Case Explained: Proposal to raise Alaska’s age of consent from 16 to 18 caught up in disagreement on crime package – Legal Perspective

JUNEAU — State lawmakers are weighing a bill that would raise the age of consent from 16 to 18 years old. Proponents say that it will give police and prosecutors a much-needed tool to protect teens from predatory adults.

The bill passed the House unanimously last session, but has since remained in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Lawmakers are at odds about how to move forward with the bill: The sponsor, Rep. Andrew Gray, an Anchorage Democrat, wants it to remain a standalone bill. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Matt Claman, an Anchorage Democrat who is also running for governor, said he is eyeing it as a driver for a larger, not-yet-introduced crime package.

Advocates for the bill are now calling on Claman to pass the bill out of committee.

Under current law, 16- and 17-year-olds can legally consent to sex with someone of any age. If and when they are assaulted or targeted by older adults, said Gray, the teen must prove in court that they did not consent to sex, which makes prosecution difficult.

Alaska has consistently had the highest rate of sexual assault in the U.S. — currently at four times the national average, according to the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission. About 59% of sex offenses in Alaska involve crimes against children, the commission said in a November 2025 report.

Gray took up the bill in his first term in 2023, following conversations with leadership from the advocacy group Standing Together Against Rape, or STAR. STAR’s position was that raising the age of consent is one of the most valuable ways the Legislature could protect teens from sexual assault and predatory relationships.

The bill is also co-sponsored by Rep. Sarah Vance, a Homer Republican.

“Raising the age of consent to 18 makes it easier for law enforcement to say, ‘We’re going to help you.’ It puts the onus on the offender instead of on the victim. That child victim no longer would have to prove that what happened to them was not consensual,” Vance said before the House floor vote last session.

The bill includes a close-in-age exemption, meaning teens ages 13-15 can consent to sex with someone up to four years older, and 16- and 17-year-olds can consent with someone up to six years older.

The bill passed the House unanimously on the penultimate day of last session, by vote of 39-0, with one member absent.

The Senate Judiciary Committee first took up the bill on Feb. 9 of this session, and has since held two additional hearings on the bill.

Claman said in an interview that Senate leadership is discussing creating an omnibus crime bill, combining multiple bills from this session into one piece of legislation. Claman said that raising the age of consent is “getting very, very, very serious consideration” to be part of a crime package.

“Nothing’s being stalled,” Claman said. “But we’re taking an approach to figure out what goes in, what goes together.”

As Senate Judiciary chair, Claman decides if and when to call for a vote on advancing legislation to the next committee.

Senate leadership is involved in discussions about what would go into an omnibus bill, he said.

Claman declined to say what else is being considered for the crime package.

He said in an interview Tuesday that Judiciary will be “picking up the pace” to complete a package by the end of April.

Claman helped drive efforts to create an omnibus crime bill in 2024, a 50-page measure that passed with broad support from the Legislature. Among other provisions, the bill imposed longer sentences for certain drug offenses, as a response to the state’s fentanyl crisis.

Gray said that he wants the legislation move forward as a standalone bill because adding or amending other bills into the package would risk drawing opposition to the package as a whole.

Seven senators so far have signed on to co-sponsor the bill, including three from the bipartisan majority and four from the Republican minority caucus. Gray said he expects the bill, standing on its own, would pass the Senate 20-0.

“This is a unanimously agreed-upon policy change that needs to happen, so I would prefer that we keep it simple, allow it to pass both bodies unanimously,” Gray said. “If there are senators who oppose it, they should stand up on the floor, express their opposition. Let’s hear it.”

“We could pass several standalone crime bills and it’s not going to break or or disrupt the system of government in any way, shape or form,” Gray added. “In my experience, narrower, smaller pieces of legislation are easier to digest and less problematic in many ways than larger, multi-faceted bills that try to accomplish many things at once.”

Laura Norton-Cruz, a public health consultant, testified in support of the bill on March 23, urging lawmakers to move the legislation forward.

“I believe that the Senate will pass it, but it needs to move out of committee,” Cruz said. “Do not let it languish in committee any longer.”

One issue Claman raised in committee hearings is that estimates on the bill’s cost have gone through substantial revisions.

The Office of Public Advocacy reported this year that the change in the law would cost their office nearly $300,000, and the Public Defender Agency estimated a need for over $500,000.

On the other hand, the Department of Public Safety and Department of Law originally estimated the bill would cost their departments over $3 million each, but later changed their fiscal notes to zero.

“The last thing we’d want is to increase the number of crimes out there and then also increase the number of declined cases. I have a lot of concerns about the suggestion that this won’t have a fiscal impact, because I frankly believe that it will have a fiscal impact,” Claman said.

Sean Case, Anchorage Police Department chief, testified at a March 23 hearing in support of the bill. He said he expects the law change to have a minimal impact on department and workload — only a “handful or two” additional cases each year.

Deputy Attorney General Angie Kemp from the Alaska Department of Law’s Criminal Division said the bill’s previous version had a smaller close-in-age exemption, which would have criminalized more relationships, and would have cost the department substantially more money.

Gray said in an interview that his hope for the legislation is that it will deter predators from 16- and 17-year-olds, rather than requiring law enforcement and Alaska prosecutors to take on a significant increase in cases.

Still, he said concerns over the cost are misplaced when tackling the high prevalence of sexual assault in Alaska.

“We should invest funds in fixing those terrible statistics. It’s gonna take money,” Gray said.