Legislature(2021 - 2022)
04/29/2021 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB163 | |
| HB142 | |
| HB66 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 29, 2021
4:02 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Matt Claman, Vice Chair
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Andi Story
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative James Kaufman
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 163
"An Act relating to vehicle title applications."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 142
"An Act relating to eligibility for the permanent fund
dividend."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 66
"An Act relating to voting, voter qualifications, and voter
registration; relating to poll watchers; relating to absentee
ballots and questioned ballots; relating to election worker
compensation; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 39
"An Act relating to voter preregistration for minors at least 16
years of age."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
HOUSE BILL NO. 25
"An Act relating to the duties of the state Board of Education
and Early Development; relating to statewide standards for
instruction in social-emotional learning; and providing for an
effective date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
HOUSE BILL NO. 187
"An Act relating to the elimination or modification of state
agency publications that are outdated, duplicative, or excessive
or that could be improved or consolidated with other
publications or exclusively delivered electronically; and
providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 5
"An Act relating to sexual abuse of a minor; relating to sexual
assault; relating to the code of military justice; relating to
consent; relating to the testing of sexual assault examination
kits; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 163
SHORT TITLE: FORM OF SIGNATURE ON VEHICLE TITLE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SCHRAGE
04/05/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/05/21 (H) CRA, STA
04/13/21 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/13/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/13/21 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/15/21 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/15/21 (H) Moved HB 163 Out of Committee
04/15/21 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/16/21 (H) CRA RPT 6DP
04/16/21 (H) DP: MCCABE, PRAX, MCCARTY, DRUMMOND,
SCHRAGE, HANNAN
04/27/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/27/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/27/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/29/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 142
SHORT TITLE: PFD ELIGIBILITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MCCARTY
03/20/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/20/21 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/09/21 (H) STA REFERRAL MOVED TO AFTER JUD
04/09/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/21/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/21/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/21/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/26/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/26/21 (H) Moved CSHB 142(JUD) Out of Committee
04/26/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/28/21 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 3DP 2NR 1AM
04/28/21 (H) DP: SNYDER, KREISS-TOMKINS, CLAMAN
04/28/21 (H) NR: EASTMAN, DRUMMOND
04/28/21 (H) AM: VANCE
04/29/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 66
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TUCK
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, JUD
04/09/21 (H) STA REFERRAL MOVED TO AFTER JUD
04/09/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/12/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/12/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/14/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/14/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/14/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/19/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/19/21 (H) Moved CSHB 66(JUD) Out of Committee
04/19/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/21/21 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 4DP 3DNP
04/21/21 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS, DRUMMOND, SNYDER,
CLAMAN
04/21/21 (H) DNP: EASTMAN, VANCE, KURKA
04/21/21 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER STA
04/21/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/29/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a brief statement during the
hearing on HB 163, as the prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN MCCARTY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 142, as the prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 66, as the prime sponsor.
MICHAEL MASON, Staff
Representative Chris Tuck
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
66 on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
4:02:33 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 4:02 p.m.
Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins, Story, Claman, and Kaufman were
present at the call to order. Representatives Tarr and Eastman
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 163-FORM OF SIGNATURE ON VEHICLE TITLE
4:05:25 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 163, "An Act relating to vehicle title
applications."
4:05:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 163, stated that he had no additional comments and
welcomed questions from the committee.
4:06:33 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, seeing no questions from committee
members, announced that HB 163 was held over.
HB 142-PFD ELIGIBILITY
4:07:13 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 142, "An Act relating to eligibility for
the permanent fund dividend." [Before the committee was CSHB
142(JUD).]
4:07:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KEN MCCARTY, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
HB 142, as the prime sponsor. He explained that the proposed
legislation would limit the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD)
eligibility of active-duty military members to those who were
physically stationed in Alaska.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from the committee.
4:08:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the bill would impact the
eligibility of congressional staff who had left the state and
were living and working in Washington D.C.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY indicated that congressional members,
members of the Peace Corps, and full-time students who were
still Alaska residents would still be eligible to receive the
PFD.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the proposed legislation
would impact an Alaska resident who was stationed abroad for
some period of time and had family residing in state.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY relayed that a military member who was
deployed would not lose PFD eligibility if his/her base remained
in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether someone who was deployed
overseas would lose eligibility.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY was unsure of the answer.
4:12:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN questioned why the bill was focused
solely on the military, as opposed to having a broader scope.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY reported that last year, $16 million was
distributed to individuals who no longer lived in state. He
indicated that the intent was to reduce the amount of PFD
dollars sent to people who no longer resided in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN cited the sponsor statement, which
specified that in 2018, $4,900,000 had been distributed to
service members who spent more than 180 days out of state. He
inquired about the discrepancy between $16 million and
$4,900,000.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that the $4.9 million applied to
active-duty military members only, whereas the $16 million was
distributed to military members, as well as their significant
others and dependents.
4:14:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY sought to clarify when a service member
would become ineligible under the proposed legislation. She
pointed out that some military members were serving out of state
with the intent of returning to Alaska. She asked whether those
people would lose their eligibility.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY indicated that those individuals would
lose eligibility. He explained that many people who intended to
return to Alaska never did. He said if and when those military
members return to Alaska, they could regain their PFD
eligibility.
4:16:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, referencing a letter from the Department
of Revenue (DOR) [hard copy included in the committee packet],
asked Representative McCarty to quantify the forecasted increase
in eligibility for individuals not serving in the military.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY offered to follow up with the requested
information.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that the document from DOR
suggested that paid dividends would be reduced by approximately
$8.5 million if the bill were to pass. He contended that less
money wouldn't be disbursed, it would just be distributed to
different people. He asked if that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY shared his understanding that the
existing money would be divided accordingly to "the number
allocated out for the state in that year."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that if there was a finite amount
of money going towards dividends and the denominator of eligible
Alaskans grew smaller, then each remaining Alaskan would receive
an incrementally larger dividend.
4:18:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR sought to clarify the concept of
reestablishing residency for a service member who had left
Alaska and subsequently returned. She asked whether someone who
had previously established residency in Alaska would be
"situated differently" than someone who was new to Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY said anyone who returned to the state or
moved to the state would be considered in an equitable manner.
He indicated that it would create too much of a? "quagmire" to
differentiate between the two.
4:21:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how many appeals had been submitted
against the denial of an individual's PFD eligibility, as well
as why certain appeals were awarded. She expressed concern
about taking away PFD eligibility from military members.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY recalled his conversation with two
generals who indicated that there was a lot of incentive to move
to Alaska for service members; further, that the proposed
legislation shouldn't deter that. He expressed concern about
the significant resources that were invested in the
investigations into applicants' intention of returning to the
state after a permanent change of station (PCS).
4:24:08 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how many PCNs were in the
investigation section in the Permanent Fund Dividend Division.
4:24:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it would be beneficial to
discourage snowbirds from renting out their in-state residences,
as it could be perceived as a business.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that snowbirds were required to
return to the state within 180 days or else they lose their PFD
eligibility. Alternatively, military members could be deployed
over 180 days for purposes of deployment and still be considered
residents.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked DOR how much time would be spent
verifying people's intent to return to Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS agreed. He noted that these
questions would be addressed in the next bill hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned whether the repeal of the
allowable absence eligibility criteria, which required DOR to
consider relevant factors of intent, would impact individuals
outside of the military.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY deferred the question to the Permanent
Fund Dividend Division.
4:27:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled previous legislation that had
proposed placing dividends in an account for [service members]
who left the state with the intent to return in the future. She
explained that if those individuals returned to Alaska, they
would then be eligible to collect those PFDs. She asked whether
that concept had been considered by the bill sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY replied that it had been considered.
4:29:00 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the bill sponsor had
considered amending any of the allowable absences in the
drafting of the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY said he had considered making an
allowance for the commercial aviation industry but ultimately
decided against it, as other industries would have requested
equitable treatment.
4:30:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about the language "is absent" on
page 2, line 1, of CSHB 142(JUD), which was changed from "was
absent". She asked whether the change of tense was made by the
bill sponsor or Legislative Legal Services.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY deferred the question to Legislative
Legal Services.
4:32:04 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 142 was held over.
HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
4:33:39 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 66, "An Act relating to voting, voter
qualifications, and voter registration; relating to poll
watchers; relating to absentee ballots and questioned ballots;
relating to election worker compensation; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 66(JUD).
4:34:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, introduced HB 66. He presented the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
In November of 2020, over 361,000 Alaskans voted.
Never in Alaska's history have so many people cast a
ballot in an election.
House Bill 66 seeks to build on the success of the
2020 election by making permanent some of the
temporary changes put in place to ensure Alaskans
could vote safely. These changes include eliminating
the witness requirement for absentee ballots and a pay
increase for election workers up to $15 per hour.
HB 66 also seeks to modernize elections in Alaska by
allowing electronic signatures and same-day voter
registration. The bill also requires absentee ballots
to be counted as they are received instead of waiting
until after the polls close on election day. This will
speed up the release of more complete election
results.
Other provisions in House Bill 66 include:
? Creating an option for permanent absentee voting for
individuals that plan to vote by mail in every
election.
? Requiring the Division of Elections to offer a voter
the option to fix a mailed-in absentee ballot if there
are errors.
? Calling for the same early voting locations to be
available during every election.
? Clarifying that candidates and groups sponsoring
ballot initiatives can have poll watchers.
The overarching goal behind HB 66 is to remove
barriers to the ballot box at every stage of Alaska's
elections. HB 66 will make it more convenient to vote
before election day and make it easier to vote on
election day.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK reported that on November 3, 2020, there
were 27,686 absentee in-person votes; 98,816 male absentee
votes; 53,229 early in-person votes; 12,026 votes via online
delivery; 48 votes via fax; and 1,847 special needs ballots.
Overall, 46 percent of the votes cast in the 2020 United States
presidential election were submitted by mail. Additionally,
nationwide, the share of voters casting ballots on election day
fell from 60 percent in 2016 to 28 percent in 2020.
4:38:42 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from the committee.
4:39:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE sought to clarify the difference between
early absentee voting and absentee voting. Additionally, she
inquired about the bill sponsor's intent for the provision
regarding polling locations in the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK relayed that in the 2014 election, many of
the polling locations in rural Alaska had been moved. He said
the intent was to ensure that once a polling location was
established after redistricting, it would remain in that
specific precinct to avoid any uncertainty. He addressed in-
person absentee voting, explaining that it was akin to early
voting. The only difference, he said, was that with true early
voting, which was only available in Juneau, Anchorage, and
Fairbanks, the ballots were counted immediately, whereas in-
person absentee votes were counted later because they were
treated as an absentee ballot. He emphasized the importance of
clarifying the terminology because in the 2014 and 2016
elections, voters who wanted to submit an in-person absentee
ballot were turned away by poll workers in rural Alaska who
thought the voters had to be absent to participate. He further
noted that there were components of the bill that would increase
the minimum wage for poll workers and improve their training by
the Division of Elections (DOE).
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS informed the committee that early voting
occurred wherever there was a DOE office; consequently, Juneau,
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Nome were the only places in Alaska
where people could participate in early voting.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there was statutory language
that specified the protocols DOE would take if a polling
location needed to change. She shared a personal anecdote about
a polling location in her district that had been moved prior to
an election due to the pandemic. She recalled that DOE had been
scrambling because within a month before the election, at least
nine polling locations had to be relocated. Further, DOE had
communicated to Representative Vance that the notification
system consisted of a postcard in the mail. She asked whether
any guidance or protocols existed to prevent confusion when
those situations occurred.
4:44:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said the experience shared by Representative
Vance highlighted the importance of maintaining established
polling locations. He directed attention to AS 15.20.045(b),
noting that it was the only statute that addressed [location
changes]. He indicated that under the proposed legislation,
polling locations would be designated to a specific place for 10
years, which would discourage DOE from choosing temporary
locations. He said the bill would implement concrete polling
locations; however, if a relocation had to occur, DOE would be
required to notify the public in writing, as specified on page
8, lines 19-21 of CSHB 66(JUD).
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE shared a personal anecdote about her
district and expressed interest in clarifying the requirements,
as well as implementing proper notification methods if a
location were to change.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK welcomed further discussion on the issue and
agreed that protocols should be followed.
4:49:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how people would be notified of an
opportunity to cure a ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK directed attention to Section 28 of CSHB
66(JUD), which indicated that voters would be notified of a
rejected ballot by mail. Additionally, the notification would
include an explanation of how to cure the ballot. He noted that
Section 30 outlined the ballot curing process.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that voters were contacted
about ballot curing via phone, electronic mail, and text
message. He asked whether the bill sponsor would support
utilizing those same methods to notify voters of a polling
location change.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that he would be open to the idea.
He shared his understanding that people were informed of ballot
curing opportunities by mail. He said he didn't want to replace
the by-mail notification; however, it could be augmented with
the other methods.
4:52:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, referring to Section 28, claimed that
notification by mail was not included in the bill language. He
asked why it was not included as an alternative option to
telephone, electronic mail, or text message.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK contended that on page 13, lines 16-18,
Section 28 specified that in addition to mailing the
notification, the director could notify a voter by telephone,
electronic mail, or text message.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared a personal anecdote about ballot
curing.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced the language on page 13, line
17, which stated that the director may notify a voter by
telephone, electronic mail, or text message. He questioned why
"may" was used instead of "shall."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that the by-mail notification was
required whereas the notification via telephone, electronic
mail, or text message was to augment the mailed notice. He said
he had no problem with "may" or "shall;" however, he said he
would want to hear from the department before amending the
current language.
4:56:00 PM
MICHAEL MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that the mailing requirement was included in
the language at the request of the department. The other
methods of contact offered additional flexibility, he said. He
explained that the department was enthusiastic about using the
other notification methods as they were available, but not as a
required form of contact for every person.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the director would only be
permitted to send a text message to voters who he/she knew
personally.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified that the director could utilize
the augmented methods of contact for the voters who provided
that information. He said notification by telephone, email, or
text message would not be required to avoid the mandatory
inclusion of a phone number and email address on ballot
applications.
4:57:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about adding a provision to address
voters for whom English was a Second Language (ELS).
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out that the ballot curing process
included the option of correcting a ballot in person, which
could be helpful for non-native speakers of the English
language. Nonetheless, he pondered how to accommodate a voter
for whom English was a Second Language who needed to cure a
rejected absentee ballot from the convenience of his/her home.
5:00:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY, referring to Section 28, sought to verify
that voters who were notified of a rejected ballot would have
enough time to send in a cured ballot that would be counted.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered yes. He shared his understanding
that typically, post offices put a date stamp on ballots to
ensure that they arrived in a timely manner. He added that DOE
and local post offices were well coordinated during the election
cycle.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the deadlines.
MR. MASON directed attention to page 13, lines 14-15 of CSHB
66(JUD), which specified that notice must be sent a voter no
later than three days after a ballot had been rejected. The
voter would have until the tenth day after the election to
complete the curing process, he said. In response to the
previous question from Representative Tarr, he explained that
ballots could be cured in person or via an affidavit, which
could be used to attest to the ELS component.
5:04:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY, referencing subparagraph (G) on page 15 of
CSHB 66(JUD), inquired about the cost of postage.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that larger ballots required more
postage than a first-class stamp, which was the typical postage
required for the average ballot. He believed that sometimes, if
the first-class stamp was not enough postage, DOE would incur
the extra cost. He noted that postage-paid return envelopes
would be provided for all ballots under the proposed
legislation.
5:05:24 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the bill sponsor had given
any thought to the existing prohibition on "ballot selfies." He
noted that ballot selfies were still technically illegal,
despite DOE's expressed intent against enforcing that statute.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that the purpose of taking a
picture with one's ballot was to encourage people to vote. He
said he was supportive of furthering that sentiment.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his belief that useless statutes
should be "retired."
5:06:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about the intent of Section 5.
He sought to confirm that it would require the voter's party
affiliation to be reflected on the envelope.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that presently, when applying for
an absentee ballot, people had the option of changing their
party affiliation on the same application. Essentially, he
said, Section 5 would add that in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether filling out the portion
pertaining to party affiliation would be required.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said no, it would not be required. He
explained that because the PFD was accompanied by automatic
voter registration, this would provide people with the
opportunity to make a declaration of their party affiliation
immediately.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN, referencing Section 33, which pertained
to compensation for election workers, asked whether volunteers
would be prohibited.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred the question to DOE.
5:09:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned why the hourly wage for
different positions varied from $12.50 to $15.50.
MR. MASON said the pay scale was based on the compensation for
election workers in different states. He reported that many
jurisdictions set the minimum wage at $15 for poll workers. He
noted that the hourly pay of $12.50 in paragraph (6) was for
extra election day and election night workers; however, he
wouldn't be opposed to paying them $15.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how this would impact the fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said presently, the fiscal note was
indeterminate. Referencing the fiscal note's analysis, he
explained that there would be costs of approximately $66,600
associated with return postage for by-mail ballots and $138,600
for reprinting of absentee by-mail, absentee in-person, special
needs, and questioned ballot envelopes. He noted that the cost
of election worker compensation had not been estimated.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN revisited the topic of ballot curing. He
asked how a partial ballot rejection would affect the
notification process.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK was unsure of whether a partial rejection
existed. He understood that any error that prevented a ballot
from being opened or counted would cause the ballot to be
rejected. There could be one error or multiple errors, he said,
both of which would lead to a rejection.
5:12:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about curing ballots that had
been partially counted.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK believed that Representative Eastman was
referring to a questioned ballot. He considered a scenario in
which a newly registered voter in this state could vote for a
presidential candidate per federal law but could not vote on
anything beyond that if the person lacked a 30-day residency in
Alaska. He contemplated how that ballot could be cured. He
shared a personal anecdote. He shared his understanding that
voting by mail could be the solution for a person who was voting
in the wrong location. He deferred the question to DOE.
MR MASON clarified that ballot curing was for minor mistakes -
not for changing votes or adding votes after an election.
5:16:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether ballot curing should only
be available for absentee by-mail ballots, as opposed to
absentee in-person.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK opined that it should be available for any
absentee ballot that was rejected due to technical error.
MR. MASON clarified that ballot curing did not apply to early
voting, as those ballots were anonymous. He explained that
curing rejected absentee ballots allowed voters to fix the
technical mistakes that were separate from the ballot.
5:18:09 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that curing was associated with
absentee ballots because the by-mail process was what presented
the opportunity for technical errors to exist.
5:18:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN described a high-integrity voting process
as one with a high degree of traceability in terms of voter
identification. He asked how the bill would ensure that
electronic voter registration and other aspects of absentee
voting had the same degree of "integrity" that was inherent to
in-person voting.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said MyAlaska would be used for electronic
registration. He indicated that MyAlsaka was secure, as it was
used for PFD applications and many other important services.
Regarding voter identification, he elaborated on the rigorous
identification protocols for absentee voting. Further, he
explained that absentee ballots were "checked and double
checked" during the counting process. He added that if any of
the ballots that were set aside during that process ended up
determining the outcome of the election, the results would
typically be litigated in court.
MR. MASON noted that there would be future testimony from Paddy
McGuire on how to implement secure by-mail voting.
5:22:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there was a curing process
for ballots submitted on election day. She shared a personal
anecdote.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said Paddy McGuire would elaborate on in-
person voting in his forthcoming testimony. He emphasized that
once a ballot entered the ballot box, it could not be cured. He
added that training of poll workers was a critical component of
reducing errors.
MR. MASON believed that the situation detailed by Representative
Vance was not addressed in statute. He agreed that training
would be a viable solution.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, referencing Section 29, asked about the
intent of the word "immediately" on page 13, line 29.
MR. MASON said the intent was that once a ballot had been
rejected, the director would immediately make that information
available through a free access system.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK added that this provision would allow
absentee voters to see whether their ballots had been counted
through an online system. Further, DOE would be required to
notify voters by mail of a rejected ballot within three days.
5:28:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she liked this feature. Nonetheless,
she expressed concern about data breaches. She asked what steps
were being taken by the division to protect voters' information.
She emphasized the importance of providing a secure system for
voters, both in-person and by mail. She shared a personal
anecdote.
5:31:26 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained that people's votes were never
revealed under any circumstance. He explained that ballots were
not link to the individual voter's identification, which was the
intrinsic value of a paper ballot system.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE clarified that the public perceived
security as a problem; consequently, she believed that the
legislature needed to make it clear that it would not be an
issue. She recalled a bill hearing from last year, during which
time she had asked the division whether a voter's party
affiliation was visible from the envelope. She reported that
DOE had indicated that sometimes that information was visible.
She shared a personal anecdote. She said the public felt that
if their party affiliation was visible, it was breaking
confidentiality. She stated that she wanted to pursue a
heightened sense of confidentiality for every voter.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out that a person's party
affiliation was public knowledge; therefore, it wasn't
confidential.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS confirmed that party affiliation was a
matter of public record. However, he believed that
Representative Vance had been speaking to a situation in which
the party affiliation appeared on the envelope either
inadvertently or by some means. He asked whether Representative
Tuck was aware of that.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK was unsure and deferred to DOE.
5:35:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled that the bill hearing referenced
by Representative Vance concerned a ballot initiative in 2020
[Ballot Measure 2]. He explained that participation in the
closed republican primary required proof of a person's
eligibility to vote, which was accomplished by declaring that
status on the outside of the envelope. However, he shared his
understanding that the voters' approval of Ballot Measure 2
switched Alaska's primary system and created an open nonpartisan
primary where all candidates would appear on one ballot, thus
negating the issue.
5:36:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR shared that there had been a problem with
pre-filled absentee ballot requests during the last election
cycle, which created confusion. She suggested that unofficial
requests from a campaign-related organization, for example,
needed clearer disclosure to identify that it was not official
correspondence from a government agency.
5:38:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared his understanding that the
questioned ballot envelope was used to register voters.
Consequently, part of that process involved updating or
declaring a party affiliation. He acknowledged the utility of
capturing that information on the envelope but expressed concern
that because it was submitted by mail, the information could be
potentially misused. He asked whether the proposed legislation
would change that process.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered no. He further clarified that when
nonpartisan or undeclared voters voted in primary, they had to
specify which ballot they were requesting upon filling out the
application for a primary absentee ballot.
5:40:30 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm whether a questioned
ballot would be cast by an unregistered voter who wanted to vote
on election day; therefore, per federal law, that person could
vote for a presidential candidate only, as opposed to state
officials, using a questioned ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said in a more likely scenario, a
questioned ballot would be provided to a person who was voting
in the wrong polling location. He continued by addressing
ballot confidentiality. He acknowledged that under statute,
votes were never associated with the voters; however, he relayed
a complaint from a constituent regarding an alleged incident in
which poll workers were looking at people's ballots.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted that another way a vote could be
linked to the voter is if the voter printed, scanned, and
emailed his/her ballot to DOE as a method of return.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recalled that voters waived their right to
confidentiality if they utilized that method of return. He
revisited the issue of poll worker compensation and asked
whether the bill sponsor would consider adding an "automatic
inflation adjuster" to the pay scale.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he would consider that an improvement
to the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commended the bill sponsor for including
the language "not less than", which would provide DOE with the
flexibility to pay poll workers more than the minimum
compensation rate, as provided in Section 33.
5:44:28 PM
MR. MASON lamented the absence of testifiers. He relayed a
comment from Paddy McGuire about how many of the problems with
elections resulted from the training and experience of the
people who conduct the elections; further, he indicated that
higher wages produced better poll workers who were more
dedicated and experienced. He suggested that some of the
challenges with elections could be solved by increasing the
workers' compensation.
5:45:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN recalled Representative Tuck's
introductory remarks in which he touted the success of the
November 2020 election due to the high volume of Alaskan voters.
He asked whether the bill sponsor believed that the 2020
election was one of high integrity.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK opined that the absentee ballot review
process revealed integrity and cooperation. He compared a
successful election process to a nonpartisan team-building
exercise and shared his personal experience, which was a
positive one. He said he observed good-natured people who
wanted to maintain the integrity of the process, as well as
identify and correct any anomalies along the way.
MR. MASON reported that Lieutenant Governor Meyer had stated
that the Alaska election officials verified zero claims of fraud
during the 2020 election. He shared the following quotes:
"The November 3rd election was the most secure in
American history. ... There is no evidence that any
voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or
was in any way compromised."
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
(CISA)
"To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could
have affected a different outcome in the election."
- Former U.S. Attorney General William Barr
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he welcomed people who challenge
elections because it maintained accountability and integrity in
the election process.
5:49:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether there was room for
improvement in the election process.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK believed that encouraging more people to
vote and feel confident in the election process was always a
better outcome than reduced volume. In response to whether the
process was perfect, he acknowledged that corrections and
iterations would be necessary as technology and procedures
change. He said he had no reason to believe that elections were
flawed in this state. Nonetheless, he agreed that technical
errors needed to be minimalized.
5:52:03 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, in response to Representative Kaufman's
question, believed that improvement was always a good thing,
even if it wasn't in response to a proven occurrence of fraud.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN agreed. He emphasized his interest in
improving integrity in addition to volume.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS concurred. He highlighted practicability,
adding that if there was a way to improve the integrity of the
system in a way that was workable with the administrative and
financial parameters, it would be ideal.
5:53:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there had been an increase
in the number of polling locations that corresponded to the
increase in Alaska's population.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said polling locations in individual
districts had not increased; however, he reported an increase in
the number of in-person absentee voting locations.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the benefits of bringing
polling locations closer to people who live far away from one.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed that equal opportunity for convenient
voting was essential. He said if adding more locations would
help with that, then it should be considered.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, referring to the free access system in
Section 29, asked what would happen if there were errors in the
online system that resulted in incorrect information being
shown.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that the free access system would
be helpful because it would show whether a voter's ballot had
been counted. He deferred to the division to address what would
happen if the system indicated that a ballot had been counted
for a person who hadn't voted.
5:58:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the proposed legislation
would allow ballot drop boxes to be stationed at public
libraries, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified that ballot drop boxes were under
the purview of DOE. He added that the proposed legislation did
not address that matter specifically.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his understanding that DOE had set
up drop boxes during the most recent election in response to the
high rates of absentee voting; however, he recognized that the
division had not implemented a systematic plan pertaining to the
location of those boxes.
MR. MASON noted that there was a section in the bill that
allowed the division to partner with municipalities for
nonspecific matters, such as installing ballot drop boxes.
6:00:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK assured the committee that the unanswered
questions would be forwarded to DOE before the next bill
hearing.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 66 was held over.
6:01:10 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 6:01.