Committee clarifies prisoner‑tablet bill, rejects amendment to expand private electronic monitoring outside DOC service areas

The House State Affairs Committee on April 8, 2025 adopted a clarifying amendment to House Bill 35, which would authorize certain correctional services via inmate tablets, and rejected a second amendment that would have forced broader use of private electronic monitoring in locations outside the Department of Corrections’ service area.

Chair Louise Kerrick moved and the committee adopted amendment G.2 (also called amendment number 1) by unanimous consent after discussion. The amendment clarifies that tablets “may not be used as a substitution for in‑person visitation, receiving mail as currently provided in facilities, receiving medical services or other in‑person communications.” Sponsor Representative Himchute said the intent is to ensure tablets supplement — not supplant — in‑person services.

Representative Vance moved amendment G.3 (also called amendment number 2), which would have required the commissioner to permit a prisoner who resides outside the department’s electronic‑monitoring service area to serve by private monitoring if the prisoner is eligible and willing to pay the full cost. That amendment generated extended committee debate about reentry, costs and operational control before the committee voted; the amendment failed on a roll call vote, 3 ayes and 4 nays (Moore, Vance and McCabe voted yes; Holland, Himshoo, Story and Chair Kerrick voted no).

Deputy Commissioner April Wilkerson of the Department of Corrections described operational concerns and said the department’s practice is to allow private monitoring in certain circumstances and to waive fees for indigent individuals where the department has budgeted resources. Wilkerson said the department currently supervises nearly 400 sentenced electronic‑monitoring cases and contracts with a single monitoring vendor; DOC has sentenced electronic‑monitoring coverage in Juneau, Fairbanks, Anchorage, Palmer, Kenai and Ketchikan.

Committee members asked how private monitoring operates, whether private vendors exist, how law enforcement responds to violations detected by monitors and how the department accounts for time served. Bob Ballinger, staff to Representative Vance, said private contractors exist and the amendment would require the department to allow private monitoring when an otherwise eligible person lives outside DOC’s service area and is willing to pay.

After the amendment debate, the committee voted to move HB35 as amended from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. The final committee roll call on the underlying bill produced 4 yays and 3 nays (Story, Holland, Himshoo and Chair Kerrick voted yes; Moore, Vance and McCabe voted no).