JUNEAU, Alaska (ALASKA BEACON) – With only four weeks left of the legislative session, the Senate Judiciary Committee has merged several bills into a wide-ranging omnibus crime bill. Even with the tight timeline, some lawmakers are optimistic about its chances for passage before the end of the session, Corinne Smith with the Alaska Beacon reports.

The new draft omnibus crime package combines ten bills ranging from raising the age of consent to increasing criminal penalties for AI-generated child sexual abuse material into one large bill supporters hope will have the momentum to pass both the House and the Senate in the next 28 days.

The Senate Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Matt Claman, D-Anchorage, introduced the 55-page omnibus bill on Friday, saying the bills have a stronger prospect as a package.

“I think that increases the likelihood we’ll be able to pass it,” he said in an interview on Monday.

With one month to go in the second year of the two-year legislative cycle, this is the last opportunity for bills to be passed by the 34th Legislature.

The draft omnibus crime bill was added to House Bill 239, sponsored by House Majority Leader Rep. Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage, who spoke in support at the hearing on Friday.

“This bill has grown, it’s gone from the sports car to the school bus” he said. “Policies I all support as a bill sponsor.”

Gov. Mike Dunleavy sponsored two bills included in the omnibus package, but did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

The bills included are in various stages. Some have passed the House, while others are being considered by various committees in the House and Senate. Several lawmakers who sponsored bills now included in the omnibus package agreed that politically it could increase chances of passage by May 20.

Rep. Sarah Vance, R-Homer, sponsored a bill that would create state felony penalties for AI-generated child sexual abuse material. It unanimously passed the House last month.

“I’m excited that it’s included in the omnibus bill, because that shows intent by the Senate to pass the bill,” Vance said on Monday. “So I have great confidence that it will cross the finish line.”

But Claman, who is running for governor, has drawn public criticism for the process of how the omnibus crime bill was put together this session.

Advocates for raising the age of consent — along with the Anchorage Daily News editorial board — criticized Claman for holding a bill to raise the age of consent to 18 in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which passed unanimously by the House last year, in order to be included in the omnibus bill. Critics urged Claman and the committee to pass the bill and allow it to move forward as a stand alone bill toward a full Senate vote and final passage.

Claman has argued that despite limited time left in the session, the bills included have been vetted and the combination package will garner more support among legislators and the governor to pass in the last few weeks of the session.

“I’ve been in the Legislature now since 2015, and so in the last 11 years, we’ve passed 11 different bills relating to public safety,” he said. “So I think there are ten different measures that we put into the bill, and if we tried to do them all individually, probably wouldn’t get them all passed.”

Claman pointed to an omnibus crime bill, House Bill 66, enacted in 2024, with support from Gov. Mike Dunleavy and across political affiliations. “That’s certainly, I think, the best example,” he said. “So I do have confidence we’ll get it passed.”

Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, sponsored House Bill 101, the bill that would raise the age of consent from 16 to 18 years old. Backed by advocates for sexual violence prevention, he said the change in law is essential for protecting teens from sexual exploitation and abuse. Under current law, it’s legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 or 17 year old. But when they are assaulted, teens must prove that they did not consent.

Despite previous disagreement and pushing for a stand alone bill, Gray said Monday he will back the omnibus crime bill in order to see the law changed.

“If that happens, inside an omnibus crime package that has other bills that are also worthy of passage, I’m fine with that,” he said. “I just want the policy to change.”

The draft omnibus crime bill now contains ten bills that previously stood alone:

• House Bill 239 — would increase criminal penalties for hit and run incidents so that drivers that cause a death and knowingly failing to stop and render assistance, and establishes mandatory sentencing of four to seven years for a first hit and run felony conviction
• House Bill 101 — would raise the age of consent from 16 to 18 years old, with provisions to allow consent to sex with someone up to six years older than them. The draft bill also allows 16 and 17 year olds to consensually exchange sexual or explicit messages within the six year close-in-age gap without penalties.
• Senate Bill 247 — would create state criminal penalties for creating AI-generated images or video that depicts sexually explicit or obscene content involving anyone under 18 years old
• House Bill 62 — Sponsored by Gov. Mike Dunleavy, the bill would establish a statewide tracking system for sexual assault examination kits, expedite processing times, and ensure that survivors can privately monitor the status of their own kit. 
• Senate Bill 100 — Also sponsored by the governor, and would establish the crime of organized theft, including mail theft and medical record theft
• House Bill 242 — would redefine criminal law to prohibit any sexual contact or assault by a health care worker during professional treatment, changing the current law which only applies to patients being unaware of sexual contact or assault for criminal charges to apply. 
• Senate Bill 17 — would establish the crime of airbag fraud for knowingly selling, installing or manufacturing a counterfeit airbag in a vehicle 
• House Bill 81 — would establish minor marijuana related convictions to remain confidential on individuals personal records, under certain criteria
• House Bill 384 —  would expand confidentiality agreements between victims and service providers by updating the definition of “victim counseling center” to include tribal organizations
• Senate Bill 233 — would reassign the Controlled Substances Advisory Committee from being administered by the Department of Law to the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. 

The new version of Vance’s bill focused on AI-generated child sexual abuse material included in the bill is closer to her initial proposal. Social media controls for minors added by the House were stripped out of the Senate version. Vance said she supports the amended version given First Amendment protections around social media.

“I think that was a wise decision right now, because Alaskans are very mixed on how they feel that we should address social media,” Vance said.

Rep. Sara Hannan, D-Juneau, is the sponsor of House Bill 242, and said she supports her bill being included in the Senate omnibus, but she is still pushing to advance her standalone bill in the House.

“I need people who didn’t serve on the two committees that heard it in the House to understand it,” she said, as the Senate draft will come back to the House for a concurrence vote. “It still helps to educate on the issue.”

Hannan’s legislation follows a high profile case in Juneau last year where the court dropped several charges against a chiropractor because under current law part of the legal definition of sexual assault by a medical provider requires the alleged victim to be unaware the assault is happening.

“Right now, the victim needs to be unaware, and the perpetrator needs to know that they are unaware,” Hannan said Tuesday. “So to change that in statute, I think is an important policy statement for us to make.”

Hannan said significant policy bills typically take several years to get through the Legislature, with public input, debate and support gathering. But she expressed confidence in the support for the omnibus crime bill in the weeks ahead.

“We’re running the clock down,” she added. “The only downside, from my perspective, is the advocates and the victims that were directly involved in the case that inspired this bill. You know, they get more acknowledgement when it’s the standalone bill… But in the end, if the goal is to change the policy, there’s no downside to it.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee will continue to hold hearings on the crime bill this week and its members have until Friday to introduce amendments before it advances to the Senate floor for a vote. Claman said he expects that to be in the last week of April.

This story has been republished with permission from the Alaska Beacon.

See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com

LOS ANGELES — An appeals court has blocked a California law passed in 2025 requiring federal immigration agents to wear a badge or some form of identification.

Subscribe to read this story ad-free

Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content.

Advertisement

The Trump administration filed a lawsuit in November challenging the law, arguing that it would threaten the safety of officers who are facing harassment, doxing, and violence and that it violated the constitution because the state is directly regulating the federal government.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction pending appeal Wednesday. It had already granted a temporary administrative injunction to block the implementation of the law.

At a hearing March 3, Justice Department lawyers argued that the California law sought to regulate the federal government, violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The appeals court agreed unanimously, saying the law “attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,” in an opinion written by Judge Mark J. Bennett. The panel was composed of two Trump appointees, Bennett and Daniel P. Collins, and Obama appointee Jacqueline H. Nguyen.

California lawyers argued that the law applied equally to all law enforcement officers without discriminating against the U.S. government, and that states could apply “generally applicable” laws federal agents. They also argued that the law was important to address public safety concerns.

People are more likely to attack officers in self-defense if there’s no visible identification letting the public know they are law enforcement, California lawyers said in a brief opposing the injunction.

“This confusion has resulted in federal law enforcement officials being mistaken for criminals and vice versa, creating serious risk of harm to peace officers and members of the public,” they wrote.

The appeals court judges said they did not consider the public safety factors because the federal government has demonstrate its constitutional rights would be violated by the legislation, and “all citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution,” it ruled, quoting previous case law.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli called it a “huge legal victory” in a post on X.

The California Attorney General’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The initial lawsuit also addressed another California measure signed into law last year that would have banned most law enforcement officers from wearing masks, neck gaiters, and other facial coverings. It was blocked by a federal judge in February.

The legislation did not apply to state law enforcement and made exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment like N95 respirators or tactical gear, and other situations where not wearing a mask would jeopardize the operation.