04/13/2004 08:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 13, 2004
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 523
"An Act relating to qualifications of voters, voter
registration, voter residence, precinct boundary modification,
recognized political parties, voters unaffiliated with political
parties, early voting, absentee voting, ballot counting, voting
by mail, initiative, referendum, recall, and definitions; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 411
"An Act relating to an optional election to prevent the name and
address of a permanent fund dividend applicant from being
disclosed, except to a state or federal agency."
- HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 327(STA)
"An Act relating to pedestrians using rollerblades, roller
skates, and rollerskis."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 523
SHORT TITLE: VOTERS/VOTING/POLITICAL PARTIES/ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/26/04 2748 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/26/04 2748 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/26/04 2748 (H) FN1: ZERO(LAW)
02/26/04 2748 (H) FN2: (GOV)
02/26/04 2748 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/08/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/08/04 (H) Heard & Held
04/08/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/13/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 411
SHORT TITLE: PF DIVIDEND APPLICATION RECORDS PRIVATE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CROFT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/28/04 2421 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/28/04 2421 (H) STA, JUD
04/13/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 327
SHORT TITLE: ROLLERBLADES,ROLLER SKATES, ROLLER SKIS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SEEKINS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/13/04 2157 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/13/04 2157 (S) STA, FIN
02/26/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/26/04 (S) Moved CSSB 327(STA) Out of
Committee
02/26/04 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/04 2312 (S) STA RPT 3DP 1NR NEW TITLE
02/27/04 2312 (S) DP: STEVENS G, COWDERY,
STEDMAN;
02/27/04 2312 (S) NR: HOFFMAN
02/27/04 2312 (S) FN1: ZERO(DPS)
03/17/04 2545 (S) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED
03/19/04 2571 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/19/2004
03/19/04 2571 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/19/04 2571 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/19/04 2571 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/19/04 2571 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
327(STA)
03/19/04 2571 (S) COSPONSOR(S): WILKEN, GREEN,
STEVENS B,
03/19/04 2571 (S) FRENCH, DYSON, ELTON
03/19/04 2571 (S) PASSED Y17 N1 E2
03/19/04 2578 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/19/04 2578 (S) VERSION: CSSB 327(STA)
03/22/04 3015 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/22/04 3015 (H) TRA, STA
03/22/04 3035 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): GUTTENBERG
03/30/04 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
03/30/04 (H) Moved CSSB 327(STA) Out of
Committee
03/30/04 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/31/04 3136 (H) TRA RPT 4DP 3NR
03/31/04 3136 (H) DP: MASEK, OGG, STEPOVICH,
HOLM;
03/31/04 3136 (H) NR: KOOKESH, KAPSNER, KOHRING
03/31/04 3136 (H) FN1: ZERO(DPS)
04/13/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
LAURA GLAISER, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of the
division during the hearing on HB 523.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 411.
JOE MICHEL, Staff
to Senator Ralph Seekins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 327, on
behalf of Senator Seekins, sponsor.
LIEUTENANT AL STOREY
Central Office
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of the Alaska
State Troopers during the hearing on SB 327.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-59, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Representatives Seaton,
Coghill, Gruenberg, and Weyhrauch were present at the call to
order. Representative Berkowitz arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 523-VOTERS/VOTING/POLITICAL PARTIES/ELECTIONS
Number 0030
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 523, "An Act relating to qualifications of
voters, voter registration, voter residence, precinct boundary
modification, recognized political parties, voters unaffiliated
with political parties, early voting, absentee voting, ballot
counting, voting by mail, initiative, referendum, recall, and
definitions; and providing for an effective date."
Number 123
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved [to adopt the committee
substitute (CS) for HB 523, Version 23-GH2021\I, Kurtz, 4/12/04,
as a work draft].
Number 0144
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected [for discussion purposes]. He directed
the committee's attention to a memorandum from Kathryn Kurtz,
[Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services].
Number 0220
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for time to digest the
memorandum. He suggested the committee return to Amendment 2,
which had been discussed, but not moved, during the last hearing
on HB 523 [on April 8, 2004].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved [to adopt Conceptual] Amendment 2, which
read as follows, [with some handwritten changes]:
Page 1, line 5, following "counting,":
Insert "voting electronically,"
Page 20, following line 26:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 39. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
VOTING BY MAIL AND ELECTRONICALLY. Not later
than January 31, 2005, the director of the division of
elections shall provide a report to the legislature on
the feasibility, costs, and benefits of authorizing a
system of voting by mail and electronically."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the page numbers and line numbers
needed to be changed to match [Version I].
The committee took a brief at-ease.
Number 0385
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the new section would
not be Section 39, and it would not go on page 20, line 6. He
suggested that the committee ask the bill drafter to insert
[Conceptual Amendment 2] wherever it should go in the bill. He
said he thinks that would be on page 20 and would go somewhere
near Sections 47-49.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated the purpose of [Conceptual Amendment 2]
was to address the electronic voting issue [that was addressed
in another bill] that was passed out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
Number 0427
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH removed his objection to Version I for purposes
of making amendments to the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recommended that [Conceptual Amendment
2] be offered conceptually, so that the bill drafter could place
it in the right section of the bill.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that he is offering [Amendment 2] as a
conceptual amendment.
Number 0498
LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, in response to a question from
Representative Gruenberg, said there was no intention by the
division to create an additional fiscal note as a result of
providing the report [requested in Conceptual Amendment 2].
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded the committee that the division
had asked the date to be changed at the last hearing on HB 523.
MS. GLAISER suggested that the middle of February would work.
Number 0546
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to amend [Conceptual Amendment 2] by
changing the words "January 31" to "March 1". No objection was
stated; therefore the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2 was so
ordered.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any further objection to
[Conceptual] Amendment 2.
Number 0573
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection [to Conceptual
Amendment 2, as amended].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that, there being no objection,
[Conceptual] Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 0636
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Chair Weyhrauch,
confirmed that he had prepared a number of amendments to offer
that are numbered for Version H of the bill. He indicated that
he would refer to Version H, but would ask that the bill drafter
change the pagination to conform to Version I.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said, "So noted."
Number 0645
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 3, [labeled
23-GH2021\H.1, Kurtz, 4/12/04], which read as follows:
Page 4, lines 8 - 21:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 4. AS 15.10.090 is repealed and reenacted
to read:
Sec. 15.10.090. Notice of precinct boundary
designation and modification. The director shall give
full public notice if a precinct is established or
abolished or if the boundaries of a precinct are
designated, abolished, or modified. Public notice
must include
(1) whenever possible, sending written
notice of the change to each affected registered voter
in the precinct;
(2) providing notice of the change
(A) by publishing three times in a daily or
weekly newspaper of general circulation in that house
district and in that precinct; or
(B) if there is not a newspaper described
in (A) of this paragraph, by posting written notice in
three conspicuous places, at least one of which must
be in the precinct;
(3) posting notice of the change on the
Internet site of the division of elections; and
(4) providing notification of the change to
the appropriate municipal clerks, community councils,
tribal groups, presiding officers, Native villages,
and village regional corporations established under 43
U.S.C. 1606 (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act)."
Page 20, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 47. AS 15.10.020(b) is repealed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that he had added the written
additions to Amendment 3 because the drafter had not realized
that polling places were to be included.
Number 0740
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH pointed to [paragraph (2), subparagraph (A)] of
Amendment 3. He asked if that language would require
publication six times.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered no, it's only three times. He
welcomed suggestions for clarifying the language there.
Number 0765
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested a friendly amendment [Amendment 1] to
Amendment 3, to insert "or" after "house district" in
[subparagraph (A)].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would accept that friendly
amendment [Amendment 1] to Amendment 3. He clarified, "So, it
would be, 'or, if possible, in the precinct;'."
Number 0795
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked why the term house district is
even mentioned in this.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that there are some
districts, such as that of Representative Carl Moses, where
there may be a polling place change "out at the end of the
chain." He said, "So, they may have something that's published
and circulated in Sand Point, but not out in Unalaska or
something."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained, "The thinking was that there
may - out at Adak, or something - be no newspaper, but at least
it would be published in something that may find its way out
there and would at least be published in the district itself."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ recommended deleting references to the
"house district".
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that he is not certain if the original
bill contained "house district".
MS. GLAISER noted that it is in current language. In response
to a question from Representative Berkowitz, she confirmed that
municipal precincts are the same as state precincts.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that there is language currently
in the [Alaska State] Constitution that requires that House and
Senate districts be contiguous. He said, "That doesn't
necessarily have to be the case." He noted that there are a lot
of states where House boundaries are different than the Senate
boundaries, for example. He said he would encourage Alaska to
"go to that sort of concept in the future." He said, "This is
about precinct boundaries and precinct polling places, and
you're injecting another term of art into this statute."
Number 0956
MS. GLAISER directed attention to page 2 of Amendment 3,
regarding the proposed repeal of AS 15.10.020(b). She said,
"There probably will be an additional fiscal note, because right
now we don't publish every time we change a polling place.
Sometimes we make immediate changes in polling places, due to
someone calling and notifying one of the regional offices saying
they aren't available at the polling place, and we make a switch
and do what we can to get that notice out." Ms. Glaiser
emphasized that [the division] is willing to do this, but it
will require more public notice than what it currently gives.
Number 0999
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that in Version I, Section 4 already deals
with the issue of publication. He offered his understanding
that there wouldn't be any fiscal impact from that section, but
there would be with the adoption of [Amendment 3].
MS. GLAISER confirmed that would be true. She offered her
understanding that the intent of Amendment 3 would be to "merge
the two types of notification to people - not just precinct
boundary changes, but polling place changes." The additional
requirement for notice of polling place changes would result in
a minimal fiscal note requirement.
Number 1044
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ insisted that there be notice of
changes in polling place because he has heard about an insidious
tactic for voter suppression by changing the polling place.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed with Representative Berkowitz
and accepted a friendly amendment to delete the phrase "in the
house district or".
Number 1083
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that, with Amendment 2 to
Amendment 3, the language [in subparagraph (A)] would read as
follows:
(A) by publication three times in a daily or weekly
newspaper of general circulation in, if possible, the
precinct; or
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for unanimous consent on friendly
Amendment 2 to Amendment 3.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected for purposes of discussion.
Number 1117
MS. GLAISER stated that Amendment 2 to Amendment 3 is fine. She
said, "We're very fortunate in the history of the state of
Alaska that our regional supervisors would not think of changing
a polling place for any motivation other than to accommodate a
change required in the community ...." She emphasized that [the
division] fully believes in giving notice. Regarding the
language specifying a daily or weekly newspaper, she gave an
example of a paper that is not daily, but publishes more than
weekly.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH withdrew his objection. He asked if there was
any further objection to [Amendment 2] to Amendment 3.
Number 1240
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected. He asked, "Are we getting to a
point where the probability of having a newspaper in a polling
precinct is darn near zero?"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered his interpretation that the paper of
general circulation that covers the district also covers the
precinct; therefore, the intent is not to have a specific paper
in a precinct. He said, "It happens to be subsumed within the
district where the newspaper's printed ... to provide whatever
would be." He said he is uncertain what sort of newspapers
would be dealt with in the rural areas.
MS. GLAISER responded, "There are several, and sometimes we
overlap the publication." She listed some names of
publications. She added that [the division] does a lot of
notification by mail to the individual voters, and every time a
polling place changes, the voter [who uses the polling place]
gets a new voter card.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, addressing Representative Seaton's
previously stated concern, clarified that the intent isn't that
the paper itself be located in the precinct, but that it is
available to be received in the precinct.
Number 1349
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that, there being no further
objections, [Amendment 2] to Amendment 3 was adopted.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, in response to questions, clarified that the
previously adopted Amendment 1 to Amendment 3 had been to add
the word "or", and Amendment 2 to Amendment 3, which the
committee just adopted, removed that "or" language.
Number 1664
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 3 to Amendment
3, to delete the words "daily or weekly" [in paragraph (2),
subparagraph (A)].
MS. GLAISER, in response, said, "I'm grateful for this."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that there was no objection to
Amendment 3 to Amendment 3; therefore, Amendment 3 to Amendment
3 was adopted. In response to the recent comments from
Representative Berkowitz, he said that he has heard of insidious
tactics [for voter suppression] being used elsewhere, but not in
Alaska. He said he understands Representative Berkowitz's
concern.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ cited some examples.
Number 1521
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH removed his objection to Amendment 3 [as
amended]. No further objection was stated; therefore, Amendment
3, as amended, was adopted.
Number 1543
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled,
23-GH2021\H.2, Kurtz, 4/12/04, which read as follows:
Page 5, following line 12:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 7. AS 15.20.045(b) is amended to read:
(b) The director may designate by regulation
adopted under AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act)
locations at which absentee voting stations will be
operated for 15 days [ON OR AFTER THE 15TH DAY] before
an election and on election day [UP TO AND INCLUDING
THE DATE OF THE ELECTION]. The director shall supply
absentee voting stations with ballots for all house
districts in the state and shall designate absentee
voting officials to serve at absentee voting
stations."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, line 14:
Delete "On or after the 15th day before an
election up to and including"
Insert "For 15 days before an election and on"
Page 5, lines 16 - 17:
Delete "early in the office of an election
supervisor or in other locations designated by the
director ["
Insert "in locations designated by the director
[EARLY IN THE OFFICE OF AN ELECTION SUPERVISOR"
Page 20, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 48. AS 15.20.048 is repealed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 20, line 9:
Delete "secs. 17 - 39"
Insert "secs. 18 - 40"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 4 is a
technical amendment to cleanup the language.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that the amendment specifies that AS
15.20.048 would be repealed from Section 48, but it is not
Section 48 in Version I; therefore, Amendment 4 would have to be
conformed to Version I.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred.
Number 1711
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what locations are generally
considered absentee voting stations.
MS. GLAISER answered that they are usually places requested by
the community. Absentee voting stations are more likely to be
found in a clerk's office or airports in places like Ketchikan
and Kenai. In response to questions, she confirmed [that
absentee voting stations are also found] at universities and
Access Alaska. She said she is not certain if they are at
hospitals, but said she would check. She mentioned that [the
division] provides a service by which it delivers ballots to
those who request them in a hospital.
Number 1765
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH compared the proposed new and deleted language
[in Section 7, subsection (b) of Amendment 4] and said, "That
was harder to read."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG emphasized that his intent is that it
is 15 days before the election, so that the sixteenth day is the
day of the election itself.
Number 1830
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH treated his own objection as withdrawn;
therefore, he announced that Amendment 4 was adopted.
Number 1850
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 5, labeled,
23-GH2021\H.3, Kurtz, 4/9/04, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 29:
Delete "voter's [VOTER]"
Insert "voter"
Number 1855
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG read from a memorandum from Legislative
Legal and Research Services regarding grammar and the use of
"voter's" versus "voter".
Number 1930
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested an alternative would be to
say, "only if the voter notified the director".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would accept that as a friendly
amendment to Amendment 5.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that the issue is an act that the
voter will have to take; "there has to be an affirmative duty by
the voter to take some action in the section." He suggested
that it may be more elegant for Representative Gruenberg to
withdraw Amendment 5.
Number 1975
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 5.
Number 1995
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that Representative Berkowitz's
previous suggestion for an amendment would be called Amendment
6, and it read as follows:
This presumption is negated only if the voter notified
the director in writing of a change of voting
residence.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he wants to get a clearer
idea why it's necessary that "this be the only way a voter can
negate a presumption of address."
MS. GLAISER offered her belief that the intent is to prevent
anyone else from changing a voter's record; the only way a
record can be changed is if the voter asks for that change.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said frequently people show up to the
wrong polling place for whatever reason. He asked if the voter
can change his/her address [on the voter's record] at that time.
MS. GLAISER answered that can be done on the envelope of a
question ballot.
Number 2068
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that if a
person is going to change his/her address, that requires a
registration application.
MS. GLAISER answered yes, but clarified that if a person wants
to change his/her address, the aforementioned answer about the
question ballot just means that a person can make the change at
the polls, but it doesn't affect how that person's ballot is
counted.
Number 2100
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that in his district, people move
and their House votes will not count because they are registered
in a different House district, because they haven't "notified
within 30 days." He asked if that is correct.
MS. GLAISER answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "And yet they're valid voters in
every other respect." He said those votes ought to count.
MS. GLAISER responded that she believes that is a policy call of
the committee. She said it's the voter's responsibility to
notify that he/she has changed districts.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated his assumption that the rule is in there
to provide some certainty as to where the voter is and for the
purpose of the division's records.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it seems to him that the system
should not be set up to serve the process, but rather to serve
the voter. He expressed that discounting a person's vote
because he/she has a wrong address, when in all other respects
that person is a qualified voter is a wrong policy call.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that it is an individual's
responsibility to ensure that he/she is voting in the district
in which he/she resides. He said, "I don't know that we want
them voting in a district that they're not residing in." He
suggested that would create more questioned ballots.
2271
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee that Amendment 6 had been
offered by Representative Berkowitz.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ removed his objection to Amendment 6.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any further objection to
Amendment 6. No objection was stated; therefore, Amendment 6
was adopted.
Number 2313
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 7
to allow a person to vote if he/she meets all the requirements
of a voter, regardless of whether that person has moved to
another district without notifying of the change of address.
TAPE 04-59, SIDE B
Number 2328
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that, basically, "this is just
getting rid of voter registration." He explained that there
would be no need to preregister, because a person would just say
from which district he/she is. He said, "It seems the entire
process of voter registration becomes almost meaningless."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified his meaning as follows:
What I'm saying is, someone who is already registered
to vote - someone who the department has found meets
the criteria to be a voter - ... moved in the
intervening election and [has] been in a new address
for more than 30 days. They ought to be able to show
up and vote for their House district, or their Senate
district, or their judicial district without some sort
of repercussion for not having ... notified government
that they've moved.
Number 2284
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that Conceptual [Amendment 7] was the
"not my obligation to tell the government that I moved and ...
if I am already registered I can vote where I live" amendment.
He stated that although he also doesn't like telling the
government about himself, he knows that he has "some duty" and
would rather tell the government what he's doing rather than
having the government hunt him down. He said he does put a
little bit of responsibility on the individual. He pointed out
that there has to be administration that takes place regarding
voting and there needs to be some certainty that people are
voting where they live and are registered. He added, "I guess,
conceptually, I have a problem with your conceptual amendment."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that Representative Berkowitz
and Ms. Glaiser could come up with something that "can help
solve the problem yet be a workable solution."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew Conceptual [Amendment 7].
Number 2173
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 8, labeled 23-
GH2021\H.4, Kurtz, 4/12/04, which read as follows:
Page 2, following line 30:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 15.07.040 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.07.040. Time for registration. A person
who is qualified under AS 15.05.010(1) - (3) is
entitled to register at any time throughout the year
except that a person under 18 years of age may
register if the person will be 18 years of age or
older before the date of the next primary or general
election or the next regularly scheduled municipal
election in the district in which the applicant
resides [AT ANY TIME WITHIN 90 DAYS IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING THE PERSON'S 18TH BIRTHDAY]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, line 16:
Delete "within 90 days after [OF] the date of
registration"
Insert "before the date of the next primary or
general election or the next regularly scheduled
municipal election in the district in which the
applicant resides [WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE DATE OF
REGISTRATION]"
Page 3, lines 21 - 23:
Delete "any former name under which the applicant
was registered to vote in the state;
(11)"
Insert ["ANY FORMER NAME UNDER WHICH THE
APPLICANT WAS REGISTERED TO VOTE IN THE STATE;
(11)]"
Page 3, line 23:
Delete "attestation"
Insert "oath [ATTESTATION]"
Page 3, line 24:
Delete "(10)"
Insert "(9) [10]"
Page 3, line 25:
Delete "(12)"
Insert "(11) [(12)]"
Page 20, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 48. AS 15.07.060(d) is repealed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 20, line 9:
Delete "secs. 17 - 39"
Insert "secs. 18 - 40"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that it doesn't matter whether a
person is 18 years of age 90 days before an election, but rather
whether he/she is 18 years of age by election day.
Representative Gruenberg noted that the first portion of
Amendment 8 states that a person can register if he/she is going
to be 18 by the date of the next primary, general, or municipal
election - whichever first occurs.
MS. GLAISER said that appears to read clearly and make sense.
In response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, she offered her
understanding that current language states that a person can
register "90 days prior," whereas [Amendment 8] would allow the
person to register on January 1.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that the person could request an
absentee ballot and may then actually be voting at 17 years of
age, because they turn 18 the day before the election, for
example. He indicated that that situation could happen within
the current 90-day language.
MS. GLAISER said she thinks that's correct.
Number 2009
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Chair Weyhrauch is correct. He
clarified that a person doesn't actually vote until the vote is
received.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he thinks the way around the
problem is that a person can register in January, but that
person will not be "on the rolls until November." He said, "It
seems to me if I'm 17 on November 6, I can't attest the way I
need to attest on an absentee ballot, so you couldn't vote until
election day anyway."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that [Amendment 8] would refine the law
that's already in place regarding 90 days.
MS. GLAISER concurred.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said his central concern is that, from the
standpoint of administration, [this part of Amendment 8] would
not cause a problem for the division.
MS. GLAISER answered, "At first blush, yes, sir, that's right."
Number 1936
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated that a person who registers
January 1 may be 18 by the general election, but not by the
primary.
Number 1918
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested an amendment to Amendment 8,
to add the phrase "whichever election first occurs" after "in
which the applicant resides", on page 1, lines 8 and 17 [as
numbered on the amendment].
MS. GLAISER commented that she understands [Representative
Gruenberg] is trying to help. She added, "If I had some time
with my regional supervisors and the people that have conducted
elections over a number of years, then it would be a more fair
playing field, then I could respond."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to [the
suggestion to] amend Amendment 8.
Number 1839
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked, "Is this to say that if there was
a special election and they were properly registered that they
could not?"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that's correct. He said, "If
there's a special election, it doesn't count; this is only
registering for regular elections, otherwise it would be
impossible to administer."
Number 1815
MS. GLAISER responded that she does believe that the old
language regarding the 90 days would address Representative
Coghill's concern, because "the markers weren't elections - the
marker was 90 days prior."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he understands that special
elections are "a problem." He noted that the 90-day issue would
be an important policy call. He continued as follows:
Because what we're doing is we're saying now that the
90-day marker is not the issue, but a municipal,
general, or primary election [is] the issue. Now are
we saying to young men and women that their vote is
only good starting then, when they could very well,
under the present law, be qualified to vote, and are
we helping the situation at all? And ... I'm asking
myself that question, as well as asking you, because
I'm going to have to ponder this a little bit.
Number 1759
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON observed:
It seems like what we're doing here is satisfying the
time for registration - of when you can register to
vote - but ... if you register to vote and you're 18
by the time a special election comes up, you're going
to be able to vote anyway. This just marks when you
can register to vote, not when you can vote if you're
legally allowed to vote. I mean, if you filled the
requirement at the time of the ... special election, I
presume -- maybe we can ask the ... division if
there's anything, even if it was a special election,
if you are qualified, if you'd be able to vote.
Number 1723
MS. GLAISER replied that a person would have to be 18 at the
time of any election to vote, and "this is a question about
registration." She explained that she was just trying to
clarify what the markers are for registration; "before, it was
90 days and now, it's these elections."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, addressing the issue previously stated
by Representative Coghill, stated that his intent is to allow a
person to register early; it was not to prohibit a person who is
otherwise eligible from voting in a special election. He
explained, for example, that he had hoped to make it easier for
young people to register before going away to college.
Number 1660
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL voiced the following:
Still, the 30-days requirement from age 18 to any
election - you'd still have to be registered 30 days
before the election, so that doesn't change anything.
So, all I'm trying to figure out is if they could
register early as you said, and we had a special
election the end of July where they might otherwise be
eligible, but they now have to wait until the end of
August to vote.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said no; that's not the intent and if
further reading shows that there is a problem, he'll be the
first to offer an amendment to "cure that."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he is uncertain if [the amendment to
Amendment 8] would help. In response to Representative Coghill,
he stated his intention was not to move the bill before there
was a new committee substitute before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he thinks the time before someone's
birthday is a more internal marker than when an election is
going to be held. He said he would not have a problem expanding
the time [from 90 days] to 120 days, because the person would
still have to be 18 before the election.
Number 1544
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested that Representative Gruenberg
bifurcate Amendment 8. He suggested that lines 1-18 [as
numbered on Amendment 8] be deleted.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that, hearing no objection, lines 1-18
were deleted.
Number 1488
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to the second part of Amendment
8, which he said spanned page 1, lines 20-23 through page 2,
lines 1-3, as well as the repealer on page 2, lines 16-18 [all
lines as numbered on Amendment 8]. He noted that the original
language in [Version H] had read that each applicant who
requests registration or reregistration shall supply any former
name under which he/she was registered to vote in the state.
MS. GLAISER explained that "it's just another way for us, when
we're checking the rolls, to make sure that they're clean; that
if you've reregistered under a former name, ... we've deleted
the old record and that we put the new record back in."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would "delete" that part of the
amendment.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the committee was deleting lines
21-23 on page 1 and lines 1-2 on page 2 [as numbered on
Amendment 8].
Number 1340
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to page 2, lines 4-6 [as
numbered on Amendment 8], which would delete "attestation" and
insert "oath". He explained that the use of the word
attestation is not found in the law anymore.
MS. GLAISER confirmed that is correct.
Number 1316
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that lines 4-6 on page 2 of
Amendment 8 [as numbered on the amendment] is the only part of
Amendment 8 remaining, since everything else either has been
deleted or should be.
Number 1293
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 8,
as amended. No objection was stated; therefore, Amendment 8, as
amended was adopted.
Number 1981
MS. GLAISER asked if there were any questions that the committee
would like answered regarding registration for an 18 year old.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he wasn't sure, because he is not
dissatisfied with the way the law presently reads. He mentioned
that Representative Seaton had suggested to change the 90 days
to 120, and he said he doesn't have a conceptual problem with
that either.
Number 1229
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he prefers the present marker.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reiterated that Amendment 8, as amended, had
been adopted, "which deletes that entire issue."
Number 1154
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 9, labeled 23-
GH2021\H.5, Kurtz, 4/9/04, which read as follows:
Page 7, line 26:
Delete "at least 90 days"
Insert "not earlier than January 1 of a presidential
election year and not later than the 90th day"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that, currently, there is no
provision in state law for independent candidates, such as Ralph
Nader, to be on the ballot. He offered his understanding that
there may be a constitutional requirement that if people want to
run, there should be a process by which they get on the ballot.
He recollected that Ms. Glaiser had told him that Alaska is the
only state not to have such a statute.
MS. GLAISER said that's what she had been told. In response to
a request for clarification from Chair Weyhrauch, she revealed
that there is a group of attorneys that placed this question
before members of the Alaska State Legislature last year. She
said [the division] checked with the Department of Law, because
the division thought that the current law on limited political
parties was sufficient; however, it was suggested by the
Department of Law that "yes, we did need to make this change to
our laws." In response to a follow-up question from Chair
Weyhrauch, she explained that Alaska needs to make this change
to its laws in order to allow access for a presidential
candidate to its ballot. She confirmed that it is simply a
presidential candidate issue.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH commented that "all kinds of presidential
candidates get access to our ballots under existing [law]." He
said he is not sure what is really going on with [Amendment 9].
Number 0959
MS. GLAISER responded that she doesn't really know the history
surrounding the law and she doesn't know whether adding this
means there would be more presidential candidates in the state.
Number 0900
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that present statute says that if a
person wants to be a candidate, he/she has to get a petition in
within 90 days of the general election. [Amendment 9] would
make it no earlier than January, but would still limit it to 90
days; therefore, there would be a "window that's a little more
narrowly defined." Representative Coghill said that seems like
a greater limitation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Section 14 is new and there
is no provision for an independent candidate. He stated that
[Amendment 9] does exactly what Representative Coghill said it
would: a candidate cannot register earlier than January.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he stands corrected seeing the new
Section [14] and had only been focusing on [Amendment 8].
Number 0824
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that, currently,
a candidate can file from January 1 to August 2, but Amendment 9
would require that the candidate get his/her filing in by the
end of March, which he said he presumed is the 90th day after
January 1. He asked if that is what Representative Gruenberg
intended, or if he meant the 90th day before the election.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered his understanding that it would be
January 1 to the ninetieth day before the general election.
MS. GLAISER said that's her understanding.
Number 0762
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained, "If it does become law, we
don't want them filing before January 1 of the presidential
election year."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that no public testimony would be
taken today, but would be taken at the next hearing on HB 523.
Number 0655
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection [to Amendment 9].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was "further comment on Amendment
9." He announced, "Amendment 9, then, is adopted."
Number 0643
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH turned attention to Amendment 10, labeled 23-
GH2021\H.6, Kurtz, 4/12/04, which read as follows:
Page 8, line 9, following "candidate":
Insert "; and
(3) the name, Alaska mailing address, and signature
of the campaign chair, who must be an Alaska resident"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the purpose for
Amendment 10 is so that there is an Alaska contact, which he
said should be an Alaska resident.
Number 0576
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 10.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.
MS. GLAISER stated that all the current seated parties have
chairs in the state and the division has contacts for them. She
said she doesn't think that "this is onerous or an undue burden
on an independent candidate," and she added that this would be a
policy call.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that [Amendment 10 is part of Section 14],
which addresses: "Qualifications for independent candidates for
President of the United States; selection of candidate for Vice-
President; selection of electors." He asked if major party
candidates are required to "put ... the state campaign chair."
MS. GLAISER responded that that's a good question. She said the
chair might be something that APOC requires, but [the division]
does not. She noted, "We do have the chairman of the party; all
of that contact information is given to the Division of
Elections when they submit their bylaws." She said the
recognized parties are always in contact with the division when
the chairman changes. She added, "So, I don't know whether it's
like-to-like, but it appears to be."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he sees this as "putting something on one
group and not on another," and he said he wonders if there is
some sort of equality issue [regarding Amendment 10]. He
questioned whether requiring the chair to be an Alaska resident
might raise legal questions regarding privileges and immunities,
for example. In response to a comment from Ms. Glaiser, he said
the legal issues could be considered in the House Judiciary
Standing Committee, but he remarked that a policy issue is, "Why
are we doing that on one kind of a candidate and not on
another?"
MS. GLAISER noted that the chairs in Alaska for President George
W. Bush and U.S. Senator John Kerry are both Alaska residents;
however, she said she doesn't know if that's required by law.
Number 0375
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said, "The only reason it seems to be a
separate thing is because these are independent people that
aren't affiliated with political parties, so it seems to me it's
not an onerous burden on them that's not put on every party that
nominates a candidate ...."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked, "Well the parties have the machine and
the staff and the people, and some of these independents are,
you know, just frankly out there."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded as follows:
You have to have signatures of 1 percent of all the
voters that voted in the last election, so you're not
going to have somebody just submitting their name
without having some kind of an apparatus to get 1
percent of all the voters that voted in the last
presidential election submitted. So, it just seems to
me that for administration, if the Division of
Elections doesn't have anybody to contact in the
state, ... it would be a very difficult situation.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he is looking at the balance of getting
access to the ballot and choice to the voters, versus
administration, and he said [Amendment 10] seems to weigh
against access to the ballot in benefit to the administrator.
Number 0251
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it seems to him that a campaign
for an independent candidate for President of the United States
should have somebody the division can contact in Alaska.
Number 0220
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that Amendment 10 would be set aside
to wait for a quorum.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:36 a.m. to 9:37 a.m.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that Amendment 10 was once again
before the committee.
Number 0165
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he has no objection to Amendment 10.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH withdrew his objection. He announced that,
there being no further objections, Amendment 10 was adopted.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 523 would be held over.
HB 411-PF DIVIDEND APPLICATION RECORDS PRIVATE
Number 0098
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 411, "An Act relating to an optional election to
prevent the name and address of a permanent fund dividend
applicant from being disclosed, except to a state or federal
agency."
Number 0091
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor
of HB 411, explained that the proposed legislation is a privacy
measure regarding the permanent fund dividend (PFD), which would
direct the government to "keep some of the information we give
confidential." He indicated that confidential information
includes [an applicant's] name and residential address, for
example. He stated that it's a right under "our constitution"
to keep that information private.
TAPE 04-60, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT offered an example of why a citizen may
want that [information] kept private.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT turned to the fiscal note. He directed
attention to [page 1, beginning on line 10], which read as
follows:
Notwithstanding other provisions, if a confidentiality
election is made under this section, the department
may only release the name and address
(1) to a state or federal agency;
(2) in compliance with a court order; or
(3) as directed by the individual who made the
confidentiality election.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated a portion of the fiscal note
analysis, which read as follows:
The bill as written does not allow sharing of the
information with local government agencies. If we
cannot share the file, or if the file is not complete,
local government agencies will submit their full lists
to PFD and we will have to do the matching process.
Approximately 60,000 garnishments will need to be
keyed in to the system and matched.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the Senate discussed allowing
the names to be put on the web, but not the addresses, because
having access to the names may help in the prevention of fraud.
He offered an example.
Number 0127
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH referred to a letter [included in the committee
packet] from a woman [who survived domestic violence] and has
changed her social security number and name. He asked how it
would matter if the name was accessible if it's a new name
anyway.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the name change process itself
is public; therefore, the perpetrator could go to the court and
find that information. He emphasized that the important concept
behind the bill is to enable people to have control over what
information the government advertises about them. He mentioned
the "check box" approach, but said he would be amenable to any
approach that helps protect the privacy of PFD applicants.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked about the court system, which uses PFD
lists for its jury duty lists.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT offered his understanding that would be
categorized as a state agency.
Number 0273
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if there have been a significant
number of people that are reported on fraud, based on the
publication of the list on the web.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted, "That was a concern that was raised
in the Senate hearings on the bill."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned whether there was any reason to
supply a list of PFD applicants. He clarified, "Is there any
reason why each person should have to select 'confidential' or
'nonconfidential'?" He surmised that the biggest reason to get
names on a list is for purposes of advertisers.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that he generally agrees with
Representative Seaton on this issue. He said he doesn't see
much public justification for supplying the list. Giving the
individual the option would be fine, he said.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked about individuals who owe debt. He noted
that the Alaska permanent fund is a source of income to pay off
debt. He said, "This would not prohibit a creditor from getting
information, at all, from the [Permanent Fund Dividend Division]
in order to collect on a debt through the PFD check."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that he hopes not. He indicated
that would involve a court order [which is one of the exceptions
to the confidentiality rule listed in Section 1 of the bill].
Number 0458
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if writ of execution would be
such an order. He said he would like the language to include
that.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thought the language [in Section 1,
paragraph (2)] would cover that, but he added that it would be
fine to clarify that language.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he can't think of any other reason
why people would have to access that information.
Number 0536
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH questioned why a federal agency would be allowed
access.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered that he didn't want to get in the
way of the creditor - somebody who is legitimately owed money -
or "sort of legitimate governmental purposes."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that bounty hunters might
need this information.
Number 0615
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that the committee might be
able to change some of the bill's language in which people would
have to specify that they do want the information to be shared.
[HB 411 was heard and held.]
SB 327-ROLLERBLADES,ROLLER SKATES, ROLLER SKIS
Number 0684
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the last order of business was CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 327(STA), "An Act relating to pedestrians
using rollerblades, roller skates, and rollerskis."
Number 0700
JOE MICHEL, Staff to Senator Ralph Seekins, Alaska State
Legislature, testifying on behalf of Senator Seekins, sponsor,
presented the sponsor statement, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
For many years roller-skiers' legal use of public
roadways was, more or less, taken for granted. This
assumption was successfully challenged in the
Fairbanks area last fall. Senate Bill 327 seeks to
remedy this situation by specifically allowing the use
of particular wheeled devices on those public roadways
also available to bicyclists. It also recommends a
set of safety standards for the use of these devices.
Alaska is home to some of the best international,
national, collegiate, and junior cross-country skiers
on the planet. In fact, seven of the ten Alaskans
competing in the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake
City were cross-country skiers. Imagine that. Seven
Olympic cross-country skiers from such a small state
as ours! This speaks volumes not only about our
skiers' work ethic but also their training
opportunities.
The natural preference of many of these world-class
athletes would, no doubt, have Alaska covered in snow
year-round. Since this is not a reasonable near-term
possibility, the use of wheeled skis to imitate snow
skiing has grown to become an effective training tool
for use during non-winter months. What's more, Alaska
is becoming well known nationally and internationally
as a favored summer-time training site.
For these reasons, it is the intent of the proposed
legislation to accommodate this seasonal use of some
of our roadways. In fact, other northern locales -
such as Norway, Sweden and Canada - have, for many
years, supported the efforts of their cross-country
athletes with similar provisions. Furthermore, the
proposed legislation borrows heavily from Cross
Country Canada's policy respecting the use of roller-
skis on public roads.
Senate Bill 327 seeks to accommodate this important
training activity by utilizing safe and reasonable
methods for sharing roadway surfaces with motorized
vehicles. It has garnered a groundswell of support
throughout the cross-country community ranging from
Alaska's Interior region to Southcentral to the Kenai
Peninsula.
The 2006 Winter Olympic games are just around the
corner. Would it be too much to expect seven (or
more) of our cross-country skiers to make the trip to
Torino, Italy? Of course not! In fact, a little
courtesy and common sense combined with a small
statutory revision can help make it happen.
Number 0855
LIEUTENANT AL STOREY, Alaska State Troopers ("troopers"), stated
that the troopers have been working with the sponsor of SB 327.
He stated, "We are testifying to let the legislators know that
we will gladly work with the sponsor if this was to become law,
in promulgating regulations through the Department of Public
Safety to address the use of these devices on the areas that can
legally have bicycles on them." He indicated the desire to give
consideration in those regulations to certain factors, including
the age and experience level of the people who would be using
"these devices" on the shoulder of the roads, and how the
devices can be used in a safe manner. He mentioned factors that
the troopers will give consideration to if the bill becomes law,
including "those stopping issues," the protective gear that
people would be required to use, and how they will conduct
themselves in intersections and driveways to avoid injuries,
especially the inexperienced, younger users of the devices.
Number 0958
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked what the difference is between "roadways"
and "vehicular ways", as written in the bill.
LIEUTENANT STOREY surmised that a vehicular way could mean a
long driveway or parking lot.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH pointed out that a parking lot could be
privately owned. He asked if the intent of the bill is to cover
both public and private vehicular ways.
LIEUTENANT STOREY replied that he can't speak to the intent of
the sponsor. Notwithstanding that, he remarked that school
parking lots, for example, are common-use areas. In response to
a follow-up question from Chair Weyhrauch, he offered his
understanding that "areas available for use by bicycles" would
mean that "if you can legally ride a bicycle on the shoulder of
a particular roadway, then you can legally use the devices."
Number 1044
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there is currently a law or
regulation requiring bicyclists to wear helmets.
LIEUTENANT STOREY answered, "Not to my knowledge."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Is there a good reason why
these people should wear them, but bicyclists shouldn't?"
LIEUTENANT STOREY offered his own point of view that there is a
greater capability to stop a bicycle because of the mechanical
braking device on it, and the front wheel provides a
"reactionary gap" - some cushion between the bicyclist and a
vehicle that may come out in front of him/her from a driveway,
for example.
Number 1110
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that his wife made a video on
bicycle safety and the need to wear helmets. He asked
Lieutenant Storey if he thinks it's safe to bicycle without a
helmet.
LIEUTENANT STOREY said he can't speak from personal experience;
however, he revealed that he has seen people who have sustained
serious injuries in bicycle accidents, resulting in soft tissue
damage and head injuries. He noted that helmets are required on
military bases. Subsequently, he stated his personal belief is
that bicyclists should wear helmets.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that on line 8 of the bill, it
only requires that a helmet and bright clothing be worn. He
asked if other protective gear, such as elbow pads, should be
included in the language.
LIEUTENANT STOREY answered that would be one of the issues that
would be considered when drafting regulations related to this.
He said his kids had [in-line skates], and he indicated that if
he hadn't insisted that they wear kneepads and elbow pads his
medical expenses would have been much higher.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the bill is unusually
drafted and doesn't set out the whole statute; therefore, "you
can't see what the bill itself does." He said, "It apparently
is some kind of authorization to the director of motor vehicles,
or somebody, and I think ... this thing should be reprinted to
set out the ... whole statute ...."
Number 1208
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted the language on page 1, line 1,
read, "pedestrians obey traffic laws". He said pedestrians face
traffic, while bicyclists ride with traffic, and he asked which
set of traffic laws [the "pedestrians using wheeled adjuncts"]
would obey.
LIEUTENANT STOREY stated that SB 327 addresses AS 28.05.011,
which describes the duties of the commissioner of public safety.
He offered his impression that the intent of the bill is to give
empowerment to the commissioner to draft regulations to allow
rollerbladers and rollerskiers to use those same areas that are
legal for bicycles to use.
Number 1300
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that "rollerblades" is a
brand name. He suggested using "in-line skates".
[SB 327 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1312
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:03
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|