The Alaska House Finance Committee on April 25 advanced House Bill 101, a proposal to raise the state's age of consent from 16 to 18, adopting two amendments that expand a close-in-age exemption for 16- and 17-year-olds and preserve a two-year exception where the older person occupies a position of authority. The committee voted 8-1 to move the bill out of committee as amended.

House Bill 101, sponsored in the House by Representative Gray, was presented to the committee as a measure intended "to help prevent assault of those 16 and 17 year olds," Gray said in her opening recap. The bill was introduced after requests from victim-service organizations that identified Alaska's 16-year age of consent as a vulnerability exploited by older predators.

The bill drew public testimony from survivors and community members. Lori Pickett, who identified herself as a nonprofit and public-sector volunteer, told the committee she strongly supports HB101 and said the change would better protect teens. "This isn't an extreme idea. It's a necessary one," Pickett said. Two callers from Ketchikan described cases they said illustrated the law's current limits: "I am personally aware of a situation ... in which the district attorney could not go forward with a case based on this law from a 16 year old who had been exploited by a 23 year old," caller Jerry Baluta said. Other callers echoed that view.

Amendment details and committee action

The committee adopted two amendments during the hearing. Amendment 1, moved by Representative Jimmy, expands the bill's proposed "close-in-age" exemption for 16- and 17-year-olds. Under the amendment the exemption applies when the older partner is "less than six years older" (formally described as 5 years and 364 days), allowing certain consensual teenage relationships to remain outside of criminal liability. Representative Rachel Gunn, staff to Representative Jimmy, said the change reflected a request from ANDVSA (an advocacy network for domestic violence and sexual assault service providers) to avoid forcing mandated reporters to refer otherwise nonproblematic, consensual teen relationships.

Amendment 2, introduced by Representative Josephson and adopted by the committee, preserves a two-year age separation in statutory provisions that apply where the older person "occupies a position of authority" over the younger person or the younger person resides in the same household. The amendment keeps the existing two-year cutoff in those circumstances so that, for example, the statutory exposure for someone who has authority over a minor remains measured by that narrower gap.

Department of Law and sentencing implications

Casey Schroeder, senior assistant attorney general with the Department of Law, briefed the committee on legal consequences under current law. She told members the provisions the committee was considering interact with criminal offenses that can carry severe penalties and registration requirements: "The presumptive sentence for [sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree] is 20 to 30 years, and it carries a lifetime registration requirement," and for the second-degree offense "the presumptive term is 5 to 15 years, and the maximum is 99," she said. Schroeder told the committee that prosecutors evaluate cases on the facts and on the interest of justice when defendants and alleged victims are close to statutory lines.

Committee votes and next steps

Both amendments were adopted by recorded voice and roll-call votes (each 6-3). After amendment votes and discussion the committee approved a motion to report HB101 out of House Finance as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes; that final motion passed on an 8-1 vote. The committee packet lists the bill version as 34-LS0451.

Why it matters

Supporters told the committee raising the age of consent closes a statutory gap they said is exploited by older adults targeting 16- and 17-year-olds. Opponents and some committee members warned that widening exemptions could criminalize adults who are close in age to minors in contexts such as workplaces or family households and that the interaction of new age cutoffs with existing statutes and mandatory reporting rules requires careful calibration.

The bill now moves to the next stage in the legislative process with the committee's recommended changes recorded in the committee report.