Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
03/20/2018 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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Commissioner, Department of Administration; Personnel Board | |
| SB192 | |
| SB159 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | SB 159 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 192 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 192-VOTING: ADDRESS CONFIDENTIALITY; FEES
4:17:27 PM
CHAIR MEYER called the committee back to order. He announced the
consideration of Senate Bill 192 (SB 192).
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
SB 192, version 30-LS1354\D as the working document.
CHAIR MEYER announced that without objection the CS for SB 192
was before the committee. He asked Ms. Marasigan to explain what
the CS does.
4:18:37 PM
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, Staff, Senator Meyer, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that the CS changes the
fee for the voter registration list to $100 per Senate district
and $1,500 for the state's entire voter registration list. She
disclosed that in committee discussion there was concern that
$1,000 was too much but as the sponsor pointed out there were
other states that charged even more. She noted that the
secondary concern addressed the $1,000 fee for an unaffiliated
person running for a local office that had to incur the higher
fee. She pointed out that the CS effectively addresses both a
local nonaffiliated person running for office who would only pay
$100 for a Senate district voter registration list, and then the
CS effectively ups the cost for a statewide voter registration
list for the State of Alaska.
CHAIR MEYER asked if the statewide voter registration fee would
be $1,500.
MS. MARASIGAN answered correct.
CHAIR MEYER summarized that the intent is to not prohibit
someone running for office to get the voter registration
information for their district but at the same time discourage
somebody from buying the whole state's voter registration list.
4:20:31 PM
CHAIR MEYER objected to the CS for discussion purposes.
SENATOR COGHILL asked for an explanation of the thought process
on the Senate district fee.
CHAIR MEYER replied the discussion went back and forth.
MS. MARASIGAN detailed the discussion as follows:
One of the interesting points of discussion came up
when a campaign is interested in obtaining a voter
registration list, a lot of times when running for
state House or a legislative seat, they are affiliated
with a party and they are able to obtain that
information through that affiliation; however, when
you have somebody who is running for a school board
seat or a borough seat, or a municipality seat, or a
city council seat, that sometimes that is larger than
a House district and might encompass several House
districts, in fact maybe encompass one or two Senate
districts, it was felt that by the $100 price point
that it still keeps it low enough where a fairly well
organized campaign should be able to obtain such a
list at that price.
SENATOR COGHILL said Ms. Marasigan made a good point.
4:22:15 PM
CHAIR MEYER removed his objection. He asked the bill's sponsor,
Senator MacKinnon, to comment on the CS. He noted that an
amendment was forth coming.
4:22:49 PM
SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of SB 192, commented that the dollar amount
changes in the CS were certainly the committee's privilege as
well as any amendment brought forward. She asked to speak to the
bill after the new bill is offered.
4:23:47 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 1, [30-LS1354\D.1]:
A M E N D M E N T 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR COGHILL
TO: CSSB 192(STA), Draft Version "D"
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "relating to the confidentiality of
voters' addresses"
Insert "establishing the Alaska address
confidentiality program"
Page 1, line 5, through page 3, line 4:
Delete all material.
Page 3, line 5:
Delete "Sec. 4"
Insert "Section 1"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, lines 16 - 28:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 2. AS 15.07.195(b) is amended to read:
(b) In addition to the information in (a) of
this section, the address of a voter participating in
the Alaska address confidentiality program established
under AS 44.23.100 - 44.23.104 may not be disclosed. A
voter who is not a participant in the Alaska address
confidentiality program may elect in writing to keep
the voter's residential address confidential and not
open to public inspection if the voter provides a
separate mailing address. However, notwithstanding a
voter's participation in the Alaska address
confidentiality program or [AN] election under this
subsection, a voter's residential address may be
disclosed to
(1) a watcher appointed under AS 15.10.170
and, in the case of a watcher appointed by an
organization or group sponsoring or opposing an
initiative, referendum, or recall group, authorized by
the director;
(2) an observer of a recount provided under
AS 15.20.440(b) by a candidate, political party, or
organized group having a direct interest in the
recount; or
(3) the subject of a recall election if the
voter voted in the recall election."
Page 4, following line 8:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 44.23 is amended by adding new
sections to read:
Article 2. Alaska Address Confidentiality Program.
Sec. 44.23.100. Alaska address confidentiality
program. (a) The Alaska address confidentiality
program is established in the Department of Law. Under
the program, an individual who is eligible under this
section may use an address designated by the
department under AS 44.23.102 as the individual's own
address, designate the department to receive mail,
legal process, and voter registration or absentee
ballots on behalf of the individual, and provide that
the department forward the mail, legal process, and
voter materials to the individual's actual mailing
address. The department may not charge a fee to apply
for or participate in the program.
(b) An individual is eligible for the program if
the individual
(1) is a resident of the state and
(A) a victim, or a parent or guardian of a
minor child who is a victim, of stalking, domestic
violence, or sexual assault or a crime in another
jurisdiction with elements substantially similar to
stalking, domestic violence, or sexual assault, that
was reported to a criminal justice agency in good
faith; or
(B) has been granted, or has been granted
on behalf of a minor, a protective order issued or
filed under AS 18.65.850 - 18.65.870 or AS 18.66.100 -
18.66.180; and
(2) files a completed application under (c)
of this section.
(c) An individual may apply to the department to
participate in the program. The department shall
approve an application that is filed in the manner and
on the form prescribed by the department. The
application must contain
(1) the applicant's name;
(2) the applicant's actual residential and
mailing addresses;
(3) if applicable, identification of a
state or municipal agency that employs the individual
against whom an allegation of abuse against the
applicant or member of the applicant's household is
made;
(4) evidence satisfactory to the department
of the applicant's eligibility under (b)(1) of this
section; and
(5) a sworn statement by the applicant that
(A) the applicant resides or will reside at
a location in this state that is not known to the
individual or individuals who are the subject of a
report or order described in (b)(1)(A) or (B) of this
section;
(B) the applicant agrees not to disclose
the applicant's actual residential or mailing address
to the individual or individuals who are the subject
of a report or order described in (b)(1)(A) or (B) of
this section; and
(C) the applicant understands and consents
to the following attributes and requirements of the
program:
(i) a participant will be enrolled in the
program for a period of three years unless the
participant submits notice of cancellation under (vii)
of this subparagraph or is disenrolled under (ii) of
this subparagraph;
(ii) a participant is required to notify
the department when the participant's actual address
or legal name changes; if the participant fails to
notify the department under this subparagraph, the
department may disenroll the participant from the
program;
(iii) a participant is required to develop
a safety plan in consultation with department
personnel;
(iv) by participating in the program, a
participant authorizes the department to notify state
and municipal agencies and units of government that
the individual is a program participant;
(v) the department will notify a program
participant when the participant's three-year period
is about to expire under (i) of this subparagraph or
if the department is set to disenroll the participant
under (ii) of this subparagraph;
(vi) a participant who receives a
notification under (v) of this paragraph may timely
update the participant's information or may re-enroll
in the program within six months after the date the
department issues the notification;
(vii) a participant may discontinue
participation in the program at any time by submitting
a written notice of cancellation to the department;
and
(viii) a participant must certify the
department as the participant's designated agent for
service of process.
(d) Upon the filing of a properly completed
application by an eligible applicant, the department
shall certify the applicant as a program participant.
(e) The department shall adopt regulations
necessary to implement and administer AS 44.23.100 -
44.23.104.
Sec. 44.23.102. Use of designated address;
confidentiality. (a) The department shall provide each
participant with a designated address. A participant
may request that state and municipal agencies use the
address designated by the department as the
participant's address. When creating a new public
record, state and municipal agencies shall use the
address designated by the department as the
participant's substitute address, unless the
department determines that the
(1) agency has a bona fide statutory or
administrative requirement for the use of the
participant's actual address that would otherwise be
confidential under AS 44.23.100 - 44.23.104; and
(2) participant's actual address will be
used only for the statutory and administrative
purposes identified in (1) of this subsection.
(b) A participant may use the address designated
by the department as the participant's work address.
(c) The department shall forward all mail
received at a participant's designated address to the
participant's actual address and provide the notices
described in AS 44.23.100(c)(5)(C).
(d) At the request of a participant or a state
or municipal agency or unit of government, the
department shall provide to another person
confirmation of the participant's status as a program
participant.
(e) A state or municipal agency or unit of
government shall use a participant's address
designated under this section for official business
unless the use of the participant's actual address is
specifically required by statute. A state or municipal
agency or unit of government may request confirmation
from the department of an individual's status as a
program participant.
(f) A person who has received confirmation of an
individual's participation in the program under this
section may not
(1) refuse to use the address designated by
the department for the participant;
(2) require a participant to disclose the
participant's actual address; or
(3) intentionally disclose to another
person the actual address of a participant.
(g) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, a
participant shall provide the participant's actual
residential address for voter registration and voter
verification purposes under AS 15 and AS 29. However,
state and municipal officials and other persons to
whom the participant's actual address is disclosed
shall keep the address confidential, except upon court
order, and the address may not be disclosed under
AS 40.25.110 or 40.25.120.
Sec. 44.23.104. Definitions. In AS 44.23.100 -
44.23.104,
(1) "criminal justice agency" has the
meaning given in AS 12.62.900;
(2) "department" means the Department of
Law;
(3) "domestic violence" has the meaning
given in AS 18.66.990;
(4) "participant" means an individual
enrolled in the Alaska address confidentiality program
established in AS 44.23.100;
(5) "program" means the Alaska address
confidentiality program established in AS 44.23.100;
(6) "sexual assault" has the meaning given
in AS 18.66.990;
(7) "stalking" has the meaning given in
AS 18.65.870."
CHAIR MEYER objected for discussion purposes.
4:26:14 PM
SENATOR COGHILL noted that he had spoken with Senator MacKinnon
and they did not see eye-to-eye on his amendment; however, he
felt it was important to bring the topic up. He explained that
the bill "pulls the shade down" by taking addresses off just by
signing or checking a block. He conceded that the important
issue is about privacy, but the bill strictly changes privacy
regarding voter registration lists. He noted that the bill does
not address confidentiality more broadly.
He explained that the amendment is based on address
confidentiality programs in the United States. He disclosed that
the new program will be called the Alaska Address
Confidentiality Program (ACP) and the "meat" of the program is
addressed in section 4 of the amendment. He explained that the
program would broadly protect address privacy, even at the
municipal level. He specified that a person would be eligible if
the individual has been a victim of stalking, domestic violence,
sexual assault, or have been granted a protective order for
stalking. He detailed that an individual would apply to the
Alaska Department of Law. He noted that the program is modeled
after Montana law.
He disclosed that his thought was to first have confidentiality
for those that are most vulnerable, and the amendment starts
there by creating the program and defining eligibility. He said
an eligible applicant provides their address and makes a sworn
statement that their address is confidential. He summarized that
the program is a broad approach that addresses eligibility, the
application process, and how the Alaska Department of Law could
use an individual's address.
He revealed that he spoke with the Alaska Department of Law and
conceded that the Alaska Address Confidentiality Program will be
new to the department, but the program is not new in departments
of law. He explained that the Alaska Department of Law was
chosen because the department would most likely know who victims
of stalking are, domestic violence, sexual assault, and granted
protective orders.
SENATOR COGHILL summarized that the Alaska Address
Confidentiality Program is a new deal in Alaska. He opined that
the bill's sponsor believes his proposal is narrower than what
she would like, a point of view that he understands; however, he
believes that the research he has done, and the resulting
program would address the most vulnerable, first. He pointed out
that his proposal does not require conviction, just a sworn
statement and an application for the Alaska Department of Law.
4:29:38 PM
CHAIR MEYER noted that 39 other states have programs like
Senator Coghill's proposal. It is not a totally new proposal.
SENATOR COGHILL revealed that he talked with the Alaska Network
on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA) and noted that
ANDVSA liked his approach. He conceded that ANDVSA would like
his proposal because they are the ones that are focused on
protecting the most vulnerable population. He asserted that his
proposal would be a real benefit to ANDVSA. He pointed out that
he did not propose the Alaska Address Confidentiality Program to
be exclusively for ANDVSA, but his proposal was a result of the
question that was posed by Senator MacKinnon's bill. He said he
was not a fan of doing what the bill's sponsor proposed and that
was allowing anybody that wanted to take their name off the
registered voters list. He emphasized that his proposal is a
good solution without going down the road that the road of
allowing anyone to take their name off the voter registration
list.
CHAIR MEYER asked if his address would be kept confidential if
he had a hunting and fishing license.
SENATOR COGHILL answered yes and noted his intent for broad
protection.
CHAIR MEYER asked if an address would be protected in property
tax and similar databases.
SENATOR GIESSEL stated that she had several questions because
the proposed amendment basically creates a new bill for
committee members to consider. She addressed page 3, lines 21-24
and asked if the amendment proposes a limited participation
period of 3 years.
SENATOR COGHILL answered correct.
SENATOR GIESSEL noted that on page 4, lines 3-6 that Senator
Coghill proposes that confidentiality would have to be renewed
and that the department would notify program participants when
to renew.
SENATOR COGHILL answered right.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked what would happen if a notification was
mailed to the wrong address where the individual that receives
the mail has bad intentions. She inquired why the
confidentiality requires renewal every three years.
SENATOR COGHILL replied that Senator Giessel posed a good
question that his office had considered as broadly as possible.
He noted that a protective order does not last forever and
commented as follows:
The very issues that they would apply for, stalking,
sexual assault, it would be the circumstances of life
would have to be rethought as we move along, and so it
would not preclude them from reapplying, but we didn't
want somebody's name on the rolls forever for a
protective order, that's all. I'm open to discussion
on that, but the way we saw it was that you were doing
it based on an affidavit, based on an event, a
stalking, a domestic violence, something like that,
and a protective order does have a time limit on it.
So, we thought we would go across a time frame that
was reasonable and for data that could be moved, three
years seemed reasonable. If you talk about voting
issues, that would go through at least one full voting
cycle, it would give databases a chance to get that
information, but it also gives somebody the chance to
go through the chapter of their life and if they
thought that chapter was not going to end, they get to
reapply.
4:33:16 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL replied as follows:
Interestingly I've been contacted by someone whose
entire family was murdered, more than three years ago,
and this person has great concern about the criminal
being released on parole and the ramifications of that
person's behavior. There are situations where three
years would be a tedious thing to have to keep track
of to renew.
She addressed page 3, lines 29-30 in the amendment regarding the
requirement to develop a safety plan in consultation with
department personnel. She asked if the noted department is the
Alaska Department of Law.
SENATOR COGHILL answered yes. He explained that the Alaska
Department of Law would hide an individual's address and
significant changes would have to be communicated with the
department.
SENATOR GIESSEL continued to address coordination with the
Alaska Department of Law as follows:
Page 5, line 2, "The Department of Law shall forward
all mail to the participant's designated address;"
then in the next under (d), "Shall provide to another
person confirmation of the participant's status as a
program participant." I'm not sure I understand what
is going on here. Why would you supply, I'm not sure
what the rational is?
SENATOR COGHILL replied as follows:
I think this is when you are reaching out to a
municipal that they would have access to that, sending
it to that party.
4:35:39 PM
JORDAN SHILLING, Staff, Senator Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, replied to Senator Giessel's query
as follows:
One thing to note is that Legislative Legal did a
fairly comprehensive nationwide look at how other
address confidentiality programs are structured. A lot
of the language here is the exact language that you
will find in those other 39 states and this is one of
those provisions.
He asked if Senator Giessel was referring to (d) on page 5.
SENATOR GIESSEL answered yes. She added that she intended to
address section (c) and (g) as well. She noted that the sections
reference providing the participants' actual residence address
for voter registration and voter verification, something that
she thought was the original idea of the bill's original
sponsor.
MR. SHILLING explained as follows:
Subsection (d) does not require that the address be
conveyed to a municipal agency; for example, it just
requires at their request that the person's
participation in the program is conveyed. For example,
there may be a municipal agency where a participant in
the program wants to interact with government in some
way and that requires that individual to give their
address and the individual may say, "Well, I'm part of
a program called ACP, I've actually got a substitute
address to provide in lieu of my actual physical
address," and I could have envisioned a scenario where
maybe the municipal agency was skeptical or said,
"Well, I've never heard of such a program or prove to
me that you get to use the substitute address." It
seems to me that subsection (d) would allow the
Department of Law or will require the Department of
Law to convey to that municipal agency that they are
in fact a part of the ACP program, you shall in fact
accept their substitute address.
4:37:42 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL reiterated that if someone is truly trying to
disappear, the section seems to be counter to that.
SENATOR COGHILL interjected and noted that an individual is
going to have electricity and gas bills. He specified that an
individual must show that they are in the ACP program to
preclude them from having their address published.
SENATOR GIESSEL read subsection (g), line 20 as follows:
Shall provide the participant's actual residential
address for voter registration and voter verification.
MR. SHILLING replied as follows:
I believe that is for the Division of Elections to be
able to determine if that individual is truly eligible
to vote, but the Division of Elections cannot have
that person's actual physical address on the voter
rolls. What you would see on the voter rolls is the
substitute address, but I think the Division of
Elections does truly need to know your actual address
in order to ensure that you are eligible to vote.
SENATOR GIESSEL pointed out that the amendment is a whole new
program and asked what the fiscal note might be.
MR. SHILLING replied that a fiscal note has not been developed
and commented as follows:
While it is new to Alaska as Senator Coghill said,
it's actually pretty common nationwide. We have had
some preliminary conversations with the Department of
Law and while they haven't developed a fiscal note to
my knowledge, they are working on that. I imagine that
there is some cost to comprehensively ensure that
these specially situated individuals have their
address purged from all publicly available databases.
CHAIR MEYER noted that the bill goes next to the Senate Finance
Committee where the fiscal note can be scrutinized.
4:40:02 PM
SENATOR MACKINNON commented as follows:
A bill is an idea and an idea is in front of you and I
appreciate and respect all of your perspectives on the
idea. The amendment before you is actually a bill unto
itself and not one that I had intended on carrying. We
did research this for over a year and a half and the
bar that we chose to place in our bill and for your
consideration as an alternate was a sworn statement
via a checkbox that would cost no money to the people
of Alaska to do that. A sworn statement is what you
are getting from the new bill, the amendment that is
being offered by Senator Coghill.
She asked the chair for some latitude because she has done some
research about the "balance of power" and the "need to know."
CHAIR MEYER asked if her request pertained to the amendment.
4:41:13 PM
SENATOR MACKINNON answered yes but noted that her commentary is
broad. She explained the limitations that the amendment will
impose on SB 192 as follows:
Senator Coghill posed the balance of the need to know
someone's address with the need for an individual to
determine whether they should be protected in some way
from someone.
I first went to the Department of Elections to look at
what their mission was, and the mission is to ensure
every eligible Alaskan has a meaningful opportunity to
cast a ballot and have their ballot counted and to
conduct sure and accurate elections.
To speak to a meaningful opportunity the amendment
before you limits the opportunity of the one family or
both families and a person that has emailed me to do
that, the person would not be able to qualify under
the "Coghill amendment," this is a person who has a
distressful situation happening with a family member
and does not want law enforcement involved, but wants
their data protected by the State of Alaska, they want
the opportunity to cast a vote in a meaningful way.
I went online, and I started searching about voter
privacy and who is actually doing studies in
universities across the world. The one that I'm going
to quote in a moment is by David Maass, dated February
29, 2016 and it is entitled, "Voter Privacy, What You
Need to Know About Your Digital Trail During the 2016
Election," and I did look at other resources too, but
under their section that says, "Public Information."
Many people think voter records are completely
private, so we have a constituency that is growing to
distrust the government that is elected to represent
them. By not allowing individuals the freedom to cast
a vote independently we lose trust with the people
that we've come to represent, and I understand that
campaigns use voter information to gather information
on citizenry and determine whether someone is likely a
voter, maybe likely to vote, that is why I think this
is relevant to this discussion.
A study by Colin Bennett from the University of
Victoria, Canada, "Surveillance and Society," people
are starting to look at whether we are actually in the
U.S. driving voters away from participating in the
process by what is attributed to the U.S. need-to-know
and micro-targeting that is dividing us into to niche
markets and avoiding the hard work of building
consensus and national vision. It arguably creates
parties and candidates that do not convey a general
ideological framework for governments but a series of
carefully focused groups that analyze key messages to
move people one particular direction.
We are helping to polarize American voters by these
micro-targeted singular messages to people, and in
fact, this is exactly what we don't want to do. We
expect as those that are out there asking for people's
vote to engage them in a process and provide a greater
opportunity to debate, but as we continue to
compartmentalize people into small boxes, we are
discouraging the public discourse, the public dialogue
in creating an opportunity to build American
democracy.
4:45:25 PM
SENATOR MACKINNON continued as follows:
Those were the broad statements that I wanted to make.
Personal data is increasingly captured and processed,
there are decisions where Facebook is right now under
fire for data breeches or sharing information with
technology companies that are mining and crosschecking
with other software platforms, individual
idiosyncrasies of everyone in America.
The amendment before you could be done simply with a
sworn statement. By involving law officers, we are
disenfranchising the group of voters that ask me to
come before this body and ask for change. We could do
it with a lower threshold and it is true that 39 other
states have similar concepts to what Senator Coghill's
amendment proposes. I wonder how many others have
constitutionally ensured victim's rights in their
constitution? Victim's rights have been honored by the
people of Alaska in a high regard, higher than any
other state, and on this issue we should lead.
I talked to members of the Network on Domestic
Violence and the Council on Domestic Violence because
we had one person I believe testify or in the room
listening from the network, and what I found was a
little bit sad in the sense that from my conversation
it felt like they wanted to protect the data too,
because they were using that data for campaign or
solicitations for support and other access, and why
that disappoints me is because I've had to rise above
my own personal need for information as a candidate to
come to you and ask you to allow individual voters to
choose to protect, to put up that "no trespass" sign,
to put up, "Please don't contact me about elections or
otherwise, but to respect my wishes."
The Alaska Department of Law can be a scary place for
people that have been stalked or otherwise want to
describe to rape crisis agency or domestic violence
shelter their personal stories. Speaking specifically
to what Senator Giessel said, you will be
revictimizing a person of sexual assault and domestic
violence every time they have to retell their story to
a new individual at the Department of Law to recertify
that indeed they can keep their information away from
those that they don't want to share it with. Senator
Coghill spoke very respectively about serving the
vulnerable first. The vulnerable don't always show up
for support or access and we are disregarding those in
this amendment.
The bill is in your hands, I will leave it to your
good judgement. I don't agree with the amendment, I
believe Alaska should lead on this issue. I understand
the balance of the need to know by the general
population on a voter base and the need for us as
government to reach members that elect us to serve
them.
4:48:43 PM
CHAIR MEYER remarked that it is never easy when there are two
very good and compelling cases. He asked if Senator Coghill had
any comments to make after hearing from Senator MacKinnon.
SENATOR COGHILL replied as follows:
The thing about the senator and I, we have so much in
common on focus, but we just are really strongly
diverted on one particular point on this and that is
the need or the access for the voter's registration
list to be available to those who choose to run for
office, that is probably one place where I feel very
strongly about this. It's like in democracy, you have
both a responsibility and you should have some
security. In many ways I so agree with the senator on
this issue but just for any cause pulling the "no
trespassing" sign up is not something at this point
I'm willing to do because all it does is put your foot
down on one place and it squeezes up in four others.
So, if we really wanted to protect people I wanted an
honest to goodness way to do that that showed that
there were some real issues, and I get if some people
are fearful, that they may not go to the Department of
Law, and that's sad that we live in a day where people
feel like the government is our enemy, I get that. The
reason for having the three-year look into this thing
is because the life circumstances do change and I've
known enough network people and enough advocates to
know that the re-victimization happens in very
different ways than just going for help, that going
for help is usually facilitated by people who want to
help people along their journey, so I don't feel that
that's a very big problem; but, in order to support
this bill I think looking at the confidentiality
program is probably the best way I can get behind the
bill and support it. I think the barrier of having to
buy the list is probably appropriate at that level and
that is an instant protection for those who would buy
the list probably for more nefarious reasons, but it
is true that the voter list is used probably more than
ever before, but when I look at what is going on with
Facebook or Google or almost any other database that's
available, even the grocery stores are, it's pervasive
in our society that we do have to be very careful, but
I don't know that [inaudible] this system out helps us
that much.
So, the ability to reach out to people to communicate
with them, I know it is worrisome, I get that, and I
feel like many times it is manipulative, I get that;
but, people have to be wise and discerning when it
comes to voting and I think the avenue for getting to
a broad range of people, unless there is a compelling
reason. So, I tried to find that compelling reason and
I just didn't buy the lower threshold, I just think
that the higher threshold is more important.
So, this is the senator's bill, I'm trying to add what
I think is my best value to it. I probably would lose
my support on the bill if I can't do something like
this because it's just too broad for me, so this is my
attempt in trying to help out along the way.
4:52:32 PM
CHAIR MEYER remarked that everyone would be surprised about the
personal data being used every time someone uses their Fred
Meyer card.
4:52:58 PM
CHAIR MEYER removed his objection to Amendment 1.
4:53:02 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL objected to Amendment 1.
CHAIR MEYER asked if Senator Giessel would like to address her
objection.
SENATOR GIESSEL specified that her objection relates to the
complexity of Amendment 1 and its three-year renewal process.
CHAIR MEYER agreed with Senator Giessel's early statement that
the amendment creates almost a separate bill.
SENATOR COGHILL pointed out that the bill does go the Senate
Finance Committee where the bill will receive another full
vetting. He emphasized that he did not want to stop the bill in
committee but tried to be productive and thoughtful for the
legislation to work for Alaska.
CHAIR MEYER explained that he allowed additional discussion
because he expects the same discussion to occur again. He said
he was somewhat bothered to pass the bill without a current
fiscal note but noted that the bill would go to the Senate
Finance Committee where the amendment's costs will be closely
analyzed.
CHAIR MEYER announced that an objection to Amendment 1 has been
maintained and asked for a roll call.
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Coghill, Wilson, Egan, and
Chair Meyer voted in favor of Amendment 1 and Senator Giessel
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 passed by a 4:1 vote.
CHAIR MEYER announced that Amendment 1 has been adopted.
4:55:47 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report [CSSB 192(STA)], version 30-
LS1354\D as amended from committee with individual
recommendations and forth coming fiscal notes.
4:56:07 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced there being no objection, the motion
carried.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Commissioner of Administration Leslie Ridle.pdf |
SSTA 3/20/2018 3:30:00 PM |
Confirmation Hearing |
| Personnel Board Al Tamagni.pdf |
SSTA 3/20/2018 3:30:00 PM |
Confirmation Hearing |
| SB 159 Tranmsittal Letter PERS and TRS.pdf |
SSTA 3/20/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/5/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 159 |
| SB 159 Version A.PDF |
SSTA 3/20/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/5/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 159 |
| SB 159 Hearing Request.pdf |
SSTA 3/20/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/5/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 159 |
| SB 159 DOA Presentation in SSTA 3.20.18.pdf |
SSTA 3/20/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/5/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 159 |
| SB 159 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 3/20/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/5/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 159 |
| CS SB 192 Version D.pdf |
SSTA 3/20/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 192 |
| SB 192 Amendment 1.pdf |
SSTA 3/20/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 192 |