Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
03/30/2023 03:00 PM House 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 | |
| HB140 | |
| HB129 | |
| HB130 | |
| HB131 | |
| HB132|| HB129|| HB130|| HB131 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 131-VOTING MACHINES AND VOTE TALLY SYSTEMS
4:11:07 PM
CHAIR SHAW announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 131, "An Act relating to voting machines and vote
tally systems; and providing for an effective date."
4:11:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH VANCE, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 131 on behalf of House Judiciary Standing Committee. She
provided the sponsor statement [included in the committee
packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 131 sets a standard for voting machines and vote
tally systems to be certified by the United States
Election Assistance Commission and use only open-
source software technology.
Open-source tabulators utilize software available to
the public that is used, modified, or distributed
freely, and is fully transparent. These tabulators use
commercial off-theshelf hardware that is mass produced
with commercially available hardware devices, making
it less appealing to hackers. Coupled with hard copy
paper ballots, open-source tabulators create the most
secure voting system to reconcile the numbers of
ballots cast when counting votes.
Currently, Alaska utilizes proprietary voting
tabulators that are not air-gapped. These tabulators
can connect to a modem and are suspected of remote
manipulation. Because of the proprietary and secret
nature of the voting tabulator, public confidence in
the accuracy of the count is at an all-time low. Real
or perceived, the current system has a reputation that
undermines confidence in our elections.
HB 132 seeks to build confidence in our elections with
open and transparent vote tally systems that can be
easily verified.
4:16:47 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:17:15 PM
MATT ROE, Head of Product, Voting Works, explained that Voting
Works was a non-partisan non-profit organization that built
election software. He stated that the goal of his testimony was
to briefly describe what open-source software was and how it
applied to election administration. He stated he would be
speaking from his experience implementing open-source software
but would not be speaking to the specifics of Voting Works
products. He explained that the "source" in open source referred
to source code, which was the set of instructions written by
programmers that a computer follows to achieve the desired
software's behavior. He used an example of source code, which he
described as "a complicated recipe for baking a cake," but
qualified that for most software the source code was kept secret
and available only to the original programmers. By contrast,
open-source software had source code that was always available
to anyone who wished to see it.
Mr. Roe continued his remarks. He asserted that much of the
software used today (including all major web browsers and much
of software that powered the internet) was open source. He
emphasized that the key benefit of open-source technology was
transparency. He cited that open-source software was used in
almost every industry, including scientific research, financial
services, and cybersecurity. He asserted that in the world of
election administration, especially when the country was
particularly polarized, open-source transparency provided a
common ground of facts that could be trusted and verified. He
described malicious code that changed votes as an example of a
problem that could be dispelled by a technical review of the
open-source code. He emphasized the importance of proper
security procedures, which should be transparent. He mentioned
the public accountability of election officials.
Mr. Roe wanted to discuss how open-source voting systems were
used in practice. He asserted that open-source voting systems
were used just like any other voting system, with well-
established practices for certifying, testing, and operating
voting equipment that would not change. He stated that the only
change introduced to the election process by open-source
software would be increased transparency and public confidence
in the election outcome. He opined that overall, SB 131
represented a commitment to increasing the transparency and
security of Alaskan elections through requiring open-source
software.
CHAIR SHAW invited questions from members of the committee.
4:23:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the bill would require
the state to replace its [Dominion Voting Systems] machines with
open-source technology; alternatively, he questioned whether the
bill would require [Dominion Voting Systems] to make its
software open source.
4:24:07 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, DOL, surmised that
transitioning to open-source technology would be at the
discretion of Dominion Voting Systems, adding that the state
could not demand that implementation.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the state would be
required to replace its Dominion Voting Systems machines with
open-source software should the bill pass.
4:25:08 PM
CAROL BEECHER, Director, DOE, answered yes, if enacted, DOE
would replace its voting tally system and voting machines.
4:25:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the projected cost of
implementation.
CHAIR SHAW shared his understanding that a zero fiscal note from
DOE accompanied the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how replacing the voting machines and
tally system would impact the zero fiscal note.
MS. BEECHER clarified that the fiscal note reported an expense
of $4.6 million to implement the bill, which reflected four bids
from 2019.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how Voting Works ensured system
security.
4:27:49 PM
MR. ROE explained that Voting Works technology had a variety of
checks in place to ensure that the system was only running the
software approved by both the vendor and the state;
additionally, the software implemented "secure boot" technology.
He reported that open-source software was shown to increase
security, as increased transparency encouraged secure software
development. He provided an analogy.
4:30:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether logic and accuracy testing
could be performed on an open-source system.
MS. BEECHER offered to follow up with the requested information.
MR. ROE answered yes, the state could continue to perform the
same logic and accuracy testing on open-source software. He
reiterated that open-source software would not change any of the
processes or experiences associated with voting equipment;
rather, it would increase the security and transparency of the
system.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the cost to municipalities.
MS. BEECHER believed that there would be no cost to
municipalities. She deferred to Ms. Thompson for confirmation.
4:32:49 PM
MICHAELA THOMPSON, Administrative Operations Manager, DOE,
responded, "We no longer loan out our equipment to
municipalities, so this would not impact them."
4:33:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked when the current contract [with
Dominion Voting Systems] would expire.
MS. BEECHER offered to follow up with the requested information.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether there was an annual
maintenance agreement in the contract.
MS. BEECHER answered yes, stating that the original contract
awarded in 2019 specified five years of maintenance.
4:34:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether the contract would
include the clause "subject to appropriations."
MR. FLYNN offered to follow up with the requested information.
4:35:25 PM
CHAIR SHAW announced that HB 131 was held over.
HB 132-ELECTIONS: BALLOT, VOTING, SECURITY
HB 129-VOTER REGISTRATION
HB 130-ELECTION INTERFERENCE, FRAUD, MISCONDUCT
HB 131-VOTING MACHINES AND VOTE TALLY SYSTEMS
4:37:44 PM
CHAIR SHAW announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 132, "An Act relating to election security,
voting, and ballots; and providing for an effective date" and
HOUSE BILL NO. 129, "An Act relating to voter registration; and
providing for an effective date" and HOUSE BILL NO. 130, "An Act
relating to the crimes of unlawful interference with an
election, election fraud, and election official misconduct; and
providing for an effective date" and HOUSE BILL NO. 131 "An Act
relating to voting machines and vote tally systems; and
providing for an effective date."
4:38:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH VANCE, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 132 on behalf of the House Judiciary Standing Committee. She
provided the sponsor statement [included in the committee
packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 132 has a voter focused approach that seeks to
increase public confidence in our elections with a
means to cure a ballot, enhance cybersecurity, and
implement an online multifactor authentication for
each voter to protect Alaskan's individual
information.
Protecting the foundation of our representative form
of government begins with protecting each ballot. This
bill establishes a strict chain of custody protocol
for ballots and tabulators from the printer to voter,
to disposal, complete with a unique security
identifier such as a barcode.
To help alleviate concerns of misconduct, this bill
enhances administrative procedure that brings
integrity to the process of handling ballots and
allows recruitment of a technical subject matter
expert to conduct a full forensic audit of voting
machines, tabulators, storage devices, and vote tally
systems.
HB 132 prioritizes Alaskan voters and the integrity of
their vote so every eligible vote counts!
4:39:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE directed attention to a PowerPoint
presentation, titled "HB 132 Elections; Ballot, Voting,
Security" [included in the committee packet]. She emphasized
the voter-focused aspects of the bill on slide 2, including:
ballot security, ballot chain of custody, ballot tracking
system, ballot curing, increased cybersecurity, and election
offense hotline.
4:40:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE addressed ballot security on slide 3, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Security Identifier
• Paper Record
• Envelope-based Barcode
• Signed Ballot Chain-of-Custody Document
• Maintain Forensic Integrity of Ballots
4:40:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE continued to slide 4, titled "Ballot
Tracking System," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Online multi-factor authentication system like
used with your MyAlaska account.
• confirm the ballot was sent
• track ballot date of delivery
• confirm receipt of ballot
• determine review of voter's certificate
• determine if vote has been counted
• provide information to cure the ballot
• verify voter's identity
• indicate the process to cure a ballot or reason
• the vote was not counted
4:42:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE turned to slide 5, titled "Increased
Cybersecurity," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Develop a cybersecurity program to defend voter
registration records and provide cybersecurity
training for election officials.
4:42:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE detailed the election offense hotline on
slide 6, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The director shall establish a toll free election
offense hotline to receive calls reporting election
offenses.
• Continuously staffed during absentee voting
hours, early voting, and 24 hours after polls
open.
• Election official available to respond to calls
• Offense hotline number placed in conspicuous
places.
4:43:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE concluded on slide 7, titled "Forensic
Audits," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Grants the Legislative Council the power to contract
with and appoint technical subject matter experts to
conduct full forensic audits of election data,
algorithms, software, and equipment, including
precinct tabulators, storage devices, voting machines,
and vote tally systems.
4:44:13 PM
CHAIR SHAW requested a brief explanation of the fiscal note from
DOE.
4:44:24 PM
CAROL BEECHER, Director, DOE, stated that the fiscal note
reflected the estimated costs incurred, such as non-permanent
election clerks; ballot printing; professional services for IT
consulting; software maintenance; forensic auditing; and ballot
tracking software.
4:45:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY requested the definition of a "full
forensic audit."
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE clarified that that the bill would grant
Legislative Council with the authority to find someone to
conduct the forensic audits pending further definition from the
legislature. She defined a forensic audit as "looking more at
any potential fraud and activity that would deal with a criminal
nature."
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether DOE could define "forensic
audit."
MS. BEECHER deferred to Mr. Flynn.
4:46:52 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, DOL, said he was not
aware of a statutory definition of "forensic audit."
REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the credentials or
qualifications for those conducting a "forensic audit."
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE indicated that the legislature could
determine the subject matter expert for any activity deemed as
deserving of more insight.
4:47:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER shared his understanding that the
institutional knowledge of a "full forensic audit" was lacking
because the state had never conducted on before. He recommended
defining the parameters of a full "forensic audit" in statute.
4:49:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON inquired about the cost of ballot
printing.
MS. BEECHER deferred to Ms. Thompson.
MICHAELA THOMPSON, Administrative Operations Manager, DOE,
shared her understanding that adding a watermark would require
additional types of ballot printing paper.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether the fiscal note
reflected an estimate of costs or whether a request for
information (RFI) or request for proposal (RFP) had been issued.
MS. THOMPSON believed that the election program manager received
an estimate from the current ballot printer.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON expressed his interest in looking into
the accuracy of fiscal notes and how they're derived.
4:51:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how the chain of custody proposed in
HB 132 would differ from existing chain of custody protocols.
MS. BEECHER deferred to Ms. Thompson.
MS. THOMPSON acknowledged that the division followed chain of
custody procedures in all aspects of the election process. She
further noted that the division had an existing portal that
allowed voters to track the receival of their ballot in addition
to processes for sending unused ballots back to the division and
tracking spoiled ballots used in the precinct.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how the chain of [custody] worked
with the United States Postal Service (USPS).
MS. THOMPSON described the chain of custody.
4:54:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER requested an assessment from DOE
comparing existing chain of custody procedures to the ones
proposed in Section 2 HB 132. He suggested that existing chain
of custody procedures could stand to be updated.
4:55:23 PM
CHAIR SHAW opened public testimony on HB 132, HB 129, HB 130,
and HB 131.
4:55:38 PM
KAREN LEWIS, urged the legislature to return to a hand count
system, opining that all machines could be manipulated. She
read from a prepared statement.
4:59:10 PM
PAMELA SAMASH, Concerned Conservatives of Alaska, opined that
fair and honest elections were critical for a free society,
opining that these bills were an important step towards making
that possible. She urged the committee's support for HB 129, HB
130, HB 131, and HB 132.
5:00:26 PM
JOHN MILLER expressed his support for the bills presented during
the hearing "except for the machines." He offered several
suggestions for election security. He opined that the bills
were fundamental to ensuring that the people's voice was heard.
5:02:20 PM
GERALD VOSS expressed his support for HB 129, HB 130, HB 131,
and HB 132 and offered several suggestions for election
security.
5:04:13 PM
JOHN LETTOW expressed his support for the election bills
presented during the hearing, stating his support for
transitioning to a hand count.
5:05:43 PM
MIKE COONS, President, Concerned Conservatives of Alaska,
expressed support for HB 129, HB 130, HB 131, and HB 132 with
"one caveat."
5:07:27 PM
CHAIR SHAW stated that public testimony would be left open. He
announced that HB 132 was held over.