Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
05/14/2025 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 | |
| SB96 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB174 | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 14, 2025
2:23 p.m.
2:23:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 2:23 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Calvin Schrage, Co-Chair
Representative Jamie Allard
Representative Jeremy Bynum
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Nellie Unangiq Jimmie
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Alyse Galvin, Sponsor; Representative Robyn
Niayuq Burke, Sponsor; Paul LaBolle, Staff, Representative
Neal Foster; Senator Bill Wielechowski, Chair, Senate Rules
Committee; David Dunsmore, Staff, Senator Bill
Wielechowski.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Mike Coons, Self, Wasilla; Trevor Storrs, President and
CEO, Alaska Children's Trust, Anchorage; Dr. Shirley
Holloway, NAMI Alaska, Anchorage; Heather Heineken,
Director of Finance and Support Services, Department of
Education and Early Development; Melissa Patack, Motion
Picture Association, Los Angeles, CA; David Johnson, Self,
Wasilla; Alex Koplin, Self, Homer; Carol Beecher, Director,
Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor.
SUMMARY
HB 105 PUBLIC SCHOOLS: MENTAL HEALTH EDUCATION
HB 105 was REPORTED out of committee with five
"do pass" recommendations, one "do not pass"
recommendation, and four "no recommendation"
recommendations and with one new zero fiscal note
from the Department of Health; one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN1 (EED); and one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN2 (DFC).
HB 174 REAA FUND: MT. EDGECUMBE, TEACHER HOUSING
HB 174 was REPORTED out of committee with six "do
pass" recommendations and three "no
recommendation" recommendations and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1
(EED).
CSSB 64(FIN) am
ELECTIONS
CSSB 64(FIN) am was HEARD and HELD in committee
for further consideration.
SB 96 CHILDCARE: TAX CREDITS
SB 96 was REPORTED out of committee with three
"do pass" recommendations, one "do not pass"
recommendation, and five "amend" recommendations
and with two previously published zero fiscal
notes: FN1 (LWF) and FN3 (CED); and one
previously published indeterminate fiscal note:
FN2 (REV).
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
SENATE BILL NO. 96
"An Act relating to education tax credits for certain
payments and contributions for childcare and childcare
facilities; relating to the insurance tax education
credit, the income tax education credit, the oil or
gas producer education credit, the property tax
education credit, the mining business education
credit, the fisheries business education credit, and
the fisheries resource landing tax education credit;
providing for an effective date by amending the
effective date of secs. 1, 2, and 21, ch. 61, SLA
2014; and providing for an effective date."
2:24:27 PM
AT EASE
2:24:54 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster asked for a motion on the bill.
Co-Chair Schrage MOVED to REPORT SB 96 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 96 was REPORTED out of committee with three "do pass"
recommendations, one "do not pass" recommendation, and five
"amend" recommendations and with two previously published
zero fiscal notes: FN1 (LWF) and FN3 (CED); and one
previously published indeterminate fiscal note: FN2 (REV).
2:25:49 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 105
"An Act relating to mental health education."
2:26:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALYSE GALVIN, SPONSOR, reviewed the bill.
She stressed that mental health education is a vital
component to education. She explained that the bill aimed
to ensure that it was treated with the same level of
importance as physical education. The bill put together a
group who were experts in the field, and would establish an
age-appropriate curriculum that districts may choose
whether to use in their schools. She stated that the bill
would create a tool to approach mental health differently.
She remarked that it was a collaborative effort.
Co-Chair Foster recalled that the bill currently had public
testimony OPEN, from the previous meeting. He remarked that
there was a testifier that may not have received notice. He
noted that there were no amendments.
Representative Galvin stated that there may be a former
Commissioner Holloway on the line to testify.
Co-Chair Foster did not see the testifier online.
Representative Bynum had some suggestions for the author of
the legislation, and stated that he would offer any
amendments on the floor.
Representative Allard did not support the legislation. She
felt that the bill had too much overreach. She remarked
that teachers were government employees. She stressed that
they were not doctors or guidance counselors. She was
alarmed that there would be an addition to what teachers
do, which she felt was to teach the STEM (science,
technology, engineering and mathematics) courses. She
remarked that she had mental health class as a child, but
noted that it was much different than what would be offered
in the current time. She was alarmed at the legislation.
She felt that there would be repercussions to the bill. She
felt that parents should not have to optout of the
curriculum, but rather should have to opt-in.
Representative Hannan supported the legislation. She
stressed that creating a curriculum did not require
educators to diagnose or do doctors' referrals. She
explained that there would be a curriculum that showed
students that mental health, like physical health, had
symptoms of distress before disorders to provide awareness.
She stated that she had taught psychology for twenty years,
and recalled that depression symptoms varied greatly among
people.
Representative Bynum surmised that the bill provided
guidelines for the state Board of Education to establish
the appropriate instruction for mental health. He noted an
elaborate list of direction, and wondered whether that was
necessary for the board when the school districts already
autonomy over the selection of curriculum. He also wondered
why there was a necessity to notify parents.
Representative Galvin clarified that the concept was that
parents must be notified in advance of the curriculum being
discussed. She stressed that there was a desire for parents
to be understanding and a part of the conversation. She
remarked that the experts felt that it was best to inform
the parents. She wondered whether the prescriptive part was
on page 3 of the bill.
Representative Bynum replied affirmatively.
2:36:06 PM
Representative Galvin responded that it had been put
together by the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
(AMHTA). She also noted that there were some districts were
already accomplishing it and did not need a tool, but the
idea was to remain flexible.
2:37:56 PM
Representative Bynum stated that he would follow up with
additional questions outside of the committee
Co-Chair Josephson spoke to some anxiety people felt about
the bill, that he did not think was necessary. He supported
the bill.
Co-Chair Foster noted that someone was online for public
testimony.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
MIKE COONS, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Senator Mike Shower in the room.
Representative Allard did not know how many parents were in
the room and on the committee. She was a mom of two
daughters. She relayed that when the school district tried
to impose Bree's law she had not been in support. She did
not think it was appropriate for government employees to
provide mental health education, and she believed parents
should be able to opt in instead of opt out of the
curriculum.
2:47:12 PM
Co-Chair Foster re-OPENED public testimony.
TREVOR STORRS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALASKA CHILDREN'S TRUST,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation.
Representative Stapp did not know why putting something
voluntary in statute made sense. He asked about using the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)
for diagnosing the children.
Mr. Storrs replied that mental health education was not
about diagnosis. It was about dealing with stress, anxiety,
social media, and not about taking psychology 101. It was
about how to self-regulate, and about dealing with the day
to day mental health wellbeing.
2:51:24 PM
Representative Stapp liked Mr. Storrs definition. He was
struggling to see it in relation to the bill.
Representative Allard was following along the same lines as
Representative Stapp. She respected Mr. Storrs. She did not
see his words and thought process in the bill.
DR. SHIRLEY HOLLOWAY, NAMI ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She hoped
the bill passed. She stated it was not an opportunity to
diagnose a child. She encouraged the committee to getting
the bill passed in the current year to help students.
2:54:41 PM
Representative Stapp asked what exactly would be into the
schools through the bill. He asked about the exact
activities of the pilot program.
Dr. Holloway replied that there had been activities and
prompts for questioning, interactions, and engagement in
multiple categories, based on teachers' observations.
Representative Stapp provided a specific example. When he
was seven years old his mother passed away. He had been
depressed, and was referred to the school counselor. He
asked what the activities and prompts would be occurring.
Dr. Holloway could not imagine other than there would be
help to discuss how to talk about someone's death and did
it get discussed with the class. She remarked that it was
an opportunity to talk about loss and how it felt.
2:57:52 PM
Co-Chair Schrage remarked that the committee did not
receive any amendments to the bill, but felt that his
concerns could be addressed on the floor. He wanted to move
the bill.
Representative Allard disagreed, and felt that the
discussions could take place in committee. She stressed
that it should not be rushed out of committee. She felt
that Dr. Holloway did not give an adequate description of
the curriculum.
Dr. Holloway replied that she had lost a daughter to
suicide. She had an opportunity to talk with many people
about their situations.
Representative Allard queried Ms. Holloway's specialty.
Dr. Hollway replied that her PHD was in educational
leadership.
Representative Allard surmised that the testifier was not
an expert in the field.
Dr. Holloway replied that she worked in the mental health
field but was not an expert in mental health.
3:02:22 PM
Representative Allard felt that there were no teachers that
would be experts in the mental health field.
Dr. Holloway stated that was the reason for the guidelines.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Schrage MOVED to REPORT HB 105 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
Representative Allard OBJECTED.
Representative Stapp felt that the intention of the bill
was positive. He remarked that school districts already had
the ability to provide the curriculum. He understood the
need for curriculum, but did not want adverse diagnosis for
the child. He hoped to get an example of how it worked, in
order to give a clear point of view on the bill.
Representative Bynum understood the concept and stated his
understanding of the goal of the bill was to provide course
works that included the topic of mental health. He shared
that after Iraq the Army recognized that suicides were very
high. The Army had directed everyone to go through suicide
prevention training, there had been some pushback, but
after the fifth time they realized it was meaningful.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Bynum, Galvin, Jimmie, Hannan, Schrage,
Josephson, Foster
OPPOSED: Tomaszewski, Allard, Stapp
The MOTION PASSED (7/3).
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 105 was REPORTED out of committee with five "do pass"
recommendations, one "do not pass" recommendation, and four
"no recommendation" recommendations and with one new zero
fiscal note from the Department of Health; one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN1 (EED); and one previously
published zero fiscal note: FN2 (DFC).
HOUSE BILL NO. 174
"An Act relating to the regional educational
attendance area and small municipal school district
fund; relating to Mt. Edgecumbe High School; and
relating to teacher housing."
3:08:46 PM
AT EASE
3:11:24 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster asked for an introduction of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBYN NIAYUQ BURKE, SPONSOR, thanked the
committee for hearing the bill. She relayed that the bill
would amend Regional Educational Attendance Area (REAA)
fund language to include both major maintenance and
construction at Mt. Edgecumbe High School; and major
maintenance for teacher housing in regional education areas
and small municipal areas as allowable uses for the fund.
The legislation would remove the $70 million cap on funding
value.
3:14:40 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the fiscal note.
PAUL LABOLLE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, reviewed
the Department of Education and Early Development fiscal
note, OMB component 2737.
Co-Chair Foster clarified the control code and noted the
fund source is general funds.
Co-Chair Foster moved to questions from the committee.
Representative Stapp thanked the sponsor for bringing the
bill forward. He supported the bill.
Representative Tomaszewski asked if there were any
requirements to attend Mt. Edgecumbe.
Representative Burke replied that anyone was welcome to
attend. Mt. Edgecumbe was a public boarding school.
3:18:16 PM
Representative Tomaszewski asked if there was a maximum
number of students. He asked if there was a waiting list.
Representative Burke replied that there were about 400
students in attendance, because there was limited dorm
space. She believed the department said they received
around 600 applicants per year. She deferred to the
department for detail.
Representative Hannan stated that working at Mt. Edgecumbe
was her first job out of college.
Representative Bynum appreciated the bill. He agreed with
Representative Stapp. He recognized it was a state school
and the responsibility of maintaining the school fell
directly on the state. He asked for verification that the
bill did not take away the state's responsibility for
maintenance.
Representative Burke replied affirmatively.
3:21:57 PM
Representative Jimmie stated that Mt. Edgecumbe seemed like
a prestigious school, and felt that it was important to
maintain the school. She queried the year that
Representative Burke graduated from Mt. Edgecumbe.
Representative Burke replied that she graduated from Mt.
Edgecumbe in 2009.
Representative Allard commented on the generations of those
in attendance of Mt. Edgecumbe related to Representative
Burke.
Representative Burke stated once an Edgecumbe brave always
an Edgecumbe brave. She shared information about her
family.
3:23:53 PM
Representative Bynum looked at the FY 26 cost in the fiscal
note. He noted the building maintenance facility
specialist, and whether it was connected with residential
design and construction. He asked if it was a worst case
fiscal note.
Representative Burke noted that an individual from the
department was on the line, but the intent was to figure
out how to include housing under major maintenance for
REAAs. She remarked that there was a number of rural
districts had housing, but the question was whether the
expertise needed for the future.
Representative Bynum remarked that being state owned it
seemed there were resources available that may not be
available.
3:27:17 PM
HEATHER HEINEKEN, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND SUPPORT SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via
teleconference), relayed there were two parts to the bill
one position was specific, but the other did not have any
technical expertise.
Representative Bynum stated that the explanation made sense
to him.
Representative Stapp MOVED to REPORT HB 174 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
HB 174 was REPORTED out of committee with six "do pass"
recommendations and three "no recommendation"
recommendations and with one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN1 (EED).
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 64(FIN) am
"An Act relating to elections; relating to voters;
relating to voting; relating to voter registration;
relating to election administration; relating to the
Alaska Public Offices Commission; relating to campaign
contributions; relating to the crimes of unlawful
interference with voting in the first degree, unlawful
interference with an election, and election official
misconduct; relating to synthetic media in
electioneering communications; relating to campaign
signs; relating to voter registration on permanent
fund dividend applications; relating to the
Redistricting Board; relating to the duties of the
commissioner of revenue; and providing for an
effective date."
3:32:45 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked for an introduction of the bill.
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, CHAIR, SENATE RULES COMMITTEE,
introduced the legislation. He stated that the bill had
been in the works for many years, and included provisions
from ten different bills that had been introduced by many
different legislators and the governor's office.
3:34:29 PM
AT EASE
3:35:56 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster noted that the bill was large and
substantial. His intent was to hear the introduction at
present, and may come back later if possible.
DAVID DUNSMORE, STAFF, SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, provided
a PowerPoint presentation titled "SB 64 Election Reform"
(copy on file). He began with slide 2, "SB 64 is a
Comprehensive Election Reform Package":
Cleans up Alaska's voter rolls
Removes barriers to voting
Faster and more transparent results reporting
Ballot tracking barcodes for absentee ballots
Bans the use of undisclosed deepfakes to influence
elections
Additional provisions to modernize Alaska's election
laws
Mr. Dunsmore addressed slide 3, "SB 64 Includes Provisions
from Bills Proposed by Republican, Democratic, and
Independent Legislators in Recent Legislatures":
32nd Legislature
• SB 39 (Sen. Shower)
• HB 66 (Rep. Tuck)
• HB 157 (Rep. Rasmussen)
• HB 267 (Rep. Schrage)
• HB 286/ SB 167 (Governor)
33rd Legislature
• SB 1 (Sen. Shower)
• SB 5 (Sen. Shower)
• SB 7 (Sen. Shower)
• SB 19 (Sen. Kawasaki)
• HB 37 (Rep. Schrage)
• HB 129 (House Judiciary)
• SB 138 (Senate State Affairs)
• HB 358 (Rep. Cronk)
Mr. Dunsmore pointed to slide 4, "SB 64 includes several
provisions from HB 63/ SB 70 introduced by the governor
this year":
Repeals the requirement that poll worker pay be set by
regulation
Repealing the requirement that absentee ballots that
arrive after the deadline be counted during recounts
Allowing cover sheets for absentee ballot packets to
be submitted electronically
Adding becoming ineligible for a PFD to the list of
criteria that triggers a voter roll clean-up notice
Beginning absentee ballot review 12 days before the
election, governor originally propose 10 days but the
Senate extended it to 12 days
Stopping special needs ballots from being rejected due
to mistakes by poll workers or representatives
Requiring postpaid return envelopes for absentee
ballots
3:39:06 PM
Mr. Dunsmore turned to slide 5, "Voter registration list
clean-up":
In 2022 it was estimated that Alaska's voter
registration list was equal to 106 percent of the
adult population. SB 64 streamlines the process of
removing voters who have left the state.
Adds several indications of residency in another state
to the list of factors that trigger notice and
clarifies the definition of residency for voting.
Voters who do not verify their registration are moved
to inactive status. Inactive voters will not appear on
precinct registers although their votes will be
counted, and their registration reactivated if they
vote or request an absentee ballot.
3:39:53 PM
Mr. Dunsmore turned to slide 6, "Current Voter List
Maintenance Process":
• Every January DOE mails nonforwardable notices to
voters who have not voted, updated their registration,
or signed a petition within two general elections or
who have had mail from DOE returned to sender.
• If the voter does not respond confirming their
address, DOE mails a second forwardable notice
informing the voter that if they do not confirm their
address within 45 days their registration will be
inactivated.
• Inactive voters registrations are canceled
completely if the voter does not vote or contact DOE
within two general elections.
Mr. Dunsmore looked at slide 7, "Expedited process under SB
64":
• DOE will mail a single forwardable notice requesting
voters confirm their address within 45 days
• SB 64 expands the number of voters who will be sent
notices to include voters who there is evidence have
claimed residency in another state
• This process remains in compliance with the
requirements of the National Voter Registration Act
3:41:17 PM
Mr. Dunsmore moved to slide 8, "SB 64 requires notices be
sent when DOE learns a voter?.":
• Registers to vote in another state
• Receives a driver's license in another state
• Registers a vehicle in another state
• Receives public assistance from another state
• Serves on a jury in another state
• Obtains a resident hunting or fishing license from
in another state
• Pays resident tuition for a public university in
another state
• Receives a residential property tax exemption in
another state
• Receives a benefit only available to residents of
another stat
3:41:33 PM
Mr. Dunsmore turned to slide 9, "Annual Review of Master
Voter List":
Requires DOE to hire a nationally recognized subject
matter expert to review the voter registration list
Expert will prepare an annual report to the
Legislature making recommendations for improving
Alaska's list management practices
Mr. Dunsmore addressed slide 10, "Clarifies the definition
of residency and process to challenge a voter's residency":
This bill clarifies that a voter's residence is a
place where they have an articulable and reasonable
plan to return to whenever they are absent.
It also establishes that the presumption a voter's
registered address is accurate can be rebutted by
evidence that they reside at another location.
3:42:42 PM
Mr. Dunsmore moved to slide 11, "Voter ID reforms":
• Adds tribal IDs to the list of acceptable IDs for
voting and voter registration
• Removes hunting and fishing licenses from the list
of acceptable identification
• Requires that utility bills, government checks,
paychecks, or other government documents must be
issued within the last 60 days to be used as
identification
Representative Tomaszewski asked if a state or other
picture ID was required to vote.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that Alaska did not require a picture
ID. Alaska's voter registration cards were not picture ID.
Representative Tomaszewski asked if the bill included a
provision stating that a person needed a photo ID when
voting.
Mr. Dunsmore replied in the negative.
Representative Bynum asked whether the presentation would
include current acceptable processes, and what was actually
being removed from law.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that there was not a slide with those
specific ID requirements. The voter ID provisions showed up
several places in statute.
Representative Bynum would coordinate with staff on the
alignment for proper preparation for the debate portion of
the bill process.
3:45:37 PM
Mr. Dunsmore moved to slide 12, "Codifies a procedure for
voters to cancel their registration":
Currently the Division of Elections will cancel a
voter's registration if they request, but it is not
required by statute.
Voters would be allowed to cancel their registration
in person or electronically.
The process for cancelling a registration would be
posted at polling places.
Mr. Dunsmore addressed slide 13, "Updating election related
crimes":
• Adds opening or tampering with ballot envelopes or
packages, and hacking election equipment or software
to the crime of unlawful interference with an election
• Adds knowingly disclosing results before the polls
close or any confidential election information to the
crime of election official misconduct in the first
degree
• Both of these crimes are class C felonies
Mr. Dunsmore highlighted slide 14, "Codifies Data Sharing
Between PFD Division and DOE":
Data will be shared monthly for purposes of voter
registration, confirming residence of a voter,
identifying duplicate registrations, detecting voters
who moved, and detecting ineligible voters
Data will include addresses, whether the applicant
opted out of voter registration, and names of people
attesting to the applicant's residency
SB 64 also codifies PFD applicant's right to opt-out
of registering to vote or updating their registration
3:47:42 PM
Mr. Dunsmore turned to slide 15, "SB 64 removes barriers to
voting":
Repeals the witness signature requirement for absentee
by mail ballots
Stops special needs ballots from being rejected
because of mistakes by poll workers or representatives
Creates a ballot curing process
Requires secure ballot drop boxes be made available
Requires postage paid return postage for absentee by
mail envelopes
Mr. Dunsmore discussed slide 16, "Repeals the witness
signature requirement for by-mail ballots":
• In the 2022 special primary election, 2,724 ballots
were rejected because of a missing witness signature-
1.7 percent of all ballots cast.
• Witness signature rejections disproportionately
affected rural Alaska and military voters.
• In District 38, 10.9 percent of all ballots cast
were rejected for missing witness signatures in the
2022 special primary.
• In the 2024 general election, District 18, which is
mostly Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, had more by
mail ballots rejected than any other district.
• There is no indication of any misconduct with these
rejected ballots.
Representative Bynum // Senate minority members. He asked
if the bill was compiled by a taskforce //
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the provisions to repeal the
witness signature // there had been a bill by a previous //
He concluded slide 16 //
3:50:03 PM
Mr. Dunsmore moved to slide 17, "The witness signature
requirement provides no meaningful election integrity
protection":
• DOE has testified that they do not verify that
witness signatures meet the statutory requirement that
they be from a person at least 18.
• The Division accepts as valid any mark made in the
witness signature portion of the envelope.
• There is no practical way for DOE to verify the
identity and age of witnesses from other states and
countries.
• The absentee by-mail envelope does not even provide
space for the witness to print their name or provide
their date of birth.
Co-Chair Foster would recess the meeting. He would keep
public testimony open throughout the process.
3:52:08 PM
RECESSED
5:59:10 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony and would leave it
open throughout the process. He intended to hear the bill
the following day at both meetings. He wanted to get
through the bill introduction during the current meeting
and review fiscal notes. He realized there was some urgency
to see the bill move during the current year while making
sure to do the due diligence. He had been encouraged to set
an amendment deadline for the following evening, but it was
very soon. People seemed to be okay with setting an
amendment deadline of Saturday morning at 9:00 a.m.
Representative Allard wondered if the amendment deadline
could be pushed to Saturday at noon. She had not been
briefed on the bill.
Co-Chair Foster stated he would set an amendment deadline
of noon on Saturday with the intent of hearing the
amendments and reporting the bill out later that day.
6:04:29 PM
AT EASE
6:04:40 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the public testimony call in
numbers.
6:05:36 PM
AT EASE
7:14:48 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster am deadline for Saturday at 12pm but
requested submission of the amendments as soon as possible.
7:17:40 PM
MELISSA PATACK, MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION, LOS ANGELES, CA
(via teleconference), testified to propose an amendment
section 64 of the bill starting on page 26. She referred
to the "deceptive synthetic media section" of the bill. She
remarked that the amendments aligned with laws adopted in
several other states. She stated that the first amendment
would add a timeframe to the provision, which was "within
ninety days of an election." She furthered that in the
paragraph that exempted certain services, that other
applications were also exempted as long as they were not
the creator of the synthetic deceptive media.
Representative Stapp remarked that the synthetic media
would ban "memes", and felt that he was struggling with the
intention of the section.
Ms. Patack responded that that parody and satire were
protected by the first amendment, but remarked that there
may be synthetic portrayal in the future.
Representative Bynum asked the testifier to follow up with
her suggestions via email.
7:22:52 PM
DAVID JOHNSON, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), did not
like the bill. He said he was knowledgeable about voting,
and remarked that dead people were voting. He stated that
the problem was not solved, and felt that the hand count
portion was excluded. He stressed that correct numbers
were important. He asked to look at a logic and accuracy
test, and felt that the machines could be breached. He felt
that there was no transparency, and stressed that non-
citizens should not be voting
7:29:28 PM
Representative Allard asked him to email her his remarks.
Mr. Johnson said the email would not work. He would email
Senator Shower.
Representative Stapp asked if he considered the bill an
election reform bill or a voter fraud bill.
Mr. Johnson responded that no one was held accountable for
voting.
7:31:32 PM
ALEX KOPLIN, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), felt
opposite as the previous testifier and supported elections,
and felt that the division was doing a good job. He
appreciated the collaboration and compromise of the
legislators.
Representative Stapp appreciated the comments on
incrementalism.
7:36:14 PM
Mr. Dunsmore continued the presentation on page 18:
Alaska Law Generally Allows Self-Certification of
Documents, and the Division of Elections Accepts Self-
Certification of Petition Booklets
Representative Allard asked about it disenfranchising
military voters.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that in the previous general election,
the district that had the highest number of rejected
absentee ballots was a district with mostly military
voters.
Representative Allard asked what was the proof or
statistics from the Division of Elections on that assertion
of disenfranchisement. She wondered whether it was because
of lack of witness signature on the ballot.
Mr. Dunsmore responded in the affirmative.
Representative Allard thought they should still do the
witness signature.
Representative Stapp asked what mechanism could be utilized
instead of the witness signature.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that it would be the same as the
current mechanism for special needs ballots and questioned
ballots, which was to verify the identifiers provided by
the voters. He furthered that the Senate Finance Committee
added the sharing of the names of those who had attested
for availability for investigation.
Representative Stapp wondered whether there was a link
between permanent fund dividend (PFD) fraud and voter
fraud. He asked for an elaboration on that mechanism.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that it was the data sharing on the
PFD application.
7:41:20 PM
Representative Allard asked about active duty military
members, and the assertion of the lack of witness
signature.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the Division of Elections only
provided the data at the district level.
Representative Allard asked why the largest city requested
that there were signatures on the ballot, and why the state
would counter that request.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that it did not require a witness
signature. He stated that the municipality used signature
verification software. He stated that the fiscal notes were
cost-prohibitive on that software.
Representative Allard surmised that the Municipality of
Anchorage did not support witness signatures on ballots.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that he did not know how recent a
change that took place.
Representative Allard disagreed. She queried what were the
security measures in place to ensure that someone was not
forging a signature.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that the voter was required to provide
an identifier that would be verified in the ballot process.
He stated that the process was already in place.
Representative Allard surmised that there was nothing added
as security for the absentee ballot.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that there had been no evidence of
the witness signature providing election integrity. He
shared that there was no verification of witness signature.
7:45:43 PM
Representative Allard asked what the proof was that there
was no proof of fraud.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the last point was that there
had not been any evidence of fraud being prevented but
there was evidence of voters ballots being thrown out for a
technical error on the witness signature.
Representative Allard asked why it would not be stricter
for the Division of Elections to implement verification of
the witness signature.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the law required that the
witness be over 18 years old. He stated that there was no
possibility on the envelope for the witness to provide
further verification measures.
Representative Allard stressed that other states did
enforce the witness verification. She stressed that voters
were disenfranchised, because those individuals were not
notified that their ballot was determined to be a
rejection.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that it was in the bill included
ballot curing, and the division did sent people a letter
when their letter was thrown out.
Representative Allard asked how they knew it was voter
fraud if they did not check the signature.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that ballots would not be rejected
for the lack of witness signature, but would be rejected
for an identifier.
Representative Allard thought it would allow people to
commit voter fraud due to the bill, because of the lack of
witness signature.
7:50:19 PM
Representative Bynum wondered if there were options for
voters to have their vote be counted if their ballot was
rejected by the Division of Elections.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that the division determined that to
be a prohibition against voting twice.
Representative Bynum asked about the signature verification
issue, and argued that the fiscal note issue was really a
matter of policy. He wondered whether there were
discussions about adding further witness signature
verification requirements in the law.
Mr. Dunsmore did not think that discussions came up in the
Senate.
Representative Bynum felt that the issue was more important
that the fiscal note. He wondered about the design of the
ballots.
7:55:46 PM
Mr. Dunsmore asked if he was talking about the ballot
envelope or the ballot itself.
Representative Bynum replied that he was concerned with the
ballot envelope.
Mr. Dunsmore replied there were no specifics in statute
about the envelope.
Representative Bynum felt that the instruction process
could be clearer for voters.
Mr. Dunsmore stated that there were no specifications about
the ballot envelope in statute.
7:57:44 PM
Co-Chair Josephson expressed concern about the rejected
ballots due to the lack of witness signature. He wondered
whether there were circumstances where there was a witness
signature, that was never verified, and the ballot was
accepted as a valid ballot. He wondered whether a ballot
was rejected due to a lack of witness signature, even
though the person was an actual person submitting a ballot.
Mr. Dunsmore agreed, and replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Josephson looked forward to correcting that issue.
Representative Jimmie wondered how someone be able to
obtain a required witness signature from an adult 18 or
older to validate their ballot.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the youth ambassador program
was available, but they would not meet the statutory
requirements for a witness signature.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that there was not an attempt to
enforce the witness signature verification, because a
witness may not be a registered voter.
8:01:39 PM
Representative Allard wondered if there was a way to
investigate voter fraud through the division.
8:02:02 PM
CAROL BEECHER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, OFFICE OF
THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (via teleconference), the Division
of Elections did not investigate, rather there were issues
referred to the Department of Law to make the decision
whether to investigate.
Representative Allard asked if there was input by the
division that the witness signature should be removed from
statute.
Ms. Beecher responded that the division did not make
policy, but rather commented on the outcome of the policy.
Representative Allard wondered whether the witness
signature was beneficial to the ballot submission. She
queried the cost of the witness signature.
Ms. Beecher responded that the cost of the witness
verification for Anchorage, which was estimated to be $1
million for each witness verification machines. She
restated that it was not the role of the division to make
policy statements.
Representative Allard asked if she personally thought that
the witness signature helped or did not help the Division
of Elections.
Ms. Beecher responded that the witness signature was in
statute and had been for many years. She stressed that
there had been no evidence of fraud.
Representative Allard asked if fraud had been committed
with the witness signature.
Ms. Beecher responded that they had turned over what was
something untoward on a witness signature, which resulted
in prosecution.
8:07:19 PM
Representative Allard asked if it was $1 million for each
machine.
Ms. Beecher responded that it was based on the cost of
machines that the municipality had, so the regions would
be the ones that had to have the machine.
Representative Allard remarked on the large cost difference
between $5 million and $12 million.
Representative Bynum requested the number of machines in
the Municipality of Anchorage.
Ms. Beecher responded that there was only one machine.
Representative Bynum felt that not having any connecting
information could be problematic. He wondered whether the
ballot curing would solve the problem of an incomplete
ballot.
Mr. Dunsmore responded in the affirmative. He felt that
there would still be a requirement of the voter to take a
proactive step.
Representative Bynum asked what the timeframe was for
ballots to be sent out.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the ballot could be mailed 45
days before the election.
8:11:50 PM
Representative Jimmie stated that in rural Alaska in 2022
there was 13.74 percent rejection rate. She stressed that
it was significantly higher than the state average. She
felt that it indicated disenfranchisement.
Mr. Dunsmore agreed.
Representative Allard remarked that the rural communities
could "count the tapes" and "send the tapes." She surmised
that there could be an adjustment date, and felt that the
deadline should be changed to the day of the election.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that votes cast in precincts in mostly
rural districts did a hand count on site. He remarked that
there were not subsequent counts, but there were several
villages that were not included in the counts.
Representative Allard asked if most ballots were impacted
due to lack of witness signatures.
Mr. Dunsmore replied in the affirmative.
Representative Allard asked why they could not get witness
signatures.
8:15:11 PM
Representative Jimmie stressed that the weather impacted
the transportation of the ballots.
Representative Allard surmised that most rural communities
voted by absentee ballot.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that there were some in person
precincts, but some villages did not have access to a
precinct. He also stressed the problem of staffing polling
places.
Representative Allard felt that the state was failing the
constituents. She asked how many people in rural voted by
absentee, due to not having reasonable access to a polling
place.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that he did not know the data.
Representative Allard asked if she could pose the question
to Ms. Beecher.
Ms. Beecher responded that she would follow up with the
specific, and shared that there were permanent absentee
voting sites.
Representative Allard asked if voters could call in and
vote on the phone.
Ms. Beecher responded that they could not vote over the
phone but could vote via fax.
Representative Allard wondered whether they voted on sample
ballots.
Ms. Beecher would follow up on that question.
8:20:28 PM
Representative Bynum commented that the election system was
overall very complicated for many different reasons.
Representative Jimmie commented that absentee voting was
important in rural areas.
Representative Allard was concerned that the maker of the
bill was using the military as an excuse, but felt that it
did not line up with her percentages.
Mr. Dunsmore would verify the information.
8:24:05 PM
Representative Hannan asserted that there were a variety of
ways for Alaskans to participate in voting. Ser husband had
never voted in person because he was always commercial
fishing and it was not possible.
Representative Johnson was nervous that they could do due
diligence they needed to do in the next few days on the
bill, and did not think there was enough time to work on
it.
Co-Chair Foster stated that he would recess the meeting
until 9 the next morning.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda for the
following morning.
SB 64 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
[Although he said adjourned, he intended to say recessed.
The meeting was treated as recessed. The meeting reconvened
the following morning at 9:13 a.m. See separate minutes
dated 5/15/25 for detail.]
RECESSED
8:31:04 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m.