04/07/2005 03:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB33 | |
| HB94 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 94 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 7, 2005
3:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Tom Anderson
Representative John Coghill
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 33
"An Act relating to the effect of regulations on small
businesses; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 33(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 94
"An Act relating to qualifications of voters, requirements and
procedures regarding independent candidates for President and
Vice-President of the United States, voter registration and
voter registration records, voter registration through a power
of attorney, voter registration using scanned documents, voter
residence, precinct boundary and polling place designation and
modification, recognized political parties, voters unaffiliated
with a political party, early voting, absentee voting,
application for absentee ballots through a power of attorney, or
by scanned documents, ballot design, ballot counting, voting by
mail, voting machines, vote tally systems, initiative,
referendum, recall, and definitions in the Alaska Election Code;
relating to incorporation elections; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 94(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 33
SHORT TITLE: EFFECT OF REGULATIONS ON SMALL BUSINESSES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MEYER
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) L&C, JUD
02/16/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/16/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/16/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/04/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/04/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/04/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/16/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/16/05 (H) Moved CSHB 33(L&C) Out of Committee
03/16/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/17/05 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 2DP 5NR
03/17/05 (H) DP: ROKEBERG, ANDERSON;
03/17/05 (H) NR: CRAWFORD, LYNN, KOTT, LEDOUX,
GUTTENBERG
03/18/05 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
04/04/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/04/05 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/06/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/05 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/07/05 (H) JUD AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 94
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/21/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/05 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/03/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/03/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/03/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/08/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/08/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/10/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/10/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/10/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/17/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/17/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/19/05 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/19/05 (H) Bill Hearing Canceled
03/08/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/08/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/15/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/15/05 (H) Moved CSHB 94(STA) Out of Committee
03/15/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/05 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 2NR
03/18/05 (H) DP: GATTO, GRUENBERG, SEATON;
03/18/05 (H) NR: GARDNER, LYNN
03/21/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/21/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/05 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/01/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/01/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/04/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/04/05 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/06/05 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/06/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/05 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/07/05 (H) JUD AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 33.
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, Staff
to Representative Kevin Meyer
House Finance Committee
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of the
sponsor, Representative Meyer, regarding HB 33.
CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
33.
AMY PAIGE
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
94.
TIM JUNE
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to a
question during discussion of HB 94.
LAURA GLAISER, Director
Central Office
Division Of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions and provided
comments during discussion of the proposed amendments to HB 94.
PETER NAOROZ, Staff
to Representative Max Gruenberg
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an explanation during discussion
of the proposed amendments to HB 94.
ANNETTE KREITZER, Chief of Staff
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to a
question during discussion of the proposed amendments to HB 94.
VANESSA TONDINI, Staff
to Representative Lesil McGuire
House Judiciary Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an explanation during discussion
of the proposed amendments to HB 94.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting, which had been recessed on 4/6/05, back to
order at 3:08:56 PM. Representatives McGuire, Coghill, Gara,
and Gruenberg were present at the call to order.
Representatives Anderson and Kott arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 33 - EFFECT OF REGULATIONS ON SMALL BUSINESSES
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 33 "An Act relating to the effect of
regulations on small businesses; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee was CSHB 33(L&C).]
[Because of its length, Amendment 1 is included at the end of
the minutes for HB 33. The shorter amendments are included in
the main text.]
3:09:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
said he has seen the proposed amendments to HB 33, and they are
acceptable to him.
CHAIR McGUIRE referred to Amendment 1 [text provided at the end
of the minutes for HB 33].
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, House
Finance Committee, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, said he
worked with the Department of Law to develop Amendment 1, and
relayed that the intent is to remove the natural resource
agencies from the requirements of HB 33.
CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Environmental Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of
Law (DOL), relayed that most of the changes offered via
Amendment 1 involve changing "an agency" into "a designated
state agency", and this is because the administration decided to
go with a short list of agencies that would be covered under HB
33. Those agencies are the Department of Commerce, Community, &
Economic Development (DCCED); the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC); the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS); and the Department of Labor and Workforce Development
(DLWD). He said there are still a few other exceptions,
including the regulations from the DEC that relate to resource
development. Environmental health, like the food code, will
still be included, he stated.
MR. KENNEDY said there are also other exclusions, like the Local
Boundary Commission and the Alaska Energy Authority. He added
that the economic impact analysis will not be required when the
change in regulations is required by federal law. The bill
previously provided that when an agency proposes a new
regulation, the agency would conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis and create an economic effect statement and then notify
the DCCED. He said this was confusing because the order of
events would happen differently - the agency would first notify
the DCCED and [then] get comments.
3:17:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that some of the language in
Amendment 1 doesn't make sense, specifically that which says:
Following "shall":
Insert the following new material:
"(1) notify the department that the
designated state agency intends to adopt the proposed
regulation or has received a petition under
AS 44.62.220 to adopt the proposed regulation;
(2)"
MR. PAWLOWSKI said the intent is to put numbers next to the
activities that are described; thus, proposed paragraph (1) of
subsection (a) requires the designated state agency to notify
the department that the designated state agency intends to adopt
the proposed regulations or has received a petition under AS
44.62.220. Proposed paragraph (2) of subsection (a) would then
require the designated state agency to prepare an economic
effect statement.
3:21:09 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [full text
provided at the end of the minutes for HB 33].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:21 p.m. to 3:22 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Amendment 1 eliminates
village corporations from the definition of "small business,"
and said he would be in favor leaving that language in.
MR. KENNEDY said some village corporations are equivalent to
small businesses and some are quite large.
3:23:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG acknowledged that point, but noted that
the vast majority are small. "So why don't we say village
corporations under a certain size," he asked.
MR. PAWLOWSKI offered his understanding that a village
corporation with fewer than 100 employees would still qualify
under the definition used in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that in some cases, they are
similar to municipalities and might not qualify as business
entities.
MR. KENNEDY said Representative Gruenberg is correct in that
some village corporations are nonprofit entities and so wouldn't
be considered business entities; he noted that all other
nonprofit entities are potentially outside the scope of the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested amending subparagraph (A),
located on page 4 of proposed AS 44.62.218(h)(5), such that a
small business entity would include village corporations with
fewer than 100 employees.
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated a preference for placing such language
under subparagraph (B) of proposed AS 44.62.218(h)(5).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to Amendment 1.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to
Amendment 1. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, to
delete from Amendment 1 the language, "Page 4, lines 8 - 9:
Delete all material. Page 4, line 10: Delete '(C)' Insert
'(B)'", and to insert on page 4, line 8, after the phrase "a
village corporation" and before the semicolon, the words
"employing fewer than 100 employees". There being no objection,
Amendment 2 was adopted.
3:28:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he wants to see the federal code
that is being incorporated into the proposed statute.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER agreed to provide it.
3:29:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
To page 2 line 3
delete "and an estimate of the number"
CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said Amendment 3 simplifies the state agency
study by not requiring an agency to count the number of
businesses that will be affected by a regulation.
CHAIR McGUIRE removed her objection, and asked whether there
were any further objections. There being none, Amendment 3 was
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 4, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
To page 2 line 18
delete "while accomplishing"
insert "without compromising"
CHAIR McGUIRE objected [for the purpose of discussion].
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said Amendment 4 makes it clear that the
intent is to fully enforce the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said Amendment 4 was fine with him.
CHAIR McGUIRE removed her objection, and asked whether there
were any further objections. There being none, Amendment 4 was
adopted.
3:31:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA moved to report CSHB 33(L&C), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
33(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
AMENDMENT(S)
The following amendment to CSHB 33(L&C) was adopted during the
hearing. [The shorter amendments are provided in the main
text.]
Amendment 1 [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "an"
Insert "a designated state"
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "an"
Insert "a designated state"
Page 1, line 8:
Following "businesses, the":
Insert "designated state"
Following "shall":
Insert the following new material:
"(1) notify the department that the
designated state agency intends to adopt the proposed
regulation or has received a petition under
AS 44.62.220 to adopt the proposed regulation;
(2)"
Page 1, line 9, following "section":
Delete ","
Insert "; and
(3)"
Page 1, line 10, following "section":
Delete ", and notify the department that the
agency intends to"
Insert "."
Page 1, lines 11 - 12:
Delete all material.
Page 1, line 13:
Delete "An"
Insert "A designated state"
Page 2, line 1, following "of the":
Insert "designated state"
Page 2, line 15:
Delete "an"
Insert "a designated state"
Page 2, line 23, following "the":
Insert "designated state"
Page 3, line 3:
Delete "agencies"
Insert "a designated state agency"
Page 3, line 5, following "regulations":
Delete "of"
Page 3, line 6, following "(1)":
Insert "of"
Page 3, lines 8-17:
Delete all material and insert:
"(2) of the Alaska Energy Authority;
(3) of the Department of Environmental
Conservation that are adopted under the authority of
AS 46.03.050 - 46.03.900, AS 46.04, AS 46.08 -
AS 46.14, AS 46.35, or AS 46.45;
(4) of the Local Boundary Commission; or
(5) mandated by federal law as a condition
for participating in or implementing a federally
subsidized or assisted program, or for obtaining or
maintaining state primacy in a federal program."
Page 3, line 18:
Delete "an"
Insert "a designated state"
Page 3, following line 25:
Insert the following new material:
"(2) designated state agency" means the
(A) Department of Commerce, Community, and
Economic Development;
(B) Department of Environmental
Conservation;
(C) Department of Health and Social
Services; and
(D) Department of Labor and Workforce
Development;"
Page 3, line 26:
Delete "(2)"
Insert "(3)"
Page 3, line 30:
Delete "(3)"
Insert "(4)"
Page 4, line 1, following "regulation;":
Delete "or"
Page 4, line 2:
Delete "(4)"
Insert "(5)"
Page 4, line 4:
Delete "(5)"
Insert "(6)"
Page 4, line 7, following "employees;":
Insert "or"
Page 4, lines 8 - 9:
Delete all material.
Page 4, line 10:
Delete "(C)"
Insert "(B)"
Page 4, line 15:
Delete "an"
Insert "a designated state"
Page 4, line 16, following "section,":
Insert the following new material:
"(1) "designated state agency" has the
meaning given in AS 44.62.218, enacted by sec. 1 of
this Act;
(2)"
[End of Amendment 1 - CSHB 33(JUD) was reported from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.]
HB 94 - ELECTIONS
3:32:09 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 94, "An Act relating to qualifications of voters,
requirements and procedures regarding independent candidates for
President and Vice-President of the United States, voter
registration and voter registration records, voter registration
through a power of attorney, voter registration using scanned
documents, voter residence, precinct boundary and polling place
designation and modification, recognized political parties,
voters unaffiliated with a political party, early voting,
absentee voting, application for absentee ballots through a
power of attorney, or by scanned documents, ballot design,
ballot counting, voting by mail, voting machines, vote tally
systems, initiative, referendum, recall, and definitions in the
Alaska Election Code; relating to incorporation elections; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 94(STA), which had been amended on 3/21/05.]
[Because of their length, some amendments discussed or adopted
during the meeting are found at the end of the minutes for HB
94. Shorter amendments are included in the main text.]
3:32:41 PM
AMY PAIGE thanked the committee for working on the state's
election laws, and mentioned that she'd been involved in the
recent U.S. Senate seat recount. She asked the committee to
support the proposed amendment that provides for a standard
procedure of conducting a hand count of a precinct that accounts
for at least 5 percent of the voters. Such an amendment would
assure those who are not on the winning side of an election that
things were run fairly. Equally as important, she added, would
be to keep the ability to challenge a vote count - in other
words, ask for a recount - within reach of ordinary citizens,
and she urged the committee to not raise the rates of the
deposit required for recounts. Raising those rates as one of
the proposed amendment suggests would put recounts out of reach
of ordinary citizens, she opined, and would "be ... a backward
step in a democratic society." She predicted that providing for
an automatic hand count will lessen the likelihood that people
will ask for recounts.
3:34:38 PM
TIM JUNE relayed that he was a house district candidate in the
last election and had asked for a recount of his race. He
relayed that he wanted to address the amendment labeled 24-
GH1048\G.12, Kurtz, 2/11/05, which read:
Page 8, following line 12:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 15. AS 15.20.450 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.20.450. Requirements of deposit and
recount cost. The application must include a deposit
in cash, by certified check, or by bond with a surety
approved by the director. The amount of the deposit
is $2,500 [$300] for each precinct, $10,000 [$750] for
each house district, and $50,000 [$10,000] for the
entire state. If the recount includes an office for
which candidates received a tie vote, or the
difference between the number of votes cast was 20 or
less or was less than .5 percent of the total number
of votes cast for the two candidates for the contested
office, or a question or proposition for which there
was a tie vote on the issue, or the difference between
the number of votes cast in favor of or opposed to the
issue was 20 or less or was less than .5 percent of
the total votes cast in favor of or opposed to the
issue, the application need not include a deposit, and
the state shall bear the cost of the recount. If, on
the recount, a candidate other than the candidate who
received the original election certificate is declared
elected, or if the vote on recount is determined to be
four percent or more in excess of the vote reported by
the state review for the candidate applying for the
recount or in favor of or opposed to the question or
proposition as stated in the application, the entire
deposit shall be refunded. If the entire deposit is
not refunded, the director shall refund any money
remaining after the cost of the recount has been paid
from the deposit. If the cost of the recount exceeds
the amount of the deposit, the recount applicant shall
pay the remainder upon notification by the state of
the amount due."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 21, line 4:
Delete "secs. 20 - 43"
Insert "secs. 21 - 44"
MR. JUNE relayed that what he found was that there is a
significant inherent error in the [AccuVote-Optical Scan
("AccuVote")] machines, which, he suggested, should really be
called "approxiVote" machines. He elaborated:
During the recount in my race, some 6,000 ballots from
District 5 were recounted, ... and the Division of
Elections ... came up with 31 more ballots that were
not counted accurately the first time through at the
precinct level. So that's essentially a 0.5 percent
error. And we had a number of races this time ...
where they were within 40 to 70 votes, and we will
continue in the future to have a number of close
races.
So my point is, I think that we all share the same
goals: we want a ballot count to be accurate, we want
it to be precise, we want it to be repeatable, we want
election costs to be reasonable, and we want to ensure
the public's trust. ... I think that as the system is
laid out now, I don't think it's being abused. ... I
was the only candidate that did request a recount,
although probably four candidates should have done
that, and I think that had they known the inherent
errors in the system, they probably would have. And I
think right now, the problem is, we have the trigger
set, in statute, at 20 votes or 0.5 percent [for] when
the state pays for the recount.
And I think that there's a problem in that if the
inherent error in the system ... [is what the trigger
mechanism is set at], then we're going to tend to not
have [an] accurate or precise result, and so ... I
would suggest that it might be good to consider the
state automatically recounting if a race is within 1
percent, just to give that margin of error. And in
statistics, there are two types of error. There are
errors of precision, and errors of accuracy. And to
describe the two, a precision hunter goes rabbit
hunting, a rabbit pops up, he shoots him right between
the eyes, the rabbit falls dead; in errors of
accuracy, three statisticians go hunting for a rabbit,
the first one shoots two inches to the right and
misses the rabbit, the second one shoots two inches to
the left and misses the rabbit, the third one yells
out, "We got him." ...
MR. JUNE continued:
We have to realize that averaging and accuracy
sometimes produce their own errors. And one other
point that I would like to say is that the cost of the
recount [is] not just the $750 for the district, but
also, what's inherent in that, is the cost to travel
to Juneau a number of times, it's anywhere from two
weeks to two months of either the candidate's time or
hiring staff to monitor the recount, [you] ...
generally hire [an] election attorney to either [be]
there or at least [be] at your disposal for the
questions that come up, and also any staff time that
might be added. So the recount actually ran, for me,
into probably a couple of thousand dollars beyond the
$750. ... So I think that there is certainly not a
great incentive to do it recklessly. And I'd say we
all share the same hopes.
And I guess, too, I would like to briefly encourage
you to support the [proposed] amendment that would
have a built-in hand recount of at least one precinct.
My district is composed of 18 precincts in District 5,
they range anywhere from 35 people in Tatitlek to 894
people in Cordova. Now, the Division of Elections,
during the recount, had a policy that if they couldn't
machine count the ballot and come within 3 votes of
what the precinct totals were, then they would
automatically have to hand recount. Now, using their
own standard, which I think was a fairly good
standard, they ended up hand recounting 5 out of 18
precincts that they couldn't match up within 3 votes.
MR. JUNE mentioned testimony heard in prior meetings regarding
the supposed accuracy of the current system, and pointed out
that according to the experience he had, the system is not as
accurate as it has been purported to be. He concluded by asking
the committee to take the time to consider this issue further.
3:41:00 PM
MR. JUNE, in response to a question, explained that the deposit
required is a per district fee, and that the aforementioned G.12
amendment would raise the deposit for a house district race
recount to $10,000.
CHAIR McGUIRE closed public testimony on HB 94.
3:41:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt the amendment
labeled [24-GH1048\I.1, Kurtz, 1/17/05], which read:
Page 9, following line 29:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 12. AS 15.15.032 is amended by adding a
new subsection to read:
(d) If the director provides for voting by use
of electronically generated ballots, the director
shall provide ballots in English and may provide
ballots in one or more languages other than English."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 31, line 7:
Delete "secs. 26 - 49"
Insert "secs. 27 - 50"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that the I.1 amendment [which
later became known as Amendment 8] would give the director of
the Division of Elections the authorization to provide for
voting by use of electronically generated ballots, "the touch
screens," and for ballots in one or more languages other than
English. The aforementioned would not be required, but simply
allowed.
CHAIR McGUIRE suggested instead that the committee take up a
different amendment first. She then referred to two amendments
- one suggested by Representative Gruenberg, and the other
suggested by the Division of Elections - that proposed changes
similar to each other.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt the amendment
labeled 24-GH1048\I.11, Kurtz, 4/7/05. [Amendment I.11 is
provided at the end of the minutes for HB 94.]
CHAIR McGUIRE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that the amendment labeled I.11
will allow for numerical identifiers to be used, and defines a
numerical identifier as either a date of birth, the last four
digits of a social security number, an Alaska driver's license
number, an Alaska identification card number, or a voter
identification number.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Ms. Glaiser to explain how the Division of
Elections' suggested amendment [which later became known as
Amendment 2 and is provided at the end of the minutes for HB 94]
differs from the amendment labeled I.11.
LAURA GLAISER, Director, Central Office, Division Of Elections,
Office of the Lieutenant Governor, first explained that there is
currently a lawsuit involving the [division] and the cruise ship
industry, and then relayed that the proposed changes from "date
of birth" to "a numerical identifier" are the same in both
suggested amendments, but mentioned that she is not sure how
else they differ aside from drafting styles. She offered,
however, that the division's suggested amendment has been
specifically drafted to address issues raised in the
aforementioned litigation; thus she would be more comfortable if
the committee were to adopt the division's version of the
amendment.
3:46:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to comments, suggested
that his staff might be able to explain the differences between
the two amendments.
PETER NAOROZ, Staff to Representative Max Gruenberg, Alaska
State Legislature, relayed that he'd sent the division's
suggested amendment to Legislative Legal and Research Services
and asked that that amendment be "put it into our form" without
any substantive changes; what came back was the amendment
labeled I.11. He mentioned, for example, that the division's
suggested amendment proposes to remove "that" from the end of a
particular subsection and insert it at the beginning of each
subsequent paragraph, and characterized this as a difference in
drafting styles.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that both amendments require that some
kind of numerical identifier be provided, and both define what
constitutes an acceptable numerical identifier in the same way.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that the amendment
labeled I.11 does not differ substantively from the division's
suggested amendment.
MS. GLAISER, in response to a question, indicated that she
objects to the adoption of the amendment labeled I.11 because
she knows that the division's version of the amendment does
address the issues raised in the aforementioned litigation,
particularly with regard to whether the circulator has received
payment or has agreed to receive payment for the collection of
signatures on a petition.
CHAIR McGUIRE maintained her objection to the amendment labeled
I.11.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew the amendment labeled I.11.
CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt the Division of Elections'
suggested amendment as Amendment 2 [text provided at the end of
the minutes for HB 94]. There being no objection, Amendment 2
was adopted.
3:53:29 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE referred to Amendment 3, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 12, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 18. AS 15.20.450 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.20.450. Requirements of deposit and
recount cost. The application must include a deposit
in cash, by certified check, or by bond with a surety
approved by the director. The amount of the deposit
is $2,500 [$300] for each precinct, $10,000 [$750] for
each house district, and $50,000 [$10,000] for the
entire state. If the recount includes an office for
which candidates received a tie vote, or the
difference between the number of votes cast was 20 or
less or was less than .5 percent of the total number
of votes cast for the two candidates for the contested
office, or a question or proposition for which there
was a tie vote on the issue, or the difference between
the number of votes cast in favor of or opposed to the
issue was 20 or less or was less than.5 percent of the
total votes cast in favor of or opposed to the issue,
the application need not include a deposit, and the
state shall bear the cost of the recount. If, on the
recount, a candidate other than the candidate who
received the original election certificate is declared
elected, or if the vote on recount is determined to be
four percent or more in excess of the vote reported by
the state review for the candidate applying for the
recount or in favor of or opposed to the question or
proposition as stated in the application, the entire
deposit shall be refunded. If the entire deposit is
not refunded, the director shall refund any money
remaining after the cost of the recount has been paid
from the deposit."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
MS. GLAISER explained that Amendment 3 would raise the amount of
the deposit required to conduct a recount. The amount would be
$2,500 for each precinct, $10,000 for each house district, and
$50,000 for the entire state. The recounts from the last
[general] election have highlighted their costs, and the amounts
proposed via Amendment 3 reflect those actual costs. She said
the division is not wedded to those specific numbers but would
like to see the amounts raised from what they currently are and
have been since 1986.
3:55:26 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected, and remarked that there is a
certain expense associated with conducting an election, and
society just pays that expense as a matter of course - it's part
of the cost of being a society. Telling a candidate who loses
an election by 1 percent or 2 percent that he/she should just
assume that the computers counted all the votes correctly and
that he/she has to pay the entire cost of conducting a recount
will keep a candidate without a lot of money from ever double
checking the accuracy of the vote count. He offered his
understanding that California experienced obvious computer
errors in vote counting during its last gubernatorial election,
and pointed out that sometimes computer errors are very subtle.
He posited that one should be suspicious in the computer age and
not just assume that computers will always be accurate.
Additionally he remarked that he doesn't think that the recount
process has been abused, rather that the majority those who have
asked for a recount have had legitimate reasons for doing so.
He offered his belief that most house candidates won't be able
to raise the amount required under Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to a question, mentioned that
he would be proposing an amendment that will provide for spot
checks by the division to verify that the computers are counting
votes accurately.
CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned that the cost of recounts is eventually
borne by the citizens of Alaska, and said she is wondering what
the fiscal burden to the state will end up being if the deposit
amount remains the same and the division has to conduct spot
checks. She said she agrees with the point that they ought to
be sure that the state's elections are conducted fairly and
ethically and with the most advanced computer technology;
however, the question must also be asked, at what point is it
[no longer] fair to ask the public to pick up the tab for
recounts and computer checks?
3:59:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his belief that the deposit required
for a recount should be affordable yet still expensive enough to
ensure that candidates will think twice before asking for one.
The amounts proposed in Amendment 3 are too much, he opined, and
will ensure that only the wealthiest of candidates can afford a
recount. He indicated that he would be willing to double the
amount currently required for house districts - raising it from
$750 to $1,500 - and raise the amount for the entire state to
account for the amount of inflation since 1986.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked whether a deposit is refundable
should a candidate that asks for a recount prevail.
MS. GLAISER said that if it is found that there was a certain
percentage of error in the vote counting or if the race is
overturned, then the deposit is refunded. She noted that when a
recount is conducted, any ballots received after the initial
vote is tabulated are also counted, as well as the ballots of
voters who marked their ballots so poorly that the computer
rejected them.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked how many times a recount has
resulted in a race being overturned.
MS. GLAISER mentioned two races. With regard to the issue of
how much of a deposit should be paid for a recount, she said
that the goal in raising the amounts isn't to be punitive, but
rather to be fiscally responsible, for the amounts to reflect
that the state does incur costs when it conducts a recount. She
then detailed some of what is involved in conducting a recount.
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that she isn't comfortable with the
amounts currently in Amendment 3 because they seem a bit high,
and that she wants the voters to feel that the system is free of
corruption. She offered her belief that the ability to ask for
a recount is a fundamental part of a democratic system.
4:05:24 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE set Amendment 3 aside.
CHAIR McGUIRE referred to Amendment 4, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 29, line 12:
Following "after a general election"
Delete "at which a governor was elected"
Page 29, line 20:
Following "general election"
Delete "at which a governor was elected"
Page 29, line 23:
Following "GENERAL ELECTION];"
Insert "or"
Page 29, lines 29 - 30:
Following "general election:
Delete "or at the most recent general election at
which a governor was elected"
Page 30, line 2:
Following [SENATOR AT THAT GENERAL ELECTION;OR]
Insert "or"
Page 30, following line 7:
Delete "or at the most recent general election at
which a governor was elected"
Page 30, line 11:
Following "registered in the state"
Delete "on March 31 of the most recent
election year"
Insert "in the month that the director
performs verification of party status as set out in AS
15.60.008(c)"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the testimony
Representative Seaton provided [on 4/6/05] regarding this
amendment, and said there are some portions of Amendment 4 that
he agrees with.
CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected, and made a motion to amend
Amendment 4, to delete the change proposed to page 29, line 12.
He indicated that the amendment to Amendment 4 will address one
of Representative Seaton's concerns [as expressed on 4/6/05].
REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that the amendment to Amendment 4
makes sense, and that Representative Seaton's other suggested
changes to [what is now] Amendment 4 make sense as well.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG restated his motion to amend Amendment
4, to delete the changes proposed to page 29, line 12; to page
29, lines 29-30; and to page 30, following line 7.
CHAIR McGUIRE objected to the amendment to Amendment 4. She
said she wants to have a fair system in place for third parties;
that she wants the system to apply equally to all parties; and
that she wants "the door to swing both ways," so that there are
more opportunities to qualify as a third party on the ballot
while also allowing the division to determine whether a third
party is truly viable. She asked Ms. Glaiser to comment on
whether deleting the aforementioned proposed changes in
Amendment 4 will result in "the door" only swinging open the one
way and not the other.
4:09:36 PM
MS. GLAISER offered her understanding that when the bill left
the House State Affairs Standing Committee, it offered a "fair
way" to qualify. Amendment 4 would "tighten it down," she
remarked, and make it consistent, with the bar - or the
judgment/marking year - being the "gubernatorial" year.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked what happens if a party qualifies in the
"U.S. senatorial year." Would one have to wait until the next
"senatorial year?"
MS. GLAISER said no, the marker would be the gubernatorial year.
Thus, if a candidate for U.S. Senate qualified in a "U.S. Senate
year" and ran as a third party that garnered 3 percent of the
votes, then that party would exist from the time the election is
certified and verified, and would not lose qualification until
the next gubernatorial year wherein the party does not have a
candidate that again qualifies at 3 percent threshold.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Ms. Glaiser whether she supports the
amendment to Amendment 4.
MS. GLAISER said the division could administer [the statute]
either way; it is a policy call for the legislature to make
regarding how to allow access to third parties.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his belief that Amendment 4 does not
address that issue of [third-party qualifications]
substantively; rather, it is just a housekeeping measure. He
said he has a simple way to deal with the issue of how to "make
sure that small parties get to participate in the system but not
arbitrarily draw lines that favor one party over another party."
CHAIR McGUIRE asked, "Is it the difference between two years or
four years?"
MS. GLAISER said that was her understanding. As the bill left
House State Affairs Standing Committee, one could qualify for
two years unless one was running for the U.S. House of
Representatives in a gubernatorial year, and then he/she would
be "locked in" for four years, until the next gubernatorial
year.
CHAIR McGUIRE opined that [Amendment 4] is not just a technical
change; rather, it's a policy call about whether a third party
should qualify every two years or every four years.
MS. GLAISER noted also that registered voters can constitute a
third party. For example, the Republican Moderate Party did not
have a candidate that qualified in any recent U.S. Senate, U.S.
House of Representative, or gubernatorial race; that party's
whole marker is based on the number of registered voters, and
Amendment 4 will ensure that a group of voters can attain party
status at any time and retain that status as long as the party
qualified as of May 31. She indicated that the points addressed
via the amendment to Amendment 4 constitute a policy call.
4:15:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he does want to discuss which parties
will be allowed on the ballot, adding that his preference would
be to let small parties be on the ballot. He offered his
understanding that "this amendment" simply allows the changes
proposed on page 29-30 of the bill to work as intended.
CHAIR McGUIRE removed her objection to the amendment to
Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that he no longer wishes to
delete from Amendment 4 the change proposed to page 29, line 12.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG again restated the motion to amend
Amendment 4, to delete the changes proposed to page 29, lines
29-30, and to page 30, following line 7. There being no
objection, Amendment 4 was amended.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to
Amendment 4, as amended. There being none, Amendment 4, as
amended, was adopted.
4:18:27 PM
[Following was a brief discussion regarding which proposed
amendment would be addressed next as Amendment 5.]
CHAIR McGUIRE [made a motion to adopt] the following as
Amendment 5, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 18, line 24:
Following "Preparation of petition. (a)"
Insert "If the application is certified, the
[THE]"
Page 24, line 23:
Following "throughout the state"
Insert "or throughout the senate or house
district of the official sought to be recalled."
MS. GLAISER said that when the latest version of the bill was
drafted, language was unintentionally left out; Amendment 5
addresses that error.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to
Amendment 5. There being none, Amendment 5 was adopted.
4:20:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 6, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 29, line 19
Delete "three"
Insert "two"
Page 29, line 28
Delete "three"
Insert "two"
Page 30, line 6
Delete "three"
Insert "two"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that Amendment 6 proposes to alter
the portion of the bill that addresses which parties are allowed
to appear on a ballot. He offered his belief that if current
law is allowed to remain in place, then at the next general
election, only the Republican Party of Alaska, the Alaska
Democratic Party, and the Alaskan Independence Party candidates
will appear on the next ballot. He relayed that he's heard that
small parties have said that the current law is unfair, and that
he concurs. As currently written, CSHB 94(STA) will give
[parties] more opportunities to qualify to get on the ballot,
but by keeping the current 3 percent threshold, some third
parties will get on the ballot and some won't. Therefore, from
a fairness standpoint, he opined, any third party that wishes to
be on the ballot ought to be on it, and offered his belief that
changing the threshold to 2 percent will allows such. He added,
though, that he would also be in favor of having a 1 percent
threshold.
4:24:59 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the 3 percent threshold has been around
for a number of years.
MS. GLAISER remarked that the question of whether to change the
current threshold is a policy call, but mentioned that it is an
issue that is currently being litigated.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is probably open to [Amendment
6], but remarked that some sort of threshold will ensure that
people are willing to step forward and be counted as a group,
adding that he is more inclined to apply the threshold to
registration numbers rather than voting numbers. He said, "We
have made it very easy for people to step back and say, 'I'm
going to manipulate parties by being undeclared or nonpartisan,'
and then the people who will step forward and put themselves in
a party are really putting a philosophy forward." He suggested
that lowering the threshold might pull undeclared and
nonpartisan voters into a third party, and so he is willing to
go with a 2 percent threshold; he cautioned, however, that
[later on] there might be a push to drop that threshold even
lower, which could result in having large numbers of parties on
the ballot. In conclusion he said that if [Amendment 6] has the
effect of increasing the number of nonpartisan and undeclared
voters, then the change would be taking [Alaska] in the wrong
direction.
MS. GLAISER, in response to questions, said she does not
anticipate [Amendment 6] having a fiscal impact, and that she
would provide members with a handout that lists [the thresholds]
used by other states.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred that a lot of people tend to
be unaffiliated with a political party, and remarked that if the
goal is to get such people involved in the political process,
then perhaps basing the threshold on a percentage of those that
actually vote in a general election might be another way of
accomplishing that.
MS. GLAISER noted that CSHB 94(STA) proposes to base the
calculation on the number of voters registered during a
"gubernatorial year" general election, and surmised that
Representative Gruenberg's suggestion would be to base the
calculation on the number of people who actually vote at that
election.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON opined that from a statewide
perspective, there is big difference between 2 percent and 3
percent, and that contrary to Ms. Glaiser's comment, lowering
the threshold will have a fiscal impact. He expressed a
preference for maintaining the current 3 percent threshold.
4:34:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that basing the calculation on the
number of registered voters in a party would make it easier and
would be a fair approach.
CHAIR McGUIRE referred to the aforementioned handout regarding
third party thresholds in other states, and noted that it
illustrates that some states have a threshold as high as 20
percent in any statewide election, some have a threshold of 5
percent in a presidential election year, some states have a
threshold of 1 percent, some states have a threshold of 2
percent, and South Dakota has a threshold of 2.5 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, described his recent election
experience, and relayed that Jim Sykes - Green Party of Alaska
candidate - spoke to him about the threshold and offered that it
should be lowered because it would be the right thing to do.
[Chair McGuire turned the gavel over to Representative
Anderson.]
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said he would object to Amendment 6 so
as to have a vote on the motion.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred to election statistics that showed
"legitimate candidates" who received 2 percent of the vote, and
related his belief that 2 percent is not an arbitrary number;
instead, it's fair because its applicable to the legitimate
candidates and the number of votes they receive. In contrast, a
threshold of 3 percent would allow only some of the existing
parties to be on the ballot. He reiterated it's fair to include
the 2 percent range to help small parties get on the ballot.
4:40:56 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill, Kott,
Gruenberg, and Gara voted in favor of Amendment 6.
Representative Anderson voted against it. Therefore, Amendment
6 was adopted by a vote of 4-1.
4:41:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 7,
labeled 24-GH1048\I.2, Kurtz, 3/16/05, which read:
Page 29, lines 11 - 12:
Delete "meets the definition of political party
except following the verification immediately"
Insert "qualifies as a political party until
after the first verification"
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 7 would
clarify the language on page 29, lines 11-12, such that it would
then read, "the director may not withdraw recognized political
party status from a political group that no longer qualifies as
a political party until after the first verification."
MS. GLAISER indicated that the division is in favor of
Amendment 7.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, after ascertaining that there was no
further debate, withdrew his objection to Amendment 7 and
announced that Amendment 7 was adopted.
4:44:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 8
[text previously provided]. He explained that Amendment 8
allows electronically generated ballots to be provided in
languages other than English.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for discussion purposes.
MS. GLAISER relayed that the division doesn't feel that
Amendment 8 is necessary, since the division already has the
statutory authority to provide audio translations in other
languages.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON agreed.
4:48:30 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and Gara
voted in favor of Amendment 8. Representatives Anderson and
Kott voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 8 failed by a vote
of 2-2.
4:49:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 9,
labeled 24-GH1048\I.6, Kurtz, 3/31/05, which read:
Page 10, following line 14:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 13. AS 15.20.030 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.20.030. Preparation of ballots,
envelopes, and other material. The director shall
provide ballots for use as absentee ballots in all
districts. The director shall provide a secrecy
sleeve in which the voter shall initially place the
marked ballot, and shall provide an envelope with the
prescribed voter's certificate on it, in which the
secrecy sleeve with ballot enclosed shall be placed.
The director shall prescribe the form of and prepare
the voter's certificate, envelopes, and other material
used in absentee voting. If more than one first class
mail stamp is required, the director shall ensure that
the ballot and return envelope state, in bold type,
the amount of postage required to return the ballot by
first class United States mail. The voter's
certificate shall include a declaration, for use when
required, that the voter is a qualified voter in all
respects, a blank for the voter's signature, a
certification that the affiant properly executed the
marking of the ballot and gave the voter's identity,
blanks for the attesting official or witnesses, and a
place for recording the date the envelope was sealed
and witnessed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 31, line 7:
Delete "secs. 26 - 49"
Insert "secs. 27 - 50"
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that there was a problem in
the last election regarding votes not being counted because of
insufficient postage. Amendment 9 says that the division shall
notify people how much postage is required.
MS. GLAISER said that in the past, when the division has done
what Amendment 9 proposes, because different post offices charge
varying amounts, some ballots were returned even though they had
the amount of postage specified by the division. Therefore, in
the most recent election, the division simply notified voters
that it was their responsibility to determine what the correct
amount of postage would be.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON surmised that the division is of the
belief that Amendment 9 will be too restrictive for the division
and will lead to complaints.
MS. GLAISER noted that larger municipalities may include more
ballots and that some voters would not always include all of
them; therefore, the division would not be able to adequately
determine the amount of postage needed for any particular
municipality.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 9.
4:52:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 10, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 12, line 5
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 17. AS 15.20.081 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(j) No person other than the absentee ballot
applicant may mark the applicant's choice of party
affiliation or primary ballot on an application, or
highlight or otherwise mark the ballot in a way that
suggests choice of one party or ballot over another,
except as follows:
(1) party affiliation and ballot choices may be
listed in an application as authorized by the
Division, and
(2) the applicant may expressly, either in
writing or by other communication, authorize another
person to assist them by marking these portions of the
application."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered that Amendment 10 "cleans up the
law." Currently a party or a political interest group can send
out an absentee ballot application and pre-check the voter's
party status. Furthermore, the law allows groups and parties to
pre-checking which ballot a voter will use for the primary
election. To clarify, he said that currently one party is
sending out absentee ballot applications on which the person's
party choice is pre-checked and on which the choice of primary
ballot is pre-checked. He predicted that if an absentee ballot
were to be sent out four times, a person would mark something
different at least a couple of times because people are not that
"wedded to parties in this state." He offered his belief that
party choice is a First Amendment right and a sacrosanct right,
and thus nobody should ever pre-check the voter's party or
ballot choice. This amendment clarifies that doing so would be
[unlawful] with the exception of doing so for those who need
help voting.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON offered a hypothetical example of a
volunteer going door-to-door to register voters, and asked
whether Amendment 10 would prohibit a person from gathering the
voter's affiliated party information.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated that it wouldn't as long as the
voter volunteer's his/her party information. He offered his
understanding that registrars already have the ability to gather
that information and are bound by legal standards. Amendment 10
merely clarifies that when parties send out the absentee ballot
applications, they should be left blank and not pre-checked. He
opined that the practice of pre-checking party and primary
ballot choices needs to stopped.
[Representative Anderson returned the gavel to Chair McGuire.]
4:58:03 PM
MS. GLAISER, in response to comments, said that regardless of
whether [Amendment 10 is adopted], the voter maintains the
ability to alter the pre-checked portion of his/her ballot if it
is not correct. She relayed that the division is only concerned
about a party or group taking action on those forms after the
voter has signed it, because an absentee ballot application
serves as a voter registration application.
CHAIR McGUIRE turned the gavel over to Representative Anderson
would continue to chair the meeting in her absence.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that the
aforementioned absentee ballot applications were sent based on
voter registration information and were therefore simply
acknowledging the choices the voter had already made. He said
he has no problem with applications that acknowledge a person's
previous choice, though he objects to parties making "new
choices" for the voter. He said he opposes Amendment 10.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said it's not too hard for a voter to fill
out the ballot by himself/herself, and the problem with pre-
checking a ballot is that people are not necessarily wedded to
parties. He said that by not adopting Amendment 10, the law
allows any party to send a pre-checked ballot to an independent
voter which predetermines his/her voting status. He opined that
it would be simple to let the voters make their own choices,
since filling out the application form is not that difficult.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON maintained his objection.
5:02:19 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and Gara
voted in favor of Amendment 10. Representatives Anderson,
Coghill, and Kott voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 10
failed by a vote of 2-3.
5:02:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA moved to adopt Amendment 11, labeled 24-
GH1048\I.9, Kurtz, 4/6/05, which read:
Page 10, following line 14:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 13. AS 15.15.420 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.15.420. Duty to review the ballot
counting. The director shall review the counting of
the ballots with the assistance of and in the presence
of the state ballot counting review board [APPOINTED
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE POLITICAL PARTIES].
* Sec. 14. AS 15.15.430 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.15.430. Scope of the review of ballot
counting. (a) The review of ballot counting by the
director shall include only [A REVIEW OF]
(1) a review of the precinct registers,
tallies, and ballots cast; [AND]
(2) a review of absentee and questioned
ballots as prescribed by law; and
(3) a hand count of ballots from one
randomly selected precinct in each election district
that accounts for at least five percent of the ballots
cast in that district.
(b) If, following the ballot review set out in
(a) of this section, the director finds an unexplained
discrepancy in the ballot count in any precinct, the
director may count the ballots from that precinct. If
there is a discrepancy of more than one percent
between the results of the hand count under (a)(3) of
this section and the count certified by the election
board, the director shall conduct a hand count of the
ballots from that district. The director shall
certify in writing to the state ballot counting review
board and publish on the division's Internet website
any changes resulting from a [THE] count performed
under this subsection."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 31, line 7:
Delete "secs. 26 - 49"
Insert "secs. 28 - 51"
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained:
[Amendment 11] says that just to make sure the
computer counting machines are doing an accurate job,
that nobody's fooled around with the computer
programming, that there's no accidental mishap with
the computer programming, after an election we'll
[hand count] 5 percent of the ballots in each
district. ... Even though these computerized counting
machines have only been around for a short while,
there've been a lot of instances where they've
miscounted votes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA presented several examples in which the
computer counting machines made gross errors. He pointed out
that a law was passed last year requiring that all machines must
produce a paper ballot, but he noted that the paper ballot will
only help if the election is challenged and the ballots are
recounted; if no one asks for a recount, "you really need to
have 100 percent confidence that the machines did a good job."
He reiterated that Amendment 11 would have 5 percent of the
ballots in each district hand counted to ensure that the
machines were working properly.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the hand count would still be
required if there was only one candidate running for an office.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he would accept a friendly amendment
which said that if a person is running unopposed, then this
provision wouldn't apply.
MS. GLAISER stated that the Division of Elections has no problem
with Amendment 11. However, she noted:
A lot of the states that are looking at a hand count
afterwards do not have the ... before-election testing
that we do; we have a bipartisan state review board
that ... tests every memory card, and then they're
sent to the regions and each region has a bipartisan
AccuVote review board that then tests the memory
cards. ... Most states don't have [even] one level of
testing, [whereas] we have two levels of testing.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON noted that Amendment 11, in proposing to
alter As 15.15.420 via a new Section 13, makes reference to a
state ballot counting review board. He asked if this would be a
new board.
MS. GLAISER replied that this would not be a new board. She
explained that under current law, there is an existing board
made up of members that are appointed from each party, and is
therefore a bipartisan review board. She noted that additional
party members can be appointed by a party to also be present
during the review process, but offered her understanding that
under Amendment 11, additional party members can no longer be
appointed to oversee the review process. In response to a
question, she stated that Amendment 11 would have a minimal
fiscal burden on the division, but noted that a hand count would
delay the final certification results of an election.
5:09:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if the division is opposed to the
section of Amendment 11 that pertains to the ballot counting
review board.
MS. GLAISER replied that the division does not support or oppose
it. She offered her understanding that when this bill was
discussed in the House State Affairs Standing Committee, it was
determined that not only is there an existing state ballot
counting review board made up of members appointed by the
political parties, but that also, during a review, other people
[such as candidates] can ask a party to request that a
particular additional person be present to watch the review.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA commented that he would be willing to delete
that part of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON [made a motion to amend] Amendment 11,
to delete the reference to the new Section 13, thus deleting the
proposed alteration to As 15.15.420. There being no objection,
Amendment 11 was amended.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to Amendment 11, as amended. He
said, "I think the department had demonstrated that the ...
results of many of our hand counts have shown a high degree of
accuracy, so I don't know that we need to do this."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA [made a motion to conceptually amend]
Amendment 11, as amended, to state that it would not apply if
the candidate on the ballot is running unopposed. There being
no objection, Amendment 11, as previously amended, was again
amended.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kott, Gruenberg,
and Gara voted in favor of Amendment 11, as amended.
Representatives Anderson and Coghill voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 11, as amended, passed by a vote of 3-2.
5:13:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 12,
labeled 24-GH1048\I.8, Kurtz, 4/1/05, which read:
Page 18, following line 29:
Insert new paragraphs to read:
"(3) a statement of costs to the state
associated with certification of the initiative
application and review of the initiative petition;
(4) an estimate of the cost to the state of
implementing the proposed law;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 20, line 10:
Delete "AS 15.45.090(a)(5)"
Insert "AS 15.45.090(a)(7)"
Page 21, following line 16:
Insert new paragraphs to read:
"(3) a statement of costs to the state
associated with certification of the referendum
application and review of the referendum petition;
(4) an estimate of the cost to the state of
voter approval or rejection of the act;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 23, line 12:
Delete "AS 15.45.320(a)(6)"
Insert "AS 15.45.320(a)(8)"
Page 27, following line 24:
Insert a new subparagraph to read:
"(C) a statement of the costs to the state of
implementing the law proposed in an initiative, or of
voter approval or rejection of the act that is the
subject of a referendum;"
Reletter the following subparagraphs accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON explained that Amendment 12 would
require that the cost of an initiative or referendum be shown
with the petition process and in the election ballot pamphlet;
such would let the people signing the petition know what, if
any, financial impact the passage of an initiative will have.
Also, by adding this information to the election ballot
pamphlet, all voters would have the same information prior to
voting.
MS. GLAISER recommended that the phrase, "statement of costs",
which is used twice in Amendment 12, be changed to, "statement
of minimum costs", because she doesn't know if there can be a
fair assessment of the true costs of a petition.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON made a motion to conceptually amend
Amendment 12 as recommended by Ms. Glaiser. There being no
objection, Amendment 12 was amended.
MS. GLAISER pointed out that Amendment 12, as amended, does not
deal with the costs associated with a recall. She remarked,
"Perhaps you would like to amend AS 15.45.560, ... to prepare an
estimate of the cost of doing a recall election."
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON made a motion to conceptually amend
Amendment 12, as amended, to alter AS 15.45.560 such that the
costs would be shown for recall elections. There being no
objection, Amendment 12, as previously amended, was again
amended.
5:17:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA commented that he liked the fiscal note
provision of Amendment 12, as amended. However, he commented:
There are parts in here that I think are not good....
Often these initiatives are very political, and they
often involve politics [on] ... the opposite side of
the lieutenant governor's office and the attorney
general's office, and in those cases, the lieutenant
governor's office and the attorney general's office
fight these things. ... I don't think it's fair for
the state to tell people that there're going to be
large costs associated with an initiative when it's
the lieutenant governor and the attorney general sort
of building those costs. And in various times
throughout the history of the state, that's probably
happened. ... I don't think that part of the bill is
helpful at all, and it might actually deter people
from signing an initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that he supports the part of Amendment
12, as amended, that would require the publication of agency
operation costs. However, he added, he does not support the
inclusion of costs associated with the attorney general's office
fighting the initiative.
ANNETTE KREITZER, Chief of Staff, Office of the Lieutenant
Governor, stated that the intent [of Amendment 12, as amended]
isn't to include legal costs, but rather just the minimum costs
of gathering signatures and the costs of personnel evaluating
the signatures.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised, then, that the costs to be listed
would only be the costs associated with counting and verifying
the signatures.
MS. KREITZER concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON commented that he understood that the
costs referred to in Amendment 12, as amended, do not include
legal costs.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA discussed a possible third amendment to
Amendment 12, as amended, that would clarify that the costs
referenced were those associated with counting and verifying
signatures.
MS. GLAISER pointed out, however, that there are other costs
besides those pertaining to verification, such as the printing
of booklets and the training of the "petition committee."
MS. KREITZER commented that Amendment 12, as amended, should
clarify that the costs of any challenge to an initiative which
results in a lawsuit or results in extra staff time is not
included.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON made a motion to conceptually amend
Amendment 12, as previously amended twice, to clarify that the
costs referred to in the amendment would exclude legal costs or
challenge costs. There being no objection, Amendment 12, as
previously amended twice, was again amended.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA clarified, "This amendment ... is being
amended so that we're not counting in the costs to the state of
legal challenges, of legal review."
5:23:16 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:23 p.m. to 5:24 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 12, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked whether there were any further
objections. There being none, Amendment 12, as amended, was
adopted.
5:24:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON returned attention to Amendment 3 [text
provided previously], which raises the amount of the deposits
required for requesting a recount. He offered his understanding
that Representative Gara and Chair McGuire believe that the
proposed amounts are too high, and would inhibit folks from
requesting recounts. He relayed that Chair McGuire has
indicated to him that she would be amenable to raising the
amount of deposit required for each precinct to $1,000; for each
House district to $2,000, and for a state race to $20,000 - that
she believes these amounts are commiserate with the cost of
living adjustments made since 1986.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON made a motion to amend Amendment 3, to
change the amount of deposit to $1,000 for each precinct, to
$2,000 for each House District, and to $20,000 for a state race.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected. He said that he'd made some
calculations assuming an inflation rate of 3 percent per year,
and concluded that he would feel more comfortable having the
deposit set at $750 for each precinct; $1,500 for each House
district; and $15,000 for a state race. He commented that these
seem to be achievable numbers.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked to divide the amendment into
three parts.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON agreed to do so, and made a motion to
amend Amendment 3, to change the deposit required for a precinct
recount to $1,000.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected. He commented that $1,000 for just
a precinct seems like a huge amount of money.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked to make a friendly amendment to
the amendment to Amendment 3, to change the wording to "up to
$1,000" at the Division of Elections' discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON stated that he would not accept such an
amendment to the amendment to Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he objected to the amendment to the
amendment to Amendment 3 because "we shouldn't put that over on
the Division of Elections."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there has ever been a request
for a recount on a precinct.
MS. GLAISER replied no.
5:29:32 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Anderson, Coghill,
Kott, Gruenberg, and Gara voted in favor of the amendment to
Amendment 3. Therefore, the amendment to Amendment 3 passed by
a vote of 5-0.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON made a motion to amend Amendment 3, as
amended, to change the deposit required for a House District
recount to $2,000. There being no objection, Amendment 3, as
previously amended, was again amended.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON made a motion to amend Amendment 3, as
previously amended twice, to change the deposit required for a
statewide recount to $20,000.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected for discussion purposes. He asked
if the committee would be willing to change the amount to
$15,000.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON agreed, and restated his motion to amend
Amendment 3, as previously amended twice, to change the deposit
required for a statewide recount to $15,000. There being no
objection, Amendment 3, as previously amended twice, was again
amended.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked if there were any objections to
the adoption of Amendment 3, as amended. There being no
objection, Amendment 3, as amended, was adopted.
5:32:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 13, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 23, line 28
Following "recalled" insert ", 100 of whom will
serve as sponsors"
Page 23, line 30
Delete "(A) will serve as sponsor; and"
Reletter the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for discussion purposes.
The committee took an at-ease from 5:33 p.m. to 5:34 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that Amendment 13 pertains to
recalls and provides that there will be 100 sponsors to a
recall, while the others who sign are merely voters.
MS. GLAISER said that this legislation intended to have recalls,
referendums, and initiatives all in synch such that any time an
individual petitions the government, he/she would know what to
expect. Under the current law, the recent recall was confusing
in that there was a question as to whether 100 sponsors in
addition to 10 percent of those who voted in the race in
question were required. Characterizing Amendment 13 as helpful
and good for the people, she indicated that it clarifies that
among the 10 percent who sign, there are 100 sponsors.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON removed his objection and stated that
Amendment 13 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 14, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 20, lines 2-3
Delete "(5) the signatures are of persons who
were qualified voters on the date of signature;"
Page 23, lines 4-5
Delete "(5) the signatures are of persons who
were qualified voters on the date of signature;"
Page 26, lines 19-20
Delete "(5) the signatures are of persons who
were qualified voters on the date of signature;"
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered that an existing provision in the
law requires people [who obtain signatures for recalls,
referendums, and initiatives] to sign an affidavit, to swear
under oath, that the signatures obtained are from qualified
voters. However, the people gathering the signatures don't know
whether such is true, and Amendment 14 proposes to delete that
requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the division objects to Amendment
14.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to a different question,
reiterated that those obtaining signatures don't know whether
the signers are qualified voters, and it is only later in the
process that the Division of Elections checks to confirm whether
the signers are qualified voters. Therefore, he opined, [those
gathering the signatures] shouldn't be asked to sign under oath,
under penalty of perjury, to something that they can't really
know.
MS. GLAISER related that the division has never prosecuted
anyone who has sworn that he/she obtained the signatures only
from qualified voters. However, circulators are trained to ask
whether the signer is a qualified voter. She said that although
she didn't know the legal ramifications of removing the language
in question, she questions what the impact of doing so would be.
She opined that [Amendment 14] drops the level of responsibility
for the circulator; for example, the group gathering signatures
for the recent recall made sure that everyone who signed the
recall was a qualified voter.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA agreed that one would want [circulators] to
make a good faith effort, but they can't know whether a signer
is a qualified voter. If the division wants to require that the
circulator ask the signer, that would be fine, he opined, but
currently [circulators] are being asked, under penalty of
perjury, that they know that the signer is a registered voter.
For the past 20 years, [circulators] have signed under oath
without really knowing, and regardless of the care with which
the signatures are gathered, the division still checks every
signature.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed with Representative Gara.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT announced that he tends to support Amendment
14, since the only way to ensure that the person who signs the
petition is a qualified voter is to have a [registered voter]
listing from the division, and [the circulator] is not provided
this listing.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he will support Amendment 14, but
opined that the requirement should be that the person signing
the petition affirms he/she is a qualified voter.
5:43:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to comments, asked whether
it's the circulator or the signer who is held accountable if a
signer is not a registered voter.
MS. GLAISER explained that a signature from an unqualified voter
is merely disqualified.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL directed attention to page 19, lines 22-
23, which says in part, "each petition shall be certified by an
affidavit by the person who personally circulated the petition."
He said that he struggles with the aforementioned language
because it is saying that the circulator must comport with the
law, although Amendment 14 would release the circulator from
that. He specified that he is amenable to changing the law such
that the person who signs the petition is [signing] an affidavit
that he or she is [a qualified voter].
MS. GLAISER, in response to a question, explained that at the
point where the person signs the petition, the onus is on the
circulator. However, the language on page 19, line 31, states
that to the best of the circulator's knowledge, the person
signing the petition is who he/she purports to be.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested adding the phrase, "to the
best of the circulator's knowledge," to page 20, line 2.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said it would be problematic to put the
signer "on the hook," adding that circulators aren't trying to
collect invalid signatures, but are just taking the signer's
word for it that he/she is a registered voter. He surmised that
a circulator won't want to go to jail for perjuring
himself/herself. Furthermore, he opined, many people believe
that they are registered to vote when they sign a petition.
5:47:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON inquired as to why the language "to the
best of the circulator's knowledge" couldn't be part of the
paragraphs (5) [referenced in Amendment 14].
MS. GLAISER suggested that if a circulator is paid to gather
signatures, then he/she won't care whether the signer is a
qualified voter. However, the state and those looking at
whether a law is changed should care whether the signer of a
petition is a qualified voter.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA [made a motion to amend] Amendment 14 such
that it did not delete language, that instead, on page 20, lines
2-3; page 23, lines 4-5; and page 26, lines 19-20, the language
would be changed to read: "(5) to the best of the circulator's
knowledge, the signatures are of persons who are qualified
voters on the date of signature;".
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON removed his objection, and asked whether
there were any further objections to Amendment 14, as amended.
There being none, Amendment 14, as amended, was adopted.
The committee took an at-ease from 5:50 p.m. to 5:52 p.m.
5:52:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt [Conceptual]
Amendment 15.
VANESSA TONDINI, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, House
Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature,
explained that Amendment 15 would add the requirement that the
witness signing for someone submitting an absentee ballot would
do so under oath, under penalty of perjury. She related that
[the language would be inserted] in AS 15.20.081(d).
REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected for purposed of discussion.
MS. TONDINI clarified that Conceptual Amendment 15 [would
pertain to page 11] line 26. She reminded the committee of
[Conceptual Amendment 1], which was adopted on 3/21/05 and which
clarified that the individual who is voting is required to sign
under oath, under penalty of perjury. She said that Chair
McGuire had expressed the same concern with regard to witnesses,
and wanted them to be held accountable as well. Therefore,
under Conceptual Amendment 15, witnesses would be [required to
sign under oath, under penalty of perjury].
REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that one can't swear something
without doing so in front of a notary. He informed the
committee that there's the crime of unsworn falsification, such
that if one says something false, even if it is not in front of
a notary and even if it is not under oath, it's still a crime.
He opined that the aforementioned existing crime could be
utilized.
5:55:12 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:55 p.m. to 5:56 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON relayed that Ms. Tondini has mentioned
that this matter could instead be discussed at a later date.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to amend Conceptual
Amendment 15 such that: "If it can be done as perjury without a
notary, then it be perjury; if it cannot, then it's unsworn
falsification".
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked whether there were any objections
to the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 15.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected, and offered his belief that if
a person sent in a voter registration form and got witnesses to
verify that that person is who he/she said he/she is but it is
untrue, the state would probably not go after the witnesses.
Thus the issue is a moot point, he concluded, and then withdrew
his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON - treating the amendment to Amendment 15
as adopted - ascertained that there were no further objections
to Conceptual Amendment 15, as amended. Therefore, Amendment
15, as amended, was adopted.
[Representative Anderson returned the gavel to Chair McGuire.]
CHAIR McGUIRE surmised that Representative Coghill is probably
right, but the act of being a witness for someone who is filling
out a voter registration form should be taken seriously.
6:00:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 16, that the title be amended to reflect the changes
the House Judiciary Standing Committee has made to the bill.
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 16 was adopted.
6:02:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report CSHB 94(STA), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected for the purpose of discussion. He
suggested that at some point in time, they should discuss the
issue of providing for a ballot that puts all members of a
primary race on the ballot so as not to force people to pick a
particular party's ballot during a primary election.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA then removed his objection to the motion.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to
reporting CSHB 94(STA), as amended, from committee. There being
none, CSHB 94(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
AMENDMENTS
The following amendments to CSHB 94(STA) were either discussed
or adopted during the hearing. [Shorter amendments are provided
in the main text.]
Amendment I.11 [24-GH1048\I.11, Kurtz, 4/7/05] (moved,
discussed, withdrawn):
Page 18, line 7:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert "a numerical identifier"
Page 18, line 21:
Delete "dates of birth"
Insert "numerical identifiers"
Page 18, line 31:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert "a numerical identifier"
Following "signature,":
Insert "date of signature,"
Page 19, line 1, following "petition;":
Insert "and"
Page 19, lines 2 - 4:
Delete "sufficient space at the bottom of each
signature page for the information required by
AS 15.45.130(8); and
(6)"
Page 19, lines 17 - 18:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert "numerical identifier"
Page 19, line 18:
Following "and address,":
Delete "and"
Following "voter's name":
Insert ", and by dating the signature"
Page 19, line 26:
Delete "The affidavit"
Insert "If the circulator received payment or
agreed to receive payment for the collection of
signatures on the petition, the affidavit must
acknowledge this, and include the name of each person
who has paid or agreed to pay the circulator for
collection of signatures on the petition. In
addition, the affidavit"
Page 20, line 5, following "AS 15.45.110(c);":
Insert "and"
Page 20, line 7:
Delete "; and"
Insert "."
Page 20, lines 8 - 12:
Delete all material.
Page 20, line 23:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert "a numerical identifier"
Page 21, line 8:
Delete "dates of birth"
Insert "numerical identifiers"
Page 21, line 19:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert "a numerical identifier"
Following "signature,":
Insert "date of signature,"
Page 21, line 20, following "the petition;":
Insert "and"
Page 21, lines 21 - 23:
Delete "sufficient space at the bottom of each
signature page for the information required by
AS 15.45.360(8); and
(7)"
Page 22, lines 19 - 20:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert "numerical identifier"
Page 22, line 20:
Following "and address,":
Delete "and"
Following "voter's name":
Insert ", and by dating the signature"
Page 22, line 28:
Delete "The affidavit"
Insert "If the circulator received payment or
agreed to receive payment for the collection of
signatures on the petition, the affidavit must
acknowledge this, and include the name of each person
who has paid or agreed to pay the circulator for
collection of signatures on the petition. In
addition, the affidavit"
Page 23, line 7, following "AS 15.45.340(b);":
Insert "and"
Page 23, line 9:
Delete "; and"
Insert "."
Page 23, lines 10 - 14:
Delete all material.
Page 23, line 25:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert "a numerical identifier"
Page 24, line 19:
Delete "dates of birth"
Insert "numerical identifiers"
Page 24, line 27:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert "a numerical identifier"
Following "signature,":
Insert "date of signature,"
Page 24, line 28, following "petition;":
Insert "and"
Page 24, lines 29 - 31:
Delete "sufficient space at the bottom of each
signature page for the information required by
AS 15.45.130(8); and
(6)"
Page 26, lines 3 - 4:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert "numerical identifier"
Page 26, line 4:
Following "and address,":
Delete "and"
Following "voter's name":
Insert ", and by dating the signature"
Page 26, line 12:
Delete "The affidavit"
Insert "If the circulator received payment or
agreed to receive payment for the collection of
signatures on the petition, the affidavit must
acknowledge this, and include the name of each person
who has paid or agreed to pay the circulator for
collection of signatures on the petition. In
addition, the affidavit"
Page 26, line 22, following "AS 15.45.580(b);":
Insert "and"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "; and"
Insert "."
Page 26, lines 25 - 29:
Delete all material.
Page 30, line 14:
Delete "a new paragraph"
Insert "new paragraphs"
Page 30, line 15, following "(40)":
Insert ""numerical identifier" means a voter's
date of birth, the last four digits of a voter's
social security number, a voter's Alaska driver's
license number, or a voter's Alaska identification
card number or voter identification number;
(41)"
Amendment 2 (adopted) [original punctuation provided]:
Page 18, line 7:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert "a numerical identifier"
Page 18, line 21:
Delete "dates of birth"
Insert "numerical identifiers"
Page 18, line 31:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert "numerical identifier"
Following "signature"
Insert "date of signature"
Page 19, lines 17 - 18:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert "a numerical identifier"
Page 19, line 18:
Following "and address"
Delete "and"
Following "the voter's name"
Insert "and dating the signature"
Page 19, line 26:
Following "substance":
Delete "that"
Page 19, line 27:
Following "(1)":
Insert: "that"
Page 19, line 29:
Following "(2)":
Insert: "that"
Page 19, line 30:
Following "(3)":
Insert "that"
Page 19, line 31:
Following "(4)":
Insert "that"
Page 20, line 2:
Following "(5)":
Insert "that"
Page 20, line 4:
Following "(6)":
Insert "that"
Page 20, line 6:
Following "(7)":
Insert "that"
Page 20, lines 8 - 12:
Delete all material and insert:
"(8) whether the circulator has received
payment or agreed to receive payment for the
collection of signatures on the petition, and if so,
the name of each person or organization that has paid
or agreed to pay the circulator for collection of
signatures on the petition.
Page 20, line 23:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert "a numerical identifier"
Page 21, line 8:
Delete "dates of birth"
Insert "numerical identifiers"
Page 21, line 19:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert " a numerical identifier"
Following "signature"
Insert "date of signature"
Page 22, lines 19 -20:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert "numerical identifier"
Page 22, line 20:
Following "and address"
Delete "and"
Following "the voter's name"
Insert "and dating the signature"
Page 22, line 28:
Following "substance"
Delete "that"
Page 22, line 29:
Following "(1)":
Insert: "that"
Page 22, line 31:
Following "(2)":
Insert: "that"
Page 23, line 1:
Following "(3)":
Insert "that"
Page 23, line 2:
Following "(4)":
Insert "that"
Page 23, line 4:
Following "(5)":
Insert "that"
Page 23, line 6:
Following "(6)":
Insert "that"
Page 23, line 8:
Following "(7)":
Insert "that"
Page 23, lines 10 - 14:
Delete all material and insert:
"(8) whether the circulator has received
payment or agreed to receive payment for the
collection of signatures on the petition, and if so,
the name of each person or organization that has paid
or agreed to pay the circulator for collection of
signatures on the petition.
Page 23, line 25:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert "a numerical identifier"
Page 24, line 19:
Delete "dates of birth"
Insert "numerical identifiers"
Page 24, line 27:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert "a numerical identifier"
Following "signature"
Insert "date of signature"
Page 26, lines 3 - 4:
Delete "date of birth"
Insert "numerical identifier"
Page 26, line 4:
Following "and address"
Delete "and"
Following "the voter's name"
Insert "and dating the signature"
Page 26, line 12:
Following "substance":
Delete "that"
Page 26, line 13:
Following "(1)":
Insert "that"
Page 26, line 15:
Following "(2)":
Insert "that"
Page 26, line 16:
Following "(3)":
Insert "that"
Page 26, line 17:
Following "(4)":
Insert "that"
Page 26, line 19:
Following "(5)":
Insert "that"
Page 26, line 21:
Following "(6)":
Insert "that"
Page 26, line 23:
Following "(7)":
Insert "that"
Page 26, lines 25 - 29:
Delete all material and insert:
"(8) whether the circulator has received
payment or agreed to receive payment for the
collection of signatures on the petition, and if so,
the name of each person or organization that has paid
or agreed to pay the circulator for collection of
signatures on the petition.
Page 30, line 14:
Delete "a new paragraph"
Insert "new paragraphs"
Page 30, line 15, following "(40)":
Insert "numerical identifier means a voter's
date of birth, the last four digits of a voter's
social security number, a voter's Alaska driver's
license number, or a voter's Alaska identification
card number or voter identification number;
(41)"
[End of amendments - CSHB 94(JUD) was reported from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.]
ADJOURNMENT
6:03:27 PM
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 6:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|