House panel advances domestic violence protective order extensions

The Alaska House Judiciary Committee advanced a bill Wednesday that would give judges discretion to extend protective orders for domestic violence victims from one year to up to five years. The measure responds to testimony from a Kodiak constituent who described the difficulty of reliving trauma each year when renewing orders.

The committee substitute for House Bill 222 passed 3-2 after the panel narrowed the bill's scope from broad workplace violence protections to focus on victim counseling centers. These are organizations whose primary mission involves domestic violence and sexual assault services. The measure also allows judges to issue protective order renewals lasting between one and five years instead of the current one-year maximum.

The Alaska Legislature record shows HB 222 moving through the House Judiciary Committee in May 2025, with the hearing record reflecting concern about firearm-related and Second Amendment issues. The committee took up the revised version Wednesday.

The committee chair said the change responds to testimony from the Kodiak constituent who had to renew her protective order year after year. The bill requires victims to first obtain a standard one-year protective order before becoming eligible for the longer renewal period.

"The thinking behind the committee substitute here is that rather than take the one-size-fits-all approach and say, you know, it must be a two-year extension, or it must be a five-year extension, we wanted to be able to authorize a court to provide the length that seemed appropriate under the facts of the case at hand, and without being overly prescriptive in the exact amount of time," the chair said.

Christine Pate, legal program director for the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, said the change would spare victims from repeated court appearances. Under current law, protective orders expire after one year, requiring victims to return to court annually to prove continued danger.

"This would only require her to go potentially back once, and she would have to prove to the court that it was necessary to protect her from future domestic violence," Pate said.

Judges would need to find by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant danger in the near future before granting an extension. The bill also addresses attorney fees, the crime of violating a protective order, the powers of district judges and magistrates, and changes to Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Administration.

The committee narrowed the bill's workplace violence provisions to apply only to victim counseling centers as defined in existing statute. These are organizations whose main mission is domestic violence and sexual assault work. The original version would have allowed any employer to seek protective orders against threatening individuals.

Pate said at least three or four member programs of the Alaska Network have experienced situations where they were concerned about violence at their facilities, including programs in Anchorage, Emmonak, Bethel and Utqiaġvik.

Representative Sarah Vance, who voted against the measure, said she supports protecting domestic violence victims but raised concerns about Second Amendment protections in the new workplace violence provisions. The bill allows courts to order "other relief" deemed necessary to protect victim counseling centers, which Vance said could potentially include firearm restrictions without explicit due process protections found in domestic violence protective order statutes.

Nancy Meade, representing the General Counsel's office, said courts cannot order firearm surrenders at the initial ex parte stage of domestic violence protective orders, when only the petitioner appears and the respondent has not yet received notice. Ex parte orders last up to 20 days before a long-term hearing. Firearm surrenders can only be ordered after a full hearing where the respondent receives notice and an opportunity to be heard, she said.

"It is clear in the statutes that the first stage, ex parte, where only one party shows up, just the petitioner, and so the respondent has not had due process, has not had a good chance to explain themselves, the court cannot order firearms to be surrendered at that point," Meade said. "It is only at the long term, after a hearing and after the respondent has received that due process of notice and an opportunity to be heard, may firearm surrenders be ordered by the court."

Meade said the new victim counseling center protective orders do not explicitly authorize firearm surrenders, though the "other relief" provision could theoretically allow a judge to order them in cases involving firearms threats. She said such orders would be extremely rare and would require a hearing with full due process. The court representative also said the court is neutral on the one-to-five-year extension provision and does not expect a workload impact.

Dylan Hitchcock Lopez, committee aide, said research found that Arizona, Arkansas and Nevada have nearly identical catch-all provisions in their workplace violence protective order statutes allowing judges to order other relief deemed necessary.

Meade explained that protective order proceedings require evidence. "It is a court hearing. The petitioner has a chance to put on their evidence. The respondent, the person accused, would have a chance to put on their evidence about why they did not think they did this. And then the court would make a decision. And again, they would have to show by a preponderance of the evidence, the petitioner would have to have proven that it was more likely than not that this person had committed that act of violence," she said.

Representative Vance said she objected to the measure to allow the next committee to add clarifying language about Second Amendment protections. The committee chair gave authority to Legislative Legal to make conforming changes to the bill.