Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
05/08/2021 10:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| SB39 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 39-BALLOT CUSTODY/TAMPERING; VOTER REG; MAIL
10:06:35 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 39
"An Act relating to elections; relating to voter registration;
relating to ballots and a system of tracking and accounting for
ballots; establishing an election offense hotline; designating
as a class A misdemeanor the collection of ballots from other
voters; designating as a class C felony the intentional opening
or tampering with a sealed ballot, certificate, or package of
ballots without authorization from the director of the division
of elections; and providing for an effective date."
[CSSB 39(STA) was before the committee and this was the second
hearing on the bill.]
10:07:23 AM
SENATOR HUGHES pointed out that sometimes people testify on the
original bill rather than the current version, which does not
reflect any changes the legislature has made to the bill. She
directed the public to the committee substitute (CS) for SB 39,
Version N.
10:07:54 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND opened public testimony on SB 39.
10:08:06 AM
At ease
10:08:15 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting. He advised the public that
written comments could be sent to sjud@akleg.gov.
10:09:15 AM
CORINNE AKERS, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, said she is
a 43-year resident. She spoke in opposition to SB 39 because the
bill appears to make it more difficult to vote; instead, the
legislature should make it easier for residents to vote.
10:10:40 AM
ERIC MUENCH, representing self, Ketchikan, Alaska, stated that
he is a longtime Alaskan. He offered his belief that the goal of
state government should be to make voting as easy as possible
for all citizens. Any law, regulation or procedure that that
limits or makes it more complicated for voters in communities
and regions to access the polls is unconstitutional on its face
unless it remedies a defect or past abuse. He said SB 39 has
many provisions that will cause bad effects. It also fails to
address a need or to justify its provisions so the bill should
be rejected by this committee. He stated opposition to SB 39.
10:12:40 AM
LEON JAIMES, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SB 39. He said he testified on SB 39 at a previous
committee. He explained that he implements digital multi-factor
identification systems for banks and hospitals in his work.
These systems are difficult for the doctors and attorneys to use
so he ventured it would be hard for the general population to
use. Further, these systems have substantial hidden costs but
the fiscal note does not include a rough estimate of those
costs. He estimated that such a system would cost tens of
millions of dollars to implement and millions more in annual
operating costs. He wondered how the state would pay for such a
system at a time of budget crisis. He cautioned against naming
brands or specific technologies such as distributed ledgers in
the bill because it would necessitate constantly revising the
statutes.
He explained that distributed technology is a means to
distribute data in transactions not a system to protect that
data. Existing data technologies already have methods for
encryption and audit trails. Further, distributed technology
requires a specialized computer science, cryptography skill set,
which is in such high demand that the state would not likely be
able to acquire it but if it did, it would be very expensive.
10:15:42 AM
MICHAEL GARVEY, American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska (ACLU),
Anchorage, Alaska, said ACLU Alaska is encouraged by the updated
provisions that help voter engagement such as ballot curing, the
use of travel identification cards, and to choose to receive
absentee ballots by mail for future, regularly scheduled
elections. However, he views Section 54 as an unconstitutional
attempt to diminish the power and duty of the judicial branch to
interpret laws to ensure that laws do not violate the
constitutional guarantees. It seeks to give the legislature the
authority to determine how to conduct elections in Alaska. The
result could be the restriction of Alaskans' voting rights
without consequence.
MR. GARVEY said the ACLU is concerned that the bill would make
unnecessary and expensive technological changes to Alaska's
elections that will present risks for data security,
disenfranchisement, and cost. Distributive ledger technology is
premised on the idea that more people being involved in data
maintenance increases the accuracy of data. However, this
approach inherently presents significant privacy,
confidentiality, and data security concerns that are not
addressed by SB 39. More entry points into a data system creates
more opportunity to compromise the system. The bill does not
specify if it would be public and it does not describe what
election data would be specifically covered.
MR. GARVEY said that requiring voters to use a multi-factor
authentication process presents similar concerns. For example,
if the state were to send confirmation codes to voters by text
message, it could create a huge security risk because text
messages are not encrypted. This system would create a vast new
data set for the state to keep secure. Voters may not have the
technology or internet access needed to use the technology or
may have language assistance needs that the system cannot meet.
While the bill would create an exemption for those unable to use
digital multi-factor authentication, it does not specify how
that determination would be made, when, or by whom.
MR. GARVEY said the state should ensure that these systems will
work, are secure, affordable and do not inhibit Alaskans voting
rights before requiring them through statute.
MR. GARVEY said finally, the ACLU is concerned about the
additional rules and requirements SB 39 would impose on Alaskans
voting absentee. SB 39 would create new election crimes and
increase penalties for existing crimes, including ones that will
make it harder for a person to help elders or disabled veterans
in their communities to vote. He said everyone agrees that
Alaska election security could be improved, but the bill is
based on an inaccurate diagnosis of the problems. The ACLU
believes that election improvements should maximize engagement
and help Alaskans exercise their right to vote rather than
making it unnecessarily complicated, stringent and costly.
10:19:04 AM
ROBERT WALTON, representing self, Douglas, Alaska, said he is
working off CSSB 39(STA) and hopes that is the right version of
the bill. He expressed his main concerns. First, the period to
request absentee ballots will increase from 10 days prior to an
election to 14 days. However, the timeline to return the ballot
is shortened from receipt by 10 days after an election to
receipt by seven days after an election. Since this does not
address a security impact, it should not be included in the
bill. Second, the bill adds new reasons for contested elections,
such that a person can contest an election due to a data breach
or ballot accounting irregularity sufficient to change the
outcome. However, since those terms are not defined, it seems to
allow people to challenge any election when they do not like the
outcome. Third, it appears that this bill would outlaw election
by mail for localities with populations over 3,000 people unless
a disaster declaration has been issued, which he thought was a
bad idea. He said it appears this bill would criminalize someone
helping their elderly neighbor to vote. He referred to page 25,
lines 5 to 10 to Section 48, subsection (a) (8) reads:
(8) knowingly collects a ballot from a voter unless
(A) the voter expressly requested that the person
collect the ballot;
(B) the person did not solicit the ballot; and
(C) the person did not collect more than six
ballots voted in a single election.
He suggested that subparagraph (B) should be stricken or amended
to allow people to offer to help their neighbors. It should not
be a crime, he said.
SENATOR SHOWER explained that the timelines in the bill were
based on Colorado's laws to assist voters with ballot curing. He
pointed out that people can already challenge election results.
He said that local communities still maintain control over their
elections and SB 39 does not change that. He said that ballot
harvesting was debated in committee. He maintained that unless
it is a family member or caregiver was offering to help, it
opens it to ballot harvesting. He maintained the need for this
language.
10:24:00 AM
JAMIE RODRIGUEZ, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, said she
has been an Alaskan since 1974, during which time she has
witnessed a fair, accessible, inclusive and secure voting system
that ensures every Alaskan will have the opportunity to exercise
their right to vote, no matter their location, physical ability
or work. She offered her belief that the legislature should
focus on providing rural Alaska with broadband and more access
to voting instead of working on a bill that seems to
disenfranchise voters, will waste millions of dollars,
potentially divert money and dollars to special interests and
make it more difficult for Alaska's elders, rural and low-income
residents to cast their votes. SB 39 continues to propagate the
false narrative that widespread voter fraud exists when it does
not, she said. During the 2020 election, the Division of
Elections made it easy for everyone to vote in spite of the
COVID-19 challenges. Any changes to election law should be for
the sole purpose of helping Alaskans cast their votes. She urged
members not to politicize the voting process. She suggested
merging HB 66 with SB 39 to create one fair bill that reflects
all Alaskans right to vote.
10:26:43 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND related his understanding that the sponsor would
like to find common ground to move forward on HB 66 and SB 39.
SENATOR SHOWER explained that he has been working on HB 66 to
find a compromise solution that will work for as many people as
possible on both sides of the aisle. He stated that the reason
for the bill is not to litigate the 2020 election. He said he
has been working on this bill for three years, that the bill has
little to do with fraud; rather, SB 39 relates to voter rolls
and data protection.
10:28:32 AM
MARY BORTHWICK, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, said she has
concerns about the penalty provisions, application timelines,
digital authentication process, and distributed ledger process
in SB 39. She said she has lived in Juneau longer than most
members have been alive. She expressed concern about the felony
penalty provisions for well-meaning people helping seniors or
the disabled to vote.
MS. BORTHWICK expressed concern about shortening the application
timeline because U.S. Postal Service mail delivery is slower
now. In some cases, letters that would normally take five
transit days now take 12 days to arrive. It may mean that an
Absentee Ballot Application will not arrive in time or that the
returned ballot would not arrive at the Division of Elections in
time to be counted. Third, the digital authentication process is
too complicated. She wondered who will determine when the voter
is unable to use the authentication system, whether the person
could just say he or she did not understand it and could request
a different process or if the alternative process will be
clearly defined. Fourth, she offered her view that the
distributed ledger technology sounds like one more way to
monitor people. She agreed with the previous testifier who
cautioned against listing company names in statute. She related
her understanding that the bill will require voting machines be
made in the U.S. She said she hoped that enough quality machines
would be available that were manufactured completely in the U.S.
She wondered if that meant that no parts could be manufactured
in China and how strictly that would be enforced.
10:31:28 AM
SUE SHERIF, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, said that she
also submitted written testimony. She acknowledged that election
security should be a goal everyone shares. She applauded Senator
Shower's concerns and his work on a compromise bill. She offered
her belief that SB 39 is an overkill solution to a problem that
seems to stem from random errors rather than widespread fraud or
tampering with Alaska's elections. She said she agrees with many
of the previous testifiers about some of the weaknesses in the
bill.
MS. SHERIF said that she would like to be able to ask a neighbor
if she can take her absentee ballot to the post office. She
explained she is a single, senior with a compromised immune
system without home mail delivery, who relies on her neighbors
for help. Second, she expressed concern about the use of
blockchain technology and that specific companies would be
listed in statute, requiring an annual review. As Mr. James
testified to earlier, the technology is not inexpensive. This
comes at a time when the state is facing budget deficits. Third,
the Information Technology (IT) experts do not necessarily
endorse the use of blockchain types of technology for elections.
For example, the National Academy of Sciences has reported:
While the notion of using a blockchain as an immutable
ballot box may seem promising, blockchain technology
does little to solve the fundamental security issues
of elections, and indeed, blockchains introduce
additional security vulnerabilities.
MS. SHERIF stated that Ronald Rivest, a cryptographer and
senior professor at MIT who has looked at voting technology
extensively said:
People often think that using more technology is a
good thing, and that we get more benefits and more
security from technology. In fact, it tends to work
the opposite way. More technology typically means more
complexity. And more complexity means less security.
MS. SHERIF commented that she provided links to those studies in
her written testimony. She said she hoped that members would
reconsider using these types of specific technology.
CHAIR HOLLAND stated that blockchain technology has been removed
from the bill.
SENATOR SHOWER cautioned that systems are already being hacked.
He advised Ms. Sherif that voters can ask someone to take their
ballots to the post office, but people cannot ask to deliver a
ballot to the USPS. He characterized the bill as moving the
Division of Elections into the 21st Century by using best
practices.
10:38:05 AM
SANDRA MURRAY, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SB 39 because it will criminalize community
members and punish them for picking up absentee ballots for
neighbors and friends and delivering them to a U.S. Post Office
drop box. Second, it will place undue burden on voters by using
digital authentication verification when there is not any
evidence of voter fraud. Finally, it will prohibit the Division
of Elections from counting ballots until 7 days prior to the
election. She offered her belief that Alaska's elections
currently work well so SB 39 should be rejected.
10:39:12 AM
FELISA WILSON, representing self, Joint Base Elmendorf
Richardson, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in opposition to SB 39. She
said she is a physician who has resided in Alaska since 2015.
She said she worked as an election official in the 2020
elections. She observed firsthand the Alaska election process
and the technology. She raised concerns about some sections of
the bill, including sections 41, 45, 46, and 48, with specific
concerns about changes to timelines that may affect whether
ballots will be counted, allowing the director the latitude to
limit elections to mail may adversely affect rural areas due to
mail service delays. She expressed concern about blockchain
technology, using multi-factor authentication, and criminalizing
neighbors or church members from offering to help deliver their
friends' or neighbors' ballots to the post office. She urged
members to consider public testimony because it outlines the
burdens SB 39 will impose on the public, division staff and the
adverse fiscal impact to the state.
10:44:45 AM
SHELLIE GOODEN, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, stated
that she prefers the language in HB 66. She offered her belief
that SB 39 is punitive. She expressed concern that some of
Alaska's indigenous residents do not have internet access and
experience mail delays and that Alaska's elections will be
modeled after Colorado's election laws. Further, the bill
disenfranchises disabled, elderly and medically challenged
Alaskans who cannot participate in same day or in-person voting.
She offered her belief that ballot harvesting is not an issue in
Alaska. She said she had difficulty finding amendments to the
bill and just learned about this hearing an hour ago.
CHAIR HOLLAND responded that this meeting was public noticed on
April 30 and is being held on a Saturday to allow the public an
opportunity to testify on the bill and not need to take time off
from work to do so.
SENATOR SHOWER remarked that his chief of staff was trained and
paid to harvest ballots in a previous gubernatorial campaign.
10:48:38 AM
CORIE DEVRIES, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, spoke in
support of SB 39. She acknowledged that issues exist that affect
the integrity of the election system. She said that she has
heard of instances of ballot harvesting, which will be addressed
by the bill. She offered her view that SB 39 does not
disenfranchise voters but will ensure that every legal vote is
counted. She spoke in support of the provision to allow voters
an opportunity to cure their ballots.
10:50:05 AM
MORGAN LIM, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocate (PPAA), Juneau,
Alaska, stated that PPAA opposes SB 39 because it is a voter
suppression bill that imposes barriers to access the polls. He
said the bill claims to combat election fraud in Alaska, but
that is a baseless claim that is the foundation for a bill in
search of a problem. If passed, it will disenfranchise voters.
He said PPAA supports policies that make it easier for all
voters to register and cast a ballot. It is unfortunate that the
U.S. has not lived up to its promise of equal access to the
ballot box, but Black, indigenous, and people of color are
likely to face barriers to voting. Alaska, like many places
throughout the country, is plagued with inadequate polling
places and increasingly limited voting hours, disenfranchises
formerly incarcerated individuals and has systematic efforts to
suppress the vote in communities.
MR. LIM described SB 39 as part of a nationwide voter-
suppression trend. He pointed out that during the first three
months of 2021, 47 states introduced 361 voter suppression
bills. He maintained that despite claims to the contrary by
proponents, Version N has the same goal as the original bill. It
imposes a cascade of barriers on voting He reiterated that the
current version of SB 39 creates a web of barriers to voting. He
urged the committee to take steps to allow eligible Alaskans to
be registered to vote. He urged the committee not to move the
bill.
10:52:28 AM
DIANN DARNALL, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, expressed
concern about the costs to implement SB 39. She echoed previous
testifiers. She recalled the bill version she reviewed did
include blockchain technology. She expressed concern about
shortening the mail ballot timeframe rather than lengthening the
time ballots can be received due to mail delays, imposing
criminal penalties for those who offer to deliver their elderly
and disabled neighbors' ballots to the USPS drop box. She said
she did not believe significant problems in Alaska's elections
exist, that she would like the state to make it easier and not
harder to vote.
10:55:01 AM
BERT HOUGHTALING, representing self, Big Lake, Alaska, said that
he has observed the effects ballot harvesting has had over the
years. He supported his view that vote fraud exists by pointing
out that former Representative LeDoux has been charged with
federal and state election criminal charges. He said that ballot
harvesting has become very apparent in Alaska. He surmised that
teams of people collect ballots with prefilled signatures by
going door to door. He supports any bill that ensures that
Alaska's elections are safer and secure.
10:56:55 AM
PATRICIA DOOLEY, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, said she
is a longtime Alaska resident. She spoke in opposition to SB 39.
She expressed concern about the barriers to voting in SB 39,
including the multi-factor authentication requirements. She said
she did not find any evidence of widespread fraud with Alaska's
election processes and laws that ensure the elections are
secure. Anchorage's vote-by-mail system uses Dominion voting
machines, which she has found to be fast and secure. She said
she has never had an issue voting absentee. She offered her
support for the ballot curing provision in the bill but the bill
should define ballot harvesting.
10:59:54 AM
BECKY STOPPA, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, spoke with
some concerns about SB 39, including the multi-factor
authentication requirements, witness provisions in Section 30,
and penalty provisions that will create undue burdens for
seniors, those with disabilities and rural Alaskans. Further,
the bill lacks a fiscal note. She offered her belief that the
bill will make it more difficult for people to vote. She urged
members not to move the bill as currently written.
11:01:26 AM
TOM BOUTIN, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, spoke in support
of SB 39. He said he was alarmed by the election issues that led
to criminal charges against former Representative LeDoux. He
offered his view that SB 39 will address that issue. He offered
his view that it is not good to send ballots to those on
outdated voter rolls. He said he did not mind extra effort to
register to vote and to prove his eligibility to vote. He said
he hoped that this bill will fix problems with Alaska's
elections and the integrity of elections will be restored.
11:02:50 AM
MARY ELIZABETH KEHRHAHN-STARK, representing self, Fairbanks,
Alaska, spoke in opposition to SB 39. She expressed concern
about the multi-factor authentication provision that will make
it more complicated for people to vote and not allowing a friend
or neighbor to help in the voting process. She offered her view
that this bill is a reaction to the 2020 election. Other than
the issue raised by previous speakers about former
Representative LeDoux, there has not been signs of malicious
voting issues. She offered her belief that SB 39 makes voting
more complicated and burdensome.
11:05:29 AM
GORDON DEVRIES, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, spoke in
support of SB 39. He stated that last fall the Division of
Elections was hacked and information was compromised. Alaskans
want access to in person, absentee and by mail ballots but
Alaska cannot currently provide this in a manner that gives them
confidence in their election system. He expressed concern that
Alaska's voter rolls are inaccurate. He offered his view that SB
39 is a broad-based bill that will leverage technology to make
voting secure while increasing access. Since it isn't possible
to hand cast and count ballots, which he would prefer,
technology is how elections occur. Thus, it is incumbent upon
the state to make Alaska's elections beyond reproach. He offered
his view that bipartisan federal election reviews have
highlighted that harvesting ballots is a major factor in
undermining voter confidence. Voting should be accessible to all
qualified citizens and secure. He offered his belief that the
state should spend money on the integrity of the election system
so Alaskans can have confidence in the system.
11:07:42 AM
TONY KALISS, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, said he
previously taught for nine years in Utqiagvik in rural Alaska.
He offered his view that SB 39 is one of many voter suppression
bills in the U.S. whose goal is to restrict voting. He offered
his belief that these bills are undemocratic bills. The U.S. has
a long history of practices that restricted women, Native
Americans, and Blacks from voting. This is not a tradition that
should continue, he said. On the other hand, the U.S. also has a
tradition of working to expand voting rights, including
instituting automatic voter registration via the permanent fund
dividend and providing voting materials in Native languages. He
supported the provision in SB 39 that will allow tribal
identification cards to be used. He said the state should do
everything possible to make voting easy and accessible. He said
he agreed with the issues raised about blockchain and digital
multi-factor authentication, which makes it much more difficult
for ordinary people to vote.
11:10:52 AM
JOAN DIAMOND, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, stated she
is a 50-year Alaska resident. She spoke against SB 39, noting
that she agreed with many of the comments previous testifiers
made. She said she wants voting to be accessible and easy for
Alaskans and recognizes that the Division of Elections has done
a good job.
11:11:27 AM
NICKY EISEMAM, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SB 39 for many of the reasons previous testifiers
gave. She stated that she has been a resident for 45 years and
has worked as an election official for five years. She offered
her view that Alaska and the U.S. experience low voter turnout.
The state should look for ways to increase voter turnout and not
decrease it and focus on voters being disenfranchised rather
than looking for problems that do not exist. She said the term
"ballot harvesting" is broad. She expressed concern that the
language in SB 39 may create concern that people will face class
A misdemeanor penalties if they take their neighbor's ballot to
a mail drop box. She said it seems wrong to threaten someone
with jail time for helping someone vote. She offered her belief
that the intent of the bill is voter suppression. She urged
members not to move the bill forward.
11:14:31 AM
EVAN ANDERSON, Alaska Center Education Fund, Anchorage, Alaska,
voiced opposition to SB 39. [Mr. Anderson's call was dropped due
to technical difficulties. He resumed his testimony at 11:21
a.m.]
11:15:54 AM
CHANDRA CAFFROY, Alaskans for Constitutional Rights (ACR),
Homer, Alaska, offered ACR's support for SB 39. She offered her
belief that this bill does not go far enough. She expressed
concern about inaccurate voter rolls, the Division of Election
being hacked and voter fraud. This does not give people
confidence in the election process or the lieutenant governor
who has authority over elections in Alaska, she said.
11:17:47 AM
KELLY NASH, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, spoke in
support of SB 39 due to voter fraud. She expressed concern that
voter information was hacked. She said she was surprised that
people opposed the bill since voter integrity is important. She
suggested that since people can vote absentee, it really is not
necessary for someone to pick up their ballots. She spoke in
support of the multi-factor authentication requirement in the
bill but would prefer the state used paper ballots to reduce
voter fraud.
11:19:41 AM
JEAN HOLT, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, spoke in support
of SB 39 and any other bills that support election integrity.
She offered her belief that every legal vote should be counted.
The legislature needs to commit to the integrity of the
elections and restore the process for all Alaskans.
11:20:55 AM
EVAN ANDERSON, Alaska Center Education Fund, Anchorage, Alaska,
resumed his testimony. He stated that he applauds the committee
for working together to tackle election security and
modernization, but he opposes SB 39. He cautioned against
specifying the three or four vendors for the blockchain
technology listed in the bill. Writing that type of specificity
into statute creates a directive for the Division of Elections
to follow. These are good suggestions but if the bill were to
pass the division would need to implement these costly
solutions. Another area of specificity is the Interstate Voter
Registration Crosscheck Program in the bill. He said that at
least 11 states have dropped this program in the last three
years because of issues with fraud and technology issues. He
offered his view that the state's affiliation with the
Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) is a strong
one that he would like to see continued.
11:22:22 AM
RUBEN ANDERSON, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, spoke in
support of SB 39 to tighten up Alaska's election system. He
spoke in favor of chain of custody, voter registration and
signature verification requirements in the bill. He said he
found the voter suppression label given to SB 39 offensive and
ridiculous. He expressed concern about the 2020 election. He
spoke in support of strengthening election integrity. He
suggested that if people can go to the grocery store or bank,
they can go to a polling place. He said that people want fair
elections where all legal votes count but illegal votes do not.
11:24:41 AM
CHRISTINE HUTCHINSON, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, spoke in
support of SB 39. She agreed with the previous speaker that this
is not a voter suppression bill. She said she supports SB 39
because it provides direction in the election process that will
improve elections and restore integrity. She emphasized the
importance of knowing what happens to ballots. She expressed
concern that the general public does not fully understand how
elections work. Thus, it is important for the legislature to pay
attention to the details and tighten up the election process.
She offered her view that even if it is more difficult, the
option to vote is still available to people.
11:26:56 AM
CHAIR HOLLAND, after first determining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on SB 39.
[SB 39 was held in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 39 v.N PPT.pdf |
SJUD 5/8/2021 10:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |