Legislature(2005 - 2006)BELTZ 211
02/01/2005 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB36 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 36 | ||
SB 36-ABSENTEE BALLOT APPLICATIONS
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced SB 36 to be up for consideration and
that there was a proposed committee substitute (CS). He asked
Senator Wagoner for a motion to adopt the proposed CS.
3:33:07 PM
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER motioned to adopt CSSB 36, \G version, as
the working document. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Stancliff to explain the proposed
changes.
3:33:21 PM
DAVE STANCLIFF, staff to Senator Therriault, explained that the
following changes were suggested at the previous hearing:
· On page 1, line 8, the deadline for the Division of
Elections receiving an application for absentee ballots was
changed from 7 days to 10 days
· On page 2 a new subsection (j) was added on lines 6 - 16.
It requires the division director to adopt three new
regulations:
1. The information may only contain information required
under regulations adopted by the director.
2. All information on ballot request solicitations must
be concealed while in transit to the division.
3. Requires that the director approve any absentee ballot
request forms that are not generated by the division.
3:35:05 PM
MR. STANCLIFF advised that those were the components that were
included in statute and some of the details would be addressed
in the new regulations the division adopted.
Finally, the appropriate type of penalty was discussed. The new
Section 3 establishes that it is a class C felony for persons
convicted of interfering with voting in more than one instance.
3:35:36 PM
Section 4 establishes that a person that is convicted of
interfering with voting is charged with a class A misdemeanor.
The reasoning is that the penalty is stiffer on the second
conviction.
MR. STANCLIFF said he was available to answer questions.
CHAIR THERRIAULT noted that both Laura Glaiser with the Division
of Elections and Annette Kreitzer with the Lt. Governor's Office
were available to testify if there were questions.
3:36:18 PM
He noted that Section 3 (a) and Section 4 (a) each refer to a
person, but then Section 3 subsection (a) paragraph (4) and
Section 4 subsection (a) paragraph (5) each make reference to a
political group or political party.
He said he questioned referencing a person and then later
referring to a group, but the drafter told him that the "a
person" covers both a single person and a group.
He then asked whom the fine would be assessed against if a
political group were found to be at fault and would there be any
jail time assessed. The drafter said that because a group is a
body of people there wouldn't be jail time; the courts could
issue a fine.
3:37:15 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT referenced Section 2 and pointed out that
specific language was included in subsection (j) that says the
director shall adopt regulations that cover certain items that
are outlined in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
3:37:37 PM
SENATOR ELTON referenced Section 3 and said that because of the
way political groups or political parties are defined elsewhere
under the title, he was concerned that major parties could be
sanctioned, but others, such as the Republican Moderate Party,
might be excluded from sanction if they engaged in the illegal
behavior. Also, he wasn't sure that groups such as People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals or Trustees for Alaska would be
subject to the same penalties because they aren't actually
political groups. He questioned why some people should be
excluded from the penalty component while others weren't.
3:39:30 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT replied it's assumed that those groups are more
sophisticated and should know better so they're held to a higher
standard. If that causes difficulty, he said, they could include
language that is broader or add paragraph (5) to capture smaller
parties and groups.
SENATOR WAGONER said the issue might be irrelevant because the
Republican Moderate Party might not be recognized as a party any
more. That's because a party must receive three percent of the
vote in the previous election to remain a valid political party.
CHAIR THERRIAULT replied that's what Senator Elton means.
Because they aren't officially recognized, they wouldn't be
included in the category, but they might have an absentee ballot
effort. He noted that Ms. Glaiser was stepping forward to
provide explanation.
LAURA GLAISER, director, of the Division of Elections, read the
definition of political party and political group contained in
AS 15.60.010. She advised that, "In the division, a political
group means a group organized of voters, which represents a
political program and does not qualify as a party." If a
political party no longer qualifies as a political party, the
division views them as a political group.
CHAIR THERRIAULT remarked the combination casts the net wide
enough to apply to both political parties and the smaller
political groups.
3:42:05 PM
MS. GLAISER emphasized that she wasn't speaking as an attorney,
but they do interpret the language that way.
SENATOR ELTON said he had two points. First, he said his
definition came from AS 15.13.400 rather than AS 15.60.010 and
he wondered whether the descriptions are similar.
LAURA GLAISER explained that there is a definition in both the
APOC statutes and the Division of Election statutes. The
division uses the definition in AS 15.13, but she acknowledged
that there has been tension over the two definitions.
3:43:19 PM
SENATOR ELTON said his second question related to groups such as
Trustees for Alaska, PETA, the State Chamber of Commerce or
other groups that might want to increase voter turnout. They all
qualify as a group, but he questioned whether they would be
covered as a political group if they weren't organized around an
election.
LAURA GLAISER said she didn't know how they would be affected
under AS 15.60.010.
SENATOR ELTON thought that language would preclude groups such
as 527s from coverage. [527s are a tax-exempt group organized
under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code to raise money
for political activities including voter mobilization.
3:44:24 PM
MR. STANCLIFF noted that the bill had a Judiciary Committee
referral and he could look into the definition further before it
reached that committee if that was desired. He asked Senator
Elton whether he was a member of that committee.
3:44:51 PM
SENATOR ELTON replied Senators French and Guess were on that
committee and they were preparing a packet for them.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Stancliff whether there were other
issues to cover.
MR. STANCLIFF replied he had nothing further to add.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Ms. Glaiser to comment on the change from
seven to ten days and to clarify when in-person early voting
begins. He wanted to ensure that everyone was comfortable that
access isn't curtailed.
3:45:27 PM
LAURA GLAISER explained that the division asked to move the last
day to apply for an absentee ballot to ten days prior to an
election from the current seven day cutoff. The request is based
on their knowledge that the division did receive between 7,000
and 11,000 applications in a day. When it's close to the
election, it's very difficult to fully verify that many absentee
ballot applications, get the ballots in the mail, and beat the
seven day deadline.
3:47:05 PM
"You want to give people the most opportunity when they have a
change in their lives, to be able to apply and receive a
ballot." In Alaska absentee in-person early voting begins 15
days prior to an election and absentee by-fax voting is
available 15 days prior to an election.
3:47:59 PM
As Senator Elton said, you want voting to be as accessible as
possible and having access to a ballot is the highest standard.
Although you can request a ballot on the seventh day, if there's
no way for the State to turn that around she questioned whether
it really served the voter.
3:48:22 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT said it's a balance between encouraging people
to vote and making sure that the Division of Elections is able
to check to ensure that the voters are valid. Both are
important so that people feel that elections in the state are
run fairly.
3:49:12 PM
SENATOR ELTON suggested that there are two ways to deal with
that. One way is to make the change from seven days to ten days
prior to an election and the second way would be to increase
staff so that the turnaround time is reduced.
LAURA GLAISER stated that a better alternative would be to do
both.
3:50:27 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT remarked that with ten days it's likely the
voter would receive a ballot in enough time to cast a vote, but
it's nip and tuck if it's seven days.
LAURA GLAISER said when elections staff told voters that their
ballot arrived on the last day the division accepted
applications and 7,000 applications came in that day, the voter
still expected to receive their ballot. The three extra days
would make a big difference, she said.
3:51:19 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked how much time there is between when the
voter pamphlet is mailed out and the ten day deadline.
3:52:23 PM
LAURA GLAISER replied the division is statutorily required to
get the voter pamphlets in the mail 22 days prior to an election
so the voter receives the pamphlet between 12 and 15 days before
an election. "That's a tight deadline in itself," she said.
SENATOR ELTON said he asked because he's noticed that his
neighbors begin seriously thinking about the election once the
voter pamphlet arrives.
3:53:25 PM
There were no further questions.
CHAIR THERRIAULT stated that version \G for SB 36 was before the
committee and that there were no amendments. The bill had one
zero fiscal note. He asked for the will of the committee.
3:53:51 PM
SENATOR WAGONER motioned to move CSSB 36(STA) version \G from
committee with individual recommendations and attached zero
fiscal note.
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced that without objection CSSB 36(STA)
moved from committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|