Bill Passes Alaska Senate Making it Easier and Clearer For Mom To Terminate Parental Rights Of Her Rapist

From the Alaska State Senate Democratic Press Office:

JUNEAU - Today, the Alaska State Senate passed SB 134 by Senate Democratic Leader Berta Gardner (D-Anchorage). The legislation clarifies that a parent who chooses to keep a child conceived through rape can sever ties with their rapist, if approved by the court and in the best interest of the child.

In 1987, the Legislature passed a law allowing a mother to terminate a rapist father's parental rights. This law was inserted in AS 25.23, which focuses on adoption. The current termination statute has confused advocates and attorneys. The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), the nation's largest anti-sexual violence organization, has erroneously interpreted Alaska's statute as pertaining only to adoption cases. Family law lawyers within the state of Alaska have claimed they were not aware of the applicability of existing statutes.

"This does not affect a lot of people in this state but is a huge issue for those impacted people. It is important for a woman who becomes pregnant through rape to be able to be aware of her options," said Sen. Gardner. "Without a clear legal protection, a woman could be forced and locked into a long-term relationship with her abuser."

There are currently 45 states with statutes that allow for the parental rights of rapists to be reduced or terminated.

The legislation passed unanimously in the Senate and moves to the Alaska House of Representatives for further consideration.
Members of the press with questions may contact Alaska Senate Democratic Press Secretary, Noah Hanson at 465-5319.

Initially, one might think this should have happened 60 years ago - when Alaska became a state.  And there was legislation, but apparently it wasn't all that well known by attorneys and there was some confusion whether it only related to adoption cases.  (One judge, according to the testimony, interpreted that way.)

And not everything is cut and dried.  One case was discussed in the hearings at Health and Human Services Committee* in which a 13 year old was in a relationship with a young man 'over majority' who was convicted of statutory rape and served prison time.  But the baby was raised, in part, by the paternal grandparents and was attached to them.

Miles Curtis testified on this in support of the bill.  The child was in the maternal grandparents care until he was eight and only recently into the custody of the paternal parents.  The child didn't want to be with the family, hard on the child, hard on the mother, hard on us financially.  The current law was used against the mother.  Problem wasn't with the abuser, but with the state of Alaska who have taken over the role of the parent.  We would like it so that rapists are never in the best interest of the child.  It won't help our case, but for others in the future it will help.

*Testimony on this bill begins at about 1:36 pm on the video.

I'd note that perhaps one reason it took so long for this bill to be heard (first hearing seems to be April 6, 2018)** is that it was sponsored by two Democratic Senators - Berta Gardner and Tom Begich - in the Republican controlled Senate.
**The video says this hearing was April 6, 2018, though the legislative record says April 9.

The bill now goes to the Democratic controlled House where one would expect it to pass fairly easily.

Here's the complete text of the bill.

I'd note that I haven't done a lot of coverage of the state legislature since I spent a session in Juneau in 2010.  Getting around on the state's BASIS website seems a lot easier than it was - particularly getting the video and audio of hearings.

Today's ADN Opinion Pages Fodder For A Dozen Posts From Salmon To Bears To Legislators

One problem with blogging is picking something worth writing about from the many things out there.  Today I'll just do a quick take on several items from today's newspaper.

Stand For Salmon Or Stand For Alaska

A former member of the Alaska Board of Fisheries, Tom Kluberton, writes a column in favor of an initiative that would force resource developers (and others I assume) to prove that their projects won't hurt Alaska's salmon fisheries.

Next to that column is one by the vice chairman of the Doyon, Ltd. board of directors and a former chief of Allaket, PJ Simon.

Alaskan's won't vote on this until August or November*, so we have plenty of time to hear about this initiative, and we can be sure that we will.

*From Alaska Statute 15.45.190

Setting Dates For Ballot Initiatives in Alaska

The lieutenant governor shall direct the director to place the ballot title and proposition on the election ballot of the first statewide general, special, or primary election that is held after (1) the petition has been filed;  (2) a legislative session has convened and adjourned; and  (3) a period of 120 days has expired since the adjournment of the legislative session.  Our primary election is August 21, 2018.  So if the legislature adjourns (including special sessions) more than 120 days before that (roughly around April 27), it will be on the primary ballot.  Otherwise on the general election ballot in November.  That's a whole other issue - having important propositions on primary ballots when relatively few people vote. As I say, we have time to learn more about this, but I was struck by PJ Simon's column which portrayed him as a simple man - " I am just a regular guy. I am not a high-powered lawyer or professional environmentalist paid by outside interest groups. I'm sandwich meat, the guy in the middle, the guy who works for wages to support my family." But despite the fact that he says he can't read all that fine print, he knows for a fact the initiative will "kill construction jobs and hurt Alaska's economy." Alaska has long been a colony for outside corporations to come in an exploit.  I've written about this in different posts, particularly The Vampire History of Alaska when we had another initiative on the ballot that would have taxed the oil companies more. It's very easy for large corporations to come into a small (population) state or country and buy off some locals to push their mega projects. John Perkins outlines the process in his book Confessions of an Economic Hitman.  Alaskans will recognize the process when he spells it out.  You can see him explain it in this video.  So when self-professed common folks like JP Simon side with the big development corporations, I can't help but wonder what he gets out of it.  What Doyon gets out of it.  But that's another story. In any case, I need to learn more about this initiative, but it reminds me of the law the legislature passed some years ago blocking public participation on development projects along the coast line.  My first assumption here is this is people fighting back for the power that's been taken from them.  But the devil is in the details.  We'll see. "Undeveloped Anchorage Bowl Area Being Managed For Bears" In a letter to the editor, Jim Lieb of Palmer rants against retired state biologist Rick Sinnott's commentary on keeping bears in mind in our wilderness areas.  I want to focus on the word "undeveloped" here.  He uses it again in the letter:  "It's hard not to conclude that the undeveloped portion of the Anchorage Bowl is being primarily managed for bears and their well-being." Think about it - the "undeveloped portion."  It's like that part of Anchorage isn't finished yet.  It doesn't have many roads, or buildings.  It's like trees and rivers and bushes and animals are there temporarily until we need their land.  I think about those areas as 'natural' or 'wilderness' or 'respites' from traffic and building and concrete.  And people have documented the benefits of nature to human health. I wrote a post a while back about the meaning of the word 'empty lot' which pointed out that no lots were actually empty waiting to be developed. Words matter. "Voter Turnout Was Awesome" In the same letter to the editor section (same link as above) Donna K. Daniels lauds Anchorage voters for dispelling her doubts about Anchorage's first 'vote by mail' election.  She's excited because 76,000 people voted.  Yes, that's more than any past Municipal election.  But it's technically only 35.6% of registered voters.  To me, that isn't awesome at all.  It's depressing.  Voter turnout like that is how democracies die.  (I said ' technically' because not all the people on the voter rolls are still living in Anchorage - some have moved, some have died, but they're still on the voter rolls.  But even if that number were 40%, it would mean that the election was decided by about 20% of the voters.   I think this is what people mean about 'the new normal.'  Compared to a 20% turnout, yeah, it's awesome.  But that's starting at a really low bar. "Alaska Legislators Would be Fired By Now In the Real World" I guess what Jim Bell means by "the real world" is the business world, or at least an organization that is hierarchical and someone has power to fire workers.  But the legislature is elected by voters (that same small portion in the previous section who vote).  They can be fired by the people in their districts. My concern here is putting the blame on the legislators instead of the electorate. I'm also concerned when everyone is blamed for the misdeeds of only some.  Republicans, supported by organizations like Koch Brothers funded Alaskans for Prosperity, complain about deficits, yet won't raise revenue.  They're obsessed with the notion that the less government the better.  But the less government simply means that rogue corporations get to do what they want because government doesn't have the capacity to monitor their behavior. Just read the book I mentioned above - Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. (I do strongly recommend it.)  And that kids in foster care or in dysfunctional family situations can't count on the state to protect them from abusive situations because social worker case loads are way beyond what they can reasonably handle. More help for these kids means lower crime and fewer prison cells in the future.  I see the Democrats being much more responsible by calling for a modest income tax to start gaining more income.  And the Republicans are barricaded against an income tax.  In Oklahoma we are now seeing the results of Republican tax cutting, as schools only teach four days a week and teachers are on poverty level wages.  That's our future if we don't go to the polls and elect responsible legislators.  That means NOT firing the ones that are already responsible.  But people have to pat attention to more than party labels and propaganda and they need to vote. That's just from one page in the Anchorage Daily News.

If Legislative Coalitions Require Members To Vote For The Budget In Exchange For Benefits, Is That Bribery?

Alaska state representative  David Eastman from the Mat-Su, in a commentary in today's newspaper, raises an interesting question.  He describes when legislators join the Republican controlled 'fraternity' (the majority caucus) in Juneau, they get a bunch of perks - bigger office, more staff, prime committee membership and possible committee chairs, access to better state travel money and

 "you are invited to be 'at the table' at those closed-door meetings that never take place (at least officially.)"

But all those things don't come without a string attached.

"The cost for joining the fraternity is simple: a promise to vote with the fraternity when called upon to do so, and to approve the state budget endorsed by the fraternity — no matter what's in it."

 So, a group of legislators that forms a majority caucus, sets up rules that give benefits to legislators in exchange for votes.  That's what Eastman is complaining about.

If I gave a legislator $500 for a plane trip on the condition that he vote a certain way on a particular bill, that would be clearly illegal.

Here's from the Alaska Statutes:

"Alaska Statutes.
Title 11. Criminal Law
Chapter 56. Offenses Against Public Administration
Section 100. Bribery.
previous: Chapter 56. Offenses Against Public Administration
next: Section 110. Receiving a Bribe.
AS 11.56.100. Bribery.
(a) A person commits the crime of bribery if the person confers, offers to confer, or agrees to confer a benefit upon a public servant with the intent to influence the public servant's vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision, or exercise of official discretion.
(b) In a prosecution under this section, it is not a defense that the person sought to be influenced was not qualified to act in the desired way, whether because that person had not assumed office, lacked jurisdiction, or for any other reason.
(c) Bribery is a class B felony."  [emphasis added]

Clearly, when someone joins a Republican majority coalition, as Easton has described it, that coalition "confers, offers to confer, or agrees to confer a benefit upon a public servant with the intent to influence the public servant's vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision, or exercise of official discretion."


The benefits are all those things Easton describes:

• larger office
• better committee assignments including chairs
• more staff
• better travel benefits
• and access to private meetings where key decisions are made

In exchange, the legislator must vote as the coalition dictates on key bills including the budget.  As he describes it, their exercise of official discretion is removed.


I recall when  Rep. Lora Reinbold was kicked out of the Republican coalition in 2015, she was stripped of her committee assignments and her office etc.  She was kicked out because she didn't vote for the budget the coalition had put together.  I wrote a long post then (March 30, 2015) exploring the logic and reasoning and ethics of such rules.  But I didn't talk about it being a form of bribery.  But the way Easton talks about, it certainly seems to fit.


Here's a bit of what I wrote then.  The first quote confirms Easton's allegation.

"ADN Saturday March 28, 2015:

“All I can say is, she knew what she was doing, she knew what the rules were, and chose to go the way she did. There are consequences,” [House Speaker Mike Chenault] said."

Then I called my legislator's office and was told that wasn't how the Minority (Democratic) caucus worked.  They had no rules.  He suggested I call someone from the Majority (Republican) caucus.

"I check with speaker Chenault's office. 
A male staffer answered.  I explained my query and asked where I could get a copy of the rules.   
They're unwritten rules, he told me, that the caucus has.  There is no written set of rules.  They're understood.  The main one is to vote for the budget.  If you don't, things can happen.   I asked how anyone finds out about the rules?   They're told in the caucus he said."

The 2015 post got into questions about written and unwritten rules.  I wondered whether the fact that rules were unwritten suggested they knew there was something shady about them.  But on further reflection, spurred on by Rep. Eastman, I think it's a pretty clear case of bribery.

Now, I'm also sure that the Republicans have somewhere exempted internal wrangling from being interpreted as bribery.  And it's clear that log-rolling and 'if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" are long accepted practices in legislatures.  

Log-rolling is part of the process of getting work done in legislative bodies made up of many individuals with different agendas.  It's how you compromise.  The legislator may get a bill he badly wants passed, but he's not getting personal benefits.  But what Eastman so clearly describes is an attempt by party leaders to force their members to bow to their will in exchange for a bunch of benefits.

I'll try to check on if and where this practice is exempted from the Statute on bribery.  If I find out, I'll post again with some options for how one could end the exemptions.  If I can't find such exemptions, I think it would be time to prosecute the leaders of the Republican coalitions for bribery.