Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
02/11/2021 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| += | SB 43 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 39-BALLOT CUSTODY/TAMPERING; VOTER REG; MAIL
3:33:38 PM
CHAIR SHOWER 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."
3:34:08 PM
HARS VON SPAKOVSKY, Heritage Foundation, introduced himself and
shared that he is currently a senior legal fellow and manager of
the election law reform initiative at the Heritage Foundation,
and in the past has been a county election administrator in two
different counties and states. In addition, he informed the
committee he has served at the justice department enforcing
federal voting laws. He emphasized that he is testifying as an
individual and not as a representative of the Heritage
Foundation.
MR. VON SPAKOVSKY opined that it is critically important for
states to improve election integrity, which includes ensuring
that everyone who votes is legally eligible, that each vote is
counted, and that the process is open to observation by the
public. He emphasized the importance of transparency, an
example of which being that the public, the political party, and
the candidates all agree the election result was achieved
without mistake or fraud. He opined the fairest way to achieve
this goal is by requiring voters to authenticate their
citizenship, identity, and residence when they register and
vote. He added that it is also important for states to maintain
up-to-date voter registration rolls and ensure that deceased
individuals do not remain on the rolls. He shared his
understanding of a study conducted in 2012 by the "Pew
Foundation" [Pew Research Center], which estimated there were 24
million voter registrations with significant errors, there were
1.8 million deceased individuals who remained on the voter
rolls, and 2.7 million voters registered in more than one state.
He shared his understanding that criminal penalties imposed
after voter fraud has occurred were an inefficient deterrent to
voter fraud itself. He added that when former U.S. Supreme
Court Justice John Paul Stevens was on the U.S. Supreme Court in
2008, when upholding Indiana's voter ID law, Justice Stevens
noted that fraud has been documented and can affect the outcome
of a close election. He cited examples of close elections that
have been overturned, such as the 2008 congressional race in
North Carolina's 9th district, and a city council race in
Patterson, New Jersey last summer.
3:38:59 PM
MR. VON SPAKOVSKY stated that the Heritage Foundation fraud
database has 1,311 "proven cases of [voter] fraud" entered. He
clarified that for a case to be considered "proven" by the
Heritage Foundation, an individual had to have been convicted in
a court of law for fraud, a court ordered a new election [due to
fraud], or a state agency has to have found fraud. He offered a
sampling, which included "illegal aliens" from Mexico who
registered and voted in Alaska, and another that forged
signatures on absentee ballots. He said this list was the tip
of the iceberg and cited another example from Pennsylvania in
which an individual admitted to accepting bribes and "stuffing
the ballot box."
3:40:41 PM
MR. VON SPAKOVSKY offered an answer to this problem by giving
examples of improvements that states could make. He referenced
a document [included in the committee packet], titled "The Facts
About Election Integrity and the Need for States to Fix Their
Election Systems" that was recently released by the Heritage
Foundation. It lists the foundation's view of the best voting
practices and their recommendations on the entire voting
process, from voter registration systems to the handling of
absentee ballots.
MR. VON SPAKOVSKY paraphrased some sample recommendations from
the list, beginning with the recommendation for statewide voter
registration lists to be compared with other state databases to
ensure that there were no duplicate voter registrations for the
same voter. He stated that the intended purpose of this
database was to find relevant information that may affect voter
eligibility. He said he viewed the system as advantageous for
voters as the system should automatically change voter
registration information when individuals moved to a new state.
He continued to offer samples from the list, and recommended
states check new voter registrations against county tax records.
He recommended states run quarterly comparisons against the
National Change of Address system run by the U.S. Postal Service
to find individuals who have moved to another state and should
no longer be on the voter registration list for that state. He
added that state election officials should be given access to
commercial data houses, particularly credit agencies, in order
to maintain the accuracy of the voter registration system.
Regarding citizenship, Mr. Von Spakovsky advocated for states to
implement a questionnaire for individuals called to jury duty
which would inquire about their citizenship, filled out under
oath. He added states should require the information gleaned
from the questionnaires to go to election officials to make them
aware of the individuals who have called in from jury duty who
have either moved to another state or are not U.S. citizens. He
added that federal courts should be implementing the same
practice with their juror information.
3:46:09 PM
MR. VON SPAKOVSKY stated that the basic requirement for secure
voting is ID for both in-person and absentee ballots. He
offered his understanding that the polls show that an
overwhelming percentage of American voters support voter ID
laws. He opined that Alaska voter ID requirements are weak
because they allow utility bills and bank statements as
sufficient forms of ID, and these are easily forgeable. He
compared this to the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, which does
not accept utility bills or bank statements as a method for
establishing residency in the state. He reiterated absentee
ballots should require voter ID in addition to being subject to
a tracking system in order to determine where an absentee ballot
is and when it should arrive, both when a ballot is sent to a
voter and when the voter sends the ballot back to election
officials. He shared that the U.S. Election Assistance
Commission files a report with Congress every two years based on
survey data from each state. According to this report, almost
3,000 absentee ballots were listed as "undeliverable" in Alaska
in the last four federal elections, and over 18,000 were listed
by Alaska as "status unknown." He supposed that a tracking
system would help the state determine what happened to those
ballots. In addition, he recommended that all states should ban
vote harvesting. His reasoning for this was if a state allowed
for a third party to deliver ballots, it made the ballots much
more vulnerable to being altered or not delivered, and subjected
absentee voters to coercion and pressure in their homes. He
stated that these situations have occurred in absentee ballot
fraud cases.
3:51:53 PM
MR. VON SPAKOVSKY concluded that all states should ban election
officials from receiving private funding from private
organizations. This could make election officials feel
obligated to act at the directive of these private organizations
and create unequal opportunity to vote within a state. He
offered his understanding that if certain jurisdictions are
getting private funding above the state and local funding, they
may create more opportunities to vote in those highly funded
areas than in other areas of the state.
3:53:20 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked Mr. Von Spakovsky and the panel to make
recommendations for best practices to verify identification
through multi-factor authentication for in-person and absentee
ballots, taking into consideration a balance between election
integrity and equity, and allegations of voter suppression.
MR. VON SPAKOVSKY suggested that laws requiring ID to vote have
been in place for over a decade. He stated that the majority of
lawsuits filed against voter ID requirements have failed. He
said states that have passed voter ID laws have included
language to allow for people to obtain ID [at no cost].
Furthermore, most Americans already have an ID. He cited papers
that he has published on voter turnout in states that require
voter ID that revealed an increase in voter turnout, with Black
and Hispanic voters in Georgia increasing at a greater rate than
for white voters. He referred to a study published in 2019 by
the National Bureau of Economic Research examining voter turnout
in all fifty states in 2008-2016 that concluded that voter ID
laws had "no negative effect on registration or turnout overall,
or for any specific group defined by race, gender, age, or party
affiliation." Regarding absentee [voter ID requirements], he
referred to laws in Alabama and Kansas. He stated that Kansas
allows for voters to submit photocopied government IDs or
provide the state-issued serial number assigned to each Kansas
ID along with their ballots.
MR. VON SPAKOVSKY suggested that Americans are required to
furnish ID routinely for many different reasons including
constitutionally protected rights, such as for a gun purchase or
a marriage license.
4:00:41 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD lauded the discussion and proposed legislation
as a blueprint for improving elections in Alaska. She expressed
her dissatisfaction with allegations of voter suppression and
stated her intent to assert that such allegations are false.
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee has invited [Third Judicial District Superior Court]
Judge Crosby to testify in order to assert legislative oversight
of the judicial branch comparable to the oversight apparent of
the administrative branch. She stated that she looked forward
to hearing SB 39 in the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if he was familiar with [Judge Crosby's]
ruling.
CHAIR SHOWER advised that Judge Crosby "struck down our witness
signature requirement ... the legislature's purview."
4:02:43 PM
MR. VON SPAKOVSKY said that he was familiar with the case and
added that Andino v. Middleton was filed in South Carolina to
permit the state to exempt its witness signature requirement
during the COVID-19 pandemic. That was overturned by the U.S.
Supreme Court, which removed the stay imposed in lower courts.
He suggested that numerous cases existed in which lower court
stays were overturned by higher courts. He stated that the
opinions of the higher courts indicated that lower court judges
were interfering with state legislatures and that state
officials were better equipped to make determinations regarding
voting during the pandemic. He opined that judges in Alaska
should follow the guidance of the U.S. Supreme Court [in the
Andino v. Middleton ruling] and allow the witness signature
requirement to be enforced.
CHAIR SHOWER asked whether he was aware of any mandatory voter
ID that would violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
MR. VON SPAKOVSKY answered that only in one or two cases was
there a violation of the Act identified. He added that the
voter ID laws apply equally to all voters and that there was no
evidence produced that the issuance of IDs discriminated against
any ethnicity obtaining an ID.
4:08:55 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked whether he or anyone in his organization had
contacted the Alaska Division of Elections with its findings.
MR. VON SPAKOVSKY answered that to his knowledge no one in his
organization had contacted the division; however, it had widely
distributed the Best Practices in Achieving Integrity in Voter
Registration throughout the country.
4:10:39 PM
CHRISTIAN ADAMS, President, Public Interest Legal Foundation
(PILF), explained that PILF is a 501(c)(3) that promotes
election integrity. Mr. Adams offered background, highlighting
his experience as an attorney working on litigation around the
country regarding the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the National
Voter Registration Act of 1993, the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (HAVA), and other constitutional provisions related to
voting.
MR. ADAMS stated that he has been studying Alaska elections for
a long time and has shared his findings with the Alaska Division
of Elections over the years. He conveyed that one of Alaska's
most consistent problems is that the state has voter
registration rates above 100 percent of those that are eligible
to vote. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) has noted in
semi-annual reports that Alaska is always coming in with
"implausible" rates of registration. This number has been off
by a significant margin year after year, which indicates that
there is something wrong. He said Alaska has been the worst in
the country with implausible rates of registration, having more
people register to vote than there are alive.
MR. ADAMS continued to explain that the normal rate is 70-80
percent of the age eligible citizen population; however, in
Alaska, it is consistently in the implausible range and there
has been no fix. He said that for a period of time, Alaska
allowed citizens to register in multiple jurisdictions, which
could be one cause of the problem. He shared his belief that
this situation could have been mitigated in the last three or
four years.
MR. ADAMS stated that the Help America Vote Act required every
state to set up a statewide database to fix multiple
registrations by one person. He pointed out that Alaska may not
be using the effective review of this centralized statewide
database. Mr. Adams said he has yet to find a state voter
registration database that sorts registered voters by address.
This way, redundant voter registrations can be found, which have
deviations in the input of their names into the database, such
as a middle name in one place and a middle initial in another
registration. He proposed that it could account for Alaska's
implausible rates of registration. He said last year, PILF
published a report available online called "Critical Condition,"
in which the organization purchased voter rolls from 41 states
and centralized them to cross check both registration in
multiple states and voters who voted after their registered
death. He indicated that in 2018, the study found that 61
Alaskans cast ballots after death and in 2016, there were 62.
He said another problem is duplicate registrations. He cited an
example in Pittsburg where one person had seven active
registrations through third parties.
4:18:23 PM
MR. ADAMS related that Alaska ranked 13th in the country for
same address duplicates in 2016 with 209 duplicate votes. He
noted that sometimes there are false positives with this metric.
However, PILF cross checked the information with multiple
commercial databases and other credit reporting boroughs to be
certain it was the same individual voting twice, and not a
junior or senior with the same name. In the 2018 midterms,
Alaska was 13th in the nation with 190 same address duplicate
votes. He said these are considered intrastate duplicate votes.
4:20:13 PM
MR. ADAMS suggested address clarification was another solution.
When a citizen registers to vote in Alaska, the law says the
citizen must provide his or her address where they claim
residency. This means he or she may not use a PO Box, a PFC, an
HR, or an RR. In other words, Mr. Adams clarified, an
individual cannot register where they do not live. He indicated
that Alaska has 565 voters registered at [nonresidential]
addresses.
4:21:55 PM
MR. ADAMS concluded his testimony by imploring the committee to
"[n]ever allow private entities to fund elections, [and] do not
allow outside third parties to put in structural bias into the
system." He argued that the best way to destroy trust in
elections is to fund them with private money and reiterated his
advice not to allow that to happen in Alaska.
CHAIR SHOWER thanked Mr. Adams for his presentation, saying it
brought clarity and good information.
CHAIR SHOWER said his office would like to access to PILF's data
set used in the presentation. He asked who has attempted to
contact the Division of Elections regarding this information.
MR. ADAMS responded that his staff contacted the division, and
[the Division of Elections has] this information. He explained
that when PILF finds these problems, it alerts the Division of
Elections to the problems on their voter rolls. Over the years,
he said, [his staff] has been sending the information to the
Division of Elections as they find it. He argued that it should
not be a mystery that this is a problem.
4:24:11 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD complimented Mr. Adam's presentation. She then
clarified that Mr. Adams misspoke at [4:21:06] saying "565
noncommercial" when discussing nonresident addresses and asked
for the record to be clarified.
MR. ADAMS agreed that he had misspoken and corrected the record
of his previous testimony to "nonresidential addresses where
these individuals are registered to vote."
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for further clarification from Mr. Adam's
testimony regarding Alaska's rank.
MR. ADAMS explained Alaska was ranked 13th worst in the country
for "same address duplicate showing second vote credits" for
2016 and 2018.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if the deceased voters from 2016 and 2018
were from District 15 and if they were related to Representative
Gabrielle LeDoux. She also asked him to weigh in on independent
expenditures, explaining that [Alaskan election campaigns] have
a lot of independent expenditures. She said the governor and
many legislators have used independent expenditures when seeking
election. Lastly, she asked how to exclude private entities
from elections so they may be impartial.
MR. ADAMS said he is not inferring that the numbers refer to a
specific person or race; nonetheless, he offered to find out the
distribution of the dead votes in Alaska. He noted that he did
not know what district they were in or where they were
concentrated, though he had the names. He further stated that
the Division of Elections has this information and has already
been alerted.
MR. ADAMS addressed Senator Reinbold's last question regarding
independent expenditures. He explained that in 2020 over $450
million flowed into financing elections through private
[501(c)(3)] foundations. He cited an election in Philadelphia
with a budget that was doubled from a single private doner and
explained how this could make the electoral system feel
untrustworthy to the doner's opposition. He further pressed the
idea that private interests should not be funding government
election offices.
CHAIR SHOWER thanked Mr. Adams on behalf of the committee. He
explained that this effort was started three years ago and both
sides have disputed the elections. He opined that most people's
faith in the election system has been shaken and the goal is to
restore faith so citizens may trust the results of an election.
He advised that the committee may be in touch about the path
forward.
4:29:37 PM
JASON RAMPTON, Vice Chair, District 14 Republican Party,
provided a brief history of his service in the U.S. Air Force
and experience working as a dentist in Eagle River. Dr. Rampant
recounted reports of voter "irregularities" within District 14
in November 2020. He explained that he notified both the
Division of Elections and the Lieutenant Governor of the
irregularities, which he proceeded to describe. He anecdotally
reported that during a district meeting, Paulette Ditzler
claimed that upon arriving at her polling location for the first
time, she was told her vote had already been cast. Ms. Ditzler
was allowed to enter a contested ballot that was eventually
counted; however, the situation was never resolved. He noted
that additional allegations followed regarding receipt of
multiple ballots, including Jeff Wright from Eagle River who
reported that three mail-in ballots addressed to former
residents were delivered to his home; Jammie Allard received two
ballots addressed to former residents; and Joe Wright received a
ballot addressed to his son who no longer lives at home.
Additionally, in 2016, former Representative Sharon Jackson
received a ballot addressed to someone who had been deceased for
seven years, and in 2019, Kristen Bush, an Eagle River resident,
received four ballots that were all addressed to other people.
Dr. Rampton estimated those examples account for 12 extra
ballots received in District 14; furthermore, he surmised that
there were many more [discrepancies] in the state at large.
DR. RAMPTON relayed that he collected the list of names from the
misaddressed ballots and reported the information to the
Division of Elections. He offered his understanding that the
division is attempting to "clean up the records" to prevent
ballots from being issued to those names again in the future.
Nonetheless, he opined that it does not solve that problem for
the rest of the state. He shared another personal anecdote
about potential attempted voter "fraud" that occurred "quite a
few years back" involving an individual from out of state who
attempted to procure a ballot under the name of a deceased
person. He maintained that the division was unhelpful in
resolving the issue.
4:41:54 PM
DR. RAMPTON referenced a chart [included in the committee
packet], he found on the internet titled "Over-Registration." It
indicates that Alaska as 43,881 over-registered voters. He also
referenced a document [included in the committee packet], titled
"Voting Facts in Alaska." He remarked:
Those numbers when added together - the residents over
18 and the Alaskan registered out-of-state voters -
those numbers should total 597,000, which is on the
far [right] side of the sheet there. That's the total
number of registered voters ... but the Division of
Elections, or whoever reported this, has reported the
number of 553,438 - that's the total number of
residents over 18 ... that has nothing to do with
people that are registered, but they've put it in
there and they've made it appears as though it is.
DR. RAMPTON, still referencing the "Voting Facts in Alaska"
document, proposed that if 90 percent of Alaska residents over
18 were registered to vote, then 99,225 out-of-state people
would be registered to vote in Alaska. He suggested that "the
books are cooked" and maintained that the chart, titled "Over-
Registration," is misrepresenting the number of out-of-state
people who are registered to vote in Alaska. Furthermore, he
claimed that the division refuses to provide the number of
registered voters "inside the boundaries of Alaska." He
asserted that number of registered voters in Alaska would allow
for the correct calculation of the number of out-of-state
voters, which he assumed is much higher than 43,881.
Additionally, he purported that Alaska is closer to 130 percent
over-registered. He speculated that the large number of out-of-
state voters that are registered to vote in Alaska is largely
due to individuals who continue to receive the PFD after leaving
the state. In closing, he restated his belief that the number
of registered voters living outside the state is closer to
150,000, not 43,881.
4:49:26 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD conveyed that she continues to receive ballots
addressed to her two children who moved out of state five years
ago; therefore, she speculated that the numbers provided by Dr.
Rampton are underestimated.
DR. RAMPTON acknowledged that he did not "dig deep" for the
information regarding multiple ballots, it was acquired from
people who did not know where else to report it.
CHAIR SHOWER sought to clarify whether those people received
multiple ballots or multiple applications.
DR. RAMPTON maintained that he verified the information this
morning and each person said they received ballots.
4:52:23 PM
LANCE PRUITT, a former state representative representing
himself, informed the committee that he was recently a candidate
in District 27. He said the race was close and a lot was
learned. To that end, he outlined topics on which he would
speak: polling locations; people who have moved into or out of
the district; and the number of absentees counted compared to
past elections.
MR. PRUITT said the issue of polling locations was argued in the
Supreme Court. In District 27, he stated that two precincts
were moved: in the first instance, which was Basher precinct,
voters received notice of the move via US mail. In the second,
people were taken by surprise. On August 17, 2020, the chair of
the district showed up at the polling location to make sure
everything was in order. He signed in and had his temperature
checked. Then he called the Division of Elections ("division")
and stated that checking according to the corporate policy of
Wayland Baptist University, was "probably going to be a
challenge." The location was henceforth changed to Muldoon Town
Center. When it came time for the general election, Mr. Pruitt
stated that he wanted to communicate to people where they needed
to go to vote, as the change had happened so suddenly in the
primary election.
MR. PRUITT stated that on October 21, 2020, he asked the
division the whereabouts of the polling place and it was
determined to be the Muldoon Town Center. He asked how to
ensure it would not move again and was told the contracts were
already signed and it was "not moving." Mr. Pruitt then found
out the very next day, October 22nd, that when the division
called the owner of the Muldoon Town Center to check in, they
were told they could not have the precinct there. Reasons cited
were Muldoon Town Center was not made aware ahead of time the
last time elections were moved there, and additionally, that it
took two weeks for the division to pick up their belongings
after the election.
MR. PRUITT related that on October 22nd the division began its
search for another location and eventually settled on Begich
Middle School. He pointed out COVID-19 was utilized as the
reasoning for the first change but not the second, highlighting
the division had had from August 18th until October 22nd to
check in with Muldoon Town Center to determine whether the
location could be used. Furthermore, Mr. Pruitt pointed out, it
is in statute that if the location of a polling place is to be
changed, five things needed to happen: 1.) constituents should
receive a mailer; 2.) location must be changed on the website;
3.) location must be sent to the local clerk; 4.) location must
be published in the newspaper; and 5.) location must be
published in the official election pamphlet. The division only
changed the location on the website within a week of the
election. He said that even this action was not done properly
because there were still places on the website that listed the
wrong location. He maintained that a sign hung at the former
location stated that the polling place was "somewhere else."
5:00:09 PM
MR. PRUITT asserted that 67 of 442 precincts were changed of 442
statewide, 28 of 170 in Anchorage and Wasilla, and 19 of 119 in
Anchorage alone. Of these, the division communicated only 2
changes: one in Wasilla and one in Houston. Despite this, there
were no consequences for the division, he imparted.
5:01:06 PM
MR. PRUITT turned to his second point which was the state
Constitutional requirement that an individual needed to live in
a district for 30 days prior to an election in order to vote for
a state senator or state representative in that district.
However, Mr. Pruitt stated that he had received reports of
individuals who had moved to a district within the 30-day period
but had still voted in that district. The division gets to
assume, that unless a person has told them they have moved, that
that person still lives in the district they moved from and can
still vote there. In a search, Mr. Pruitt said his team found,
by way of a public records search, 50 people who had moved out
of District 27 but who had still voted in the district.
5:03:55 PM
MR. PRUITT moved on to the third consideration, which was
absentee voters and the "second signature" requirement. He
opined that there was no doubt this consideration impacted the
election. He supported his opinion with the following fact:
typically, in District 27, there was around a 3 percent
rejection rate of absentee ballots; this past election, the
rejection rate was .037. This was not a statistical anomaly,
Mr. Pruitt stated, but a substantial change. He posited that
the injunction may have affected the election.
MR. PRUITT related an anecdote about a constituent who was
"disenfranchised" by the location change and said he wanted to
dispel any rumors that he was testifying to challenge the
election. He reiterated that he was testifying because the
location change was unfair to voters and needed to be addressed
promptly. Mr. Pruitt added more anecdotal information about
voters' disenfranchisement.
5:09:17 PM
CHAIR SHOWER noted that just one disenfranchised voter testified
at the court trial. He asked how many disenfranchised voters he
found and how the judge handled the information.
MR. PRUITT replied "maybe 10-12 people" reached out. He added
that it was also important to analyze, based on historical
numbers, how many people potentially did not vote. He relayed
his team analyzed Precinct 915 and two that were similar. He
said this election was different; in past elections, Democrats
won early 60-40 or thereabouts, but absentee votes turned out
more like 60-40 Republican. Day of election, he found results
typically 50-51 percent Republican. This election went the
other way, with absentee votes coming out 65-35 Democrat. He
related that in his race, he won early and day-of with a 65-35
margin.
MR. PRUITT added that it had been determined, based on
historical numbers from Precinct 915, that 57 people were
disenfranchised. District 27 also had the lowest participation
Day of, and it had been some time since it had been the lowest.
CHAIR SHOWER asked about the judge's statement on why he did not
pursue.
MR. PRUITT replied he did not have that information. He added
that he ultimately believed the feeling was that the impact was
not enough to change the outcome of the election. He surmised
that there was not enough evidence in terms of the time frame
scenario.
CHAIR SHOWER said the testimony showed there were plenty of
things that needed to be looked at, and that the statistics of 3
percent to .37 percent was "definitely an issue."
SENATOR REINBOLD thanked Mr. Pruitt for testifying.
CHAIR SHOWER clarified that Mr. Pruitt was invited because of
the information and data, and not because of the election
result.
MR. PRUITT agreed, and said he was testifying because people
needed election integrity.
CHAIR SHOWER held SB 39 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 39 Voting Facts in Alaska.pdf |
SSTA 2/11/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 Over- Registation.pdf |
SSTA 2/11/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 The Facts About Election Integrity and the Need for States to Fix Their Election Systems _ The Heritage Foundation.pdf |
SSTA 2/11/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 PILF-best-practices-report-FINAL(4).pdf |
SSTA 2/11/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 PILF Omnibus.pdf |
SSTA 2/11/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 Heritage foundation.pdf |
SSTA 2/11/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 39 |