Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/14/2021 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| Confirmation Hearings(s): Public Defender | |
| HB66 | |
| HB116 | |
| HB66 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 116 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 14, 2021
1:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Liz Snyder, Vice Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative David Eastman
Representative Christopher Kurka
Representative Sarah Vance
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Public Defender
Samantha Cherot - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 66
"An Act relating to voting, voter qualifications, and voter
registration; relating to poll watchers; relating to absentee
ballots and questioned ballots; relating to election worker
compensation; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 116
"An Act relating to care of juveniles and to juvenile justice;
relating to employment of juvenile probation officers by the
Department of Health and Social Services; relating to terms used
in juvenile justice; relating to mandatory reporters of child
abuse or neglect; relating to sexual assault in the third
degree; relating to sexual assault in the fourth degree;
repealing a requirement for administrative revocation of a
minor's driver's license, permit, privilege to drive, or
privilege to obtain a license for consumption or possession of
alcohol or drugs; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 66
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TUCK
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, JUD
04/09/21 (H) STA REFERRAL MOVED TO AFTER JUD
04/09/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/12/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/12/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/14/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 116
SHORT TITLE: JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SPOHNHOLZ
02/24/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/21 (H) HSS, JUD
04/09/21 (H) HSS REFERRAL MOVED TO AFTER JUD
04/09/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/12/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/12/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/14/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SAMANTHA CHEROT, Appointee
Public Defender
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as Appointee to Public Defender.
CARRIE JOKIEL, President
Chemtrack Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the confirmation hearing
of Samantha Cherot, Appointee, Public Defender.
JEFF ROBINSON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the confirmation hearing
of Samantha Cherot, Appointee, Public Defender.
JOHN CASHION
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the confirmation hearing
of Samantha Cherot, Appointee, Public Defender.
BEN MUSE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the confirmation hearing
of Samantha Cherot, Appointee, Public Defender.
CHARLES MCKEE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the confirmation hearing
of Samantha Cherot, Appointee, Public Defender.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, answered questions during
the hearing on HB 66.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
hearing on HB 66.
Paddy McGuire, Mason County Auditor
Mason County, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 66.
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
66.
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Service Program Officer
Division of Juvenile Justice
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
116.
TRACY DOMPELING, Director
Division of Juvenile Justice
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
116.
MIKE MASON, Staff
Representative Chris Tuck
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
66 on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:06:47 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. Representatives Drummond, Kreiss-
Tomkins, Snyder (via teleconference), and Claman were present at
the call to order. Representatives Eastman, Kurka, and Vance
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARINGS(S): Public Defender
Confirmation Hearing(s): Public Defender:
1:07:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
the confirmation hearing for consideration of the governor's
appointee to Public Defender.
1:07:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony for the confirmation
hearing for appointee to public defender.
1:07:53 PM
SAMANTHA CHEROT, Appointee, Public Defender, informed the
committee that she was born and raised by a single mother in
Alaska and resides in Anchorage. She cited her mother's career
in practicing law for nearly 50 years as inspiration for her
work ethic, independence, and the value of giving back to those
in need. She stated that she has been married to an Alaskan for
nearly 15 years and they have a three-year-old, who they adopted
at birth. She explained that she sought her undergraduate
degree in California where she practiced employment law and
represented public governmental entities. She said that she and
her husband relocated back to Alaska in 2009.
MS. CHEROT explained that, following her return to Alaska, her
career has been within the Public Defender's office in the
Criminal and Civil Divisions. She determined that it was her
desire to work with the indigent with aspirations to become a
trial attorney. She recalled her time of employment at Cashion
Gilmore LLC as a criminal defense and family attorney, and where
she received mentorship from prior public defenders. She stated
that she returned to public service in 2015 until 2019 before
assuming her current role. During that time, she worked in the
Civil Division with families and Child in Need of Aid (CINA)
cases, she represented family members and worked towards
reunification. She stated that she had represented adults with
great mental health challenges including participation in
psychiatric hearings, forced medication, and involuntary
commitment proceedings. She stated that she considered her work
to be a privilege in which she observed clients working to
achieve stability, maintain sobriety, maintain mental health,
achieve long term housing, and become healthier and safer in
their communities. She stated that in September of 2019 she was
appointed to her current position as Acting Public Defender.
1:11:19 PM
MS. CHEROT highlighted some of the challenges she encountered in
assuming her current role, which included significant staff
vacancy and retention. She indicated that the nature of the
work performed is rewarding yet stressful, and that staffing
shortages had negative impacts on workload and morale. She said
that she developed and executed a plan for recruitment,
retention, and training that resulted in gains to staff with
only three positions left vacant, and attorneys had been
selected to fill those positions. She noted that many recruits
are very recently graduated from law school, and the workload is
difficult, complex, and increasing for felony cases.
MS. CHEROT also described challenges in balancing adjustments
made necessary under COVID-19 and the agency's clients' rights
and noted that jury trials have been suspended for over a year,
except when the agency argued for a jury trial for defendants
with extenuating circumstances, but that those cases had been
met with little success in securing a jury trial. She expressed
her hope that jury trials would soon resume because of a
mounting backlog of cases. She stated that, until very
recently, the agency had had no in-person access to clients in
custody at the Department of Corrections (DOC), and that, while
phone and electronic access had been granted by DOC, in-person
contact would be necessary to bring a proper level of service to
clients. She added that resumed in-person visits included
mitigation measures such as vaccine confirmation and quarantine.
MS. CHEROT emphasized that the agency's mission centers on
protecting the rights of indigent citizens. She complimented
her staff and colleagues as hardworking and dedicated. She
stated that, if confirmed, it would be her honor to continue to
serve in her current role.
1:15:25 PM
CARRIE JOKIEL, President, Chemtrack Alaska, testified in support
of Samantha Cherot, Appointee, Public Defender. She offered
that she had known Ms. Cherot for more than two decades and
expressed her pleasure at Ms. Cherot's 2009 relocation to
Anchorage and predicted that she would have a positive impact on
the community. She exemplified Ms. Cherot's leadership skills
and civic involvement while serving on the board of the YWCA and
suggested that Ms. Cherot exercised fiscal prudence and had the
ability to make difficult decisions.
1:17:24 PM
JEFF ROBINSON stated that he had served as a public defender for
approximately ten years, five or six of which Ms. Cherot was
also employed there. He complimented her dedication and work
ethic and described her intelligence as uniquely befitting of
her position. He recalled that she quickly rose to a
supervisory position. He complimented her skills at trial
including her courtesy to opposing counsel, other litigants,
court staff, and victims of crimes, among others. He stated his
belief that her ability to work with administrators and her even
temperament are among the greatest strengths she brings to her
position.
1:19:12 PM
JOHN CASHION stated that he had worked for 13 years as a public
defender in Alaska and has known Ms. Cherot for more than 10
years. He said her success in criminal and civil trial
experience in the public defender agency distinguishes her from
her peers. He complimented her leadership, diplomacy, and
mentorship skills. He complimented her success in leading the
public defender agency since 2019. He emphasized that Ms.
Cherot has a deep commitment and passion for public service.
1:22:17 PM
BEN MUSE stated that he had been a public defender for almost
nine years and had known Ms. Cherot for his entire tenure. He
complimented her work in improving the public defender agency,
including having overcome a 20 percent vacancy rate that had
resulted in a caseload which he described as "staggering" and
that had had a negative impact on morale. He described her
execution of a plan for improvement that included priorities in
recruitment, retention, and training. He complimented her
experience, understanding of policy, and advocacy of clients.
He complimented her communication, management, and interpersonal
skills. He urged the committee to advance her confirmation.
1:25:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA recalled that Ms. Cherot had indicated that
clients in DOC custody had been subject to quarantine following
in-person visits with attorneys. He asked to confirm whether it
was Ms. Cherot's belief that in-person consultation is critical.
MS. CHEROT confirmed this as correct.
1:26:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked whether Ms. Cherot had experienced
pressure to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine not based on its merits.
MS. CHEROT offered clarification that, if both the attorney and
the client are vaccinated, then no mandatory quarantine exits.
She added her understanding that there does not exist any
mandate to obtain a vaccine and the choice to vaccinate remains
a personal one.
1:27:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA referred to the challenges [under COVID-19]
in requesting jury trials and asked whether requests for trials
under extenuating circumstances had been denied.
MS. CHEROT answered that motions and requests for jury trials
for extraordinary circumstances had been filed for some cases
and that, to her knowledge, all of those requests had been
denied. She stated that she would need to conduct additional
research to confirm her understanding that no jury trials had
been granted.
1:28:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA requested that Ms. Cherot provide to the
committee the number of [jury trial] requests that had been
denied. He asked whether clients had been offered a choice of a
jury trial after some time or a [bench] trial and whether a
result of defendants facing those choices had denied clients of
their rights.
MS. CHEROT answered that many clients had waived their rights to
a speedy trial for a variety of reasons and, should a client
request a speedy trial, the agency will pursue that on the
client's behalf. She offered to provide the committee with the
number of cases in which a jury trial had been requested and was
subsequently denied. She added that there existed cases in
which a client had requested a jury trial and [reluctantly]
agreed to a bench trial. She opined that the rights afforded
through a jury trial were critical.
1:30:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN directed Ms. Cherot provide statistics of jury
trial requests and denials to his office for distribution to the
committee.
1:30:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS complimented Ms. Cherot's
achievements during her tenure as acting public defender,
lauding the complimentary public testimony and her achievements
as exemplary in state government. He asked what changes she had
implemented regarding retention and recruitment.
MS. CHEROT answered with assigning credit to the office's
management team and described its efforts for recruitment as an
aggressive, nationwide campaign targeting law schools, job
fairs, and included expedient interviewing processes. She added
that there had been availed a position designation to long-term,
non-permanent positions to allow for new recruits to join the
agency at non-benefitted and lower pay ranges that would poise
the new hire for permanent employment status as vacancies open.
She added that this approach had eliminated vacancies following
resignation being subject to lengthy recruitment periods, and
the resulting caseload burden on existing attorneys was thereby
reduced. She explained that a mentorship and training program
exists to increase retention.
1:32:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Cherot if he was correct
in his restatement in his own words regarding the concept of
recruiting nonpermanent employees in order for them to be "on
deck" and ready to accept permanent employment as a pipeline of
pre-vetted, onboarded, and trained recruits.
MS. CHEROT affirmed this as correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether she considered
current caseloads for attorneys to be sustainable or
constitutionally tenable, including minimum sufficient amounts
of attorney/client time. He further asked for her comments
regarding a proposed increase in the number of prosecutors and
its effect on her agency.
MS. CHEROT answered that disposition of cases had been
diminished under COVID-19 and, should additional prosecutor
positions receive funding, there would be an immediate impact on
cases, particularly those involving sexual assault. She stated
that an increase in prosecutors would result in additional cases
being brought to trial and the very serious nature of the
workload associated with experts and investigations would
require more experienced staff.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Cherot to provide a
numerical context of the average number of cases and what a
sustainable number of cases would be according to any national
standard.
MS. CHEROT answered that there exists a "cases waiting" system
to reflect the total number of cases based on the National
Advisory Commission standards in 1973, which she described as
outdated. She explained the standard was that no attorney
should have felony cases in excess of 150 per year and no more
than 400 misdemeanor cases per attorney per year. She indicated
that the caseload varies from office to office with the caveat
that some offices require additional training to effectively and
efficiently execute the standard number of cases. She further
added that she monitors caseloads based on quarterly and monthly
reports and adjustments were made constantly, with the most
drastic measure being rejecting cases, and other measures
include outsourcing cases.
1:38:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated he was not aware that
rejecting cases was the prerogative of the office and asked for
more explanation.
MS. CHEROT answered that there exists an option to litigate
cases through the court system and that [case rejection] existed
in the American Bar Association's Standards Guide, should cases
become excessive upon review, and the direction would be to take
every available measure before [rejecting a case].
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Cherot to explain
"litigate through the court system."
MS. CHEROT answered that there exist different filings either at
the court of appeals or at the supreme court in which the court
could request that cases stop being assigned to the public
defender until workloads revert to ethical levels.
1:40:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN added his recollection that, under Public Defender
Steiner, it had been indicated that the workload had come
dangerously close to that level.
MS. CHEROT confirmed this as correct.
1:40:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what Ms. Cherot's response would be
should the state appoint 10 additional prosecutors, as was
currently being discussed in the budgeting process.
1:41:12 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that that question had been earlier asked
and answered and allowed Ms. Cherot to briefly restate her
previous answer for the benefit for Representative Eastman.
1:41:36 PM
MS. CHEROT stated that the most serious cases such as those of a
sexual nature would increase the attorneys' workload. She
further explained that her office is in communication with the
Department of Administration regarding workload.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the Office of the Public
Defender may influence the process [of increased workload] going
forward.
MS. CHEROT answered that she had been working with the
Department of Administration and the Office of Management &
Budget on the impact to workload and positions required to meet
the demands of increased caseload. She added that, at the time
of budget development, she had not been aware that additional
prosecutors may be added to the Department of Law.
1:44:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Cherot to provide an estimate of the
percentage of defendants who are represented by the Public
Defender Agency.
1:44:23 PM
MS. CHEROT answered that she would estimate that to be 85
percent of indigent [defendants] who are referred to her office.
1:44:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked for clarification regarding the
estimate of 85 percent of indigents, and what proportion of all
cases are referred to her office.
1:45:13 PM
MS. CHEROT answered that she could speak only to publicly
appointed counsel to her office and offered to provide
additional data to aid in answering the question.
1:45:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN added that the [remaining] 15 percent of cases are
represented by the Office of Public Advocacy and in general
there exists some sort of conflict requiring alternate
representation [than that of the public defender.].
1:46:25 PM
CHARLES MCKEE indicated an experience he had had with the Public
Defender Agency.
1:48:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there was no one further
who wished to testify, closed public testimony on the
confirmation hearing for appointee to public defender.
1:49:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER thanked Ms. Cherot for her testimony and
her achievements in resolving staffing issues.
1:49:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND lauded Ms. Cherot's dedication to public
service.
1:49:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN echoed the compliments from other members and
lauded the [innovation] of the non-permanent positions and
expressed his hope that this model could be used in other
agencies to solve staffing and vacancy issues.
1:50:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER announced that the House Judiciary
Standing Committee has reviewed the qualifications of the
governor's appointee and recommends that the following name be
forwarded to a joint session of the House and Senate for
consideration: Samantha Cherot, Appointee, Public Defender.
She stated that each member's signature on the committee's
report in no way reflects intent by any member to vote for or
against the individual during any further sessions for the
purposes of confirmation.
HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
1:51:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 66, "An Act relating to voting, voter
qualifications, and voter registration; relating to poll
watchers; relating to absentee ballots and questioned ballots;
relating to election worker compensation; and providing for an
effective date."
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the committee would hear invited
testimony.
1:52:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked what process exists to verify
citizenship of an individual registering to vote.
1:54:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 66, answered that the Electronic Registration
Information Center (ERIC) is used to verify voter information
via data matching involving voter records and eligible, but
unregistered, citizens. He added that, should an individual's
information not be able to be confirmed, then that individual
would not be eligible to vote.
1:55:05 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, answered Representative Kurka's question by
adding that voters sign registration documents under penalty of
perjury to certify that the information that they provide is
true and correct. She said that there does not exist a
verification of an individual's United States citizenship but
that, through the permanent fund dividend (PFD) automatic voter
registration process, the Division of Elections obtains a list
on an annual basis of applicants who have indicated that they
are not a U. S. citizen that is matched with the data in the
voter information system. Should such a non-citizen appear on
voter registration rolls, his/her registration is cancelled, and
he/she is notified of the requirement to provide proof of
citizenship to reactivate the record. She further stated that
the division periodically receives information from federal
courts of Alaska on jurors who have indicated to the courts that
they are not a U. S. citizen and are subject to the same
cancellation and notification process.
1:56:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to page 2 of HB 66 that retains
existing statutory language that requires information that a
voter shall supply to request voter registration. He further
added that in Section 2, on page 2, line 7, requires a
declaration that the applicant is a citizen of the United
States. He deferred to the division to elaborate on the
subsequent verification process.
1:57:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what verification process exists
within the Permanent Fund Dividend Division to ensure
citizenship when it is claimed on a PFD application.
MS. FENUMIAI advised that the Department of Revenue, Permanent
Fund Dividend Division should answer Representative Eastman's
question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether citizenship information
that the division receives from the courts has been verified.
MS. FENUMIAI recommended that the court system should answer
Representative Eastman's question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled prior testimony discussing
signature verification in other states, and asked what
procedures exist in Alaska to verify signatures on ballots.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that no statutory authority exists to
conduct signature verification. She added that, to the best of
her knowledge, the only signature verification procedure exists
in the Municipality of Anchorage's vote by mail system.
1:59:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked, regarding electronic signatures,
what would be different when compared to how signatures are
currently used. She asked whether the division has a way to
accept electronic signatures currently.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that the Division of Elections does not
have a way to accept electronic signatures and would be required
to investigate the implementation of electronic signatures as a
new process.
2:00:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, in response to the line of questioning,
said that 34 states plus the District of Columbia offer online
[voter] registration, and the usual initial verification
procedures involve signatures of prospective voters already on
record, such as those at divisions of motor vehicles. Should a
signature not match the one on file, further review or action is
taken. He added that the State of Arizona innovated online
voter registration in 2002. He offered to follow up with
information regarding additional signature verification reviews
or actions that exist in other states after the initial matching
verification.
2:01:46 PM
MS. FENUMIAI offered that there exists an online voter
registration process in Alaska in which a prospective voter is
required to have a state issued identification. The signature
on file with the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is used for
initial verification.
2:02:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether MyAlaska online would provide a means
for voters to register online.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that MyAlaska is a separate system, and
the two systems would be required to be merged.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked to confirm that a voter would not be able to
register through MyAlaska but could register through the PFD
application process.
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed this as correct.
2:02:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the signature on file with
the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) could be used to verify
online voter registration.
MS. FENUMIAI answered by clarifying that the signature on file
at DMV is not an electronic signature but is rather a "wet"
signature of which the Division of Elections receives a copy.
She added her understanding that an electronic signature could
be similar to the online signature process for the PFD
application.
2:03:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked the bill sponsor what the fiscal
impact of implementation of electronic signatures [for voter
registration in Alaska] would be based on his research of other
states' implementations of electronic signatures.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked Representative Vance to clarify
whether she was asking what the cost would be to the State to
implement electronic signatures.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE answered yes, and she requested a ballpark
estimate for hardware and software that may be required.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested that MyAlaska exists as an
electronic signature platform to allow the Division of Elections
to make online voter registration, including electronic
signatures, available and he suggested that the agency that
controls MyAlaska be consulted.
2:05:52 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether additional fiscal notes existed for
HB 66; he opined that additional costs would likely be required.
2:06:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE added that the fiscal note [HB66-OOG-DOE-4-
9-21, included in the committee packet] was indeterminate. She
asked what the anticipated fiscal impact would be of 84,000
postage paid return envelopes.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that ballots are oversized and are
estimated to cost 70 cents to return, with the caveat that costs
could increase.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the post office provides a
date of mailing for postage paid return envelopes.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that she is uncertain of the postal
process but did offer her understanding that, if a ballot is
brought to a postal window and an individual requests it to be
"hand cancelled" then a date would be stamped on the envelope.
2:09:11 PM
Paddy McGuire, Mason County Auditor, answered questions during
the hearing on HB 66. He stated that the State of Washington
has offered prepaid postage on return envelopes since 2018. He
stated that, normally, business reply mail is not postmarked;
however, his office works closely with the postmaster, and it
receives an approximate 98 percent postmark rate on ballots.
2:10:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there was a contract or
informal request to the postmaster to obtain postmarks on
ballots.
MR. MCGUIRE stated that his office works very closely with
postal officials during election season, often daily. He added
that demand for postal mail has been declining and opined that
the post office officials welcome the business.
2:11:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered that she had requested an
absentee ballot and had been offered the option to select
absentee ballot for the primary only, or the primary and
General, Elections. She further added that the Division of
Elections website offered the option for her to grant permission
to the division to compare her signature with that on file with
the DMV. She explained that the website provided information
such as when the ballot had been mailed to her and when the
division had received her ballot. She suggested this was
evidence that many of the systems are in place to allow for
signature verification.
2:13:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to page 5, [Section 10] regarding
the appointment and privilege of watchers and asked why the
language, as follows, had been deleted:
[A WATCHER MUST BE A UNITED STATES CITIZEN. THE
WATCHER MAY BE PRESENT AT A POSITION INSIDE THE PLACE
OF VOTING OR COUNTING THAT AFFORDS A FULL VIEW OF ALL
ACTION OF THE ELECTION OFFICIALS TAKEN FROM THE TIME
THE POLLS ARE OPENED UNTIL THE BALLOTS ARE FINALLY
COUNTED AND THE RESULTS CERTIFIED BY THE ELECTION
BOARD OR THE DATA PROCESSING REVIEW BOARD. THE
ELECTION BOARD OR THE DATA PROCESSING REVIEW BOARD MAY
REQUIRE EACH WATCHER TO PRESENT WRITTEN PROOF SHOWING
APPOINTMENT BY THE PRECINCT PARTY COMMITTEE, THE PARTY
DISTRICT COMMITTEE, THE ORGANIZATION OR ORGANIZED
GROUP, OR THE CANDIDATE THE WATCHER REPRESENTS.]
2:14:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to language in Section 11, on page
6, line 16, which he described as "cleaner" and still inclusive
of the citizenship requirement.
2:15:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to page 6, line 1 which would
provide for one or "more" watchers and asked the intent of the
sponsor to include this language and what complexities it may
present.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that the language would allow for
"more eyes" and the potential for alternates to participate in
watching, and the intent was not to crowd the area.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what discretion the division would
have to limit watchers due to space concerns or social
distancing concerns as occurred during the 2020 election [under
COVID-19].
2:17:31 PM
MS. FENUMIAI answered that it was her interpretation of the
proposed language to mean that the division would have
discretion to allow one or more watchers based on space and how
many watchers requested to be present.
2:17:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether candidates or parties had
expressed any consternation regarding the division's discretion
made necessary [during the 2020 election] and asked if there
could be a potential for lawsuit.
MS. FENUMIAI stated that, due to COVID-19, the division had made
significant changes to the numbers [of watchers] unlike previous
years. She referred to Mr. Flynn to speak to the potential for
legal issues.
2:18:50 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),Department of Law,
stated that he was not aware of any legal issues regarding the
number of watchers [during the 2020 election].
2:19:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether a party or candidate might
request more watchers that the division could deny at its
discretion could lead to legal repercussions.
MR. FLYNN answered that his interpretation of the language being
discussed is that the number of watchers would be open-ended and
that he would need to conduct further research within Title 15
to confirm any limits that may exist or any division discretion
which may exist in the proposed legislation.
2:19:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN offered a scenario in which a candidate would
appoint five poll watchers and the discretion of the division
could be to allow only one of those five appointees at any given
time to watch. He stated his opinion that the proposed language
did not require the division to allow all appointed watchers
present at any given time. He asked whether Mr. Flynn's
interpretation of the proposed language would require the
division to allow all watchers present at any given time.
2:20:45 PM
MR. FLYNN opined that Chair Claman's scenario is likely a
correct interpretation of how the proposed language would be
enacted.
2:21:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE recalled that there had been national media
attention on poll watchers related to the 2020 election and that
the proposed language would allow for in excess of five topics
in any given election, and that each topic could allow for an
unlimited number of watchers. She questioned the prudence of
the proposed language regarding what the division could allow
when balancing the public interest for transparency.
MR. FLYNN opined that the question of prudence is one of policy
rather than a legal one.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered that the intent of the proposed
language is that of fairness for all topics or candidates
involved in an election.
2:23:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that the Municipality of Anchorage
offers livestreams of ballot counting.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether there existed anything that would
prevent a video [stream] of ballot counting.
2:24:35 PM
MS. FENUMIAI offered her understanding that there does not exist
any legal barriers to livestreaming ballot counting, only that
there might exist financial considerations.
2:24:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA expressed his support for increased
transparency of elections by including poll watchers and
allowing video coverage of ballot counting. He asked whether
parties could have observers at any election or only one in
which they have an interest in an item appearing on the ballot.
2:26:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that only people associated with a
specific ballot item would be permitted to observe, and stated
that the language in Section 10, on page 6, lines 2 and 3 codify
this, reading: "An organization or organized group that
sponsors or opposes a ballot proposition or recall may have one
or more watchers at the polls."
2:27:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked whether the sponsor would welcome an
amendment that would codify existing policy in statute to allow
observers at each counting table.
2:29:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK welcomed a discussion to arrive at prudent
language that reflects current practices. He added that the
intent of the language was to allow for individuals to become
pre-authorized to observe at the polls.
2:29:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER stated that she had direct experience
during her own race recount and complimented the division's
handling of the process and observers. She asked whether Ms.
Fenumiai had any additional information regarding poll watchers
and the use of space that she wished to bring to the attention
of the committee.
MS. FENUMIAI stated that, in a non-pandemic year, the division
is liberal in the number of observers allowed and recalled
occasions in which 20 or more people were in the room. She
stated that it was the intent of the division to allow for
transparency. She stated that, under COVID-19, the division had
worked with parties to arrive at a solution to allow for the
most transparent observation to occur.
2:31:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK shared with the committee that the State of
Arizona's costs to transition from paper registration to online
registration had decreased from 83 cents to 3 cents per
registration.
[HB 66 was set aside and taken up again later in the meeting.]
HB 116-JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT
[Contains discussion on HB 105]
2:32:46 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 116, "An Act relating to care of juveniles and to
juvenile justice; relating to employment of juvenile probation
officers by the Department of Health and Social Services;
relating to terms used in juvenile justice; relating to
mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect; relating to
sexual assault in the third degree; relating to sexual assault
in the fourth degree; repealing a requirement for administrative
revocation of a minor's driver's license, permit, privilege to
drive, or privilege to obtain a license for consumption or
possession of alcohol or drugs; and providing for an effective
date."
CHAIR CLAMAN recalled that the committee had requested that HB
105 and HB 116 be compared, and for the Division of Juvenile
Justice (DJJ) to provide the findings of the comparison to the
committee.
2:34:07 PM
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Service Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social Services,
stated that DJJ's comparison of HB 105 and HB 116 had resulted
in finding five sections of the two bills that would amend the
same section of statute. He stated that each proposed bill has
a separate purpose and offered to answer any questions or
concerns.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether DJJ would recommend to either merge
the bills or to keep them separate.
2:35:32 PM
TRACY DOMPELING, Director, Division of Juvenile Justice,
Department of Health and Social Services, expressed her
preference would be that HB 105 and HB 116 remain separate. She
explained that HB 116 does not have the time constraints of HB
105 to bring the state into federal compliance.
2:36:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN ascertained that no additional discussion was
sought by members of the committee or others present and
announced that HB 116 was held over.
HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
2:37:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
to resume discussion of HB 66,"An Act relating to voting, voter
qualifications, and voter registration; relating to poll
watchers; relating to absentee ballots and questioned ballots;
relating to election worker compensation; and providing for an
effective date."
2:38:31 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:38 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.
2:40:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked Ms. Fenumiai to describe the
ballot counting observation process for the 2020 election under
COVID-19.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that the division worked with parties and
candidates to provide names of the observers and allowed one
person at a time due to social distancing requirements, and that
all involved worked cooperatively.
2:41:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what requirements exist for
observers and asked what "meaningful observation" means to the
department.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that observers would be present in a room
to observe the review of absentee and question ballots and are
able to make challenges and ask questions as appropriate to such
ballots. She further explained that observers are also in a
room to witness the counting of ballots.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked to what information an observer may
demand access.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that observers have a list of voters for
the district being reviewed at a certain table and may compare
the information on the envelope to the information that exists
on record, and they may challenge any discrepancy.
2:44:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to page 4 of HB 66 and asked how
the division would handle a special needs, in-person absentee,
or question ballot if the individual had registered on election
day or within the 30-day registration window prior to the
election.
MS. FENUMIAI replied that all those ballots would be handled in
the same manner as question ballots and the process would not
change [based on when a voter registered].
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether a voter is notified if
his/her ballot is disqualified and not counted.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that, under state law, the division is
required to notify a voter via letter if all or part of his/her
ballot is not counted.
2:46:44 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether a voter is notified in the case that
a ballot is challenged, or whether a voter is notified only if
his/her ballot is not counted.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that voters are not notified if their
ballots are challenged at the review board level, only if their
ballots are not counted.
2:47:28 PM
MIKE MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Chris Tuck, prime
sponsor of HB 66, added that the notification process occurs
after the election is certified, and the proposed bill would
allow for curing of errors.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked where the provisions for ballot
curing appear under HB 66.
MR. MASON stated that the language appears in Section 30, on
page 14. He suggested that Mr. McGuire may be able to explain
how other jurisdictions handle ballot curing.
2:48:25 PM
MR. MCGUIRE explained the State of Washington's ballot curing
process is initiated when an issue arises such as an unsigned
ballot or signature verifiers find that a signature does not
match, at which point a letter is sent with a prepaid postcard
that a voter may return to cure the issue with his/her
signature. He added that signatures do change over time and
that the voter record is updated with the new signature obtained
in the curing process. He explained that information regarding
missing or unmatched signatures may be shared with political
campaigns, which campaigners may use to follow up directly with
voters.
2:50:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that her district constituents had
expressed their desire to address voting in Alaska. She
referred to Section 30, on page 14, regarding the curing a
rejected absentee ballot, and she asked in reference to
paragraph (a), "Not later than the completion of the state
ballot counting review", and (c), "Cured absentee ballots shall
be forwarded immediately to the director by the most expeditious
service", whether there would be a date certain by which those
should be postmarked in order to be counted.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that there does not exist a date certain
by which the review board shall complete its work. She added
that there exist other legal deadlines such as the board being
required to complete its work prior to the swearing in of the
governor elect.
2:51:29 PM
MR. MASON added that, during the drafting of HB 66, dates
certain had been sought and it had been determined that each
election varied, and no deadline for the curing process had been
set, and it would occur when the review board meets.
2:51:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed her concern that in a very close
race the absence of a date certain for ballot curing could leave
the state open to lawsuit.
2:53:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to Section 31, "The state review
board shall review and count absentee ballots under AS
15.20.081(e) and (h), absentee ballots properly cured under AS
15.20.204," that compels the state review board to count
ballots; however, the review board is not subject to a deadline
specific to counting ballots. He suggested that the division
would require ballots to be postmarked by a certain date and
further research would be necessary to determine when a
postmarked ballot must be received.
2:55:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER stated her concern would be to ensure that
outstanding ballots are not left outstanding indefinitely.
2:55:21 PM
MR. MCGUIRE stated that, in the State of Washington, cured
ballots must be received the day before certification of the
election. He further stated that the deadline is associated
with a postmark; however, it is necessary to require a received-
by date.
2:55:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN postulated that the ballot curing process to
correct a mistake on a ballot should not be subject to slow or
tardy response by the voter, and that an amendment could be
brought to provide for a deadline by which cured ballots shall
be received.
2:56:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA recalled earlier testimony by Ms. Fenumiai
that there would be no change to the process for counting
absentee and question ballots under Section 4 and questioned the
validity that no change would occur to the process considering
that there would be a change to the voter registration process,
should HB 66 pass.
MS FENUMIAI explained that the current process allows for voters
to attempt to vote on question ballots and that no change to the
process would be necessary.
2:58:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked whether the process applies to
federal elections or all state elections.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that, in all elections, should a voter
who is already registered and voted in a different district, and
the voter put another address on the question ballot affidavit
envelope, that information is entered into the voter
registration system, and a determination as to whether the
ballot should be counted is made.
2:58:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked whether the state voter registration
system is updated on a daily basis.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that the system is updated on a real time
basis and, in some cases, minute by minute.
[HB66 was held over.]
2:59:48 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Public Defender Appointment - Samantha Cherot Resume 4.14.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Public Defender Appointment - Samantha Cherot Letter of Support 4.9.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 66 v. B 2.18.2021.PDF |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Sponsor Statement v. B 4.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Sectional Analysis v. B 4.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Document - Alaska 2020 Ballot Statistics 4.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Document - National Vote at Home Institute 2020 Review 4.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Document - Sightline Institute Absentee Voting Article 12.15.2020.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Supporting Document - Letters Received as of 4.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Supporting Document - Testimony Received as of 4.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Opposing Document - Testimony Received as of 4.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 4.9.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/19/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 116 v. A 2.24.2021.PDF |
HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Sponsor Statement v. A 4.12.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Sectional Analysis v. A 4.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Supporting Document - FAQs 4.12.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Supporting Document - Carey Acquittal 2017 4.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Supporting Document - Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Areas 4.12.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Supporting Document - DJJ Letter 4.9.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 PowerPoint Presentation 4.12.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Fiscal Note DHSS-PS 4.9.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 105 v. B (Distributed by HJUD Committee) 3.12.2021.PDF |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 116 Additional Document - DHSS Comparison Memo for HB 116 and HB 105 (SB 91) 4.14.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 HB 116 SB 91 |
| HB 116 Additional Document - DHSS Comparison of HB 116 and HB 105 (SB 91) with Notes 4.14.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 HB 116 SB 91 |