Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
01/31/2011 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB31 | |
| SB33 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 31-COUNTING OF WRITE-IN VOTES
1:49:54 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 31 and asked for
a motion to adopt the work draft committee substitute (CS).
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt CSSB 31, labeled 27-
LS0350\E, as the working document. There being no objection,
version E was before the committee.
1:50:26 PM
SENATOR THOMAS, sponsor of SB 31, said the bill looks to clarify
the statutes using language recommended in the Miller v.
Treadwell Alaska Supreme Court decision. It explicitly states
that the director of the Division of Elections will use the
determination of the voter's intent as the guiding principle
when counting and judging the validity of a write-in ballot. SB
31 incorporates the concept that Alaska courts have consistently
applied for 50 years favoring voter intent.
The goal of SB 31 is twofold. First, it intends to clarify the
statutory language to ensure that in future elections as many
Alaskans are enfranchised as possible. Second, it intends to
tighten statutory language to be inclusive rather than exclusive
and to strengthen the public perception of Alaska's democratic
process. This bill will protect the fundamental democratic
rights of Alaskans who enter the polling booth with diverse
backgrounds, abilities, and skills, he stated.
1:52:09 PM
GRIER HOPKINS, staff to Senator Thomas, sponsor of SB 31, said
this bill follows on the heels of nearly 50 years of court
precedent in Alaska finding strongly in favor of voter intent.
Each court decision used strong language emphasizing the
importance of voter intent and that the statutory language
regarding the subject of write-in votes is murky and open to
interpretation. SB 31 looks to clarify this by using language
recommended in the Miller v. Treadwell Alaska Supreme Court
decision. The language is nearly identical to the Federal
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act and it
explicitly says that the Division of Elections will use the
determination of a voter's intent as the guiding principle when
interpreting counting and judging the validity of write-in
ballots.
The intent of SB 31 is twofold. First it is to clarify state
statute and ensure that in future election as many Alaskans as
possible are enfranchised. This means that a ballot won't be
thrown out based on a minor error such as an abbreviation or
misspelling as long as the director of the Division of Elections
is able to determine the voter's intent. But a write-in like
"Lisa M" still will not meet the voter intent determination
because it doesn't appear as it did on the declaration of
candidacy, which is required under AS 15.15.360(a)(11). The word
"appears" came under scrutiny by the courts and the
determination was that if the Legislature had intended to
require a perfect spelling it would have used more specific
terms like "identical," "perfect," or "the same as." According
to the courts, the word "appears" is meant to show that the
Legislature left some latitude in terms of what would be
accepted by the division when judging a ballot. For example,
spelling Murkowski with a "c" rather than an "s" would be close
enough to the way it appears on the declaration of candidacy,
but "Lisa M." would not qualify.
The second reason for SB 31 is to tighten statutory language and
strengthen the public perception of Alaska's democratic process.
Having clear, concise statutory language showing how the votes
are determined will help alleviate some of the outcry regarding
the counting of write-in ballots and reduce the potential for
future litigation. To date, the State of Alaska has spent over
$150,000 on this most recent court case.
MR. HOPKINS noted the bill packet contains a letter of support
from the Alaska Federation of Natives and a sample brochure from
the Disability Law Center of Alaska. These organizations
represent a substantial number of Alaska voters who will be
directly assisted by SB 31. Both support voter enfranchisement
with voter intent being paramount.
The inclusive rather than exclusive language in SB 31 will
protect the fundamental democratic voting rights of Alaskans who
enter the polling booth with a variety of backgrounds.
1:55:52 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he or Ms. Smith would discuss the
differences between the current version E and version I that
passed from the State Affairs Committee.
1:56:31 PM
CINDY SMITH, staff to Senator French, explained that the
previous version raised concerns about combining in the same
subsection duties that are specific to election boards and
duties that are specific to the director of elections. To
address this concern, paragraphs 9-13 were removed from AS
15.15.360(a) and placed in a new subsection (d) in version E.
This leaves the original statutory language unchanged.
1:57:46 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said he would expect to see the language that is
disappearing to be capitalized to signal that it's leaving that
part of the statute. He asked if he's missing something.
MS. SMITH deferred to the legislative drafter.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the Division of Elections is happy with
version E.
MS. SMITH said yes; the division and the Department of Law
raised this issue and both have reviewed this version.
CHAIR FRENCH opened public testimony.
2:00:26 PM
MARILYN RUSSELL, President, League of Women Voters of Alaska,
stated support for SB 31. This bill ensures that the greatest
number of voters will be enfranchised to the greatest extent
possible. SB 31 provides more flexibility and respects the
voter's intent.
2:01:28 PM
JERRY MCCUTCHEON, representing himself, stated that legislators
should read the Alaska Constitution Article III, Section 16, and
Article IV, Section 1, to confirm that the Alaska Legislature is
the all-powerful legislature of the 50 states and that both the
executive and judiciary are dependent upon it for power. He
cautioned legislators to think carefully before giving away
their authority.
2:05:57 PM
SARAH FELIX, Attorney IV, Civil Division, Department of Law
(DOL) and Gail Fenumiai, Director, Division of Elections, Office
of the Lieutenant Governor, introduced themselves and offered to
answer questions. Ms. Felix said that they had worked with the
drafter and the current version E addresses the concerns that
they had with the previous version I.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that his staff pointed out that Sec.3. on
page 2, line 28, repeals the earlier sections he puzzled over so
from that perspective the bill is in good form.
2:07:23 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked for help interpreting the phrase, "the
director determines, on the basis of other evidence, that the
ballot was so marked for the purpose of identifying the ballot;"
in subsection (d)(1) on page 1, lines 6-7.
MS. FENUMIAI replied that is existing statute.
CHAIR FRENCH asked her to explain how it would work in practice.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that what happened during the recent vote
count is that on about 20 ballots a voter wrote in the name "Joe
Miller" and also voted for "Joe Miller" the candidate whose name
was pre-printed on the ballot. The way the phrase would be
applied is that Joe Miller would receive one vote on each of
those ballots.
CHAIR FRENCH observed that the phrase, "that the ballot was so
marked for the purpose of identifying the ballot;" is illusive
and he'd appreciate further explanation.
MS. FELIX replied a voter might write their name on a ballot and
other statutes that are not set out in this bill prohibit the
division from counting ballots that have an identifying mark.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that if the ballot is marked in a way
that it would identify the voter who cast the ballot, it would
not be counted.
MS. FELIX and Ms. Fenumiai both agreed.
SENATOR COGHILL said he appreciates the explanation because he
was trying to figure out if, for example, marking outside the
oval is voter intent.
MS. FELIX asked for further clarification of the question.
2:11:26 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said he was thinking that if the marking is
outside the oval the ballot would go into the hand-count
category and at that point he presumes that the marking would be
seen as voter intent.
MS. FELIX replied there's another statute that says that the
marking has to touch the oval in order to be counted.
CHAIR FRENCH clarified that this discussion is about filling in
the oval.
MS. FELIX agreed and added that the mark could be just a dot
within the oval.
CHAIR FRENCH remarked that's enough to get started.
MS. FELIX said she thought that Senator Coghill was asking about
a mark that is entirely outside the oval.
SENATOR COGHILL said he understands that if a voter writes in a
first name and middle initial the ballot wouldn't be counted.
But he was thinking that "other evidence" might be that the
voter also filled in an oval next to it and that that could
somehow be counted as intent. He added that his overarching
concern is voter intent and because this is a new subsection, he
believes that every word is worth scrutiny.
CHAIR FRENCH questioned what interest is furthered in requiring
a voter to fill in the oval after they've clearly expressed
intent by properly writing in a write-in candidate's name.
MS. FELIX replied the Division of Elections is simply following
a statute that requires the voter to fill in the oval.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Fenumiai what alerts the division that
ballots have been cast for a write-in candidate, absent a mark
in the oval.
MS. FENUMIAI replied a ballot that doesn't have a mark in the
oval would count as a blank vote; it would not appear in the
tally for any candidate or the write-in totals. The difference
between "times counted" and "ballots cast" reveals that
difference. During the recent U.S. Senate race and subsequent
court cases, the division did not count ballots that did not
have the oval filled in alongside the name that was written in.
The Murkowski campaign challenged those and the court ruled that
there must be a mark in the oval because a voter could start to
write in the name and then change his/her mind. The process that
the division followed was also validated, she added.
2:14:31 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many voters in the recent
election wrote in the name and did not fill in the oval.
MS. FENUMIAI estimated that is was about 1,300 or 1,400.
CHAIR FRENCH observed that it's an interesting question since
it's possible to see voter intent by the accurate spelling of a
write-in name, but there is the possibility that a voter changed
his/her mind and absent the filled oval it's hard to bring it to
the division's attention. He further observed that the
terminology "ballots cast" and "times counted" is a bit abstract
for people outside the business.
MS. FENUMIAI offered to follow up because she didn't recall the
exact language, but one signifies the total number of ballots
that went through an AccuVote voting machine in a precinct and
the other signifies the actual votes that were tallied. The
difference between those is the number of blank votes cast.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he were to receive a ballot and insert it
in the AccuVote machine without making any sort of selection, if
it would be counted as a "ballot cast" but not "times counted."
MS. FENUMIAI said yes.
2:16:15 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN said he has some concern with subsection (b) on
page 2 as it relates to the recent Alaska Supreme Court opinion.
The court said it relied on long-standing principles in reaching
its decision and it identified those principles, including that
the voter's intent shall prevail if it can be reasonably
ascertained. Then the court clearly said that common sense and
reasonableness is validated and perfectionism as a standard is
rejected. This serves to promote participatory democracy.
SENATOR PASKVAN cited page 14 of the Miller v. Treadwell Alaska
Supreme Court decision as follows:
Common sense statutory interpretations by agencies do
29
not require regulations. … The Division's statutory
interpretations … were common sense interpretations
and were not required to be promulgated in
regulations. … A requirement that each such
interpretation be preceded by rulemaking would result
31
in complete ossification of the regulatory state.
My concern, Senator Paskvan said, is that we stay within the
common sense and reasonableness standard and that subsection (b)
on page 2, which says, "Write-in votes that do not meet the
requirements of this section may not be individually counted
under this section." does not eliminate the long-standing
principles that we've relied on and that it doesn't eliminate
common sense and reasonableness.
SENATOR PASKVAN said he wants that on the record so that in the
future somebody can't point and say that the Legislature changed
the common sense and reasonableness standard so the long-
standing principles are out the window.
2:19:07 PM
MS. FENUMIAI said subsection (b) on page 2, is referring to the
requirements of (a)(1) and (2) just above, that it either has to
be the highest number of votes for that race or the second
highest within a certain percentage. [New Sec. 15.15.365.
Counting of write-in votes in general election.] That sets the
standard for when the division would have to individually look
at the write-in votes.
SENATOR PASKVAN responded he wants it on the record that the
intent of the Legislature is to remain with the common sense and
reasonableness standard and not to get closer to the
perfectionist standard. "I want to make sure that it's clearly
understood, when it comes to your discretion or future division
directors, that they are firmly in common sense and
reasonableness and we don't need to create regulations to run an
election," he stated.
2:20:17 PM
MS. FELIX suggested the committee ask Mr. Bullard, but to
address Senator Paskvan's concern subsection (b) could be
amended to say, "Write-in votes that do not meet the
requirements of (a) of this section may not be individually
counted under this section."
CHAIR FRENCH said they'd consult the drafter.
2:20:58 PM
SENATOR COGHILL observed that the operative word on [page 2]
line 11, is "only" after which it provides the bright line for
when those ballots would be counted. There has to be a reason,
he said.
CHAIR FRENCH referenced lines 10-14 and asked how you get to the
point that write-in ballots are counted.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that if after election night it's
apparent that the total number of aggregate votes for write-ins
is more than for any candidate whose name is printed on the
ballot, this alerts the division to go through the write-in
votes to determine who those votes are for. This was the process
that the division followed for the 2010 U.S. Senate race.
CHAIR FRENCH said you don't know who the write-in votes are for,
but you've been alerted that there are a lot.
MS. FENUMIAI said yes; when they're counted by the hand-count
precincts or by the AccuVote voting machines and touch-screen
machines at the precincts these go into a generic category of
write-in votes.
2:22:59 PM
CHAIR FRENCH referenced paragraph (3) on page 1, lines 11-14,
and recalled that this particular paragraph got a lot of
attention. The Miller campaign contended that the phrase, "as it
appears on the write-in declaration…" meant that the write-in
name had to appear exactly as it appeared on the write-in
declaration. He asked if his recollection is correct.
MS. FELIX answered yes.
CHAIR FRENCH described the sentence as difficult and said that
if there had been any though to modifying it, this would be a
good time.
MS. FELIX responded they moved the "as it appears" language so
it makes more sense grammatically, but the real fix is the new
paragraph (5) on page 2, lines 6-8. She said that this standard
was adopted from the federal write-in ballot and they believe
that it combined with the grammatical change to the "as it
appears" language will address the concerns that were widely
reported in the news and litigated in the Miller v. Treadwell
cases.
2:25:02 PM
CHAIR FRENCH agreed that the language is better.
SENATOR COGHILL referenced page 2, lines 6-8, of version E and
said he can understand that the director would disregard
misspelling or minor variations in the form of a name, but
disregarding an abbreviation raises a flag. He asked for an
explanation.
MS. FELIX replied this language mirrors federal law for federal
write-in ballots and is a standard set out in many other state
statutes. She said she can't speak to the provision to disregard
abbreviations and isn't sure how that standard would apply.
MS. FENUMIAI said she assumes that it would refer to a shortened
spelling of a name.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if "L. Murkowski" would be considered an
abbreviation.
SENATOR COGHILL pointed out that that example includes the last
name. Stating agreement with Senator Paskvan that the common
sense approach would apply to this paragraph, he said he
believes that this could be contentious. He expressed an
interest in knowing if in other jurisdictions this law had been
either defended or defined.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Felix if she's aware of any federal cases
on abbreviations.
MS. FELIX replied their research focused on cases of misspelling
rather than abbreviations, but the example of "L. Murkowski" as
an abbreviation is well taken. The first name initial and the
last name would be accepted, whereas the division would not
accept "Lisa M." and the courts validated that approach, she
said.
2:28:33 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI opined that it's not possible to predict
all future challenges to write-in cases and his intent as a co-
prime sponsor is to clarify that voter intent is premium. "If
the voter abbreviates the name or accidentally misspells the
name or there's another minor variation in the name, but you can
glean the intent of the voter, then that vote should be
counted," he stated.
SENATOR COGHILL said he agrees with the intent, but he's
watching two things. First is that voter responsibility is
maintained and second is that defining points are established
for the standard.
2:30:16 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if it would help to insert on page 2, line
6, following "a write-in candidate" the phrase "as it appears on
the write-in declaration,". He continued to say, "We know that
the write-in declaration may be different than what the voter is
writing in, but we're still following intent."
MS. FELIX cautioned that inserting that language might cause
confusion.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if the standard would be common sense and
reasonableness if the Legislature did nothing.
MR. FELIX replied the division would follow the Alaska Supreme
Court decision if nothing is done by the Legislature. That
decision validated the division's practice, which is to apply a
common sense and reasonableness interpretation to write-in
ballots to effectuate voter intent.
CHAIR FRENCH said this is a good time to thank both Ms. Felix
and Ms. Fenumiai for their good work in very difficult
circumstances. Describing SB 31 as a housekeeping bill, he
emphasized that it doesn't really change anything. Rather, it
institutionalizes in statute that chapter in Alaska history so
there will perhaps be less drama in future write-in elections.
2:33:05 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE suggested the committee consider how to make it
clear that the director has discretion to disregard
abbreviations, misspellings, and other minor variations in a
candidate's name when "as it appears" occurs throughout the
bill. [Senator McGuire referenced the previous version I in her
explanation.]
2:36:32 PM
CHAIR FRENCH called a point of order. Paragraphs (11) and (12)
are contained in the previous version I; those provisions are
contained in paragraphs (3) and (4) of the current version E.
SENATOR MCGUIRE questioned why paragraphs (3) and (4) refer to
one standard for a governor and lieutenant governor election and
a different standard for an election for other write-in
candidates.
MS. FELIX replied her understanding is that paragraph (3)
addresses a write-in candidate where one name is written in
whereas paragraph (4) addresses a write-in vote for both the
governor and lieutenant governor so the voter would have to
write in two names.
CHAIR FRENCH expressed surprise that a write-in vote for a
candidate for governor must contain both the governor's and the
lieutenant governor's name.
MS. FELIX said that's the case.
SENATOR MCGUIRE restated that paragraph (5) would be read into
the understanding of "as it appears" or "as they appear."
CHAIR FRENCH agreed that paragraph (5) would apply to both
single candidates and a pair of candidates in the event of a
write-in election for governor and lieutenant governor.
MS. FELIX clarified that it's more complicated than she
previously indicated. The way version E, paragraph (4) is
written, the voter can write in just the last name of the
candidate for governor or both the name for governor and
lieutenant governor.
2:39:02 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if it would assume the lieutenant
governor's name if the governor's name were written in.
MS. FELIX replied that's the way it's written in paragraph (4)
on page 2, lines 3-5.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if a person can run for governor as a write-
in candidate without a lieutenant governor partnership.
MS. FELIX said DOL has written an opinion and she would follow
up with that information for the committee.
SENATOR PASKVAN questioned if it would help to insert the phrase
"in the exercise of discretion" between the words "director" and
"shall" on page 2, line 6.
2:41:09 PMC
CHAIR FRENCH said he'd pose that question to the drafter and
announced he would hold SB 31 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|