Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
05/16/2022 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| SB72 | |
| HJR1 | |
| HB66 | |
| SB25 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 72 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 16, 2022
2:18 p.m.
2:18:20 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 2:18 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Sara Rasmussen
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Steve Thompson
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens, Sponsor; Tim Lamkin, Staff, Senator
Gary Steven; Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Thompkins,
Sponsor; Jeff Stepp, Staff, Representative Jonathan
Kreiss-Thompkins; Representative Chris Tuck, Sponsor;
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Sponsor.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Debra Riddle, Division Operations Manager, Department of
Education and Early Development; Emily Nauman, Deputy
Director, Legislative Legal Services, Alaska State
Legislature; Gail Fenumiai, Director, Division of
Elections, Office of the Governor; Thomas Flynn, Assistant
Attorney General Department of Law.
SUMMARY
HB 66 ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
HB 66 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HJR 1 CONST AM: PERMANENT FUND; POMV; EARNINGS
HJR 1 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
CSSB 25(FIN)
STATE GOV'T FINANCES: WEBSITE
HCSCSSB 25(STA) was REPORTED out of committee
with three "do pass" recommendations and three
"no recommendation" recommendations and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN
2(ADM).
CSSB 72(FIN)
SEC. SCHOOL CIVICS EDUCATION
CSSB 72(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the agenda for the meeting.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 72(FIN)
"An Act relating to civics education, civics
assessments, and secondary school graduation
requirements; and providing for an effective date."
2:18:52 PM
Co-Chair Merrick reported that SB 72 was heard during the
morning meeting [05/16/22 9:00 A.M.].
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
2:19:19 PM
Co-Chair Merrick Closed public testimony.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated there was one published fiscal
impact fiscal note from the Department of Education and
Early Development (FN3 (EED). She invited the department to
review the fiscal note. She indicated Vice-Chair Ortiz and
Representative Johnson had joined the meeting.
2:19:56 PM
AT EASE
2:24:40 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick indicated Representative Wool,
Representative Josephson, and Representative Rasmussen had
joined the meeting.
2:25:03 PM
DEBRA RIDDLE, DIVISION OPERATIONS MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference),
explained that there would be a one-time cost of $6000 for
legal fees to implement the necessary regulation changes
and for the development of civics standards. The bill added
reporting requirements for the departments data collection
system that added setup costs. In addition, grants would be
offered to educators in all school districts for the
development of a civics curriculum.
2:26:16 PM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT the previous committee
substitute that was adopted in the Senate Finance
Committee, CSSB 72(FIN), 32-LS0478\D, as the working
document.
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative LeBon explained that the current bill
version referred out of the House Education Committee
contained significant changes. He noted that the Committee
Substitute (CS) eliminated passing a civics exam as a
requirement for graduating from high school. The Senate
Finance Committee CS allowed a student to pass the
assessment with a score of at least 70 percent, provided
waivers for students with disabilities, and allowed a
student to take the test as often as necessary to receive a
passing score. He offered that an assessment insured that
the educational tools were working, and students were
learning. Without the assessment, it was impossible to
measure civics education proficiency among students and
inform policy makers if changes were warranted.
2:28:05 PM
AT EASE
2:34:34 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Representative Wool OBJECTED. He applauded the desire to
include civics education in high school. He mentioned
cramming studying to pass a test and professed that most
of the information was eventually forgotten. He believed
that taking a test did not adequately measure proficiency
but felt that the civics education was valuable. He thought
that the topic was complicated and some of the information
was obtuse. He appreciated the desire to instill the
information. He commented that students were graduating at
a very low rate and currently there was a teacher shortage.
He asked the sponsor whether there were other tests
necessary to graduate and discovered that no other test was
required. He did not believe the test should be mandatory.
2:36:32 PM
Representative Rasmussen indicated that if the state did
not have a way to measure whether the students were
learning the information, she would prefer not to adopt the
bill. She spoke of personal experience in high school and
that without the testing she did not want to fully engage
in required classes. She thought that without an
assessment, it would be difficult to measure whether the
curriculum was successful and contributed to a better
education or if the time would be wasted. She supported
adopting the CS.
Representative Carpenter thought that if the test model was
based on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Test
(copy on file) that contained 128 Civics questions, the
student would not need to retain all the information with a
70 percent passing grade standard. He hoped that all school
curriculums addressed 70 percent of the material throughout
a childs education. He thought that there were questions
he would have a difficult time answering but some of the
information was important to know. He exemplified questions
concerning what the rule of law was and the nations
economic system. He restated that with a score of 70
percent at least a percentage of the information should be
retained before the student engaged in civic activities
like voting. He opined that he could forget a significant
amount of Algebra, but there were many things on the civics
test he should never forget. He deemed that graduating
students lacking a Civics instruction was probably the
reason for the current societal problems. He favored the
CS.
2:40:24 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz agreed with most of Representative
Carpenter's statement. However, he deduced that out of the
128 question test, the teacher would randomly select 20
questions. He thought that some of the questions were good,
but some were open-ended. He wanted to better understand
how the test questions were given to perspective new
citizens for citizenship. He was curious about how the exam
was distributed, and how the information was taught.
Co-Chair Merrick invited Mr. Lamkin to comment.
2:43:01 PM
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVEN, explained that the
legislation was intended to direct the state Board of
Education and the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) to develop a curriculum and an
assessment that was based on the immigration test. The bill
was not prescriptive nor mandated rote memorization but
rather to prompt conversations regarding what was important
in Civics. He emphasized that the exam was not high
stakes but the issue was high stakes because of the
current national environment.
Vice-Chair Ortiz agreed with Mr. Lamkins statements. He
liked the idea of promoting civics education but was unsure
whether extracting questions from the citizenship test was
the best way to instill the importance of a Civics
education.
2:45:33 PM
Mr. Lamkin indicated that critical thinking was a key
phrase regarding the bill. He pointed to the document in
members packets titled SB 72, Promoting Civics Education
in Alaska (copy on file), that included a sampling of
online Civics resources. He expounded that the U.S.
Naturalization test was an online interview and resource.
The prospective citizen was given all the questions in
advance and all the potential answers. There was no single
correct answer and there was a list of all the acceptable
correct answers.
2:46:28 PM
Representative Josephson cited Mr. Lamkins statement that
the sponsor felt that teaching Civics was an important for
addressing the current issues facing the county. He
wondered if the sponsor had some description of what was
going on in the country. He felt that the question was
provocative. He wondered if the issues were a new
phenomenon. Mr. Lamkin deferred to Senator Stevens for the
answer. Representative Josephson shared that all he read
was biographical and historical writings for pleasure. He
noted that he had regretted his vote to repeal the high
school qualifying exam. He agreed that people would forget
the answers but thought it would likely make people better
citizens.
Representative Rasmussen thought that presently in the
country there were many citizens that did not understand
Civics; the three branches of government and separation of
powers. She believed that if people were more knowledgeable
of how the 3 branches worked, they could scrutinize
campaign promises. She thought that the root of the
country's problem was lack of knowledge of how the
government worked. She believed that teaching Civics
instilled more tolerance and would benefit the state and
the country.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated that Representative Tuck and
Representative Kreiss-Thompkins had joined the meeting.
2:50:09 PM
Representative Carpenter ascertained that the proposed test
was not the only element based off the Citizenship test. He
believed that the value was in the curriculum based off the
questions and the ability of the teacher to connect with
students, ensure learning, and ultimately produce better
citizens. He did not think there would be as good of a
connection if there was not a way to measure teaching the
curriculum. He believed the value was in both the test and
the curriculum and the test was a common base of knowledge
that all Americans should know. He hoped that future
generations would be better off than the current
generation with Civics education.
Co-Chair Merrick reported Representative Edgmon had joined
the meeting.
2:52:34 PM
Representative Wool noted that the legislature eliminated
the graduation exit exam. He purported that many subjects
were required in school. He had taken a class in U.S.
History. He maintained that if students passed the class,
it was assumed that some of the knowledge was retained. He
pointed out that exit exams were not required for other
important subjects like math and history. He stressed that
tests were administered as part of the course work. He
reminded the committee that if students do not pass
required classes they do not graduate and pointed out that
the states graduation rate was low. He contended that
adding another mandated test prior to graduating would not
help the graduation rate. He opined that a Civics class
would not have prevented the storming of the U. S. Capitol
on January 6, 2019. He declared that every generation had
issues and Civics should be taught in schools because the
way history was interpreted was viewed through different
lenses over time. He supported mandating Civics but
strongly opposed requiring the test for graduation.
Representative LeBon appreciated the spirited debate. He
indicated that a school board set the curriculum and
decided whether a class was a requirement or an elective.
He recalled when Alaska History was an elective in the
Fairbanks School District. He suggested that a consolidated
class of U.S. History and Alaska History was a darn good
idea. He voiced that if the bill passed with a mandated
exam, it alerted the school boards to take action and set
the standards so the graduating seniors could pass the test
by at least 70 percent.
Representative Wool MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Rasmussen, Carpenter, Johnson, LeBon, Merrick
OPPOSED: Wool, Edgmon, Josephson, Ortiz, Foster
The MOTION FAILED (5/5).
The MOTION to ADOPT CSSB 72(FIN) FAILED.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated amendments were due to the
co-chairs as soon as possible.
CSSB 72(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:59:17 PM
AT EASE
3:00:27 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 1
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to the Alaska permanent fund and to
appropriations from the Alaska permanent fund.
3:00:37 PM
Co-Chair Merrick reported that the bill was last heard on
September 10, 2021. She invited Representative Kreiss-
Tompkins to begin his presentation.
3:00:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-THOMPKINS, SPONSOR, thanked
the committee and noted that he had a committee substitute
for the committee to consider.
3:01:36 PM
AT EASE
3:02:07 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for SSHJR 1, Work Draft 32-LS0167\N (Nauman,
5/15/22)(copy on file).
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins indicated the most notable
change was found in Section 2, page 2, line 1. He explained
that the CS constitutionally guaranteed a permanent fund
dividend (PFD) payment as provided by a formula set out in
law. He added that whatever the statutory formula that was
set in law would be constitutionally guaranteed. He
announced that it was the major change in the bill.
3:03:34 PM
JEFF STEPP, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN
KREISS-THOMPKINS, read the CS for Speaker Stutes for HJR 1
Explanation of changes: Version G to Version N:
Section 1: Version G included references to two
subsections, (b) and (c). Because a new subsection was
added, there is now a reference in Section 1 to a
third subsection, (d). Each of these subsections
provides for the use of income from the Permanent
Fund.
Section 2: The major change to Version N is the
addition of the language in (b)(1) which says the
legislature "shall appropriate an amount from the
permanent fund for dividend payments to residents of
the State as provided by a formula set out in law."
Subsection (b)(2) is new language that says each
fiscal year the legislature "may appropriate from the
permanent fund to the general fund." Subsection (c) of
Version N, like subsection (b) of Version G, limits
appropriations from the Permanent Fund to 5% of its
average market value for the first five of the
preceding six fiscal years. Subsection (d) is new
language providing that subject to appropriation the
permanent fund may be used to pay costs associated
with investing and managing the Fund, which is
consistent with current practice.
Section 3: Language in Version G relating to "an
amount equal to the unencumbered balance on November
8, 2022," was changed to "November 30" in the new
version of the resolution. The November 8 date was
added in a previous committee to provide protection
from a withdrawal from the ERA between the date of the
election and the deposit of the ERA into the permanent
fund on June 30, 2023. In the new version of HJR 1,
the date was changed from November 8 (i.e., the day of
the 2022 general election) to November 30 because it
is not possible for the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation to compute an accurate balance of the ERA
other than at the month-end when bank reconciliations
are received with all of the underlying account data.
Section 4 is unchanged from the prior version and says
the constitutional amendments proposed by HJR 1 shall
be on the ballot in the next general election (i.e.,
November 2022)
3:06:42 PM
Representative Josephson indicated Representative Kreiss-
Tompkins had become an expert on the subject through
serving as Chair of the State Affairs Committee. He firmly
believed in eliminating the Earnings Reserve Account (ERA)
and having a single endowment in the corpus of the
Permanent Fund (PF). However, he planned on offering an
amendment deleting the language, "as provided by a formula
set out in law because the formula was unaffordable and
needed reform. He favored language comparable to the
states general welfare clause or the public health clause
that ambiguously provided the guarantees. He was unable
to support the CS as written.
3:08:21 PM
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins appreciated and respected
Representative Josephsons perspective. He thought version
N was a motion towards where he thought the median block
of the 27 votes would be in the house and was the
pragmatism behind the CS.
3:09:07 PM
Representative Rasmussen would not be able to support the
legislation without some reference to the statutory
payment. She deduced that the legislature would retain the
ability to change the payment statute. She asked whether
she was correct.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins deferred the question to
Legislative Legal Services but deemed that Representative
Rasmussen was correct.
3:10:01 PM
AT EASE
3:10:39 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick invited Ms. Nauman to comment
3:10:51 PM
EMILY NAUMAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES,
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE (via teleconference), asked
Representative Rasmussen to restate her question.
Representative Rasmussen asked whether there was any
provision in the CS prohibiting changing the current PFD
formula in statute. Ms. Nauman responded that there was
nothing that would prohibit the legislature to change the
statute or formula. The resolution required a PFD payout
based on the formula in statute but did not prohibit
changing the statute at any time with a majority vote.
Representative Rasmussen suggested that currently there
were two conflicting statues surrounding the PFD and
exemplified the current statutory formula and the Percent
of Market Value (POMV) formula. She inquired how that would
be reconciled with the resolution. She hypothesized the
adoption of a new statutory formula without repealing the
old formula. Ms. Nauman indicated the resolution did not
contemplate what would happen if there were two conflicting
formulas in law. She offered that it could potentially be a
difficult issue that would result in litigation. She stated
that even though there was math problem with the current
formula for the dividend and the formula for the ERA
account, they did not technically conflict if the
resolution was enacted.
Representative Carpenter asked if two formulas existed how
would the legislature choose one. He deduced from Ms.
Naumans answer that the courts would decide. Ms. Nauman
responded in the affirmative that the situation would
result in litigation and the court would determine which
formula was intended to be followed. She furthered that
rules of statutory construction existed that would guide a
court in its decision. She related that courts were
generally deferential to more recent statutes, but it was a
complicated situation. Representative Carpenter had hoped
for a simple answer. He referred to Section 4 which talked
about placing the issue to a vote and wondered when the
election would take place. Ms. Nauman indicated the
resolution was structured so it would be on the ballot in
the general election in November 2022.
3:15:58 PM
Representative Wool referenced the language as provided by
a formula set out in law. He stressed the difference
between a formula and the formula. He inquired whether
a formula referred to the only formula in current law.
Ms. Nauman responded that the 21 percent of net income with
the trailing 5-year average was the current dividend
formula. She interpreted the bill to mean the current
statutory formula. She pointed out that the current formula
in law created a math problem with the current 5 percent
POMV draw.
3:17:29 PM
Representative Wool asked that if the PFD formula did not
exceed 5 percent of the draw, whether it would eliminate
the conflict. He deduced that if the 5 percent draw covered
the PFD formula there would not be a conflict even if the
legislature would need to find other ways to provide
government services. He asked if he was correct. Ms. Nauman
responded in the affirmative and stated that was the reason
she referred to the issue as a math problem rather than a
conflict. Representative Wool cited the Senates version of
the operating budget and noted that the $5,500 PFD would
exceed the POMV draw. He shared some of the same concerns
as Representative Josephson that would override the
Wielechowski Decision that ruled the PFD was subject to
appropriation. He was concerned by the language mandating
a payout without changing the formula first. He guessed
that there might be a temptation, if the provision was
enshrined in the constitution, not to change the formula.
Ms. Nauman added that the bill contained the 5 percent POMV
draw limit in Subsection (c) and the amount available for
the dividend would be capped in the constitution by the 5
percent draw.
3:20:35 PM
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins thought it would be helpful
to contemplate the resolution along with a change to the
formula, specifically a POMV-based formula so that everyone
used the same numbers. The amount would always be a
percentage of the POMV and there would never be a conflict.
Politically, it was a very high bar to amend the
constitution. He guaranteed that there were not enough
votes without the formula being rewritten in a
collaborative way between the four caucuses in the two
bodies. He suggested that it was a lens to view the recent
version of the CS.
3:22:14 PM
Representative Wool understood Representative Kreiss-
Tompkins's desire to change the formula based on the POMV
percentage. He was concerned that the bill could easily be
amended to change the provision that the PFD payout would
be based on a formula set in statute. He wondered if
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins shared his concern.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins voiced that he was not
concerned. He was aware of 14 house members that shared
Representative Wools policy beliefs. He deduced that if
such an amendment were to pass, he was confident that the
two/thirds support necessary for the underlying resolution
would evaporate. He characterized it as a safety
mechanism.
3:24:41 PM
Representative LeBon agreed with rolling the ERA into the
corpus of the fund and pointed out that traditional
endowments worked in the same way. He worried about locking
an expectation and a formula into the constitution. He
wondered whether Representative Kreiss-Tompkins had
considered separating the bill into two steps. The first
step would be to consolidate the ERA into the corpus and
then establish the POMV draw formula into the Constitution
and abandon the other provisions in the bill.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins responded that the current
version of HJR 1 prior to the adoption of the CS was the
exact bill Representative LeBon described. However, the
two/thirds support was lacking. He believed that it was a
political question of where to find the support to resolve
the long standing issues that kept repeating session after
session. He effectively supported constitutionalizing the
POMV and that was in the prior version of HJR 1.
3:26:56 PM
Representative Josephson asked Ms. Nauman if SB 26 [-
Approp Limit & Per Fund:Dividend;Earnings/ CHAPTER 16 SLA
18/06/13/2018] mentioned the PFD and if there was any
concern that HJR 1 would stack a generous dividend on top
of another dividend.
Ms. Nauman replied that the provision created in SB 26 was
AS 37 13.140. (b), which set out the POMV cap drawn from
the PF each year. She added that SB 26 did not directly
deal with the dividend or change the dividend formula.
Another provision in the bill allowed any excess amount
after the dividend was paid from the POMV draw to be
deposited into the GF. She noted that the legacy formula
was in AS 37.13.145 that specified 50 percent of 21 percent
of the earnings. She did not believe that the bill could be
interpreted to double the dividends.
Representative Carpenter read from a portion of Section 2
of the resolution on page 2, line 2 and page 1 line 16,
may appropriate from the permanent fund to the general
fund versus shall appropriate an amount from the
permanent fund for dividend payments. He wondered if there
was a need to direct where the money was going to from a
technical point of view.
3:30:03 PM
Ms. Nauman responded that there were actually several
questions in Representative Carpenters query. She answered
whether the resolution needed to be specific regarding if
money needed to be deposited into the dividend fund. She
explained that the dividend fund was in statute and
drafters avoided referring to state statute in the
Constitution because statutes were more subject to change.
Section 2, b (1) simply required that an amount shall be
appropriated for a dividend to state residents and
purposefully not specific to a dividend fund in the event
that a dividend fund was one day eliminated. Section 2 (b)
(2) referred to the general fund because it was the
established state fund in existence. Once the money was
transferred to the general fund it could be spent any way
the legislature saw fit. The word may in Section 2 (b) (2)
indicated that the legislature was not required to
appropriate from the PF and deposit the money into the GF
whereas the shall in Section 2 (b) (1) required the money
to be appropriated in accordance with the formula.
Representative Carpenter suggested that in the current CS
if a scenario existed where the fund failed to grow enough
to meet the 5 percent draw, then the legislature could
decide to pay a dividend but not draw any more funds since
the money would be drawn from the corpus of the fund. He
noted that the SB 26 structure allowed the legislature to
withdraw funding from the corpus thus, degrading the
corpus. He deduced that the bill gave the legislature the
wiggle room to pay the dividend but not appropriate any
more funding into the GF for other purposes in order to
avoid degrading the corpus. Under the scenario, the
resolution mandating a payment of the dividend and with the
5 percent POMV draw going into the corpus, the legislature
would be degrading the corpus to pay the dividend. He
deemed that a number of bad investments earning years would
create the scenario. He believed that the POMV 5 percent
draw gave the legislature the ability to get into the
corpus but also allowed the legislature to withhold
appropriations for other purposes.
3:33:54 PM
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins agreed that the word may
was operative and did not obligate the legislature to spend
the full amount of the 5 percent POMV draw. He clarified
that the notion of degrading the real value of the fund
was going down a rabbit hole. He thought in a rule-based
framework that was in the constitution that in the long run
the funds real value would be protected. Representative
Carpenter was trying to draw a distinction. He stipulated
that any year's particular 5 percent draw could be greater
or less than that years earnings. He clarified that if the
fund experienced a decline over a number of years and the
decline was factored into the 5-year lookback, the draw
could be from the corpus of the fund. He compared the
scenario to the 21 percent of the years net earnings that
was never deposited into the corpus if it went to zero
earnings in a particular year there would be no dividend.
3:37:00 PM
Representative Josephson directed his question to Ms.
Nauman. He indicated that over the past 5 years he had
received emails from citizens that wanted the draw limit
exceeded and cited a previous statute from 1982. He
wondered if under the resolution if someone wanted a
dividend greater than 5 percent, they had a constitutional
problem. Ms. Nauman replied that Representative Josephson
was correct that the resolution constitutionalized the 5
percent draw cap, the legislature could not withdraw more
than 5 percent of the average market value of the PF, and
subject to cap the legislature would pay out the dividend
based on law. However, nothing prevented the legislature
from paying out an additional amount on top of the dividend
under the formula in law.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that some members had amendments
and discussion ensued.
3:40:22 PM
AT EASE
3:43:03 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster asked that members submit their amendments
as soon as possible.
Representative Josephson indicated that the dividend payout
in the current year according to statute would require $2.7
billion. He wondered whether the governors signature was
necessary for a resolution and guessed that it was not
required. He declared that he could not support the
resolution as it was written without the formula being
changed. He supported reforming the formula and that the
50/50 split was too dangerous and not conservative
enough. He wondered whether the governor would veto a bill
that changed the formula, while the resolution passed.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins confirmed that
constitutional resolutions did not require the Governors
signature and was forwarded to the voters of Alaska.
Ultimately, coordination was necessary for any formula
statute change. He suggested that if there was coordination
and alignment, the PFD formula change bill would be sent to
the governor for a signature with the caveat that only upon
signature, the resolution would be voted on. He guessed
that there might be other sequencing that could work via a
coordinated effort.
3:46:05 PM
Representative Josephson thought that a provision would
need to be included in the resolution. Representative
Kreiss-Tompkins answered in the negative. He deemed that if
there was a corresponding PFD formula change the
legislature could hold onto the resolution until after the
governor signed a formula change bill and then allow the
resolution to proceed to a final vote. He restated that the
common denominator in the scenario was that coordination
was necessary. Representative Josephson was concerned with
the issue of contract law. The governor could state that he
would sign the bill, but he could revoke his word.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins clarified that the governor
could sign a formula change before the constitutional
amendment resolution was voted on by the legislature.
Representative Josephson asked if the process could be
completed in the following 56 hours. Representative Kreiss-
Tompkins believed it was implausible.
3:49:41 PM
Co-Chair Foster reiterated amendments were due directly.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins relayed that he would be
offering an amendment to insert the word "eligible" on page
2, line 1 before the word residents reading payments to
eligible residents of the state.
3:50:43 PM
Co-Chair Foster indicated he would be setting the
resolution aside.
HJR 1 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 66
"An Act relating to voting, voter qualifications, and
voter registration; relating to poll watchers;
relating to absentee ballots and questioned ballots;
relating to election worker compensation; and
providing for an effective date."
3:50:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, SPONSOR, introduced HB 66. He
explained the purpose of the bill. He reported that the
bill dealt with modernizing the elections, voting, and
ballot processes through a series of mechanisms that
ensured more access, security, transparency, and faith in
the states election systems. He elaborated that the bill
originally created an option for permanent absentee voting
for individuals that plan to vote by mail in every
election. In 2020, due to the COVID pandemic, 365 thousand
Alaskans voted by mail, which made it the most successful
election in history with the highest number of voters
participating. He relayed other provisions from the Sponsor
statement:
? Requiring the Division of Elections to offer a voter
the option to fix a mailed-in absentee ballot if
there are errors.
? Calling for the same early voting locations to be
available during every election.
? Clarifying that candidates and groups sponsoring
ballot initiatives can have poll watchers.
Representative Tuck communicated that HB 66 was heard in
the State Affairs Committee in the prior session with the
knowledge that there were other election bills in process.
He worked comprehensively with other legislators, the
Senate, and the Lieutenant Governors office to produce the
current version of the bill. He listed all the provisions
contained in the bill: absentee ballot curing, permanent
absentee voting, updating voters lists, voluntary
cancelation of voter registration, ballot security, an
election offense hotline, an absentee ballot application
process, signature verification program, watermarking
ballots, prepaying postage costs for absentee ballots, same
day voter registration, increased pay for election workers,
election audits, risk limiting audits, forensic audits, and
open source software.
3:55:13 PM
Representative Josephson acknowledged the great effort put
into crafting the bill. He asked what was in the bill that
appealed to both progressives that wanted to expand voting
opportunities and to conservatives that were concerned with
election security. Representative Tuck thought that the
question was difficult to answer. He indicated that there
was no opposition from outside voter groups to the current
version of HB 66. He proposed listing the provisions that
were originally in SB 39 [Ballot Custody/Tampering; Voter
Reg; Mail] sponsored by Senator Shower. He interjected that
some provisions in the bill were also from the various
governors election bills. He commented that all the
election bills had some sort of ballot curing. The current
legislation included the best process. He thought everyone
wanted to see a cure in ballots and did not think it was
neither conservative nor liberal. He interposed that HB 66
and HB 39 included permanent absentee voting. In addition,
the governors voting bills allowed voters to request
absentee ballots for up to 4 years and were then required
to reapply. His only concern with doing it the governor's
way, was that someone might forget they had to reapply
after the fourth year. He noted that updating the voter's
list came out of SB 39, and the governor's bill. The same
applied to cleaning up the voter rolls. The provision
concerning voluntary cancelation of voter registration and
the election offense hotline was derived from SB 39 as well
as chain of custody ballot security. He noted that in the
last municipal election the same ballot tracking system was
successfully used. Signature verification provisions were
taken from HB 66 and SB 39. He detailed that HB 66
eliminated the second signature requirement and SB 39
employed signature verification machines used in the
Anchorage Municipal election. He pointed out that absentee
ballot applications provisions mostly resulted from HB 66,
but a few were from the governors bill. He noted that
watermarking ballots was a provision from SB 39 and prepaid
postage costs, same day voter registration, and increased
pay for election workers statutes were contained in the
original version of HB 66. The election audit provisions
were from a combination of all bills. He clarified that the
proper terminology for election audits was risk limiting
audits and typically not forensic audits. He noted that
forensic examinations only applied to the routine forensic
examinations of each precinct tabulator prior and after an
election. Finally, the open source software proposal
originated out of the collaborative process.
4:01:22 PM
Representative Carpenter cited the concept of ballot
harvesting, when ballots were collected on behalf of
voters and taken to a drop box or polling place. He
wondered if the issue was addressed in the bill.
Representative Tuck responded that it was not directly
addressed. He furthered that the ballot security and chain
of custody provisions closely monitored ballots. It proved
difficult to determine how to address it in the bill. He
deferred further answer to the Division of Elections.
Co-Chair Foster noted Ms. Fenumiai was online.
Representative Tuck interjected that the bill placed
restrictions on organizations sending voters applications
for absentee ballots because voters were inundated with
applications during the prior mail in ballot election.
Representative Carpenter referred to the upcoming special
election for the interim federal House of Representatives
seat that would be a vote by mail only election. He
expressed concern regarding every voter receiving a ballot
and the potential for ballot tampering. He wondered how the
bill prevented the situation from occurring. Representative
Tuck replied that the bill did not address the issue. He
shared that the bill was trying to seek a balance and did
not address the more controversial issues. He noted that
some wanted all mail in elections. Personally, he liked
being able to bring his children to the voting polls with
him. The bill attempted to provide a sense of safety in the
election cycles by adding the new security measures.
Representative Carpenter was aware that the bill was a
compromise. He inquired what would prevent ballots from
being fraudulently submitted in a mail in ballot election
where ballots could be delivered to drop boxes or polling
places.
4:05:18 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, OFFICE OF
THE GOVERNOR (via teleconference), relayed that currently
mail in ballots required an identifier and a witness's
signature. The procedures had been in statute for a long
time. She believed that they served a special and unique
purpose in deterring voter fraud. The bill addressed
signature verification for all by mail elections and was an
added layer of security. She noted that all mail elections
were only carried out under special circumstances. She
delineated that the upcoming by mail election to fulfill
the remainder of the deceased Representative Don Youngs
congressional house seat was done by mail because of time
constraints for scheduling an election. She added that an
all-mail-in ballot election for a statewide election was a
rare occurrence.
4:06:35 PM
Representative Carpenter asked if the bill would have to
pass regarding signature verification or whether it was
already in place. He was worried about signature forging
for the upcoming election and wondered if safeguards were
in place. Ms. Fenumiai responded that there was no
signature verification currently in statute. She reiterated
that what was currently needed from the voter was to
provide an identifier and the ballot was signed in the
witness of another voter. She expounded that it would take
an act of collusion to fraudulently vote in the upcoming
mail election. The identifier would have to match the
identifier on the voter's record when the ballot was
returned. Representative Carpenter deduced that someone
committing fraud would only need the witness' personal
identifier and they could forge the witness' signature. He
asked if he was correct. Ms. Fenumiai responded, "That was
a correct statement."
4:09:34 PM
Representative Josephson asked if the bill would be well
received in the other body. Representative Tuck responded
in the affirmative. He noted that the current version of
the bill was mostly identical to the Senate version. He
guessed that concurrence by both bodies was likely.
Representative Carpenter asked Representative Tuck to point
out the section regarding signature verification.
Representative Tuck deferred the answer to the Department
of Law.
4:11:27 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF LAW
(via teleconference), noted that the provisions were
contained in Section 44 and in Section 46.
Representative Tuck appreciated the consideration of the
bill. He had been involved with election revisions over the
years. He noted the good effort among all contributors.
Co-Chair Foster indicated he would be recessing the
meeting.
4:13:49 PM
AT EASE
6:16:56 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster reported there was one item left on the
agenda.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 25(FIN)
"An Act relating to the establishment and maintenance
of an Internet website providing information on state
government financial transactions and specifying the
information to be made available on the website; and
relating to the Alaska Checkbook Online Internet
website."
6:17:17 PM
Co-Chair Foster indicated the bill was last considered on
May 10, 2022; at which time a number of questions arose.
The department answered them in an email sent to members'
offices yesterday. He asked committee members if their
questions were sufficiently answered.
Representative Wool MOVED to report CSSB 25(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCSCSSB 25(STA) was REPORTED out of committee with three
"do pass" recommendations and three "no recommendation"
recommendations and with one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN 2(ADM).
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, SPONSOR, thanked the committee.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
6:18:34 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 6:18 p.m.