Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/03/2022 01:00 PM Senate FINANCE
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 | |
| SB39 | |
| SB164 | |
| HB281 | |
| HB282 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 282 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 39
"An Act relating to elections; relating to voter
registration; relating to ballots and a system of
tracking and accounting for ballots; establishing an
election offense hotline; designating as a class A
misdemeanor the collection of ballots from other
voters; designating as a class C felony the
intentional opening or tampering with a sealed ballot,
certificate, or package of ballots without
authorization from the director of the division of
elections; and providing for an effective date."
1:19:59 PM
Co-Chair Bishop invited the sponsor to make an introduction
of his invited testifiers.
1:20:09 PM
SENATOR MIKE SHOWER, SPONSOR, noted that there were two
experts available to speak to national best practices and
the open-source concept.
1:20:58 PM
MATT ROE, VOTING WORKS, CALIFORNIA (via teleconference),
explained that Voting Works was a non-partisan non-profit
organization that built election software. He stated that
the goal of his testimony was to briefly describe what
open-source software was and how it applied to election
administration. He stated he would be speaking from his
experience implementing open-source software but would not
be speaking to the specifics of Voting Works products. He
explained that the "source" in open source referred to
source code, which was the set of instructions written by
programmers that a computer follows to achieve the desired
software's behavior. He used an example of source code,
which he described as "a complicated recipe for baking a
cake," but qualified that for most software the source code
was kept secret and available only to the original
programmers. By contrast, open-source software had source
code that was always available to anyone who wished to see
it.
Mr. Roe continued his remarks. He asserted that much of the
software used today (including all major web browsers and
much of software that powered the internet) was open
source. He emphasized that the key benefit of open-source
technology was transparency. He cited that open-source
software was used in almost every industry, including
scientific research, financial services, and cyber-
security. He asserted that in the world of election
administration, especially when the country was
particularly polarized, open-source transparency provided a
common ground of facts that could be trusted and verified.
He described malicious code that changed votes as an
example of a problem that could be dispelled by a technical
review of the open-source code. He emphasized the
importance of proper security procedures, which should be
transparent. He mentioned the public accountability of
election officials.
1:25:00 PM
Mr. Roe wanted to discuss how open-source voting systems
were used in practice. He asserted that open-source voting
systems were used just like any other voting system, with
well-established practices for certifying, testing, and
operating voting equipment that would not change. He stated
that the only change introduced to the election process by
open-source software would be increased transparency and
public confidence in the election outcome. He opined that
SB 39 represented a non-partisan commitment to increasing
the transparency and security of Alaskan elections
throughout the entire cycle of the election. He asserted
that voter registration and signature verification
improvements ensured that only legitimate ballots were
cast. He continued that open-source software would provide
transparency to ballot counting, while post-election
auditing would confirm the election outcomes.
Senator Wielechowski guessed that open-source election
software would be meaningless to over 90 percent of people.
He asked if the open-source software made it easier for
hackers to exploit security flaws in the system.
Mr. Roe thought it was well understood that open-source
software increased security, as transparency encouraged
secure software development. He used the example that
everyone drove the speed limit when driving by a state
trooper, yet many sped up when the trooper exited the
highway. He suggested that lack of transparency led to
sloppy shortcuts and insecure coding practices. He asserted
that when software was designed in the open, it provided a
strong incentive to properly design the software.
Mr. Roe continued designing in the view of the public
strongly encouraged separation between the public source
code and the secret bit used to operate the software. He
used the example of the secret keys used to digitally sign
files. He cited that recent United States Department of
Defense (DOD) memos on open-source software supported his
perspective. He relayed that according to the DOD,
releasing source code did not give attackers an edge,
because attackers found pathways that did not involve
looking at source code. He quoted the DOD in saying that
making source code available to the public significantly
aids defenders continuous and broad peer review to improve
software reliability and security. He opined that there was
no downside to releasing source code to the public, while
there was plenty of upsides.
1:29:45 PM
LOGAN CHURCHWELL, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL
FOUNDATION, OKLAHOMA (via teleconference), explained that
the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) was a non-
partisan, non-profit law firm dedicated to election
integrity. He told a story from 2011 about an individual
named John that registered to vote in Alaska despite being
a foreign national. He had used a standard paper
application and indicated he was a citizen of the United
States. He described the ballot, which contained qualifying
information such as an address and demographic information
such as a date of birth. He had a copy of the document that
was redacted. The application had been approved.
Mr. Churchwell continued his remarks. He relayed that in
2014 a comparison was performed between Alaska's voter
rolls against the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) recipients.
At the time, the applicant he described had applied for the
PFD and indicated he was not a U.S. Citizen, and the
discrepancy was caught. The Division of Elections had sent
the individual a letter informing that it was illegal for
non-citizens to be registered to vote. The division had
included a form indicating that he was not a citizen, which
he sent back and was then removed from the rolls. He
thought that the case was proof of concept that when Alaska
engaged in in best practices to maintain its voter rolls on
a permanent and comprehensive basis, the roll could become
more accurate.
Mr. Churchwell thought the heart of SB 39 required the
development of annual practices to assess faulty or
outdated voter registration records such as those that were
deceased, convicted of felonies, were out of state, are
foreign nationals, or other cases with questionable
eligibility. The bill would require the Division of
Elections to provide disclosures involving data breaches
and voter registration totals relative to eligible
population. He mentioned bloated voter rolls. He thought
the bill proposed common-sense measures that were regularly
seen in other states.
Mr. Churchwell asserted that Alaska had held more
registered voters than eligible adults of voting age per
the U.S. Census. He thought SB 39 followed a clear plan for
voter roll maintenance updates while also envisioning
necessary guardrails to make sure errors and bad data
complicated the process. He discussed best practices which
took Alaska's voter data and compared it with data from
other government sources.
1:34:59 PM
Mr. Churchwell continued his testimony. He referenced
different federal data sources, such as the national change
of address system. He emphasized that Alaska was expending
taxpayer funds to subscribe to the data sources. The bill
required that additional data (such as social security
numbers) would be matched. He discussed concerns with false
positives. He discussed best practices and used the example
of Kentucky, which he thought had similar problems to
Alaska. He questioned how the state would tell the
difference between negligence and sabotage and emphasized
the need for best practices.
1:37:21 PM
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
COLLEEN EVANS, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in support of SB 39. She
thanked the committee members for their work. She shared
that she was a parent, volunteer, and business owner in the
community. She shared her desire for transparency.
She thought SB 39 would provide transparency. She urged the
committee to support the bill.
1:39:44 PM
RICH ANDERSON, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in favor of the bill. He
thought the system needed to be fixed. He referenced
troubles with the federal elections. He thought
transparency was important from the beginning to the end of
the election process. He mentioned upcoming elections. He
mentioned ranked choice voting.
1:42:13 PM
CINDY FULLER, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in support of the bill.
She had registered to vote at age eighteen. She had worked
as a volunteer at a voting station. She thought things had
changed in the last two elections. She recounted that her
ballot had not counted in the first mail-in election
because of an unmatched signature, and she had no recourse.
She had stood in line for 45 minutes during a previous
election and had her ballot counted. She preferred to vote
in person. She did not think mail-in voting was not
realistic. She did not think the bill went far enough. She
thought ballots should not be counted by machines.
1:44:52 PM
STEVE FULLER, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in support of the
bill. He was a long time Juneau resident. He thanked the
co-chairs. He wanted more trust and transparency in voting.
1:45:37 PM
REBECCA DUNDORE, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in support of the
bill. She thanked the committee. She thought the current
voting situation was scary. She did not think the bill went
far enough.
1:46:29 PM
DARRELL HARMON, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in support of the
bill. He had lived in Juneau for most of his life. He
wanted change in order to have less question about election
results. He thought if the state was susceptible to being
hacked by Russia to sway viewpoints for the effects of
chaos, that the same was possible to affect the voting
system. He thought both political parties should be equally
interested in fixing the problem.
1:48:11 PM
BARBARA TYNDALL, SELF, NORTH POLE (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. She thanked the sponsor. She
had been active in her district, by going door to door. She
had gleaned that there was great distrust in the voting
system. She thought electronic elections equipment was
vulnerable and should be banned. She was a precinct worker
and thought the ballots could be easily counted. She
mentioned ballot harvesting. She thought the state needed
to reestablish voting integrity and fix the voter rolls.
1:50:11 PM
JEAN HOLT, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), testified in
support of the bill. She thanked the committee members. She
thought that the present-day election process was
questioned by many voters. She mentioned scare tactics used
by opponents of SB 39. She thought SB 39 addressed all
aspects of the voting system, and restored confidence in
the election process.
1:52:02 PM
SHELLY SHOUPE, SELF, MOOSE CREEK (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. She thought much had been
stripped from the bill, but thought the bill was a good
start in fixing the problems in the state's election
systems. She thought the bill should be a non-partisan
issue. She mentioned cleaning up voter rolls and ballot
harvesting. She emphasized that the state must move away
from mail-in ballots.
1:53:06 PM
MURRAY WALSH, CHAIR, ALASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY, DISTRICT 4,
JUNEAU (via teleconference), testified in support of the
bill. He had sent a message to the committee regarding what
he considered problems with the Senate Judiciary Committee
CS. He cited that the provision for same-day registration
would burden election workers and favored requiring voters
to register 30 days before an election. He mentioned
transparency. He asked the committee to reconsider the CS,
perhaps for a more comprehensive fix.
1:55:11 PM
RANDY RUEDRICH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. He asserted that the current CS for
SB 39 had several issues. He cited that the bill was
completely silent on the topic of the modifying the PFD
automatic voter registration. He thought the Division of
Elections had requested an opt-in provision be adopted for
the method of registration. He urged that the bill be
amended. He opposed same-day voter registration, and
thought it was related to low integrity elections. He had a
specific concern relating to four-year absentee
applications. He cited that 89 percent of all the ballots
mailed out were not returned. He thought the CS would
prohibit any infilling of an absentee ballot application.
He discussed tabulators, which had been used in four
recounts. He stressed the need for trustworthy equipment.
1:58:38 PM
CHARLES PERRETT, SELF, GLENNALLEN (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 39. He lauded transparency and
honesty in elections. He thought the bill did not go far
enough. He expressed a concern with election integrity. He
relayed that he and his circle of friends had very little
confidence in the system. He thought the system had been
rigged and abused. He wanted to make the act of ballot
harvesting a crime greater than a misdemeanor. He thought
that democracy was at stake if measures were not taken. He
thanked the bill sponsor.
2:01:04 PM
ANNA MACKINNON, DIRECTOR, PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND DIVISION,
JUNEAU (via teleconference), stated she was available to
answer questions.
2:01:37 PM
CHARLIE FRANZ, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), spoke in
support of SB 39. He was not satisfied that the bill had
all the needed components, but he thought it was a major
step forward. He thought the legislature needed to act in
order to reinstate public confidence in elections.
2:02:19 PM
GARY TYNDALL, SELF, NORTH POLE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. He was convinced that the
integrity of Alaska's election process had been compromised
and needed reform. He supported in-person voting. He
supported elimination of mail-in voting, electronic
machines, ballot harvesting, automatic voter registration,
and early voting. He thought absentee voting should be
restricted to specific categories such as active military
personnel and people with disabilities. He thought voter
registration rolls needed to be rebuilt. He did not support
ranked choice voting.
2:04:06 PM
HERMAN MORGAN, SELF, ANIAK (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. He emphasized that elections had
consequences. He mentioned gerrymandering, voter fraud, and
election tampering. He did not support voting by mail. He
was concerned about foreign nationals voting. He quoted the
Bible.
2:06:55 PM
BONNIE LUCAS, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF ALASKA,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), explained that she was
president of the National Federation of the Blind of Alaska
and was a person with blindness. She emphasized that it was
imperative for legislators to consider absentee digital
voting options for people with disabilities when
considering election reform. She also had a blind adult
child. She explained that casting a private and secure
ballot had been very challenging, and a digital option
would solve the difficulties she had experienced. She
mentioned examples such as unrecognized signatures and long
wait times for voting machines. She emphasized the need for
accommodations.
2:08:56 PM
LISA WARD, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in support of the bill. She
had several children of voting age. She thought there was a
deep mistrust of the system and thought open clear
elections should be a bipartisan issue. She thought it was
important to have a ballot chain of custody. She was
incredulous that PFD rolls were used for voter registration
when one did not need to be a United States Citizen to
receive the PFD. She supported in person voting and open
polling stations. She did not support ranked choice voting.
She thought votes should be hand counted in each district
without machines being used.
2:11:20 PM
ROBERT WELTON, SELF, DOUGLAS (via teleconference),
supported the bill. He did not agree with two of the
provisions. He mentioned Section 36, which required
absentee voters to reapply for absentee ballots every four
years. He did not think the state should restrict the right
of voting by mail unless there was compelling evidence of
fraud. He cited that the Division of Elections had
testified on the record that there was no significant fraud
in the 2020 election. He referenced Department of Law
testimony, which he thought had proved that there was no
significant fraud in absentee voting. He did not agree with
the signature verification requirement for absentee
ballots. He referenced Section 38 and Section 39 of the
bill.
Mr. Welton continued his testimony. He thought the bill
would open the door to selectively reject absentee ballots.
He referenced a similar law in Texas, which had resulted in
up to 12 percent of ballots being rejected statewide, while
before the law less than 1 percent of absentee ballots were
rejected. He supported the other provisions of the bill.
2:13:49 PM
ANN BROWN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. She did not support the proposed
prohibition of pre-filled information on absentee ballots.
She thought the pre-filled information on an absentee
ballot application increased the likelihood the voter would
complete and submit the application in a timely manner.
She suggested deletion of the witness signature requirement
on an absentee by mail ballot envelope was not a good idea.
She thought the witness signature requirement greatly aided
in the cause of election integrity.
2:15:22 PM
CHENG SAECHAO, SELF, MAT-SU (via teleconference), testified
in support of the bill. He supported election integrity. He
felt like his vote did not count in the 2020 election. He
wanted to be able to trust in the voting system.
2:16:23 PM
RAY KREIG, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the CS for SB 39(JUD) Version E. He was
part of an informal group looking at election integrity
reforms Anchorage. He had spoken to the sponsor's staff and
understood the bill was still a work in progress. He was
opposed to same-day registration, elimination of the
required witness signature, and four-year absentee ballots.
He questioned if there was a definition of routine forensic
exams. He did not support PFD automatic voter registration.
2:18:22 PM
CAROL COOPER, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She had been very
concerned about election integrity in the 2020 election.
She thought the bill was a good start towards correcting
the problems. She encouraged the committee to pass the
bill.
2:19:14 PM
KATHY SWANSON, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), testified
in support of the bill. She referenced mail-in ballots that
were rejected with no adjudicated process. She was strongly
against mail-in elections, which she thought were rife with
fraud. She recounted getting extra ballots in the mail. She
did not support same-day voter registration. She did not
have a problem with absentee voting. She did not support
automatic voter registration.
2:21:28 PM
LINDA NEWMAN, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), shared
that she was a person with low vision and could not drive
to a polling station nor could she read a standard ballot.
She used digital-access large print to access information.
She emphasized that digital access be considered for people
with low or no vision, who also had a right to vote.
2:22:14 PM
BRENT TURNER, SELF, CALIFORNIA (via teleconference),
thanked the committee for consideration of the bill. He
stated that some considered him an expert in the field of
election systems security and technology. He thanked the
committee for considering the bill. He praised the
heightening of security and the reduction of costs by the
consideration of open-source software. He discussed use of
open-source software in California and Mississippi.
2:23:55 PM
MIKE SWAIN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
that he believed in less government. He thought people were
farming personal information. He was against replicating
data. He considered that the signatures on the outside of
ballots were a violation of privacy. He mentioned felons.
He emphasized the need for standardized procedures. He the
referenced separation of powers.
2:26:47 PM
MARLENE MOTO KARL, SELF, DEERING (via teleconference),
testified that she had concerns about the last state
election. She discussed a lack of election workers. She
discussed ballot counting. She described working as a poll
worker. She pondered whether it was legal for city
elections and state elections to be held at the same time.
2:30:11 PM
KELLY NASH, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. She was the founder of Interior
Patriots. She was appalled at the amount of fraud that had
happened in the previous two days with absentee ballots.
She did not support ranked choice voting. She thought some
elected officials did not want fair elections. She did not
think the 2020 election had been safe and secure.
2:32:00 PM
Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED public testimony.
Senator Shower thanked the committee.
Co-Chair Bishop handed the gavel to Co-Chair Stedman.
2:32:24 PM
AT EASE
2:42:00 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman relayed that the committee would consider
the SB 164.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 164 work draft version O.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 164 |
| HB 281 work draft version K.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 281 |
| HB 281 work draft version Y.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 281 |
| HB 281 LFD Presentation- SFIN Budget 5-2-22.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 281 |
| HB 281 School Bond Debt Reimbursement to Communities.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 281 |
| HB 281 Version Y Agency Summary Packet.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 281 |
| HB 281 Version K Agency Summary Packet.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 281 |
| SB 164 version O Agency Summary Packet.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 164 |
| SB 164 Testimony Lutchansky Anchorage Midtown Park Chalet.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 164 |
| SB 164 Testimony Hinderman Midtown Park Chalet.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 164 |
| SB 39 Support Dundore.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 39 |