05/10/2022 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB66 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 10, 2022
3:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Matt Claman, Vice Chair
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Andi Story
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative James Kaufman
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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."
- MOVED CSHB 66(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
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
04/14/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/14/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/19/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/19/21 (H) Moved CSHB 66(JUD) Out of Committee
04/19/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/21/21 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 4DP 3DNP
04/21/21 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS, DRUMMOND, SNYDER,
CLAMAN
04/21/21 (H) DNP: EASTMAN, VANCE, KURKA
04/21/21 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER STA
04/21/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/29/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/29/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/06/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/06/21 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
01/25/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/25/22 (H) Heard & Held
01/25/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/12/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/12/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/19/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/19/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/19/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/21/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/21/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/21/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/26/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/26/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/26/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/28/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/28/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/28/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/03/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/03/22 (H) Heard & Held
05/03/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/05/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/05/22 (H) Heard & Held
05/05/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/10/22 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM ADAMS 519
05/10/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JEFF STEPP, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an explanation of amendments and
answered questions during the hearing on the proposed CS for HB
66, Version N, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-Tomkins.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the proposed CS for HB 66, Version N.
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
the proposed CS for HB 66, Version N.
MIKE MASON, Staff
Representative Chris Tuck
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the proposed CS for HB 66, Version N, on behalf of
Representative Tuck, prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the prime sponsor, answered questions
during the hearing on the proposed CS for HB 66, Version N.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:12:16 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:12 p.m.
Representatives Vance, Tarr, Kaufman, Claman, Story, Eastman,
and Kreiss-Tomkins were present at the call to order.
HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
3:13:10 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the only 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." [Before the committee, adopted as a working
document on 5/3/22, was the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 66, Version 32-LS0322\N, Klein, 4/30/22 ("Version N"), as
amended.]
3:15:25 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:15:59 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 4 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.4, Klein, 5/5/22,
which read:
Page 4, line 15, following "ballot.":
Insert "The form must include the instruction
that a person registering to vote using the voter's
certificate who wishes to declare the person's
affiliation should complete the affiliation section on
the certificate."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
3:16:35 PM
JEFF STEPP, Staff, Representative Jonath Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska
State Legislature, at the request of Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, explained that Amendment 4 replicates an amendment to
SB 39, the companion bill in the Senate which was adopted
unanimously. He stated that the proposed amendment is largely a
technical "cleanup" amendment and not a major policy shift. He
stated that, through expanded same-day registration, Amendment 4
would create a method for indicating a party preference when
registering to vote at the polls.
3:18:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to clarify whether the declaration
of party affiliation referenced in Amendment 4 would be on the
outside of the ballot envelope. He asked whether this would be
a breach of privacy.
MR. STEPP clarified that the party affiliation would be noted
only on same-day registration envelopes, which is a fairly
common practice.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the envelope would be
handled only by the Divisions of Election (DOE) staff.
MR. STEPP answered, "That's certainly my understanding."
3:20:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
3:20:52 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 5 to HB 66, as
amended, Version N, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.5, Klein, 5/6/22, which
read:
Page 10, line 20, through page 11, line 3:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 22. AS 15.20.030 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.20.030. Preparation of ballots,
envelopes, and other material. The director shall
provide ballots for use as absentee ballots in all
districts. The director shall provide a secrecy sleeve
in which the voter shall initially place the marked
ballot, and shall provide a postage-paid return [AN]
envelope with the prescribed voter's certificate on
it, in which the secrecy sleeve with ballot enclosed
shall be placed. The director shall prescribe the form
of and prepare the voter's certificate, envelopes, and
other material used in absentee voting. The voter's
certificate shall include a declaration, for use when
required, that the voter is a qualified voter in all
respects and [,] a blank for the voter's signature. An
envelope may not identify a voter's party affiliation
[, A CERTIFICATION THAT THE AFFIANT PROPERLY EXECUTED
THE MARKING OF THE BALLOT AND GAVE THE VOTER'S
IDENTITY, BLANKS FOR THE ATTESTING OFFICIAL OR
WITNESS, AND A PLACE FOR RECORDING THE DATE THE
ENVELOPE WAS SEALED AND WITNESSED]. The envelope with
the voter's certificate must include a notice that
false statements made by the voter [OR BY THE
ATTESTING OFFICIAL OR WITNESS] on the certificate are
punishable by law."
Page 12, following line 18:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 28. AS 15.20.061(c) is amended to read:
(c) On receipt of an absentee ballot in person,
the voter shall proceed to mark the ballot in secret,
to place the ballot in the secrecy sleeve, to place
the secrecy sleeve in the envelope provided, and to
sign the voter's certificate on the envelope in the
presence of an [THE] election official [WHO SHALL SIGN
AS ATTESTING OFFICIAL AND DATE THAT SIGNATURE]. The
election official shall then accept the ballot."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 13, following line 16:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 33. AS 15.20.072(d) is amended to read:
(d) The representative shall deliver the special
needs ballot and other voting materials to the voter
as soon as practicable. The voter shall mark the
ballot in secret, place the ballot in the secrecy
sleeve, and place the secrecy sleeve in the envelope
provided. The voter shall provide the information on
the envelope that would be required for absentee
voting if the voter voted in person. The voter shall
sign the voter's certificate in the presence of the
representative. The representative shall sign the
voter's certificate in a place designated on the
certificate [AS ATTESTING OFFICIAL] and date the
voter's signature."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 18:
Delete "AS 15.20.203(i)"
Insert "AS 15.20.160, 15.20.203(i)"
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 47"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 48"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 52"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 47, 48, and 50 - 52"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 45 and 46"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 60"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 61 and 62"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:20:58 PM
MR. STEPP explained that Amendment 5 would delete stray
references in statute to the requirement for an attesting
official or witness. The lingering language reflects the
requirement for witness notarization, and this would be replaced
by "signature matching" in the proposed legislation. He added
that keeping the language on the envelope would likely confuse
voters.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed confusion as to where in the
process this would take place. He questioned the role envelopes
serve in the election process.
3:22:26 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, stated that there are multiple envelopes
used by the division. She shared her understanding that the
proposed amendment is not specifically related to by-mail
envelopes. She explained that, to create checks and balances,
envelopes for absentee in-person ballots, question ballots, and
special needs ballots have a section for the election official
to sign. She clarified that once envelopes are completed by the
voter and returned to the division, they are only reviewed by
the bi-partisan absentee voter review board.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a notary would be required
to sign the envelopes.
MS. FENUMIAI said the absentee in-person ballots, question
ballots, and special needs ballots do not require a notary. She
added that the witnessing requirements for absentee by-mail
ballots also do not require a notary.
3:25:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether Amendment 5 would remove
the necessity of a witness.
MR. STEPP answered yes. In response to a follow-up question, he
conveyed that the witness requirement would be removed in
exchange for the signature verification process.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that the decision to add signature
verification originated in the Senate as a way to enhance the
integrity of the election process.
3:26:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that a drafting error was made
in Amendment 5. He expressed the understanding that [AS
15.20.030] primarily refers to an attesting official, which
would be a DOE employee, as opposed to the witness requirement.
MR. STEPP deferred to Ms. Fenumiai.
3:27:44 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:27 p.m. to 3:28 p.m.
3:28:05 PM
MS. FENUMIAI shared her understanding that the proposed
legislation does not intend to implement signature verification
on absentee in-person ballots. She deferred to Thomas Flynn.
3:29:04 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law
(DOL), shared his understanding that the role of an election
official or a witness would be potentially different for
absentee by-mail envelopes, absentee in-person envelopes, and
special needs envelopes, which were all addressed in Amendment
5. For absentee by-mail envelopes, he said, the role of the
witness would be to verify the identification of the voter and
watch the person sign the envelope. Alternatively, for absentee
in-person envelopes, the role of the election official would be
to sign as the recipient of the envelope. Similarly, for
special needs envelopes, the representative would sign the
envelope. For this reason, he expressed the belief that the
signature of the elected official or witness may serve other
purposes.
MR. STEPP acknowledged that Amendment 5 may have missed the
mark. He deferred to the will of the committee.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to table Amendment 5. There being no
objection, Amendment 5 was tabled.
3:31:06 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 6 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.6, Klein, 5/8/22,
which read:
Page 20, lines 17 - 30:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 43. AS 15.20.910 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.20.910. Standards for voting machines and
vote tally systems. The director may approve a voting
machine or vote tally system that meets the criteria
specified in this section for use in an election in
the state based on [UPON] consideration of factors
relevant to the administration of state elections. A
[, INCLUDING WHETHER THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
HAS CERTIFIED THE VOTING MACHINE OR VOTE TALLY SYSTEM
TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE VOTING SYSTEM STANDARDS
APPROVED BY THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION AS
REQUIRED BY 42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(5) (HELP AMERICA VOTE
ACT OF 2002). THE DIRECTOR MAY ONLY APPROVE A] voting
machine or vote tally system must
(1) meet the United States Election
Assistance Commission's voluntary voting system
guidelines;
(2) be certified by the the United States
Election Assistance Commission;
(3) use only open-source software
technology or commercial off-the-shelf software and
firmware if a voting machine or vote tally system, as
applicable, using only open-source software technology
or commercial off-the-shelf software and firmware is
available; and
(4) satisfy [IF THE MACHINE OR SYSTEM
SATISFIES] the requirements of AS 15.15.032(c)."
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "2024"
Insert "2025"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:31:15 PM
MR. STEPP stated that Amendment 6 would create a backup plan in
case a federally certified open-source system is not available
at the time of the effective date. He said that until an open-
source system is federally certified, the proposed amendment
would allow DOE to use other federally certified systems.
Further, Amendment 6 would set an open-source implementation
deadline of January 1, 2024, to avoid the potential for
implementation issues during a presidential election year.
3:32:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether Alaska currently utilized
voting machines or vote tally systems.
MS. FENUMIAI characterized the technology as a "voting system"
comprising many different components: precinct tabulators and
scanners; voting tablets, as required by federal law; and
central count scanners in the regional offices, which count
absentee, question, and early ballots. Additionally, there is a
management system, which she described as the "brains" of the
system.
MS. FENUMIAI, in response to a follow-up question, shared her
understanding that the term "vote tally system" is out-of-date.
She noted that DOE refers to the entire system as a "ballot
counting and tabulation system."
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed the understanding that there is a
general consternation around the term "voting machines." She
expressed the intention to clarify, for the record, that Alaska
does not use voting machines. Furthermore, she clarified that
Amendment 6 would not invite the use of electronic voting
machines, adding that Alaska would maintain a paper ballot
system.
MS. FENUMIAI agreed that Alaska would continue to be a paper-
based system.
3:35:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about the impact of removing the
term "voting machine" from Amendment 6.
MS. FENUMIAI pointed out that a "voting machine" refers to a
piece of equipment which counts the ballots. She noted that
this is an important part of the overall system.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his understanding that the language
"voting machine" had existed in statute for decades. He
deferred to Mr. Flynn.
3:37:04 PM
MR. FLYNN noted that "precinct tabulator" is defined in statute.
He agreed that the term "voting machine" is old, and, for all
purposes, this language refers to the voting system, as
described by Ms. Fenumiai.
3:37:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked about the distinction between the
Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the United States Election
Assistance Commission (USEAC). He asked whether the correct
agency is being referenced in Amendment 6.
MS. FENUMIAI expressed assurance that USEAC referenced [on page
1, line 14, as numbered in Amendment 6] is the correct
government agency.
3:38:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the "voluntary voting
system guidelines" referenced on page 1, line 14, as numbered in
Amendment 6.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that the voluntary voting system
guidelines were established by the USEAC.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the difference between
[federal] certification and USEAC's guidelines.
MS. FENUMIAI reiterated that the voluntary voting system
guidelines are the guidelines which vendors must follow to
create new voting systems. Additionally, the vendors must
submit their voting system to the USEAC to be tested in
certified labs based on the voluntary voting system guidelines.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that a vote tally
system certified by the USEAC would be following the FEC's
guidelines.
MS. FENUMIAI responded, "That is correct."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that Amendment 6 would not make a
substantive change in terms of compliance with the voting system
guidelines and certification outlined in Version N.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN proposed Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 6, such that paragraph (1) would be deleted on page 1,
lines 14-15, as numbered in the proposed amendment.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected. He maintained his support for
Amendment 6, absent concerns from DOE. He questioned whether
Ms. Fenumiai had concerns about the current language in Version
N regarding the compliance of voting machines with USEAC
voluntary voting system guidelines, as embodied in Amendment 6.
3:43:43 PM
MS. FENUMIAI responded that she has no concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 6. He inquired about the purpose of the language in
paragraph (3) on page 1, lines 18-21, as numbered in Amendment
6.
3:45:25 PM
MR. STEPP conveyed that essentially, paragraph (3) outlines a
backup plan, such that DOE could use other systems if there were
no open-source voting systems certified by [USEAC], by the
effective date.
3:46:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned whether a comma should be
inserted after the word "firmware", on page 1, line 21, as
numbered in Amendment 6.
MR. STEPP responded, "It doesn't seem necessary to me." He
deferred to the will of the committee.
3:47:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his objection to Amendment 6.
3:49:44 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr, Story,
Claman, Vance, Kaufman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of
Amendment 6. Representatives Eastman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 6-1.
3:50:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 7 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.7, Klein, 5/5/22,
which read:
Page 2, line 24, following "or":
Insert "for perjury under"
Page 2, line 26, following "perjury":
Insert "and witnessed by an election official"
Page 3, line 16:
Delete "director"
Insert "division"
Page 3, line 20:
Delete "director"
Insert "division"
Page 3, line 22:
Delete "director"
Insert "division"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose "of presentation."
3:50:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that Amendment 7 would subject an
applicant to perjury under AS 11, if the person made a false
statement on the voter registration. It would also require an
election official to witness the signed affidavit.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 7 was adopted.
3:51:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 8 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.8, Klein, 5/7/22,
which read:
Page 8, following line 16:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) The division may not allow a municipality
to use the division's data or equipment for a
municipal election unless the municipality enforces a
chain-of-custody system that satisfies the standards
of the division's chain-of-custody system established
under this section."
Page 25, following line 4:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 51. AS 15.56.080(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person commits the crime of election
official misconduct in the second degree if while an
election official, and while the polls are open, the
person
(1) opens a ballot received from a voter at
an election, unless permitted by ordinance in a local
election;
(2) marks a ballot by folding or otherwise
so as to be able to recognize it;
(3) otherwise attempts to learn how a voter
marked a ballot; [OR]
(4) intentionally fails to sign a ballot
chain-of-custody document upon receiving or releasing
a ballot or group of ballots; or
(5) allows a person to do one of the acts
prescribed by (1) - (4) [(1), (2), OR (3)] of this
subsection."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "and"
Page 26, line 25, following "Act,":
Insert "and AS 15.56.080(a), as amended by sec.
51 of this Act,"
Page 26, line 26:
Delete "secs. 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 48 - 51"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 59"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 60 and 61"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
3:51:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE indicated that Amendment 8 referred to
ballot security and chain of custody. She stated that the
proposed amendment ensures that the chain of custody would
continue to be enforced. Additionally, paragraph (4) on page 1,
as numbered in Amendment 8, would reinforce the need to have an
internal chain of custody for accountability.
3:52:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY sought clarification on page 1, lines 3-4,
as numbered in Amendment 8. She shared her understanding that
the City and Borough of Juneau often utilizes DOE's data to
compile a voter registry.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE clarified that the language in question
would urge municipalities to adopt the chain of custody to
ensure consistency.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned whether a chain of custody is
standard practice.
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed that DOE uses a chain of custody for
ballots and voting equipment. She indicated that certain
security measures are in place to allow access to the voter
registration system for municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY sought to confirm that Ms. Fenumiai is
inferring that most municipalities utilized the chain-of-custody
system identified in Amendment 8.
MS. FENUMIAI expressed uncertainty. She added that if the
legislature intends for the division to share voting equipment,
stringent protocols will need to be in place in terms of access.
3:55:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN observed that Amendment 8 would not
require data and equipment sharing between DOE and
municipalities. He expressed the understanding that the
necessary chain of custody would need to be established if
equipment were to be shared.
MS. FENUMIAI responded in the affirmative, there would need to
be chain of custody procedures implemented if equipment were to
be shared with the municipality.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection to Amendment 8.
3:57:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE reiterated that the intent of Amendment 8
is to ensure that the ballot chain of custody would be
consistent.
3:57:32 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Vance, and
Kaufman voted in favor of Amendment 8. Representatives Story,
Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 8 failed by a vote of 3-3.
3:58:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 9 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.9, Klein, 5/5/22,
which read:
Page 15, lines 2 - 9:
Delete all material and insert:
"(m) An absentee ballot application must include
an option for a qualified voter to choose to receive
absentee ballots by mail for future statewide
elections for a period of four years. After the four-
year period concludes, the division shall notify the
voter that the voter may reapply to receive absentee
ballots by mail for another four-year period. If the
voter votes in person during the four year period, the
division shall stop sending the voter absentee
ballots. If a previous absentee ballot sent under this
section or other mail sent to the voter by the
division is returned as undeliverable, the division
shall stop sending the voter absentee ballots. A voter
may reapply to receive absentee ballots by mail."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
3:58:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that Amendment 9 would allow voters
to choose to receive absentee ballots by mail for future
statewide elections for a period of two years or four years.
She explained that the amendment would offer a compromise
between a two-year timeline and a four-year timeline, both of
which were debated in committee.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to clarify that the intention of the
language on page 5 of Amendment 9 is after the two-or four-year
period concludes.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE responded in the affirmative.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Fenumiai to comment on Amendment
9.
3:59:30 PM
MS. FENUMIAI said she had no comment. She made a note on
drafting technicalities, suggesting that the language use would
need to be extended throughout the entire section referencing
"four years".
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS concurred with the comment.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE pointed out that, if the committee is
supportive of the "two- or four-year" options, the chair could
grant Legislative Legal Services the authority to make
conforming changes.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection to Amendment 9.
4:00:45 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kaufman, Eastman,
and Vance voted in favor of Amendment 9. Representatives Story,
Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 9 failed by a vote of 3-3.
4:01:27 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:01 p.m. to 4:02 p.m.
4:02:44 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 10 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.14, Klein, 5/8/22,
which read:
Page 16, lines 4 - 5:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) THE BALLOT IS NOT ATTESTED ON OR
BEFORE THE DATE OF THE ELECTION;"
Page 16, line 6:
Delete "(3) [(4)]"
Insert "(4)]"
Page 16, line 12:
Delete "(4)"
Insert "(3)"
Page 16, line 14:
Delete "(5)"
Insert "(4)"
Page 17, line 9:
Delete "(6)"
Insert "(5)"
Page 17, line 10, following "records":
Insert "or the voter does not have a signature
stored in voter registration records"
Page 18, lines 16 - 19:
Delete "because the voter does not have a
signature stored in voter registration records, the
certificate is missing a signature, the signature on
the certificate is determined under AS 15.20.203 to
not match the signature in voter registration records,
or the voter provided insufficient voter
identification,"
Insert "under AS 15.20.203(b)(1), (4), or (5)"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
4:02:54 PM
MR. STEPP noted that Amendment 10 originated as a suggestion
from Secure Democracy. He explained that by deleting the
material on page 16, lines 4-5 of the bill, the proposed
amendment would help to avoid a situation in which a mail ballot
is rejected simply because a voter left the date blank or
misdated the certificate. Further, Amendment 10 would clean up
the ballot curing provision by explicitly cross-referencing the
reasons that ballots, which are subject to cure, may be
rejected. It would also make the curing provision and the
ballot rejection provision consistent, in that a by-mail ballot
would be rejected and sent to cure if the voter did not have a
signature on file in the voter registration record.
4:04:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned the deletion of the language
on page 2, lines 3-6, as numbered in Amendment 10.
MR. STEPP offered his belief that the intent would be to provide
an opportunity to cure the ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that the operative language is
on page 18, line 22 of Version N. He questioned whether
removing the language in question would eliminate the basis for
the director of DOE to notify voters of a deficient ballot.
MR. STEPP directed attention to page 2, line 7, as numbered in
Amendment 10, which cited AS 15.20.203. He argued that the
language being deleted on page 2, lines 3-6, as numbered in
Amendment 10, is redundant, as it is outlined under AS
15.20.203(b)(1), (4), and (5). He deferred to Ms. Fenumiai or
Mr. Flynn for corroboration.
4:08:44 PM
MR. FLYNN acknowledged that page 2, line 7, as numbered in
Amendment 10, cites paragraphs (1), (4), and (5) of AS
15.20.203(b). Referencing page 15 of Version N, he remarked,
"the cross-references [took] what was described in text as those
three issues and just cross-referenced them to the statute that
its describing."
4:10:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned the rationale for removing the
date on the certificate.
MR. STEPP responded that, because of the presence of an
intelligent mail barcode, which reliably signifies the date, no
other date is needed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN proposed a scenario in which a
certificate was missing a signature, and the barcode was
unreadable. He asked what the division would do under those
circumstances.
MR. STEPP reminded the committee that ballot curing would be a
new procedure in Alaska. He shared his understanding that the
scenario posed would present an opportunity for a cure. He
deferred to Ms. Fenumiai for further clarification.
4:13:28 PM
MS. FENUMIAI responded that she did not have an answer for every
scenario which may occur in the curing process. She pointed out
that currently, voter signatures were not required on by-mail
envelopes; therefore, any reference to a signature date on a
voter certificate is not a current requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned the requirement on page 16,
line 4, of Version N, which stated "the certificate is not
signed on or before the date of the election".
MS. FENUMIAI said the language in question refers to AS
15.20.203, which outlines the procedure for absentee ballot
review. She shared her understanding that page 16, line 4,
refers to the witness requirement for by-mail ballots.
MR. FLYNN pointed out AS 15.20.203(b)(3) states, "The ballot is
not attested on or before the date of the election;". He noted
that the language refers to the witness, as opposed to the
voter.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that language on page
1, lines 1-4 as numbered in Amendment 10, would remove the
witness requirement on absentee ballots.
4:16:43 PM
MR. FLYNN answered yes, the witness requirement would be
removed.
4:17:02 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:17 p.m. to 4:19 p.m.
4:19:59 PM
MR. STEPP stated that the intent of the proposed amendment would
be to avoid a situation in which a by-mail ballot is rejected
because the voter had left the date blank or misdated the
certificate. He asked Mr. Flynn whether this intent is captured
in Amendment 10.
4:21:14 PM
MR. FLYNN explained that all the requirements [in Section 37]
work in concert, making absentee by-mail ballots work. He
suggested that the committee consider adding a date requirement
to the certificate, given that the witness requirement would be
removed.
MR. STEPP explained that the use of intelligent-mail barcodes
would remove the necessity for a handwritten date, which is less
reliable.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to table Amendment 10. There being
no objection, Amendment 10 was tabled. He noted Representative
Tarr's absence, indicating that Amendments 11, 12, and 13 would
not be offered at this time.
4:23:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 14 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.20, Klein, 5/8/22,
which read:
Page 4, line 3:
Delete "an absentee in-person, special needs, or"
Insert "a"
Page 4, lines 21 - 22:
Delete "an absentee in-person, special needs, or"
Insert "a"
Page 4, line 30:
Delete "an absentee in-person, special needs, or"
Insert "a"
Page 5, lines 5 - 6:
Delete "an absentee in-person, special needs, or"
Insert "a"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
4:23:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE informed the committee that Amendment 14
would make it so only a person registering before an official
may vote a question ballot. In response to a question from
Chair Kreiss-Thomkins, she expressed the belief that requiring
the voter to use a question ballot would ensure proper
eligibility and oversight.
4:25:44 PM
MIKE MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor of
HB 66, asked whether question ballots would be available at the
early voting and absentee in-person voting stations.
MS. FENUMIAI stated that question ballots are voted only at the
precinct on Election Day. She clarified that a "question
ballot" refers to the type of envelope, or voter certificate,
completed by the voter. She indicated that the actual ballot is
always the same. She assured that all absentee in-person,
special needs, and question ballots undergo a thorough review
process to validate a voter's eligibility; therefore, the vote
would be counted.
4:27:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the review process for each
type of envelope is the same.
MS. FENUMIAI answered yes, each ballot goes through an identical
review process. She noted that a review process is completed by
the absentee review board, while question review board completes
another.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE withdrew Amendment 14.
4:28:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 15 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.21, Klein, 5/8/22,
which read:
Page 24, line 13:
Delete "absentee"
Page 24, line 14:
Delete "absentee"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
4:28:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE conveyed that Amendment 15 would clarify
that signed ballot certificates, sealed ballot envelopes, or
packages of ballots could not be intentionally opened or
tampered with.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 15 was adopted.
4:29:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 16 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.22, Klein, 5/5/22,
which read:
Page 11, line 14, following "station":
Insert "because of an unforeseen emergency"
Page 11, line 17, following "writing":
Insert "at least 45 days before election day"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
4:29:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that Amendment 16 would clarify
the provision pertaining to the designation of an early voting
station by adding "because of an unforeseen emergency" to the
qualifying language in paragraph (1). Additionally, the
proposed amendment would set a 45-day deadline for determining
that a location is no longer appropriate for use as an early
voting station and making that determination available to the
public.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the DOE's perspective on
Amendment 16.
4:31:02 PM
MS. FENUMIAI explained that AS 15.20.050 outlined a requirement
of full public notice, indicating that the director "shall" give
notice of the location of absentee voting stations at least 45
days before each election. She noted that the current practice
is to post this information on DOE's website prior to each
election. In response to a follow-up question, she asserted
that sending every registered voter in the state a written
notice could pose some difficulties for the division.
4:32:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned the written notification.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE pointed out that Amendment 16 would not
change the written notification requirement; further, she
clarified that the proposed amendment made no specific reference
to each registered voter. She agreed that this could be
burdensome. She explained that the intention is for a public
notice regarding the change of a polling location to be beyond
DOE's website. She suggested publishing in the newspaper would
accommodate voters who do not have access to the internet.
4:34:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the proposed amendment would
be too prescriptive.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE shared a personal anecdote. She stated
that the amendment would create a proper public notification
system for location changes, so it would not seem that the
division is making changes arbitrarily.
4:36:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the current policy for
changing polling stations.
MS. FENUMIAI requested further clarification, as both "absentee
voting" and "polling place locations" had been referenced. She
explained that AS 15.10.090 outlined the procedure for changing
polling locations and read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Sec. 15.10.090. Notice of precinct boundary or
polling place designation and modification.
The director shall give full public notice if a
precinct is established or abolished, if the
boundaries of a precinct are designated, abolished, or
modified, or if the location of a polling place is
changed. 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 publication once in a local newspaper of
general circulation in the precinct; or
(B) if there is not a local newspaper of general
circulation in the precinct, by posting written notice
in three conspicuous places as close to the precinct
as possible; at least one posting location must be in
the precinct;
(3) posting notice of the change on the Internet
website of the division of elections;
(4) providing notification of the change to the
appropriate municipal clerks, community councils,
tribal groups, Native villages, and village regional
corporations established under 43 U.S.C. 1606 (Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act); and
(5) inclusion in the official election pamphlet.
4:39:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE questioned whether the intention would be
to treat "early voting stations" the same as "polling
locations."
4:39:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 66, said the intention would be to maintain early
voting stations once established; unless, for some reason, they
become no longer available. He indicated that the objective is
to create consistency.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE withdrew Amendment 16.
4:40:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 17 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.23, Klein, 5/5/22,
which read:
Page 14, line 30, following "barcode":
Insert "or a division of elections ballot
tracking barcode"
Page 16, line 10, following "barcode":
Insert "or a division of elections ballot
tracking barcode"
Page 17, line 8:
Delete "or"
Page 17, line 10, following "records":
Insert "; or
(7) the ballot does not include the
watermark, seal, or other security identifier required
under AS 15. 15.030(18)"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
4:41:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE spoke to Amendment 17. She said the intent
would be to further clarify the provision concerning the United
States Postal Service tracking barcode. She explained that the
addition of the language, "or a division of elections ballot
tracking barcode", would allow the division to contract with a
private ballot-tracking system, thus providing additional
flexibility. Further, the proposed amendment would add
clarifying language to the terms for rejecting a ballot by
requiring the inclusion of a watermark, seal, or other security
identifier.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that the proposed amendment would
offer DOE more inclusive statutory language. He asked for the
division's perspective on Amendment 17.
4:42:58 PM
MS. FENUMIAI questioned the type of barcode used by privately
contracted companies; nonetheless, she acknowledged that two
options would be better than one.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE noted that Legislative Legal Services has
confirmed that the proposed language would allow the division to
contract with private ballot-tracking programs.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that language in lines 10-13,
as numbered in Amendment 17, already exists in Section 14 of
Version N. He indicated that the inserted language would be
redundant.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that her intent is to create a
statutory checklist of qualifications for rejecting a ballot.
She expressed the belief that "the ballot does not include the
watermark, seal, or other security identifier under AS
15.15.030(18)." She argued that these should be on the list.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that Section 14 of
Version N already accomplished lines 10-13 of Amendment 17.
4:46:18 PM
MR. FLYNN concurred.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 17, such that lines 10-13 [as numbered in Amendment
17] would be deleted.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:47:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered his understanding that Conceptual
Amendment 1 would delete lines 6-13, as numbered in Amendment
17, not lines 10-13.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS responded in the affirmative. He withdrew
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 17.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment 17, which sought to delete lines 7-13, as numbered in
Amendment 13.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
4:47:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the sponsor of Amendment 17
is amenable to Conceptual Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE agreed that lines 7-13 were redundant. She
expressed her support for the proposed conceptual amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 17 was
adopted.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to Amendment 17, as
conceptually amended. There being no further objection,
Amendment 17, as conceptually amended, was adopted.
4:49:12 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 18 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.24, Klein, 5/8/22,
which read:
Page 3, following line 29:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 15.07.070(c) is amended to read:
(c) The names of persons submitting completed
registration forms by mail that are postmarked at
least 30 days before the next election, or submitting
completed registration forms by facsimile or other
electronic transmission approved by the director under
AS 15.07.050 that are received at least 30 days before
the next election, shall be placed on the official
registration list for that election. If a registration
form received by mail less than 30 days before an
election does not have a legible and dated postmark,
the name of the person submitting the form shall be
placed on the official registration list for that
election if the form was signed and dated by the
person at least 30 days before the election and if the
form is received by the director or election
supervisor at least 25 days before the election. The
name of a person submitting a completed registration
form by mail or by facsimile or other electronic
transmission that does not meet the applicable
requirements of this subsection may not be placed on
the official registration list for that election but
shall be placed on the master register after that
election. A person submitting a completed registration
form that does not meet the requirements of this
subsection for placement on the master register for
the next election but who complies with
AS 15.07.060(a)(13) may vote an absentee in-person,
special needs, or questioned ballot at that election."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 47"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 49"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 46, 47, and 49 - 51"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 44 and 45"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 59"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 60 and 61"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
4:49:31 PM
MR. STEPP explained that the purpose of Amendment 18 would be to
clean up existing statutory language to account for expanded
same-day registration. He explained that if a voter were to
file a mail-in or online registration within 30 days of the
election, current law states that the person's name may not be
placed on the official registration list for that election. The
proposed amendment, he said, would clarify that while the
person's mail or online registration may not be effective until
after the election, the voter could still use same-day
registration procedures to register and would not be locked out
of registration.
4:50:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN observed that [AS 15.07.060(a)(13)], as
referenced on page 1, line 19 of Amendment 18, is on page 2,
line 25 of Version N. He directed attention to page 1, line 9,
as numbered in Amendment 18, and asked for clarification on the
timeline for mailing a registration form to the division.
MR. STEPP responded that the language in question is existing
statute. He deferred to Ms. Fenumiai.
4:53:38 PM
MS. FENUMIAI explained that, per AS 15.07.070(c), the voter
registration deadline is 30 days prior to the election; however,
the form must be signed on or before that date and received by
the division at least 25 days before the election.
4:54:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it would be the bill
sponsor's intent that a person could register and vote an
absentee in-person, specialty, or question ballot on the day of
an election.
MR. STEPP responded in the affirmative.
4:55:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 18 was adopted.
4:56:10 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 19 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.25, Klein, 5/7/22,
which read:
Page 16, lines 4 - 5:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) THE BALLOT IS NOT ATTESTED ON OR
BEFORE THE DATE OF THE ELECTION;"
Page 16, line 6:
Delete "(3) ["
Page 16, line 12:
Delete "(4)"
Insert "(3)"
Page 16, line 14:
Delete "(5)"
Insert "(4)"
Page 17, line 9:
Delete "(6)"
Insert "(5)"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
4:56:23 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his understanding that Amendment 19
is "intertwined" with Amendment 10, which has been tabled.
[The committee treated Amendment 19 as tabled.]
MR. STEPP asked to "take another bite" [at Amendment 10].
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS advised that the committee recess, and once
reconvened the issue could be addressed.
4:57:10 PM
The House State Affairs Standing Committee recessed at 4:57 p.m.
[The meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m.]
7:38:49 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting back to order at 7:38 p.m. Representatives
Vance, Tarr, Kaufman, Claman, Story, Eastman, and Kreiss-Tomkins
were present at the call back to order.
7:39:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt [Amendment 25] to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.32, Ambrose/Klein,
5/8/22, which read:
Page 8, line 4, following "AS 15.15.450.":
Insert "The system must include monitoring of
ballots by video camera, whose footage the division
shall stream live and make available for public
viewing on the division's Internet website, covering
the time the ballots arrive at the division until the
election is certified under AS 15.15.450, including
the completion of any audits or recounts."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
7:40:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the purpose of Amendment
25 would be to allow the public to observe the ballot process
via live video surveillance footage. This would cover the time
the ballots arrive at the division until the election is
certified, and it would include the completion of any audits or
recounts. He noted that the footage would be made available for
public viewing on the division's website.
7:41:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR questioned why observers physically present
for the ballot count would not be sufficient. She expressed
concern that broadcasting the process would compromise workers'
safety.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said this would allow the ballots to be
seen online, via a live feed, for the duration of the process.
He argued that video monitoring would increase security and
address any complaints or objections.
7:44:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN voiced opposition to the amendment. He
stated that he had been involved in a close state race and had
observed the process. He expressed the belief that exercising
this proposal would require an enormous fiscal note to
accommodate the video technology and larger facilities.
7:45:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN acknowledged that more cameras would need
to be purchased; however, he argued that this is the cost of
doing business in the twenty-first century.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection to Amendment 25.
7:47:02 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 25. Representatives Tarr,
Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 25 failed by a vote of 4-3.
7:47:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 26 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.33, Ambrose/Klein,
5/8/22, which read:
Page 7, line 14, following "board.":
Insert "The watcher may use a cell phone to
document the actions observed by the watcher."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
7:48:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN conveyed that Amendment 26 would allow
the appointed election "watchers" to use a cell phone to
document observed actions.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR questioned how to strike a balance between
transparency and accountability without creating an environment
of intimidation.
7:50:11 PM
MS. FENUMIAI voiced that this question has not been addressed by
the division. She shared the concerns expressed by
Representative Tarr about worker intimidation.
7:50:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether anything in existing law
prohibited [the use of cell phones to document actions observed
by the watcher].
MS. FENUMIAI expressed uncertainty about an existing legal
prohibition. She noted that any disruption at a polling place
was a top concern for the division. She deferred to Mr. Flynn.
7:51:52 PM
MR. FLYNN expressed uncertainty concerning any legal prohibition
on the use of a cell phone by a watcher. He expressed concern
about the watcher capturing personal identifiable information or
confidential information in the voter registration record.
7:52:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about current restrictions on
watchers in terms of personal identifiable information (PII).
MR. FLYNN expressed uncertainty. He offered to follow up with
the requested information. He remarked, "It's one thing to see
these things in passing and another to record them."
7:52:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether there is a concern about
allowing poll watchers to record the process on their personal
cell phones.
MR. FLYNN expressed uncertainty concerning consent for
recording.
7:53:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked at what point in the process PII
might be observed by poll watchers. Additionally, he asked what
the PII would consist of.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that poll watchers were required to stand
at a distance to obstruct access to the precinct register. She
conveyed that observable PII would consist of information on the
precinct register, such as voter number, date of birth, social
security number, and driver's license number.
7:55:09 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection to Amendment 26.
7:55:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN argued that the proposed amendment would
bring Alaska into the twenty-first century.
7:56:20 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 26. Representatives Claman,
Tarr, Story, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 26 failed by a vote of 3-4.
7:56:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 27 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.34, Ambrose/Klein,
5/8/22, which read:
Page 12, line 24:
Delete "and"
Page 12, line 25, following "register":
Insert "; and
(4) exhibition of proof of an employment
conflict that prevents the voter from casting a vote
in person on election day in the precinct in which the
voter is qualified to vote"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
7:57:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Amendment 27 would put
limitations on early voting by limiting its access to those
individuals who could demonstrate a conflict that prevents the
voter from casting a vote in person on Election Day in the
precinct.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.
7:58:09 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Eastman voted in
favor of Amendment 27. Representatives Story, Claman, Vance,
Kaufman, Tarr, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 27 failed by a vote of 1-6.
7:58:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 28 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.35, Ambrose/Klein,
5/9/22, which read:
Page 20, following line 7:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) The division shall
(1) capture an image of each ballot that
has been counted or scanned by the division;
(2) publish each image captured on the
division's Internet website on the same day the ballot
was counted or scanned; and
(3) retain the image and make the image
available for viewing on the division's Internet
website for not less than four years after the date
the image is first published."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
7:58:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 28 would require
the division to publish a scanned image of each ballot on DOE's
website on the same day the ballot was counted.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.
8:00:54 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 28. Representatives Tarr,
Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 28 failed by a vote of 3-4.
8:01:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 29 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.39, Foote/Klein,
5/10/22, which read:
Page 20, following line 16:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(f) A ballot may not be scanned until after the
closing of the polls under AS 15.15.310."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
8:01:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN conveyed that the proposed amendment
would add clarifying language, such that a ballot may not be
scanned until after the closing of the polls under AS 15.15.310.
8:02:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR shared her belief that Amendment 29 would
conflict with provisions in Version N that allow the counting of
certain ballots to begin two weeks in advance. For that reason,
she expressed opposition to the proposal.
8:02:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that the amendment would not apply
to hand-counted ballots only those that were scanned.
[The committee treated the objection as if it was maintained.]
8:03:13 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Vance, and
Kaufman voted in favor of Amendment 29. Representatives Tarr,
Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 29 failed by a vote of 3-4.
8:03:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 30 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.41, Foote/Klein,
5/9/22, which read:
Page 2, following line 24:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(13) a declaration of whether the
applicant requests a hand count of the applicant's
ballot;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 4, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 15.07.070(f) is amended to read:
(f) Incomplete or inaccurate registration forms
may not be accepted. A person who submitted an
incomplete or inaccurate registration form may
register by reexecuting and resubmitting a
registration form in person, by mail, or by facsimile
or other electronic transmission approved by the
director under AS 15.07.050. The requirements of (c)
or (d) of this section apply to a registration form
resubmitted under this subsection. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, an application made under AS 43.23.015 that
contains the information required by
AS 15.07.060(a)(1) - (4), [AND] (7) - (9), and (13),
and an attestation that such information is true,
shall not be deemed an incomplete registration form
and shall be accepted in accordance with
AS 15.07.070(i)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, following line 18:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 7. AS 15.07.070(j) is amended to read:
(j) The division shall cooperate with the
Department of Revenue under AS 43.23.101 to ensure
that the permanent fund dividend application form
furnished by the Department of Revenue under
AS 43.23.015 allows an applicant, a person who is
designated in a power of attorney to act on behalf of
an applicant, or a person acting on behalf of a
physically disabled applicant to submit voter
registration information required under
AS 15.07.060(a)(1) - (4), [AND] (7) - (9), and (13),
and an attestation that such information is true. The
director may require proof of identification of the
applicant, if not already in the Department of
Revenue's possession, as required by regulations
adopted by the director under AS 44.62 (Administrative
Procedure Act)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, following line 17:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 58. AS 43.23.015(b) is amended to read:
(b) The department shall prescribe and furnish
an application form for claiming a permanent fund
dividend. The application must include
(1) notice of the penalties provided for
under AS 43.23.270;
(2) a statement of eligibility and a
certification of residency;
(3) the means for an applicant eligible to
vote under AS 15.05, or a person authorized to act on
behalf of the applicant, to furnish information
required by AS 15.07.060(a)(1) - (4), [AND] (7) - (9),
and (13), and an attestation that such information is
true.
* Sec. 59. AS 43.23.101 is amended to read:
Sec. 43.23.101. Voter registration. The
commissioner shall establish by rule a schedule by
which the commissioner will provide, and shall provide
as soon as is practicable the director of elections
with
(1) electronic records from the permanent
fund dividend applications of the information required
by AS 15.07.060(a)(1) - (4), [AND] (7) - (9), and
(13), and the attestation that such information is
true, for each permanent fund dividend applicant who
(A) is a citizen of the United States; and
(B) is at least 18 years of age or will be
within 90 days of the date of the application; and
(2) the mailing addresses for all permanent
fund dividend applicants."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 47"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 48"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 52"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 47, 48, and 50 - 52"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 45 and 46"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 62"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 63 and 64"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
8:03:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said the proposed amendment would allow
an applicant to declare, on the voter registration, a request
for a hand count of the applicant's ballot. He noted that the
language itself would not require a hand count; rather, it would
act as an expression of the voter's interests. He argued that
Amendment 30 would provide the division and the legislature with
more access to information on voter preference.
8:04:49 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kaufman, Eastman,
and Vance voted in favor of Amendment 30. Representatives Tarr,
Story, Claman, and Kaufman voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 30 failed by a vote of 3-4.
8:05:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 31 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.42, Radford/Klein,
5/10/22, which read:
Page 1, line 2, following "voting,":
Insert "voter misconduct,"
Page 1, following line 4:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 12.55.035(b) is amended to read:
(b) Upon conviction of an offense, a defendant
who is not an organization may be sentenced to pay,
unless otherwise specified in the provision of law
defining the offense, a fine of not more than
(1) $500,000 for murder in the first or
second degree, attempted murder in the first degree,
murder of an unborn child, sexual assault in the first
degree, sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree,
kidnapping, sex trafficking in the first degree under
AS 11.66.110(a)(2), or misconduct involving a
controlled substance in the first degree;
(2) $250,000 for a class A felony;
(3) $100,000 for a class B felony, except
as provided in (5) of this subsection;
(4) $50,000 for a class C felony;
(5) $25,000 for
(A) an offense under AS 15.56.040(b)(1);
(B) a class A misdemeanor;
(6) $2,000 for a class B misdemeanor;
(7) $500 for a violation.
* Sec. 2. AS 12.55.078(f) is amended to read:
(f) The court may not suspend the imposition or
entry of judgment and may not defer prosecution under
this section of a person who
(1) is charged with a violation of
AS 11.41.100 - 11.41.220, 11.41.260 - 11.41.320,
11.41.360 - 11.41.370, 11.41.410 - 11.41.530,
AS 11.46.400, AS 11.61.125 - 11.61.128, [OR]
AS 11.66.110 - 11.66.135, or AS 15.56.040(a)(1);
(2) uses a firearm in the commission of the
offense for which the person is charged;
(3) has previously been granted a
suspension of judgment under this section or a similar
statute in another jurisdiction, unless the court
enters written findings that by clear and convincing
evidence the person's prospects for rehabilitation are
high and suspending judgment under this section
adequately protects the victim of the offense, if any,
and the community;
(4) is charged with a violation of
AS 11.41.230, 11.41.250, or a felony and the person
has one or more prior convictions for a misdemeanor
violation of AS 11.41 or for a felony or for a
violation of a law in this or another jurisdiction
having similar elements to an offense defined as a
misdemeanor in AS 11.41 or as a felony in this state;
for the purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be
considered to have a prior conviction even if
(A) the charges were dismissed under this
section;
(B) the conviction has been set aside under
AS 12.55.085; or
(C) the charge or conviction was dismissed
or set aside under an equivalent provision of the laws
of another jurisdiction; or
(5) is charged with a crime involving
domestic violence, as defined in AS 18.66.990.
* Sec. 3. AS 12.55.085(f) is amended to read:
(f) The court may not suspend the imposition of
sentence of a person who
(1) is convicted of a violation of
AS 11.41.100 - 11.41.220, 11.41.260 - 11.41.320,
11.41.360 - 11.41.370, 11.41.410 - 11.41.530,
AS 11.46.400, AS 11.61.125 - 11.61.128, [OR]
AS 11.66.110 - 11.66.135, or AS 15.56.040(a)(1);
(2) uses a firearm in the commission of the
offense for which the person is convicted; or
(3) is convicted of a violation of
AS 11.41.230 - 11.41.250 or a felony and the person
has one or more prior convictions for a misdemeanor
violation of AS 11.41 or for a felony or for a
violation of a law in this or another jurisdiction
having similar elements to an offense defined as a
misdemeanor in AS 11.41 or as a felony in this state;
for the purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be
considered to have a prior conviction even if that
conviction has been set aside under (e) of this
section or under the equivalent provision of the laws
of another jurisdiction.
* Sec. 4. AS 12.55.090(a) is amended to read:
(a) Except as provided under (o) of this
section, probation [PROBATION] may be granted whether
the offense under AS 11 or AS 16 or the crime is
punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. If an
offense under AS 11 or AS 16 or a crime is punishable
by both fine and imprisonment, the court may impose a
fine and place the defendant on probation as to
imprisonment. Probation may be limited to one or more
counts or indictments, but, in the absence of express
limitation, shall extend to the entire sentence and
judgment.
* Sec. 5. AS 12.55.090 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(o) A defendant is not eligible for probation
under this section if the defendant has been convicted
of a crime under AS 15.56.040(a)(1).
* Sec. 6. AS 12.55.125(d) is amended to read:
(d) Except as provided in (i) of this section, a
defendant convicted of a class B felony may be
sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of not
more than 10 years, and shall be sentenced to a
definite term within the following presumptive ranges,
subject to adjustment as provided in AS 12.55.155 -
12.55.175:
(1) if the offense is a first felony
conviction and does not involve circumstances
described in (2) or (5) of this subsection, one to
three years; a defendant sentenced under this
paragraph may, if the court finds it appropriate, be
granted a suspended imposition of sentence under
AS 12.55.085 if, as a condition of probation under
AS 12.55.086, the defendant is required to serve an
active term of imprisonment within the range specified
in this paragraph, unless the court finds that a
mitigation factor under AS 12.55.155 applies;
(2) if the offense is a first felony
conviction,
(A) the defendant violated AS 11.41.130,
and the victim was a child under 16 years of age, two
to four years;
(B) two to four years if the conviction is
for attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy to
manufacture related to methamphetamine under AS 11.31
and AS 11.71.021(a)(2)(A) or (B), and
(i) the attempted manufacturing occurred,
or the solicited or conspired offense was to have
occurred, in a building with reckless disregard that
the building was used as a permanent or temporary home
or place of lodging for one or more children under 18
years of age or the building was a place frequented by
children; or
(ii) in the course of an attempt to
manufacture, the defendant obtained the assistance of
one or more children under 18 years of age or one or
more children were present;
(3) if the offense is a second felony
conviction, three to seven years;
(4) if the offense is a third felony
conviction, six to 10 years;
(5) if the offense is a felony conviction
under AS 15.56.040(b)(1), two to four years.
* Sec. 7. AS 12.55.127(c) is amended to read:
(c) If the defendant is being sentenced for
(1) escape, the term of imprisonment shall
be consecutive to the term for the underlying crime;
(2) two or more crimes under AS 11.41, a
consecutive term of imprisonment shall be imposed for
at least
(A) the mandatory minimum term under
AS 12.55.125(a) for each additional crime that is
murder in the first degree;
(B) the mandatory minimum term for each
additional crime that is an unclassified felony
governed by AS 12.55.125(b);
(C) the presumptive term specified in
AS 12.55.125(c) or the active term of imprisonment,
whichever is less, for each additional crime that is
(i) manslaughter; or
(ii) kidnapping that is a class A felony;
(D) two years or the active term of
imprisonment, whichever is less, for each additional
crime that is criminally negligent homicide;
(E) one-fourth of the presumptive term
under AS 12.55.125(c) or (i) for each additional crime
that is sexual assault in the first degree under
AS 11.41.410 or sexual abuse of a minor in the first
degree under AS 11.41.434, or an attempt,
solicitation, or conspiracy to commit those offenses;
and
(F) some additional term of imprisonment
for each additional crime, or each additional attempt
or solicitation to commit the offense, under
AS 11.41.200 - 11.41.250, 11.41.420 - 11.41.432,
11.41.436 - 11.41.458, or 11.41.500 - 11.41.520;
(3) voter misconduct in the first degree
under AS 15.56.040(b)(1), the term of imprisonment
shall be consecutive to the term for each additional
crime."
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 8"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 23, following line 25:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 55. AS 15.56.040(b) is amended to read:
(b) Voter misconduct in the first degree
(1) is a class B felony if the person
violates (a)(1) of this section;
(2) is a class C felony if the person
violates (a)(2), (3), or (4) of this section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, following line 17:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 64. AS 33.16.010(g) is amended to read:
(g) A prisoner is not eligible for mandatory
parole if the prisoner has been convicted of a crime
under AS 11.41.100, [OR] 11.41.110, or
AS 15.56.040(a)(1).
* Sec. 65. AS 33.16.090(a) is amended to read:
(a) A prisoner sentenced to an active term of
imprisonment of at least 181 days may, in the
discretion of the board, be released on discretionary
parole if the prisoner
(1) has served the amount of time specified
under (b) of this section, except that
(A) a prisoner sentenced to one or more
mandatory 99-year terms under AS 12.55.125(a), [OR]
one or more definite terms under AS 12.55.125(l), or
under AS 15.56.040(b)(1) is not eligible for
consideration for discretionary parole;
(B) a prisoner is not eligible for
consideration of discretionary parole if made
ineligible by order of a court under AS 12.55.115;
(C) a prisoner imprisoned under
AS 12.55.086 is not eligible for discretionary parole
unless the actual term of imprisonment is more than
one year;
(D) a prisoner sentenced to a single
sentence within or below a presumptive range set out
in AS 12.55.125(c), (d)(2) - (4), (e)(3) and (4), or
(i) who has not been allowed by the three-judge panel
under AS 12.55.175 to be considered for discretionary
parole release is not eligible for consideration of
discretionary parole;
(E) a prisoner sentenced to a single
sentence, including a consecutive or partially
consecutive sentence, that is not eligible for a good
time deduction under AS 33.20.010(a)(3) and that has
not been allowed by the three-judge panel under
AS 12.55.175 to be considered for discretionary parole
release is not eligible for consideration of
discretionary parole; or
(2) is at least 60 years of age, has served
at least 10 years of a sentence for one or more crimes
in a single judgment, and has not been convicted of an
unclassified felony or a sexual felony as defined in
AS 12.55.185.
* Sec. 66. AS 33.20.010(a) is amended to read:
(a) Notwithstanding AS 12.55.125(f)(3) and
12.55.125(g)(3), a prisoner convicted of an offense
against the state or a political subdivision of the
state and sentenced to a term of imprisonment that
exceeds three days is entitled to a deduction of one-
third of the term of imprisonment rounded off to the
nearest day if the prisoner follows the rules of the
correctional facility in which the prisoner is
confined. A prisoner is not eligible for a good time
deduction if the prisoner has been sentenced
(1) to a mandatory 99-year term of
imprisonment under AS 12.55.125(a) after June 27,
1996;
(2) to a definite term under
AS 12.55.125(l);
(3) for a sexual felony under
AS 12.55.125(i)
(A) and has one or more prior sexual felony
convictions as determined under AS 12.55.145(a)(4); or
(B) that is an unclassified or a class A
felony; [OR]
(4) for an unclassified felony under
AS 11.41.100 or 11.41.110; or
(5) for an offense under
AS 15.56.040(b)(1)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Following "APPLICABILITY.":
Insert "AS 12.55.035(b), as amended by sec. 1 of
this Act, AS 12.55.078(f), as amended by sec. 2 of
this Act, AS 12.55.085(f), as amended by sec. 3 of
this Act, AS 12.55.090(a), as amended by sec. 4 of
this Act, AS 12.55.090(o), enacted by sec. 5 of this
Act, AS 12.55.125(d), as amended by sec. 6 of this
Act, AS 12.55.127(c), as amended by sec. 7 of this
Act,"
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 52"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 53"
Following "Act,":
Insert "AS 15.56.040(b), as amended by sec. 55 of
this Act,"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 56"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 57"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50""
Insert "sec. 58"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 1 - 7, 52, 53, and 55 - 58"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 50 and 51"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 69"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 70 and 71"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
8:05:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 31 would
increase the penalty for knowingly attempting to vote another
person's ballot. The fine for said crime would be up to
$100,000, he said, and the offender could be convicted of a
Class B felony. Further, the proposed amendment would deny the
offender discretionary probation.
8:06:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about the varying levels of
felony offenses.
MR. FLYNN offered to follow up with the requested information
after conferring with DOL's Criminal Division.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.
8:08:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to the sentencing
windows on page 4 of the proposed amendment. He reported that
the presumptive window is two to four years for the offense
outlined in Amendment 31.
8:09:09 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance and Eastman
voted in favor of Amendment 31. Representatives Kaufman, Tarr,
Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 31 failed by a vote of 2-5.
8:09:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 32 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.43, Foote/Klein,
5/9/22, which read:
Page 7, following line 26:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 15. AS 15.15.032(c) is amended to read:
(c) The director shall provide for a paper
record of each electronically generated ballot that
can be
(1) reviewed and corrected by the voter at
the time the vote is cast; [AND]
(2) used for a recount of the votes cast at
an election in which electronically generated ballots
were used;
(3) used as the official ballot for a vote
count in a hand-count district."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 47"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 49"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 46, 47, and 49 - 51"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 44 and 45"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 59"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 60 and 61"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
8:09:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN conveyed that Amendment 32 would add
clarifying language so the paper record of each electronically
generated ballot would be used as the official ballot for a vote
count in a hand-count district.
8:10:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether ballots were currently
electronically generated.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded in the negative. He added that
currently, the only electronically generated ballots are those
printed off the internet and mailed in.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN questioned concerns of having
electronically generated ballots.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed concern about the security of
printed and scanned ballots.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN directed the same question to the maker
of Amendment 32.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded that the amendment would
clarify that electronically generated paper ballots would be
treated the same as paper ballots.
8:14:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR sought to confirm that this provision was
not flagged for consideration by the sponsor of the companion
bill in the Senate or by the governor in his proposed
legislation.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS confirmed that the provision in question is
not a cause for concern.
8:15:29 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 32. Representatives Claman,
Tarr, Story, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 32 failed by a vote of 3-4.
8:16:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 33 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.44, Foote/Klein,
5/9/22, which read:
Page 10, following line 14:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 21. AS 15.15.470 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.15.470. Preservation of election ballots,
papers, and materials. The director shall preserve all
precinct election certificates, tallies, and registers
for four years after the election. All ballots, images
of scanned ballots, and stubs for elections shall be
retained for four years [OTHER THAN NATIONAL ELECTIONS
MAY BE DESTROYED 30 DAYS] after the certification of
the state ballot counting review unless an application
for recount has been filed and not completed, or
unless their destruction is stayed by an order of the
court. All ballots for national elections shall be
retained for four years [MAY BE DESTROYED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW]. The director may permit
the inspection of election materials upon call by the
Congress, the state legislature, or a court of
competent jurisdiction."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 47"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 49"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 46, 47, and 49 - 51"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 44 and 45"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 59"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 60 and 61"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
8:16:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said Amendment 33 would ensure that all
records, including images and ballots, be maintained by the
division for at least four years, after which they could be
disposed of.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about the implications of
maintaining all ballots for four years.
8:16:51 PM
MS. FENUMIAI responded that it would increase the cost of
storage at state archives, and it would require a change in the
records retention schedule. She pointed out that all paper
ballots are stored in the archives according to DOE's record
retention schedule; therefore, maintaining images of the scanned
ballots would be a duplicative effort. In response to a follow-
up question, she stated that on occasion, ballots were utilized
in legal challenges and presented to the court upon request.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether this scenario would be prior
to certification. She sought to confirm that once certified,
the results of the election could not be challenged.
MS. FENUMIAI stated that existing procedures are in place for
filing an election contest, which would occur after
certification. She expounded that federal law requires a ballot
retention schedule of 22 months the standard under which DOE
operates.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection. He opined that
the digital maintenance of records proposed in Amendment 33
would be onerous.
8:19:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced the allegations against a
former member of the legislature for election fraud during the
2014 election. He argued that the retention of records would be
worthwhile to reassure the public that the information remains
available.
8:21:31 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 33. Representatives Story,
Claman, Tarr, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 33 failed by a vote of 3-4.
8:22:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 34 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.45, Foote/Klein,
5/9/22, which read:
Page 10, following line 14:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 21. AS 15.15.480 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.15.480. Security of ballots. All official
ballots and scanned images of ballots in the
possession of election officials, whether voted or not
voted, shall be kept in a secure manner until
destroyed in accordance with law. The director shall
provide for the security of ballots during
transportation and storage under AS 44.62
(Administrative Procedure Act)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 47"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 49"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 46, 47, and 49 - 51"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 44 and 45"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 59"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 60 and 61"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
8:22 :12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Amendment 34 would direct the
division to retain all scanned images of ballots in its
possession.
8:22:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, in response to a question from
Representative Vance, reiterated that under current statute, all
official ballots are securely maintained in state archives;
however, he shared the understanding that it is not current
practice to store the scanned images of ballots. He posited
that scanned images would become increasingly more important in
the future.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about the current practice for
images of scanned ballots.
MS. FENUMIAI said currently, the scanned images were not stored
or utilized by the division. In response to a follow-up
question, she explained that ballots are scanned, and the
scanned images are stored; however, the scanned images are not
the official ballot of record. The paper ballots are the
official ballot of record, she said.
8:25:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether law enforcement ever needed
to look at ballots and whether the scanned ballot images would
be evidence.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed the understanding that a
determination would be up to the judge in each case.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.
8:26:29 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 34. Representatives Tarr,
Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 34 failed by a vote of 3-4.
8:27:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 35 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.47, Foote/Klein,
5/9/22, which read:
Page 7, following line 20:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 14. AS 15.10.170 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(c) Immediately after voting ends, a watcher at
a precinct or counting center may request that the
precinct election board hand count precinct ballots
for a candidate, initiative, referendum, or recall.
The board shall allow the watcher to observe the hand
count. The board shall transmit the result of the hand
count to the director if the hand count provides
different vote totals than the precinct ballot
counting voting machine or precinct tabulator.
(d) The division shall adopt a watcher handbook
that includes methods for documenting misconduct by
election officials. The division shall publish the
handbook on the division's public Internet website not
later than 180 days before a general election.
(e) In this section, "counting center" includes
a location at which the division counts early,
questioned, or absentee ballots."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 47"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 49"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 46, 47, and 49 - 51"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 44 and 45"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 59"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 60 and 61"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
8:27:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 35 would allow a
watcher at a precinct or counting center to request that the
precinct election board hand count precinct ballots for a
candidate, initiative, referendum, or recall. The watcher would
also be allowed to observe the hand count.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.
8:28:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Subsection (d) of
the proposed amendment. This would require DOE to adopt a
watcher handbook for outlined methods for documenting misconduct
by election officials.
8:28:39 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Vance, and
Kaufman voted in favor of Amendment 35. Representatives Tarr,
Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 35 failed by a vote of 3-4.
8:29:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 36 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.48, Klein, 5/5/22,
which read:
Page 6, line 28, following "place":
Insert "and on the division's Internet website"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
8:29:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that the proposed amendment would
insert "and on the division's Internet website" on page 6, line
28, following the word "place".
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Fenumiai to comment on Amendment
36.
MS. FENUMIAI shared her understanding that the instructions for
cancellation are already posted on DOE's website; nonetheless,
the task would not be difficult to accomplish.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 36 was adopted.
8:30:25 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to take from the table Amendment 5 to
HB 66, Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.5, Klein,
5/6/22, which read:
Page 10, line 20, through page 11, line 3:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 22. AS 15.20.030 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.20.030. Preparation of ballots,
envelopes, and other material. The director shall
provide ballots for use as absentee ballots in all
districts. The director shall provide a secrecy sleeve
in which the voter shall initially place the marked
ballot, and shall provide a postage-paid return [AN]
envelope with the prescribed voter's certificate on
it, in which the secrecy sleeve with ballot enclosed
shall be placed. The director shall prescribe the form
of and prepare the voter's certificate, envelopes, and
other material used in absentee voting. The voter's
certificate shall include a declaration, for use when
required, that the voter is a qualified voter in all
respects and [,] a blank for the voter's signature. An
envelope may not identify a voter's party affiliation
[, A CERTIFICATION THAT THE AFFIANT PROPERLY EXECUTED
THE MARKING OF THE BALLOT AND GAVE THE VOTER'S
IDENTITY, BLANKS FOR THE ATTESTING OFFICIAL OR
WITNESS, AND A PLACE FOR RECORDING THE DATE THE
ENVELOPE WAS SEALED AND WITNESSED]. The envelope with
the voter's certificate must include a notice that
false statements made by the voter [OR BY THE
ATTESTING OFFICIAL OR WITNESS] on the certificate are
punishable by law."
Page 12, following line 18:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 28. AS 15.20.061(c) is amended to read:
(c) On receipt of an absentee ballot in person,
the voter shall proceed to mark the ballot in secret,
to place the ballot in the secrecy sleeve, to place
the secrecy sleeve in the envelope provided, and to
sign the voter's certificate on the envelope in the
presence of an [THE] election official [WHO SHALL SIGN
AS ATTESTING OFFICIAL AND DATE THAT SIGNATURE]. The
election official shall then accept the ballot."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 13, following line 16:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 33. AS 15.20.072(d) is amended to read:
(d) The representative shall deliver the special
needs ballot and other voting materials to the voter
as soon as practicable. The voter shall mark the
ballot in secret, place the ballot in the secrecy
sleeve, and place the secrecy sleeve in the envelope
provided. The voter shall provide the information on
the envelope that would be required for absentee
voting if the voter voted in person. The voter shall
sign the voter's certificate in the presence of the
representative. The representative shall sign the
voter's certificate in a place designated on the
certificate [AS ATTESTING OFFICIAL] and date the
voter's signature."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 18:
Delete "AS 15.20.203(i)"
Insert "AS 15.20.160, 15.20.203(i)"
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 47"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 48"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 52"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 47, 48, and 50 - 52"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 45 and 46"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 60"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 61 and 62"
There being no objection, Amendment 5 was before the committee.
[The committee treated the amendment as though an objection had
been made for the purpose of discussion.]
8:31:34 PM
MR. STEPP reviewed Amendment 5, noting that the original intent
was to delete stray references to the "attesting official" or
"witness" requirements. He stated that this was lingering
language reflecting the witness notarization requirement
replaced by "signature matching." He stated that keeping this
language on the envelope would likely confuse voters;
additionally, the use of intelligent mail barcodes would make
dating the envelope unnecessary. He explained that a conceptual
amendment has been drafted in response to Ms. Fenumiai's earlier
comments about the absentee in-person ballots and absentee
ballots.
8:32:42 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 5, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Delete page 1, line 21 to page 3, line 29 of the
amendment.
In light of Director Fenumiai's explanation that
different envelopes are used for mail absentee, in-
person absentee, and questioned ballots, this
conceptual amendment avoids any changes to the in-
person absentee and questioned ballot envelopes, and
instead simply deletes information on the mail
absentee envelope that has been rendered extraneous by
other portions of the bill. Specifically, it deletes
references to the attesting official and a place for
the attesting official to date the envelope. Since
there is no longer a need for an attesting official
for mail ballot envelopes, leaving this language on
the envelope would only confuse voters.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:33:14 PM
MR. STEPP stated that, concerning Ms. Fenumiai's explanation
that different envelopes are used for absentee by-mail ballots,
in-person absentee ballots, and question ballots, the proposed
conceptual amendment would not make changes to the absentee and
question envelopes. Instead, Conceptual Amendment 1 would
delete information on the absentee mail-in envelope which would
be rendered extraneous by other portions of the bill. He
specified that references to the attesting official and the
space for the attesting official to date the envelope would be
deleted.
8:34:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned whether PII used to verify a
voter's identity currently is placed on the exterior envelope.
MS. FENUMIAI answered yes; however, it is protected by a flap
covering PII.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that Conceptual Amendment 1
would limit the ability of voters to identify their party
affiliation on the envelope's exterior under the protective
flap. He asked whether envelopes have ever been used to update
voter registration information in any way.
MS. FENUMIAI clarified that Representative Eastman was referring
to the absentee by-mail envelope, which is not used for any
purpose related to voter registration.
8:38:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 5. There being no further objection,
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 5 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection to Amendment 5, as
conceptually amended. There being no further objection,
Amendment 5, as conceptually amended, was adopted.
8:39:04 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to take from the table Amendment 10
to HB 66, Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.14, Klein,
5/8/22, which read:
Page 16, lines 4 - 5:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) THE BALLOT IS NOT ATTESTED ON OR
BEFORE THE DATE OF THE ELECTION;"
Page 16, line 6:
Delete "(3) [(4)]"
Insert "(4)]"
Page 16, line 12:
Delete "(4)"
Insert "(3)"
Page 16, line 14:
Delete "(5)"
Insert "(4)"
Page 17, line 9:
Delete "(6)"
Insert "(5)"
Page 17, line 10, following "records":
Insert "or the voter does not have a signature
stored in voter registration records"
Page 18, lines 16 - 19:
Delete "because the voter does not have a
signature stored in voter registration records, the
certificate is missing a signature, the signature on
the certificate is determined under AS 15.20.203 to
not match the signature in voter registration records,
or the voter provided insufficient voter
identification,"
Insert "under AS 15.20.203(b)(1), (4), or (5)"
There being no objection, Amendment 10 was before the committee.
[The committee treated the amendment as though an objection had
been made for the purpose of discussion.]
8:39:28 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
8:39:43 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to retable Amendment 10. There being
no objection, Amendment 10 was re-tabled.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to [take from the table] Amendment 19
to HB 66, Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.25, Klein,
5/7/22, which read:
Page 16, lines 4 - 5:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) THE BALLOT IS NOT ATTESTED ON OR
BEFORE THE DATE OF THE ELECTION;"
Page 16, line 6:
Delete "(3) ["
Page 16, line 12:
Delete "(4)"
Insert "(3)"
Page 16, line 14:
Delete "(5)"
Insert "(4)"
Page 17, line 9:
Delete "(6)"
Insert "(5)"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
8:40:2 1 PM
MR. STEPP noted that Amendment 19 is similar to Amendment 10.
He explained that Amendment 19 would delete the language on page
16, lines 4-5 of Version N, which states, "THE BALLOT IS NOT
ATTESTED ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF THE ELECTION;". The purpose,
he said, would be to avoid by-mail ballots being rejected
because of a blank date or a misdated certificate. He
reiterated that intelligent-mail barcodes would negate the
necessity of the signature date. He added that unsigned ballots
would still be rejected under AS 15.20.203(b)(1) [Section 37 of
Version N].
8:42:10 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 19.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
8:42:44 PM
MR. STEPP shared that Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 19
would delete page 16, lines 4-5 of Version N and renumber the
section accordingly. Additionally, the proposed conceptual
amendment would replace the text on page 16, line 8
[subparagraph (A)] with "(A) is postmarked after the date of the
election;" and replace the existing text on page 16, lines 9-11,
with [subparagraphs] (B) and (C). Mr. Stepp referred to a hard
copy of Conceptual Amendment 1, which was distributed to the
committee members. He stated that the proposed conceptual
amendment provides that by-mail ballot envelopes would be
rejected if any one of the following is true: the postmark is
after the date of the election; the intelligent-mail barcode
indicates mailing after the date of the election; or the ballot
certificate is signed after the date of the election.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether currently there is a
certain window of time in which ballots can be received.
MR. STEPP deferred to Ms. Fenumiai.
MS. FENUMIAI conveyed that mail ballots postmarked on or before
the primary election date are to be received by the close of
business on the tenth day after the election. She explained
that ballots postmarked within the U.S. have a 10-day window,
whereas ballots postmarked outside the U.S. are allotted 15
days.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned whether this would pose a
legal challenge.
8:46:24 PM
MR. FLYNN answered no, the requirements would remain intact.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the impact of deleting
[page 16, lines 4-5] and renumbering the section accordingly.
MR. STEPP, directing attention to Section 37 of Version N,
reiterated that the language on page 16, lines 4-5 would be
deleted. Additionally, if Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
19 were to pass, the text on page 16, lines 8-11, would be
replaced with the following subparagraphs: "(A) is postmarked
after the date of the election; (B) the United States Postal
Service tracking barcode verifies that the ballot was mailed
after the date of the election; or (C) the certificate is signed
after the date of the election;".
8:49:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that the language in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) would be changed from a negative to a
positive connotation. He asked whether the effect would be
ultimately the same.
MR. STEPP expressed the understanding that it would have the
same effect.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why the language would be amended
if there is no effect. Additionally, he questioned the reason
for changing the negative verbiage if the same intent is
maintained with the positive verbiage.
MR. STEPP explained that, after speaking with Mr. Flynn, it was
determined to add subparagraph (C), "the certificate is signed
after the date of the election;", for the sake of statutory
consistency, because subparagraphs (A) and (B) were written with
positive phrases.
8:51:12 PM
MR. STEPP, in response to a follow-up question, stated that
under current law, if a ballot arrives without the barcode, it
would not be counted; however, subparagraph (C) [in Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 19] would add the practice of signing
the certificate, and this would be another layer of defense
against the ballot being discarded.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned whether the by-mail ballot
would be counted without a signed date or tracking barcode. He
posed a scenario in which the ballot was signed before the date
of the election, but it arrived without a tracking barcode. He
asked whether this ballot would be counted by the division.
Additionally, he inquired about a ballot signed on the date of
the election.
MR. STEPP deferred to Mr. Flynn.
8:54:31 PM
MR. FLYNN clarified that under current law, the witness dates
the certificate, as opposed to the voter. He stated that this
has been useful on occasions when the postmark was in error. He
noted that the proposed language in subparagraph (C) of
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 19 would not clarify who
would be signing the certificate. He speculated that the
elimination of the witness requirement would entail the
elimination of the date on the certificate, as voters are not
responsible for dating the certificate. He deferred to Ms.
Fenumiai.
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed that the voter is not required to date
the certificate; therefore, removing the witness requirement
would remove the date requirement, unless new language is added
requiring the signatures be dated.
8:56:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN [moved to adopt] Conceptual Amendment 1
[to Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 19] that would allow
voters to sign and date the certificate in case the barcode was
interfered with or damaged.
MR. STEPP deferred to Ms. Fenumiai.
8:57:47 PM
MS. FENUMIAI stated that currently, there is no statutory
requirement for the voter to date the signature. She
acknowledged that, to be deemed eligible for the count, a ballot
with an unreadable barcode would need the voter's signature on
or before the date of the election.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he considered the proposed Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 19 as a
friendly amendment. There being no objection, the proposed
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 19
was adopted. He provided Legislative Legal Services with the
authority to make any necessary conforming changes.
8:59:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN highlighted an inconsistency. He pointed
out that Version N, on page 16, line 8, covered the absence of a
postmark; however, as amended, the new language would not
address the absence of a postmark. He questioned whether the
revision presented a risk.
MR. STEPP shared his understanding that the proposed language
would allow for the absence of a postmark, and he asked whether
this was the concern.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN reiterated that the absence of a postmark
was not addressed in the proposed amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR suggested directing the question to Mr.
Flynn to avoid inadvertently excluding a non-postmarked ballot
with the new language.
9:04:07 PM
MR. FLYNN agreed with Representative Kaufman. He stated that
changing the language from a negative to a positive would not
capture the absence of a postmark.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN suggested that the new language would
allow for ballots to be counted which had not gone through the
postal system, as a postmark would no longer be a primary
indicator of validity.
MR. STEPP shared his understanding that it is customary for some
ballots to be without a postmark. He asked whether that was
accurate.
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed that some ballots are not postmarked. In
these cases, the date provided by the witness is relied upon to
determine whether the ballot was voted on or before the date of
the election. She added that if the ballot was voted on or
before the date of the election and received within the
statutory guidelines, the ballot would be deemed eligible.
9:06:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether there was any risk
associated with the proposed language.
MS. FENUMIAI contended that a ballot should never be counted if
it was postmarked after the date of the election.
9:07:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 to
Conceptual Amendment 1, as conceptually amended, to Amendment
19, such that "or" would be added after "election" on [page 26],
line 8.
MR. STEPP suggested that "or" should be placed after
subparagraph (B), which would infer the same meaning;
nonetheless, he deferred to the will of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that the proposed conceptual
amendment would be consistent with the language in Version N.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that, there being no objection,
Conceptual Amendment 2 to Conceptual Amendment 1, as
conceptually amended, was adopted.
9:11:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR proposed Conceptual Amendment 3 to
Conceptual Amendment 1, as conceptually amended, to Amendment
19, such that "or has no postmark" would be added after the
language "postmarked after the date of election."
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN suggested alternative language, such that
"is missing a postmark" would be added before "or postmarked
after the date of election."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
9:13:22 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:13 p.m. to 9:15 p.m.
9:15:18 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to [retable] Amendment 19. There
being no objection, Amendment 19 was [retabled].
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 37 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.49, Klein, 5/8/22,
which read:
Page 19, line 26, following "that":
Insert ", because of an inability to hire
election workers,"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
9:17:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that Amendment 37 would insert
"because of an inability to hire election workers" on page 19,
line 26, following the word "that".
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 37 was adopted.
9:20:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 38 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0332\N.50, Klein, 5/7/22,
which read:
Page 20, line 18:
Delete "voting machines"
Insert "tabulators [VOTING MACHINES]"
Page 20, line 19:
Delete "voting machine"
Insert "tabulator [VOTING MACHINE]"
Page 20, line 21, following "A":
Insert "tabulator"
Page 20, line 26:
Delete "] voting machine"
Insert "VOTING MACHINE]"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
9:20:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that Amendment 38 would replace
"voting machines" with "tabulators" for the public's
clarification.
9:21:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suspected that "voting machines" could be
interpreted differently by different people.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about any inadvertent implications
of the proposed language change.
MS. FENUMIAI pointed out that the terminology, "precinct
tabulators", is defined under AS 15.20.010. She expressed the
opinion that the proposed language is not problematic.
MR. FLYNN concurred.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE opined that the proposed language would be
helpful for the public's understanding.
9:24:54 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kaufman, Eastman
and Vance voted in favor of Amendment 38. Representatives Tarr,
Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 38 failed by a vote of 3-4.
9:25:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 39 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.51, Klein, 5/10/22,
which read:
Page 22, line 30:
Delete "or"
Page 23, line 15, following "ballot":
Insert "; or
(9) votes a ballot, other than a substitute
ballot provided by an election board under
AS 15.15.140(a), that the person knows is not an
official ballot"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
9:25:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that Amendment 39 would add the
language, "; or (9) votes a ballot, other than a substitute
ballot provided by an election board under AS 15.15.140(a), that
the person knows is not an official ballot" to page 23, line 15.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, in response to a question from
Representative Eastman, said the proposed amendment would be an
attempt to clarify the unlawfulness of fraudulently voting an
unofficial ballot.
[The committee treated the objection as if it was maintained.]
9:27:38 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 39. Representatives Story,
Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 39 failed by a vote of 3-3.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 40 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.52, Klein, 5/9/22,
which read:
Page 25, line 17, following "shall":
Insert "(1)"
Page 25, line 18, following "integrity":
Insert "; and
(2) notify each voter affected by the cyber
attack or data breach
(A) within 30 days; or
(B) if a statewide election will occur in
less than 30 days, not less than 10 days before the
election"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
9:28:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE conveyed that Amendment 40 would require
the division to notify each voter affected by a cyber attack or
data breach within 30 days or no less than 10 days before the
election.
9:29:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the feasibility and cost of
the proposed amendment.
MS. FENUMIAI expressed doubt about the practicality of the
timeline, as it takes time to identify the extent of a data
breach. She confirmed that there would be an associated cost;
however, she was unable to identify it at this time.
9:30:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that the intent of Amendment 40
would be to start the notification process sooner in the event
of a cyber attack.
[The committee treated the objection as if it was maintained.]
9:31:48 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 40. Representatives Claman,
Tarr, Story, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 40 failed by a vote of 3-4.
9:32:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 41 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.54, Klein, 5/9/23,
which read:
Page 7, line 23:
Delete "electronic ballot,"
Insert "electronically generated ballot, be
printed on proprietary security paper and"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
9:32:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 41 would add
clarifying language on page 7, line 23 of Version N. The
amendment would replace "electronic ballot" with "electronically
generated ballot, be printed on proprietary security paper and".
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that various types of security
paper are available to the state at a reduced cost.
[The committee treated the objection as if it was maintained.]
9:34:46 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 41. Representatives Story,
Tarr, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore, Amendment
41 failed by a vote of 3-3.
9:35:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 42 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.55, Klein, 5/10/22,
which read:
Page 8, line 22:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 8, following line 28:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(g) The division shall use a video recording
device to record while ballots are being cast or votes
are being counted at a precinct, counting center, or
polling place. When recording ballots cast and votes
counted, the division shall protect the secrecy of the
ballot."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
9:35:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Amendment 42 would add
clarifying language to ensure ballot secrecy is protected. He
shared an anecdotal example. Additionally, he stated that the
proposed amendment would require DOE to record the ballot
casting and vote counting at a precinct, counting center, or
polling place.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection based on the
previous amendment, which related to video recording. He
expressed the hope that such situations would be addressed
through training and enforcement.
9:37:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that, unlike the previous
amendment, the video recording in Amendment 42 would be for the
division's records, as opposed to being released to the public.
9:38:58 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 42. Representatives Tarr,
Story, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 42 failed by a vote of 3-3.
9:39:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 43 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.56, Klein, 5/10/22,
which read:
Page 10, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 20. AS 15.15.240 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.15.240. Voter assistance. A qualified
voter needing assistance in voting may request an
election official, a person, or not more than two
persons of the voter's choice to assist. If the
election official is requested, the election official
shall assist the voter. If any other person is
requested, the person shall state upon oath before the
election official that the person will not divulge the
vote cast by the person assisted. The election board
shall record the names of a voter receiving assistance
and the election official, person, or persons
providing the assistance."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 47"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 49"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 46, 47, and 49 - 51"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 44 and 45"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 59"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 60 and 61"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
9:39:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Amendment 43 would require
the election board to record the names of a voter receiving
assistance and the election officials, person, or persons
providing the assistance, under AS 15.15.240.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN emphasized the importance of maintaining
a record of those receiving assistance to be made available to
the division by request.
[The committee treated the objection as if it was maintained.]
9:40:45 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Vance, and
Kaufman voted in favor of Amendment 43. Representatives Tarr,
Story, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 43 failed by a vote of 3-3.
9:41:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 44 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.57, Klein, 5/9/22,
which read:
Page 10, following line 2:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 20. AS 15.15.250 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.15.250. Disposition of spoiled ballot. If
a voter improperly marks, damages, or otherwise spoils
a ballot, the voter may request and the election board
shall provide another ballot, with a maximum of three.
The board shall record on the precinct register that
there was a spoiled ballot. The board shall preserve
spoiled ballots as prescribed in AS 15.15.470 [AND
DESTROY THE SPOILED BALLOT IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT
EXAMINING IT].
* Sec. 21. AS 15.15.350(a) is amended to read:
(a) The director may adopt regulations
prescribing the manner in which the precinct ballot
count is accomplished so as to ensure accuracy in the
count and to expedite the process. An official ballot
may not be destroyed at a precinct. The election board
shall account for all ballots by completing a ballot
statement containing (1) the number of official
ballots received; (2) the number of official ballots
voted; (3) the number of official ballots spoiled; (4)
the number of unused official ballots. The board shall
report all unused ballots by number and transfer the
unused ballots to a counting center. Before an
election is certified, a candidate who ran for an
office that appears on an unused ballot may review the
unused ballot under an election official's supervision
[UNUSED AND EITHER DESTROYED OR RETURNED FOR
DESTRUCTION TO THE ELECTIONS SUPERVISOR OR THE
ELECTION SUPERVISOR'S DESIGNEE]. The board shall count
the number of questioned ballots and compare that
number to the number of questioned voters in the
register. Discrepancies shall be noted and the numbers
included in the certificate prescribed by
AS 15.15.370. The election board, in hand-count
precincts, shall count the ballots in a manner that
allows watchers to see the ballots when opened and
read. A person handling the ballot after it has been
taken from the ballot box and before it is placed in
the envelope for mailing may not have a marking device
in hand or remove a ballot from the immediate vicinity
of the polls."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 47"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 48"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 52"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 47, 48, and 50 - 52"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 45 and 46"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 60"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 61 and 62"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
9:41:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 44 would require
that spoiled ballots be preserved, as prescribed in AS
15.15.470.
[The committee treated the objection as if it was maintained.]
9:42:25 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kaufman, Eastman,
and Vance voted in favor of Amendment 44. Representatives Tarr,
Story, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 44 failed by a vote of 3-3.
9:42:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 45 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.59, Wallace/Klein,
5/10/22, which read:
Page 10, following line 14:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 21. AS 15.15 is amended by adding new
sections to read:
Sec. 15.15.490. Duplication of ballots. An
election official may not duplicate a facsimile
ballot, electronic ballot, or damaged ballot unless
the election official duplicates the ballot in front
of a video recording device.
Sec. 15.15.495. Election audits. (a) The division
shall audit and authenticate ballots for each state
election. The audit must begin not later than 120 days
after the election.
(b) The division shall conduct a forensic audit
of all voting databases and voting machine and
precinct tabulator hardware and software for each
state election. The audit must begin not later than
120 days after the election.
(c) Not later than 30 days after completing an
audit under (a) or (b) of this section, the division
shall provide to the governor, the lieutenant
governor, and each member of the legislature a written
report, including recommendations for improvement, of
the audit results. Not later than 60 days after
completing an audit under (a) or (b) of this section,
the division shall publish on the division's public
Internet website a written report of the election
results and audit results."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 47"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 49"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 46, 47, and 49 - 51"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 44 and 45"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 59"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 60 and 61"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
9:43:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 45 would add new
language related to the duplication of ballots and election
audits. He noted that once the division conducts the audit, the
results shall be published for the public.
[The committee treated the objection as if it was maintained.]
9:44:03 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 45. Representatives Tarr,
Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 45 failed by a vote of 3-4.
9:44:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 46 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.60, Wallace/Klein,
5/7/22, which read:
Page 12, line 26:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 12, following line 29:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(f) The ballot box at an early voting location
must be a transparent, secured container. During the
early voting period, until the ballot is reviewed for
counting, an early voting ballot must be in view of a
video recording device, and, if the Internet is
available, the division shall continuously livestream
video of the ballot box to the division's public
Internet website. The division shall, three days
before removing early voting ballots from a ballot
box, notify all parties authorized to appoint poll
watchers under AS 15.10.170."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
9:44:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 46 would require
that ballot boxes be transparent and secured; further, that DOE
would record and livestream the early ballot casting process to
the division's website. Lastly, Amendment 46 would provide
that, three days before removing ballots from a ballot box, the
division shall notify all parties authorized to appoint poll
watchers.
[The committee treated the objection as if it was maintained.]
9:45:29 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 46. Representatives Tarr,
Story, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 46 failed by a vote of 3-3.
9:46:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 47 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.61, Wallace/Klein,
5/10/22, which read:
Page 15, following line 15:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(o) Until an absentee ballot received by the
division is reviewed for counting, the ballot must be
stored in a transparent, secured container in view of
a video recording device, and, if internet is
available, the division shall continuously livestream
video of the container to the division's public
Internet website. The division shall, three days
before removing absentee ballots from a container,
notify each party authorized to appoint a poll watcher
under AS 15.10.170."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
9:46:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Amendment 47 would insert a
new subsection providing that absentee ballots must be stored in
a transparent, secured container in view of a video recording
device, and DOE shall continuously livestream video of the
container to the division's website.
[The committee treated the objection as if it was maintained.]
9:46:43 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 47. Representatives Story,
Tarr, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore, Amendment
47 failed by a vote of 3-3.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 48 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.63, Nauman/Klein,
5/9/22, which read:
Page 19, following line 22:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 41. AS 15.20.430 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) In a precinct that is not a hand-count
precinct, an interested party may, within five days
after the completion of the state review, file an
application with the director requesting a hand
recount of ballots that were counted by a voting
machine or precinct tabulator. However, the
application may be filed only within three days after
the completion of the state review after the general
election for a recount of votes cast for the offices
of governor and lieutenant governor. The interested
party shall include a $1,000 deposit for each precinct
in which the party requests a hand count and may
observe the hand count. If the hand count results in a
difference in vote totals that is more than one
percent of total votes cast or is enough to change the
outcome of the election in the precinct, the division
shall refund the deposit. If the entire deposit is not
refunded, the director shall refund any money
remaining after the cost of the recount has been paid
from the deposit. In this subsection, "interested
party" includes a candidate on a ballot, candidate's
political party, or political group designated on the
ballot."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 47"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 49"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 46, 47, and 49 - 51"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 44 and 45"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 59"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 60 and 61"
9:47:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 48 would add a
new subsection providing that within five days after the
completion of a state review, an individual may file a request
for a hand count by precinct along with a deposit of $1,000.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN added that the $1,000 deposit would be
forfeited if, after the hand count, the results remained
unchanged. If the hand count resulted in a difference of more
than 1 percent in vote totals, the $1,000 deposit would be
refunded to the individual.
[The committee treated the objection as if it was maintained.]
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 48. Representatives Tarr,
Story, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 48 failed by a vote of 3-3.
9:48:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 49 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.64, Nauman/Klein,
5/9/22, which read:
Page 20, line 31:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 20, following line 31:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(b) The division shall develop strict chain of
custody and dual control protocols for delivering to a
precinct and storing a voting machine or precinct
tabulator. When delivering a voting machine or
tabulator to a precinct, the division shall follow the
strict chain of custody and dual control protocols
developed by the division. If a machine or tabulator
is delivered by a contractor, the division shall
require a division employee or provide for a state
trooper to accompany the machine or tabulator in
transit. The division shall store a machine or
tabulator at an election precinct in compliance with
strict chain of custody and dual control protocols
developed by the division, in a secure and locked
location that is subject to video surveillance and is
accessible only to division employees.
(c) Before using a voting machine or precinct
tabulator in an election in the state, the division
shall designate the machine or tabulator by numeric
identifier and designate the precinct at which the
machine or tabulator will be deployed. Not later than
seven days before the election, the division shall
test each machine or tabulator. The division shall
physically disconnect the machine or tabulator from
the Internet and disable the ability of the machine or
tabulator to connect to the Internet before the test
date. The division shall provide
(1) public notice of the upcoming test;
(2) access for the public to observe the
test; and
(3) livestream video of the test to the
division's public Internet website.
(d) After testing a voting machine or precinct
tabulator that will be used in an election, the
division shall
(1) store the machine or tabulator in view
of a video recording device that continuously
livestreams video of the machine or tabulator to the
division's public Internet website;
(2) follow strict chain of custody and dual
control protocols developed under (b) of this section;
(3) physically monitor the machine or
tabulator; and
(4) monitor the livestream of the video.
(e) One hundred twenty days after an election,
the division may enable the ability of a voting
machine or precinct tabulator used in the election to
connect to the Internet.
(f) An electronic record of a voting machine or
precinct tabulator used in an election in the state
must be saved on two storage devices. The first device
must be used to transmit results to the division for
reporting. The second device must be stored in an
anti-tampering sealed envelope. After the division
posts on the division's public Internet website the
results transmitted on the first device, the division
shall open the anti-tampering sealed envelope and use
a computer that is not connected to the Internet to
compare the results on the second device with the
posted results."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
9:48:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 49 would amend
the ballot chain-of-custody protocols to ensure there is no
single point of failure.
[The committee treated the objection as if it was maintained.]
9:49:53 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Vance, and
Kaufman voted in favor of Amendment 49. Representatives Tarr,
Story, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 49 failed by a vote of 3-3.
9:50:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to withdraw Amendment 50. There
being no objection, Amendment 50 was withdrawn.
9:50:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 51 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.66, Klein, 5/10/22,
which read:
Page 7, following line 20:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 14. AS 15.15.010 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) The division may not accept funding for the
administration of an election from a corporation, an
individual, a political party, a foundation, an
organization, or a foreign government."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 47"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 49"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 46, 47, and 49 - 51"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 44 and 45"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 59"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 60 and 61"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
9:50:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Amendment 51 would prohibit
DOE from accepting funding for the administration of an election
from a corporation, individual, political party, foundation,
organization, or foreign government.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed difficulty in understanding why
Alaska would want an outside entity or foreign government to
provide money for state elections; consequently, he emphasized
that the funding should be provided by the state, as opposed to
relying upon outside sources.
[The committee treated the objection as if it was maintained.]
9:52:11 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kaufman, Eastman,
and Vance voted in favor of Amendment 51. Representatives Tarr,
Story, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 51 failed by a vote of 3-3.
9:52:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 52 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.67, Klein, 5/10/22,
which read:
Page 8, line 3:
Delete "22 months"
Insert "4 years"
Page 10, following line 14:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 21. AS 15.15.470 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.15.470. Preservation of election ballots,
papers, and materials. The director shall preserve all
precinct election certificates, tallies, and registers
for four years after the election. All division
records relating to an election, ballots, and stubs,
including spoiled ballots and electronic images and
other electronic records in a voting machine or
precinct tabulator, for elections other than national
elections may be destroyed four years [30 DAYS] after
the certification of the state ballot counting review
[UNLESS AN APPLICATION FOR RECOUNT HAS BEEN FILED AND
NOT COMPLETED, OR] unless their destruction is stayed
by an order of the court. [ALL BALLOTS FOR NATIONAL
ELECTIONS MAY BE DESTROYED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL
LAW.] The director shall [MAY] permit the inspection
of election materials upon call by the Congress, the
state legislature, or a court of competent
jurisdiction."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 47"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 49"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 46, 47, and 49 - 51"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 44 and 45"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 59"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 60 and 61"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
9:52:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Amendment 52 would provide
that the director "shall", instead of "may", permit the
inspection of election materials upon a call by Congress, the
state legislature, or a court of competent jurisdiction.
9:53:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed concern about the first part of
Amendment 52, pertaining to record retention; however, she
supported the change from "may" to "shall". She questioned the
scenario in which DOE would deny the state legislature the
opportunity to see the inspection of election materials.
9:54:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 52, such that the added language [on lines 11-13]
would be removed, thereby retaining the change on line 17 from
"may" to "shall". There being no objection, Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:55:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed the belief that the director
should be responsible for providing the inspection of election
materials, should they be requested.
[The committee treated the objection as if it was maintained.]
9:55:55 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman,
Eastman, Tarr, and Story voted in favor of Amendment 52, as
conceptually amended. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 52 was adopted by a vote of 5-
1.
9:57:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to adopt Amendment 12 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.17, Klein, 5/8/22,
which read:
Page 6, following line 28:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 13. AS 15.10.090 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.10.090. Notice of precinct boundary or
polling place designation and modification. The
director shall give full public notice if a precinct
is established or abolished, if the boundaries of a
precinct are designated, abolished, or modified, or if
the location of a polling place is changed. Public
notice must include
(1) whenever possible, sending two written
notices, printed, in the 10 languages spoken by the
highest number of speakers in the state, [NOTICE] of
the change to each affected registered voter in the
precinct;
(2) providing notice of the change
(A) by publication once in a local
newspaper of general circulation in the precinct; or
(B) if there is not a local newspaper of
general circulation in the precinct, by posting
written notice in three conspicuous places as close to
the precinct as possible; at least one posting
location must be in the precinct;
(3) posting notice of the change on the
Internet website of the division of elections;
(4) providing notification of the change to
the appropriate municipal clerks, community councils,
tribal groups, Native villages, and village regional
corporations established under 43 U.S.C. 1606 (Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act); and
(5) inclusion in the official election
pamphlet."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 47"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 49"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 46, 47, and 49 - 51"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 44 and 45"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 59"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 60 and 61"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
9:57:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that Amendment 12 would increase
the required number of public notices from one to two upon the
occurrence of a precinct boundary or polling place designation
change.
9:58:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how the notices, printed in the 10
languages, spoken by the highest number of speakers in the
state, would be implemented.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related that the intent would be to
effectuate more inclusivity to avoid any potential legal
challenge.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE sought to confirm that the notices would be
postcards sent to each voter in the precinct. She asked how the
division would know which language would be needed.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she envisioned one postcard with the
notice written in various languages.
9:59:29 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:59 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
10:00:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN concurred with sending two notices;
however, he predicted two challenges with the postcards in 10
languages. He suggested that postcards with smaller print
tended not to be read, and he surmised that the 10 languages
spoken by the highest number of speakers in the state could
exclude the very language which had been the subject of the
referenced lawsuit. He moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 12, which would delete the added language on lines 8-9
following the word "written". There being no objection,
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 12 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about the cost and effectiveness
of publicizing the notice in a local newspaper, per subparagraph
(A).
REPRESENTATIVE TARR clarified that [subparagraph (A)] is
existing statutory language and unaltered by the proposed
amendment; nonetheless, she posited that newspapers are widely
used in smaller communities, which is why this provision was
unchanged.
10:04:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN highlighted the potential fiscal impact
of sending two notices instead of one. He advised that the
decision should be made at the discretion of the division.
Additionally, he asked whether only one publication in a local
newspaper is already required.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that the provision in question
is an existing statute; further, per subparagraph (B), if there
is not a local newspaper in the precinct, an option would be
given to post written notices in three "conspicuous places" as
close to the precinct as possible. In terms of the change from
one notice to two notices, she estimated that the endeavor would
only cost several thousand dollars, which was not much in the
way of additional cost for a "vast" improvement in
communication.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection; there being no
further objection, Amendment 12, as conceptually amended, was
adopted.
10:07:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to adopt Amendment 13 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.18, Klein, 5/8/22,
which read:
Page 26, following line 19:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 57. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE. The division of
elections shall provide a report to the legislature by
December 31, 2023, recommending options for expanding
early voting in rural communities and low-income
neighborhoods. The division shall deliver the report
to the senate secretary and the chief clerk of the
house of representatives and notify the legislature
that the report is available. In this section,
(1) "low-income neighborhood" means a
neighborhood where the median family income is below
80 percent of the statewide median family income;
(2) "rural community" means a community
with a population of 7,500 or less that is not
connected by road or rail to Anchorage or Fairbanks or
a community with a population of 3,500 or less that is
connected by road or rail to Anchorage or Fairbanks."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 59"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 60 and 61"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
10:07:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that Amendment 13 would add a new
section, requiring DOE to provide a report to the legislature by
December 31, 2023. The report would recommend options for
expanding early voting in rural communities and low-economic
neighborhoods.
10:08:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed support for the proposed
amendment in all respects, except for the date of the report.
He moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 13, such
that December 31 would be deleted and replaced with November 1.
He reasoned that the earlier date would provide enough time for
the legislature to look at the report in advance of the
legislative session.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed the opinion that Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 13 is a friendly amendment.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, hearing no objection, announced that
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 13 was adopted. He removed
his objection to Amendment 13, as conceptually amended.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. He opined that increasing
early voting should not be the focus of [the legislature's] time
and efforts.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, in wrap up, said the intent would be to
learn more and receive feedback on early voting in low-income
neighborhoods and rural communities. She noted that the
recommendations could be as simple as a one-page summary or a
volume of information.
[The committee treated the objection as if it was maintained.]
10:11:15 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Claman, Vance,
Kaufman, Tarr, Story, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of
Amendment 13, as conceptually amended. Representative Eastman
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 13, as conceptually
amended, was adopted by a vote of 6-1.
10:12:08 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:12 p.m. to 10:13 p.m.
10:13:49 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 21 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.27, Klein, 5/9/22,
which read:
Page 2, line 25, following "applying":
Insert "to register for the next election"
Page 2, line 25:
Delete "an"
Insert "the"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
10:14:00 PM
MR. STEPP related that Amendment 21 would clarify that a person
registering to vote at the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or
completing a mail or online registration within 30 days of an
election, would not need to meet the additional requirements for
the registration to take effect after the election. He added
that the requirement in Section 13 only applies if the person is
trying to register for a particular election within 30 days
before that election. The amendment, he said, would clarify
that the procedures apply solely to same-day registration.
10:15:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a hypothetical scenario and
asked whether it applied to the proposed amendment.
MR. STEPP, in response, expressed agreement that the amendment
would apply to the scenario.
10:17:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN requested feedback from DOE on potential
confusion pertaining to Amendment 21.
10:17:59 PM
MS. FENUMIAI expressed confusion concerning the proposed
amendment. She opined that because the bill allowed for same-
day registration, the person would be registering for the
current election and any future elections.
10:18:50 PM
MR. FLYNN stated that the bill would create a "heightened
requirement" to register to vote within the 30-day window. He
explained that Amendment 21 would clarify the requirement be
only applied to those registering for the upcoming election. He
understood that if a person failed to meet the "heightened
requirement," but still met the normal requirement for
registering to vote, the division would acquiesce, thus
registering the individual for future elections, which could be
explained to the voter at that time.
MR. STEPP concurred.
MS. FENUMIAI concurred.
10:20:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether another section of statute
would cover a situation in which a person applied within 30 days
before or on the date of an election.
MR. STEPP expressed confusion concerning the question and
deferred to Mr. Flynn. He reiterated that the goal would be to
create a "higher hurdle" for same-day registration. The purpose
of Amendment 21, he added, would be to make it "crystal clear"
that the additional requirements in Section 13 were for same-day
registration.
10:22:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to page 1, line 14 of
Version N and suggested that the proposed amendment would not
accomplish the maker's intent.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed confusion on the concern.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his concern.
MR. STEPP reiterated that the intent and the effect of Amendment
21 would be to clarify that the specific identification
requirements only applied to same-day registration.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked where the requirements would be for
individuals registering to vote within 30 days of the upcoming
election, should Amendment 21 pass.
10:26:37 PM
MR. FLYNN suggested that there may be confusion regarding the
meaning of "next election". He stated that the division would
interpret this as the immediate-approaching election within 30
days. He added that if the "higher hurdle" is not met by the
registrant, the person could still be registered for the
following election, meaning the one not happening within 30
days.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed understanding and removed his
objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 21 was
adopted.
10:27:29 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 22 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.28, Klein, 5/7/22,
which read:
Page 19, line 10:
Delete "confirms that the voter returned a ballot
to the division,"
Page 19, line 11:
Delete "for verification,"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
10:28:05 PM
MR. STEPP explained that Amendment 22 would remove redundant
language, as the voter's form already confirms that the voter
returned a ballot to the division. Additionally, it would
delete "for verification on page 19, line 11, to avoid
ambiguity.
10:30:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed appreciation for the cleanup.
10:30:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which the voter
had no memory of returning the ballot to the division. In that
situation, he asked whether the ballot should be counted.
MR. STEPP remarked, "I'd say you're correct, sir, that there was
intent, and ? I'm not sure how else to explain it."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN requested further comments on the
proposed amendment.
10:31:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK requested a summary of the intent of
Amendment 22.
MR. STEPP added that the provision in question is not presently
in statute. He argued that the proposed amendment would improve
the statutory language. He shared his understanding that the
change was recommended by Legislative Legal Services.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed agreement with the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it is the bill sponsor's
intent that, in a close election, a voter who did not recall
voting should be able to cure a ballot which was submitted in
the voter's name.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed disagreement with the statement.
He pointed out, however, that if there is more than one person
in the state with the same name, it could provide an opportunity
for the other person to cure the ballot, if the person had, in
fact, cast the ballot.
10:36:18 PM
MR. STEPP asked whether the language on page 19, lines 7-9,
addressed Representative Eastman's question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that there is a duplication at
end of line 8. He questioned who would be performing the
confirmation.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK shared his belief that the confirmation
would be performed by DOE.
10:37:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said if the voter would be performing the
confirmation, his question is resolved. He withdrew his
objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 22 was
adopted.
10:38:10 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 23 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0332\N.29, Klein, 5/9/22,
which read:
Page 4, line 5, following "election.":
Insert "The division may not reject the absentee
in-person, special needs, or questioned ballot of a
qualified voter who registers within 30 days before or
on the day of an election on the grounds that the
voter is not on the official registration list for the
election."
Page 4, line 24, following "reregistration.":
Insert "The division may not reject the absentee
in-person, special needs, or questioned ballot of a
qualified voter who reregisters within 30 days before
or on the day of an election on the grounds that the
voter is not on the official registration list for the
election."
Page 4, line 30, following "ballot":
Insert ". The division may not reject the
absentee in-person, special needs, or questioned
ballot of a qualified voter who transfers registration
within 30 days before or on the day of an election on
the grounds that the voter is not on the official
registration list for the election"
Page 5, line 6, following "ballot":
Insert ". The division may not reject the
absentee in-person, special needs, or questioned
ballot of a qualified voter who registers within 30
days before or on the day of an election on the
grounds that the voter is not on the official
registration list for the election"
Page 26, line 17, following "election.":
Insert "The municipality may not reject the
absentee, special needs, or questioned ballot of a
qualified voter who registers within 30 days before or
on the day of an election on the grounds that the
voter is not on the official registration list for the
election."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
10:38:29 PM
MR. STEPP stated that Amendment 23 would clean language up,
clarifying that a ballot cast on the same day as registration
could not be rejected because the person was not on the official
registration list for the election.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether Amendment 23 would pertain
to individuals who were given an absentee in-person ballot or a
special needs ballot.
MR. STEPP deferred to Mr. Flynn.
10:40:17 PM
MR. FLYNN recalled that a prior withdrawn amendment had provided
that only question ballots would be given to same-day
registrants. Regardless, he pointed out that absentee in-
person, specialty, and question ballots were all subject to the
same level of review.
10:41:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN requested verification that special needs
ballots were reserved for individuals who were being represented
by another person at the precinct voting in their capacity.
MR. FLYNN clarified that, instead of strictly "same-day"
registration, he was referring to registration within the window
of 30 days before the election or on the day of the election,
which would allow for absentee in-person or special needs
situations. He directed attention to page 4, lines 1-4 [of the
amendment].
10:42:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about page 2 of Amendment 23.
10:42:43 PM
MR. STEPP shared his understanding that page 2, lines 2-5,
offered technical and conforming changes to extend the provision
to municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that any discretion a
municipality might have "to handle their elections any other
way" would be removed by the language in question.
MR. STEPP answered yes.
10:44:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 23 was adopted.
10:44:24 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 24 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.30, Klein, 5/8/22,
which read:
Page 17, line 9, following "(6)":
Insert "the voter did not vote in-person and"
Page 17, line 12:
Delete "The"
Insert "Except for a voter who voted in-person,
the"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
10:44:32 PM
MR. STEPP said Amendment 24 would clarify that absentee in-
person voters are subject to the same identification standards
as other in-person voters.
10:46:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that this section
referred to absentee in-person voters.
MR. STEPP deferred to Mr. Flynn.
10:46:57 PM
MR. FLYNN shared his understanding that it would apply to
absentee in-person voters. He suggested further clarifying the
language in Amendment 24 by adding "absentee" before "in-
person". He suggested that this would avoid confusion regarding
the curing process.
10:47:49 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:47 p.m. to 10:48 p.m.
10:48:49 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 24, which would insert the word "absentee" after the
word "vote" and before the words "in-person" on line 2 and line
6. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 24 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN removed his objection to Amendment 24, as
conceptually amended. There being no further objection,
Amendment 24, as conceptually amended, was adopted.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS informed the committee that two of the
three forthcoming amendments were substantially similar, both
relating to cure notices. He invited Representative Tarr to
share her thoughts on cure notices.
10:50:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR provided an overview of how the cure notice
process would work and highlighted the communication challenges
in the existing process, as the inclusion of a phone number or
email address is currently an optional item on the voter
registration form. Consequently, some voters would receive a
cure notice by mail, and others would receive it by phone call
or email. She expressed the desire to create a system which
would consider all options and would send automated electronic
or telephonic communication daily, in addition to a notice by
mail. She asked the division whether this is feasible.
10:55:14 PM
MS. FENUMIAI pointed out that the entire cure process is longer
than the referenced 14-day period. She expressed doubt about
robocalls; nonetheless, BallotTrax and other products offer a
way to communicate the information to voters. She expressed the
inability to comment on the feasibility of the technology at
this time. She suggested that the notification process would be
a policy call.
10:56:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether it would be possible to
include on the voter registration form a phrase which would
emphasize the importance of an email address or phone number for
curing one's ballot.
MS. FENUMIAI opined that the voter registration application is
not the appropriate document. Instead, she suggested the
absentee by mail application.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE questioned whether BallotTrax provides the
option to notify registered voters.
MS. FENUMIAI answered yes, BallotTrax could send notices by
text, email, or phone, depending on the information provided by
the applicant.
10:59:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN question whether the mail requirement is
needed, as the division could contact voters by email or phone.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that people not well integrated
into society may rely upon mail correspondence, including the
elderly and voters in rural areas.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that the proposed amendment could
be seen as a voter suppression amendment. He opined that a
daily phone call or text message may not be appreciated by some
people; therefore, the amendment could be counterproductive.
11:04:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether 24 hours is enough time for
the division to send out the deficiency notice.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that she did not have an answer at this
time. She suspected that unless automated, a daily email or
phone call could be problematic [for the division].
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked when the 24-hour period would begin.
MS. FENUMIAI expressed the understanding that notices would be
sent within 24 hours of identifying the deficiency. She
deferred to Mr. Flynn.
11:06:38 PM
MR. FLYNN directed attention to page 18 of the bill, suggesting
that rejection of the ballot would be the triggering event.
Essentially, he said he agreed with Ms. Fenumiai.
11:07:12 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 11:07 p.m. to 11:10 p.m.
11:10:01 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 20 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.26, Klein, 5/8/22,
which read:
Page 18, lines 22 - 28:
Delete "The director shall, within 48 hours, but
in no event later than five days after election day,
send a notice of deficiency by first class,
nonforwardable mail to the address indicated in the
voter's registration record and by electronic mail to
the voter's electronic mail address if the voter has
provided an electronic mail address. If the voter has
provided a telephone number, the director shall
attempt to notify the voter of the deficiency by
telephone call or text message to the voter's
telephone number."
Insert "The director shall, within 24 hours, send
a notice of deficiency by electronic mail to the
voter's electronic mail address if the voter has
provided an electronic mail address. If the voter has
provided a telephone number, the director shall,
within 24 hours, attempt to notify the voter of the
deficiency by telephone call and text message. The
director shall, within 48 hours, but not later than
five days after election day, send a notice of
deficiency by first class, nonforwardable mail to the
address in the voter's registration record."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
11:11:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 20, which would add "to the extent practicable," after
the words "24 hours," on line 8.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
11:11:51 PM
MR. MASON suggested that adding the word "begin" after "24
hours," and before "send" on line 8, would give discretion to
the division.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1. He moved
to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 20, which would
replace the words "send a notice" with "begin sending notices"
on line 8.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
11:12:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY recalled that Ms. Fenumiai had stated that
sending notices within 24 hours would be a problem for the
division. She asked whether 48 hours would be more realistic.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS advised dispensing of the proposed
conceptual amendment first and removed his objection. There
being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
20 was adopted. He asked Ms. Fenumiai for further comment on
the 24 versus 48-hour period.
11:13:55 PM
MS. FENUMIAI stated that she had no further comments. She
shared her understanding that 24 hours was typical in other
states, indicating that the division would comply with the will
of the committee.
11:14:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment [3]
to Amendment 20, which would add the words "to the extent
practicable," after "director shall," on line 8.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed her support for the proposed
conceptual amendment, as it would provide the division with more
flexibility and discretion.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed compassion for the division's
administrative workload; however, he expressed comfort by the
existence of precedent in other states.
11:16:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Conceptual Amendment 3 to
Amendment 20.
11:16:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR questioned how the division would interpret
electronic mail versus telephone or text. More specifically,
she asked whether a single phone call would be sufficient to
meet the requirement and whether a single attempt at the three
forms of communication would suffice.
MS. FENUMIAI interpreted the language to mean that an attempt to
call, email, and text would satisfy the requirement. She
deferred to Mr. Flynn.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that because of the "and"
language, an attempt at each of the three forms of communication
would suffice.
11:19:18 PM
MR. FLYNN explained that per Amendment 20, the director shall
send an email and shall attempt to notify by telephone or text
message. He added that there is no discretion to choose one or
the other.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she is not in favor of one single
[attempt], as qualifying. She expressed her hope that the
language would be more comprehensive; nonetheless, Amendment 20
would be an improvement on the existing language, she opined.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS contended that the proposed amendment is
comprehensive because it would capture all three forms of
communication.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR reiterated her position that a single
attempt would be problematic, as some people screen unknown
numbers, for example. Additionally, she shared her
understanding that not all registrants would choose to provide
their phone number and email address on the application.
11:21:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested adding the word "attempt" on
line 8 would make the language consistent with line 10.
CHAIR KREISS TOMKINS said that would be considered a friendly
amendment.
11:22:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment [4]
to Amendment 20, such that the words "attempt to" would be added
after "24 hours," on line 8. There being no objection,
Conceptual Amendment [4] was adopted.
11:22:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN removed his objection to Amendment 20, as
conceptually amended. There being no further objection,
Amendment 20, as conceptually amended, was adopted.
11:23:22 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to take from the table Amendment 10
to Version N, labeled, 32-LS0322\N.14, Klein, 5/8/22. There
being no objection, Amendment 10 was before the committee. He
withdrew Amendment 10. He moved to take from the table
Amendment 19 to Version N, labeled 32-LS0322\N.25, Klein,
5/7/22, which read:
Page 16, lines 4 - 5:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) THE BALLOT IS NOT ATTESTED ON OR
BEFORE THE DATE OF THE ELECTION;"
Page 16, line 6:
Delete "(3) ["
Page 16, line 12:
Delete "(4)"
Insert "(3)"
Page 16, line 14:
Delete "(5)"
Insert "(4)"
Page 17, line 9:
Delete "(6)"
Insert "(5)"
There being no objection, Amendment 19 was before the committee.
11:24:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
[The committee treated Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 19 as
moved.]
11:24:33 PM
MR. STEPP explained that he drafted Conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment 19 to capture Representative Eastman's concern. He
stated that, in addition to what would already be required for
the voter's certificate, Legislative Legal Services would add on
page 10, line 20, Section 22 of Version N, language which
indicates the voter's certificate "shall" include a place for
recording the date the certificate was signed. Additionally,
per Representative Vance's suggestion, the word "or" would be
added on page 16, line 8, after the "is postmarked after the
date of the election,".
11:26:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the concern regarding the
absence of the postmark not being anticipated by the previous
language.
MR. STEPP shared his belief that as drafted, Conceptual
Amendment 2 to Amendment 19 would prevent this from happening.
11:27:41 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that, there being no objection,
Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 19 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN removed his objection to Amendment 19, as
conceptually amended. There being no further objection,
Amendment 19, as conceptually amended, was adopted.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced the completion of the amendment
process. He invited closing comments on Version N, as amended.
11:28:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK summarized the history of the legislation
throughout previous legislative sessions. He described the bill
as the legislature's opportunity to modernize the election
process and thanked the committee members for their hard work on
Version N.
11:31:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE opined that there is more work to do,
characterizing the bill as the first step towards modernizing
the election process and addressing constituents' concerns. She
shared her belief the ballot curing would be a "curtesy," and
"not a right." She expressed disappointment that there had been
no conversation about data breaches. She expressed the hope
that safeguarding information would be addressed in the next
committee of referral.
11:33:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said that after hearing from Ms. Fenumiai
and the division, she was impressed by the existing safeguards
and hoped this would be reassuring to the public.
11:35:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN discussed the impact of fraud and
organized crime on the election industry. He opined that the
division's response to his questions regarding election fraud
reflected a lack of awareness and a failure to adequately assess
the threat level. Further, he expressed the belief that the
committee had failed to give DOE the necessary tools to protect
voters, voter information, and election outcomes from criminal
influence.
11:38:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed the belief that the right to vote
must be available and equally accessible to all eligible
individuals. Further, she opined that it is state leaders'
responsibility to push back against information sharing to
assure the public that elections are safe, while continuing to
work on the areas that need improvement. She pointed out that
sometimes, lack of participation is related to the challenges of
life, as opposed to nefarious or dishonest behavior.
11:40:44 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS described Version N as pragmatic and the
kind of compromise which should happen more often in this
institution. He acknowledged that it would not make every
person on the far left or far right happy; nonetheless, he hoped
it would pass, as it represents an improvement for Alaska.
11:41:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report CSHB 66, Version 32-
LS0322\N, Klein, 4/30/22, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 66(STA) was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
11:42:11 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 11:42
p.m.