Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/28/1996 08:15 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 349 - ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATION & VOTER REG'N CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called on Diane Shriner, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, to present HB 349. Number 0054 DIANE SHRINER, Elections Outreach Coordinator, Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, thanked Walter Wilcox, Committee Aide, House State Affairs Committee, for his help on the committee substitute (9-GH0051/C). She announced Kathleen Strasbaugh, Department of Law, was also here to answer any questions regarding the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). She explained CSHB 349(STA) (9-GH0051/C) was primarily a housekeeping bill for the Division of Elections. The sections in the bill addressed things that the division already had the capability to do, or had begun to do already. For example, the division did not use paper ballots anymore but instead used ballot cards. The division also did not use magnet tapes and computer centers anymore but instead was on-line. The bill also allowed the concept of voting by FAX. Many of the sections also described the protection of ballot secrecy using a secrecy sleeve. Furthermore, the bill also contained two substantive sections recommended by the Election Transition Policy Team. The first recommended simplifying the role of the personal representative in helping an elderly or disabled person to vote (Sec. 20). The second recommended a pilot project for total by-mail elections where feasible (Sec. 40). She suggested eliminating line 21, page 14, "are located in a rural area of the state and that have no more than 200 registered voters," due to the fact that urban areas might be more conducive or amenable to a pilot project. She reiterated CSHB 349(STA) (9- GH0051/C) was a clean-up bill. She thanked the committee members. The record reflected the arrival of Representative Caren Robinson at 8:20 a.m. Number 0442 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Ms. Shriner what type of procedures would be taken to ensure that the ballot casted by-mail was from the correct person? Number 0468 MS. SHRINER replied the secrecy envelope would be inside an outer- envelope that would contain the voter's signature and identification. The outer-envelope would be checked first to ensure it was from the correct voter. The ballot would then be separated from the outer-envelope and counted separately. Number 0508 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he appreciated that approach. He further wondered, however, what type of procedures would be taken to prevent multiple ballots being cast from the same voter? Number 0559 MS. SHRINER said there was a criminal penalty against voting more than once which would be well publicized. The best way was to check the by-mail ballot against the registered voter rolls to ensure that there was only one acknowledgement of a vote per person. Furthermore, the by-mail election was different than a by-FAX election in that the division would make sure that there was as much advanced notice of the registration deadline in a by-mail election. A ballot would then be mailed to each registered voter which would also help to avoid extra ballots floating around. Number 0646 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said in a rural setting there were more opportunities for fraud. A by-mail election would be on the honor system. He wondered again if there were further safeguards that could be taken. Number 0735 MS. SHRINER said she appreciated his concerns. She did not have all the answers, however. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied at least the department would be on guard for those types of fraudulent activities. Number 0751 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN explained the community of Akiak experienced disillusionment when it participated in a by-mail election. There was mass confusion. The first ballots were incorrect and not everyone received the second round of ballots. He called it a horrifying experience for the community. Consequently, the community did not have any faith in the system now. Furthermore, the division made the determination of the final results. The community, however, did not trust the results and asked for a second election. The division said that was not possible because everything was done according to the books. He explained the community was used to a central voting location. He reiterated the by-mail ballot was confusing to the members of the community. He said the English language was also a problem for many. He was not a fan of a by-mail ballot system. He was opposed to HB 349. He suggested deleting Sec. 40 altogether. He asked Ms. Shriner to further explain the secrecy process. Number 0989 MS. SHRINER apologized to Representative Ivan for the confusion in the Akiak election. A very serious error was made and it was not defensible. Moreover, she explained the secrecy process whereby a person would vote and place the ballot in an envelope. There were no marks of any kind on that envelope. That envelope was placed inside a larger envelope containing the voter's signature and one form of identification, such as, the voter registration number. The division, however, was looking at a way to ensure the privacy of the name on the outer-envelope. It was possible, now, for a person to place that envelope inside another envelope to ensure more privacy, however. When the envelope was received the voter identification was checked to make sure that person was an active registered voter. The ballot was then removed and placed with the rest of the ballots for counting. Furthermore, she reiterated the division did not want to force the pilot project onto any community that did not want to participate. Number 1145 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked if the definition of the term "rural" for the Division of Elections was 200 registered voters or less? Number 1153 MS. SHRINER replied that was just a further qualifier for the pilot program. It was not a definition per say of the division. She reiterated the division felt that qualifying line should be eliminated. Number 1174 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN wondered about the cost incurred for the pilot project. Number 1193 MS. SHRINER stated the Division of Elections submitted a $0 fiscal note. A by-mail election was considered more efficient because poll workers would not need to be hired, for example. She called it a negligible expense. However, she did believe a poll worker's income deserved some attention. Number 1227 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said the rural communities were more comfortable with a central voting location where somebody could answer any questions and concerns of the voter. Number 1291 MS. SHRINER said she respected the position of Representative Ivan's community. She added, however, that even in a by-mail election, an official was designated and available for three weeks prior to the election. The division wanted to provide as much on- site assistance as possible. Number 1330 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER was concerned about the substantive provisions in the bill. It was laudable to involve as many people in an election as possible. However, he felt most would find a way to corrupt the system. He said there were all sorts of opportunities in a by-mail election for corruption. He had a problem with the division mailing unsolicited ballots. The division would not even know if a voter was home, for example. Furthermore, the division would not have a way to verify those signatures. He said it was easy to access signatures in a family, and in the small communities in Alaska, elections were won or lost by a handful of votes. Number 1448 MS. SHRINER thanked Representative Porter for his concerns. The division would look into them further. Number 1463 REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked Ms. Shriner the reactions from the state of Oregon regarding their by-mail election? Number 1486 MS. SHRINER replied the response had been positive, but it was by the people that wanted the process to work. She was not sure if the criticisms were as quick to surface, however. She wanted to research the pros and cons of the election further before providing the results to the committee members. She explained the urban communities liked the election more because it cut down on parking problems, for example. She wanted to look at the concerns and provide an analysis to further ensure the Alaska by-mail election was even more safe and efficient. Number 1543 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON wondered about municipal elections. Number 1554 MS. SHRINER replied the Municipal Code was in a different section than state election law. The division did not mandate the Municipal Code, however, a municipality frequently followed the lead of the division. Number 1589 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated, for clarification, the pilot program would not be imposed on any community, it would have to be requested. Number 1597 MS. SHRINER replied, "yes, absolutely." The division would solicit interested communities followed by an education process. The division did not want to repeat the confusion in the Akiak community. Number 1637 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Shriner what would be the deciding body in a community? Number 1650 MS. SHRINER replied, "I think that's an excellent question." She was not sure of the answer. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if the deciding body would be the municipality, a native corporation, or borough assembly, for example. There would need to be some level of authority to decide to participate in the pilot program. Number 1679 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN thanked Ms. Shriner for her candor and honesty today. He found it refreshing. He announced he agreed with Representative Porter regarding the potential fraudulent opportunities that a by-mail election presented. He wondered if the ballots would be mailed to all the registered voters. Number 1706 MS. SHRINER replied currently the division mailed the ballots to all of the registered voters. Moreover, the division notified the community that the election was coming and encouraged registration before mailing the ballots. Number 1730 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he had serious problems with that system because of the large volume of returned mail from constituents in his district. The system provided plenty of opportunity for fraud. He quoted the saying, "vote early and vote often" applied to this issue. Number 1759 MS. SHRINER said she would ask the other states how they handled the issues raised today and report back to the House State Affairs Committee. Number 1770 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER announced he was about to move to delete Sec. 20 and Sec. 40 from the bill. He cited the fraudulent behaviors in the Chicago election of Mayor Daley. "If an opportunity for fraud is provided, it will be taken," he said. The bill needed to be looked at further. CHAIR JAMES called on Kathleen Strasbaugh, Department of Law. Number 1857 KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, explained a few years ago the legislature adopted the Motor Voter Act. She suggested eliminating the perception that the division purged the voter list too early. She explained voters were not purged but put on an inactive list. The period was perceived to be too short, however, because the ballot was questioned causing an impediment or discouragement from voting. She recommended expanding the time to two full election cycles of four years. Furthermore, the phrase "appear to vote" was vague, according to Jack Chenoweth, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel. It was further defined as "come to the polls, come to an absentee voting station, apply for a mailed ballot, or participate in a mailed election," but the vote must be counted to avoid being purged from the rolls. Moreover, the oath was removed and included a notification that if a voter lied he would be in violation of the criminal statutes. She reiterated the two issues that the division would need to work closely with the Justice Department for clarification were the maintenance of an inactive register list, and the crimes of moral turpitude provisions. She thought the department could persuade the Justice Department that those had never been employed or a problem in this state. She explained the changes in the bill would help the department proceed to the next step. Number 2102 CHAIR JAMES announced she was interested in the amendments Representative Porter mentioned earlier. She said pilot projects needed a parallel system to compare the old way with the new way. Furthermore, she was very excited about any opportunity to ensure a better voter turn out. She cited a mailing in her district last year whereby she sent 2,834 letters to those who did not vote. Of the 2,834, 1,422 were returned not received by the addressee. Therefore, according to the pilot project, 1,422 ballots would have been sent to no one. Moreover, 45 replied they were absent from town, 19 replied they had problems with absentee ballots, 13 replied they did not register on time, and 11 replied they had transportation problems. The responses both supported and questioned the effectiveness of a by-mail election. She was interested in a by-mail election process, but she was not ready to support it yet because of the diversified problems Alaska presented. Number 2255 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he was still concerned about the language "appear to vote." He explained his experience as a member of the Board of Directors for Chugach Electric in Anchorage when it went to a mail-in ballot system. The number of ballots returned almost doubled. He called in a significant increase. The problem, however, was that no one followed up on the authenticity of the ballots. He reiterated his concern in the rural communities where there would be far greater access to multiple ballots. He would support the amendment to delete that section, not because it was bad, but because it was not yet controllable. Number 2317 CHAIR JAMES suggested a motion for an amendment or the formation of a subcommittee to work on a committee substitute. Number 2325 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated the house cleaning provisions in the bill were necessary. Therefore, he suggested deleting the provisions in questions to move the bill forward. CHAIR JAMES replied, "that's fine with me." Number 2337 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked if there were any witnesses via teleconference to testify? CHAIR JAMES replied, "no." Number 2344 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to delete Sec. 20 and Sec. 40 from HB 349 (9-GH0051/C). Hearing no objection, they were so deleted. Number 2356 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she supported the motion but hoped that the concept would move forward after further analysis. She handed out an explanation of a by-mail election in Oregon. CHAIR JAMES said it was important to look at other states but it was important to ensure that the design fit the geographic and demographic concerns of Alaska. She agreed with the direction of Sec. 40, but further work was needed. Number 2433 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered if the first amendment should be rescinded because the committee forgot to adopt the committee substitute. CHAIR JAMES replied, "I think we can deal with that." She called for a motion to adopt it. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to adopt CSHB 349(STA) (9-GH0051/C) for consideration. Hearing no objection, it was so adopted. Number 2464 MS. SHRINER thanked the committee members. She said the division would look into the concerns of the members further. Number 2470 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that CSHB 349(STA) (9-GH0051/C) move from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes, as amended. Hearing no objection, it was so moved from the House State Affairs Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|