HB 35 revises Alaska law governing what prisoners may possess and use in state correctional facilities, with a particular focus on electronic devices. The bill keeps the general prohibition on prisoners possessing personal computers or tablets in their cells, but creates a narrower exception allowing approved use of computers or electronic tablets for rehabilitation, employment, education, vocational training, access to legal materials, visitation, health care, reentry planning, or other purposes set by regulation. It also bars the department from charging fees for electronic mail or electronic visitation services.
The bill further limits how electronic devices may be used in prisons by prohibiting the replacement of in-person visitation with tablet-based visitation and by directing that existing rehabilitation programs not be replaced with tablet-based services where practicable. At the same time, it allows new programs or services to be delivered through approved devices. In addition, HB 35 changes the rules for prisoner identification cards, requiring the Department of Corrections to issue an ID card before release that is substantially similar to a driver’s license, but clearly marked for identification only and not valid for alcohol purchases, with added security features and an “UNDER 21” designation for qualifying prisoners under 21.
The bill’s impact is to amend AS 33.30.015 and AS 33.30.105, expanding and clarifying the Department of Corrections’ authority over prisoner access to electronic devices while also imposing limits intended to preserve in-person contact and existing rehabilitative programming. It affects prisoners, correctional facility administrators, and the department’s policies on visitation, communications, education, reentry services, and inmate property. It also standardizes pre-release identification cards to help prisoners transition back into the community.
The voting history suggests the bill was ultimately supported by broad majorities in both chambers, though some amendments on the House floor were rejected. The final passage votes were strong in the House and unanimous in the Senate, indicating overall bipartisan acceptance of the bill’s core approach. The failed amendment votes suggest there was some disagreement over the details of how far to expand or restrict electronic-device use in prisons, but the final version appears to have settled those concerns enough to secure passage.
The main points of contention appear to have centered on the scope of electronic access in correctional facilities: whether tablets and computers should be used only for limited rehabilitative purposes, whether they could displace in-person visitation or existing programs, and how much discretion the commissioner should have by regulation. Another likely area of concern was the balance between modernization and security, including fees for electronic services and the risk that expanded device access could undermine prison discipline or reduce meaningful face-to-face contact.
HB 35 amends Alaska’s corrections statutes to authorize limited, regulated use of computers and electronic tablets by prisoners for specified rehabilitative and reentry-related purposes, while preserving restrictions on personal possession and prohibiting replacement of in-person visitation. It also bars fees for electronic mail and electronic visitation services and revises prisoner identification card requirements to create a pre-release ID with security features and clear limitations on use. The bill primarily affects the Department of Corrections, incarcerated people, and correctional facility service policies.
Overall sentiment around HB 35 appears generally favorable, with the bill passing both chambers by comfortable margins and the Senate approving final passage unanimously. The House floor votes on amendments show that some members sought to modify the bill’s details, but the final passage vote indicates broad support for the compromise language. The bill’s final enactment suggests lawmakers viewed it as a practical update to prison communications and reentry policy rather than a controversial overhaul.
The main contention involved how much access prisoners should have to electronic devices and whether that access should be tied strictly to rehabilitation, education, legal access, and reentry services. Some lawmakers appeared to favor tighter limits or different wording on the scope of tablet use, while others supported broader flexibility for the Department of Corrections. There was also an underlying policy dispute over whether electronic visitation and tablet-based services should supplement, rather than replace, in-person visitation and existing programming, and over the commissioner’s discretion to authorize additional uses by regulation.