HJUD-260515-1300

This meeting of the House Judiciary Committee will now come to order. The time is now 2:14 PM on Thursday— on Friday, May 15th. Friday, May 15th, 2026. We are meeting in the Grunberg Room, Capitol Room 120. The following members are present: Representative Underwood, Representative Eichide, Representative Vance, Representative Costello, Representative Mina, and myself, 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: Sophia Tenney from House Records, Kyla Tupou from the Juneau LIO, and my committee aide, Dylan Hitchcock Lopez. We have two items of business on today's agenda, and I apologize to the committee for only texting you one item of business. We have two. The first is SB 252, UCC Secured Transactions Electronic Records, by Senator Clayman.

The second will be House Bill 222, Workplace Violence Protective Orders, by Representative Hall. We'll now take up our first item of business, which is— I'm Senate Bill 252, UCC Secured Transactions Electronic Records, sponsored by Senator Clayman, for its second hearing in our committee. I would note for the record that an amendment deadline was set for Thursday, May 14th, at 5 PM. We have one amendment that should be getting copied and passed out very soon. Um, at this time we will open public testimony on Senate Bill 252.

Public testimony on Senate Bill 252 is now open. Everyone in the room who would like to testify, please come forward, place yourself on the record, and begin your testimony. Seeing no one in the room, we'll go online. Seeing no one online, public testimony on Senate Bill 252 is now closed.

Um, does the committee have any questions about Senate Bill 252, um, for the sponsor?

Seeing none, we will now distribute amendments. At ease.

Back on the record. Do we have an amendment? I move amendment N.1. I object for the purpose of discussion. Representative Vance.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In previous committees, we discu— and I asked the question on this specific bill about autonomous AI having influence over, you know, these transactions. And in discussions with legislatively, if we, if we tried to add this to the UCC, it would no longer be a uniform commercial code. And so we decided to go with intent language based upon this being new and just saying it is the intent of the legislature that nothing in this act may be construed as recognizing an artificial intelligence system, automated agent, or machine learning system as a person person. We want to make sure that they do not inadvertently have the same rights as persons under the law.

And it is just legislative intent because I didn't want to disrupt the other work on the bill. And it is lengthy— the amendment is lengthy because it is just a renumbering on the sections. Thank you, Representative Vance. And I've brought this up before And I'm bringing it up again, and I'm not sure that we have any subject matter experts. The sponsor's staff is welcome to weigh in.

But when we talk, my fear has been, and it's something that came up with the previous member of this committee, Jesse Sumner, about having the law restrict AI from doing certain things. And I always have this fear Like, how do we tell AI not to murder? If it's not a person, then does it have to follow laws for people that says don't murder?

And I guess that's the question for the sponsor. We'll call forward Carly Dennis. Please place yourself on the record.

To the chair, um, this is Carly Dennis, staff to Senator Matt Clayman. I can't answer that question. I'm happy to take it back to the sponsor and to our subject matter expert with our experts and get their advice and answer on that question. Do you have an opinion on the amendment? I would— through the chair, this is Carly Dennis, staff to Senator Clayman.

Given that it doesn't change the substance of the bill, I think it's likely that it wouldn't change, you know, the vast majority of what it's doing, the fact that it's uniform law. I would, you know, check back with our experts and make sure, but I think it likely would be fine. Thank you. Any other questions about Amendment 1?

I was going to say, seeing no further objections, I remove my objection. But Representative Vance, uh, for clarification, uh, it is Section 21, page 7, that includes the definition of person that triggered this conversation around the intent language that we just want to be very clear in our understanding about AI and the concern that it could be construed as a person. We want to say that it is our intent that nothing in this act can recognize artificial intelligence as a person. And the definition of what this act has as a person is expanded here. And so, uh, just wanted to kind of close the loop on, on what this intent language is pointing to, and it is Section 21 definition of person.

Question for the sponsor of the amendment: I am just drafting a possible amendment to the amendment that it is also the intent of the legislature that no artificial intelligence system, automated agent, or machine learning system is permitted to commit crimes. I know that sounds crazy. I mean, like, it seems like a joke, but I mean, if they're not people— am I on an island by myself? Does anyone understand what I'm talking about? Representative Mina?

To the chair, I mean, people aren't permitted to commit crimes either. I don't understand why I wouldn't need that. Thank you. So Representative Mina, people are not permitted to commit crimes. If an AI is not a person, as we're stating it's not a person, then, um, is it allowed to commit crimes?

Or does our laws cover— do our laws preventing murder, for example, Are they— does that— do our— Nancy Mead, can you answer the question? I mean, are AIs allowed to murder? Does our law prevent AI from murdering?

For the record, Nancy Mead, General Counsel to the Alaska Court System. I feel unequipped to answer this question except to say that in Title 11, when you have crimes, you have a person who, a person who. So I don't know if it covers an AI or not. I don't know what the consequences would be. Would you put the AI in prison, for example?

So I probably have very little to add to the conversation. Thank you, Ms. Mead. Well, as it's come up in a previous iteration of judiciary, there, you know, there was the thought that AIs might be able to open their own bank accounts and to acquire funds. So they could be forced to pay civil penalties if they had their own funds in their own banks. So—.

It seems like I can't imagine putting an AI on trial. Who or what would be sitting there giving its side of the story is difficult for me to imagine. But I am not very evolved in this area. Thank you. And again, and I am not either, and I apologize to the public.

But from my small amount of reading, there is programming where you tell the AI system that it is not allowed to violate laws. And like, that's a pretty common guardrail on AI systems.

My fear about Amendment 1 is if we say that they are definitively not people, are we telling the AI that these laws do not apply to them because these laws are for people?

And I, I will note for the record that we were joined by the sponsor of the bill, Senator Matt Clayman, at 2:25 PM via teleconference.

Representative Underwood. Thank you, Chair Gray. I feel like I'm trying to track with where you're going on this, wondering if it makes any sense if you were to add something along the lines of Or if this AI is being run by a person, then they would be subject to the penalties of a person, just to tie that machine back to potentially if somebody is running it. Thank you. But what if it's not?

We have autonomous generative AI that, you know, like, that's the issue is that the AI is not It's kind of like if you ask the AI to write a speech and you say, "Do not plagiarize," but then the AI plagiarizes. Is the person who asked it to do the speech at fault for plagiarizing? Is the person who created the AI at fault for plagiarizing? Who is at fault for plagiarizing? If there's obvious plagiarism when you've asked your AI not to commit plagiarism?

That's a good question.

Representative Costello. Thank you. Um, I actually think I know where you're going with this, but I also feel that the, the level of expertise and like surveying of what's happening across the country with AI needs a little more in-depth discussion that we can't actually achieve in this bill. Although I do like the intent of— I do like the way it's written now.

And obviously those are questions that you're bringing up that I'm sure they're very futuristic, hopefully, but maybe not. And I think that if we had the experts that we needed at the table that we could have that— a more productive conversation. And I'm not sure that we have, have that at our disposal right now. 100% Agree, Representative Costello. Senator Klayman, do you have any comments about Amendment 1 from Representative Vance?

And I guess, do you have Amendment 1 from Representative Vance Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually have not seen a copy of Amendment Number 1. My question is, is it a statutory change or is it strictly intent language? It is strictly intent language.

I can read the statement to you, Senator Clayman. It is adding legislative intent. It is the intent of the legislature that nothing in this Act may be construed as recognizing an artificial intelligence system, automated agent, or machine learning system as a person, period.

I would— my response is that it doesn't impact the substance of the bill And I wouldn't have— and I don't believe we have objection to the intent language. But if the person from the Uniform Law Commission is available, I would ask their, their better opinion than mine if they're available today. Thank you, Senator Clayman. Is there someone else online? No, we don't have anyone.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman? Yes, Representative Vance. Thank you. In this specific instance, um, it is important to point to Section 21 about this specific definition and this bill dealing with universal, um, the UCC, because it specifically talks about an individual being an individual, a corporation, business trust, the etc.

The added language includes a protected series And as the previous invited testimony said, that this is essentially like sub-corporations. And that's why I brought forward the intent language, because we don't want AI to be its own corporation that does not have a real person that is accountable for those actions. But I I understand that this is an ever-evolving issue that we want to know more about, and so I can remove the amendment since we are not yet at that place to, to be able to do that. But I won't do it yet if we want to keep discussing for a few more minutes. Well, I was just going to say that that brings up my question.

If we have laws and regulations that apply to corporations. Perhaps we want the AI to be considered a corporation so that we have laws and regulations that apply to it. So I think that's the way of framing it. The reason why my fear of saying AI is not a person is that in laws that restrict people does not apply to it. If we say that AI is not a corporation, then laws and regulations that apply to corporations do not apply to it.

And so my fear of of basically stating that AI is not all of these things is that we end up with AI being something different, that we no longer have any rules, regulations, or laws governing it. And so in a way, I feel like classifying AI as something that already exists puts parameters on it that we've put on that something that already exists. Representative Underwood. Thank you, Chair Gray. Could there be something that says the, the laws that apply to persons will also apply to AI?

Is there any way to frame it in that type of a way? Well, that's what I was thinking of. It is also the intent, but, but here's the deal, and correct me if I'm wrong, it's intent language. I feel like if our intent language is causing harm to the public, they'll just ignore the intent language. That's true.

Representative Eichide. Thank you, Chair Gray.

You know, I, I would feel much more comfortable with these ideas if we had some experts we could talk to. For instance, as soon as you said, well, maybe AI should be classified as a corporation, I thought right away of Citizens United Supreme Court case. And so I, I just, I would, I don't feel comfortable. I know it's just intent language, but You know, I don't want us to get over our skis. I feel a little bit like we need some legal advice on this.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments about Amendment 1?

Representative Vande Heijs. I love this conversation, and now I am going to be thinking about— paranoia has set in on election— on campaign finance that someone could come up with the idea that AI could contribute, uh, to campaigns now. Like, what have you done? But this is, this is the real question that, that we, we have to ask. And so, um, because there's so much, so many questions without answers, I will withdraw Amendment Number 1.

Amendment 1 has been withdrawn. That brings us to the bill in front of us. Are there any, um, final comments from the sponsor or his staff?

No, thank you for hearing the bill.

Um, can I have a motion? Mr. Chair, at this time I move that Senate Bill 252, Work Order 34-LS0294-N, be reported out of the House Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. Hearing no objections, Senate Bill 252, Work Order 34-LS0294-N, is in November, is reported out of the House Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. I authorize Legislative Legal Services to make any necessary necessary technical and conforming changes, we will take it at ease to sign the paperwork.

At ease.

On the record, our second item of business is House Bill 222, Workplace Violence Protective Order, sponsored by Representative Hall.

If it is the will of the committee, I would like us to rescind the prior committee action on HB 222. Do I have a motion? Mr. Chair, I move to rescind the action of the House Judiciary Committee to report the Judiciary Committee substitute for House Bill 222, Work Order 34-LS0864/h, out of the House Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, the prior action of the House Judiciary Committee to report the Judiciary Committee substitute for House Bill 222, Work Order 34-LS0864/h as in hotel out of committee has been rescinded.

It is now my intent to adopt a new committee substitute for House Bill 222 as the committee's working document. Can I have a motion?

Mr. Chair, I move that the Judiciary Committee substitute for House Bill 222 Work Order 34-LS0864/T be adopted as the committee's working document. I object for purposes of discussion. I would like to now call on my committee aide, Dylan Hitchcock Lopez, to come forward and walk us through the changes in the new committee substitute.

Good afternoon. Dylan Hitchcock Lopez, committee aide. So the new committee substitute makes a couple of conforming changes to clarify the exact factual findings that the judge must make in order to issue a protective order. The substantive change is found in Section 9, and I will just read the precise language so we have it on the record for the committee. Section 9, which creates the new, now, Victim Counseling Center protective orders, provides in subsection the specific forms of relief that the court can grant.

And topic of conversation at our last hearing on this bill was subsection , which allows the court to order any relief the court determines to be necessary to protect the petitioner's victim counseling center. There was some conversation about the implications that that might have unwittingly for restrictions on gun ownership. In order to clarify that and be very clear about the predicate conditions that must be satisfied if firearm ownership is to be restricted, we added the language now found in subsection 4, which reads in its entirety that the court may order other relief the court determines to be necessary to protect the petitioner's victim counseling center, except that the court may not order a respondent to surrender a firearm unless a firearm was used in the act of violence at the victim counseling center, or in the threat of violence at the victim counseling center. That is the substantive change. I also did look into a few of the committee's questions regarding the relationship between federal law.

If it is the will of the committee, I can put those statutory citations on the record, which just to— which establish essentially that this type of protective order is not a qualifying protective order for the 922, which is the federal law which restricts certain, uh, respondents in protective order proceedings from possessing or purchasing firearms.

Representative Vance, would you like for him to put those on the record? Well, he just did, Mr. Chairman. Okay, thank you. And, and to be clear though, to— through the chair to Representative Vance, the, um, the reason for that is because those protective orders are only, um, if they are issued on behalf of an intimate partner. And an intimate partner is defined in 924 And it specifically means a spouse or a former spouse, a cohabitant, or someone with whom you have a child in common.

Obviously, a victim counseling center is, by definition, none of those things. Thank you. Any other questions about the committee substitute?

Seeing no other questions about the committee substitute, I will remove my objection.

Seeing no objection, the Judiciary Committee substitute for House Bill 222, work order 34-LS0864/T as in Tango, has been adopted as the committee's working document.

Are there any final questions or comments from the committee on House Bill 222? At this time, I would call Representative Hall and/or her staff to make any closing remarks as well.

Thank you, Chair Gray, Vice Chair Kopp, and the House Judiciary Committee. Uh, we feel this committee substitute makes good changes based on the thorough discussion we had on Wednesday, and we find it very friendly. Thank you.

Representative Vance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the work to make this under the same qualifications as the other protective orders and also clarifying— excuse me— the, um, that this, uh, you know, the federal guidelines on this, that this is going to give due process. It narrows the authority of the courts and that I think makes it very clear in this new area of law that we can proceed comfortably. Thank you so much.

Representative Costello, I want to also thank, uh, the committee for working on this to just make sure that we're not, um, encroaching on anyone's Second Amendment rights, but at the same time keeping the underlying intent of the bill intact. So thank you for that. Thank you, Representative Costello.

Seeing no further comments or questions, do we have a motion? Mr. Chair, at this time I move that the Judiciary Committee substitute for House Bill 222, work order 34-LS0864-T, be reported out of the House Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, the Judiciary Committee substitute for House Bill 222, work order 34-LS0864-T, H.R. 264/T is reported out of the House Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.

I authorize Legislative Legal Services to make any necessary technical and conforming changes. We will take a brief at ease— no, you know what, we'll do it after we adjourn.

That concludes today's business before the committee. That may conclude all of our business in House Judiciary, so I wanted at this time to again thank Sophia Tenney from House Records for being here this whole session, Kyla Tupou from the Juneau LIO for your work, my committee aide Dylan Hitchcock Lopez, as well as the substitute committee aides on occasion, Kyle Johansen and Rosie Coet, and I also want to just thank the committee members. It's been a really interesting and unusual life experience to chair the committee for the last 2 years. I mean, you know, and I may never get the chance again. Like, it's a really interesting and unusual thing to do.

And I am so grateful to every single one of you for the way you've participated in the committee, the way you've helped make bills better, and the way I think we've, you know, I don't even— I've never done this before. I've learned a lot. But I think we did some good work. And it's because of all of your help and cooperation. And I'm really grateful.

So with that, at— the time is now 2:45 PM, and House Judiciary Committee is adjourned.