the witness table to introduce the bill.
Please put yourself on record and begin your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
for the Record, this is Dan Sadner,
Representative for House District 24,
Chew Yank, Eagle River, Birchwood,
and Peter's Creek.
I want to thank you for having this bill up.
I'm going to give you a brief statement in support of the bill and then passed off to my entering cave to the sectional.
I had to smile, we're sitting here watching the other bill.
We're talking about a bill to prohibit fees for paper documents.
I think everyone here has paper copies of their bills.
So it's a receptive audience already.
I am glad to see that.
Mr. Chairman, briefly, HP20 would prevent businesses from charging a fee to customers
who prefer to get their invoices or their statements or other documents in the traditional
way on paper through the mail.
Certainly, more and more cell phone carriers, utilities, banks, and other businesses are
either charging customers a monthly fee if they want to give paper or offering a discount
to go paperless as an incentive.
Thing is, not every Alaskan wants to do business online,
and frankly not, every alaskans can do businesses online.
More than 100,000 Alaskans are 65 years or older.
I have been recently one of them.
And people are more comfortable doing business on paper
and who are likely to say that way,
internet convenience or not.
And because people who're older
are most likely be on fixed incomes,
they're less likely
to be able to afford the fees charged
for getting paper documents.
Also, about 60,00 Alascans have no internet access
despite our investments in, you know,
Beaten and libraries and so forth.
A lot of Alacans live off the grid.
And even those, an extra 200,000 probably do have internet access.
It's not really reliable, and it's slow and below federal minimums.
And as we see, unreliability is not limited to the bush last year in this building.
We had an outage when a undersea cable broke, we had no internet,
and we almost grounded a halt here.
So to wrap up and keep the things moving, a hospital 20 would bar businesses
from charging different rates for customers in Alaska based on whether they go paperless.
or like paper documents.
I'm pleased to say this bill does not cost the state anything, and really it imposes no additional cost over the status quo to businesses.
But it does recognize the unique challenges that we have in Alaska with limited internet access and an aging population.
Ms. Chair, thanks again for hearing the bill.
I appreciate your consideration.
We'll be glad to answer any questions from the committee.
But right now, Mr. Alkins, we'll present this actually for me.
Thank you, Chair Gray and members of this committee for the record.
This is Kai Elkins, a staff representative Sadler.
And this is sectional analysis for House Bill 20 version N.
Section 1 amends AS 2136 by adding a new section AS2136 525.
Which prohibits insurers from charging an additional fee or
different rate for individuals who prefer to receive paper copies of invoices,
statements and other documents.
This section does not, however, prevent and ensure from charging a fee for providing duplicate copies of any documents previously provided.
Section 2 amends AS4545 by adding a new section AS 4545 940, which prohibits businesses from
charging an additional fee or a different rate for individuals who prefer to receive paper copies
of invoices statements and other documents.
a business from charge and a fee for providing duplicate copies of any documents previously provided.
Section 2 defines business by the meaning given an AS-4371-10,
which states a Business is, quote, a for-profit or nonprofit entity engaging or offering to engage in a trade,
a service, or profession,
or an activity with the goal of receiving a financial benefit in exchange for the provision of services or goods or other property.
Section three asked the list of unlawful business acts and practices entitled 45 to include violations of AS 45 45 940
Established in section two of this bill, and this is sexual analysis for
House bill 20 version in thank you, mr. Alkins questions from the committee
Representative Mina
Thank you Chair Gray through the chair to Representative Sandler. Do you have any
idea for other states that might have this policy of how much that has impacted
other fees or premiums related to a business by prohibiting these paper fees?
Through the Chair, I mean I'm going to have my internates the question he's
Through the chair, thank you, Representative Mina.
From my understanding, New York also has a law
on banning paper fees for statements
and they have not run into any of the issues
that you have described in your question.
Thank you.
I'll ask some questions.
So, my first question is, I think many of us
are familiar with businesses offering us a discount
if we opt out of our paper.
bills. And it's I just want to be clear, would your bill ban offering a discount to customers who
choose to go paperless?
through the chair actually both to the chairman actually yes it does um it would well they can
charge what they want this is as contractual they wanted to provide an invoice uh digitally
though the bill simply addresses is the an additional you know to be fair a higher or even a lower
cost for paper so no they charge you what you want to for the does not set a cap on what
they could charge for their fees just as it cannot be differential it can't be different
When you said earlier that there's no additional cost to the business for providing paper documents,
but they're buying the paper, they are printing it,
they using toner, using postage to send it to people.
So I would argue that actually there is a cost
to sending out paper bills and that if folks opt toward the
paperless option, that that is the cost savings to business.
And I don't know how would you respond to that.
Well, a fair question that comes up. Well you have to it kind of depends on what you assume as your status quo
You know for a long time businesses have done business on paper through the US mail
And to my mind
I think many Alaskans that is a status quote and changes from that are what need to be addressed
Now, what I would say to that is if businesses are saving money by using digital communication
bills, if they're offering a discount to the customers who do that, that'd be great.
But I don't think they are, and I think that there's benefit provided directly to
the consumer for that.
What I'm seeing is to change the status quo to this is the cost of doing business.
You pay your bill, you're going to do that to paying an extra cost for
delivery of that does not seem for businesses still print out paper.
They have memos and so forth.
We do not proportionally apportion those costs of
doing this on paper to the client.
So I don't think it's fair to assume that delivering the bill for services by
paper should be an additional cost.
I remember these are customers who are already paying a cost per service.
should maybe just be part of the cost of business?
I think I'm, and I want to make up some hypothetical numbers,
but say for example, 90% of your customers
were opting to go paperless,
and 10% your customer base decided to stick with paper.
and you're not allowed to offer any sort of discount
to the paperless folks.
Well, if you raise the fee, you know,
if your gonna make sure that you charge enough
to pay for the pay per the toner and the postage,
then ultimately the 90% paper less folks
would be subsidizing the 10% papers side.
So I mean, I'm playing the devil's advocate
from Representative Sadler.
actually is, I think, a lower cost to being paperless, and I
think not, you know, not being allowed to offer discount to
incentivize that seems.
Dare I say government overreach.
There was a never passed my lips, Mr. Chairman.
Well, well, um, mr. chairman of future.
The snare you describe, I would say, gee whiz, the 10% who are paying the cost are subsidizing those who
are getting their bills electronically. You know, affair is fair,
I think.
Certainly, if there's 90% who are getting their statements electronically, there are
sufficient savings involved in that to certainly overcome that very small 10% in the practical
impact.
A point which I did not make and I don't put first and foremost in my advocate is that
I think this is a bit of a rear action.
This is not going to persist into the future for forever.
I thing those of the generations who prefer paper will move on to other things in time
But I think this just kind of protects them against additional costs and so forth.
And I guess you might think it's an insignificant cost, but if someone's got a couple different
utilities, telephone, gas, electric, they have a bank credit union, have Netflix, that's
two, three, four, five charges, it can be from five dollars to more up to early high
levels.
It adds up and you pay that every month and if you're on a fixed income, every little
I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'll ask one more question and that is in places like our
districts where we have adequate internet and you could, it's reasonable for us to receive our
documents online. When I was offered a discount maybe 10 years ago, the discount actually
was the reason why I chose it. I was like, oh, it's, I'll get, you know, however much off,
I will click it and that is why i ended up going paperless the first time was because of the discount.
I think most folks hate change and so
I think if you remove that incentive,
there are folks who probably don't really care
about getting those papers in the mail,
that continue to get the papers
in mail which, you know,
beyond just the cost of the business
is just a lot of unnecessary paper.
So I just, I worry about that
and I wonder if there's room for an amendment
that it...
that it only applied to places where we're getting online bills is just not feasible or is
just just reliable. Oh, in response to that, boy, there's, I don't think there is a formal
metric for what is reliable or unreliable internet service. Certainly the providers will
all say, you know, we are 100% we will ask you, that would be a little bit of a challenge.
I understand where you are going with that.
I think, again, it gets back to what you consider as a status quo, and what is the variance from that.
Yes, Nee, we're going through a paradigm shift where more people are availing themselves with the Internet services,
but they're those who cannot or prefer not to do that,
and they should not be, I don't think they shouldn't be dinged extra cost for doing that?
Thank you. Representative Mina.
Thank you chair gray. I guess to the chair or through the the Chair just a comment
I know that with my district has district 19 that we have some digital equity issues not everybody has access to broadband
There's also issues with digital literacy classes as well, and I knew that you know
We recently had Alaska literacy program come to The Capitol this week. They're in the heart of the district and
Not everyone has Access to
uh paying their bills online. So I think it's a good step towards making sure that that option
is available for folks. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from committee?
on the record. We will now open public testimony for House Bill 20. House bill 20
Public testimony is now opened. Is there anyone in the room that would like to
testify? And please come forward, put yourself on
the Record and begin your testimony? Is
there any one online that
or in the room, public testimony is now closed.
I should, go ahead.
Mr. Chair, I do have a point to offer a record.
I did hear the question.
You know, the stable access really does a lot
of business with constituents and so forth.
Does this apply to the state and government agencies?
No, as Kai said, this is businesses
with the engaged in service for money.
So this would not affect state communication
with citizens.
Thank you for that clarification.
I also should have offered that
Director Heather Carpenter from Department of Administration Insurance.
Yes, the director of the Department
of Insurance is online and available for questions.
If anyone has any questions,
I would now like to set an amendment deadline for House Bill 20 for Tuesday,
February 3rd, 2026 at 5 p.m.
Please work with my committee aide Dylan Hitchcock Lopez
to ensure that amendments are submitted on time.
We will now set House Bill 20 aside
and bring it back up at a later date.
That concludes, oh, thank you to Representative Sadler
and to Kai Elkins for your presentation today.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
That conclude our business for the committee,
but before we adjourn,
I need to mention something about Friday.
On Friday, we'll be returning to House Bill 47, generated of scene child sex abuse material,
which was introduced by sponsor Representative Vance on Monday.
As a reminder, the mimic deadline was set for House bill 47 for tomorrow at 5 p.m.
However, Department of Law has shared some proposed revisions to the bill.
which my committee aid will circulate as soon as we have it.
The reason I bring that up is that if you are considering an amendment,
we need to make sure that it's for the upcoming CS
because I would love to move the bill out on Friday
and I don't want to have any delays.
So please work with my aid,
Dylan Hitchcock Lopez, if your thinking of any amendments to House Bill 47.
I'd also like to remind everyone that Friday's bill hearing for House bill 213
data sharing, social security has been canceled.
It will be rescheduled for a later date.
The time is now 1.33 p.m.
And this hearing of the House Judiciary Committee
is adjourned.