Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/15/2011 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR17 | |
| HB178 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 17 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 178 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 2011
8:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sharon Cissna
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 17
Urging the United States Congress to pass legislation concerning
regulation of drinking water and wastewater treatment by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
- MOVED CSHJR 17(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 178
"An Act relating to election practices and procedures; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 17
SHORT TITLE: WATER & WASTE WATER REGULATION
SPONSOR(s): COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
03/07/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/07/11 (H) CRA, RES
03/15/11 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 178
SHORT TITLE: ELECTION PROCEDURES
SPONSOR(s): THOMAS
03/07/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/07/11 (H) CRA, STA
03/15/11 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
PAUL LABOLLE, Staff
Representative Neal Foster
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 17 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Foster.
SHIRLEY MARQUARDT, Mayor
City of Unalaska
Unalaska, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed hope that HJR 17 would be
forwarded.
MARK LYNCH, Manager
City of Cordova
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HJR 17, related the
situation of the City of Cordova.
CHRIS HLADICK, Manager
City of Unalaska
Unalaska, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 17.
CECILE ELLIOT, Staff
Representative Bill Thomas
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 178 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Thomas.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney
Division of Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 178, answered
questions.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director
Division of Elections
Office of Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 178, answered
questions.
PADDY MCGUIRE, Deputy Director
Election Official Assistance
Federal Voting Assistance Program
U.S. Department of Defense
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 178, answered
questions.
MARK SAN SOUCI, Regional Liaison Northwest
Defense State Liaison Office
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Military Community and Family
Policy)
U.S. Department of Defense
Tacoma, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 178.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:09:38 AM
CHAIR CATHY ENGSTROM MUNOZ called the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:09
a.m. Representatives Austerman, Dick, Saddler, Gardner, and
Munoz were present at the call to order.
HJR 17- WATER & WASTE WATER REGULATION
8:09:51 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 17, Urging the United States Congress
to pass legislation concerning regulation of drinking water and
wastewater treatment by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
CHAIR MUNOZ explained that HJR 17 is the result of work the
committee performed earlier in the year after hearing about the
changes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requiring
such that some communities in Alaska would have to have more
sophisticated water treatment systems, which are very expensive.
Some years ago there was an exemption for 27 communities in
Alaska that allowed those communities to use secondary treatment
of their water. However, that exemption is in flux now and is
of great concern for these communities.
8:11:02 AM
PAUL LABOLLE, Staff, Representative Neal Foster, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that the communities with the exemption
have a 301(h) waiver. The EPA decided that it would not exempt
one particular community from that waiver and has hinted that
other communities may follow. At the same time, the EPA is not
allowing that community to apply for the waiver because the
deadline for that waiver expired some years ago. He explained
that it's a situation in which the deadline for the waiver has
expired, the community didn't apply for the waiver because they
had an exemption, and the EPA changed its policy and is no
longer recognizing the exemption. Mr. Labolle pointed out that
the aforementioned language isn't included in HJR 17 per the
request of the community, which is already under the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement. He noted that he has a
couple of proposed technical amendments to offer for the
committee's consideration.
8:13:09 AM
MR. LABOLLE informed the committee that the facility program
manager for Village Safe Water had provided an updated amount
for the amount of declining federal funds. Therefore, he
suggested the committee on page 2, line 16, delete "$49,000,000"
and insert "$42,500,000". He then suggested the committee on
page 2, line 18, change the "October 1, 2011" language to "the
proposed fiscal year 2012". In response to Representative
Saddler, confirmed that the reference is to the federal fiscal
year.
8:14:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN moved the amendments proposed by Mr.
Labolle, labeled Amendment 1, as follows:
Page 2, line 16;
Delete "$49,000,000"
Insert "$42,500,000"
Page 2, line 18;
Delete "October 1, 2011,"
Insert "the proposed fiscal year 2012"
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
8:15:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, as follows:
Page 2, line 31, following "emergency";
Insert "or to make the regulations less
burdensome for communities."
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
8:16:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that one of the
problems with the EPA is that it isn't allowed to include costs
as part of its argument for or against something. The EPA's
focus is on the impact to the environment without regard to the
cost to the community or the state. If that's the case, she
questioned whether language should be added asking the U.S.
Congress to allow the EPA to consider the fiscal impact when
making its decisions.
MR. LABOLLE directed attention to the language on page 1, line
14, which references Executive Order 13563 that addresses the
issue. He explained that it's not that the EPA can't consider
costs rather it's more of a situation in which the EPA
acknowledges that the cost may be a problem for the communities,
but not that the cost isn't EPA's problem.
8:18:23 AM
SHIRLEY MARQUARDT, Mayor, City of Unalaska, thanked the
committee for bringing forward HJR 17. As was pointed out
earlier, this is a problem for Unalaska. However, all the signs
point to it becoming an Alaska problem in the near future. She
emphasized that it's an incredibly expensive mandate from EPA
and only a limited amount of time to comply has been provided.
With regard to the language on page 2, line 14, which says "will
limit the ability of small communities to address other
priorities", Mayor Marquardt opined that it will limit "most"
communities. Referring to page 1, line 16, she then opined that
EO 13563 isn't being followed in the case of the City of
Unalaska. The aforementioned, that is "to be told by an agency
in D.C. that you're not spending your money correctly in your
community and you need to stop doing projects that you prefer
and start doing just what they've said," is very frustrating,
she related. Mayor Marquardt expressed hope that HJR 17 would
be forward from the committee.
8:20:49 AM
MARK LYNCH, Manager, City of Cordova, echoed the comments of
Mayor Marquardt. The City of Cordova has a similar situation to
that of Unalaska. Although the City of Cordova doesn't face as
large a fiscal situation as the City of Unalaska, it's still a
significant cost for Cordova. Mr. Lynch related that the City
of Cordova's primary concern is the cost. The City of Cordova
faces a cost of at least $10 million for improvements to the
city's water system, such that it would comply with the LT2
regulations. Additionally, the City of Cordova, as it has been
told, will face a cost of $10 million for forthcoming upgrades
to secondary treatment of its wastewater. The aforementioned
will cause a total impact of $20 million for a community with
700 households, and therefore residents will face an increase in
water and sewer bills] in the amount of another $200-$250 per
month, which is very burdensome. Another concern of the City of
Cordova is the LT2 rule regarding the elimination of
cryptosporidium. The City of Cordova has been testing for
cryptosporidium and has performed historical research, both of
which provide no evidence that the City of Cordova has or ever
has had any measurable level of cryptosporidium. Therefore, he
questioned spending $10 million to fix a problem that the City
of Cordova doesn't have. He noted his agreement with Mayor
Marquardt that this issue will be one of the biggest financial
impacts on the state in the near term.
8:23:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER recalled that at the prior hearing on
this topic, there was discussion of conversations between the
City of Cordova and EPA to reach a settlement. He inquired as
to the status of those negotiations.
MR. LYNCH answered that the City of Cordova hasn't had any
direct negotiations with EPA, rather the city has only had
discussions with the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC). To date, the negotiations with [EPA] have only discussed
the timeframe for compliance. With regard to the cost of these
upgrades, Mr. Lynch related that the agency [EPA] acknowledged
to the City of Cordova that it was aware of the cost impact [of
the upgrades], but has said it's not the agency's problem. Mr.
Lynch acknowledged that EPA is enforcing a regulation and isn't
concerned with the cost. However, the cost is a large part of
the issue for the community.
8:24:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the EPA within its mandate has
orders to consider cost or is it doing all it can do.
MR. LYNCH related his understanding that the EPA to date hasn't
taken cost into account. He said he was glad to see that
President Obama signed EO 13563, which specifies that EPA should
take into account the cost and benefit. However, he said he
hasn't had any discussions with DEC or EPA since the EO was
signed, and thus he didn't know whether it would impact the City
of Cordova's case.
MR. LABOLLE, drawing from his reading of U.S.C. 33, related his
understanding that although EPA has fairly broad latitude, it
specifies it has to consult with the state in almost every
section that discusses policy implementation as well as
enforcement. In further response to Representative Saddler, Mr.
Labolle surmised that EPA has the ability, but not the mandate
to consider cost unless consider one considers EO 13563.
8:27:19 AM
CHRIS HLADICK, Manager, City of Unalaska, testified in support
of HJR 17. He reminded the committee that the City of Unalaska
is in settlement negotiations with the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ). If the City of Unalaska has to go to secondary
treatment, it will spend on the order of $52 million in 2014.
He explained that breaks down to $32 million for the secondary
treatment and $10 million for the new LT2 plant similar to
Cordova. The City of Unalaska will also have to build new
landfill cells because secondary treatment will create sludge,
which will reduce the life expectancy of the landfill cells by
about 20 percent. The new landfill cells cost $9.5 million. He
noted that the city has had discussions with EPA regarding the
cost increases of 200 percent and EPA doesn't care.
8:29:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK returned to the issue of cryptosporidium,
and opined that millions of dollars are being spent for
something that doesn't exist. He then questioned whether a
"WHEREAS" clause could be inserted to address cryptosporidium
since it doesn't exist in Alaska.
MR. LABOLLE pointed out that the broad brush language on page 2,
line 7, would cover cryptosporidium.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK opined that the existing language in the
resolution seems to relate a general complaint and doesn't have
the shock the situation with cryptosporidium would have. He
remarked that he didn't want to delay HJR 17, but he wasn't
ready to offer specific language either.
CHAIR MUNOZ suggested that Representative Dick work on
conceptual language to offer in the House Resources Standing
Committee, of which he is a member.
8:31:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN moved to report HJR 17, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR
17(CRA) was reported from the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee.
8:31:37 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:31 a.m. to 8:34 a.m.
HB 178-ELECTION PROCEDURES
8:34:23 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 178, "An Act relating to election practices and
procedures; and providing for an effective date."
8:34:45 AM
CECILE ELLIOT, Staff, Representative Bill Thomas, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Thomas, provided the following testimony [in reference to the
proposed committee substitute (CS) Version 27-LS0304\E, Bullard,
3/11/11]:
Over 5 million military personnel and overseas
civilians face a variety of legal and logistical
obstacles to participating in American elections. Of
those, 61,000 represent uniform service members, their
dependents, and civilian overseas voters who claim
Alaska as their voting residence. There are several
challenges that these voters face, similar to the
challenges that our domestic absentee voters face:
being in remote areas, unable to get their ballots
back in time. Some of these challenges were addressed
in the MOVE Act, which is the Military Overseas Voter
Empowerment Act which is an amendment to the Uniform
Overseas Citizens Voter Act. The MOVE Act was passed
in 2009 and established some requirements for states
to accommodate these voters. The main challenge for
these voters is getting their ballots in time. So,
the MOVE Act requires that ... a ballot be distributed
45 days ahead of time, which is accommodated in this
bill. In order to do that, HB 178 moves the primary
back two weeks; ... Sections 15 through 22 all provide
for that. Also there are a number of places in the
bill that shave time off either end to allow for the
division to provide for this 45-day ballot
transmission time.
MS. ELLIOT then informed the committee that currently overseas
votes can be accepted up to 15 days after the election, while
domestic absentee votes can be accepted only up to 10 days after
the election. This legislation proposes to align overseas and
domestic absentee votes such that both votes can only be
accepted up to 10 days after the election. Ms. Elliot pointed
out that the witnessing requirement is a challenge for overseas
voters as well as remote Alaskans. Therefore, HB 178 removes
the witnessing requirement. The Division of Elections has
assured the sponsor that it is comfortable with what is required
to establish an eligible voter. She noted that more than half
the states have removed the witnessing requirement. The
legislation also provides for the use of email to distribute and
return ballots.
MS. ELLIOT specified that Sections 15-22 address moving the
primary back two weeks, while Sections 9 and 12 address the 10-
day receipt of the ballot post election. Removal of the
witnessing requirement is located in Sections 2, 5, 7, 9, 11,
and 13. She highlighted that much of HB 178 is conforming
language to the timeframes. With regard to expanding
opportunities for domestic absentee voters, the legislation
provides for ballots to be provided in regional offices 22 days
prior to the election for early voting. The aforementioned
allows voters to obtain a ballot in a regional office when
they're available. She then pointed out that Section 23 allows
a municipal clerk to serve as an absentee voting official for
the purposes of distributing absentee ballots, which is another
way in which the opportunity to vote for those living remotely
is expanded.
8:40:37 AM
MS. ELLIOT directed the committee's attention to Section 24,
which repeals four sections. She then explained that there is a
specialty absentee ballot that is sent out 60 days [in advance
of the election] to those voters who don't fall under the
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) but
have similar circumstances and requirements. The goal is to
accommodate [specialty absentee ballot voters] in the same
manner as UOCAVA voters and eliminate that section [AS
15.20.081(h)] of statute. Although Section 10 attempts to
address the repealer, more work is necessary and thus there will
be an amendment in the next committee of referral. Ms. Elliot
moved on to the repeal of AS 15.20.081(i), which is the statute
specifying that an absentee ballot application is valid for the
next two general elections [after application]. Since most of
these voters move a lot, much time and money is spent trying to
[track these absentee ballot voters and obtain accurate
information]. Therefore, if these absentee ballot voters apply
each year, it's known where the ballot is going. Ms. Elliot
noted that Gail Fenumiai, Director, Division of Elections, is
available to address the specifics.
8:43:25 AM
MS. ELLIOT, in response to Chair Munoz, specified that the
repeal of AS 15.20.081(h) would remove the 15-day post election
receipt requirement since a new provision is being proposed that
requires receipt of [overseas and domestic absentee votes] by 10
days post election.
8:45:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN moved to adopt CSHB 178, Version 27-
LS0304\E, Bullard, 3/11/11, as the working document. There
being no objection, Version E was before the committee.
8:46:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to why in Section 24 of
Version E AS 15.20.081(h) is being repealed rather than merely
replacing "15" with "10".
8:46:35 AM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Division of Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, answered that if the goal
is to move to a uniform 10-day [deadline for overseas and
domestic absentee voters], then there is no need for AS
15.20.081(h).
8:47:05 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ requested an explanation of the repeal in Section 24
of AS 15.28.081(i).
MR. BULLARD recalled that repeal of AS 15.28.081(i) is in
response to a request from the Division of Elections. He
explained that at one time there was a federal requirement that
an absentee ballot submitted by an absentee uniformed services
voter would be valid through the next two regularly scheduled
elections. However, that's no longer a federal requirement.
Furthermore, he related his understanding that the requirement
resulted in ballots being sent to places where voters are no
longer located. For further explanation, he deferred to the
Division of Elections. In further response to Chair Munoz, Mr.
Bullard explained the remaining repealers in Section 24. He
explained that AS 15.20.082 provides for a special absentee
ballot that is sent to voters located overseas or in remote
areas of the state. Again, this may be best answered by the
Division of Elections. However, he related his understanding
that only a handful of the aforementioned ballots were being
requested. The hope was that the changes to AS 15.20.081, which
govern normal absentee ballots, would cover those voters as
would other changes encompassed in HB 178. In Section 24 the
repeal of AS 15.20.160 provides that a person may not receive a
fee from the voter for attesting to any voter certificate
required in voting absentee. Since HB 178 dispenses with the
witnessing requirement, AS 15.20.160 didn't achieve anything.
8:49:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to the language in Section 1,
page 1, lines 7-8, and asked whether the desire is to have the
person be an Alaska resident.
MR. BULLARD clarified that the parent can already vote, the
language is an expansion of the franchise to certain persons,
the children, of persons domiciled in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if this language addresses a
situation in which one of the parents is in the military and the
family is with that parent when the child turns 18 and isn't an
independent resident anywhere.
MR. BULLARD said that would be an accurate characterization.
8:51:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, referring to page 9, line 26, asked if
the repeal of AS 15.20.082 would eliminate the special overseas
advance ballot.
MR. BULLARD clarified that it would eliminate the special
absentee ballot under AS 15.20.082, which is a ballot that can
be transmitted 60 days prior to the date of the election. Given
the other changes encompassed in the legislation, such as the
candidate withdrawal deadlines, it's possible for the Division
of Elections to prepare a ballot a bit earlier.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER surmised then that the other changes
encompassed in HB 178 will make the system work well enough that
this special advance ballot is no longer necessary.
MR. BULLARD remarked that Representative Saddler's question may
be more of a policy question.
MS. ELLIOT related her agreement with Representative Saddler's
understanding.
8:52:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that Section 3 allows a
municipality to designate a person to provide ballots to
qualified voters 15 days prior to the election. However,
Section 4 allows for election supervisors to provide ballots 22
days prior to the election. She inquired then why Section 3
wouldn't specify 22 days prior to the election as well.
MS. ELLIOT explained that early voting can only be done in a
regional office. Therefore, the 22 days refers to the ability
of a voter to receive an absentee [ballot] at a regional office
because the ballots are ready at that time. Current statute
allows 15 days to receive a ballot, but the Division of
Elections related that regional offices have prepared ballots
ready and available prior to [the 15-day deadline], and thus
voters have been turned away at the regional office. Therefore,
the change to the 22-day deadline allows early voting at a
regional office. Ms. Elliot clarified that the ballots are
available in the regional offices 22 days prior to the election,
but it takes about a week to transmit the ballots elsewhere in
the state, which is why there's a difference between the
deadlines for Sections 3 and 4.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the last part of Section 3 can
be read to allow the distribution of ballots earlier, if they
are available.
MS. ELLIOT deferred to the Division of Elections. The
timeframe, she opined, was just to allow ballots to arrive
elsewhere in the state.
8:55:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER posed a scenario in which the ballots are
available in the regional office 22 days prior to the election
and a municipal clerk receives the ballots 20 days prior to the
election. She asked if the language of Section 3 would allow
the municipal clerk to distribute the ballots.
8:56:09 AM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections, Office of
Lieutenant Governor, explained that the regional offices receive
the ballots about 28 to 25 days prior to the election. At that
point, the division needs to sort, account for, and distribute
the ballots to a variety of voting locations throughout the
state in order that absentee voting can begin 15 days prior to
the election. She told the committee that the 15th day
requirement in Section 4 was inserted in statute some time ago
because prior to that the language referred to "when ballots
were available". The legislature in the 1990s made the change
to the 15th day requirement because it didn't like the open-
endedness of the voting that would allow voting to start at
different times at different locations.
8:57:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that the language in Section
4(a)(2) refers to "on or after the 22nd [15th] day before an
election". She interpreted that to mean that on the 23rd day
before an election, the election supervisor couldn't distribute
the ballot. Therefore, [the ballots can't be distributed] any
earlier than the 22nd day prior to an election]. However, the
language in Section 3 refers to "at least 15 days before the
election". She asked if a municipal clerk who has been provided
ballots 20 days prior to the election would be precluded from
providing ballots to voters who are requesting an absentee
ballot earlier than 15 days prior to the election. Or, can the
municipal clerk make the [absentee] ballots available as soon as
he/she has them, she asked.
MS. FENUMIAI related her understanding that Section 3 means that
the Division of Elections has to send ballots to the various
locations in the state at least 15 days prior to the election.
Section 4(a)(3), on the other hand, specifies when voting before
an absentee voting official may begin, which is on or after the
15th day prior to the election.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER remarked that the goal of HB 178 is to
make it easier for the voter when the ballot is available. She
posed a scenario in which an election clerk has a ballot 20 days
prior to the election. Twenty days prior to an election,
regional offices are allowed to provide ballots to [absentee]
voters. Would a municipal clerk who has the ballot 20 days
prior to the election be able to provide it to a voter, she
asked.
MS. FENUMIAI answered, "The way the statute is written right
now, no." However, if that's the pleasure of the legislature,
the division would have no problem making that work, so long as
the ballots were available for voting.
8:59:32 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ requested explanation of the difference between
early voting and absentee voting, and asked whether that's
addressed in this statute change.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that Section 4 addresses absentee in
person voting, which takes place at various locations throughout
the state. The absentee in person voting begins 15 days prior
to the election. The majority of absentee voting officials have
ballots for one specific house district, the district in which
the site is located. Absentee voting stations, such as the
airports and the Division of Election's regional offices, have
ballots for all 40 House districts. An individual who votes
absentee in person must complete an absentee in person oath and
affidavit envelope, which includes the voter's name, current
residence address, and a [unique] identifier. The absentee
voting official witnesses and signs the aforementioned
confirming the individual was issued a ballot. That ballot is
placed in an envelope, sealed, and sent to the Division of
Elections Offices for review by a bi-partisan absentee review
board to determine the eligibility of the voter to cast that
specific ballot. Those ballots are counted post election day.
Early voting is done at the division's four regional elections
offices where there is full access to the voter registration
system in order to validate the voter's eligibility and not
require further review by a review board. In further response
to Chair Munoz, Ms. Fenumiai specified that the four regional
stations are located in Juneau, Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Nome.
She noted that there is also a satellite office in Wasilla. She
clarified that both absentee in person and early voting start 15
days prior to an election, in all locations in the state.
9:02:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER posed a scenario in which a voter has
moved, but didn't change his/her address with the Division of
Elections. Although such a voter can't sign the voter roll, she
surmised that the voter could still vote on statewide and
national matters, but not on local matters in either the
district in which the voter currently resides or resided prior
to moving.
MS. FENUMIAI replied yes.
9:03:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK, referring to page 7, line 26, inquired as
to the impact of moving the date of the primary on the filing
date for candidates. He further inquired as to whether there
would be problems with moving the primary when there are
appeals.
MS. FENUMIAI said that the filing deadline has remained June
1st. However, the candidate withdrawal deadline has been backed
up four additional days, which places it 52 days before the
primary versus the existing 48 days prior to the primary. The
change would allow the Division of Elections, for the primary
election, an additional four days to print and mail ballots by
the 45th day prior to the election for the UOCAVA voters. Under
the existing withdrawal date, it's not feasible to have an
official ballot printed by a ballot printer on ballot stock.
She said she wasn't sure to which appeal deadlines
Representative Dick was referring.
9:05:36 AM
[Chair Munoz passed the gavel to Representative Austerman.]
9:05:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK recalled the process he went through in
order to validate his residence. With the changes proposed in
the legislation, he questioned whether there's enough time for
that process to occur.
MS. FENUMIAI responded that she believes so as the timeframe for
which to file an appeal to a candidate's challenges hasn't
changed.
9:06:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the use of email to request
ballots is secure.
MS. FENUMIAI related her understanding that the sponsor isn't
stating that the Division of Elections must use email as a form
of electronic communication, but rather that it's an option. In
the 2010 election cycle there were, throughout the U.S., various
pilot projects regarding transmittal of ballots electronically.
She noted that not all of the projects were regarding email
transmissions. Although the division hasn't reviewed those
[pilot projects], she assured the legislature that when the
division modernizes its form of electronic transmission of
ballots, it will be performed in the most secure manner
possible. In further response to Representative Saddler, she
confirmed that the division is very concerned about security and
ensuring that the individual who requests the ballot is the
individual who receives the ballot and is, in fact, the
individual who votes the ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related that the provision [allowing the
use of email to transmit ballots] is of serious concern,
particularly given the opportunity for electronic mischief. He
wanted to hear more regarding how the division can prove the
security of the identity of the individual requesting and
submitting a vote via email.
MS. FENUMIAI said the division would have to perform research
into the use of email.
9:08:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if the Division of Elections
currently receive ballots by fax.
MS. FENUMIAI replied yes, clarifying that the division allows
the transmission of blank ballots and the return of a voted
ballot by fax. In further response to Representative Austerman,
Ms. Fenumiai confirmed that the division feels very comfortable
with the aforementioned. She highlighted that a voter voting by
fax has to provide the same information on the voter's oath and
affidavit that a voter voting by mail does. The voter voting by
fax also has the option to return the ballot received via fax by
mail. She confirmed that would be the same for electronic email
voting.
[Representative Austerman returned the gavel to Chair Munoz.]
9:09:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER commented that she had looked at HB 178
primarily in terms of it meeting the election needs of military
voters. However, she questioned whether any of the existing or
proposed voting provisions apply only to military voters.
MS. FENUMIAI pointed out that there are specific definitions
related to the term absent uniformed services voter and overseas
voter per the federal UOCAVA. Although all voters are treated
in same manner, the MOVE Act requires that absent uniformed
voters and overseas voters receive their ballots at least 45
days prior to a federal election.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER questioned whether those elements of the
compliance to the MOVE Act and UOCAVA also apply to an absentee
voter who simply lives and works overseas.
MS. FENUMIAI replied no, specifying that such a voter doesn't
meet the definition per UOCAVA. She related her understanding
that the sponsor's intent is to include those [absentee
overseas] voters as well as voters in remote areas of the state
with the MOVE Act provisions. Currently, those voters [in
remote areas of the state] receive a 60-day special advanced
blank ballot with a list of candidates, the need for which would
be eliminated under HB 178.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised then that in this effort to
comply with the specific federal requirements for military
overseas, the legislation broadens compliance to include any
otherwise qualified voter who receives an absentee or early
ballot. She asked whether the legislation includes language
that specifies an individual has to be active duty military in
order to qualify for a certain provision.
MS. FENUMIAI related her understanding that the 45-day ballot
would only apply to those voters who meet the definition under
UOCAVA. She related her further understanding that the sponsor
is working on an amendment to include those overseas voters who
are working or traveling overseas prior to an election as well
as remote voters in the state who currently receive the 60-day
special advanced ballot. Alaskan voters who are outside the
state [but within the U.S.] would obtain an absentee ballot when
they are normally ready for distribution, which is 25 to 28 days
prior to the election.
9:13:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK related claims he has heard that there is no
connection between death certificates and voter records. He
asked if the aforementioned is possible. He further asked
whether HB 178 would enhance the possibility of voters voting
for a deceased individual.
MS. FENUMIAI responded that in her time with the division she
has never experienced someone trying to vote in the name of a
deceased individual. Although the Motor Voter Act limits the
Division of Elections' ability to remove voters from the rolls,
the division does remove voters from the rolls based on
information from the family, obituaries, and the Division of
Vital Statistics.
9:14:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if HB 178 removes the witness
requirement for all absentee voters or just those UOCAVA voters.
MS. FENUMIAI related her understanding that HB 178 removes the
witness requirement for all voters. She reminded the committee
that individuals who vote by mail have to provide a unique
identifier, such as their date of birth, social security number,
or driver's license number. The division validates that
information prior to sending a ballot to that voter. Although
witnessing does provide an extra check and balance, she pointed
out that a voter signs that under penalty of perjury he/she is
the individual he/she says. Again, she related that in her time
at the division she hasn't experienced individuals voting other
individual's ballots and mailing them in fraudulently. In
further response to Representative Saddler, Ms. Fenumiai opined
that the Division of Elections has a good process for validating
the identity of voters.
9:17:09 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ asked if other states require witnesses for their
absentee voters.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that she believes it's mixed.
MS. ELLIOT informed the committee that approximately half the
states have a witnessing requirement and approximately seven of
those only require a witness when the voter has assistance with
voting.
9:18:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed out that the Alaska permanent
fund dividend (PFD) requires two witnesses. He further pointed
out that the state's jury pools are drawn from the PFD
applicants. Representative Saddler opined that he has serious
concerns with eliminating witness requirements, particularly
with regard to voting electronically.
MS. FENUMIAI clarified that the existing witnessing requirements
require one witness over the age of 18 or an officer who is
authorized to administer an oath. She noted that the witness
[documents] aren't required to be notarized. In response to
Representative Gardner, Ms. Fenumiai confirmed that the witness
doesn't have to be an Alaskan or an American. The witness
merely validates that the voter is who he/she says he/she is on
the ballot.
9:19:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the sponsor received evidence
that it was difficult for overseas voters/military voters to
obtain a witness.
MS. ELLIOT deferred to Paddy McGuire. She then offered that the
removal of the witnessing requirement was requested by federal
organizations to make it easier on those service members and
overseas voters who are in situations in which they don't have
anyone to witness their ballot.
9:20:53 AM
PADDY MCGUIRE, Deputy Director, Election Official Assistance,
Federal Voting Assistance Program, U.S. Department of Defense,
regarding the elimination of the witness requirement, relayed
that one of the big issues is the lack of uniformity.
Therefore, uniformity among the states is being encouraged.
Since slightly less than half of the states and territories have
the witness requirement on ballots, it's a source of confusion.
Therefore, the [department] is strongly encouraging states to
eliminate the witness requirement.
9:22:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER surmised then that the drive to eliminate
the witness requirement isn't necessarily that voters can't find
witnesses overseas rather it's the desire for uniformity.
MR. MCGUIRE opined that any hurdle decreases participation, and
characterized the witness requirement as a solution in search of
a problem.
9:22:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the specific language in
the legislation that applies only to military personnel.
MS. FENUMIAI pointed out that the provision regarding mailing
the ballot 45 days per the MOVE Act is specific to absent
uniformed voters and overseas voters, which is specific to the
definition of a military overseas voter. Ms. Fenumiai related
that currently in statute an absent uniform services officer or
absentee voter qualifying under certain statutes is allowed to
have the extended absentee ballot application whereas non
military, non overseas voters have to apply every year.
However, HB 178 proposes repealing that provision.
MS. ELLIOT explained that the specialty absentee ballot is a
ballot that's sent to those voters who are similar to a UOCAVA
voter, but don't fall under the umbrella of a UOCAVA voter.
This legislation attempts to eliminate the specialty absentee
ballot and align [the recipients of the specialty absentee
ballot] with the same provisions as the UOCAVA voter because the
needs of the two types of voters are the same for the purposes
of voting. Because of the MOVE Act, the 45-day transmittal time
of the ballot is established. Although the aforementioned is
repealed in [Version E] in an attempt to address it in Section
10, the language doesn't quite work. Therefore, an amendment is
forthcoming to address that. The intention, she clarified, is
to accommodate those voters in similar situations as UOCAVA
voters in the same manner as a UOCAVA voter.
9:28:27 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ asked if the MOVE Act allows for email of the
federal ballot.
MS. ELLIOT clarified that the MOVE Act requires that the state
provide electronic transmission of information and ballots.
Currently in statute, electronic transmission in regulation is
basically fax. This legislation proposes to allow email as a
form of electronic transmission. In further response to Chair
Munoz, Ms. Elliot confirmed that allowing the use of a fax
satisfies the federal law's electronic transmission requirement.
She related that one state is receiving voted ballots via email.
Ms. Elliot agreed to provide information to the committee
regarding what other states are doing to allow for email of the
state ballot.
9:31:04 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that Representative Gardner has some
amendments that will be brought before the committee at a future
date. Chair Munoz then related that her main concerns are the
removal of the witness requirement and emailing the ballot.
MS. ELLIOT reiterated that it's a Class C felony if one
falsifies information when voting. Furthermore, the vote by
email provision isn't critical to HB 178 rather it was an
opportunity to provide that in statute since it will likely
occur. The email transmission of information and a ballot is
[critical to HB 178].
9:32:25 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ asked if the committee is interested in working on
amendments to address the aforementioned amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER replied yes, adding that he wants to be
sure he understands the various aspects of voting.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK said that he needs more time to review this
[legislation]. He noted that the elimination of the witness
requirement is of concern for him as well.
9:33:30 AM
MARK SAN SOUCI, Regional Liaison Northwest, Defense State
Liaison Office, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Military Community
and Family Policy), U.S. Department of Defense, thanked the
committee for hearing this legislation and for all the hard work
of staff. With regard to concerns about eliminating the witness
requirement, Mr. San Souci related the situation of troops
deployed to Afghanistan who may not have access to a fax machine
and have erratic mail delivery. However, this deployed military
has a satellite with laptops, which is the primary means of
communication. Therefore, if those troops are able to receive a
ballot via email, then those people who are defending the
freedoms of U.S. citizens would be able to vote and have more
certainty that it would count. In such situations, witnesses
are hard to find. With regard to the consideration of
electronic transmission, Mr. San Souci said his research has
found that up to 20 states are sending ballots via email.
States that are accepting ballots being returned via email are
Colorado, Indiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, North Dakota, and
South Carolina. He noted that such legislation has moved
through the Washington State Senate.
9:35:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER clarified that he supports the effort to
extend the franchise of voting to soldiers overseas, but he
wanted to ensure that integrity of the process is maintained.
MR. SAN SOUCI informed the committee that that there was a 2009
study by the Pugh Foundation, which found that the vast majority
of voting failure occurred with ballot transmission and return.
He recalled that 17 percent of the ballots that weren't counted
were tied to ballot transmission return. Therefore, any
consideration given to the military voters is greatly
appreciated.
9:36:39 AM
MS. ELLIOT, in response to Chair Munoz, agreed to develop a new
committee substitute with amendments from the committee.
9:37:06 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that HB 178 would be held over.
9:37:18 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:37 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 178 DOJ commitment letter 45 day FINAL.pdf |
HCRA 3/15/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 178 |
| HB 178 Stats of OUCAVA voters.PDF |
HCRA 3/15/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 178 |
| MOVE Waiver letter.pdf |
HCRA 3/15/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 178 |
| HJR 17 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 3/15/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 17 |
| CSHB 178 Sectional E.pdf |
HCRA 3/15/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 178 |
| HJR 17 ADEC letter to EPA.pdf |
HCRA 3/15/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 17 |
| HJR 17 Unalaska.pdf |
HCRA 3/15/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 17 |
| CSHB 178 E.PDF |
HCRA 3/15/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 178 |