Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/29/2001 03:40 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 146-MODIFIED BLANKET PRIMARY ELECTION
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that the committee heard lengthy testimony
on this bill in a previous hearing. He asked committee members to
look on page 2, lines 5, 6 and 7 of the C version of the proposed
committee substitute and find that language after "AS 15.25.012(b)"
on line 5 and before "voter" on line 7, had been blacked out.
It was his preference to adopt the modified language in the C
version for the working document. The committee substitute (CS) is
the result of his review of the document and eliminating extra
findings and changing language referring to an open or blanket
ballot to ballots. The blacked out language referred to ballots
with restricted access. In section 3 it was clarified that a
political party has a right, by its bylaws, to limit individuals
who have access to their ballot.
It was his intention to cull language that was not necessary and
put together a framework upon which the regulations could be built.
SENATOR PEARCE moved to adopt CSSB 146 Kurtz \C version dated
3/28/01 with the deletion of the language on page 2, lines 5
through 7. There was no objection.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked Joe Balash to explain the proposed
amendment.
JOE BALASH, staff to the Senate State Affairs Committee, testified
that Chairman Therriault and the bill drafter were trying to make
sure that the number of ballots and which ballots are prepared is
clear in the statute and that language removed in the original
version did not interfere with that objective. A question arose
about what happens with individuals that will be on the ballot by
virtue of a petition. In 1995, the legislature passed a bill
stating that all petition candidates will be placed on the primary
ballot. Under AS 5.25.02(b), if a modified ballot is prepared,
there is the potential for multiple ballots and Chairman Therriault
wanted to make certain that those petition candidates would be
placed on every ballot.
In addition, whenever the legislature adjourns more than 90 days
before the primary election, any ballot initiatives appear on the
primary ballot as opposed to the general election ballot. They
wanted to assure that all the questions from the initiative make it
onto the ballot prepared for the primary.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether there were any questions about
amendment C.1 and there were none.
He moved amendment 1 and it was adopted with no objection.
Number 1159
SENATOR PHILLIPS said that he wanted to address a concern brought
up in several constituent meetings about the fact that election
workers have not had a raise in 20 years. He asked a Division of
Elections' representative to explain the payment schedule.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist for the Division of
Elections, said that Senator Phillips was correct in stating that
election workers have not received a pay increase since their pay
was put in regulation in 1982. The chairperson for a precinct is
paid $8 per hour and the election workers are paid $7.50 per hour.
There are other pay scales set out for absentee and question
counting board members, state review board members, absentee voting
officials and absentee voting officials who work at an absentee
station.
The division has been discussing the pay scale and has received
numerous calls on the issue. They propose to raise the workers pay
by $5 an hour. There would also be a review made after a certain
number of years and the pay rate would be reevaluated at that time.
Election workers throughout the northwest region of the state are
paid from $9.50 an hour to $19.99 an hour. Election workers work
hard for long hours and deserve a raise.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT called attention to a note in the committee
packets dated 3/28/01 at 10:59 and asked Senator Phillips to
comment on the projected pay increase.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said he asked the division to make
recommendations.
MS. FENUMIAI said that the division chose a $5 increase for all
positions. The draft fiscal note is based on a $5 increase and
reflects an increase of $76,600 in even numbered fiscal years in
which regional education attendance area elections and coastal
resource service area elections are conducted. In odd numbered
fiscal years, in which primary, general, REAA and CRSA elections
are held, the increase pay to workers would equal $464,000.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that it is his preference to not put a pay
raise in the bill. The finance committee will hear the bill and
they are in a position to evaluate the affordability of the pay
raise. He suggested that committee members convey their desire to
see an increase but leave the particulars to that committee.
SENATOR PEARCE asked for a reading of the last line of the fiscal
note.
MS. FENUMIAI read the following: "This fiscal note also reflects a
pay increase for election workers. Election workers have not had a
pay increase since 1982. The increased costs in FY02, FY04, and
FY06 for election workers employed for the conduct of the REAA and
CRSA elections is $76.6. The increased cost in FY03, FY05 and FY07
for election workers employed for the conduct of primary, general,
REAA and CRSA elections is $464.0."
SENATOR PEARCE asked if those amounts are just the increase.
MS. FENUMIAI said yes, they are in addition to what is currently
budgeted.
SENATOR PEARCE asked the number of statewide election workers, the
number of hours they generally work and whether overtime is paid.
MS. FENUMIAI said approximately 2,500 workers work from 14 to 18
hours per day with no overtime because the job is for just one day
and is not based on a 40-hour workweek.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked whether there is much interest in the raise.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that most workers do so for reasons of
civic responsibility rather than monetary compensation. He did not
know whether a $5 per hour increase would change the motivation for
those individuals but, since there has not been a raise in a length
of time, he would like the finance committee to consider whether a
raise is possible.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked whether they would send a letter to the
finance committee.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that, as chairman of the Senate State
Affairs Committee, he would send a letter.
He asked whether there were any other questions on the CS. There
was some discussion of whether the legislature needed to do
anything on the issue. He did receive a memo from Catherine Kurtz
saying, "If the statute is not replaced with something else, there
will be no clear statutory direction to the Division of Elections
as to how the primary ballot should be prepared and distributed."
If no action is taken this year there is the chance for action next
year but the Division of Elections will be in turmoil about what
they are expected to do and the entire issue will become a legal
discussion between the political parties, the division and the
court's interpretation. It is for that reason that he prepared the
CS.
He asked for other proposed amendments or questions from committee
members. There were none.
He asked for the will of the committee.
SENATOR PEARCE moved CSSB 146 (STA) and original fiscal note from
committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that before final action was taken, he
wanted to ask MS. FENUMIAI about the fiscal impact to the division
if there is no legislation passed this year.
MS. FENUMIAI said if there was no statute in place for the primary
election, she wasn't sure what route the division would take as to
what rules to follow for the primary election. It is her assumption
that if emergency regulations were required again they would
probably find themselves in the same situation as during the last
primary: they would have to ask for a supplemental request to cover
additional costs.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether there was objection to moving
CSSB 146 (STA) with fiscal note dated 3/28/01. There was none.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|