Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/03/2011 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview(s): Division of Elections | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 3, 2011
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
Representative Kyle Johansen
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S): DIVISION OF ELECTIONS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
GAIL FENUMIAI, Executive Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the Division of
Elections.
SARAH FELIX, Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the Division of
Elections overview.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:05:25 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Representatives Keller, Seaton,
Wilson, Johansen (via teleconference), Petersen, and Lynn were
present at the call to order. Representative Gruenberg arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
^OVERVIEW(S): Division of Elections
OVERVIEW(S): Division of Elections
8:05:36 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the only order of business was the
overview by the Division of Elections.
CHAIR LYNN stated his intent to wait for the internal review
following the overview before considering legislation.
8:09:55 AM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Executive Director, Division of Elections, Office
of the Lieutenant Governor, presented an overview of the
Division of Elections. She expressed her appreciation for the
opportunity to address the questions submitted to her by the
committee [included in the committee packet], following the
recent election, which she characterized as the election of its
kind in Alaska's history.
MS. FENUMIAI listed all the responsibilities of the division,
including: conducting all state and federal elections;
conducting the regional educational attendance area elections,
which are school board elections in unorganized communities
throughout Alaska; conducting coastal resource service area
elections; maintaining the statewide voter registration list;
processing initiative, referendum, and recall petitions; and
redistricting, which will happen this year, then reassigning
voters to their new precincts.
8:12:01 AM
MS. FENUMIAI, in response to questions from Chair Lynn,
regarding redistricting, outlined the process being undertaken
by the division for redistricting, and said the redistricting
committee will most likely submit its report in April 2012. In
response to a question regarding law suits, [question 1 in the
handout], Ms. Fenumiai shared the division's view that none of
the information being shared during the overview will have any
impact on ongoing lawsuits against the State of Alaska. She
said the Miller v. Treadwell case is still pending. She named a
couple other cases: Rudolph v. State of Alaska, which
challenges the division's process of counting write-in ballots,
and Perry v. Treadwell, which is a state election contest case.
She name those involved in both cases.
8:16:03 AM
MS. FENUMIAI moved on to question 2 from the handout - whether
similar [write-in candidate] names could present a problem with
regard to [voters'] intent - and said this is a hypothetical
question, which is not possible to answer without knowing the
extenuating circumstances about the write-in campaign and the
election. Notwithstanding that, she stated that the bottom line
is that the Alaska Supreme Court has "historically and
repeatedly admonished the division to implement and honor voter
intent in counting ballots."
8:16:41 AM
SARAH FELIX, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State Affairs
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, in response
to a question by Chair Lynn, said the court, when considering
issues of voter intent, looks at marks on the ballot, studies
surrounding circumstances of the campaign, and uses a standard
by which it seeks to "enfranchise a voter to the maximum extent
possible."
8:17:24 AM
MS. FENUMIAI moved on to question 3 from the handout - regarding
custody ballots - and said AS 15.15.030(2) requires that ballots
be numbered in sequence to ensure simplicity and prevent fraud.
She said state regulations require the following to ensure
ballot security in transportation: all hand counted ballots at
the precincts must be sealed and mailed to the director's office
no later than the day following the election, at which point
they are marked as received and stored in an alarm-secured and
locked ballot room. She offered her understanding that that is
in state ballot regulation 6 AAC 25.060. Ms. Fenumiai stated
that all voted ballots counted by optical scan machines on
election night are transported that night to a designated
location and secured until picked up by a licensed and bonded
courier service or licensed security officer. She said chain of
custody documents accompany the ballot shipments; access to the
ballots prior to shipment is limited to election personnel,
state troopers, or authorized, licensed security officers. Ms.
Fenumiai said regulations and the division's practices and
policies do not allow any unauthorized person access to ballots.
She relayed that during the write-in counting process, the
ballots were in the director's office in an alarm-secured room,
prior to being taken to the counting facility. Before those
ballots were removed, they were logged and itemized to show
which ballots were taken, transported to the counting facility
by security officers, and rechecked upon arrival. The same
thing happened when the ballots were returned to the director's
office.
8:19:54 AM
MS. FENUMIAI, in response to a question from Representative
Keller, restated who the authorized personnel are. She offered
further details about the transfer of ballots from one
authorized person to the next. In response to a follow-up
question from Representative Keller, she confirmed that she is
comfortable with the current process. In response to a question
from Chair Lynn, she stated that the transportation and security
topics she just relayed are covered in state regulation.
8:22:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said a constituent suggested an idea to
him wherein a voter could get a receipt after voting and could
track that receipt to ensure that his/her vote was counted. He
asked Ms. Fenumiai if that idea would be possible.
MS. FENUMIAI responded that there is no way to identify a vote
to a voter once it is placed without compromising the privacy of
that person's vote.
8:23:35 AM
MS. FENUMIAI moved on to question 4 in the handout - regarding
documentation of all ballots printed - and said each voting
location is provided with a series of sequentially numbered
ballots. This information is provided on documents given to the
voting locations. At the end of voting, the election worker
identifies the total number of ballots used and subtracts that
number from the initial number given. The remaining [unused]
ballots are destroyed at the precinct or returned to the
division for destruction, she said. Voted ballot stubs are
returned to the division. She said this information is also in
6 AAC 25.060. In response to questions from Representative
Keller, she explained that in most cases, if there is a small
quantity of unused ballots, the election worker at the precinct
rips those ballots in half and returns them to the division.
When there are a large number of unused ballots, they are put in
an envelope for unused ballots and returned to the division for
shredding. She offered further details related to the reporting
done by election workers. She said she has never experienced an
instance where an election worker has been dishonest. She said
there is a team of four to six election workers at each
precinct, and those workers have sworn an oath.
8:27:25 AM
MS. FENUMIAI, in response to Chair Lynn, related that the
election officers in the four regional offices recruit their
workers. She said they try to get people from the precincts in
which they will work. The workers have to be registered voters.
Ms. Fenumiai noted that many of the division's election workers
have been doing this work for many years, and she praised their
contribution to the division.
CHAIR LYNN expressed his appreciation of election workers.
8:28:24 AM
MS. FENUMIAI, in response to Representative Petersen, explained
how "spoiled" ballots are tracked. In response to the chair,
she explained the steps a voter would take in requesting a
replacement ballot; she said each voter is allowed two
replacement ballots.
8:29:36 AM
MS. FENUMIAI directed attention to question 5 on the handout -
regarding the division's choice to use voter intent, thus
contradicting statute - and noted that the statute in question
is AS 15.15.360(a) (10) through (12), which read as follows:
(10) In order to vote for a write-in candidate,
the voter must write in the candidate's name in the
space provided and fill in the oval opposite the
candidate's name in accordance with (1) of this
subsection.
(11) A vote for a write-in candidate, other than
a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor,
shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that
candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-
in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the
last name of the candidate is written in the space
provided.
(12) If the write-in vote is for governor and
lieutenant governor, the vote shall be counted if the
oval is filled in and the names, as they appear on the
write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidates
for governor and lieutenant governor or the last names
of the candidates for governor and lieutenant
governor, or the name, as it appears on the write-in
declaration of candidacy, of the candidate for
governor or the last name of the candidate for
governor is written in the space provided.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that "the Miller group" interpreted that
statute to mean that the name written in had to match exactly
the name of the candidate as it is written on his/her letter of
intent, with no room for errors or misspelling. She stated that
the division disagrees that consideration of voter intent
contradicts statute. She said in the recent Miller v. Treadwell
case, the Alaska Supreme Court determined that consideration of
voter intent was consistent with the statute on rules for
counting ballots. She reiterated that the court has
historically and repeatedly admonished the division to consider,
honor, and implement voter intent. She deferred to Ms. Felix
for further comment.
8:32:36 AM
MS. FELIX said in the Miller v. Treadwell case the Alaska
Supreme Court recognized that the statute would allow for minor
misspellings, poor handwriting, and any variation of the
candidate's name that was clear enough for the director to
determine using the standard of voter intent. The court did not
find that the candidate's name must be written exactly as on the
declaration of candidacy.
8:34:28 AM
MS. FENUMIAI directed attention to question 6 in the handout -
regarding the chain of command in determining voter intent - and
stated that the division would go through the process of
counting individual write-in ballots if the aggregate number of
write-in votes satisfies the threshold set out in regulation.
She explained that that means either the highest number of votes
received for that race over any other printed candidate on the
ballot or the second highest with a difference of less than half
a percent. She said that is found in 6 ACC 25.085. In response
to Chair Lynn, she confirmed that there have been write-in
candidates in the House race who did not warrant a count because
the number of votes was well below the percentage difference.
8:36:45 AM
MS. FENUMIAI referred to a handout in the committee packet,
entitled "Counting Write-In Votes - U.S. Senate Race," and she
said five boxes were used for the initial ballot sort following
the U.S. Senate race in 2010. The first box, she said, was used
for ballots on which the oval was marked next to a candidate's
name that was printed on the ballot. Those ballots do not need
any further review. The second box was used for those ballots
left blank or those with more than one oval marked.
8:38:32 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
8:39:13 AM
MS. FENUMIAI continued explaining the five-box system. She said
box 3 was used for ballots where the oval has been marked, Lisa
Murkowski's name was spelled correctly, and the ballot was not
challenged. Box 4, she said, was used for those ballots that
were challenged by one party or the other because, for example,
the name written appeared to be a variation or misspelling of
the write-in candidate's name or the name was not written
directly on the line. Box 5 was for those write-ins other than
Lisa Murkowski. She said she reviewed the ballots in boxes 2
and 4; no other person was involved in making the voter intent
decisions. She said the Alaska Supreme Court validated that
this was a good process in Miller v. Treadwell.
8:40:41 AM
MS. FELIX, in response to Representative Gruenberg, said she
would give the committee members a copy of the citation from
Miller v. Treadwell. In response to a series of questions from
Representative Gruenberg, she said the court did not use a
preponderance of the evidence, deference to the agency, or
substitution of judgment standard in proving the case. She
explained that what was used is the voter standard, which is
when the Director of the Division of Elections looks at the
ballot, views it in totality, considers each part of the ballot
as it relates to all other parts, and makes the determination
with the underlying consideration of enfranchising the voter if
possible. She indicated that the court determined that the
rules of the past were followed and would be upheld.
8:45:00 AM
MS. FENUMIAI directed attention back to the list of questions on
the handout, to question 7 - regarding [nicknames] used when
voting for a write-in candidate - and said the ballot counter in
such an instance would be the director of the Division of
Elections. She said this question is hypothetical, because the
decision would depend upon the circumstances of the write-in
campaign and what appears on the candidate's write-in letter of
intent. She stated that the entire name is taken into
consideration when determining voter intent. However, she said,
according to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting
Act (UOCAVA), any abbreviation, misspelling, or other minor
variation in the form of the name of a candidate or a political
party shall be disregarded in determining the validity of a
ballot if the intention of the voter can be ascertained. In
response to a question from Representative Seaton, she confirmed
that a last name only would be sufficient as a write-in vote;
however, she said that would depend on whether or not there were
one or more candidates with the same last name, for example.
8:48:33 AM
MS. FELIX, in response to question from Representative Petersen,
stated that the court, in Miller v. Treadwell, analogized the
write-in letter declaration of intent to the statute regarding
candidates running under a nickname; however, the court did not
specify the issue of a candidate using a single name. She said
this is a hypothetical question that would have to be decided at
the time based upon all the circumstances.
8:49:38 AM
MS. FELIX, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, said that with respect to counting write-ins, the
aforementioned U.S. Senate race was governed mainly by state
law, which incorporates federal law.
8:52:45 AM
MS. FELIX, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg regarding procedure development, stated the following:
The Alaska Supreme Court specifically considered the
issue of whether or not what the division did in this
case required a regulation to be promulgated under the
Administrative Procedure Act, and specifically found
that ... these are internal agency procedures that
were a common sense interpretation of existing
statutes and regulations that did not require
promulgation of a new regulation.
8:54:12 AM
MS. FENUMIAI, in response to a follow-up remark from
Representative Gruenberg, said although it would be possible to
put into writing the procedure used for write-in voting, it
would be difficult to put into writing how to determine voter
intent.
8:55:30 AM
MS. FELIX indicated that there are current regulations resulting
from UOCAVA, and the proposed SB 31 would codify in statute the
UOCAVA standard that "any abbreviation, misspelling, or other
minor variation in the form of the name of the candidate or
political party shall be disregarded in determining the validity
of the write-in ballot if the intention of the voter can be
ascertained." That standard is set out in Miller v. Treadwell.
CHAIR LYNN stated that to determine procedure you have to be
able to define intent, and he questioned how that is possible.
MS. FENUMIAI said it is possible to determine that someone who
spelled Murkowski with a "y" instead of the "i" or a "c" instead
of the first "k" intended to vote for Lisa Murkowski.
MS. FELIX gave an example from Edgmon v. Moses, an older case in
which the issue was that there were a number of ballots with
funny marks on them, but the court was able to figure out the
intent of the voter. She offered further details.
8:59:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it would seem in Edgmon v. Moses
that the court looked at the determination of the Division of
Elections, looked at the ballot, and then made an independent
determination. He said in that sense the court used a
substitute standard and did not give discretion to the director
of the division.
MS. FELIX said she thinks in that case Representative Gruenberg
is correct; however, she pointed out that the Miller v.
Treadwell case was different.
9:00:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER thanked the chair for bringing forward
this overview. He opined that voter confidence is important.
He mentioned the idea of having a group of four or five people
make the decisions about ballots, rather than just the director
of the division. He asked Ms. Fenumiai if she was comfortable
being the sole decision maker for the U.S. Senate Race in 2010.
9:02:26 AM
MS. FENUMIAI answered yes. She said she consulted with the
Department of Law regarding the ballot counting. She stated her
belief that any person in her position would take the task very
seriously to enfranchise every voter's ballot to ensure it is
counted. Regarding the idea of having a group in charge, she
said she thinks that would result in many conflicting opinions.
She stated that she thinks it is best, for the sake of
consistency, for one person to be in charge of making those
decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded that each human being has
his/her biases, and he has a feeling of unease allowing just one
person to decide a person's intent.
9:04:54 AM
MS. FELIX explained that the process of the write-in count
includes observers from every campaign involved and all the
political parties, and those people observe the director while
he/she is making decisions. Ms. Felix said the process is an
open one and "if there were any biases ... going on it would be
patently obvious."
MS. FENUMIAI, in response to Chair Lynn, explained that if a
decision she made during a write-in count was challenged, then
that ballot would go into a "challenged counted envelope" and
would be available if the court needed to see it to make a
determination.
9:07:01 AM
MS. FENUMIAI, in response to Representative Gruenberg, said the
court adjudication process is not governed by the Administrative
Procedure Act.
9:10:14 AM
MS. FENUMIAI directed attention to question 8 - regarding the
use of a single name in a write-in vote - and stated that under
statute, at minimum the last name of the candidate must be
provided. She reviewed that if, for example, there was only one
Johnson running as a write-in, then writing only "Johnson" would
suffice. She moved on to question 9 - regarding how closely a
name must match the write-in declaration of candidacy to signal
voter intent - and said this, too, is a hypothetical question.
Notwithstanding that, she said that if there was, for example,
one write-in candidate named John Johnson, the write-in vote for
J. Johnson would count if there were no other candidates in that
race with that last name and first initial. She reiterated that
the last name of the candidate must be provided, at minimum.
MS. FENUMIAI directed attention to question 10 - regarding
adopting resolutions to show concurrence with the court's
interpretation of existing statute rather than amending statute
- and stated that the division views conforming statute to a
court decision as a housekeeping measure. Further, she offered
her understanding that a resolution would not be sufficient to
amend a statute. In response to Representative Seaton, she said
the legislature can conform statute to a court's decision, to
ensure clarity in future court cases. In response to
Representative Gruenberg, she concurred that an intent section
can be added to such legislation.
9:16:51 AM
MS. FENUMIAI turned to question 11 - regarding comparisons - and
stated that there have been no other write-in races that compare
to the one that occurred in November 2010. She noted that in
1998, Robin Taylor ran as a write-in for governor, but received
about 40,000 votes. She stated her understanding that in 1954,
Senator Strom Thurman of South Carolina was elected senator as a
write-in candidate. She said she has not had the opportunity to
research write-in candidates in other states. In response to
Representative Gruenberg, she said she has not researched
whether or not there were any legal challenges resulting from
Senator Thurman's election.
MS. FELIX offered her understanding that no information from
South Carolina's case was in the brief.
MS. FENUMIAI, in response to Representative Seaton, recollected
that there was at one time a write-in candidate running for the
school board who won the race; however, she said she cannot
remember the year.
9:19:51 AM
MS. FENUMIAI moved on to question 12, which puts forth a
hypothetical situation where Joe Jones and Joan Jones are both
write-in candidates and a write-in vote is either misspelled or
incomplete. She said the division would expect that the
campaigns would work to get the word out on how to properly
write the candidate's name. She said in this example, the
write-in vote would not be counted, and the courts may challenge
that. She stated her assumption that if the vote in question
was needed to determine the winner of a race, then a
proportionate redistribution of the votes would be done. Ms.
Fenumiai directed attention to question 13 - regarding a list of
write-in candidates being posted in voting booths - and
emphasized that the division never intended for the list to be
posted in voting booths; the list was to be made available to
voters who requested it. She relayed that there was an incident
in Homer where a list was posted, but as soon as the division
found out, it had the list pulled, and the 17 ballots that were
used during the time the list was posted were pulled aside in
case they were challenged at a future date, but there was no
challenge to those ballots.
9:22:51 AM
MS. FELIX, in response to a question from Representative Seaton
regarding the rationale in not putting up the list, stated that
this is a matter over which there was litigation, and the
division developed a policy that it felt was fair in having the
list if a voter asked for it. She said the Alaska Supreme Court
ultimately upheld the division's decision. In response to a
follow-up question, she said challengers of the list claimed
that [putting the list up in the voting booth] would have given
the write-in voters an unfair advantage and influenced their
decision.
9:26:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that he is questioning the fact
that not all candidates' names are handed to a voter when
requested - just the names of write-in candidates.
9:26:32 AM
MS. FENUMIAI directed attention to question 14 - regarding the
voter registration database - and said the list is available for
purchase by the public in hard copy and electronically. She
said the public list contains each registered voter's name in
ascension number, residence address, mailing address, district,
precinct, party affiliation, sex, and 10-year voting history.
She said there are a variety of methods by which to search for
data. In response to Representative Petersen, she said the
division does not have the ability to pull up all registrations
done by a specific registrar, but can look at a voter's
registration document to ascertain who signed the form as a
registrar.
9:29:53 AM
MS. FENUMIAI, referring to questions 15 and 16 - database
searches and citizenship verification - explained that when a
voter completes the voter registration application, he/she
swears under penalty of perjury that he/she is a citizen of the
U.S. In response to a question from Chair Lynn, she said if the
division was to find out that a person who registered to vote
was not a U.S. citizen, it would take steps to remove that
person from the rolls. In response to further comments from
Representative Petersen, she said the division hopes that a
registrar would not check the citizenship box for someone
without getting confirmation from the person that he/she is a
citizen of the U.S. She said there are no documentations
required to be shown to the registrar. She told Representative
Petersen that if he wants specific people checked, then the
division would look those people up on the aforementioned
microfilmed information. She said she is not sure how far the
division's part would go in that regard.
9:37:24 AM
MS. FENUMIAI, in response to Representative P. Wilson, said
prior to every election, the division sends out public service
announcements to remind people about updating their voter
registration information.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that it would be good to work
on this issue when it is not an election year.
MS. FENUMIAI said she would take that into consideration.
9:38:37 AM
MS. FENUMIAI, in response to Chair Lynn, confirmed that voters
have the right to keep their residence address confidential, as
long as they are able to provide the division with a different
mailing address. In response to a follow-up question, she
stated her assumption that people who have been victims of
domestic violence and police officers may not want others to
know where they live.
9:42:30 AM
MS. FELIX noted that AS 15.07.195 gives the right to keep ones
residential address confidential. In response to Representative
Seaton, she said currently there is no authority for the
division to treat a candidate differently from any other voter
in regard to having the right to make a residential address
confidential.
9:44:15 AM
MS. FELIX, in response to Representative Seaton, stated that the
subject of a voter's residential address was not an issue that
arose during Edgmon v. Moses.
9:47:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to a one-page
memorandum [included in the committee packet] from Legislative
Legal and Research Services, dated 2/2/11, which addresses AS
15/15/361.
9:47:33 AM
MS. FENUMIAI said AS 15.15.161 is a statute that disallows the
use of stickers on ballots. She said that statute was enacted
when the state converted from punch card voting machines to
optical scan voting machines. She explained that the stickers
have the potential to damage the optical scan machines; the
stickers could peel off and render the optical scan unit
dysfunctional. She said the division believes that that statute
should remain in place.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG talked about finding a way to use the
stickers during write-in voting to help those who are not fluent
in the English language.
9:49:27 AM
MS. FENUMIAI said the division could talk to the maker of the
optical scan machine to see if this is possible. She then
addressed questions that she said Representative Gruenberg had
submitted to her. First, she said there were no issues with the
observers during the write-in ballot counting process from the
November 2010 election. Second, she relayed that the write-in
counting process was completed on November 17, the U.S. Senate
race was certified by her on December 28, and the term began on
January 3, 2011; however, the race could not be certified until
the court lifted the federal injunction. Finally, she said that
for the [write-in counting], the division incurred approximately
$50,000, which covered election worker payments, facility
rentals, security, and staff time. She said that does not
include the legal costs for the Miller v. Treadwell case, which
the Department of Law has estimated will come to approximately
$150,000.
9:52:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Fenumiai to consider what
language may be needed to prevent the possibility that two of
the same names are submitted as write-in candidates.
9:53:42 AM
MS. FENUMIAI said she would address that issue and provide
Representative Seaton with further information.
9:54:12 AM
CHAIR LYNN thanked Ms. Fenumiai for her work on elections and
for the overview. He invited committee members to let Ms.
Fenumiai know what information they would like from the division
in the future.
9:54:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked Ms. Fenumiai to consider the use
of "heat stamps," such as the copy and draft stamps used by the
legislature.
9:55:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he would like a report on how the
hand count of 5 percent of each House district has functioned
and whether there have been any cases in which the hand tallies
and the machine counts have not corresponded. He said he would
also like to know how the requirement for candidate name
rotation has been working. Last, he said he would like to see
an analysis of the mail-in ballot, such as is used in Oregon, to
figure out if it would work in Alaska.
9:56:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN mentioned a situation where a radio talk
show host solicited people with names similar to that of a
write-in candidate already running for office to sign up as
write-in candidates "at the last minute." He opined that that
situation caused complications related to the election, and he
asked if legislation is needed to prevent something like that
from happening in the future.
CHAIR LYNN recommended considering the First Amendment when
looking into that issue.
9:57:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER thanked the many election workers, and
remarked on the privilege of voting in the U.S. He stated
support for local oversight.
CHAIR LYNN remarked upon the current troubles in Egypt, and he
said although debate can be heated, the U.S. has "a peaceful
transition of government."
9:59:40 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:00
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HSTA Committee Packet 2-3-2011.pdf |
HSTA 2/3/2011 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 02 Counting Write-In Instructions 2010 FINAL 11-8-10.pdf |
HSTA 2/3/2011 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 03 Additional questions REP GRUENBERG.pdf |
HSTA 2/3/2011 8:00:00 AM |