Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/21/1994 01:15 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 49 - ABSENTEE BALLOTING BY FAX Number 049 REP. AL VEZEY, Chairman of House State Affairs Committee, testified that HB 49 had been heard extensively in the House State Affairs Committee and had gotten the endorsement from the Division of Elections that the bill is workable. He said there is debate over the fiscal note, not that the fiscal note is not accurate, rather how you would exercise your options as far as buying equipment and hiring people. REP. VEZEY said the purpose of the bill relates to where you have certain people in the service of their country, primarily in the military, others in the diplomatic service, and others of a similar nature who are in essence disenfranchised by the geographical locations of their assignments. He added that HB 49 would eliminate that by using communications, and there is sufficient protection there to prevent fraud, although what is sacrificed is the secrecy of the ballot. Number 098 REP. PORTER said there seems to be some conflict with the constitution as it regards secrecy. He asked if the issue of secrecy being waived by an individual voter was addressed in House State Affairs. Number 115 REP. VEZEY answered yes, and explained that it is not public information, so there is still privacy involved, but at least one public official on each end would have access to the ballot. Number 128 REP. GREEN asked about adequately safeguarding against fraud and asked Rep. Vezey how this would work. Number 146 REP. VEZEY responded that HB 49 is silent on that issue, and it would be worked out administratively. Number 162 REP. GREEN expressed concern that there are alleged improprieties even in the system we have. He said it could lead to a chance of greater improprieties that currently exist. Number 186 REP. VEZEY replied that the State Affairs Committee had asked similar questions, and the level and opportunity for impropriety was very marginal. Number 200 REP. GREEN referred to the fiscal note of $31,000 and asked for an explanation of the cost. Number 205 REP. VEZEY responded that it was a fiscal note from the Division of Elections and he really couldn't say what the actual expenses would be. Number 216 REP. GREEN said the only reason he brought it up was because a fiscal note would indicate that there are going to be additional expenditures, perhaps, and asked if those might then escalate. Number 220 REP. VEZEY replied that the House State Affairs Committee could have justified a zero fiscal note. Number 242 TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Aide to Representative Terry Martin, Prime Sponsor of HB 49, testified that they had worked with the Department of Defense with the main purpose of assisting the military, but also other absentee voters outside of Alaska or the United States. He stated the main idea is that an individual can fax a request for and receive by fax an application, complete an application, and fax that back to the Division of Elections, then have a ballot faxed backed, mark the ballot, and fax the completed ballot back to the Division of Elections if you are out of the United States. Mr. Anderson went on to say that if you are in the United States and an individual's application comes within the legitimate time, which is postmarked seven days prior to the election, and the Division of Elections feels it cannot send out the ballot in time, then they can opt to fax the ballot if you are in the United States but out of Alaska. He added that you must then send the faxed ballot back through the mail. Mr. Anderson explained that the only way an individual would be sending a faxed ballot is if he/she was out of the United States. MR. ANDERSON then cited statistics supporting the concept of HB 49, discussed how it works in other states that have already passed similar legislation, and referred to a legal opinion by Jack Chenoweth, Legislative Counsel for the Legislative Affairs Agency, Division of Legal Services addressing the secrecy issue. Number 322 REP. PORTER addressed the requirement to the Division of Elections to start this process on something that was postmarked seven days before, not necessarily received within the seven days. Number 330 MR. ANDERSON responded that the requirement was not a problem to the sponsor. Number 333 REP. PHILLIPS noted that in the information back-up on the bill there were no opinion papers from municipal clerks, and asked if a position paper had been requested from them. Number 340 MR. ANDERSON replied that he had not. Number 345 REP. PHILLIPS requested that he do so. Number 353 REP. PORTER said in reviewing Jack Chenoweth's opinion, he noted that Montana has a close or similar constitution provision as Alaska relating to privacy, and Montana doesn't seem to have had a problem with the secrecy aspect of the legislation. Number 372 REP. PHILLIPS referred to Mr. Chenoweth's opinion, wherein it states that if the current director of the Division of Elections wants to make changes to the deadline provision, it is allowable. Rep. Phillips asked if that had been specifically discussed in the committee substitute for HB 49. Number 382 REP. PORTER replied that it had not. Number 384 REP. VEZEY indicated that his recollection was that the House State Affairs Committee had debated that issue at length. Number 389 MR. ANDERSON explained that the original bill had a two day postmarked deadline, and presently it's four days in law, and the committee substitute changed it to seven days postmarked. Number 394 REP. PORTER recommended holding HB 49 until position papers had been received from the municipal clerk's. Number 415 JACK CHENOWETH, Legal Counsel, Division of Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, testified that in the time he had to go back through the file, and to quickly look at the states identified a year ago, he was able to find a close analogy to Montana, and he didn't see any problems that had been raised there. He also noted that both Louisiana and Washington also had constitutionally explicit rights to privacy and it didn't stop them from adopting the same kind of approached. Mr. Chenoweth added that Montana statutes were used as the model for HB 49. Number 428 REP. PORTER said he would continue HB 49 to a date to be announced. He then brought up HJR 45.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|