The Alaska House Judiciary Committee moved House Bill 137 from committee by a 5-1 vote on April 25, 2025, after a lengthy debate over whether the state should be authorized to apply for a Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) on behalf of people who are behind on child support and have not filed their own applications.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Ashley Carrick, told the committee that “House Bill 137 very simply allows the state to apply for a PFD on behalf of eligible residents who are behind on child support and have not filed their own PFD applications.” She said the bill is intended to address a “narrow but very pervasive problem” affecting families owed support.

Proponents said the measure provides a practical route for getting money to children and custodial parents. Representative Collins, citing research discussed in committee, said the average arrearage in some cases can be “20 some thousand dollars” and framed the bill as a tool to restore families financially when obligors do not apply for dividends.

Opponents raised constitutional and policy concerns. Representative Vance said she had “a lot of concerns about this bill,” questioning whether the state or child support agency has an adequate basis to determine residency or intent to remain in Alaska and whether applying for a PFD on someone’s behalf could create equal‑protection or due‑process problems. Vance asked whether the proposal would effectively relieve child‑support debt without the obligor’s affirmative participation.

Emily Nauman of Legislative Legal Services answered committee questions on the record. She said equal‑protection challenges in this context are tested under a low level of scrutiny and that courts typically allow financial distinctions if they are reasonable and bear a fair relationship to a legitimate governmental objective. On the due‑process and takings question, Nauman told the committee that because the PFD is not received until an eligible person applies, a person who has not applied has effectively foregone an opportunity to claim the dividend and the money does not, in her view, become the person’s property in the same way as an already‑claimed benefit.

Committee members also compared the proposal to the existing restorative justice account program, which directs certain dividends for incarcerated people to victims’ services. Representative Kopp (referred to in committee discussion) noted the legislature has previously used dividend‑transfer mechanisms for public purposes and said similar administrative processes could be employed here to identify eligible recipients and preserve the state’s ability to recover payments.

Representative Mina and Representative Eishein expressed support for moving the bill so the next committee can address technical and fiscal questions; Representative Underwood said she would vote yes to allow further work. Representative Vance stated she would object to moving the bill if a vote on final passage were expected today, but she maintained her objection only to allow further record development; she voted no on the motion to move the bill.

The roll call recorded five yeas and one nay (Representative Mina — yes; Representative Eishein — yes; Representative Vance — no; Representative Kopp — yes; Representative Underwood — yes; Chair Gray — yes). The committee authorized Legislative Legal Services to make technical and conforming changes and moved HB137 to the next stage with attached fiscal notes. The sponsor said she is open to amendments to further narrow the bill’s language.

The committee also set several administrative items before adjourning, including an amendment deadline for an unrelated bill (House Bill 156) on April 28 at 5 p.m.

What’s next: HB137 will proceed with attached fiscal notes and may be amended in subsequent committee consideration; Legislative Legal Services was authorized to make technical and conforming edits.