Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/17/2017 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| SB100 | |
| HB1 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 1-ELECTION REGISTRATION AND VOTING
1:25:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 1, "An Act relating to absentee voting, voting,
and voter registration; relating to early voting locations at
which persons may vote absentee ballots; and providing for an
effective date."
[CHAIR CLAMAN passed the gavel to Vice Chair Fansler.]
1:25:37 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, Version 30-LS0070\U.3,
Bullard, 4/17/17, which read as follows:
Page 2, following line 27:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 15.07.060(b) is amended to read:
(b) Every registration form must include space
for an applicant who is registered in another
jurisdiction to specify that jurisdiction and a notice
that the director will notify the chief elections
officer in that jurisdiction. If the applicant has
been previously registered to vote in another
jurisdiction, the director shall notify the chief
elections officer in that jurisdiction that the
applicant has registered to vote in Alaska and request
that that jurisdiction cancel the applicant's voter
registration there."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected for purposes of discussion.
1:25:51 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that the purpose of Amendment 1 is to
make certain a space was provided for an applicant who may have
moved to Alaska from another state to indicate on their
registration form their previously registered jurisdiction, with
the understanding the jurisdiction would be notified that the
individual had now moved to Alaska and no longer wished to
participate in elections in that jurisdiction. Amendment 1, he
reiterated, allows people who have moved from another state to
Alaska to express their intent to solely vote in Alaska and not
elsewhere.
1:27:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed to the voter registration
application form and noted that question 14, read as follows:
14. I am registered to vote in another state, cancel my
registration in ..."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she looked for the same language on
the absentee in-person ballot and the language was not included.
Yet interestingly, HB 1, Sec. 2. AS 15.07.060(a)(5), page 2,
lines 12-14, read as follows:
(5) a statement of whether the applicant has
previously been registered to vote in another
jurisdiction, and, if so, the jurisdiction and the
address of the previous registration;
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that the language was already
required, and yet it was not included on the absentee in-person
ballot.
1:28:30 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN answered that currently the absentee in-person
ballot does not register a person to vote, and wouldn't be
required. Although, he pointed out, with the same day
registration it would need to be incorporated.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX disagreed and she explained that a person
can actually register to vote through an absentee in-person
ballot because a person would not complete a registration first
and then have to complete an absentee in-person ballot. She
described it as a "one meal deal."
1:28:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN offered concern that it appeared [the division] was
"doing it" but no one could point to the authorizing statute.
The reason for Amendment 1 was the authority should be in
statute in order to have statutorily required consistency.
Rather, he said, than a department regulation and the current
appearance the language to be included was provided
inconsistently.
1:29:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that the language was not
included in the absentee in-person ballot, and that the ballot
can serve as a voter registration application form. Yet, she
noted, the information requirement is included in AS
15.07.060(a), page 2, lines 4-5, which read as follows:
(a) Each applicant who requests registration or
reregistration shall supply the following information:
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to AS 15.07.060(a)(5), page 2,
lines 12-14, which read as follows:
(5) a statement of whether the applicant has
previously been registered to vote in another
jurisdiction, and, if so, the jurisdiction and the
address of the previous registration;
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that AS 15.07.060(a)(5) is
current language in statute and she was unsure whether this
amendment was necessary. Although her concern, she remarked,
was why the law wasn't being followed.
1:30:55 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to Sec. 2, AS 15.07.060, and reiterated
that the provision discusses the applicant and what they are
supposed to do, and yet clearly it was not being performed
consistently because it was not included on the absentee in-
person ballot application but it was included on the voter
registration application. The intent of Amendment 1, he
advised, was to be certain the language was included in all of
the [relevant] forms and that the requirement was in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed to Sec. 2, AS 15.07.060(a)(5), and
argued that it is currently required in statute. Although, she
advised, she was having difficulty understanding, if the
division had not bothered to follow current law, why it would
follow the law any better with the adoption of Amendment 1. She
said she would like to hear from the Division of Elections.
CHAIR CLAMAN argued that Sec. 2, AS 15.07.060 in the bill
applies to each applicant because the applicant provides the
information, not the division. The requirement for the
division, under Amendment 1 would require the division, is to
the forms it provides, he explained.
1:32:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said she agreed with Representative
LeDoux in that the requirement was in statute and the Division
of Elections had not followed the statute related to the
absentee in-person ballot application serving as the voter
registration application.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Amendment 1, page 1, lines 5-
6, which read as follows:
(b) ... notice that the director will notify the
chief elections officer in that jurisdiction.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the amount of the fiscal note and
the impact to the Division of Elections in notifying those
jurisdictions.
1:34:34 PM
JOSIE BAHNKE, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, responded to Representative LeDoux's
question regarding the voter qualification, under AS 15.05.010,
which read as follows:
AS 15.05.010. Voter Qualification. A person may vote
at any election who
(1) is a citizen of the United States;
(2) is 18 years of age or older;
(3) has been a resident of the state and of the
house district in which the person seeks to vote
for at least 30 days just before the election;
and
(4) has registered before the election as
required under AS 15.07 and is not registered
to vote in another jurisdiction.
MS. BAHNKE explained that these absentee voters must be
registered voters in order to apply for an absentee ballot,
under voter qualification in statute.
1:35:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX advised that she had registered people
with "this" application, and she had been assured by the
division on numerous occasions that an absentee in-person ballot
application suffices as a voter registration application. She
asked whether Ms. Bahnke was speaking to the contrary of her
understanding.
MS. BAHNKE responded "No."
1:36:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX advised that her question then become as
follows, according to AS 15.07.060(a), on voter registration
forms there is to be a statement of whether the voter was
registered to vote in another jurisdiction, and, if so, what
jurisdiction and the address. Representative LeDoux then
pointed to the State if Alaska Voter Registration Application
form question 14, and paraphrased as follows, "I am registered
to vote in another state, cancel my registration in: ... " and
she said that it lists the city, state, country, and zip code.
She said she had always been told the Division of Elections
provides that information to the other state in which the person
was registered, and the person could no longer vote in the other
jurisdiction once the person registered in Alaska.
Representative LeDoux asked why the form did not follow the AS
15.07.060(a) requirement, and pointed out that this was a
problem long before Ms. Bahnke became the director of the
Division of Elections.
1:38:40 PM
MS. BAHNKE deferred to Carol Thompson, Absentee Petition Manger,
and surmised that Representative LeDoux's concern was regarding
the inconsistency across the different application forms.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stressed concern that while the language
was correctly included on the voter registration application
form, it did not appear on the absentee in-person ballot
application form. Her concern, she expressed, was that the
language was not included correctly and consistently on both
forms.
1:39:29 PM
CAROL THOMPSON, Absentee & Petition Manager, Absentee & Petition
Office, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, responded to
Representative LeDoux and advised that in accordance with AS
15.20.081, a person applying for an absentee by mail ballot must
be a qualified registered voter at the time they apply, and the
division does use the absentee in-person ballot application as a
form of voter registration. However, she explained, the issue
becomes that the language relies upon the voter to also step
forward and cancel their registration, and the amendment could
clarify if Representative LeDoux saw this as an issue.
1:40:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented, if that is the position the
Division of Elections was taking, that the division would not
think there was any obligation now that this issue had been
pointed out to the division, the amendment was necessary.
MS. THOMPSON related that it would be the director's decision as
to whether she wanted to add that language to the form in the
future.
1:40:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised that every voter application
form has a space where the person swears and affirms their
information was current, and so forth. She asked whether that
language was included on the absentee in-person ballot, and
whether that works in the same manner in which Amendment 1 and
the statute requires.
MS. THOMPSON answered "Yes."
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT noted that she just looked at the
absentee in-person ballot language and the person must sign an
oath, which read as follows: "... I am not registered to vote in
another state, or I have taken the necessary steps to cancel
that registration. ..." and that they fit all of the
requirements to be a qualified Alaska voter. She asked whether
that was on the absentee in-person ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that the certification is on
both forms. Whereas, the traditional voter registration
application had a space that clearly set out that the person was
canceling their registration, and it is included in "super small
print" on the absentee application.
1:42:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised that Amendment 1 required that
that specific language be included on every form permitting
someone to provide information as to their other voter
jurisdiction, rather than swearing the oath. In the event the
amendment passed, she asked whether the language to disclose
where a person was last registered would be included on every
single voter application and ballot. She asked whether
Amendment 1 would add an additional space on every single form
and application to self-disclose.
MS. BAHNKE answered in the affirmative, and offered that the
division is currently reviewing all of its forms, and
understanding Representative LeDoux's concern, the division
would certainly take a look at the consistency issue throughout.
She advised that the forms are changed in off-numbered years to
address concerns and whether the amendment passes or not, the
division would take a look at this issue and take it under
advisement.
1:44:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that Ms. Thompson's testimony ended
with the statement that it was up to the division director as to
whether the form would be changed, and said he would like a
commitment from the director that the form would be changed
because that was what the law required.
MS. BAHNKE answered in the affirmative.
1:44:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that the legislature would be
giving the newly registered people the option of putting this
information on the form, and asked whether that was an optional
or mandatory requirement, and to explain any consequences.
MS. BAHNKE replied that it is not illegal to be registered to
vote in two different states, but it is illegal to actually vote
in two different states. She commented that the Division of
Elections recently completed its annual search through the
division's membership with the Electronic Registration
Information Center (ERIC), and explained that ERIC matches
searches with 21 other states to identify dual registrations and
then contacts those voters.
1:46:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the statement that it was not
illegal to be registered in two states, and pointing to the oath
the person signed when filling out the application, asked
whether it was optional for the person to indicate whether they
were currently registered in another state.
MS. BAHNKE responded that the division would not accept a voter
registration without a signature, if that was his question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it was a person's choice to
include information regarding their other voter jurisdiction, or
was it that no one would check the information.
MS. BAHNKE said she did not understand his question.
1:47:33 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER asked whether there was a penalty for people
who fill out the form but do not declare they are registered in
another state.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said Vice Chair Fansler was not quite
correct, and said he would like to know whether it was optional
or mandatory, and in the event it was mandatory, to explain
mandatory.
1:47:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she could possibly assist, referred
to AS 15.07.060(a) and paraphrased as follows: "Each applicant
who requests registration or reregistration SHALL supply the
following information." Therefore, she pointed out, "shall"
means that it is mandatory that people disclose the information
as to whether or not they were registered to vote in another
jurisdiction. Nothing on the form states that it is mandatory,
she explained, except the statute states that it is mandatory.
1:49:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to the statement that it was not
illegal to be registered in two different states, it was illegal
to vote in two different states. She offered a scenario of a
person believing they were not registered in another state yet
they were registered, and asked whether that was illegal because
she is registered in Texas and Alaska.
1:50:07 PM
LIBBY BAKALAR, Assistant Attorney General, Transportation
Section, Department of Law, noted that the discussion relates to
the interaction between the following two statutes, AS
15.05.010(4) and AS 15.07.030 voter qualification and who may
register, respectively. She explained that AS 15.05.010(4)
voter qualification provides, and paraphrased, "A person may
vote at any election who is a citizen of the United States, is
18 years or older, has been a resident of the state ... and, (4)
has registered before the election as required under AS 15.07,
and is not registered to vote in another jurisdiction."
Therefore, she explained, in order to be a qualified voter in
this state, the person must not be registered in another
jurisdiction, currently provided under voter qualification. She
opined that when Ms. Bahnke stated it was not illegal to be
registered in two states but was illegal to double vote, Ms.
Bahnke referred to AS 15.07.030(a), which read as follows:
(a) A person who has the qualifications of a voter as
set out in AS 15.05.010(1) - (3) or who will have the
qualifications at the succeeding primary or general
election is entitled to be registered as a voter in
the precinct in which the person resides.
1:51:35 PM
MS. BAKALAR indicated that was an order to not criminalize the
act of failing to un-register in the other state. Duplicate
voting is not permissible and requires a level of intentionality
and a mindset contemplated in the criminal portions of the
election code dealing with election crimes, she explained. The
reason paragraph (4) was left out of AS 15.07.030, the
registration statute, was to prevent accidentally criminalizing
a mistake or a clerical issue. The administrative purpose of
the match is to make certain the voter roll list maintenance is
maintained so that people do not remain registered in two
different states. A person is not considered a qualified voter
in Alaska if the person is also registered in another
jurisdiction, she said.
1:52:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised that this bill would make it
same day voter registration and voting.
MS. BAKALAR said that was her understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised that in doing so, this would
allow someone to same day register and vote, "and that's your --
that's your timestamp," but the person may still be registered
to vote in another jurisdiction with no penalty even though the
statute read "shall." Representative Millett commented there
was confusion in the process because "before a person had to
register within 30 days" with the opportunity to cancel their
registration in another jurisdiction, but now the person was
same day registering and voting while registered to vote in
another jurisdiction.
MS. BAKALAR said she could see the gap Representative Millet
referred, and deferred to the sponsor.
1:54:27 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, said the piece being discussed is the attestation,
signing and dating that the person's information on the form is
true and correct. She said, that as she reads this, the person
certifies under the penalty of perjury, and if the information
was untrue the person broke the law, and that piece is not being
changed. She referred to the State of Alaska Voter Registration
Application, which read as follows:
Voter Certificate. Read and sign: I certify, under
penalty of perjury, that the above information I
provided on this document is true and correct. I am
not registered to vote in another state, or I have
provided information to cancel that registration. I
further certify that I am a resident of Alaska and I
have not been convicted of a felony, or having been so
convicted, have been unconditionally discharged from
incarceration, probation and/or parole.
Warning: If you provide false information on this
application you can be convicted of a misdemeanor AS
15.56.050.
1:55:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT offered a scenario of someone forgetting
to un-register in Texas and votes in Alaska, she asked the
consequences after the person signed the attestation and the
Division of Elections found out they were registered in another
state. She asked, which state would prosecute for perjury and
whether their vote counted.
1:56:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, answered
that most likely the Department of Law would pursue the perjury
allegation. Under this bill, he explained, regarding same day
voter registration, that ballot would not be verified until the
time of counting votes. Under a bill passed last year, he said,
at the time of counting ballots, the Division of Elections has
avenues to verify whether or not someone was registered to vote
in another jurisdiction. Therefore, prior to the ballot being
counted, he explained, the division will verify whether or not
that person -- "so that ballot will not get counted down
ballot." However, he pointed out, if the person is a United
States citizen and registered to vote in the State of Texas, for
example, they will still be able to vote the "top of the ballot"
for the presidency of the United States. Nevertheless, he
continued, if they are an Alaska resident and moved from Bethel
to Fairbanks outside of a senate district, they would be able to
vote for the presidency of the United States, governor of
Alaska, and any other statewide election, whether U.S. Senate or
the U.S. House of Representatives. He reiterated, that the
ballot will be verified at the time the ballot is reviewed,
there is a process for questioned ballots and absentee ballots,
and that process will remain the same.
1:58:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised that every questioned ballot or
absentee ballot goes through the review process of checking
databases of other states to ascertain whether the person was
registered in another jurisdiction. She asked whether all
states are checked.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that he was unclear as to how long
the process had been ongoing, but the process is currently
happening under a bill passed last year. For example, he said,
when a person votes at one of the six early voting locations,
the ballot can be verified "real time" as those locations have
the capability to verify. Although, he pointed out, those
capabilities are not available [at the locations] for early
voting in-person absentee voting, and those ballots would be
verified prior to being counted.
1:59:30 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER commented to Representative Millett that her
questions actually pertained to the main bill and not
necessarily the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT commented that no one had answered her
question as to whether the ballot was valid if the person was
registered [in another state], and whether that ballot counts.
The whole idea here, she opined, is that Alaska does not want
people voting in Alaska and registered to vote in another state
because the form asks the person to verify they had canceled
their voter registration in the other jurisdiction. How many
times that had happened, she asked, and what happened to the
ballot of the person still registered in another state.
2:00:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK reiterated that that ballot would not be
counted completely. He referred to his earlier explanation that
the ballot would be a partial ballot count depending upon all of
the conditions the division was able to verify, so it would be
conditional.
2:00:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to Ms. Kloster's comment that
the person would be committing perjury and the person did not
realize they were still registered, what agency prosecutes the
person.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK reiterated that the ballot would still be
counted because the person was still allowed to vote. He
reiterated that the Department of Law would have to pursue the
issue, except due to the state's fiscal crisis, and the fact
that no fraud was committed other than the perjury, he was
unsure whether the Department of Law would actively pursue that
perjury prosecution.
2:02:35 PM
MS. BAKALAR responded to Representative Millet's question
regarding perjury prosecutions and advised that all prosecutions
for suspected election fraud are referred to the Office of
Special Prosecutions and Appeals in the Criminal Division of the
Department of Law (DOL). She said that within the division's
list maintenance process, it attempts to determine to what
extent [perjury may have been committed]. For example, an
elderly person may forget they voted absentee and then go to the
polling place and vote again, and it is caught later. She
explained the ballots go through a fairly rigorous audit during
by ballot counting process, and the State Review Board also
performs a rigorous audit. She further explained the process in
that a determination, such as duplicate voting or a potential
perjury registration, was made, the Division of Elections then
advises the Civil Division of the Department of Law representing
the Division of Elections as to the suspected fraud, it is then
referred to the Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals for
follow up.
2:04:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked how the number of voters involved
in suspected perjury due to the certification and registration
in another jurisdiction issue.
MS. BAKALAR answered that there have not been very many as it is
not a common prosecution nor is it a common allegation or
concern. Although, she said she would have to speak with the
Criminal Division, and reiterated that it is not common.
2:05:00 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN reiterated that the current forms used by the
Division of Elections are inconsistent because the [attestation]
on the [voter registration application] form specifically read:
"I am not registered to vote in another state, or I have
provided information to cancel that registration," question 14
on that form read, "I am registered to vote in another state,
cancel my registration in: ..." and the person indicates their
other jurisdiction.
CHAIR CLAMAN then referred to the [attestation] on the special
needs ballot, absentee in-person ballot, and questioned ballot,
and said they have slightly different language, and he read, "I
am not registered to vote in another state, or I have taken the
necessary steps to cancel that registration."
2:06:00 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN offered that during the preparation of Amendment 1,
he had a long discussion with Legislative Legal and Research
Services who advised that "We, in Alaska, cannot force another
state to un-register somebody," and that Alaska could only offer
the address of the person previously living in that
jurisdiction. Also, he pointed out, most people would not know
how to un-register from a state. His concern, he said, was that
the legislature put honest and diligent people who wanted to
vote in Alaska in a place where they were arguably committing
perjury by stating they had taken the necessary steps to cancel
their registration. The intent of Amendment 1 is to make
abundantly clear, on any division form with the effect of
registering a person, to have a space to fill in information
regarding their other jurisdiction, which then allows those
voters to believe they had taken the steps to cancel their
registration in the other jurisdiction. As to the question of
whether or not filling in the information would result in
canceling, he said he could not say for sure because he did not
know how often the division would call a person advising to
"cancel this and cancel that." Chair Claman stressed he does
not want Alaska's legitimate voters to be prosecuted for perjury
or anything else because the process of canceling a registration
from one state to the next state was imperfect.
2:08:24 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that the second part of the amendment
emphasizes that the division must be certain this language is
included on every form, recognizing that currently when a voter
completes the information regarding their other jurisdiction,
the division can provide the information to the other
jurisdiction, but it does not have authority to actually cancel
that registration.
2:09:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed to the criminal penalties, recognizing the
notion that people have a right to register in all of the
states, but can vote in only one state. Those folks, he
commented, are on the margins of engaging in criminal behavior
and there is no need to have some form that protects their
ability to register, and this amendment re-enforces that issue.
2:09:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to military families and the
fact that they move often, and advised that the legislature
should make clear Alaska's expectation of the voter, especially
when discussing perjury.
Under current statute, a person "shall" provide information and
that language needs to be reflected consistently on the
registration forms. He then paraphrased, "that the director
shall notify the chief election's officer in that jurisdiction"
and noted that in some instances only 21 states were involved.
He asked whether the division consistently contacted chief
election officers in all 50 states.
MS. BAHNKE responded in the affirmative, and she advised that
when the division receives notification from a registration
form, it contacts that state regardless of its affiliation with
the ERIC program.
2:12:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that this amendment basically
clears up the confusion, and the committee could stay here until
August and argue about what the division should do, and what the
language means, but this amendment is clarifying language. She
referred to the statement that a person "You can be registered
in two jurisdictions, that you can't just vote, and that's
perfectly legal" and commented that all of these forms state
that the person must report that they are not registered in
another jurisdiction. Representative Ledoux pointed out a
certain amount of mens rea is involved here and simply because a
voter forgot to fill out the cancelation or tried to cancel and
it didn't work out, that they would be prosecuted for fraud, and
it doesn't necessarily mean it is legal.
2:14:13 PM
MS. BAKALAR responded that this statute was written in a manner
that "tries to walk that line." AS 15.07.030 seems to
intentionally exempt AS 15.05.010(4) from its scope, and she
paraphrased as follows: "or will have the qualifications at the
succeeding election is entitled to be registered." She opined
that these two statutes are trying to walk that line between
prosecuting real instances of fraud, and not capturing in that
net those who just forgot to un-register or do not have any
fraudulent intent behind their voting practices. She explained
that the overall theme of the statutes are as follows: residency
in the state, have an investment in this state to vote in this
state, and a person cannot duplicate vote. She remarked that
due to the tight schedules and timing issues around the
elections, it is impossible to capture a perfect snapshot in the
statute of every moment in time leading up to the election, to
the act of voting, and to the act of ballot counting. She said
she does not think it is clearly illegal to be dual registered
for the reasons she just discussed, but she also thought the
statutes clearly did not contemplate a person registered in
another state voting in this state, and having that ballot
count.
2:15:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered a scenario of someone retaining
their voter registration in Florida and also registered to vote
in Alaska, and the person then decides to vote in the Florida
primary because it was a more important state in the primary
election, and then votes in Alaska in the general election. She
asked whether that was legal.
2:16:22 PM
MS. BAKALAR answered that she did not think that was exactly
legal and commented that this is getting a bit complicated.
Essentially, she reiterated, the statutes currently read under
AS 15.05.010, and paraphrased as follows: "a person may vote at
any election who is a citizen of the United States, is 18 years
or older, has been a resident of this state and the house
district in which the person seeks to vote for at least 30 days
just before the election." She commented that this bill would
change that, and continued paraphrasing, "and (4) has registered
before the election as required under AS 15.07, and is not
registered to vote in another jurisdiction." This, she pointed
out is the issue of timing she had previously discussed and,
presumably, if they meet these qualifications at the time they
cast their ballot, they have cast a valid ballot. Not every
statute, she pointed out, can perfectly catch up with every
moment in time, but the overall requirement of the statute is
that a person is not supposed to game the system and vote from
state to state within the same election. She reiterated that
the voter is supposed to meet certain constitutional and
statutory residency requirements, and of course a person is not
ever supposed to duplicate vote in the same election.
Essentially, she remarked, the overall theme here is the
retention of an investment in Alaska, and an intent to remain
here under the residency statute.
2:17:54 PM
MS. BAKALAR referred to Representative Eastman's question
regarding residency and explained that a reason the statute
under AS 15.05.020, rules for determining residence of voter, is
flexible is because Alaska does have many transient folks moving
in and out including many military families, and the person must
have an intent to remain in Alaska. She described that the
Alaska has one of the "looser residency requirements" for voter
residency for that reason. The bottom line is that the person
must meet constitutional and statutory qualifications to legally
vote and have their vote count, and the statutes do a fair job
of that already.
2:18:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked the length of time between the voter
turning in their registration form, and the time it took to
cancel their registration.
MS. BAHNKE replied that it depends upon the time of year because
the division receives a high volume of applications at the 30
day cutoff date, and the division's priority at that time is
registering people to vote. She estimated that it would be
within 30 days for the process.
2:20:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Ms. Bahnke to affirm that it is
always within 30 days.
MS. BAHNKE related that she was unaware of any instances when it
was longer than 30 days, but she would have to research that
question.
2:20:54 PM
BRIAN JACKSON, Elections Program Manager, Division of Elections,
Office of the Lieutenant Governor, advised that the division
runs a report every month for the voters identified as
registered in another state, and the division then sends
notifications to the various states. The process is run usually
around the third day of the month, each month, he explained.
2:21:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to a person registering to vote
30 days before the election, and said that if the report was run
once a month, there was a good chance the time it would take for
the division to send the information to the other jurisdiction
and the other jurisdiction to un-register that person, the time
period may be longer than 30 days.
MR. JACKSON acknowledged there was the possibility of that delay
for the un-registration in the other jurisdiction.
2:22:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered concern that the fear of a
misdemeanor and perjury for oil and gas employees, transient
people, and snowbirds was "freaking me out," and requested an
explanation of the perjury situation and whether the misdemeanor
was a class A or B.
MS. BAKALAR reiterated that would be a determination for the
Criminal Division of the Department of Law to make upon referral
by the Division of Elections when it suspects fraudulent
conduct. Again, she said, these prosecutions are rare and she
could think of possibly two or three times a year when the
division had contacted the Civil Division of the Department of
Law advising that something may be up with duplicate
registration or voter, or petition of fraud, so forth, and the
information forwarded to Criminal Division to investigate.
Under Title 15.56 there are a series of election crimes, and in
addition to the standard perjury there is voter misconduct in
the first and second degree. She opined that first degree
misconduct is a class C felony and second degree voter
misconduct is a class A misdemeanor. She explained that,
relevant to this discussion, the statute provides that a person
commits the crime of voter misconduct in the second degree if
the person registers to vote without being entitled to register
under AS 15.07.030, and the statute goes on to include a couple
of other things as well. Registering to vote when a person is
not entitled to register is a class A misdemeanor, but the
Criminal Division should verify this information. Again, she
said, there must be a mens rea intent element as opposed to a
forgetful senior having accidentally voted twice, especially due
to the absentee ballot and the time lapse between absentee and
poll voting, or a neglected registration, duplicate registration
or something similar. Again, she said, an element of malice
must be present for a criminal prosecution under this scenario.
2:26:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she definitely believes that the
committee should include "with the intention to commit perjury"
or something similar so people do not accidentally end up in
trouble. She referred to Amendment 1, page 1, lines 5-6, which
read as follows:
(b) ... the director will notify the chief
elections officer in that jurisdiction. If the
applicant has been previously registered to vote in
another jurisdiction, the director shall notify the
chief elections officer in that jurisdiction that the
applicant has registered to vote in Alaska and request
that that jurisdiction cancel the applicant's voter
registration there."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that this language may produce
a labor intensive workload because one thousand people in her
district move in and out every election, and her district has a
high turnout. She related that she would think this would cause
a significant fiscal note, either for the Department of Law for
the prosecutions or the Division of Elections.
MS. BAKALAR responded that without consulting the Criminal
Division she could not speak to the fiscal note that could
attach. Again, she said, prosecutions in this area are
infrequent, and based upon past experience she wouldn't imagine
it would be a large Department of Law fiscal note. As far as
the division's fiscal note she deferred to Mr. Jackson.
2:28:58 PM
MR. JACKSON referred to the amendment and said he was unsure it
would be "a whole lot more work on the division," since the
division already notifies the chief elections officers in other
jurisdictions for those applicants who indicated they were
registered in another jurisdiction.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said "So, don't come back with a
supplemental."
2:30:25 PM
MS. BAHNKE pointed out that the division did not receive the
amendment until arriving at the meeting this afternoon and it
had not had an opportunity to fully vet the fiscal note,
although, the committee does have a second version, draft fiscal
note. Within the original version of HB 1, explained in the
fiscal note, there were programming costs to change the voter
registration and election management system to accommodate for
electronic signatures. The fiscal note was zeroed out, she
explained, due to resolving the electronic signature issue. She
advised that the division worked closely with the sponsor of
this bill, it provided a detailed bill analysis, there were
several internal meetings within the division, and it continues
to work with the sponsor and staff in moving through this
process. She pointed to Amendment 1, and reiterated they had
not had a chance to fully evaluate whether it would require a
fiscal note, but as Mr. Jackson indicated it would probably not
if it was in line with the division's current process in its
course of business.
2:31:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how voters were able to un-register
when moving out-of-state.
MS. BAHNKE explained that a voter can go to
voterregistration.Alaska.gov and change their information.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised there was a place on the website
to mark which would un-register them from the State of Alaska.
MS. BAHNKE answered in the affirmative.
2:32:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the process of the Division of
Elections to communicate that information to other states.
MS. BAHNKE answered that letters are directed to the other
states that include the name of the voter, and other identifiers
that were provided by the voter, and the division also receives
letters from other states.
MS. BAHNKE, in response to Representative Eastman, pointed out
that as Mr. Jackson had previously indicated, the division
forwards correspondence on a monthly basis, and the division
receives information from other states approximately once per
week to once per month, it varies.
2:34:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether the division needed time
to vet the fiscal note.
MS. BAHNKE replied that, currently, it did not appear that
additional time was necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether the DOL and Division of
Elections supports this amendment.
MS. BAHNKE responded, "We have no objection to the amendment."
2:34:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised that with Chair Claman's
amendment, the language would read, "I am registered to vote in
another state, cancel my registration" on every form.
[No audible response.]
2:34:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered a conceptual amendment that he
said would speak to the form itself, wherein currently
information was required if a person was registered in Texas,
for example. Although, he commented, in the event the person
did not fill out that information, the division would still
process the information and registration as though the person
had a Texas voter registration. He then referred to Amendment
1, page 1, lines 4-5, and suggested deleting the word "for" and
inserting the word "requiring," which would then read as
follows:
(b) Every registration form must include
space requiring an applicant who is registered in
another jurisdiction to specify ...
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that the language would put it in
line with current statutes requiring that information, and it
would signal to the division that the legislature clearly
required that information, and that it was not an optional
question due to legal implications and perjury.
2:36:49 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER asked Chair Claman's thoughts as to
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
CHAIR CLAMAN said that while he appreciates the spirit within
which Representative Eastman proposed this amendment, except
part of his intent in creating the amendment was to not add more
requirements onto Alaska's citizens. He related that any
rational citizens would provide that information, the word "for"
gets us there.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that he was not interested in
adding any new requirements, this conceptual amendment would
make clear that within current statute the division is already
required to provide that information. He opined that by leaving
the word "for" it left the question open to interpretation, and
if voters had not read the other requiring statutes, they may
think it was optional, and it is not optional.
2:37:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to the current form, and paraphrased as
follows: "They are swearing that they are not registered to vote
in another state, or they have provided information to cancel
that registration." Therefore, he said, with the word
"required," the forms would have to be changed even more in
addition to the asterisks depicting confidential information, it
would require another signal advising, "This is required." He
related that the current form works well, and his intent was to
simply keep the language uniform across the various forms. He
offered concern that "requiring" ups the ante in some manner
that would result in an unintended consequence, and he does not
support Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
2:39:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1.
[CHAIR CLAMAN objected within his explanation of non-support.]
2:39:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT opined that this conceptual amendment
would be a requirement for the people registered in another
jurisdiction to un-register. People are confused, she opined,
because they do not read the statutes, and this conceptual
amendment advises the voters they fulfilled a statutory
requirement. The language would be included in all of the
relevant forms so every voter understands that a requirement of
Alaska is that a person not be registered in another
jurisdiction, she said.
2:40:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that the language within
Amendment 1 already states that requirement, and simply requires
that the division include language on every relevant form that
states: "I'm registered to vote in another state, cancel my
registration" and that the voter certification states "That I
provided -- that I'm not registered to vote in another state, or
I've provided information to cancel that registration." She
described that this discussion was arguing about how Legislative
Legal and Research Services should draft this amendment, and
commented that she was happy with its current drafting.
Amendment 1 requires the division to put the language previously
discussed on the ballots, she pointed out, and the committee was
at the place it wanted to be because it requires the division to
put "all of this stuff" on the ballots.
2:41:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Bakalar, in the event
this conceptual amendment potentially made the language and
understanding of current laws more parallel and consistent,
whether the Department of Law shared that perspective.
MS. BAKALAR agreed that this is a draftsmanship question and the
manner in which Legislative Legal and Research Services goes
about creating consistency in the statutes. The statute does
state, "Every registration form must include space for an
applicant who is registered in another jurisdiction to specify
that jurisdiction." [Ms. Bakalar emphasized the word "must."]
In the event the committee changed the language from "for" to
"requiring," it may imply that the form could or should be
rejected by the division for failure to have that piece filled
out. As far as consistency, for example, "director will notify"
rather than "shall" but then the next sentence has "shall" -
these are draftsmanship questions. She noted that each time
there is an effort to implement a statute, no matter how many
times the bill was heard and discussed, often there was
misinterpretation, and the goal here is to minimize that and not
eliminate it entirely. She then deferred to Legislative Legal
and Research Services as to how that happens in a manner
consistent with drafting conventions.
2:43:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she supports Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 1 because the state needs to do its part to make
certain that citizens are informed they may be at risk of a
misdemeanor or committing perjury. She asked whether this
conceptual amendment would have a fiscal impact due to forms
being changed.
MS. BAHNKE reiterated that the division is currently in the
process of revising its forms, and the effective date of HB 1 is
1/1/2018. Therefore, she said, the division could make this
change to make it consistent across the board which is an
administrative activity which would not require a fiscal note.
2:46:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for verification that Ms. Bahnke
would require zero money.
MS. BAHNKE reiterated that the division has no opposition to
this amendment, however, division will evaluate the amendment
and revise it prior to the next committee of referral. She said
that in receiving the amendment at this hearing and not having
an opportunity to thoroughly evaluate she was not willing to
definitively state the fiscal note would not be revised.
2:48:24 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN maintained his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that in his capacity as a voter
registrar, people have asked what information on the form was
required. This conceptual amendment adds clarity on the voter
registration application form, question 14, by making clear that
the information is required, with an identifier to indicate that
a certain question was optional, which the division could
accomplish during its next iteration of forms. He said he would
like to hear from the director that "that's what's going to
happen."
2:50:11 PM
MS. BAHNKE answered that everything included on the voter
registration application is required, and each asterisk
indicates the items to be kept confidential. Under current law,
the only confidential information that may not be necessarily
included on the form is the person's entire social security
number because the division requires only the last four numbers,
she said.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER urged Representative Eastman to work with the
Division of Elections during its revision process.
2:51:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to the voter registration
application, question 8, noting that the following was not
required and paraphrased as follows: "I am interested in serving
as an election official. And, question 9, to add your daytime
phone number, evening phone number, and email." She said that
she guessed that was the confusion of what is required and not
required. However, "not being not registered in another state"
is required, and Representative Eastman's point was to indicate
what is and is not required, she reiterated, and the conceptual
amendment adds clarity to the voter registration application.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER reiterated that many of these good ideas
could be worked out with the Division of Elections.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT commented that this is a good time to
have these conversations.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she had a ten second comment.
2:53:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN called for the question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER called for a roll call vote on the call for
the question.
2:54:02 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins,
LeDoux, Fansler, and Claman voted in favor of the call to
question. Representatives Eastman, Reinbold, and Millett voted
against it. Therefore, the call for the question passed by a
vote of 4-3.
2:54:28 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER advised that the next vote was whether
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 should be adopted, and
that the committee was under a call for the question.
2:54:44 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Reinbold,
and Millett voted in favor of the adoption of Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins,
LeDoux, Fansler, and Claman voted against it. Therefore,
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by a
vote of 3-4.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER, in response to Representative Millett's
previous comment, agreed this is the appropriate time to discuss
amendments and that it is fully appropriate to discuss revisions
with the division during its revision process, he guaranteed
that every member would have an opportunity to speak.
2:55:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD called for a point of order, and advised
that Mason's Manual specifically states that members have the
ability to have their voices heard and to sway other members.
She said that if the legislature requires the email and address
[during the registration process], the division would more
likely be able to contact the voters. She stated that this was
an important point and she was denied making her comment out of
rushing, and "hurry up and waste time."
2:56:31 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER ruled on the point of order and explained to
Representative Reinbold that when she had asked to comment there
was an immediate "call to question," which the committee voted
in favor, thereby cutting off debate. He stressed that the
committee followed proper Mason's Manual procedure by moving
straight to the call for the question and voting, he explained.
2:57:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment 1, and explained that it clarified the expectation
that Alaska perform its part in providing voter registration
information to the other states. He explained that Conceptual
Amendment 2 adds the last sentence to Amendment 1, page 1, line
10, to read as follows:
The director shall solicit information from other
jurisdictions concerning registered Alaskan voters who
have registered as voters in those jurisdictions.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the conceptual amendment
speaks to the fact that the legislature is aware Alaska is a
transit state and this conceptual amendment makes that situation
clear and places it in the same statute that discusses "those
other jurisdictions," and what the legislature expects of the
Alaska Division of Elections.
2:59:19 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN objected to Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 1,
and explained that this is an instance in which he 100 percent
agrees with Representative Reinbold's comment about unintended
financial consequences. Chair Claman disagreed that the
legislature should require the Division of Elections, in these
fiscal times, to go forward and solicit information without
advising exactly what information, how much time, how much
money, how many resources, and how many employees to hire to
solicit this information from other jurisdictions. Especially,
he advised, with no knowledge as to whether or not those
jurisdictions would even give the division any of the
information. The framework under which the division would be
compelled and the language, may even suggest that this language
requires the department to go forth and file lawsuits in other
states and require that the other states provide information.
Thereby, he pointed out, costing millions of dollars for
Alaskans because under this conceptual amendment, the word
"shall" is unclear how it would be applied. He stated that he
strongly objects to Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 1
because it puts both a workload burden on the division, and
likely a financial burden in performing what this conceptual
amendment suggests.
3:00:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that she doesn't follow this
conceptual amendment, and surmised that a person is registered
in Alaska but was registered in Texas, and the legislature is
supposed to be asking the Division of Elections to find out what
information from these other jurisdictions.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded that the director had advised
that the division receives information from other jurisdictions
regarding registered voters who leave Alaska and register in
another state. This conceptual amendment would not change the
current process, rather it puts into statute that the
legislature expects that process to continue, and it expects the
division to continue to collaborate in the sharing of
information with other states in removing the names of voters
who have left the state.
3:02:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked the director to respond to
the marginal value of the potential additional statutory
language relative to the division's current process. Alaska is
a member of the ERIC project involving information sharing, and
he asked whether Conceptual Amendment 2 would prompt the
division to do anything it is not already accomplishing, would
it merely enshrine and codify the division's current process,
and what would be the impact of this conceptual amendment on the
division.
MS. BAHNKE noted that Conceptual Amendment 2 implies that the
director would directly solicit information from other
jurisdictions, and she asked the definition of "jurisdictions."
She explained that for the purpose of conducting elections, the
State of Alaska is divided into four different jurisdictions,
and asked whether jurisdiction means across regions or across
states.
3:03:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said that perhaps the greater
clarity on the meaning of jurisdiction would be helpful, and
asked whether the intent of this conceptual amendment would
prompt the division into doing anything beyond its current
process.
MS. BAHNKE commented that the language, "The director shall
solicit the information," is unclear as to whether it meant the
division would instigate some sort of mailing to other states on
an annual or bi-annual basis. Currently, she said, that takes
place on a per occurrence basis such that when the division
hears from a voter, it then contacts the affected state on an as
needed schedule.
3:05:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that "jurisdictions" means other
states, and matches the voter registration application question
14. He requested and explanation of the current process to
invite other states to advise when Alaskan voters have
registered in their state, thereby taking them off the Alaska
voter registration list.
MS. BAKALAR responded that in addition to the ERIC project
matching with other states, and the once a month check Mr.
Jackson previously referred, the division has a voter
registration list maintenance process under AS 15.07.130. The
statute provides that periodically, during the times of the year
the director so chooses but not less than January of each year,
the director will examine the master list and notify the various
voters who have returned mail, or who have not contacted the
division. Contact, she explained, is defined in various ways,
those who have not voted or appeared to vote, or signed a
petition, and such. Periodically, the division looks into death
notices, new registrations, and it then sends out various
postcards, and performs voter roll clean-up in that manner.
Therefore, she pointed out, in addition to the once monthly
check with the other states, there is this minimum annual voter
registration maintenance list under current statute.
3:07:23 PM
The committee recessed to a call of the chair 3:07 p.m. to 4:33
p.m.
4:33:02 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting back to order at 4:33 p.m. Representatives Eastman,
Kreiss-Tomkins, Fansler, and Claman were present at the call to
order. Representative LeDoux arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
4:33:18 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN returned the committee to the motion to adopt
Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 1, and passed the gavel to
Vice Chair Fansler.
4:33:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER reminded the committee that Conceptual
Amendment 2 to Amendment 1, page 1, line 10, inserts a sentence
as follows:
The director shall solicit information from other
jurisdictions concerning registered Alaskan voters who
have registered as voters in those jurisdictions.
4:34:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN reminded the committee that his question
to the division asked the division's current practice [in
contacting other states] with his goal that the state continue
to perform its part [with other jurisdictions]. He opined this
would be the best place in the statutes to instruct the division
to continue [its process].
CHAIR CLAMAN maintained his objection.
4:35:15 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Eastman voted in
favor of the adoption of Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 1.
Representatives Fansler, Kreiss-Tomkins, Claman voted against
it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 1 failed by
a vote of 1-3.
4:35:58 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER returned the committee to the motion to adopt
unamended Amendment 1.
4:36:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Amendment 1, and described
that the language being put into statute advises every
registering voter that the director will notify the chief
elections officer in their relevant jurisdiction [that the voter
was now registered in Alaska]. He opined that is the current
practice and the language would not necessarily lead to any
particular changes.
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to previous testimony, and answered that
Amendment 1, directs the Division of Elections and not the
voters, to make minor changes in the current division forms,
consistent with its current efforts so that the forms are
appropriately adjusted to reflect current reality. Amendment 1
would not reinforce the status quo because areas have been
identified in which the status quo was not adequate, he
explained.
4:37:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Amendment 1, page 1, lines 5-
6, which read as follows:
(b) ... registered in another jurisdiction
to specify that jurisdiction and a notice that the
director will notify the chief elections officer in
that jurisdiction.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked the language on the form puts
forward a notice to voters that the director will notify chief
election officers in other states, and he asked for verification
that the language was new language.
4:38:08 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN reminded Representative Eastman, as discussed
extensively prior to the recess to a call of the chair, the goal
is to place the language contained in voter registration
application question 14 into all relevant forms. He added that
the division testified that the manner in which the language is
phrased in question 14, would appear on all relevant forms.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN argued that all he saw on the current
registration form was, "I am registered to vote in another
state, cancel my registration," and Amendment 1 includes a
notice that the director will notify the chief elections officer
in that jurisdiction. Therefore, if this amendment passed, he
expected there would be new language in question 14, as to the
chief elections officer for whatever state being notified that
the voter is "doing this act or something similar."
CHAIR CLAMAN said that the questions were asked of the division,
it answered his questions completely, he would not speak for the
division, and said, "I can't add more."
4:40:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX withdrew her objection. There being no
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
[VICE CHAIR FANSLER passed the gavel back to Chair Claman.]
4:41:10 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN brought amended HB 1 before the committee
commenting there had been a tremendous amount of discussion, and
asked for final comments.
4:41:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to report HB 1, Version 30-
LS0070\U.3, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
4:42:11 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins,
LeDoux, Fansler, and Claman voted in favor of the passage of HB
1, as amended. Representative Eastman voted against it.
Therefore, HB 1(JUD) was reported out of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee by a vote of 4-1.