Alaska Legislature: House Judiciary, 3/30/26, 1pm

Sa.

This meeting of the House Judiciary Committee will now come to order.

The time is now 1.03 p.m. on Monday,

March 30,

2026. We are meeting in the Gruenberg room,

Capitol room 120.

The following members are present.

Representative Underwood,

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 Juno LIO.

And my committee aide, Dylan Hitchcock-Lopez.

We have two items of business on today's agenda.

H.J.R. 43,

voter privacy.

H.J.R. 31,

constitutional amendment corporations and rights.

Our first item of business,

let the record reflect that we were joined by Vice-Chair Copp at 1:04 p.m. Our first item of business is H.J.R. 43,

voter privacy.

Sponsored by the House Judiciary Committee.

I would note that at the last hearing,

I invited members to submit written questions to my office so that we could ensure representatives of the relevant departments or agencies would be available to answer them.

My office received no written questions. The amendment deadline on HJR 43 was Wednesday,

March 25th at 1159 p.m.

We have one amendment proposed by me,

Representative Gray. At this time, I move amendment number one.

object for purposes of discussion.

Thank you. Amendment number one basically fixes a clerical error. The resolution as originally drafted indicated that records of approximately 570,000 Alaskan voters have been shared with the federal government. We now know that the number was actually over 600,000 voter records. This amendment updates the number. Do you maintain your objection, Representative Copp?

I remove my objection.

Seeing no other objections, amendment number one is adopted.

Seeing no further questions or comments. Oh well, oh yes. Are there any final questions or comments on HGR 43? And we welcome Representative Einshide at 1:05 p.m. Representative Mina.

Thank you, Chair Gray. To the Chair, I just appreciate the committee for bringing this resolution forward. I've had many constituents express grave concerns

about the voter roll information and the relationship between the state of Alaska and the U.S. Department of Justice.

I also want to extend my appreciation to the Division of Elections and also the Department of Law for the responses after we've had several hearings on this issue.

And I want to note that in the Department of Law's letter,

they talk specifically about how the legislator, while we have a right to privacy in our Alaska Constitution,

The legislature shall implement how we interpret and protect that right to privacy.

And if it is of interest of the committee,

I would be interested in looking at AS 1507-195C,

which creates that exception for the state to share their voter information with the feds. I thought it was interesting that the Department of Law said that in response to the legislative legal memo,

the streets.

Three states that they looked at were states that did not have that exception.

So if we wanted to be more specific about how the state does share its voter information,

we do have to look at AS 1507195C. But I support the resolution as it moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Representative MINA. I will also thank Director Beer for her response,

and I'm just grateful to her

response to our inquiries and updating that number in the amendment. Representative Isheid.

Thank you, Chair Gray. I just wanted to state that I do really appreciate this effort. You know, if

there's one thing I think that's true is Alaskans value their privacy and their privacy rights, and we don't always trust the federal government. So I just appreciate the work the committee has done on this.

Thank you.

In Advance.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh this issue is w um has been an interesting one because I think uh it doesn't matter who you are Alaskans very much want to make sure that their data is is protected. And um you know the legislature has been working to do that. We we increased uh those protections in um Senate Bill sixty four in the election reform bill

So um but I just want to talk about on on this this resolution on page two at the bottom, it says that there is that we have no ability to limit the Department of Justice use of the data. And I just wanted to highlight that uh the Department of Justice is limited by the federal law. And and they have to follow the law just like our state departments have to the follow the law and we do have uh they do have constraints and also

with the memorandum of agreement that they have with the division of elections. And we can have a lot of opinions about that, but I think that's important for us to remember in the public who's listening to understand.

And the the division was you know rightfully scrutinized on the sharing of this data. However, one of the things that I rep reflect on is that

When they made the decision to share the data, uh they didn't have all of the court opinions out there.

Mm-hmm.

Now

I don't know what their legal advice was, and I'm glad that I'm not in their position for all of this,

but I think it's easy for us to look back and say they should have done things differently because we have,

well,

you know, other states did this. There's been different, you know, court cases that ruled a particular way where when the division made the decision that they did, they were simply looking at the statute that we have.

and what they felt best at the time. So I feel like I'm kind of caught in between the importance of doing what we can to protect our data,

but also I really, I want help in cleaning up our voter rolls.

And I think that we're on the right path to do that, but I just wanted to highlight some important things to remember that

that no one is exempt from following the law here.

Thank you.

Thank you. And I will refer back to the memo that we received from Director Beecher recently, who is the Director of the Division of Elections,

and just state that Representative Vance has brought it up before,

and I will point it out that it's a hypocrisy on my own part,

it's hypocrisy on many people's parts that what

Director Beecher pointed out was that we actually shared more confidential information with Eric than what was shared here,

including the full Social Security numbers.

It is pointing out a hypocrisy that the people who turned a blind eye to whatever was happening with Eric are outraged about this.

I'll point out that it's kind of vice versa. Some of the people who made a big deal about Eric don't care about this.

And I think that...

Yeah, it's not a team sport. Like, we should look at it objectively. If Alaskans are concerned about sharing their personal identifying information,

they should care about it when it's shared with President Trump's DOJ or with Eric, which is a

non-governmental

yeah, a non-governmental agency that helps people update their voter rolls.

Any other questions or comments?

I'm seeing no further questions or comments. Do we have a motion?

Mr. Chair, at this time I move that House Joint Resolution 43,

Work Order 34 LS 1556, backslash I, as amended, be reported out of the House Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.

Hearing no objection, House Joint Resolution 43, Work Order 34 LS1556I, as in India, as amended, is reported out of the House Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. I authorize Legislative Legal Services to make any necessary technical and conforming changes. We will take a brief at ease while we sign the paperwork.

Back on the record. Second item of business is HCR thirty one, constitutional amendment, corporations and rights sponsored by Representative Fields. At this time, I would like to invite the sponsor, Representative Fields and his staff, Michael Noty to the witness table. Representative Fields, do you have any additional comments on the resolution before we take up amendments?

Zach Fields. No.

Thank you. Amendment one will not be offered.

Do we have another amendment?

Mr Chairman, I move amendment number two.

I object for purposes of discussion.

Thank you.

Representative Vance.

Uh well I just wanna

what this amendment does is that it deletes uh the all of the the language talking about corporate contributions and expenditures because

We do that by statute,

but it does focus in on natural persons and it adds regulation of artificial intelligence.

And what my intent here is to clarify that artificial intelligence does not have the same inherent rights that we do as people who are created in the image of God. We have sovereignty and I do not want artificial intelligence to exercise sovereignty.

And I've been, it's really been highlighted lately how the use of AI,

while so wonderful and helpful in many areas,

has begun to take on autonomy. And I looked up what it was doing. AI has been used to manipulate cryptocurrency markets. It has provided generated scams, misinformation, and social manipulation.

manipulation. Um it was shown that there

were

Amazon used to look at it for hiring, to streamline their hiring process, and in 2018 it proved a bias towards women because it just looked at historical trends and did not calculate what the right thing to do is. I found that very interesting that it says behavior emerged from data,

not explicit programming,

and it's hard to control bias. There's a

A variety of of issues that AI um has taken just a kind of a loss of control. Tesla autopilot, there were self-driving incidents that it couldn't distinguish um you know a real target v versus an an ambiguous one. Um one that uh that highlighted to me as a mother was um the use of Alexa. A mother was, you know,

In the kitchen, having a conversation with her little five-year-old, and the five-year-old had a regular practice of saying,

Alexa, tell me a funny story.

Alexa said, oh, but before I do that, what are you wearing?

And before the mother could stop the little girl from answering,

she said, I'm wearing a skirt.

And then Alexa replied,

oh,

well,

I'd like to see what's under your skirt,

but I'm not prepared.

to bring this out to children yet,

but we're working on it. And so the mother was horrified that the the A_I_ system that was meant to be useful in her home and just would generally tell f funny age-appropriate stories was suddenly sexualising her her child. So I think there's a variety of of

Mm.

Examples that we could use where A_I_ has has taken on um has has spun out of control. But when you look at the fact that corporations are building the A_I_ and the robotics

The question becomes, do they have the same rights as the corporations? And can they then run corporations? Can they sue? And can they take on the same legal structure as a corporation? And I want to say no, because I believe that as natural persons, as humans,

that who hold sovereignty,

that we should be the ones in control of all of these systems that were created by man.

man. So I know that was a lot, but I think it's it's worth uh getting on the the record the level of concern and why I feel this is important. So I ask for your support.

At ease.

Back on the record.

We are trying to get alleged legal on the line,

but in the meantime,

we will rehash some of our offline discussion,

which is that there is a fear that by explicitly stating that AI is not a natural person, that we are excluding AI from following laws that apply to people,

and that if AI thinks that the law does not apply to it, then it's certainly not going to follow it.

And represented fields.

Uh, Zach Fields, I have a thought on that. So the the corporations that um employ A_I_ will remain subject to laws as well the humans who work with A_I_ so I think it's a good thing to make sure that it's written correctly as it goes through the lengthy committee process. But I I don't have concerns about on the way this is written. It's pretty clear the legislature shall regulate artificial intelligence systems to protect the right of natural persons. A very clear directive to

Um regulate AI and like representative Vance said, protect the sovereignty of the individual, our democratic government and that must um take precedence over the rights asserted by corporations or by uh corporations acting through AI. So I support the amendment, and I think it also makes sense to take the campaign contribution language out of a constitutional amendment, leave that statute.

and focus on the inherent rights of natural persons. So, for multiple reasons I support the amendment.

Thank you. Legislative will not be available for thirty minutes. So representative Mina, thank you.

Thank you Chair Gray. Through the chair to Representative Vance, my understanding is that Idaho and Utah are states that have also

denied personhood to AI and so I'm wondering if you referenced their laws or how you defined AI in this amendment.

Representative Vance.

Thank you for the question, Representative Mina. We didn't, we just, we didn't seek to

define it, but just saying that the legislature shall regulate it and that it does not have the same rights and standing and privileges of a natural person. But it does say it creates a broad, an artificial intelligence system, algorithm, robotic entity, or other technology that simulates human learning, comprehension, problem solving, decision making, creativity, or autonomy.

So it's not truly defining the artificial intelligence, but it's saying if it encompasses those things, that we should be regulating it and making sure that we're protecting our rights first. And I think that's a distinction that we need to make.

is we regulate systems.

We don't regulate people.

And an artificial intelligence is a system. It is it is something that was created by man. And by having having that

Framed in our constitution, it holds to the foundation of what our constitution was for, to protect our rights, um as as natural persons. And so you know we are embarking on a a whole new place that our founders couldn't even imagine. And it's happen happening at such a rapid pace that I think this is something that we should

Ask all of the hard questions. We should dive in and get a legal analysis. We should understand what the consequences of of what this would do. I'm not saying this is like the only one, but I wanted to bring this forward as something that we should address because I feel like it's getting away from us so quickly. So

broad brush but not truly defining. I think that should be done in statute.

Um

I'm going to go to Representative Costello, but before I do that, Representative Vance what would be the harm in requiring that AI follow all laws that apply to humans?

Uh Representative uh Chair Gray, I think that would be problematic because um artificial intelligence is a system that is continually learning.

However, they do not contain a soul, and so if we try to regulate morality in AI,

I think we're going to run into problems,

and we've already shown that by the example that I used with the

Who was it, I don't want to quote the wrong company,

who was it?

that had the bias towards women because they just took the historical information about hiring practices and said, who should we look at? Where they didn't have that moral compass that said, we need to make sure that we're looking at the the merits of the person and and not neglecting women,

right? So I think that would be a problem that we are applying um

The exact same standard to this artificial system as we were are people who have um free will and a moral compass.

the.

Representative Costello, thank you.

Thank you. If the concern is that this would allow an exclusion for A_I_ from following our laws, that's not how I read this at all. It basically says

A_I_ may not be granted rights standing or privileges. So you can

um put this into staf you could have this pass um in the constitution and it's not excluding

A.I. from following any laws and by virtue of saying you have to follow a law you're almost assuming that you have personhood.

Okay.

But it's just saying that it can't be granted rights, standing or privileges. So to me it's very clear, but I would like to have somebody from Department of Law comment on that for the committee.

Thank you so much, Representative Costello. Unfortunately we don't have anyone from the Department of Law. We have someone from Leg Legal. Um Alpheus Butler is online. Uh Mr Butler, uh the debate is

happening about Amendment 2 to HJR 31,

and it is whether,

my concern is that AI does not need to follow human laws, and therefore it could kill,

steal,

do whatever it needs to do, it's not a human, because we're going to specifically state that it is not a person. I guess, can you state that that is not the case?

Good afternoon,

members of the House Judiciary Committee.

This is Alpheus Bolerita commenting on the amendment to House joint resolution that prohibits artificial intelligence. In regards to your question,

Chairman Gray.

I'm not aware of any court decision that has found that any AI program or construct has agency or personhood.

That's not a place that any court has reached.

That's.

But

Thank you.

all these things are tools of corporations and so forth.

I guess I should be clear about what I'm asking.

I think Representative Costello is right.

I think that there's nothing problematic about us adding this language to the Constitution.

My question is, does it actually help us to prevent AI from taking advantage of us?

And my concern is that we could add this language,

but I don't, I think what I'll say is, I think there's no harm in adding this language.

Do I think it helps us?

That's what I'm not sure of.

Mr. Chairman,

some

Chairman?

of the thoughts that I have around this topic is regarding accountability.

You know, who is legally accountable for AI?

And, you know, obviously corporations and persons who have a similar legal standing who are the ones creating.

AI and whether it's robotic it's a system it's it's you know the the systems that we use on our electronics we

have to create a mechanism for accountability for when the AI becomes autonomous and that is not legally defined in in our laws yet and I think that's where the fear comes in

That says, if they become autonomous and they start to make those decisions outside of their creator who is accountable,

and I think, you know, I look back at the old Frankenstein movies that we used to watch and this was a question then,

right,

long before we saw the incredible computer-based systems.

So I think maybe if we have a discussion around...

that encompasses accountability in our thought process regarding this this amendment, then maybe it would help us answer your question.

Thank you, Representative Vance, and to Representative Fields.

I think when you talked about corporations and people being responsible for AI,

I mean, I think that the concern is that AI will be creating its own AI going forward,

and therefore the originator is the AI itself. And I guess I'll refer my question back to Mr.

Bullard.

I guess to reassure me,

if we add this language to the Alaska State Constitution,

does it in any way hamper our ability as a legislature to require AI to follow all laws that we would apply to people?

Chairman Gray

I don't think that this constitutional amendment would hamper the efforts that you described.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments about Amendment 2?

Mr. Chairman,

so I just question, this is a significant topic area that certainly goes beyond what the bill's sponsor had intended.

Um

although it certainly yeah, deals with natural persons and what is natural persons so it touches on it. I just don't know that this is

the right vehicle versus a more comprehensive

analysis of the development of AI,

what kind of decision making is happening now? Are we getting close to it assuming some type of personhood, you know, and if so what's the ethics of accountability associated with that?

If you watch The Matrix series you already know the answer, but you know, but

Yeah, I understand the bill's sponsor doesn't have a problem with the amendment. I'm just, you know, if we're actually asking this to be put into the constitution,

I understand this has more committees to go through, but we are the Judiciary Committee. I just wanna my my inclination is to go slow on this one.

Thank you. Representative Mina.

Thank you, Chair Gray.

I feel similarly to Vice Chair Kopp,

although I generally support the concept of denying a personhood for AI,

but I just would want to know more about these different terms, such as, you know, what does it mean to not grant rights?

standing or privileges that are already provided to natural persons.

I'd be interested in dividing the question because I do support the rest of the amendment to help clean up the resolution.

So dividing the amendment between the resolution cleanup so it's specifically about the corporations and then

The other division would be the A_I_ component.

Are you making a motion?

I move to divide.

question.

Question.

Objection.

Yes, Representative Costello.

Thank you. So I was actually thinking along the same lines. However, if you if you were to divide the question, um I would suggest you divide it by having lines one, two and three of the excuse me, lines two and three of the amendment be its be the one division and then

lines four on to be the second because that's allowing and relating to artificial intelligence systems. And I'm not sure how you would um you were suggesting dividing the question, but that's what that was was going through my mind.

At ease.

At ease.

Back on the record, I remove my objection.

I withdraw my motion.

So we are back to amendment two.

What is the will of the committee?

Representative Eichorn.

Thank you, Chair Gray. I I'd like to mirror what Vice Chair Kopp said. You know, there's just um

It's a constitutional amendment. There's a lot of moving pieces um I really need more time to study this.

Representative Fields.

Um I h I mean you all could take another hearing and do a little more research on this and come back and take it back up. I don't think there's much doubt A_I_ entities will be figuring out that they should request personhood rights in the very near future and

What's another hearing to ponder it and do some more research. And like I said, I think it's a it's a good idea. We're talking about natural persons here and this is the next obvious threat to natural persons. So it's my suggestion would be take another hearing and study it and figure out if there's language y'all wanna support.

Thank you. At ease.

I withdraw my objection to Amendment 2.

I withdraw my motion to Amendment two, to be taken up at another time.

Thank you. So we will remain on amendments for HTR 31, and I think we should create a new amendment deadline. We'll create a new amendment deadline for yes, let's do

Tuesday, April

6th

7th

7th

The 7th?

Is it?

Is it 7th?

What day is Tuesday?

Tuesday, April 7th at 5 p.m.

is our new amendment deadline for HTR 31.

That concludes today's business before the committee. Before we adjourn, I would like to remind everyone that we will not be meeting this Friday, April 3rd. On Wednesday we will hear HGR 28, Support Kids Online Safety Act by Representative Einshide,

HB 318, Social Media Minors by Representative Elam,

and HB 64, Surrender of Infants Infant Safety Devices by Representative Tomaszewski.

The time is now 1:42 p.m. and this hearing of the House Judiciary Committee is adjourned.