Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
05/15/2025 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 | |
| SB64 | |
| SB39 | |
| HB52 | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 15, 2025
1:41 p.m.
1:41:55 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:41 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
Senator Forrest Dunbar, Sponsor; Representative Maxine
Dibert, Sponsor; Brodie Anderson, Staff, Representative
Neal Foster; Mattie Hull, Staff, Representative Maxine
Dibert; Sonja Kawasaki, Senate Majority Counsel;
Representative Sarah Vance; Senator Mike Shower.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Janna Preston, Self, Anchorage; Julia Inga, Self, Palmer;
Suzanne Benson, Self, Eagle River; Patrick McConnaughey,
Self, Eagle River; Randy Ruedrich, Self, Anchorage; Crystal
Toennis, Self, Big Lake; Mike Garvey, Policy Director, ACLU
Alaska, Anchorage; Linda Holmsprom, Self, Anchorage; Kendra
Kloster, Director of Government Relations, Alaska
Federation of Natives, Anchorage; Charlie Franz, Self,
Homer; Brittani Robbins, Self, Wrangell; Tom Stewart,
Director of Policy, Secure Democracy USA, Baltimore, MD;
Emily Leak-Michie, Director, Alaska Voter Hub, Anchorage;
Marianne E Burke, Self, Wasilla; Sami Graham, Self,
Anchorage; Mike Coons, Self, Wasilla; Kirsten Gerbatsch,
Native American Rights Fund, Copper Center; Marge
Stoneking, Advocacy Director, AARP Alaska, Anchorage;
Michael Jones, Self, Homer; Gerald Voss, Self, Juneau; Rita
Trometter, Self, North Pole; Kelly Nash, Founder, Interior
Patriots, Fairbanks; Bernie Hoffman, Self, Fairbanks; Jamie
Donley, Self, Eagle River; Barbara Haney, Self, North Pole;
Donald Thompson, Self, North Pole; Kristeen F Peterson,
Self, Juneau; Ray Kreig, Self, Anchorage; Natalie Lynch,
Innovative Lending Platform, Washington, DC; Cathy Brennan,
Partner, Hudson Cook Law Firm, Baltimore, MD; Andy Bartel,
Self, Anchorage; Greg Porter, Online Lender's Alliance,
Arlington, VA; Mike Coons, Self, Wasilla; Wendy Gibson,
Check City, Provo, UT; Kay Wright, Self, Nikiski; Mateo
Jaime, Community Relations Liaison, Facing Foster Care,
Anchorage; Benjamin Mallott, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Alaska Federation of Natives, Anchorage; Steven
Pearce, Director, Citizens Commission on Human Rights,
Seattle; Robert Nave, Division Operations Manager, Division
of Health Care Services, Department of Health; Carol
Beecher, Director, Division of Elections.
SUMMARY
HB 52 MINORS & PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS
HB 52 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
CSSB 39(FIN)
LOANS UNDER $25,000; PAYDAY LOANS
CSSB 39(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSSB 64(FIN) am
ELECTIONS
CSSB 64(FIN) am was HEARD and HELD in committee
for further consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda. He explained
that the committee would continue to hear a public
testimony on SB 64.
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."
1:45:07 PM
Co-Chair Foster opened public testimony.
1:45:40 PM
JANNA PRESTON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to SB 64. She stated that voting
was a privilege for citizens invested in Alaska's
communities and eligibility could not be confirmed on the
same day. She believed mail-in voting was already full of
potholes. She thought the bill removed guard rails needed
for fair elections and undermined accountability,
credibility, and integrity of the elections process. She
believed a high bar needed to be set.
1:46:32 PM
JULIA INGA, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill because it weakened traditional in-person
voting. She stated that casting ballots on election day
kept elections secure and trustworthy. She remarked that
the bill loosened residency rules potentially allowing non-
residents to vote and allowed utility bills as ID. She
believed the changes would undermine the voting system. She
thought the bill should be amended to keep witness
signatures. She supported the removal of Dominion voting
machines. She wanted traditional voting protected.
1:47:46 PM
SUZANNE BENSON, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference),
testified in strong opposition to the bill and mail-in
voting in general and ballot boxes. She stated that same-
day voting registration meant there was no time to verify
[a voter's eligibility]. She asked members to vote against
the bill.
Representative Bynum asked if there would be additional
time for the public to call in while the bill was being
heard.
Co-Chair Foster responded in the affirmative. He stated
that he would leave public testimony open throughout
hearing the bill.
1:49:54 PM
PATRICK MCCONNAUGHEY, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via
teleconference), agreed with all of the previous
testifiers. He thought the bill opened up the system to
potential voter fraud. He believed there were enough
problems already with the way mail-in dates were run. He
thought voting in favor of the bill would be foolish and
almost criminal. He wanted to get rid of ranked choice
voting. He asked members to vote against the bill.
1:51:40 PM
RANDY RUEDRICH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), he
had lived in the state for 50 years and he was troubled
with the idea of changing the state's election process to a
mail-in process. He thought the bill would implement
various things that were unsuitable for any election. He
stated that ballot drop boxes had been shown to be a tool
of harvesting illegal ballots. He remarked that the bill
would result in repeated delivery of absentee ballots to
voters in permanent absentee status. He stated that when
the method had been used in the past it resulted in a
response rate of less than 20 percent. He wondered how many
of the voters were legitimate under the circumstance. He
opposed the elimination of the witness signature. He
thought the residency issue in Section 1 of the bill was
devastating to the military and young people. He wanted to
ensure people came back to Alaska and their right to vote
was critical. He opposed the passage of the bill.
1:55:06 PM
CRYSTAL TOENNIS, SELF, BIG LAKE (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the bill. She stated that Alaska
residency required living in the state for one year. She
did not support same-day voting registration. She believed
there was a lot of outside influence and money in Alaska's
elections. She thought there had been a fraudulent
presidential race. She supported in-person voting and voter
verification.
1:57:14 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted the email address to send testimony.
1:57:29 PM
MIKE GARVEY, POLICY DIRECTOR, ACLU ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), shared that the ACLU supported the bill
because overall it was a good compromise that would help
uphold voting rights of Alaskans and improve the integrity
and administration of elections. The bill included the
creation of a rural community liaison and language to
ensure that special needs ballots were not rejected because
of errors made by an election official or representative.
He spoke in support of sections to repeal the witness
signature requirement and to establish a ballot curing
system. He stated it would address the ongoing problem of
Alaskans having their ballot rejected due to administrative
errors on the ballot envelopes. He stressed that every
district in the state was impacted by the problem. He
detailed that in the 2024 general election, 299 ballots
were rejected, almost half due to the witness signature
requirement. He elaborated that 199 of the 299 ballots
could have been counted under SB 64. He stated that
ensuring eligible votes were counted was essential for
upholding individual voting rights. He added that it would
also make sure elections reflected the will of the voters.
He stated that passage of the bill would allow the Division
of Elections adequate time to implement changes ahead of
the 2026 elections. He noted that the division adopted
regulations to formally end the process of accepting
ballots with minor errors on the envelopes. He detailed
that because of the regulation change, it was reasonable to
expect ballot rejection rates would increase. The Alaska
Superior Court ruled earlier in the year that the
responsibility to implement a ballot curing system fell to
the legislature. During litigation, the division agreed it
had the capacity to implement such a system. He remarked
that voting was a constitutional right, and it was
important that Alaskans taking time to participate in
elections had confidence their votes would be counted. He
urged the committee to pass the legislation.
2:00:09 PM
LINDA HOLMSPROM, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
shared that she had lived in Alaska for over 35 years. She
disagreed with the previous testifier and was opposed to
the bill. She believed the bill decreased voter confidence.
She stated that the bill took away safeguards and impacted
the integrity of the election process. She thought it
opened the door to voter fraud and registration errors. She
believed taking away the witness signature requirement for
absentee voting increased the risk of fraud. She thought
allowing voters to fix issues on a ballot resulted in an
improper cast ballot. She believed the bill would allow
people with malintent to use the system in an improper way.
She stated that the bill decreased transparency of the
campaign finance laws to donors outside of Alaska. She
believed transparency was essential in order to know who
was donating to campaigns.
2:02:21 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, ALASKA
FEDERATION OF NATIVES, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
shared information about the Alaska Federation of Natives
(AFN). She stated that AFN had always been a strong
supporter of voting rights and ensuring the election system
was fair, accessible, and secure. She shared that she had
been working on the election reform bill for at least a
decade. She noted that many of the provisions in the bill
had been discussed in previous election bills. She stressed
that the reforms were critically important, especially for
rural Alaska. She emphasized the importance of a voting
system that was accessible for all Alaskans to ensure their
voices were heard. She stated that removing the witness
signature provision was critical. She pointed out that the
state did not validate witness signatures and they were not
a means for deterring fraud. She highlighted the Arctic
Village Council versus Kevin Meyer case as an example. She
stated that the witness signature requirement discarded
many Alaskan voters with good intentions. She highlighted
the ballot curing provision in the bill, which was used by
more than 30 other states. She remarked that people may
make mistakes and it did not mean their ballots should be
discounted. She noted that rural liaisons were critically
important to help individuals in rural Alaska and other
areas to ensure everyone had the ability to vote. The bill
would take important steps to improve election integrity,
security, and to ensure all Alaskans were counted. She
shared that the bipartisan bill had been a collaborative
process. The bill would ensure all Alaskans had the ability
to vote. She implored the committee to pass the
legislation.
2:05:37 PM
Representative Bynum for the primary reason ballots were
being returned without the witness signature being
performed.
Ms. Kloster responded that when elders had to look for a
witness signature it was sometimes a barrier. She noted it
had been evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. She
explained that under law, voters were required to include a
voter identifier on mail-in ballots. She elaborated that
witness signatures were not verified, and the state was
only looking to see that a mark had been made on the
signature line. She remarked that it was possible for an
individual to sign their own ballot on the witness line.
She did not believe it was a helpful requirement.
Representative Bynum asked for specific reasons the witness
signature may not be filled out. He noted the reference
that elders were potentially impacted by the requirement.
He asked if there had been any data driven studies showing
what types of ballots were being rejected because the
witness signatures were not included.
Ms. Kloster replied that she could follow up with
information after the hearing.
Representative Allard thought Ms. Kloster brought a good
case forward for not having witness signatures. She asked
if regions 4 and 5 covered the rural communities. She
believed region 4 was Nome.
Ms. Kloster confirmed there were multiple regions covering
rural Alaska. She added the regions were also the places
AFN was looking to see rural liaisons to provide additional
support.
Representative Allard agreed. She shared that region 4 had
2,642 individuals who voted absentee. She detailed that 13
had been rejected for no witness signatures and it did not
include special needs ballots. She relayed that out of
16,470 absentee votes in region 5, 35 were rejected for no
witness signature. She would provide the information to the
committee. She stated that the Division of Elections had
just put the correct information out. She clarified that
there had only been 512 individuals in the entire state
rejected for no witness signatures.
2:10:18 PM
Representative Jimmie asked for verification that people
who were voting fraudulently would likely not have a
problem faking a witness signature.
Ms. Kloster believed that was the case if a person's
intention was voter fraud.
Representative Jimmie asked for verification that it would
hurt people who were trying to do the right thing.
Ms. Kloster agreed. She believed Alaskans who were going
out to vote were there for the right reasons. She stated if
fraud was being committed, the Division of Elections could
refer the cases to the Department of Law for investigation.
Generally, she believed Alaskans wanted their voices heard
and counted. She thought whatever could be done to improve
the system to ensure people could vote was incredibly
important.
2:11:58 PM
CHARLIE FRANZ, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), opposed SB
64. He thought the pre-registration for 16 year-olds would
add additional complexity for the Division of Elections in
managing voter rolls. He thought the division already did a
poor job managing voter rolls. He thought same-day
registration and voting would complicate the verification
of a voter's identity and ability to vote. He believed it
would likely delay the collection of election results. He
did not support the removal of the witness signature. He
thought witness requirements should be strengthened. He
thought ballot curing made no sense. He suggested that if
someone could not date and sign their ballot, perhaps it
should not be counted. He believed the idea of adding drop
boxes for ballots was contradictory to the idea of
requiring the Division of Elections to provide postage paid
envelopes for people to return absentee ballots. He
remarked that most ballots in Alaska were cast in-person.
He noted that the bill did not include any requirement for
photo identification; therefore, it weakened election
security. He strongly opposed the bill.
2:14:37 PM
Representative Galvin clarified that she was hearing quite
a few things that may not exist in the bill. For example,
she believed the pre-registration for 16 year-olds may be
in a different bill. Another item mentioned related to drop
boxes. She remarked that the committee had only heard 17
pages of the bill presentation. She hoped they could gain a
better understanding of the bill. She was not currently in
a place where she could ask the previous speaker questions.
She had read the bill and understood in part, but she felt
the process was a little skewed. She understood it was the
end of session. She hoped to have a better understanding of
what was included and what was not included in the bill,
especially when listening to people tell the committee how
to vote.
Co-Chair Foster agreed and was not excited about the bill
coming over so late with so many people wanting to see it
potentially pass. He agreed the process was a bit messy and
he wished the committee had heard the complete
introduction. He noted that public testimony had been moved
around. He agreed that the committee did not know
everything the bill included because it had not heard the
full roll out of the bill.
2:17:08 PM
BRITTANI ROBBINS, SELF, WRANGELL (via teleconference),
shared information about her professional background
including that she was a current member of the Wrangell
Assembly. She confirmed that Representative Galvin was
correct that some of the things said prior to her testimony
pertained to prior versions of the bill. She relayed that
she had the privilege to travel throughout rural Alaska
prior to the general election to knock on thousands of
doors to remind individuals of the election and to hear
reasons why they may not be voting. She had heard from
individuals in Utqiagvik, Nome, and Bethel where smaller
more rural communities had to get their votes to hub
communities in order for their vote to be counted. She had
heard it was too hard, especially for elders. She had been
told it had been freezing, windy, and difficult to navigate
on foot. She relayed that individuals did not know an
election was taking place because they did not have the
Division of Elections or people in offices spreading the
word. She noted that rural hub communities had city halls
where elections could be discussed, but the word was not
spread in the smaller communities. Additionally,
individuals did not feel heard or included; therefore, they
did not see a reason to vote due to various reasons. She
relayed that individuals had told her they did not have
anywhere to go to vote. Communities outside the hub
communities did not have a post office and did not have
locations to vote. She noted that in the case where there
was a location to vote, there was rarely someone there to
run the election and take ballots.
Ms. Robbins remarked that traditional in-person voting was
inequitable for the state as a whole and it dismissed rural
residents. She spoke about the importance of removing the
witness signature requirement. She stressed that the bill
opened an opportunity for all Alaskan communities to vote
and be counted. She underscored it was infuriating and
heartbreaking to constantly watch legislators ignore or
discount residents and the land in Southeast Alaska, the
Aleutians, and West Coast islands. She emphasized that
individuals in those locations are Alaskans, and the bill
gave individuals power for their voices to be heard. She
underscored that just because communities were not on the
road system did not mean their voices did not matter.
2:21:31 PM
TOM STEWART, DIRECTOR OF POLICY, SECURE DEMOCRACY USA,
BALTIMORE, MD (via teleconference), shared information
about the organization, a nonpartisan, nonprofit working to
build stronger elections state by state. The organization
had met with legislators and individuals at the Division of
Elections in the hopes of creating bipartisan consensus to
improve election administration and voting integrity for
Alaska's elections. He would include written comments as
well. He stressed that the bill would strengthen election
security, transparency, accountability, and administration
in Alaska. He stated the bill was a significant improvement
over the status quo. He underscored that election integrity
started with voter list maintenance. The bill included
numerous bipartisan and in several cases, conservative
policy proposals to clean up Alaska's voter rolls. He
stated that curing was a security measure as well. When
there were questions that raised the prospect of a mistake
or fraud, it created a point of contact in which a voter
was able to verify their identity and the validity of their
ballot. He emphasized that it was good for access,
security, and confidence.
Mr. Stewart relayed that states had been moving away from
witness requirements for some time. The organization
greatly encouraged Alaska to move in that direction. He
explained that witness requirements did not enhance
security, but it created a situation where valid ballots
were thrown out. He thanked the committee for its work. He
stressed that the 2026 election would be a better, more
secure election, with tangible improvements by advancing
the bill.
Representative Allard asked if Mr. Stewart agreed that
voters should not be required to show photo identification.
She thought it appeared that Mr. Stewart had read the bill.
Mr. Stewart responded that the organization worked in
states that required photo identification, states where
voters were prompted to present identification (but it was
not necessarily required), and in states where it was not a
requirement in statute. He stressed that the list
maintenance on the front end was incredibly important in
terms of identity verification. There were many valid
approaches to verify voter identity, including photo
identification.
Representative Allard asked if Mr. Stewart thought there
should not be photo identification required in the bill.
Mr. Stewart responded that if there were a proposal and
consensus to do so, he would gladly review it and perhaps
recommend it. He highlighted that the security measures in
the bill were a significant improvement for list
maintenance, election security, and election integrity.
Representative Allard speculated that it meant Mr. Stewart
did not think photo identification was necessary in the
bill. She referenced Mr. Stewart's earlier statement that
parts of the bill were conservative. She asked for
specifics.
Mr. Stewart clarified that the previous session, Senator
Mike Shower championed SB 1 and the House Judiciary
Committee chaired by Representative Sarah Vance sponsored
similar legislation, HB 132. He elaborated that both
proposals included some provisions that were substantively
similar to SB 64. He noted that some of the provisions had
attracted substantial attention or ire from some testifiers
such as providing a uniform and statewide cure process for
voters and eliminating the witness requirement without
adding signature verification.
Representative Allard remarked that the current bill did
not include the same things as the bills the previous year.
She thought it was not a very truthful statement, but she
respected Mr. Stewart's opinion.
2:29:27 PM
Representative Bynum was inclined to agree that witness
signatures were an outdated mechanism that could be
overcome with technology. He asked if Mr. Stewart would be
in favor of signature verification for the voter submitting
the ballot.
Mr. Stewart responded that it was certainly possible. He
stated that so much depended on language. The organization
had supported different versions of the current bill and
previous iterations of very similar proposals that did
include provisions requiring the implementation of
signature verification. He believed signature verification
was used by approximately 30 to 31 states, and it was the
most common method for adding verification onto the
absentee by-mail voting process. He noted it was not the
only method and about 10 states used other forms of
verification. He highlighted that the most recent state to
remove a witness signature requirement was Virginia, which
was signed into law by Governor Glenn Youngkin. He noted
that Virginia did not adopt signature verification and
required voter identifier information to be provided that
was not unlike the process for question or special needs
ballots in Alaska.
Representative Bynum asked if Mr. Stewart would be in
support of some verification mechanism for mail-in ballots
in some cases.
Mr. Stewart responded, "Absolutely." He elaborated that it
became a multifaceted question [indecipherable]. The
organization had no objection and had frequently supported
similar provisions.
2:31:47 PM
EMILY LEAK-MICHIE, DIRECTOR, ALASKA VOTER HUB, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She
shared that the Voter Hub sought to ensure all eligible
Alaskan voters were able to cast a ballot and to ensure
that all valid votes were counted. She detailed that the
provisions in the bill would expand voting access to voters
in rural areas and ensure that voters with disabilities
were able to vote and that their vote was counted. The
organization worked with nonpartisan nonprofit
organizations and community groups to reach voters across
the state. She highlighted that when a voter made an effort
to cast a ballot, but an honest error was made, the ballot
was thrown out. She stated it was incredibly discouraging
and did not inspire a voter to return to the polls. She
relayed that a ballot cure process would fix the problem.
It would allow voters the opportunity to fix honest
mistakes on their ballot. She added that it would improve
election security by verifying Alaskan voters. She relayed
that currently witness signatures were not verified by the
state. She explained that it was not adding additional
security measures to the vote-by-mail system; however, the
identifier provided by voters did provide assurance. She
stated that the witness signature requirement was
preventing eligible voters from having their vote counted.
She acknowledged that the bill had been a long time coming.
There had been many iterations of the bill over the years.
She characterized the bill as a bipartisan compromise that
included amendments from individuals on all sides of the
aisle. She stressed that the bill would improve election
security and would ensure the election system was secure
and fair. She encouraged swift passage of the bill.
2:35:03 PM
Representative Allard agreed with curing ballots. She did
not believe the witness signature was doing anything for
the system. She asked if Ms. Leak-Michie believed a voter's
signature should be verified, similarly to the current
process used by the Municipality of Anchorage.
Ms. Leak-Michie responded that she appreciated the way the
Municipality of Anchorage ran its elections, and she
appreciated its witness verification process. She would be
in favor of a similar system if it could be applied
statewide.
Representative Allard stated that in order for individuals
to be able to cure ballots, the state needed to be able to
have identification. She asked if Ms. Leak-Michie thought
government issued ID should be used. She asked if she knew
of anyone personally who did not have a government issued
ID that would hinder them from voting.
Ms. Leak-Michie responded that she would be eager to have a
discussion on the topic. She stated if there was a
precedent for it, she would be open to having a discussion
on the ID requirement.
2:37:13 PM
MARIANNE E BURKE, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
expressed opposition to the bill. She thought there was
some effort to clean up the registration, but she believed
there were also numerous holes. She was concerned about
adding drop boxes, allowing same-day voting registration,
and the validation of ID with bank statements and utility
bills. She thought it would mean non-US citizens would be
able to vote. She supported getting rid of Dominion
machines. She stated the country was a republic and not the
"mob rule" of democracy. She stated that the country was
not a democracy, which was a misconception heard in the
media. She wondered why hunting and fishing licenses were
removed from the beginning of the bill. She found page 3 of
the bill confusing. She thought voting rolls needed to be
cleaned up and cited 20,000 votes that were returned due to
invalid addresses in the past election.
2:40:07 PM
SAMI GRAHAM, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), was
opposed to the bill. She thought the bill was harmful and
would completely change elections in Alaska. She believed
it negatively impacted Alaskans serving in the military and
military family members who wanted to return to Alaska. She
did not support same day voter registration with zero time
to verify eligibility. She thought the bill was a runway
for future statewide mail-in voting with signature
verification, vote curing, ballot drop boxes, ballot
harvesting, and fraud. She stated that the bill removed the
witness signature requirement, and she thought anyone could
send in an absentee ballot they harvested. She did not
think it made sense to require signatures for PFDs but not
for voting. She thought the changes added expense and
confusion. She stressed that there were many ways to
improve elections, but the bill did not make improvements.
She thought it lessened voter confidence.
2:42:41 PM
MIKE COONS, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), was in
opposition to the bill. He stated that the Senate minority
was not supportive of the bill. He did not support the
removal of witness signatures. He stated there was a
problem with election fraud. He stated there was no reason
residents in small villages could not get a witness
signature. He thought that supporting signatures had been
called racist, which he believed was offensive and racist.
He believed curing ballots was questionable. He stated that
no voter identification was a violation of a recent
executive order by President Trump for all federal
elections. He referenced other election reform legislation
offered by Senator Shower and Senator Hughes in the past
that had few hearings. He thought the bill sponsor was
notorious for offering legislation that was hard to
understand. He opposed the bill.
Co-Chair Foster provided the email address for written
testimony.
2:46:04 PM
KIRSTEN GERBATSCH, ATTORNEY, NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND,
COPPER CENTER (via teleconference), testified in support of
the bill on behalf of the Native American Rights Fund.
First, she stated that the witness signature requirement
served no legitimate purpose for ensuring election
integrity. She detailed that in the 2020 case, Arctic
Village v Meyer, the state's superior court ruled that the
witness signature requirement burdened the right to vote
during the COVID-19 pandemic and played no role in the
detection of voter fraud. She noted the ruling had been
affirmed by the state supreme court. Second, the ballot
curing process would allow the Division of Elections to
notify voters of clerical errors and would give voters the
opportunity to correct errors on rejected ballots. She
explained that ballots were most often rejected because of
envelope deficiencies that could have been corrected if the
division had timely informed voters of small defects. She
relayed that the proposed ballot curing process in the bill
ensured Alaska Native and rural voters could meaningfully
exercise their right to vote absentee. Third, the bill
added tribal IDs to the list of acceptable IDs for voting
and voter registration. The Division of Elections accepted
tribal IDs, but codifying it as a state law was an
important step to provide certainty and address
identification related barriers. She urged the committee to
pass the bill.
2:48:21 PM
MARGE STONEKING, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, AARP ALASKA, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), stated that AARP had a long history
of advocating for fair and straightforward election
procedures that help increase the participation of voters
over the age of 50. She detailed that voters over the age
of 50 consistently voted at higher rates than any other age
group. She provided additional detail about the
organization. She explained that AARP had heard complaints
about absentee ballot requirements for witness signature
from seniors living alone and rejection of absentee ballots
with the inability to fix the error. The organization
supported election laws that maximize the opportunity for
voter participation. They wanted voters to have the ability
to vote in the manner they chose and supported the removal
of unnecessary barriers in the voting system. The
organization strongly supported provisions in SB 64 to
remove barriers and increase voter access, including
preventing special needs ballots from being rejected,
removing the written signature requirement for absentee
ballots, creating a curing process for voters to fix errors
if absentee ballots were rejected. The organization
supported providing secure drop boxes and prepaid postage
on absentee ballots.
Representative Allard was leaning towards agreeing about
the witness signature because she believed the state needed
to enforce the ability to verify a voter's signature. She
asked if ARRP agreed that the identification for
individuals should be a government issued photo ID card to
include a BIA [Bureau of Indian Affairs].
Ms. Stoneking responded that AARP supported the update
included in the bill to add tribal identification. She
asked if that was Representative Allard's question.
Representative Allard clarified she was asking whether AARP
believed there should be a requirement for voters to show a
government issued photo ID card.
Ms. Stoneking responded that she had not seen any changes
regarding that topic in the bill; therefore, AARP had not
analyzed it at present.
Representative Allard stated it meant that someone could
vote by using a recent utility bill. She asked if Ms.
Stoneking agreed that the document should be sufficient for
a person to vote.
Ms. Stoneking replied that it was not a piece of the bill
AARP analyzed.
Representative Allard reiterated her question.
Ms. Stoneking responded that she would have to look into
the issue further because it was not something AARP had
analyzed.
Representative Allard stated that currently individuals
over the age of 50 did not have to have a government issued
photo ID. Individuals were able to use a utility bill
received within the past 60 days as a form of
identification. She asked if Ms. Stoneking agreed or
disagreed with the current law.
Ms. Stoneking responded that she worked on advocacy policy
in Alaska on a broad array of issues. She was not the
national government affairs expert on all things election.
There were no specific changes on the topic under the bill;
therefore, she did not analyze or review AARP's policy on
the topic.
2:53:51 PM
MICHAEL JONES, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), opposed
the bill. He was speaking on behalf of the nonprofit
Alaskans for Transparent Government. He stated there was a
fundamental flaw in the bill that needed to be addressed.
He detailed that the Department of Administration oversight
and review unit published a report titled "Review and
Effectiveness of Security of the Division of Elections in
Administering Alaska's Elections," dated July 13, 2020. He
stated the report included many redacted flaws in the
state's election process and redacted recommendations to
improve election security and efficiency. He stated that
two presidential elections had taken place following the
publication of the report, yet the public had no greater
insights on what the report said. He did not believe the
bill should pass from the committee until a complete and
transparent hearing on the oversight and review unit took
place. Additionally, he believed the bill should include a
complete reconciliation with the report to denote which
items in the bill were responsive to the report and which
items of the report were excluded. He thanked the
committee.
2:56:06 PM
GERALD VOSS, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), testified
in opposition to the bill. He agreed there should be voter
ID, but he pointed out that voter ID registration cards
included no voter ID. He suggested the cards could be
eliminated and individuals could use their driver's
licenses as ID. He suggested the elimination of voter ID
cards would save the state a substantial amount of money.
He listed state IDs and tribal IDs as alternate options. He
voted regularly using his hunting, fishing, and trapping
license and it included no ID other than a purchase date.
He remarked that his Costco card included more information.
He thought perhaps the state should take a note from Costco
on how to handle elections because Costco required ID to
enter the store. He did not believe the state should pay
for ballot postage. He asked how many people on public
assistance were not U.S. citizens. He remarked that the
bill allowed individuals on public assistance to vote with
some form of related document.
2:58:49 PM
RITA TROMETTER, SELF, NORTH POLE (via teleconference),
spoke against the bill. She shared that she had been an
election watcher in the past. She understood the bill did
not address Dominion machines, but she believed it needed
to be addressed. She noted that drop boxes were addressed
under Section 41 of the bill. She believed voters needed to
be registered to vote prior to election day and needed a
voter ID. She did not support the ability to use a
hunting/fishing ID or a utility bill as a form of
identification. She thought all absentee ballots should be
received by election day and should require a witness
signature. She stated that one person could only witness a
certain number of ballots. She supported the ability for
individuals to track their own ballots. She thought APOC
needed to make it easier for the average individual to fill
out the forms and to eliminate duplicate information. She
believed there was great confusion with APOC so that some
people could be charged large amounts of money for
infractions. She thought it was a way for the state to get
extra money. She talked about image enhancing advertising
for individuals running for office. She discussed campaign
signage and size requirements.
3:05:09 PM
Representative Stapp appreciated hearing from Ms.
Trometter.
3:05:41 PM
KELLY NASH, FOUNDER, INTERIOR PATRIOTS, FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), spoke in opposition to the bill. She
believed the bill contained provisions that would
jeopardize election security and the fundamental freedom of
Alaskans. She stated that mass mailout ballots undermine
security. She elaborated that the bill allowed absentee
ballots to be automatically mailed to voters annually
without request. She stated that it increased the risk of
ballots going to the wrong people, especially with
inaccurate voter rolls. She stated that the bill allowed
voters to use utility bills or bank statements as forms of
identification. She thought a valid driver's license should
be required. She did not support the removal of a witness
signature. She remarked that other states used the
signature on their government issued ID. She spoke about
illegal ballot harvesting and ballot tampering. She thought
ballot drop boxes created vulnerabilities. She listed
additional reasons she opposed the bill. She urged the
committee to vote no.
Representative Tomaszewski asked Ms. Nash to email her
remarks to the House Finance Committee.
Ms. Nash replied that she had emailed her testimony.
3:11:01 PM
BERNIE HOFFMAN, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), urged
support for the bill. She stated that the bill would
increase accessibility for all Alaskans. She supported
Alaska's ranked choice voting. She remarked that ranked
choice voting had been successful as there were a large
group of legislators working together to solve issues
facing Alaskans. She advocated for the removal of the
witness signature provision. She shared that as a recent
UPS window clerk she had customers ask her to sign their
mail in ballots as a witness, but her management told her
she could not sign the form. She stated that the
requirement disenfranchised people who were trying to send
their ballots in. She highlighted that one to two votes
could make a difference in an election. She asked the
committee to advance the bill in order for Alaskans to have
their votes counted.
3:13:35 PM
JAMIE DONLEY, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference),
opposed the bill. She referred to earlier comment that some
people in remote villages did not know an election was
taking place. She remarked that she had knocked on doors
throughout Alaska and many people in Anchorage did not know
when it was time to vote. She thought the bill tried to
take away the integrity of "our vote" so that people who
chose not to vote had a better opportunity to choose not to
vote. She thought it was a bad reason to pass horrible
legislation. She believed the bill would result in ballot
harvesting. She thought the bill took a system that needed
to be fixed and made it worse. She had lived in a village
as a child and she remarked that there were many people who
voted and many people who chose not to vote, which was
their decision. She did not believe it was a good idea to
change laws to make it easier for ballot fraud and to push
people into voting who did not want to vote and were not
engaging in the system. She stated she received multiple
ballots at her address with other people's names on them.
She elaborated that after complaining, the ballots still
came to her house. She was very concerned about ballot
harvesting. She thought the bill was terrible.
3:15:58 PM
BARBARA HANEY, SELF, NORTH POLE (via teleconference), noted
she would submit written comments as well. She found
several provisions of the bill to be very problematic, and
she hoped the committee would vote against it. She did not
support the elimination of the witness signature on
absentee ballots. She shared that she is 65 and stressed
that older people had IDs. She stated they get upset when
they see people voting without photo identification. She
remarked that it had been a traditional norm that needed to
be maintained. She suggested having individual's print
their name in addition to providing a witness signature.
She noted there was a new generation of election judges who
could not read cursive. She was strongly opposed page 30,
line 6 of the bill implementing a restriction on the size
of political signs to 32 square feet. The current
restriction was 66 square feet. She thought it was wrong to
reduce the size. She noted that large signs showed the
election date and informed the public. She objected to a
provision pertaining to synthetic media. She provided
details of a past event.
3:21:00 PM
Representative Tomaszewski asked Ms. Haney to email her
testimony.
Ms. Haney would do so.
3:21:23 PM
DONALD THOMPSON, SELF, NORTH POLE (via teleconference),
strongly opposed the bill for several reasons. He supported
witness signatures and identification. He supported
requiring photo identification for voters. He spoke to the
need to secure elections. He stated that the bill advocated
for extensive alcohol and naked dancing signs, but limited
people from telling people what they could do to help the
state and country. He thought the bill needed to be shut
down. He did not believe it contained anything positive for
voters. He was opposed to sign limits and mail in ballots.
He stated that if mail in ballots were allowed, they should
have to be received by the election day. He thought it was
ridiculous for Alaska to take a month to determine who won.
He did not support ranked choice voting. He advocated
getting rid of California and its influence in Alaska.
3:23:59 PM
KRISTEEN F PETERSON, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference),
supported the bill. She liked the idea of state ID and
tribal ID. She suggested having the Department of Revenue
Permanent Fund Dividend Division share data to assist after
processing. She suggested that if amendments needed to be
made, they should be made to the bill instead of throwing
it out and starting over.
3:25:20 PM
RAY KREIG, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
in opposition to the bill. He did not support removing the
signature from ballot envelopes for mail in voting. He
thought it looked like an attempt to establish permanent
absentee by mail ballot distribution similar to the system
for the Municipality of Anchorage.
Co-Chair Foster asked for verification that Mr. Kreig was
testifying on his own behalf.
Mr. Kreig agreed.
3:26:50 PM
Co-Chair Foster relayed that there were no additional
testifiers. He would leave public testimony open.
SB 64 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
[Note: the bill was taken up again later in the meeting at
6:45 p.m.]
3:28:02 PM
AT EASE
3:46:22 PM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 39(FIN)
"An Act relating to loans in an amount of $25,000 or
less; relating to financial institutions; relating to
the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and
Registry; relating to pawnbroker licensing exemptions;
relating to deferred deposit advances; relating to
computing interest; and providing for an effective
date."
3:47:03 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony. He provided the
email address for public testimony. He noted there were
eight individuals online to testify.
3:48:12 PM
NATALIE LYNCH, INNOVATIVE LENDING PLATFORM ASSOCIATION
(ILPA), WASHINGTON, DC (via teleconference), explained that
ILPA was a trade organization for online lenders and
service companies serving small businesses. She stated that
the bill went far beyond the sponsor's intent of regulating
payday loans. She believed it would negatively impact small
business in Alaska relying on diverse financing options to
meet credit needs. She elaborated that Alaska would be the
fourth state to adopt such a broad regulation. She remarked
that laws in other states were narrowly tailored to small
consumer loans. She stated that the law would apply to any
loan of $25,000 or less, not just payday loans. She noted
that the average payday loan an Alaska borrower took out
was $440. She stated that the bill would severely hurt ILPA
members' ability to supply working capital to Alaska's
small businesses. The bill would also require anyone
holding the predominate economic interest in the loans to
be registered in Alaska. She stated that transferring loans
to nonbank entities was a fundamental aspect of banking
that helped reduce risk. She highlighted that it could also
lead to higher borrowing cost and less capital available
for Alaskan consumers. She added that the bill would
endanger the secondary credit market. The organization
opposed the bill.
3:50:36 PM
CATHY BRENNAN, PARTNER, HUDSON COOK LAW FIRM, BALTIMORE, MD
(via teleconference), shared that the firm represented
banks and fintechs [financial technology] with regard to
consumer financial services laws and regulation. Her focus
was on bank partnerships. She addressed the bill's
provision that recharacterized the bank's service provider
as the true lender on credit transactions. She stated that
the Small Loans Act (SLA) provided an optional licensing
scheme allowing licensed nonbank lenders to contract for a
greater rate of interest than the rate available to
unlicensed lenders. She relayed that currently the SLA did
not require entities that brokered, serviced, or purchased
consumer loans to obtain a license. She stated that
unfortunately the bill would impair highly regulated U.S.
banks from making legal loans to Alaskans. She relayed that
fintech service providers were subject to a high level of
scrutiny from banks and regulators. She provided an
example. Federal law authorized federal and state banks to
export interest rates from their home states to make loans
to borrowers across state lines and allowed banks to work
with third parties in the loan making process. She stated
that the anti-evasion language in the bill ignored the
reality that banks managed their balance sheets by
routinely selling the loans they originated. She provided
an example. She stated that the bill impaired the common
practice and would diminish the availability of consumer
credit in the state. She highlighted that the bill included
commercial lending, which she imagined was likely not the
intent of the bill.
Representative Hannan asked where the anti-evasion language
Ms. Brennan was referring to was located in the bill.
Ms. Brennan responded that the bill would add a new
subsection to Section 4 [subsection (c)(1)] under AS
6.20.010. She read language from the subsection:
"...directly or indirectly holds, acquires, or maintains
the 21 predominant economic interest in a loan..." She
noted there was additional language regarding evasion.
Representative Hannan observed that Ms. Lynch and Ms.
Brennan came from a similar segment of industry. She
remarked that there were not many reasons in most elected
officials' minds not to help protect consumers from
predatory lending practices of payday lenders. She remarked
that Ms. Lynch asserted the entire bill should be stopped.
She wondered if Ms. Brennan had concerns about the payday
lending portions of the bill separate from the SLA
portions. She asked if Ms. Brennan's concerns were
exclusive to Section 4 and the anti-evasion language.
Ms. Brennan responded that her process was focused on
working with banks attempting to offer credit on a
nationwide basis, which was done with the assistance of
service providers frequently referred to as fintechs. She
was concerned the legislation would impair the ability of
banks to exercise their lawful authority under federal law
and the law of their home state. She was most concerned
about the bank partnership. Secondarily, the bill would
limit the ability of commercial entities and businesses in
Alaska to get credit through a bank partnership program.
She explained that it was common for that type of credit
for interest rates to be higher than it would be for
consumer credit given the nature of the underwriting and
type of loans. She did not know that she would refer to
that market as predatory. Additionally, on the consumer
side, there were many consumers who were credit impaired,
who would not qualify for other types of credit. She
understood policymakers needed to make a policy decision on
how to protect consumers. She suggested the legislation
would not protect consumers, but it would hurt them by
making it difficult to get credit.
3:57:12 PM
Representative Hannan asked if Ms. Brennan's use of the
word "consumer" meant a commercial entity or an individual.
Ms. Brennan clarified that a consumer was an individual who
obtained credit for a household or personal use.
Representative Hannan stated most legislators were
interested in providing more protections for consumers
using payday loans. She noted that Ms. Brennan had first
talked about Section 4 related to commercial lending. She
elaborated that Ms. Brennan had also stated the bill would
lose credit for consumers. She had initially thought the
commercial credit was only available to commercial
entities. She thought she understood Ms. Brennan's
concerns.
Ms. Brennan responded that the SLA was an optional scheme.
She explained that that many small loan acts in many states
including Alaska, did not specifically apply only to
consumer credit; therefore, it was broad enough to apply to
consumer and commercial credit made to individuals (sole
proprietors or individuals who own a business). She asked
if her explanation made sense.
Representative Hannan agreed.
3:59:20 PM
REVERAND ANDY BARTEL, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
shared that he had been a resident and safe leader in
Anchorage for the past decade. He testified in favor of SB
39. He detailed that for two years, the Alaska Conference
of the United Methodist Church, had unanimously adopted a
resolution in support of payday lending reform. He noted
that a unanimous vote in the church was about as rare as a
unanimous vote in the legislature. He highlighted that
church members were republicans, democrats, and
independents and the bill did not favor a particular
political perspective. The church believed financial
institutions served a vital role in society, but they must
guard against abuses and deceptive lending practices that
took advantage of the neediest for the gain of the richest.
He underscored that banking regulations must prevent the
collection of usurious interest that kept people in cycles
of debt. He stressed that payday lending in Alaska was
predatory lending extracting millions of dollars from local
impoverished citizens and the local economy. He stated that
short term loans by payday lenders were not the only option
for some individuals. He listed Credit Union One, Spirit of
Alaska Credit Union, Wells Fargo as options for small
dollar short-term loan products that came in under the
proposed 36 percent cap. Prior to returning to Alaska, he
had been a pastor in South Dakota, which also enacted a
similar cap to reform payday lending. He highlighted that
subsequent studies showed the economy had only benefitted
from enacting a 36 percent cap on all lenders. He pointed
out that South Dakota had saved $81 million a year in fees.
He underscored that the bill would make a real and positive
difference for some of the state's most vulnerable
Alaskans. He implored the committee to pass the
legislation. He thanked the committee.
4:02:43 PM
GREG PORTER, ONLINE LENDER'S ALLIANCE, ARLINGTON, VA (via
teleconference), shared that the organization had submitted
written testimony as well. The alliance focused on policy
surrounding credit access and believed that more options
yielded better outcomes for consumers. He stated there had
been a lot of discussion on payday products, but there was
much more in the bill that would impact access to credit
for consumers and small businesses. He detailed that nearly
one-third of Alaskans were considered credit constrained
and Alaskans led the nation in credit card utilization and
had the highest card balances in the U.S. He disputed
claims that lenders would keep making loans to the same
borrowers at lower cost if the bill was enacted. He stated
that if someone needed a couple hundred dollars until their
next paycheck, a lender could charge $1.50 per week in
total fees and interest. He remarked that common sense
suggested that small dollar lenders would not be able to
adequately price for cost or risk and borrowers would see
options dry up. He highlighted there was research from the
federal reserve backing up his statement.
Mr. Porter reported that Illinois applied the same
framework of restrictions as SB 39 and a study showed that
credit access declined for thousands of consumers after the
restrictions were enacted. He referenced some proponents
claims that large legacy banks and credit unions offered
small dollar loans. He stated it was technically true, but
for a small number of individuals. He stated the offerings
did not come close to meeting demand. The bill worked
against more banks entering into the small dollar space. He
explained that states had the ability to extend loans
across state lines and used the assistance of service
providers. He stated that the bill worked to stop banks
from offering loans if they worked with a service provider.
He pointed out that when people lost the ability to access
products to support themselves in a downturn, they were
more likely to turn to government support. He stated that
on a per capita basis, Alaska ranked near the top on public
support payments. He believed the bill would increase the
need. He urged the committee to oppose the bill.
4:06:14 PM
AT EASE
4:06:43 PM
RECONVENED
4:06:54 PM
MIKE COONS, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), opposed the
the bill. He stated that the bill was not about poor people
only. He thought the bill boiled down to the government
getting involved in people's mistakes, while government
could not control its spending and borrowing from the
Permanent Fund Dividend. He remarked that the mistakes were
in many cases due to poor education and impulse buying. He
suggested that it did not matter if interest rates were 194
to 521 percent or general lending laws of 39 percent. He
stated that people got into debt and stayed in debt. He
read from the last paragraph of the sponsor statement. He
asked what constituted reasonable interest rates. He
wondered if it was 12, 25, or 39 percent. He relayed the
Discover credit cards had a rate of 18.24 to 27.24 percent.
He stated that people were getting payday loans because
banks would not take the risk. He suggested that the
legislature should go after credit card companies that
allowed multiple credit cards when a person was heavily in
debt. He stated the no amount of government help would fix
the problem. He underscored that the key was teaching kids
responsible financial management. He believed there should
be classes taught on the subject. He was in support of
separate legislation that taught financial literacy.
4:09:46 PM
WENDY GIBSON, CHECK CITY, PROVO, UT (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the bill. She shared that she is
an Alaska licensed payday lender located in Provo, Utah.
She stated that although SB 39 was a consumer friendly bill
to reduce the cost associated with short-term loans, its
passage amounted to a wholesale prohibition of licensed
short-term lending in Alaska. She highlighted that if the
bill passed, the only entities that would offer loans were
those with no regard for Alaska law. She believed Alaskans
would face fewer choices, higher risk, and greater
financial hardship. She stated that customers deserved
access to credit that was transparent, safe, and regulated.
The company charged a flat fee, did not charge interest,
and its loans were capped at $500. The company was also
subject to strict money rules in Alaska including offering
a repayment plan if customers were unable to pay by the due
date. She stated that in the past year, the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau had received only one complaint
against an Alaska payday lender. She stated that the
statute had worked well for years. She emphasized that the
bill was not data driven and did not include input from all
stakeholders. She thought the bill would unintentionally
harm people it was trying to protect. She asked the
committee to vote against the bill.
4:12:16 PM
KAY WRIGHT, SELF, NIKISKI (via teleconference), was in
opposition to the bill. He stated that short-term loans
were a priority for some village residents trying to
stretch finances from paycheck to paycheck. He thought the
bill should allow short-term loans to continue. He remarked
that it was sad when a person could not get a loan from a
bank in a remote area.
4:13:26 PM
Co-Chair Foster shared that he would keep public testimony
open for the time being. He provided the email address for
written testimony.
[Note: Co-Chair Foster closed public testimony later in the
meeting at 4:31 p.m.]
4:14:23 PM
SENATOR FORREST DUNBAR, SPONSOR, addressed the idea that
there was something unique or different about the anti-
evasion provision. There was written testimony from the
Center for Responsible Lending in members' bill packets
written by Mr. Kushner that included a section addressing
the topic. He elaborated that it had to do with the service
provider issue Mr. Kushner had spoken about. He highlighted
that it was not a novel language; the language was
identical or near identical to language adopted in Maine,
New Mexico, Washington, Connecticut, and Illinois. He noted
the language had not been repealed in any of those
locations or overturned by a federal lawsuit. He clarified
that the bill did not include a novel expansion and
included standard anti-evasion language.
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline for Saturday at
5:00 p.m.
CSSB 39(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
4:15:44 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 52
"An Act relating to the rights of minors undergoing
evaluation or inpatient treatment at psychiatric
hospitals; relating to the use of seclusion or
restraint of minors at psychiatric hospitals; relating
to a report published by the Department of Health;
relating to inspections by the Department of Health of
certain psychiatric hospitals; and providing for an
effective date."
4:16:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MAXINE DIBERT, SPONSOR, thanked her staff
for their work on the bill. She relayed that the bill
focused on improving child psychiatric care in Alaska. She
expressed gratitude to the committee for hearing the
legislation. The bill was designed to better protect
children receiving care in psychiatric care hospitals in
Alaska by reinforcing parental rights and increasing
transparency during treatment. The bill accomplished the
goals through three straightforward reforms.
Representative Dibert reviewed the three steps the state
could take to protect its most vulnerable citizens. First,
the bill expanded the rights of parents and guardians to
communicate with their children while they were receiving
psychiatric care. The bill ensured regular access to
telephone and video communication. She relayed that many of
the children were placed in facilities hundreds of miles
from their homes and maintaining connection was critical to
their wellbeing. She stated that in a previous hearing the
committee heard directly from former patients who were now
adults who shared that as children, they went months
without any contact with their guardians despite repeated
requests. She underscored that a lot of work was needed and
the situation was unacceptable.
Representative Dibert addressed the second action taken by
the bill. The legislation required unannounced thorough
inspections of the facilities to be done by state public
health officials. Currently, inspections took place only
once every 36 months. The gap had allowed some facilities
to fall short of the standard of care children deserved.
Reports of neglect, abuse, and sexual assault made it clear
the state was not doing enough and it was their duty to
ensure children were protected. Third, the bill brought
much needed transparency to the use of all forms of
restraint in psychiatric hospitals including chemical
restraints. The bill defined the practices clearly in
statute and required detailed documentation of their use,
along with the use of physical restraint and seclusion. She
shared that a lot of work had been done in the House Health
and Social Services Committee to help with the specific
section. She explained that with the rising rates of
restraint used in psychiatric hospitals, there were serious
concerns that measures were being misused to punish
patients rather than to treat them, ultimately harming a
child's ability to heal and reintegrate into their
communities. She stressed that a youth should never come
out of treatment worse than when they entered. She stated
that the bill was not a silver bullet, but it was an
important first step bringing Alaska closer to compliance
and paving the way for better outcomes for children in
psychiatric care. She requested to hear the sectional
analysis from her staff.
Co-Chair Foster noted that people had been waiting for some
time for public testimony so he would move to that first.
Representative Dibert noted there should be a second
[invited] testifier online. She noted that Ben Mallot with
the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) should be available.
Co-Chair Foster confirmed that Mr. Mallot was online. He
moved to invited testimony.
4:22:19 PM
MATEO JAIME, COMMUNITY RELATIONS LIAISON, FACING FOSTER
CARE, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), shared that he
entered foster care when he was 15 in 2017 and made his way
from Texas to Alaska because of the Indian Child Welfare
Act (ICWA). He shared that he had switched placement due to
rampant abuse. There had been no foster homes in Anchorage;
therefore, his caseworker sent him to North Star
[Behavioral Health System]. He explained that the entry
process had been very difficult, and he was not allowed to
have his own clothes. The doctor told him he would be there
for two weeks, which turned into two months. He shared that
he witnessed a lot of medical abuse during his time at
North Star, including staff that physically attacked
patients who were much smaller. He detailed that "so
called" therapy sessions involved North Star trying to send
patients to long-term out-of-state facilities. He relayed
that the facility did not listen or help patients learn how
to navigate their issues. He shared that he did not have
any mental health issues, despite going through long-term
trauma. He explained that staff at North Star tried to put
him on medications even though he did not need them. He
provided additional testimony [indecipherable due to poor
audio]. He stressed the importance of transparency in
psychiatric institutions. He thanked the committee for the
time to speak.
Representative Hannan asked if Mr. Jaime graduated from the
University of Alaska the previous week with honors.
Mr. Jaime responded affirmatively. He shared that he
graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in legal
studies.
Representative Hannan replied that it had been a privilege
to see Mr. Jaime's growth and maturity over the past
several years. She wished him the best and thanked him for
testifying.
4:26:08 PM
BENJAMIN MALLOTT, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), shared information about AFN. He thanked
Representative Dibert for her leadership on the bill. He
congratulated Mr. Jaime on his graduation and wished him
the best of luck. He relayed that AFN supported the bill
for many reasons. First, rural Alaska mental healthcare was
very limited for options. Most often when youth were in
mental crisis they were sent to facilities that were far
from home. The bill would allow more access for parents
and/or families to contact children in distress or in
facilities. The bill also allowed the state to have better
care and management of the facilities including two annual
unannounced inspections. The bill provided more
transparency in the use of sometimes very traumatizing
restraints for youth in facilities. Overall, the bill was a
step in the right direction for the care of youth in
facilities. He thanked Representative Dibert for her
leadership ensuring youth had the access to care they
deserved. He thanked the committee, Gunalchéesh.
4:28:31 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
4:28:53 PM
STEVEN PEARCE, DIRECTOR, CITIZENS COMMISSION ON HUMAN
RIGHTS, SEATTLE (via teleconference), shared that the
commission is a psychiatric watchdog organization. The
commission supported the bill. The organization believed
the reforms the bill brought to reduce abuse, strengthen
family connections, and improve transparency of Alaska
psychiatric hospitals was a move in the right direction. He
referenced a recommendation by the Disability Law Center
about reviewing the current approach using powerful, mind
altering psychiatric drugs by moving to a new focus of
treatment in providing a noncoercive drug-free approach to
move youth towards recovery of health. He underscored that
psychiatric drugs were not cures and they often led to
long-term disability. He stated that the bill addressed
some of the issue of treating youth better, but involuntary
treatment for youth must evolve beyond being a chemical
restraint or deterrent for youth in emotional crisis. He
stated that testimony clearly showed that people were not
treated with respect and dignity that should have been
provided. The organization urged that the bill should go
further and suggested language specifying that patients had
the right to be treated with dignity as a human being. He
reiterated support for the bill.
4:31:00 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony for HB 52.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony for SB 39.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the fiscal notes for
HB 52.
4:31:52 PM
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER,
reviewed the zero fiscal note from Department of Family and
Community Services (DFCS), OMB component 3314, control code
JbxmK. The department specified in the note that it could
provide the necessary data with no fiscal impact. The
second zero fiscal note was from DFCS, OMB component 3321,
Odoim. The data to be collected and tracked would come at
no additional cost to the department. The third fiscal note
was from the Department of Health, OMB component 2944,
control code Otlnx. The fiscal note included an FY 26 cost
of $172,100 in personal services, $35,000 services, and
$5,000 in commodities, for a total operating cost of
$212,100 in unrestricted general funds for a full-time
position. The department would also be required to do some
regulation review. He provided a cost breakdown including
one new nurse consultant 1 position, annual services of
$20,000 for office space, phone number, and reimbursable
services, and $15,000 for two annual trainings for the
position. Additional costs were $2,000 for office supplies
and a one-time commodity cost of $3,000 in FY 26.
4:35:11 PM
Co-Chair Josephson asked how the communication feature
would be applied if a youth was transferred out of state to
Utah for example.
Representative Dibert replied that the bill only focused on
youth in Alaska. She hoped that further legislation in the
future could help with youth who were out of state.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if Representative Andrew Gray had
a similar bill.
Representative Dibert agreed that Representative Gray had a
similar bill. She deferred the question to her staff for
detail.
4:36:36 PM
MATTIE HULL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MAXINE DIBERT, responded
that the bill submitted by Representative Gray interacted
with foster care populations. He relayed that of the 213
applicable Medicaid psychiatric patients, 66 were in foster
care. He explained that it was a different population. The
bill helped many [youth] that were in foster care, but it
pertained to psychiatric children and not foster children.
Representative Bynum observed the bill was written so the
minor in care had the right to the communications aspect.
He wondered if there was something that protected the
parent's right to communicate with the minor in care. He
did not see it in the bill and wondered if it was already
established in law.
Mr. Hull answered that he was not aware of anything in
statute. The bill would establish the right for a parent to
create a request for communication. He noted that he may be
incorrect.
Representative Bynum asked where the information was
located in statute or within the bill. He was amenable to
receiving the response at a later time if needed.
Mr. Hull responded that Section 1 on page 2 established
that the minor's parent or legal guardian or another adult
approved by the person in charge may request the
confidential communication. He noted that the language had
been added in the bill.
Representative Bynum asked Mr. Hull to repeat the section
and location in the bill.
Mr. Hull answered that the language was on Section 1, page
2, line 1 of the bill. He restated the bill language.
Representative Bynum observed that page 1 of the bill
stated that a minor had the right unless prohibited by a
court order or law to have confidential communication. He
thought page 2 made it sound like a parent had to request
to have the confidential communication. He wanted to ensure
the parent had the right to confidential communication. He
was amenable to receiving clarification on his question at
a later time.
4:40:37 PM
Representative Hannan asked for verification the bill would
impact two hospitals including Alaska Psychiatric Institute
(API) and a private hospital. She believed they were the
only two hospitals currently treating minors in closed
custody psychiatric care.
Representative Dibert replied affirmatively.
Representative Hannan asked if the sponsor had explored
making the bill slightly broader to include hospitals with
closed psychiatric units. She wondered whether they had
been excluded because they did not take kids for the long-
term or if there was another legal reason.
Representative Dibert responded that the bill focused on
psychiatric hospitals and she had not looked into expanding
beyond that. She thought it was something to be explored as
legislators learned more on how to help youth in the
facilities. She appreciated the thought.
Representative Hannan stressed the importance of the bill.
She wanted to ensure they were capturing as many
circumstances as possible where kids would be impacted. She
considered it may be that the state licensure of treatment
facilities could cover it in regulatory processes versus
statute. She referenced separate legislation that would
stand up alternative treatment facilities like group homes.
She noted the bill had not yet passed and regulations had
not been written. She wanted to ensure the same legal
protections in HB 52 would be applied to any additional
facilities that may open in the future. She noted she was
jumping ahead to the vision where there would be treatment
facilities to bring home kids who were currently not able
to be treated in Alaska.
Representative Dibert replied that she appreciated
Representative Hannan's remarks. She requested to hear a
response from the Department of Health.
4:44:07 PM
ROBERT NAVE, DIVISION OPERATIONS MANAGER, DIVISION OF
HEALTH CARE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (via
teleconference), stated his understanding that the initial
reason for the bill focusing solely on psychiatric
hospitals was due to findings in a Department of Justice
report on Alaska. He relayed that it would be possible to
look into expansion if it was needed in the future and it
may require an additional fiscal note.
Representative Bynum stated that Section 4 of the bill
addressed the right to have access to inspections and set
standards for interviews of patients [50 percent of
patients], and the number of times inspections could occur.
He asked if there was an established guideline that
informed the specific portion of the bill. Alternatively,
he wondered if the language had been selected because it
had been determined to be a good thing to do.
Mr. Hull responded that the origin of the number came from
other states that had instituted the requirement. He
believed 30 other states had implemented some form of
instate inspection. The 50 percent originated from Montana
and a number of states had stepped up to ensure instate
child psychiatric standards of care were rising.
Representative Bynum highlighted that the fiscal note added
personnel to the Department of Health (DOH). He observed
there would be an elevated need in order to fulfil the
requirements of the law. He wondered if there would be any
negative impact if the department was unable to hire for
the position.
Mr. Nave responded that currently the Health Care Facility
Licensing and Certification program was at critical mass
with regard the current need and staffing. He stated that
if the department was unable to hire the new position, it
would be difficult to impossible to meet the requirements
of the bill.
Representative Bynum surmised that language in Section 4
provided the right for DOH to perform the activities, but
it would not necessarily mean the state would be in breach
of law or requirement if it was unable to fulfil two
[inspections] per year and [interview] 50 percent [of the
minor patients in a facility]. He asked if his
understanding was accurate.
Mr. Hull responded that to his knowledge there was no
punishment language for not fulfilling the items [set out
in Section 4 of the bill].
4:48:34 PM
Representative Dibert added that if there was a body to
collect data from the institutions, there would be a report
which would be provided to the legislature at the end of
the year. She explained that it could provide information
on the transparency of the system in the state. She
remarked that if there was no one providing the data, a
substantial amount of work was needed in the area.
Representative Bynum supported the language in Section 4,
specifically the requirement for unannounced inspections.
He noted that hospitals had requirements where a survey was
done, which was usually unannounced at least once a year.
He pointed out that the language used in the bill stated
DOH shall do the work. His only concern was about the
state's ability to fill positions, and he thought the
position under the bill would require technical
competencies that may be difficult. He wanted to make sure
it did not result in a noncompliant situation that may put
the state in jeopardy.
4:50:09 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted that he intended to take a recess for
dinner.
Representative Jimmie highlighted that traveling from rural
Alaska to urban areas was extremely hard on a child. She
believed the inability for a child to communicate with
their parents would contribute to a worsening of the
child's condition.
Representative Dibert appreciated the comments from
Representative Jimmie. She agreed that children were being
sent far from home and the bill was aiming to protect them.
She thanked Representative Jimmie, Enaa baasee'.
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline for Friday, May
16 at 5:00 p.m.
HB 52 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
4:52:18 PM
RECESSED
6:45:32 PM
RECONVENED
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."
6:46:03 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee would return to SB 64.
Mr. Dunsmore resumed a PowerPoint presentation that had
been previously heard by the committee titled "SB 64
Election Reform," updated on May 15, 2025 (copy on file).
He began on slide 18 read from the slide:
Alaska Law Generally Allows Self-Certification of
Documents, and the Division of Elections Accepts Self-
Certification of Petition Booklets
Mr. Dunsmore turned to slide 19 and detailed that the bill
would create a ballot curing process to allow voters to
correct technical mistakes that would otherwise result in
the rejection of their ballots. The provision was
originally included in bills introduced by Representative
Schrage and Senator Mike Shower and possibly others.
Representative Allard stated that she had a problem with
staff using the name of a member from the other body who
she did not believe supported the bill. She did not believe
it was appropriate for staff to continually say that the
legislator supported the bill.
Co-Chair Schrage thought there was a request the prior day
for Mr. Dunsmore to include the origin of items. He felt
there were mixed messages on what committee members would
like from staff.
Co-Chair Foster confirmed there had been a request [to hear
the origin of items in the bill].
Co-Chair Schrage understood it was sometimes difficult to
be staff and cater to the wishes of the committee and he
thought the committee should be consistent in its requests.
Representative Allard thought staff had mentioned the
[specific] legislators 22 to 23 times. She thought the
legislators would likely come publicly testify during the
meeting to explain where they stood on the issues. She did
not believe legislators should be included in the
conversation in a way that they may not be support.
Representative Galvin recalled hearing a request to be told
who had mentioned a particular part of the elections bill
whenever the reference was bipartisan. She knew there had
been previous legislation put forward that had included
some of the pieces included in SB 64. She understood why
there may be reference to others.
Co-Chair Foster noted there had been a queue of questions
from members from a previous meeting on the bill. He began
with Representative Stapp.
6:49:53 PM
Representative Stapp suggested that perhaps the Senate
minority leader should be asked to provide invited
testimony. Separately, he had questions about the bill. He
knew that Co-Chair Josephson had mentioned the bill was
pro-military. He did not view the bill in that way. He
thought the bill appeared to be against active duty
military. He cited a provision on page 2 of the bill that
included an existing exemption where an active duty
military person did not lose their eligibility residency
solely by reason of absence. However, he argued that added
provisions likely would result in the individuals losing
eligibility. One such provision pertained to establishing
residency in another state. He moved to page 4 and cited
provisions regarding registering a vehicle in another state
and receiving a benefit available to a resident in another
state. He shared that when he was in the Army he was sent
to Texas where he had been required by law to register his
vehicle within 30 days. He viewed the changes in the bill
to mean a person would be violating their residency in
Alaska by being forced by another state to register their
vehicle within 30 days. Additionally, he cited a provision
on page 4 that moved two general election cycles to 28
months. He relayed that most of his constituents on Fort
Wainwright tended to only vote in presidential elections.
He stated that if the requirement went down to 28 months,
he was concerned that most of those individuals, even if
they were still living in Alaska, would be cleaned from the
rolls because many of them did not apply for the Permanent
Fund Dividend.
Mr. Dunsmore deferred the first part of the question to
Sonja Kawasaki [majority counsel for the Senate]. He
addressed the second part of the question. He clarified
that the reference mentioned by Representative Stapp on
page 5 of the bill was with regard to the voter roll
cleanup sections, not for the residency requirement. He
explained that the section contained indicators that
someone may not be a resident that would trigger the
process. The idea of crafting the language was to come up
with triggers if someone claimed residency in another
state. He stated that if the committee was opposed to the
language, it was something that could potentially be
amended. The change from two general election cycles to 28
months was a result of negotiations. He did not know if the
committee wanted to hear which senator insisted on the
change, but the senator was very effective in securing many
conservative provisions "in this bipartisan election bill."
He stated the individual had done a great job advancing
conservative election policies through the Senate, whether
he supported the bill or not. He detailed that there had
been some concern that two general election cycles was not
a specific time limit and the desire was to have a specific
time limit. He elaborated that because the voter cleanup
process occurred in January, the idea was that 28 months
would cover the period between the past two general
elections. He believed federal law included the language
"two general elections" but negotiations in the Senate
resulted in setting a specified period of time.
6:55:04 PM
Representative Stapp stated the two general elections would
be 64 months (8 years). He was fine with setting a 28-month
timeframe. He stated that about 800 ballots were questioned
on Fort Wainwright because they were same-day
registrations. He noted that military came up on a three to
five-year cycle. He explained that the individuals
registered the first time they went to vote because most of
them were not filling out PFD applications and typically
they only voted in a general election cycle. He highlighted
that the vote total in his district doubled between 2022
and 2024 due to the persistence of people going to vote. He
stated his concern that the state would be looking to
remove the individuals in the specified timeframe. He noted
that one general election cycle would be 48 months, and 28
months would be not quite half.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the current law for general
election did not refer to a general election cycle, it
referred to the general elections themselves. He explained
it would be slightly more or less because elections did not
fall on the same day of the year, but two general elections
would happen approximately 24 months from each other.
Representative Stapp remarked that it was still not quite
50 percent less time.
Mr. Dunsmore answered that the sponsor would be happy to
work with the committee on the specific provision.
Representative Stapp looked at page 2 that included an
exemption for active duty military. He noted that the
language specified that the person may not lose [the
ability to vote in Alaska] by sole reasons of absence,
which made sense to him. However, he believed the reasons
listed in the subsequent subsections contradicted the
provision. For example, when he had been transferred [in
the Army] to Texas, he had been required by law to register
his vehicle in Texas. Based on the language in the bill, he
believed a person would be abdicating their Alaska
residency for doing so.
6:58:23 PM
SONJA KAWASAKI, SENATE MAJORITY LEGAL COUNSEL, looked at
Section 1 on page 2, lines 2 through 10 and explained that
the section included factors that were indicative of
whether a person had gained or lost residency in Alaska.
The section included language that concerned whether a
person had gained or lost residency for reasons listed in
the provision. One of the factors was that a person may not
be considered to have lost residency by being in active
military service. The subsequent provisions that changed
intent to return would not interfere with the current
exemption for active duty military service and their
spouses.
Representative Stapp read from lines 2 through 4 of page 2
of the bill "A person may not be considered to have gained
a residence solely by reason of presence nor may a person
lose it solely by reason of absence while in the civil or
military service..." He stated that the way it had always
worked was that if a person left Alaska because they
received orders to go somewhere else, they did not lose
residency. He looked at the added provisions related to
establishing residency in another state. He highlighted
that page 5 listed numerous things the state would do to
start curing the votes including receiving a driver's
license and registering a vehicle in another state. He
understood the plain language on page 2 "solely by reason
of absence." He listed additional actions on page 5
including receiving public assistance, serving on a jury,
and receiving a hunting/fishing license in another state.
He relayed that he had been required to do some of the
things on the list by other states' law. He wanted to
ensure a person would not inadvertently invalidate their
voting rights in Alaska by doing those things.
7:01:29 PM
Mr. Dunsmore replied that the provisions in Section 5
related to voter roll cleanup were not things that
automatically meant a person was not a resident. He
explained that some of the items were meant to be
indicators a person had claimed residency in another state.
He explained that it would be the process triggering a
voter roll cleanup notice. He explained that when a voter
did not respond to the notice, they were moved to inactive
status, where they would remain on inactive status for the
next two general elections. If a person voted or requested
an absentee ballot during that time period, their vote
would be counted, and their registration would be
reactivated. He clarified that the items triggered
receiving a notice, but even if a person did not respond to
the notice, their vote would be counted if they voted.
Representative Stapp highlighted that most of the people
[active military] were voting in presidential elections
every four years. He provided a scenario where a military
member was transferred to Texas and the 28-month trigger
occurred and the individual received a letter they had to
respond to within 45 days. He asked how the state knew
where a person lived. He pointed out that most of the
individuals were not registering to vote via the PFD, they
were registering by filling out a question ballot to vote
in a presidential election. He asked how the state knew the
person was living in Texas.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that the notice would be sent to the
mailing address on file with the Division of Elections and
would be forwardable in compliance with the National Voter
Registration Act. He added that if someone who intended to
vote was inadvertently removed, they could request an
absentee ballot, show up to vote in person, or contact the
Division of Elections to reactivate their voter
registration.
Co-Chair Schrage appreciated the line of questioning, but
he thought it was confusing for the public trying to learn
about the bill for the committee to be jumping around. He
noted that the committee was now discussing page 6 [of the
presentation]. He was trying to determine how to get
through the sections of the bill to provide a high level
overview. He thought the committee could scrutinize the
sections more deeply after finishing an overview.
Representative Stapp stated he would defer to the slide
deck. He remarked on the availability of time to go into
depth on the bill.
7:05:04 PM
Co-Chair Foster stated that he typically got through bill
introductions in order to have the whole bill before the
committee. He explained that questions had been asked, and
it turned out the answer was shown on a later slide. He had
been comfortable allowing questions throughout the
presentation, given its large size, but he thought it may
be better to get through the slide deck before going to
more questions.
Co-Chair Schrage recognized the difficulty of being staff
presenting to the committee and receiving conflicting
requests from the committee. He requested to ask staff not
to refer to where provisions had originated to avoid
subjectivity.
Co-Chair Foster read a list of members with questions. He
stated it was not customary, but not unheard of to have
legislators come up for public testimony. He asked if
Senator Mike Shower or Representative Sarah Vance would
like to come up to the table.
Representative Bynum remarked that earlier in the
presentation there had been a lot of references to the
senator from the other body and a member of the House. He
believed he had asked to know where provisions had come
from because there was a targeted effort to point out
certain elements, which may sway him one way or another
based on the information. He thought it may have been an
error. He was comfortable with not mentioning members of
the other body or their own body at all when the
information was being presented. He suggested the committee
could always ask the sponsor's staff to provide a list of
different elements of the bill in the sectional analysis
along with where the information may have come from.
7:08:44 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted it was not customary to bring up
legislators but it was not unheard of. He considered that
because the legislators had been referred to numerous
times, it had reached a point where some clarification
could be provided on where the individuals stood on the
bill. He would treat the comments as public testimony. He
did not want there to be a back and forth discussion
between the testifiers and the committee.
Representative Hannan stated her concern was they were
still in the same situation where they had not gone through
the basic slide deck. She thought it was premature to have
other legislators come before the committee before
finishing the presentation. She hoped to go through the
slide deck first. She stated it was not out of order in
committee to reference the history of a bill or members of
the other body. She remarked that most of the provisions in
the bill had been in other elections bills over the past
four years. She thought it would make more sense to discuss
pieces and parts that someone may not like and other parts
that someone may claim authorship over.
Co-Chair Foster remarked that he had mentioned earlier he
would leave public testimony open. He commented that it had
already become a messy process. He noted that the bill had
come to the committee very late in the game and he was not
happy with the way the process was unfolding. He would ask
the legislators to come up and speak to clear up the record
as they had been referred to numerous times. He would then
have staff complete the bill presentation prior to any
questions from committee members.
Co-Chair Schrage asked if they were maintaining consistency
on a two-minute limit.
Co-Chair Foster replied that the limit had been two minutes
but he had let a previous testifier speak for five minutes.
He asked to keep the time reasonable.
Representative Bynum stated he would love to get through
the slide deck but there was a suggestion the committee
would hear a review of the sectional analysis. He would
save most of his questions until the sectional if that was
the case because it was specifically about each element of
the bill. He asked if that was something Co-Chair Foster
planned to do.
Co-Chair Foster replied that the committee would hear
public testimony followed by the rest of the PowerPoint
presentation. He agreed the committee could hear a review
of the sectional that evening if members wanted.
Representative Bynum stated it was not necessary to hear
the sectional that evening, but he wanted to hear it at
some point.
Co-Chair Foster agreed. He invited remarks from
Representative Vance.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH VANCE, appreciated the latitude and
remarked that it seemed highly unusual to have members not
on the committee provide testimony; however, she stated it
was a bit unusual to have a bill presentation mention other
members so frequently. She would limit her remarks to the
process and would not speak to positions on different areas
of the bill out of deference to the committee. She shared
that she and Senator Shower had been working in a
bipartisan nature on elections bills throughout her time in
the legislature and on many compromises. She relayed that
there was a lot of reference to prior year's work, which
was accurate; however, the work in the current bill had
been dramatically changed and it felt disingenuous to
reference "our work as if we still support the current
form." She stated her preference for the committee to focus
on the policy being presented and the merit of that policy
instead of trying to invoke their names and work in order
to influence support. She stated it was what the appearance
had been, and she believed it was the reason members had
asked to hear from her and Senator Shower. She confirmed
they had put a lot of work into the topic; however, an
agreement had not been reached. She noted that her office
had been working on a larger amendment that could hopefully
close up some loopholes. She thought it was disingenuous
when "our" work made up more than half of the bill
presentation and did not focus on areas of work introduced
by people carrying the bill. She was not in support of the
bill as it stood. She believed many other changes needed to
be made. She did not support the use of her name in order
to sway members. She stated the work had been dramatically
changed.
7:15:42 PM
SENATOR MIKE SHOWER, shared that he had been approached at
the beginning of session with the chance to have a
bipartisan effort in the election bill. He appreciated it,
including the two staff members currently sitting behind
him. He relayed that throughout the process, the bill had
been heavily weighted towards making it easy to vote and
hard to cheat. He stated that the bill was currently very
weighted on the easy to vote side. He had always tried to
represent both, but he had been heavy on the security or
election integrity side. He clarified there had been many
bills in the past and he described the current bill as
cherry picking certain parts of the bills. He stated there
were other bills that were much more precise on election
integrity/security. He believed his name was being used
throughout the bill presentation to legitimize the bill as
the conservative Mat-Su republican. He stated that was
inaccurate. He highlighted that his name had been used in
association with the bill during a hearing in Senate State
Affairs and he had "run down" to testify to clarify that he
did not want his name on the bill because he did not know
whether he agreed with it.
Senator Shower relayed that he had withdrawn support for
the bill because the boundaries he wanted included to make
it acceptable did not make it into the bill. He stated that
it failed to meet the balance of easy to vote/hard to
cheat. He read items that had been in the bill at the start
that he characterized as being on the left side of the
issue or the voting access side: remove witness signature
(included in the bill), curing (included in the bill),
ballot drop boxes with no limits (included in the bill),
special needs ballot changes (included in the bill, but no
limit on the amount that could be harvested was included as
he had requested), rural liaisons (included in the bill),
prepaid postage (included in the bill), language access
(included in the bill), permanent absentee voting (was
included in the bill, which he did not want at all), rules
for determining residence of voter (included in the bill),
true source (included in the bill and he did not know where
it had come from).
Senator Shower stated that two things that were not
included in the bill initially were same day registration -
which was a hard line for him and was stripped out - and
electronic signatures. He shared that on "our side" the
initial bill included ballot tracking as an offset to
curing and contingency language to ensure both would be
enacted. He pointed out that the contingency language was
not included. He shared that there had been a robust
package pertaining to MFA [multi-factor authentication]
data security and the bill currently only included one
sentence on the issue. The bill did not include a repeal or
opt-in of automatic voter registration, which was "our"
biggest ask for cleaning up voter rolls. The bill did not
include a provision to prevent counting of ballots after
election day. Additionally, if the witness signature
requirement was eliminated, he had suggested requiring a
person to list two attesters the state could use if there
was a problem. He stated it had been too burdensome and the
bill was a watered down version, which essentially did
nothing on the security side.
Senator Shower recognized there were some good things in
the bill. The bill included voter roll cleanup and tribal
ID, both things had been agreed to by both parties. The
bill also included some AI language to put boundaries on
the emerging section of election law, which he believed was
important. The bill also included data sharing language,
which was also important. He stressed that the items were
all generic nonpartisan things that did not fall under the
easy to vote or harder to cheat categories. From his
perspective a balanced bill would include tabulation
machines with no transmission ability and making them open
source software and hardware that were made in the U.S., no
ballots accepted after election day (included in a federal
executive order), move all dates to the right to allow the
state to count on election night, repeal ranked choice
voting, requiring photo identification to vote, no ballot
harvesting, ballot chain of custody protocols, data
security protocols, and MFA with digital security
identifiers. He stated "we've" suggested all of the things
in the past. He clarified that none of the items were
included in the bill he had been given at the start. He
relayed that the bill was heavily weighted in one
direction. He clarified that he had withdrawn his support
for the bill. He stated that all of the items his party
asked for were ignored and were not included in the bill.
He stressed that the bill was too imbalanced for him. He
did not want his name thrown around as if he supported the
bill because there was much more to the story that was not
being reported on. He thanked the committee for the
opportunity to speak.
7:22:00 PM
Co-Chair Foster appreciated the clarifications for the
record.
Representative Allard stated she had never seen a
legislator referenced by name so many times in a committee
bill hearing. She had been alarmed [by the reference to
legislators' names]. She appreciated that Co-Chair Foster
allowed her colleagues to clarify their position on the
record. She asked not to have legislators' names used.
Co-Chair Foster asked the bill sponsor's staff and legal
counsel to continue with their review. He asked members to
write down their questions for after the presentation.
Representative Bynum asked for verification that at some
point the committee would hear a review of the sectional.
Co-Chair Foster replied that he wanted to hear the
remainder of the presentation followed by the sectional and
then questions. He asked Mr. Dunsmore to resume the
presentation.
Mr. Dunsmore addressed the bill's creation of a ballot
curing process on slide 19. The curing process would enable
voters to cure mistakes that would otherwise result in the
rejection of their ballot. He read from the slide:
• Within 24 hours of receiving the ballot, the
Division mails a deficiency notice with curing
instructions.
• If the voter has a phone number on file, the
Division will call and text them as well.
• The voter returns the cure form confirming they
voted the ballot with a copy of their ID and a
signature.
• The cure process may be done electronically.
• A properly cured ballot will be counted if it is
otherwise valid.
• If the voter responds that they did not vote the
ballot, it will be referred to the Attorney General.
7:25:28 PM
Mr. Dunsmore turned to slide 20 and explained that a voter
would be able to cure their ballot and have it counted if
it were rejected because the voter did not sign the ballot
envelope or the voter did not provide an identifier that
could be verified. He noted that the slide incorrectly
listed one of the reasons for ballot rejection as the
voter's signature could not be verified. He explained that
signature verification was not in the bill. He turned to
slide 21 and relayed that at least 24 states and numerous
jurisdictions at the municipal level had adopted ballot
curing processes. He moved to slide 22 and relayed that the
bill contained a provision to stop special needs ballots
from being rejected due to mistakes by poll workers or
voter representatives. He reviewed the slide:
• Currently special needs ballots can be rejected
because of mistakes by poll workers or voter
representatives.
• In the 2024 general election 5.7% of special needs
ballots were rejected, compared with only 1.8% of by-
mail ballots.
• Special needs rejections are especially high in rural
Alaska, with 37.5% of special needs ballots in
District 40 being rejected.
• Often one volunteer will deliver special needs ballots
to all residents of a senior living facility, so if
this person is not properly trained an entire facility
could have their votes rejected.
• SB 64 codifies requirements for DOE to check IDs and
collect information from representatives.
Mr. Dunsmore asked Ms. Kawasaki to discuss some
strengthening of election integrity procedures for special
needs ballots that were added in the Senate.
Ms. Kawasaki relayed that an amendment adopted on the
Senate floor added what the bill sponsor believed were
reasonable security measures to the special needs ballot
procedures that were in existing law and codified some of
the duties that elections officials were already performing
in order to improve compliance. Under current law if a
person due to disability (including sickness or being
elderly) could not go in person to vote, they could send a
representative to a poling place to obtain a ballot for
them. Under law, the representative must return the ballot
after the person voted. The added amendment tried to
balance limiting the possibility of voter fraud while
ensuring legitimate votes were counted. The components in
the bill would require a valid photo ID or tribal ID to be
shown to the elections official, in addition to
documentation of the representative's information before
release of the ballot to the representative.
Ms. Kawasaki continued to review bill provisions related to
special needs ballots. The bill included the requirement
that the election official instruct representatives on
their duties and a stipulation that suspicious ballots
indicating interference or misconduct by the representative
or poll worker would be subject to further review.
Additionally, the bill required the Division of Elections
to train all officials who had the authority to issue
special needs ballots. The changes were meant to induce
compliance by elections officials, representatives, and
voters while providing assurances for the security
conscious members of the legislature. She noted that the
sponsor had heard a lot of concern about special needs
ballots. The hope was that the added measures would deter
bad actors, create greater accountability, and provide for
improved documentation, which could evidence and
investigate potential misconduct.
7:29:48 PM
Representative Allard asked Co-Chair Foster if questions
would be held until the end.
Co-Chair Foster responded affirmatively.
Mr. Dunsmore moved to slide 23 and relayed that the bill
required secure drop boxes to be provided for by-mail
ballots. Currently, whether to have drop boxes and the
number of drop boxes was up to the Division of Elections.
The bill required guardrails around the discretion for drop
boxes. He explained that in the last three general election
cycles there were varying amounts of drop boxes and the
last cycle there were no drop boxes, causing voters
confusion. Under the bill, drop boxes would be required if
practicable at Division of Elections offices, but any other
drop boxes must only be done if the division established
regulations calling for locations and security procedures.
The bill limited the division's ability to have drop boxes
outside of its offices. He turned to slide 24 and
highlighted that the bill included a requirement for return
paid postage for absentee by-mail envelopes.
Mr. Dunsmore turned to slide 25 and discussed that the bill
adopted a ballot tracking system for absentee ballots:
• The Division already offers ballot tracking to allow
voters to check whether their ballot has been counted,
this bill requires tracking barcodes to allow ballots
to be tracked in the mail.
• Voters can check the status of their ballot online and
see whether it has been counted or rejected.
• This bill requires a multi-factor authentication
system to protect voters' privacy
Mr. Dunsmore elaborated that the Senate Finance Committee
added language requiring any multi-factor authentication
service procured from an outside vendor to be an American
vendor. He advanced to slide 25 and highlighted there were
several provisions in the bill providing for faster and
more transparent election results:
• Begin ballot review 12 days before the election
(instead of the current 7 days) to allow more ballots
to be counted on Election Night
• Providing ranked choice voting tabulations when
unofficial results are released
• Setting a uniform deadline of 10 days after the
election for absentee ballots to arrive, allowing
elections to be certified 5 days earlier
7:33:30 PM
Mr. Dunsmore moved to slide 27 and addressed the bill's
provision to clarify how the true source disclosure
requirements apply to groups that endorse ballot measures
or ballot questions. He explained there was recently an
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) advisory opinion
that caused confusion about whether community groups or
other organizations where ballot measures or campaigns were
not their primary purpose would have to disclose their
entire finances if they were ever to mention their support
or opposition for a ballot proposition on their website or
newsletter. The bill contained a provision clarifying that
the entity making a communication was the true source of
their own contribution with regard to ballot measures and
ballot questions.
Mr. Dunsmore advanced to slide 28 and relayed that the bill
adopted national best practices for reporting ranked-choice
voting results by having the ranked-choice tabulations
reported along with the unofficial results. The bill
required transparency of data about which results had been
counted to allow members of the public and media to
determine which ballots had been counted and which ballots
had not been counted (slide 29).
7:34:42 PM
Mr. Dunsmore turned to slide 30 and discussed provisions
clarifying the rules for poll watchers and ballot review
observers:
• Currently statutes only provide for observers for
political parties, candidates, initiatives, referenda,
and recalls at polls and counting centers, and only
parties may observe the State Review Board.
• This provision clarifies that candidates, ballot
measure, and ballot question campaigns may have
observers at polls, counting centers, and the State
Review Board.
• Ballot questions include constitutional amendments,
judicial retention, bond propositions, and advisory
votes.
• This bill also clarifies that campaigns may have
observers at all tables where ballots are being
reviewed within a counting center.
7:35:38 PM
Mr. Dunsmore turned to slide 31 and detailed that the bill
required clear rules for challenging ballot review
decisions, which was currently not provided for in statute.
He noted that the manual adopted by the Division of
Elections for the previous election provided more guidance.
The bill required regulations to explicitly address the
challenge process and required regulations to allow a
reasonable time for a campaign to submit a challenge. He
moved to slide 32 and relayed that the bill required the
Division of Elections to add additional risk limiting audit
procedures to the State Review Board process. The audits
would be designed using statistical methods to ensure
counting machines were working correctly. Campaigns would
be able to fully observe the State Review Board process
including the additional risk-limiting audit. The bill
included a provision requiring the division to adopt
regulations for a cyber security program to protect from
data breaches and hackers and require training on cyber
security for elections officials (slide 33). The Senate
Finance Committee added a provision to require disclosures
of breaches of election hardware or confidential election
information to be disclosed to the public and the
legislature.
7:37:17 PM
Mr. Dunsmore moved to slide 34 and explained that the bill
included provisions that were similar to a bill that had
previously passed the House in the last legislature. The
bill would ban the use of undisclosed deep fakes to
influence Alaska elections and provided that someone
defamed by an election-related deep fake may seek
injunctive relief and provided for a standard identifier
for how to disclose a deep fake.
Mr. Dunsmore turned to slide 35 and relayed that the bill
would repeal a statutory requirement that APOC have offices
in every Senate district. The legislature had never
provided sufficient appropriation to meet the statutory
requirement. The bill removed the statutory requirement
that APOC was not able to comply with.
Representative Allard asked for a repeat of the information
on slide 35.
Mr. Dunsmore repeated the information pertaining to slide
35. He moved to slide 36 and explained that the bill
codified the ACLU of Alaska v. State of Alaska settlement
with regard to campaign signs. He noted there had been some
mention of the issue during public testimony. He detailed
that currently in Alaska statutes, most large campaign
signs were technically illegal if they were along state
roadways. In 2018, there was a settlement where the state
agreed it was unconstitutional to enforce the provision and
agreed to not enforce it on signs up to 32 square feet (4x8
feet), which was the standard size for a large political
sign in Alaska. The provision aligned the statute with the
stipulated judgement the state was already required by the
court to enforce. He clarified that large campaign signs
would no longer be illegal in statute.
Mr. Dunsmore advanced to slide 37 and relayed that the bill
required public official financial disclosures for
Redistricting Board members. Redistricting Board members
were not currently required to file the disclosures. The
bill would add the members to the list of dozens of boards
where financial disclosure was required. Slide 38 addressed
that the bill clarified that the Open Meetings Act applied
to the Redistricting Board. He noted it was similar to the
sign provision, making it clear in statute how the courts
had interpreted current law. The Alaska Supreme Court had
ruled at least twice that the Open Meetings Act applied. He
explained that likely, because the Redistricting Board was
recreated every ten years, it did not have institutional
memory. He explained that clarifying it in statute would
make it clear that the Redistricting Board was subject to
the Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Dunsmore turned to slide 39 and addressed a bill
provision allowing voters to request to continue to receive
absentee by-mail ballots for future elections. The division
currently allowed a process for military and overseas
voters to do so. He elaborated that voters would stop
receiving the ballots if they did not vote at least once
every four years or if their mail was returned to sender.
The ballots would be subject to the ballot review process
like any other absentee ballot to ensure validity.
7:41:52 PM
Mr. Dunsmore moved to slide 40, highlighting a bill
provision codifying the requirement in federal law to
provide language assistance in certain precincts and to
post notices at precincts where language assistance was
available. There was a settlement in the Toyukak case that
provided clear guidelines that the state was required to
provide language assistance. He concluded the presentation.
Co-Chair Foster requested a review of the sectional
analysis.
Mr. Dunsmore reviewed the sectional analysis (copy on
file):
Section 1: clarifies the residency requirements to
define a residence as a place where a voter has a
reasonable and articulable plan to return to whenever
they are absent and provides that the presumption that
a voter's registered address is correct may be
rebutted by evidence that the voter has established
residency at a different location.
Section 2: adds tribal identification cards to the
list of acceptable identification for voter
registration in person and removes hunting or fishing
licenses from the list.
Section 3: adds tribal identification cards to the
list of acceptable identification for voter
registration by mail and removes hunting or fishing
licenses list.
Section 4: established that the Division of Elections
(Division) may only use Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD)
applicant information shared by the Department of
Revenue for voter registration and voter roll
maintenance and requires the Division to submit annual
reports to the Legislature detailing how this data has
been used for list maintenance.
Section 5: requires the Division of Elections
(Division) to send a single forwardable notice as part
of voter list maintenance and adds additional
categories of voters to receive notices.
Section 6: is conforming language to reflect the
changes made in Section 5.
Section 7: is conforming language to reflect the
changes made in Section 5.
Section 8: establishes that registering to vote
through a Permanent Fund Dividend application is not
considered contacting the Division for purposes of the
voter roll clean-up statutes.
Section 9: requires the Division to conduct a regular
review of the voter register and to hire an expert to
conduct the review and submit a report to the
Legislature.
Section 10: requires the director to develop a process
for voters to cancel their registrations and require
that instructions for how to cancel one's registration
be prominently posted at polling places.
Section 11: requires the Division to notify the public
and the Legislature of breaches of confidential
elections data.
Section 12: creates a rural community liaison position
in the Division.
Section 13: allows political parties, candidates,
ballot measure, and ballot question campaigns to have
observers at polling places and counting centers and
clarifies that campaigns may have observers at all
locations within a counting center where ballots are
being reviewed or counted.
7:46:06 PM
Mr. Dunsmore continued reviewing the sectional analysis:
Section 14: repeals the requirement for the Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC) to have offices in
every senate district.
Section 15: establishes that the true source of a
contribution supporting or opposing a ballot measure
or question is the entity making the contribution.
Section 16: repeals required specifications for voting
booths.
Section 17: is a conforming section reflecting the
repealed language in Section 16.
Section 18: requires that notices be posted informing
voters of language assistance available at precincts
where it is required by federal law.
Section 19: adds tribal identification cards to the
list of identifications voters may use at polling
places, removes hunting and fishing licenses from the
list, and clarifies that when a voter uses a utility
bill, bank statement, check, or other government
document as identification that the document must be
dated within the previous 60 days.
Section 20: clarifying that, except for hand count
precincts, the Division must include results for all
rank levels on the precinct results.
Section 21: enacts new subsections related to
unofficial results and ballot review data.
Subsection (b) requires the Division to release
data for which ballots have been counted along
with unofficial results.
Subsection (c) requires the Division to release
data for count codes for absentee ballots each
day ballots are reviewed.
Subsection (d) provides a definition of "count
code."
Section 22: repeals the requirement that poll worker
compensation be set by regulation.
Section 23: allows candidates and ballot proposition
campaigns to observe the State Review Board process
and repeals language suggesting that observers can
assist with the review process.
7:48:07 PM
Mr. Dunsmore continued reviewing the sectional analysis:
Section 24: requires the Division to adopt additional
risk limiting audit procedures as part of the State
Review Board process.
Section 25: requires that all absentee ballots include
a postage-paid return envelope. It also requires that
there is a space for recording the date that the voter
executed the certificate.
Section 26: codifies security measures for special
needs ballots.
Section 27: is a conforming change reflecting the
changes made in Section 26.
Section 28: provides that special needs ballots may
not be rejected because of errors made by poll workers
or representatives.
Section 29: repeals the witness signature requirement
for absentee ballots.
Section 30: states that a ballot received after the
day of the election that is not postmarked or
postmarked after the election may be counted if it is
marked with a United States Postal Service tracking
barcode that indicates it was mailed on or before the
day of the election.
Section 31: adds tribal identification cards to the
list of acceptable identification for a first-time
voter who registered by mail or electronically who
votes absentee and removes hunting or fishing licenses
from the list.
Section 32: requires all absentee by-mail ballots to
be received within 10 days of the election.
Section 33: allows voters to register to continue to
receive absentee by mail ballots so long as the voter
votes at least once every four years.
Section 34: allows absentee voting officials to
transmit cover sheets for absentee ballot packages
electronically.
Section 35: requires absentee ballot review to begin
12 days before the election.
Section 36: contains conforming amendments to reflect
the repeal of the witness signature requirement the
new tracking barcode provisions, and the changes to
the list of acceptable identifications.
7:50:18 PM
Mr. Dunsmore continued reviewing the sectional analysis:
Section 37: requires the Division to adopt procedures
for challenging ballot review decisions by regulation
and that these regulations must provide a reasonable
amount of time to submit a challenge.
Section 38: provides that ballots that are properly
cured under the new statute shall be counted during
the state review board process if they were not
previously counted.
Section 39: enacts two new sections of statutes:
New AS 15.20.221 requires the division to establish a
ballot tracking system to allow a voter to track the
status of their absentee by-mail ballot.
New AS 15.20.222 provides for ballot curing for
absentee ballots.
Subsection (a) requires the division to notify
voters if there is no signature on the envelope
or if the voter did not provide a sufficient
identifier of the process to cure their ballot.
Subsection (b) requires that these notices must
explain the need for a signature for verification
purposes and include a form for the voter to
provide their signature and copy of the
identification.
Subsection (c) provides that a ballot may be
cured and counted if the voter returns the form,
confirms that they did in fact vote, and provides
a signature and copy of their identification.
Subsection (d) provides that a ballot shall not
be counted, and the director will refer the
matter to the attorney general for investigation,
if the voter indicates they did not in fact vote
the ballot.
7:51:57 PM
Mr. Dunsmore continued reviewing the sectional analysis:
Section 40: repeals the requirement that ballots that
arrived after the deadline for ballots to arrive be
counted during a recount.
Section 41: requires that the director provide secure
ballot drop boxes at every Division office, adopt
regulations for security standards for drop boxes, and
allows municipalities to provide drop boxes in
accordance with regulations adopted by the Division.
Section 42: clarifies that the return postage for
absentee by-mail ballots required by Section 26 does
not violate the prohibition on giving a thing of value
in exchange for a person voting.
Section 43: clarifies that intentionally opening or
tampering with ballot envelopes without the permission
of the Division and hacking or altering election
machinery is covered by the crime of unlawful
interference with an election.
Section 44: provides that an election official who
knowingly discloses election results before the polls
close commits the crime of election official
misconduct in the first degree.
Section 45: requires the lieutenant governor to
develop a cybersecurity program to defend the voter
registration records kept by the division.
Section 46: prohibits undisclosed use of synthetic
media in electioneering communications and allows
persons defamed by election related synthetic media to
sue for injunctive relief.
Section 47: codifies the settlement in ACLU of Alaska
v. State of Alaska related to campaign signs along
state highways.
Section 48: removes the requirement that reports filed
with APOC be available at offices in every senate
district and requires that they be available on APOC's
website.
Section 49: clarifies that reports filed with APOC
shall be available at the commission's offices and on
their website.
7:54:09 PM
Mr. Dunsmore continued reviewing the sectional analysis:
Section 50: requires Redistricting Board members to
file annual public official financial disclosures with
APOC.
Section 51: requires PFD applications to include a
prominent notice informing applicants of their right
to opt out of registering to vote or updating their
voter registration.
Section 52: requires online PFD applications to inform
applicants of their right to opt out of registering to
vote or updating their voter registration.
Section 53: requires the Department of Revenue to
share certain information concerning PFD applications
to the Division for the purpose of voter registration
and voter roll maintenance.
Section 54: requires the Department of Revenue to
develop security measures to protect that data being
shared under Section 51.
Section 55: clarifies that the Redistricting Board is
subject to the Open Meetings Act.
Section 56: repeals redundant language relating to
poll watchers and PFD applicant data sharing.
Section 57: requires the division to provide a report
to the legislature by November 1, 2026, with
recommendations for expanding early voting in rural
communities and low-income neighborhoods.
Section 58: states that Sections 41-43 only applies to
offenses committed after the effective date of this
act.
Section 59: provides a July 1, 2026 effective date for
this bill.
7:55:43 PM
Representative Allard asked for a repeat of section 57.
Mr. Dunsmore complied.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Mr. Dunsmore for reviewing the
sectional.
Representative Allard requested to hear a review of the
fiscal note.
Co-Chair Foster asked his staff to review the fiscal notes.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER,
highlighted the zero fiscal note from the Department of
Administration, APOC, OMB component 70. The second fiscal
note was an indeterminate note from the Department of
Revenue (DOR), OMB component 981. The fund source was also
indeterminate. He noted the department recognized the
passage of the bill would require some regulation changes.
Representative Stapp remarked that it would be nice to have
DOR explain the reason for its indeterminate note.
Mr. Anderson replied that throughout the day the director
of the Permanent Fund Dividend Division was available
online; however, due to the late hour they were no longer
available. He believed the individual would be available at
the next hearing on the bill during normal business hours.
Co-Chair Foster requested to ensure the director was
available for the 1:30 p.m. meeting the following day.
Mr. Anderson reviewed the fiscal note from the Office of
the Governor, Elections, OMB component 21. The note
included components beginning in FY 27 including $181,200
in personal services, $5,000 for travel, $208,500 for
services, $3,000 for commodities, for a total of $397,700
in unrestricted general funds (UGF) for FY 27. The cost
dropped to $319,700 in outyears due to a drop in personal
services and services. The note reflected a capital cost of
$788,000. The Division of Elections would require
regulation changes. The cost for personal services was for
the hiring of a rural community liaison along with
associated costs for travel, contractual services, and
commodities. He elaborated that $80,000 of the FY 27 cost
was for temporary staff for the curing process.
Additionally, there were increased costs for postage in FY
27. He noted that pages 2 and 3 of the fiscal note provided
additional detail on associated costs. He explained that
the Senate Finance Committee zeroed out the capital cost of
$788,000, but the Division of Elections had reinserted the
cost. He expounded that from conversations with the
Legislative Finance Division (LFD), the lapsing funds
occurring in the Office of the Governor would cover the
capital costs until FY 27 when they could be added to the
FY 27 budget.
8:02:39 PM
Representative Allard asked how long the current meeting
would be. She shared that her questions would take a
substantial amount of time.
Co-Chair Foster replied that he had no set time. He
requested to hear questions on the fiscal notes prior to
general questions about the bill.
Representative Allard would wait until other members asked
their questions before asking her own.
Representative Bynum looked at the fiscal note from the
Office of the Governor, page 2 showing a requirement for
prepaid postage. He highlighted that the fiscal note showed
the postage cost of 78 cents per envelope. He thought
previous mail-in ballots required two stamps. He asked if
there was an error in the calculation for what it would
require to mail the envelope. Alternatively, he wondered if
the state was getting a special deal because for prepaid
envelopes.
Mr. Anderson deferred the question to the Division of
Elections.
CAROL BEECHER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS (via
teleconference), replied that the postage costs were
estimated each time an election was held, partly due to the
size of the ballot. She explained that for the past
election, particularly the general election where there
were many presidential candidates, a ballot initiative, and
numerous judges, the ballot was 17 inches, which was larger
in size and resulted in a two-stamp envelope. She explained
that sometimes the envelope only required one stamp;
therefore, the fiscal note was based on the size estimate
for the ballot.
Representative Bynum stated his understanding that for each
election the division would make a determination based on
the size of the ballot. He provided a hypothetical example
where there were 642 people filing for governor in the next
election and the ballot was 32 pages. He asked if the
postage would reflect the ballot size.
Ms. Beecher confirmed that if the ballot required a larger
envelope, it would require more postage as it got heavier.
8:06:30 PM
Representative Stapp referenced information on the fiscal
note related to the governor's office lapsing funds. He
asked Mr. Anderson to elaborate.
8:06:55 PM
AT EASE
8:08:58 PM
RECONVENED
Mr. Anderson stated that Section 20, subsection (d) of SB
57 (the capital budget that passed the House)
reappropriated lapsing funds of the Governor's Office FY 25
balances from the operating budget to a capital budget
project that included election equipment as an eligible
use. The appropriation could be used for the SB 64 fiscal
note until the FY 27 budget was in front of the legislature
the following year.
Representative Stapp stated that he saw the maneuver in the
capital budget and was curious how it would work when the
budget was at a deficit with the failure of an affirmative
vote to use funds from the Constitutional Budget Reserve
(CBR).
Mr. Anderson replied that the CBR vote was a policy
discussion left up to the representatives. He deferred to
legislators to make that decision.
Representative Stapp wondered how it was possible to
reappropriate money from a deficit budget that was not
funded. He imagined that any lapsing funds would go to fill
the deficit.
Co-Chair Foster replied that all of the individuals who
would normally be online were not available due to the
time. He asked members to make note of questions that were
not answered during the current meeting.
8:10:55 PM
Co-Chair Foster planned to continue the meeting for a bit
longer. He discussed his plans for the schedule the
following day.
Representative Allard would hold her questions until the
following day. She stated she had a lot of questions.
Representative Hannan looked at Section 57 of the bill that
asked the department to do some analysis on how to better
serve rural and low income neighborhoods. She loved the
idea, but she observed that it would not be implemented for
the general election in 2026. She thought it was a strange
time to have the department do a massive report in the
middle of an election cycle. She wondered why a date like
January 1 had not been selected. She thought requiring the
department to provide a report one week before the
election, when it was not used in the election, would split
the department's attention.
Mr. Dunsmore answered that the provision was included in
the bill because when the Senate Rules Committee was tasked
with preparing the bill, it was tasked with reviewing
legislation introduced in previous legislatures. The bill
adjusted the dates from a bill that was previously
introduced. The topic had not been discussed much in
committee, but he believed Representative Hannan's point on
the timeline was reasonable. He explained that at the
Division of Election's request the effective date of the
bill was July 1, 2026, which would not provide enough time
for a thorough, thoughtful review and implement the
recommendations in time for an August primary and November
election.
Representative Hannan stated her understanding there was no
reason the date currently in the bill was set in stone and
was it was merely a carryover date [from prior
legislation]. She believed having the division analyze data
from the November 2026 election may be helpful in
formulating recommendations to improve the 2028 cycle. She
suggested making the deadline after the 2026 election and
early enough that the division could act on it.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that he believed Representative
Hannan was correct. He would inquire with the office of the
legislator who had sponsored the previous legislation to
see if there was any more insight into the date.
Representative Hannan reasoned that the bill was now in the
House Finance Committee's possession and as had been said
in committee, the origin of the elements was somewhat
irrelevant. She remarked that unless there was a
substantive reason, she would likely offer an amendment [to
change the date]. She wanted the Division of Elections
focused on the election until the election was over.
Representative Jimmie highlighted that Florida spent
significant resources investigating non-citizen voting and
found only one conviction out of 12 million registered
voters. Given similarly negligible findings in Alaska,
there was a single incident connected to nine individuals
in the 2024 election. She asked why they were continuing to
focus on fraud rather than voter access.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that SB 64 had been prepared by the
Senate Rules Committee at the request of Senate leadership
and it was designed to be a comprehensive bipartisan
package that addressed concerns from legislators across the
spectrum. He would not speak to why legislators had
proposed certain provisions, but he believed it was fair to
say that the Senate's passage of the bill on a bipartisan
basis reflected a decision that it was important to
preserve the integrity of Alaska's elections, not only by
ensuring voter rolls were accurate, but also ensuring every
Alaskan eligible to vote had their vote counted.
8:18:29 PM
Representative Jimmie compared voter fraud to a single
snowflake and disenfranchisement to an avalanche impacting
hundreds of rural Alaskans. She asked how the legislature
was justifying spending all of its time trying to catch a
snowflake.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that it was a question that
legislators should consider in crafting the legislation.
Representative Jimmie asked for an explanation of
historical claims of voter fraud that had been used to
justify racially suppressive voting measures.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that he was not an expert on the area
but he knew that in the past Alaska had a history of
policies that ran afoul of the Voting Rights Act and
subjected the state to further scrutiny to ensure its
election procedures were not discriminating against the
voting rights of Alaskans. He believed there were some
changes in U.S. Supreme Court precedent that removed the
Department of Justice's ability to enforce some of those
provisions. He noted there had been a determination in the
past that in Alaska there had been occurrences of disparate
treatment of voters on a racial basis.
Representative Bynum noted that he did not hear
Representative Jimmie's previous question.
Representative Jimmie restated her question.
8:20:49 PM
Representative Jimmie asked how opposing the availability
of drop boxes in rural areas prevented cheating without
making it harder to vote if drop boxes were secured,
monitored, and tracked. She highlighted that after
reconstruction, southern states claimed voter fraud was
rampant to justify poll taxes and literacy tests
effectively disenfranchising black voters, while exempting
white voters through a grandfather clause. She elaborated
that in 1950 and 1960 states purged voter rolls citing
fraud prevention, but disproportionately targeted black and
indigenous voters, reducing their political power. She
relayed that in more recent decades, strict voter ID laws
were enacted under the guise of preventing fraud. She
stated that courts had struck down some of the laws noting
they disproportionately affect minority and low income
voters without substantial evidence of fraud.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that the provisions in the bill would
require drop boxes at all Division of Elections offices,
including rural Alaska. He recognized that the Division of
Elections did not have offices in every community.
Representative Jimmie asked how much taxpayer money had
been suggested through the [bill] process that the state
should spend to prevent fraud when proven cases were so
rare that they barely registered statistically.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that it would not be possible to get a
number for provisions that had been discussed that did not
have fiscal notes prepared. He believed some of the things
he heard earlier in the day during public testimony would
have a substantial fiscal note.
8:23:27 PM
Representative Jimmie asked what specific considerations
had been made to account for rural Alaskans who may lack
easy access to witness a signature, especially when the
alternative was losing their vote.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that the bill repealed the requirement
for a witness signature but maintained existing
requirements the Division of Elections used for question
ballots to verify the voter's identity to ensure that no
Alaskan was denied their right to vote for a purely
technical thing that served no election integrity purpose.
Representative Jimmie stated she kept hearing about [the
bill] balancing to make it easier to vote and harder to
cheat. She asked how the balance was not merely a false
equivalency given the negligence fraud rate.
Mr. Dunsmore answered that part of making it harder to
cheat meant that the state should not be cheating Alaskans
of their constitutional right to vote for a procedure that
there had been ample evidence submitted in hearing after
hearing served no purpose whatsoever. The best argument he
heard for the witness signature was that it made people
feel comfortable there was a fig leaf to tell people who
were concerned about the issue even thought he believed the
hours of testimony heard on the bill in various committees
demonstrated the witness signature did nothing to protect
election integrity and hurt it by taking valid Alaskans'
votes out of the totals.
Representative Jimmie asked what the cost to democracy was
when they prioritized preventing a nearly non-existent
problem over counting every valid vote.
Me. Dunsmore believed Representative Allard had accurately
showed that the cost to democracy in the last election was
that over 500 Alaskans did not have their votes counted. He
thanked Representative Allard for putting it on the record.
Representative Galvin was thinking about the 512 Alaskans
who unfortunately did not have their voice heard in the
election. Additionally, she recalled that an entire bag of
ballots was found on the side of the road after an
election. She believed the ballots were from rural Alaska.
She wondered if there was anything in the bill with regard
to tightening the chain of custody of ballots. She was very
concerned that somehow ballots coming from rural Alaska did
not seem to be getting the attention they deserved.
8:27:49 PM
Mr. Dunsmore replied that he was familiar with the incident
referenced by Representative Galvin, but he did not recall
the specifics enough to speak to it in depth. He believed
the ballots had been carried by a contractor for the postal
service. In many parts of rural Alaska, the mail was not
provided by U.S. Postal Service planes. He relayed that the
Division of Elections had a robust chain of custody
procedure for ballots. He detailed that polling places were
required to document every ballot they had and if a voter
spoiled a ballot and it was destroyed, the polling place
was required to document it. The polling places were
required to submit substantial data back to allow for the
Division of Elections and the auditing review process
before certification to make sure all ballots were
accounted for. Additionally, the Division of Elections
experimented with using electronic tracking on ballot
packages in the general election. He was told it was not
particularly successful in being able to track packages in
transit through rural Alaska.
Representative Galvin asked about slide 40 related to
codifying language assistance requirements. She referenced
Tagalog and eight indigenous languages and Anchorage and
105 languages. She stated there was a lot going on with
regard to needs for language access. She asked for comment
on how to better accommodate Alaskans.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that federal law required the state to
prepare election materials and languages based on the
percentage of people who speak a language (other than
English) in a district. He believed it was currently eight
indigenous languages and dialects as well as Tagalog or
languages meeting requirements for certain parts of the
state. He detailed that in the Toyukak case the state
agreed to expand the language assistance to provide various
dialogues of indigenous languages like Yupik rather than
using just one standard to make sure people were getting
language assistance in the dialect their community used. He
noted that the Division of Elections could speak more about
the requirements. He added that voters who spoke a language
that did not have language assistance offered had the right
to have someone assist them in voting (e.g., a poll worker
or family member).
8:32:16 PM
Representative Galvin remarked that the committee had heard
about individuals who were 16 years old and older helping
in rural Alaska with language and other things. She thought
she heard individuals had to be at least 18 years old. She
wondered if the bill needed an amendment to fix the age.
She thought there could potentially be a challenge by rural
districts. She thought the individuals were referred to as
youth ambassadors. She wondered if a statutory change was
needed.
Mr. Dunsmore believed Representative Galvin was referring
to a point raised by Representative Jimmie the previous day
about the youth ambassador program designed for people
under the age of 18 to work in assisting language and how
it conflicted with the witness signature requirement that
the witness be over the age of 18. He explained it meant
there were people tasked with assisting with the voting
process who were not able to provide a witness signature.
He did not know if youth ambassadors were engaged in
providing language assistance. He noted it would be a
question for the Division of Elections.
Representative Galvin explained that she was just looking
to make sure there was not a need for an amendment to allow
for the possibility of youth ambassadors providing
assistance. She noted that hopefully the witness signature
would not come to be. She could take the issue offline.
Representative Allard appreciated what Representative
Jimmie brought up, but she stated that as an individual who
was also a minority, she did not want to be treated any
differently. She stated she resented the fact that it was
implied that because a person was a minority or of a
different race that they should be treated differently. She
stated that for her it implied that she did not understand
the rules or the laws or that she could not get an ID
because she was somewhat stupid or did not have the ability
to do it. She suggested that if the comment was about rural
Alaska, there may need to be certain rules in place because
it was a rural community and due to the language barrier.
8:35:35 PM
Representative Bynum asked what measures were in the bill
that directly addressed voter fraud or potential fraud.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that there were several provisions. He
clarified there was not actually a crime in Alaska law
called voter fraud. He noted it was a blanket term that
people used for election-related crimes. There were two
updates to election related crimes in the bill to
explicitly add certain election official misconduct as well
as tampering with ballot envelopes or hacking voting
machines. There were significant new sections included with
regard to special needs voting to address the concern that
it may be possible to commit fraud associated with special
needs voting, although there had never been any evidence of
special needs voting being used to commit fraud. He knew
many people considered ballot tracking to be an important
fraud detection measure because it enabled a person to see
their ballot going through the postal system without any
interference. He added that if a person did not request an
absentee ballot, it would allow a person to check to see if
an absentee ballot had been requested in their name. The
ballot curing provision was an important anti-fraud
measure. He detailed that if a person attempted to
impersonate a voter and fraudulently requested an absentee
ballot in their name, presumably they would provide an
identifier that did not match. He elaborated that the
legitimate voter would receive a cure notice and would have
an opportunity to report the issue, which would be required
to go to the Department of Law for investigation. He
believed there were likely other provisions in the bill
providing protections that he did not currently recall.
Representative Bynum asked if there were current measures
in the Division of Elections that were being sought out to
look for issues with ballots and potential fraud events.
Mr. Dunsmore stated that the division could speak better to
its current internal processes. He relayed that as a matter
of practice in Alaska it was generally the Department of
Law, likely in consultation with the Department of Public
Safety, that oversaw criminal investigations. The Division
of Elections had steep security measures in place.
8:40:07 PM
Representative Bynum asked if the Division of Elections
employed anyone who specifically looked for fraud.
Mr. Dunsmore answered that he was not aware of the Division
of Elections having a dedicated position for the purpose.
Representative Bynum asked if there were any studies, data
driven investigations, or reports performed by the Division
of Elections, the department of justice, or the Department
of Law that specifically focus on investigating fraud and
potential misuse of the state's election system.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that he was not aware of any studies
that specifically addressed the issue. He was aware of
instances where, as a result of things noticed by the
Division of Elections where charges and prosecution had
been brought, which would indicate it was something the
Division of Elections was taking seriously. He stated the
division would be better able to speak to its internal
operations.
Representative Bynum clarified that he was not saying fraud
was occurring, but through testimony given in the
presentation there was an implication that putting a
security measure in place would be irrational because there
was no such fraud occurring. He stated that if the Division
of Elections, Department of Law, and the state's chief law
enforcement was not actively looking for or being employed
to look for fraud, it was hard to determine whether it was
occurring. He found it to be irrelevant whether there was
fraud occurring and he stressed the importance of secure
elections. He highlighted that there were security measures
in place in all kinds of facets of people's lives to
prevent bad things from happening, not because they were
necessarily happening. He used banks as an example and
explained there was security, not because they were getting
robbed every day, but measures were put in place to ensure
people were kept safe. He noted it was also the reason
police officers were on the street. He emphasized that
elections were one of the most sacred things people
participated in and having confidence in them was very
important.
Representative Bynum discussed the voting process. He
remarked that when he went to his polling place he provided
his ID, he signed the book, and voted. He noted that if he
did not have some of the things he needed, he signed a
question ballot and then it was looked into. He elaborated
that if he voted incorrectly, the elections person told him
there was a problem with his ballot and he was given
another ballot. He believed he could do that three times.
He highlighted that there were numerous measures in place
to verify a person was who they said they were when voting
in person. He addressed offering the same security for
individuals who could not be there in person to vote. He
thought it was reasonable to give individuals who could not
vote in person the chance to fix their ballots if there was
a problem and investigate a crime if it occurred. He
referenced security measures such as signature verification
that were not included in the bill due to cost reasons. He
did not find it unreasonable to want secure elections. He
had numerous questions on many of the bill sections that he
planned to ask the following day. His current remarks were
meant to address the idea that just because we do not think
there may be fraudulent events occurring that we do not
have security measures in place.
8:44:56 PM
Representative Bynum referenced a handout provided to the
committee. He asked if Mr. Dunsmore had an opportunity to
verify the handout that appeared to be from the Division of
Elections.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that he had a chance to look at it but
had not had an opportunity to verify it. He noted the
numbers looked accurate to him. He also had more granular
data from recent elections by district that a coworker in
his office had prepared. He replied to Representative
Bynum's comments about election security and stated it was
a point well taken about the need for election security. He
stated it was the reason the bill passed by the Senate
contained numerous election security provisions. He
detailed that the bill made voter ID requirements stricter
and removed the use of a hunting/fishing license.
Representative Bynum referenced a document in members'
packets from the Division of Elections (copy on file). He
noted there had been a discussion pertaining to the witness
signature. He observed that it was being said that 52
people were disenfranchised because their ballots were
rejected due to the absence of a witness signature. He
noted it was obviously possible to verify the data. He
asked if the Division of Elections conducted any kind of
investigation to determine whether the ballots had been
accurately submitted. He asked if the individuals had been
contacted by the division.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that the number on the document he had
received was 512. He stated it would be necessary to ask
the Division of Elections what it did. He suspected the
division did not have the resources to reach out to over
500 Alaskans.
Representative Bynum remarked that he was looking
specifically at regions 3 and 4.
Mr. Dunsmore apologized and noted it was late, and he was
doing math in his head. He did not know the answer and
suspected the division did not have the resources to
contact all of the voters.
Co-Chair Schrage thought the Division of Elections and
thought perhaps Ms. Beecher could weigh in on the
questions.
Ms. Beecher asked for a repeat of the question.
Representative Bynum complied. The document from the
division showed that the ballots of 52 individuals in
regions 3 and 4 had been rejected because they did not have
a witness signature. He asked if the division had done any
investigation on the ballots and any other ballots rejected
due to witness signature and determine whether they were
validly cast ballots.
Ms. Beecher replied that when absentee ballots went through
review if they were missing one of the elements that would
code them to be rejected, it [the lack of a witness
signature] would be one of the rejection codes used. She
stated there could be other things that were deficient with
the ballot envelope, but if the lack of a witness signature
would likely be the first thing the review board would see,
which would lead to the rejection of the ballot. An
investigation did not take place afterwards, but the voter
would be notified about the reason their ballot had not
been counted.
Representative Bynum asked if the division kept track of
any contact it received from a voter who may have received
a notice because their ballot was rejected because it did
not have a witness signature.
Ms. Beecher replied in the negative.
Representative Bynum did not want to see ballots getting
rejected because there was no witness signature if it was
not an effective measure to prevent fraud or to prevent an
improper ballot from being submitted. He remarked that a
ballot without a witness signature was not being rejected
because the state was trying to limit a person's ability to
vote, but because the process was not followed. He believed
it was necessary to have a conversation about what the
process was. He stated that earlier testimony had been
given by Mr. Dunsmore that it was an injustice to people.
He believed the injustice was that there was not a system
in place that allowed people to easily follow the process.
8:51:50 PM
Representative Allard thought Ms. Beecher had stated that
the Division of Elections stopped looking for anything else
wrong with the ballot if there was no witness signature.
She found that interesting. She was curious how many
ballots had been received with no signature on either of
the lines. She found it concerning. She remarked that there
was nothing in place "to help people prevent them from not
being able to vote." She stated that the Municipality of
Anchorage worked hard to make sure signature verification
was in place. She stressed the importance of having
something in place to verify [voter] signatures if the
witness signature requirement was removed. She stated she
would have many questions the following day and would
already know the answers, but she wondered if the answers
provided would match hers.
Co-Chair Foster discussed the schedule for the following
day. He recessed the meeting to 8:00 a.m. the following day
[the committee would continue to hear SB 64. See separate
minutes dated 5/16/25 9:00 a.m.].
CSSB 64(FIN) am was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
RECESSED
8:55:09 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB39 HFIN Follow Up to 5.9.25 Hearing.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SB 39 |
| HB052 Additional Documents - Alaska Disability Law Center Findings 05.07.25.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB052 Additional Document - DOJ Investigation of the State of Alaska Behavioral Health System for Children 05.07.25.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB052 Legal Memo - Dibert 05.07.25.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB052 Legal memo - Fields 05.07.25.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB052 Public Testimony Rec'd by 03.25.25.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB052 Sectional Analysis Version 34-LS0399 G, 05.14.25.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB052 Sponsor Statement Version 34-LS0399 G, 05.07.25.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB052 Summary of Changes Version 34-LS0399 G , 05.07.25.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB 193 Public Testimony Rec'd by 051525.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 193 |