This meeting of the House Judiciary Committee will now come to order.
The time is now 1.01 PM on Monday, February 2nd, 2026.
We are meeting in the Bloomberg Room, Capital Room 120.
The following members are present.
Representative Underwood, Representative Eisheid,
Representative Vance,
Representative Costello,
Representative Mina.
and my self-representative gray chair, but the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct
business. I would like to recognize the staff supporting this meeting, Sophia Tinney from House
Records, Kyla Tupou from the Juno-LIO, and Dylan Hitchcock Lopez, my committee aide.
We have two items of business on today's agenda. First up, we
from Representative Nelson and his staff on a page.
This is their first hearing.
And then we have House Bill 4,
presidential write-in votes with Representative Stadler
and His Staff, Dolores Neal.
This also that bill's first hear-ing in this committee.
For our first item, we'll start with House bill 81,
Access to Marijuana Conviction Records.
Please.
Representative David Nelson and your staff on a page please come forward put yourself on the record and begin your presentation
Thank you chair gray and the house judiciary committee
For the record, I am David Nelson, representative for House District 18,
which encompasses Jay Bear, East Anchorage, and Government Hill.
I'm glad to have the opportunity today to discuss with you at House Bill 81
and restricting the release of certain records of convictions and providing
for an effective date.
The bill is really an important step in providing an opportunity for people
with low level marijuana convictions, possession convictions on their record
to make a more significant impact to the state.
hard-working Alaskans are facing barriers to employment, housing, licensing, and
volunteering opportunities, leaving them less able to contribute fully to their
communities. According to an NCSL report, as of 2023, 28 states have
legislation that applies specifically to record confidentiality of certain
marijuana-related offenses.
In a time when Alaska is struggling to find enough qualified workers to fill job openings,
we should not be excluding individuals based on the actions that are no longer illegal.
House Bill 81 would make certain marijuana possessions convictions confidential on basic
background checks while keeping those convictions available for government agencies and qualified
people.
Individuals who were 21 years of age or older at the time of the crime
possessed one ounce or less of marijuana and were not convicted of any other crime
and the same incident would be able to request the Department of Public Safety
make those crimes on their record confidential.
This does not expunge nor does it remove the crimes from the records.
The Department Of Public safety would have until January 1, 2028
to edit their database and amend the record as outlined in the bill.
The Alaska court system in May 2023 amended the court view rules to make convictions outlined in this bill not visible to public view.
It is the will of this committee. I will turn over to my staff, Donna Fox Page, to review the sexual analysis.
Thank you, Representative Nelson. It's the Will of the Committee.
Thank You Representative Chair Gray and members of
This is the sectional analysis for version I of HB 81.
Section 1, amends Alaska Statute 1262-160.
Subsection B, paragraph 8, to include reference to the added subsection F in paragraph
8 to read or criminal justice information as described in F of this section.
Subception B describes conditions around which an individual's criminal record may be released.
Section 2 amends Alaska Statute 1262160 by adding a new subsection F.
Subsection F describes the conditions under which information on an individual's record cannot be released.
Paragraph F requires the individual to submit a request for this agency not to release portions of their record.
Section 3, Repeals Alaska Statute 1262-160 Subsection F paragraph 4 on January 1, 2028 and Section 4 establishes an effective date of January first 2027.
Thank you so much, Ms. Page.
I would like to note that we have some folks online
who are able to answer questions.
We have Lisa Perrington, division director
of the Department of Public Safety.
We are David Morgan from the government affairs,
is the Government Affairs Institute
for the Reason Foundation.
And in the room, we had Nancy Me, General Counsel
for Alaska Court System.
At this time, are there any questions from
For the sponsor, are any of the folks online?
Yes, Representative Costello.
Thank you, so in the presentation of your bill,
Representative Nelson, you mentioned that the individuals
have to reach out to the department and ask for this
to be removed.
Can you talk about, and do you thought about pursuing
that any other way,
and how does an individual know about that opportunity?
Yeah, thank you. Through the chair and for the record representing David Nelson,
through the Chair Representative Costello, yes. For the first two years, the individuals will
have to reach out to DPS to get their records confidential, and then afterwards it will turn
This is mainly for individuals that are currently pursuing job opportunities or housing that
are aware of this and have already been reaching out to the office previously on trying to
get this legislation passed so they are motivated to have this already put on confidential
on the records.
Well, seeing no other questions, we will now take up public testimony.
So I will open public for House Bill 81.
Is there anyone in the room who would like to testify regarding House bill 81?
Seeing no one either in the room or online, public testimony for House Bill 81 is now closed.
I would now like to set an amendment deadline for house bill 81 for Thursday, February 5th, 2026 at 5 p.m.
Please work with my committee aid
to ensure that amendments are submitted on time.
We will now set HB 81 aside and bring it back up on Friday.
Thank you miss page and representative Nelson. Thank You mr. Chair
Our second item of business is to bring forward house bill 4 presidential write-in votes
Up for its first hearing on our committee at this time
I would like to invite the sponsor representative Dan Sadler and his staff the Laura Snule to the witness table
Please put yourself on the record and begin your presentation
For the record, this is Representative Dan Sattler, House District 24, Chewak Eagle River,
Peter's Creek and Birchwood.
It's a pleasure to be back in front of the Judiciary Committee, even if the chairs are
kind of low here.
It is a place to here, but I'm going to present the bill and ask my front desk staffer to
read through the sectional analysis.
But briefly, as you all like to hear a brief introduction of this bill, each before-
allows Alaskans to cast right in votes for president and vice president just as
they can for other state offices and state-wide offices. That's the essence of
the bill and I'll say the generous access to the ballot is one of the bedrock
principles of our democracy. Voters want and deserve to choose among the
candidates that best reflect their political desires. We're an independent
state and voters here don't want their choices to be limited as currently is
happening with their. Choices for a president are limited just by what's
You may well ask, why cannot Alaskans vote president for
writing by writing, pardon me?
And the answer is, it is expressly prohibited by
regulations adopted and written by the division of election,
even though writings are allowed for state and federal
world state of offices like US Senator, US Representative,
and for Governor and Lieutenant Governor.
The regulations result from the passage in 2020 of
ballot measure two, and the regulations came out
months later, so.
That's why.
I do believe that Alaskans deserve the full liberty to vote for candidates to reflect
their political views, even if they're not in the ballot.
And I noticed him doing the research for this bill that, to the first sentence in
the section of law, outlining the preparation of official ballots, says, the director shall
prepare all official ballot to facilitate fairness, simplicity, and clarity.
And there's nothing more fair than to allow voters to have their own choice of who they'd
In summary, Mr. Chairman, HB4 is a nonpartisan, no-cost, good-government fix that expands
ballot access and I've been strengthening this democracy.
Thank you for hearing my presentation.
I'd like to ask Ms. Neal to read the sexual analysis of it, May.
Thank you, Chair Gray and members of the committee.
For the record, this is Dolores Neal,
staff to Representative Sadler,
and this sectional analysis for House Bill 4, Version A.
In Section 1, the only change in the section is on Page 2,
Line 27, and it requires the general election ballot
to offer voters the option for a writing candidate
for President and Vice President.
Section 2 begins on page 5 of The Bill,
and provides the process in which votes should be counted,
and follows the same rules as write-ins for Governor
and Lieutenant Governor.
Section 2 also clearly establishes the standard for how votes should be counted for write in
candidates, including at minimum voters must write the last name of the presidential candidate
for the vote to count.
Section 3 starts on page 6 and adds a new subsection to our statutes that specifies official writing candidates must file a letter with the division of elections.
That includes the candidate's electors for the electoral college, the name of their vice presidential running mate, and the Alaska mailing address.
That concludes my sectional analysis.
Thank you, Chair Gray. Through the chair, I just have a few questions, and I don't know if the Division of Elections is on the line.
Do they allow right in writing candidates for the other federal offices, like for Congress, Senate?
Through chairhood.
And I'll just say, for the record, we have a director from the Division of Elections
Carol Beecher online and project manager division of elections Brian Jackson on the line.
So we've two folks from Division on Elections available to answer questions as well.
Back to you, Representative Sadler.
Thank you Chair.
And through the Chair, I mean, yes, if you look in the supporting materials on this bill
file, there are right in blanks for The U.S. Representative and U S. Senate.
Yes.
And follow up?
Yes, thank you for that response.
Uh, to miss Beacher, I'd like to say, uh, how does the division of elections track right in candidates? Uh. Do they do them per name individually? Do
they just group all right ends together? And then is that information available for the public?
Director Beecher, can you hear us?
If director Beecher is unavailable,
could we go to Brian Jackson to answer
representative Mina's question?
Okay, yes, hi, can you hear me?
We can hear you, great.
Great, excellent, my name's Brian Jax
and I'm the program manager for the division of elections
and to the chair, counting right in,
those are, they're counting all together.
And only if the total amount of votes for write-in
is either the highest or the second highest,
I believe it is, I don't have statute in front of me,
but they have to meet a certain threshold
before the division will break down
the actual accounts for valid write in candidates.
And so we haven't met that threshold in
In recent years, I don't think we have the Lisa Rinkowski right in back in 2010, but basically
they're cumulatively counted together to see if they meet that threshold.
And then, and only then would they be broken down to valid votes for those that actually
submitted their name as an official writing candidate.
Thank you and just a follow-up to the chair to mr. Jackson. So is that information available to
the public whether it's just the maybe more details beyond the cumulative amount of write-in votes?
Yeah, through the Chair
the
Division does not look at the write in votes in a specific contest unless they meet that threshold.
So therefore
Only the aggregate amount collectively is provided in the results that are posted on the website.
That makes sense, thank you.
Representative Costello.
Thank you, and that's really interesting.
I didn't know that about the cumulative count.
I just have a question.
What if the person's last name, who's a write-in, actually has the same last
name as somebody who is officially on a ballot?
Has that ever happened?
I think that's for project manager Brian Jackson.
Yes, again, this is Brian, Jackson program manager.
Through the chair.
I don't know the complete history that it happened happened in.
In recent history.
For a vote to be counted for write-in,
the voter has to fill in the oval,
as well as print the name in a space provided.
Typically, it's asked to provide it exactly
how the candidate has filed their name with the division
and lists of valid write in candidates
are provided to the polling location.
and can be provided to a voter upon their request to review the the valid right in candidates.
Follow-up? I do have a question. Thank you.
The right candidates have to meet the same deadlines for submitting, you know, their candidacy.
Again, this is Brian Jackson through the chair.
No, they can have up until five days before the election to file their letter of intent
to be a right in Canada.
So the division is updating these lists and giving them out to our poll workers as updates
are made or more people file that's right in Canada. So it's quite close to the election day that they can file.
Thank you representative Sadler. I thank you through the chair of represent seller
Not to I'm gonna speak a little bit for the division of elections another point that has to be raised is that there is a threshold for writing candidates
People just can't throw their hat in the ring five days
They must actually have registered with the letter in forming the Division of the the presidential electors names
Vice presidential name and the name address of an in-state campaign manager has been in state residents
So there was some advance work that asked be done. Hi, I guess theoretically it could be down, you know
a little quick, but I think that threshold is one additional bar against somebody just
deciding on a wild here basis, you know, I want to be president,
I'm going to run for, yeah, there is some threshold.
It's not a Wild West.
Thank you.
Representative Vance.
Thank You.
And this is for the division.
It is my understanding that it was an internal decision to exclude the option for a right
and was wondering if the Division has had a change of direction for the future in consideration
of this bill, that highlighting that people do want to have that option to write in.
someone may decide to file since obviously it's they can five days ahead of time but
I was wondering has the division come to the realization that maybe this is
something that they need to change that internal policy on.
It was my understanding that the previous director in conjunction with the Department
of Law reviewed the eligibility of a write-in candidate and statute 1525105 says if a candidate
not successful in advancing to the general election and wishes to be a candidate in the
general elections. They name file as a writing candidate, and I'm sort of paraphrasing there,
but so what they determine they contemplate that statute doesn't contemplate the presidential
contest because we don't have presidential primaries,
and that's when the regulation was drafted for this situation.
So I'm confused, I am quietly thinking about the fact that there is a right in option for
the other federal elections but not this one and from the people's perspective they want
to have the option to write in whoever they see fit and just trying to understand the
for the division and also meeting the demands of the public and helping reconcile both of them since this was an internal decision.
In your opinion, does this bill help clarify that language for The Department?
I can't speak on behalf of, sorry, this is Brian at the Division of Elections to the chair, and I
The director on her behalf while she's out, but, you know, it's certainly something,
you're trying to pick my words carefully here,
but I think it does help in the right direction to get the presidential right in back on the ballot.
Although, I noticed earlier that this statute 1525-105 was not amended in the bill where
it talks about, you know, if a unsuccessful candidate or someone that wasn't in a primary
election wanted to be arrived in candidate, maybe adding some amendment to this statue
would help clarify and make that available again.
One more follow-up.
Thank you for indulging us.
I know that you feel like you're probably got one hand
tied behind your back without the director online.
So I'm gonna ask this question for the record.
I do not expect you to respond to this, but.
I thought that the last time I heard this bill, that their director mentioned that
the reason that they did not include the option for a write-in on the presidential election
was because of space on a ballot.
And maybe the sponsor of the bill could help refresh my memory if that's accurate.
something in writing if I may Mr. Chairman submit to the department of the
statute that you mentioned is kind of giving posing a challenge to
the division so that we can have a very clear direction on what it is that
you're talking about.
Project manager Jackson did you want to comment?
I certainly can't speak to what was said in previous hearings that I was not a part of and I think I don't have that
history
But I can say you know ballot spaces is a premium
and you
know
Maybe that that was mentioned in a previous, you now like I said, I cant speak for and i don t have the history
but
this was my recollection of
of how the statute was interpreted
when the regulation was drafted,
and I was here at that time.
So, I guess it's not really an answer.
Representative Sadler.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would address,
I think, three points that relate to the discussion here.
If you're looking at supporting documents,
The ballot for the most recent general election, I guess it's 2024, has a lot of white space at the bottom.
There's no space limitation.
That's one point.
The second point I'll make is that the current law under 155030 preparation of official ballot on page two lines 14 and 15 directs that
in preparing the ballot, the division shall be made for voting for writing candidates within each section.
So, there is pretty clear direction that there shall be provisions.
And if indeed there's a need for more space, they actually have two pages on the ballot,
and ballots are prepared for our advance of the actual Election Day space and time considerations
in my view should not be a learning factor sufficient to justify denying access for writing
candidates.
Thank you.
Any other questions from committee?
Representative Mina.
Thank you, Chair Gray, through the Chair and this is to Mr. Jackson.
You said something related to the bill not amending or not touching AS15-25-105.
And I just wanted to see clarity because I might have been mishearing.
It looks like section three does add an amendment related
to right-ins for the presidential election and so
do you have a recommendation on language related
address or what you were talking about earlier.
Yeah, thank you through the chair. I'm certainly no legal expert, but
when preparing for this, this was a statute that I recalled in my
or a contest would receive a write-in line.
And so that statute 25-105 refers to a defeated candidate
in the primary or the candidate that was not listed
on the Primary could become a Write-In candidate
in a general election.
And that's the only reason I brought that up is maybe
that needs some clarifying language.
which just could be cohesive with the other statutes that are being amended.
Follow up.
Through the chair to Mr. Jackson.
So right now as I'm reading it, so it does add new language on AS15-25-105.
Right in Canada, running for the office of the President of United States,
must file a letter with a director certifying the information required under AS 1538-26B.
Would that add the clarity that you're talking about?
I thank you for that representative
Again, I am certainly no legal expert and I don't have my legal parachute team with me online today
but
It looks like it might
In A, it still talks about, you know, if the candidate did not appear on the primary or
was not successful in advancing, I guess that's what I was kind of hung up on.
Thank you.
Representative Sadler.
Thank You, Mr. Chairman.
I'm not a lawyer. We employ good smart lawyers in legislative affairs to draft our bills and
The drafter apparently did not consider the need for that clarification of that change in 20. I am sorry 1525 105
And I would say just generally speaking, there may be a lot of reasons why a person or persons
might not run in the primary but might want to be writing candidates in general.
I don't think there's any requirement in state law that one must go through the
primary in order to run the general, certainly that's the normal progression, but
As I say and that if they don't run in the primary that should not be a disqualification and again should
Not be justification for denying even that theoretical opportunity and the practical opportunity as well. That's a legal
nuance that I appreciate Mr. Jackson raising, but I think it's something for lawyers to consider and I
think lawyers have considered it and
passed it by as unnecessary.
At ease.
On the record, we'll just repeat some of this for the
record. So there's been some discussion about if somebody
wanted to write in four different candidates for
president, if you would need four, different write
in lines. But as I pointed out, then we would
need for different writing lines for all of our races. Our
ballots would become very, very long for those folks who
wanted, to have four
different writings that they prefer over the listed
And I think it might be, yes, perhaps I just have a...
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your discretion.
I guess there is nothing to prevent a person from filling in every oval on a ballot.
And, I suspect, but don't know for sure,
but suspect that would probably disqualify the ballot,
on the face of it, would not make sense for someone to vote for four different people for write-in.
Just think about it. Why would they?
And if they did, I think it would be defacing the ballot and disqualify them.
Thank you, Representative Vance.
Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman.
I just have a question for legislative legal.
I know they aren't available right now.
I don't know where we're working on that.
But, and maybe the sponsor has an answer to this, but
I feel with the conversation that we just had with The Division,
I felt like.
this section three, which is the governing right-ins.
It's at the very bottom of the bill, 15, 25, 1, 0, 5.
To me, just at face value of bill it feels like it's not being as thorough to indicate that there should be a right in if that section is concerning right ends.
they feel that it's thorough in what the division pointed out could be problematic.
I want to make sure that we get this right and don't run into further loopholes on providing this access that voters would be considered a fairness issue.
Thank you.
Are there any other questions for the sponsor while we wait for leg legal to come online?
If not, we'll go at ease until leg leg is online.
record we're still waiting for ledge legal to join us in the meantime
representative Sadler is going to give some thoughts. I appreciate Mr. Chair
again not an attorney not expressing a legal opinion that's binding but my
understanding is section three as I interpret section 3 it is to provide
some some cut some
proof that the writing candidate, if they win the majority,
actually can execute the responsibilities
that win their election.
Other candidates that appear in the ballot
have to register their campaigns with the visual elections
and with APOC.
And so we know who they are.
We don't know whoever writing a candidate is.
And Section 3 merely says that if you
want to have your votes for writing counted,
then you have a minimum of establishment of your campaign,
which I guess is just one more filter,
Again, I'm a little uncomfortable arguing the nuances of law, not sure what the objection is.
But I would point out again for the record that the clear direction of language of
law right now on page two, line 14 is provisions shall be made for voting for
writing candidates within each section.
I don't know what could be clear and if it's necessary to make that point even more clearly for
the regulation of writers, then later on in the bill it does so.
Thank you.
Addis.
Back on the record, we have Legislative Legal, Attorney Andrew Dunmeyer online.
So we'll go to Representative Vance for her question for Large Legal.
Thank you, Mr. Dunmeier.
The question that I have after hearing from the Division of Elections is regarding the drafting.
And I just need clarification on Section 3.
Candidates specifically do we need a further clarification of?
a pro in that section
To mirror what's on page two that says provision shall be made for voting for writing candidates for president and vice president
just for clarification
To to make sure that the division is going to implement this as we intend
Through the chair to represent the VAMS, this is Andrew Dunmeyer from Lunch Legal.
I unfortunately did not hear the testimony from the division section.
This section three is included because of the unique situation for presidential elections in which people don't directly vote.
for the president or vice president,
they vote for de-electors in the electoral college.
So the writing candidate for these offices must file a letter
with the division that sets out the information
for whom those electors will be for that person.
Okay, thank you.
Representative Mina.
Thank you, Chair Gray, through the chair.
And my question is similar on this topic on I'm looking at the statute for AS15-25-105.
But what I am understanding is right now that section is specific to the different process
that all other candidates running for office have to undergo to do a letter of intent.
And it's because the presidential candidates have a different
process, that's why we need this additional section.
Is that correct?
Through the chair to represent Amina, and again,
this is Andrew Dunmyer from Los Angeles, but it's correct.
Yeah, it is just a different process
because of the federal constitutions establishment
of The Electoral College and the way
that we don't directly vote for presidents
or vice presidents as we do within the other office.
Thank you.
Representative Sadler, thank you through the chair and and mr. Dunmer. I guess I want to hear a real
I'd like to you hear real clear answer to represent advances question for the record and for posterity is
the language in section three sufficient
For the goal of this bill to allow writings for president and vice president or is there more clarity necessary and does so what?
And I'll add parenthetically that when the bill was drafted when you drafted it
Did not seem to think that was necessary, but we do want make sure
to be sure to make sure so the opportunity is now before you. Is there a need for clarity or not?
Through the share to represent that lard for the record again this is Andrew Dunmeyer from
Lynch label. To my knowledge this language is sufficient you know when we when
we draft bills for any legislature or we try to to truly capture their intent that being said
As I mentioned earlier, I did not hear the Division of Elections
passed the money in this hearing, and certainly if they have any issues that they've lacked,
we would be certainly happy to address them and provide a new draft that puts in additional
information.
I would say that this statute, Section 3, references AS153026B and says that the right
That information would be the names of the electors, the name of
the candidate for vice president because the president and vice
president rodeo was a ticket and then the named and mailing
address of uh the candidates that campaign chair who must be
a state resident. So my belief is with the current language
But it would certainly be long to work with the representor or the committee if the division
election doesn't need to be more or different information on this section.
Representative Sadler.
Thank you, Mr. Donner. I appreciate that.
I'm with you.
I don't think there's additional necessity for clarification.
But now that we have Mr Jackson on the record as well,
I'll pose the same question to you in the light of what you've heard from the attorneys in
Is it the department's, the division's position that there's ambiguity or
inquiry that needs to be resolved, or is the language sufficient for your purposes to write the regulations to achieve the end of the bill?
Yes, thank you through the chair.
It's certainly something that I'll speak with the director in our department,
a lot of contact to make sure that it's clear enough.
And I hear what much legal is saying on the phone
that they feel like it's sufficient I
Just like others, you know, I don't want there to be any ambiguity and you don we want it to do as clear as possible
Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the opportunity is available to us now, mr. Jackson
I'm not sure what more you're going to come back with
Through the chair. I represent a settler. It's
I'm certainly not going to make that decision for the director of the division of elections
on the spot so
Representative Costello
Oh
Are there any other questions for ledge legal
Division of Elections with sponsor at this moment
If not, I will open public testimony on House Bill 4.
If there's anyone in the room who would like to testify
on house bill 4, please come forward,
put yourself on the record, and begin your testimony.
Seeing no one will look online.
Seeing none online,
Public testimony is now closed.
I would now, oh, yes, Representative Costello.
Thank you, and I just wanted to mention that in the committee today we heard that the address has to be of a resident.
However, I think the sponsor of the bill said that it has be an Alaska address.
So I want to make that clear because sometimes when regulations are written,
they'll come back to the Committee to hear the testimony.
So can we clarify that so that its clear, the intent of sponsor?
Thank you, and I'll have to make reference to the chair I represent several I have
to be referenced to this statute because I may have conflated Alaska candidate and
Alaska residents so quite addressed so stand by one quick second 15 25 105
105 do you have that?
To the chair, so looking at the requirements for the president.
Chil candidates as 1530 26 under subsection be three.
The name Alaska mailing address in signature of the candidates state campaign chair.
Who must be a state resident?
So the campaign has to be state, resident, but
the company just has the have an Alaska, mailing, address.
Thank you for clarification.
Representative Mina, representative Costello, any follow up.
Um, is there any other questions or comments about health for at this time?
I was planning on setting an amendment deadline for this Thursday at 5 p.m.
February 5th, 2026 for house bill four.
It sounds like a couple of folks may be thinking about it.
I'll also speak to the division of elections to please reach out to sponsor if you have
amended language that would help you execute the intent of this bill so I'm
hoping that Brian Jackson is still in line and here's that that we can amend
this Bill but it needs to be submitted to our office by 5 p.m. February 5th
2026 we will now set House before aside and bring it back up on Friday
That concludes today's business before the committee.
Before we adjourn, here's a preview of our next meetings.
On Wednesday, we'll have nominees for the select committee on legislative ethics,
Chase Berenson, and Deborah Fancher.
We'll hear House Bill 262, number of Superior Court judges for
its first hearing from the courts.
And we will hear HB 20, prohibition of fees for paper documents for
its second hearing, from Representative Sadler.
On Friday, we'll hear both, HB 81 and HB 4 and
HB 262, so marijuana conviction records,
presidential right-ends, superior court judges,
on second hearing Friday.
The time is now 147 p.m., and this hearing of the House Judiciary Committee is adjourned.