Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
02/27/2018 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SCR17 | |
| SB204 | |
| SB192 | |
| SB207 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SCR 17 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 204 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 192 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 207 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 192-VOTING: ADDRESS CONFIDENTIALITY; FEES
3:56:52 PM
CHAIR MEYER called the committee back to order. He announced the
consideration of Senate Bill 192 (SB 192).
3:57:21 PM
SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of SB 192, said she usually asks questions
regarding the need for a bill as well as addressing the ability
to have less government. She called attention to Article I,
Section 22 of the state constitution which states, "The right of
the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed;"
she said SB 192 speaks to that privilege, that right of
Alaskans.
She explained that SB 192 was introduced to address constituency
concern regarding personal information being exposed on internet
search engines. She shared a personal story of a constituent who
wanted her personal information to remain private, but her
information was made public when she registered to vote.
She noted that internet search engines provide personal
information to everyone that searches, including: name, mailing
address, social security number, phone number, e-mail address,
and credit score. She asked when will the federal government
start to protect people's right to privacy once again. She
acknowledged that people can actively choose to share their
information but pointed out that search engines are mined for
data for private companies as well as political organizations.
4:01:55 PM
She explained that SB 192 does two things: allows an opt-out
measure and increases the fee to access registered voter
information.
She explained that the opt-out measure allows individuals to not
share their mailing address, physical address, and precinct
number. She asserted that the precinct number should not be
exposed because the number in highly populated areas gets down
to the neighborhood level where a stalker could eventually find
someone.
SENATOR MACKINNON disclosed that the fee to access the state's
voter registry is nominally priced at $20. She detailed that SB
192 sets the "fee barrier" at $1,000, an average fee amount that
was based on a poll conducted by the National Conference of
State Legislatures (NCSL). She noted that the change does not
prohibit political organizations or pollsters who use the voter
data to cross-tab and sell to others, but the monetary barrier
is intended to prevent access by individuals who want to misuse
the information. She added that the "fee barrier" does not
distinguish between a statewide and precinct list and does not
impose and cannot impose copy right laws. She pointed out that
the registered voter data includes a cross-check with the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation that results in data that is rich
with actual physical and mailing addresses that are consistently
updated for individuals to receive their PFD [Permanent Fund
dividend].
She said now that the state automatically registers individuals
to vote, their information is going to become more readily
available to both those that sell the addresses to other people
as well as general folks who are doing internet search engine
searches to locate people in specific areas. She summarized that
she has families in her district that are affected by the data
access and noted that she has raised the issue with the
lieutenant governor's office.
CHAIR MEYER opined that the fee going from $20 to $1,000 is a
big jump. He asked to verify that $1,000 is the average
statewide fee.
SENATOR MACKINNON specified that the average is nationwide.
4:05:59 PM
BRITTANY HARTMANN, Staff, Senator MacKinnon, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, clarified that the NCSL poll
results showed that the average cost for a voter list in all 50
states is $1,825.
CHAIR MEYER said he appreciated what Senator MacKinnon is doing.
He opined that information is easily obtainable and noted that
data can be accessed from fishing and hunting licenses as well.
He asked if Senator MacKinnon is aware of an address
confidentiality program that keeps an individual's address
confidential for domestic [violence] survivors.
SENATOR MACKINNON replied that there is a process where some
data can be suppressed, but the precinct number is not
suppressed. She said the process is not as specific as to what
is being asked to be suppressed in SB 192. She added that the
suppression requires a hurdle of a domestic violence and the
threshold is not reached if someone is trying escape a family
member. She detailed that to reach the threshold a family member
must be incarcerated, or a claim must be filed against the
family member, an aspect that her constituent does want to
endure.
4:07:50 PM
CHAIR MEYER noted in the Municipality of Anchorage that
providing a person's name regarding property taxes results in
the ability to access a person's address, how much they paid for
their house and what it is appraised at.
SENATOR MACKINNON replied that she would prefer to eliminate the
access that Chair Meyer has described as well; however, under a
federal act that cannot be eliminated. She noted that a person
though would have to know the state a person is in as well as
the city to be able to access that data, more at a micro level
than a macro level. She explained that in her constituent's case
the person may not have known her constituent was in Alaska and
even if they did, they wouldn't have been able to access a
municipal database to find my constituent because they would not
have known which city location her constituent was in to access
the data Chair Meyer was speaking to.
SENATOR WILSON pointed out that he can search for individuals on
the Division of Elections' website. He asked if SB 192 will also
address the Division of Elections' website regarding a personal
search.
SENATOR MACKINNON answered that she believed yes. She noted that
Director Josie Bahnke from the Alaska Division of Elections is
in attendance and available to address the committee.
SENATOR EGAN asked how SB 192 will affect campaigns. He said the
$1,000 fee, especially in smaller communities, will be expensive
for the individual running for council or assembly. He asked if
Senator MacKinnon thinks that the $1,000 fee will cause a
disadvantage for somebody running for municipal election.
4:10:07 PM
SENATOR MACKINNON replied that she thinks there are work-arounds
to everything the legislature does. She noted that the major
parties allow data to be shared with anyone that is associated
with them. She opined that a statewide organization could pay
$1,000 and share the data because that data is not copy written.
She said she is not opposed to having someone who is registered
for election to have a fee that is different for a precinct or
an area that is lower than $1,000; however, she pointed out that
the nationwide average is $1,800 for a statewide list. She
emphasized that she brought the legislation forward as a concern
from her district that her constituents' information is being
sold very inexpensively to everyone. She said she thought the
$1,000 barrier to someone who is not declaring that they are
going to raise over $1,000 may create a barrier for that
candidate and there is a way around that issue if someone is
registered in an election to run for office.
SENATOR EGAN stated that he appreciated what Senator MacKinnon
was trying to do; however, he asked if she thought the bill
protects domestic violence victims and queried if the bill also
addresses other data sources like tax rolls, PFD, or anything
from a recorder's office.
SENATOR MACKINNON replied that she will divert part of the
question to the Alaska Division of Elections and the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation. She said her understanding is the
data would go backwards so that both systems are affected. She
asserted that the bill's threshold is lower than having to have
been a victim of domestic violence. She asked that consideration
be given to those that are stalked or bullied who do now want
their information exposed.
She explained the proposed data-blocking process as follows:
How we walk through this with the Division of
Elections is that you could go online electronically,
check a box, and your data would be blocked. A
different address like the Division of Elections'
address or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation's
address would be exposed instead of your own private
information.
She reiterated that the precinct number must be out otherwise a
person's identity still can be pinpointed. She summarized that
the bill provides those experiencing domestic violence or sexual
assault an opportunity to shield their physical address from
others.
4:13:12 PM
MS. HARTMANN provided the sectional analysis for SB 192 as
follows:
Section 1: AS 15.07.060
Each voter applicant must indicate whether or not they
want their residential and mailing addresses to be
made confidential.
Section 2: AS 15.07.060
Establishes how an applicant, or a person acting on
behalf of the applicant, may indicate that they desire
to keep their address or addresses confidential; by
making a statement to a registration official or by
marking a box on the registration form.
Section 3: AS 15.07.064
Requires that the Division of Elections use the
address provided on the Permanent Fund Application, if
it is different from their current registration
address, but the division must also keep that address
confidential if the voter requested their address to
be confidential.
Section 4: AS 15.07.127
Increases the fee for the state's master-voter-
registration list and a list by precinct to $1,000.
This section also requires that the voter's address be
kept confidential from this list if the voter has
requested confidentiality.
Section 5: AS 15.07.195
Allows a voter to elect to keep the voter's mailing
address confidential and eliminates a requirement that
a voter may only request that the voter's residential
address be kept confidential if the voter provided a
separate mailing address.
Section 6: AS 15.15.400
Provides that copies of the statewide list and a list
by precinct, may be purchased from the division for
$1000. This section also makes such copies of the list
subject to the address confidentiality provisions.
SENATOR COGHILL addressed section 2 that noted, "Person acting
on behalf;" he asked if that meant anybody that had legal
authority.
MS. HARTMANN replied that is what she believed it is and noted
that the verbiage is already in statute.
SENATOR COGHILL pointed out that section 2 is a new subsection
and queried if the language was rewritten.
MS. HARTMANN answered that the section is new but explained that
the current statute allows for someone to be registered by
someone else on behalf of them.
4:15:40 PM
SENATOR COGHILL stated that he struggles with the bill and
explained as follows:
I struggle with this bill, I'm not a big fan of it at
this point. I appreciate what they are trying to do
but this pulls the shade down for everybody,
necessarily I think that is a little more complicated
than I am willing to go down the road on. I appreciate
the fact that you don't want to necessarily create a
legal action to get yourself off of the roll, so I'm
sympathetic to that and I'm not too sure how to deal
with it.
This issue just came to me yesterday morning for the
first time, I looked at it and my first reaction is
"no;" but, I appreciate it and wanted to listen to the
sponsor's input on why a family might feel a need to
be safe from that but I also see that what you are
saying is anybody who does it so then you have a
public safety part but you also have those who want to
be more nefarious can also pull that shade down, and
then you have the problem Senator Egan brought up and
that is we have created a democracy problem in
contacting people, sometimes we weary people to death
and I get that so I think people would check-it
because of that. Sometimes the privacy issue as
brought up is just so pervasive that where do you
start? I think what she is trying to do as a sponsor
is trying to put her foot down in one place and say,
"At least here is what the state can control."
So, I'm probably more inclined to go to a different
kind of application which would allow confidentiality
for whatever cause and have to state what that cause
is, it could be anything from a legal action to a fear
action, that's where I would probably go. I struggle
less with the fee, it is true that some places are
$5,000 for a statewide list but there are millions of
people, so you really can't say an average because the
average takes a population plus a cost, so that
average doesn't really work out that good. The jump to
Alaskans, I tend to agree, it's usually the
professional people who are going to want that fee as
long as we allow local races to have a reasonable
access. So, I don't know where that number would be, I
think she started high but I'm probably willing to
talk about it because it is true that people are using
those lists very frequently in a very loose way, so
I'm open to that discussion. As somebody who's had to
campaign, I know how valuable it is to know where
people live and to go contact them, but I also know
when somebody puts a no trespassing you just don't go
up their driveway and I think that's what she is
trying to say, no trespassing here for me because I
feel vulnerable for whatever reason.
I don't know that I agree with the approach just yet,
but I'm working on it. Certainly the statisticians and
I've got one in my office who very clearly used some
of these things, he's very good at it and has given me
good reason to question this, but as I said to the
sponsor in my office, "Okay, if this isn't the best
way what is a good way to help somebody feel safer in
a world where the information is you can get it
anywhere," and this doesn't solve the problem of
somebody that wants to feel safe in my view. I don't
mind the dollar amount because generally speaking
these are highly manipulated databases basically for
all of the political reasons, we all know about, but
at the end of the day they are people, they are just
individual people and some of them don't want to be
bothered for whatever reason. I just don't know that
this is the best way to get there, so I'm hoping
you're not going to move it out right away because I'm
still warming up to the idea. I'm trying to think
what's the best solution. I'm trying to think of an
amendment that I might put into it and I'm really at a
loss at this point. So, I just wanted to let the
sponsor know I appreciate the effort but I'm not with
her on this particular approach yet.
4:20:16 PM
CHAIR MEYER noted that the committee will go through public
testimony that may provide additional input to Senator Coghill.
SENATOR COGHILL remarked that he hoped people do not think that
the committee is insensitive to people who "feel that fear." He
queried how to get it done but appreciated Senator MacKinnon
stepping up to try and figure out a way.
SENATOR MACKINNON asked to speak to the "nefarious" part in
Senator Coghill's previous statement as follows:
Public safety and the State of Alaska would still have
access to all of that data; this is as you say, "no
trespassing," that a private person is putting up in
their yard, and we are allowing this data to be sold.
We are allowing it to become profitable information at
the expense of folks who are asking not to have their
data sold.
SENATOR COGHILL opined that in a democratic world you must
enlist people to participate and that is one of the issues that
must be dealt with as to how to keep people safe while still
allowing the democratic process to work, an issue that he
struggles with. He said on the other hand he referenced data
Senator MacKinnon provided that showed ways other states have
"imperfectly" dealt with the issue that the legislature is
trying to address, mostly dealing with sexual assault, sexual
violence and things like that where a restraining order is
required. He noted that Senator MacKinnon said there is a lower
threshold, something that becomes problematic for him. He opined
that he questioned the ability to jut checkoff a box for
whatever reason if someone wanted to disappear.
4:22:25 PM
CHAIR MEYER opened public testimony.
4:23:00 PM
JOSIE BAHNKE, Director, Alaska Division of Elections, Juneau,
Alaska, testified that the division does not oppose SB 192. She
said the division feels that the legislation is relatively
straight forward to implement since the division currently has a
way to mark a voter's information as confidential. She noted
that the change in the bill would have no impact on the
financial cost associated with the division's conduct of state
and federal elections nor would any additional staff be required
to implement the proposed law.
SENATOR WILSON asked Ms. Bahnke to address what would happen to
the ability to search names on the division's website if the
bill passed.
MS. BAHNKE replied that the only search on the division's
website requires a person to enter personal identifiers that
includes: voter ID, name, last-four digits of a social security
number; if someone knows that information, they could do a
search on themselves or someone else.
4:25:43 PM
SENATOR WILSON stated that he has questions for the sponsor
regarding the impact on voter registration, voting processes at
political party conventions, or the possibility of inhibiting
folks from being able to participate in the voting process.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if someone acting on another person's
behalf when voting would normally be "power of attorney." He
said the statute is AS 15.07.070(b) and Ms. Bahnke can answer
the question later. He inquired what the division will do with
the money from the proposed $1,000 fee.
MS. BAHNKE answered that currently the Division of Elections has
no vehicle to get the funding directed to the division, so all
receipts would go through the general fund.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the division has talked about raising
the value of the sale of lists.
MS. BAHNKE answered that the division has not.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if she had thought about what the value
might be as a tool for the division's benefit to help manage the
voting list. He said the fee is steep but conceded that the
proposed fee is not totally unreasonable.
CHAIR MEYER inquired how many times the division sells the list
per year.
4:29:07 PM
MS. BAHNKE replied that the division sells approximately 50-
statewide lists per year.
CHAIR MEYER asked if there is a requirement when someone buys
the list.
MS. BAHNKE explained that the division collects the name of the
organization the individual is representing and address. She
noted that the division mails a DVD with the information.
CHAIR MEYER surmised that if the fee is paid the state does not
know who is receiving the information or what they are going to
do with the information.
MS. BAHNKE answered yes.
SENATOR COGHILL noted that approximately 27 percent of the
state's population moves per year. He asked how the division
manages its files and if the bill is going to affect file
accuracy.
MS. BAHNKE answered that in statute the division has a very
detailed process to annually conduct list maintenance, something
the division recently completed. She explained that to ensure
the voter roll accuracy, the division is a member of the
Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), a group of 23
states where the division does cross-state and in-state
duplicate death records where reports are run on a regular
basis. She added that the division gets the most current PFD
automatic-voter-registration information from the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation as well.
SENATOR COGHILL conceded that once in awhile his confidence in
government is low and the Division of Elections has not escaped
his scrutiny. He said the division's voter-file management is a
process they must go through; however, he pointed out that there
have been times when the division's accuracy had to be
investigated. He opined that the bill would make checking on the
division's accuracy very hard to do. He summarized that division
accountability is another factor that must be considered.
4:32:46 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked if requesting confidentiality during voter
registration was currently possible.
MS. BAHNKE answered that the division has both a paper and
online voter registration application process that allows voters
to request that their residence address remain confidential if a
separate mailing address is provided.
4:34:09 PM
CARMEN LOWRY, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 192. She said SB 192 will go along way to protect
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. She
asserted that abusers go to great lengths to find out where
people live, and the bill provides confidentiality and safety
for victims. She added that the bill will also encourage people
to vote by allowing a person to control access to their
residential and mailing addresses.
4:36:03 PM
CHAIR MEYER closed public testimony.
SENATOR MACKINNON noted that she has communicated with
individuals affected by stalking who are not comfortable with
calling in, e-mailing or texting, the very people that the bill
intends to protect. She set forth that setting a lower threshold
protects all people. She summarized as follows:
I understand that we want to make sure that we can
reach out and talk to people as elected officials, but
if people don't want to talk to us, they have a right
to put up a no-trespass sign.
4:37:21 PM
CHAIR MEYER held SB 192 in committee.