Legislature(2005 - 2006)
03/02/2006 08:29 AM Joint 036
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB36 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 36-ABSENTEE BALLOTS
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced Free Conference Committee
Substitute (FCCS) for SB 36 to be up for consideration. He asked
for a motion to adopt the \B version.
8:30:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG motioned to adopt Free Conference
Committee Substitute SB 36, labeled 24-LS0123\B Kurtz 2/28/06 as
the working document.
SENATOR HOFFMAN objected for explanation purposes.
ANNETTE KREITZER, Chief of Staff for Lieutenant Governor Loren
Leman, explained that the reason for requesting powers of free
conference is because the language that exists in Sections 4 and
5 of the free conference committee substitute (FCCS) does not
exist in any previous version of the bill. Section 4 speaks to
unlawful interference of voting in the first degree and Section
5 speaks to unlawful interference of voting in the second
degree.
Providing background information she explained that the version
that passed the House [HCS CSSB36(JUD)am H] had an overly broad
reference to AS 15.20.081. She thought this was problematic, but
the issue wasn't addressed before the bill passed the House. The
needed fix is contained in the new Sections 4 and 5, which are
specific in the behavior that is criminalized.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS directed attention to the memo from Sarah
Felix that details an explanation of first and second degree
misconduct.
MS. KREITZER added the Department of Law (DOL) believes it's
important to be specific regarding what is being criminalized.
The second issue that is addressed is the fact that SB 36
contains language that was also in HB 94. That bill was signed
by the Governor and has passed into law so the sections of SB 36
that refer to HB 94 are removed in the FCCS.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS mentioned that everyone received a
highlighted copy of the different versions, which made it easy
to see which sections were removed.
MS. KREITZER explained the third issue relates to Section 4 of
HCS CSSB 36(JUD)am H, which amends AS 15.25.060 (c). The first
sentence was in HB 94 so it is not in the FCCS. The last
sentence in Section 4 was an amendment that Representative
Coghill and Representative Guttenberg made on the floor.
Describing that sentence as the major difference between the two
bills, she said the Lieutenant Governor and perhaps others
oppose the language and Representative Coghill has indicated
that he is amenable to removing it. The Division of Elections
doesn't want to interpret what that sentence means and believes
that it is appropriate for the voter to indicate which ballot is
desired.
MS. KREITZER noted that the packets contained copies of the
Division of Election Procedures and Policy sheet. If a person
doesn't select an affiliation when requesting an absentee ballot
the division will try and make contact via phone or letter to
ask the person to select a ballot. The onus should be on the
voter to make the determination, she said.
8:36:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG asked if there wasn't a
subsequent legal case that added clarity to the issue. Reviewing
the division's procedures he asked if there are still six
ballots.
MS. KREITZER deferred to Ms. Brewster.
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director of the Division of Elections,
explained that the policy would be updated for the upcoming 2006
primary election. The three ballot choices will be the
Republican ballot, the combined ballot and the measures-only
ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what would happen if the person
doesn't indicate a ballot choice.
MS. BREWSTER replied the division would first attempt to contact
the person by mail. If no response is forthcoming, and a phone
number or email is listed as contact information, then the
division would make further attempts to contact that person. If
the person doesn't respond, no ballot would be sent.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked what happens if a registered party
member doesn't select a ballot choice.
MS. BREWSTER replied if the person is eligible for only one
particular ballot, they would receive that ballot whether the
box is checked or not. However, if a person were eligible for
multiple ballot types, the division would need to receive
confirmation regarding ballot choice.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS recapped the idea is that it isn't up to the
division to decide which ballot the person receives. The
responsibility rests with the individual.
SENATOR LYMAN HOFFMAN asked about ballot choices.
MS. BREWSTER said there would be the Republican ballot, the
combined ballot and the measures-only ballot.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if all of Section 4 "in the old bill" [HCS
CSSB 36(JUD)am H] is removed.
MS. KREITZER said that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER asked whether a person who makes no
ballot designation would get the measures-only ballot.
MS. BREWSTER explained that this is the first year that a
measures-only ballot choice would be available so the division
would need to address that issue. That is a possible remedy, she
added.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS summarized the division would attempt to
contact the person regarding ballot choice, but if the
individual doesn't respond, then the division might send the
measures-only ballot. He remarked he was a bit unclear about the
procedure.
SENATOR BUNDE offered the view that it would be inconsistent to
ask people to indicate a ballot preference and then send a
measures-only ballot if no preference was indicated.
MS. BREWSTER said the division would much prefer that the voter
specify a ballot choice. If someone didn't specify and received
the measures-only ballot they might be disappointed that no
candidates were on the ballot.
SENATOR BUNDE responded the voter would more likely feel
disenfranchised if they received the measures-only ballot as a
default.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER opined if someone requested an absentee
ballot and didn't indicate any preference they would feel
disenfranchised to get nothing
8:42:00 AM
MS. KREITZER reminded members that there was a lawsuit over the
issue, which is why initiatives in the primary are on a separate
ballot as well as on the Republican ballot and the combined
ballot. The specific purpose of the lawsuit was that the voter
didn't want to be required to choose between the Republican
ballot and the combined ballot just to be able to vote on the
initiatives.
The court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) saying that
a voter didn't have to select candidates to vote on the
initiatives. She interprets that to mean that a person who does
not indicate a party affiliation on the absentee ballot
application would still receive the ballot measures. "You don't
have to be a member of a party or select a party's ballot to be
able to vote on the initiatives."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that explanation makes the
history clear, but it usurps legislative power to have the
courts dictating which ballot will be received.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked him to restate his position.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, by law, the Legislature should
direct how the Division of Elections handles the issue. The
courts shouldn't be involved. The issue of whether or not an
extra measures-only ballot should be created for someone that
objected to making a choice should have been subject to public
policy debate in the Legislature. He suggested that this puts
the division in a difficult situation.
SENATOR BUNDE asked for clarification that the division would
try and contact him if he didn't designate a ballot choice.
MS. BREWSTER said yes.
SENATOR BUNDE asked if she was suggesting that he would receive
the issues-only ballot if the division were not successful in
contacting him.
MS. BREWSTER said under the current procedures the division
wouldn't send a ballot.
SENATOR BUNDE opined that is appropriate. If he couldn't be
reached, it's no more appropriate to send an issues-only ballot
than a candidate and issues ballot.
MS. BREWSTER clarified that the division doesn't want to be in
the position of guessing which ballot a voter might want.
SENATOR BUNDE observed that that is a wise position.
REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON asked what percentage of the ballots
would be absentee this year.
MS. BREWSTER responded in the 2004 primary about 900 people
didn't designate a ballot choice.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said his next question went to that point
and he would assume that about the same number wouldn't
designate this election, which made him question the zero fiscal
note.
MS. BREWSTER advised that the division is establishing a stand-
alone absentee office and federal funds from the Help America
Vote Act would pay for the program expansion this year.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS recapped that Section 4 is removed and,
according to division policies, if a person doesn't designate a
ballot choice no ballot would be mailed. The division shouldn't
be in the position of choosing a ballot for the voter.
MS. KREITZER clarified she is not the director and
notwithstanding her opinion, whatever the director of the
Division of Elections says is what the division policy and
procedure will be.
8:47:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER voiced objection and asserted that people
should be encouraged to vote. When someone fills out an absentee
ballot application and provides a minimum of identifying
information they're going to expect to receive a ballot. Some
people simply don't want to reveal any political leanings and
that is their right, she said. They should receive a ballot even
if it's issues-only.
MS. BREWSTER responded she understands the issue of protecting
privacy, but individuals have the option of checking the issues-
only box. If no designation is made, the division has no way of
knowing that the individual wants their privacy protected.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for verification that personal
information on the absentee ballot application couldn't be seen
by anyone including postal clerks.
MS. BREWSTER said that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated agreement with what Senator Bunde
and Ms. Brewster articulated regarding division policy, but he
took exception to Representative Gardner's characterization. He
said he appreciated her viewpoint and perhaps her concern would
be ameliorated if the absentee ballot application clearly
indicated that if a ballot designation weren't made then no
primary ballot would be sent.
MS. KREITZER directed attention to a copy of an absentee by mail
ballot application. Block 13 asks for primary election ballot
choice and it says, "(August Election Only - For information on
ballot types, see reverse side No. 8)". The last sentence of
instruction No. 8 says, "If you do not make a selection, your
application will be returned to you."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered the suggestion that the division
be given recommendations on how to approach the issue.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS agreed and observed that the application has
to be changed anyway because it currently indicates that the
application must be received at least 7 days prior to the
election and that has been changed to 10 days. He asked if the
reprinting had already taken place.
MS. BREWSTER responded it had not.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS stated that it should be very clear that if
the applicant doesn't make a ballot choice designation, then no
ballot would be sent. He asked Ms. Brewster if she could accept
that recommendation.
MS. BREWSTER responded affirmatively.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked her to restate what was being
agreed to.
MS. BREWSTER said "We are agreeing to modify the existing form
to make it more clear in [Block] 13 that an individual must
check a primary election ballot choice in order to receive a
ballot."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said that seems clear and reasonable. He
asked Ms. Kreitzer if there were other issues to address.
MS. KREITZER said the three major issues had been covered.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked her to explain why the division was
requesting the application be received 10 days prior to the
election rather than the current 7 days.
MS. KREITZER replied changing from 7 to 10 days gives the
division more flexibility in processing all the absentee ballot
applications and it would give the voter more certainty as well.
8:54:07 AM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS mentioned the fiscal note and asked Ms.
Kreitzer if she had any comments.
MS. KREITZER said she had no additional comments.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if there were other questions or
comments.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER articulated the concern that someone may
not get a ballot even though they sent in an absentee ballot
application. A court case was mentioned that found that a person
who doesn't designate party affiliation should get a ballot and
the Division of Elections is saying that if a ballot choice
isn't made the person won't get one. "I think it's wrong and I
don't think we're complying with Representative Coghill's
amendment." That amendment says "If the voter did not indicate
affiliation with a political party or group when registering to
vote, the director shall provide the voter with a ballot
offering the greatest range of candidates from different
political parties and groups." Under this bill the person would
get nothing, she said. She continued to say:
In spite of an understanding that the division will
make every effort to contact them and ask them which
they want, I don't think this serves Alaskans well. I
think it interferes with voting rights of individuals
who have made the effort. Even if they've not checked
one box on their application, I think it's wrong.
SENATOR HOFFMAN said Block 13 clarifies that the applicant must
check a box to receive a ballot, which should suffice.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER responded it ameliorates the problem, but
it doesn't correct it.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said he understood her point, but the onus is
on the voter. The division should not be placed in the position
of deciding which ballot to send.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested it would be better to say in
bold type that, "If a party ballot is not selected, the voter
will get ballot measures only."
SENATOR BUNDE added if an applicant really wanted a combined or
Republican ballot he/she would be disenfranchised under that
proposal. If the division attempts to contact the person to
clarify the ballot choice and a response is not forthcoming, the
state has done due diligence.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he doesn't personally agree
with the closed primary ballot selection process, but the
Legislature opted to create a split ballot system in the primary
election so that ought to be adhered to.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if the objection was maintained.
SENATOR HOFFMAN removed his objection.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a roll call. FCCS SB 36 [version B]
moved from committee with Representatives Rokeberg and Olson
voting yea, Representative Gardner voting nay, and Senators
Hoffman, Bunde and Chair Gary Stevens voting yea.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|