Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/22/1994 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 22, 1994
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Al Vezey, Chairman
Representative Pete Kott, Vice Chairman
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Harley Olberg
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Fran Ulmer
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bettye Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 346: "An Act amending the Alaska Election Code
and the Alaska Uniform Vehicle Code to
conform them to the requirements of the
`National Voter Registration Act of 1993,'
federal legislation requiring the states
to alter their voter registration and
election practices as they may relate to
elections to federal office and making related
amendments; relating to public and
confidential records of agencies operating
under the Alaska Election Code; and directing
appropriate state officials to initiate
administrative preclearance review or to seek
judicial approval of the amendments made by
this Act as required by relevant provisions of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965; and providing
for an effective date."
HELD OVER
*HCR 27: Relating to support for the National Rifle
Association's gun safety program for children.
HELD OVER
*HB 392: "An Act relating to the confidentiality of
permanent fund dividend application
information; relating to the permanent fund
dividend program; and providing for an
effective date."
HELD OVER
*HB 483: "An Act relating to payment of permanent fund
dividends of certain individuals who have
been absent from the state; and providing for
an effective date."
NOT HEARD
(* first public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
LAURA GLAISER, Staff
Division of Elections
Lt. Governor's Office
PO Box 110018
Juneau, AK 99811-0018
Phone: 465-3520
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SSHB 346
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
Alaska State Capitol, Room 112
Juneau, AK 99811
Phone: 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HCR 27
OLIVER BURRIS
Tanana Valley Sportsmens Association
2801 Talkeetna
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Phone: 474-0437
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HCR 27
DICK BISHOP
Alaska Outdoor Council, Statewide Organization of Outdoor
User Groups, Advocates of the Proper and Lawful Use of
Firearms
1555 Gus's Grind
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Phone: 455-6151
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HCR 27
VERN KEEZER
P.O. Box 242
Bethel, AK 99559
Phone: 543-2285
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HCR 27
RICHARD VITALE, Aide
Representative Con Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
Alaska State Capitol, Room 112
Juneau, AK 99811
Phone: 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 392
TOM WILLIAMS, Director
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110460
Juneau, AK 99811-0460
Phone: 465-2323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 392
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 346
SHORT TITLE: VOTER REGISTRATION:CONFORM TO FEDERAL LAW
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ULMER,B.Davis
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/07/94 2018 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/10/94 2018 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/10/94 2018 (H) STATE AFFAIRS,JUDICIARY,FINANCE
01/13/94 2055 (H) COSPONSOR(S): B. DAVIS
02/02/94 2217 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
02/02/94 2218 (H) STA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/22/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HCR 27
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORT NRA GUN SAFETY PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/18/94 2096 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/18/94 2096 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
02/22/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 392
SHORT TITLE: PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PARNELL
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/21/94 2125 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/21/94 2125 (H) STATE AFFAIRS,JUDICIARY,FINANCE
02/22/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 483
SHORT TITLE: PER. FUND DIVIDENDS OF ABSENT INDIVIDUALS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/14/94 2378 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/14/94 2378 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
02/22/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-15, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR AL VEZEY called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m..
Members present include REPRESENTATIVES PETE KOTT, HARLEY
OLBERG, and FRAN ULMER. Chair Vezey informed the committee
he had received a proposed bill regarding a petition to the
Congress to amend the Constitution. Chair Vezey opened SSHB
346 for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS entered the meeting at 8:03 a.m.
A quorum was present.
Number 033
HB 346 - VOTER REGISTRATION:CONFORM TO FEDERAL LAW
REPRESENTATIVE FRAN ULMER, sponsor of SSHB 346, stated SSHB
346 is Alaska's attempt to conform with the federal motor
voter law. Last year, Congress adopted the motor voter law
to make it easier for individuals to get registered to vote.
Congress gave states until January 1, 1995, to comply with
the law; Alaska has not at this time. Legal Services
compared Alaska statutes with the federal requirements and
drafted SSHB 346 for Representative Ulmer, to bring Alaska
into compliance. SSHB 346 requires voter registration to be
easier for the public and requires that when an individual
gets a motor vehicle registration, it is simultaneously an
application to vote. SSHB 346 also requires when an
individual changes his/her drivers license address, it
automatically changes the voter registration address. When
registering to vote by mail, SSHB 346 provides the
application does not have to be notarized. SSHB 346 also
requires that an individual who does not vote will not be
removed from the voter registration list any longer.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS joined the meeting at 8:05 a.m.
Number 075
REPRESENTATIVE HARLEY OLBERG asked what SSHB 346 was trying
to accomplish, and why is it necessary to make it easier to
vote.
Number 080
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER responded in a democracy, one of the
public policy goals which supports democracy is the
participation of the public in their government. The public
should be encouraged to vote by reducing the impediments,
such as not being currently registered to vote because an
individual moved and forgot to notify the officials of the
change, related to voting requirements. Some individuals
may not have a high amount of interest in voting and, if
voter registration was included in the motor vehicle
registration process, it may promote participation and
interest. Representative Ulmer stated, as a member of the
League of Women Voters, one of their goals is to make it
easier to register to vote and to encourage people to
participate.
CHAIR VEZEY asked if the committee had a copy of the federal
motor voter bill.
Number 112
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER responded yes, Jack Chenoweth from the
Legal Services Division brought a copy.
Number 113
CHAIR VEZEY asked how could registering to vote be made
easier in Alaska.
Number 121
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER answered voter registration would be
easier if applications for registration were in more places.
For example, in addition to motor vehicle licensing, public
assistance offices which serve the disabled, who may not
drive, and the armed services may also distribute
applications. With an increase in access, Representative
Ulmer estimated there would be 10-15 percent more people
registered to vote.
Number 144
CHAIR VEZEY asked if the state of Alaska already mails a
voter registration application to every resident of the
state every year.
Number 147
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER replied the committee would have to ask
the Division of Elections for an answer to that question.
CHAIR VEZEY believed it would be good to know if the state
already mailed the applications every year, before the law
is changed.
Number 150
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated the purpose of SSHB 346 is to
comply with federal law. Federal law requires every state
by January 1, 1995, to comply with the motor voter
registration requirements. Alaska's statutes do not comply.
She believed the requirements were reasonable and, in terms
of extending access, they would be a "good public policy
step" for Alaska to make.
Number 160
CHAIR VEZEY felt SSHB 346 was reasonable, in light of the
fiscal note.
Number 165
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG asked what the consequences of not
complying with the federal requirements would be.
Number 166
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER recollected the federal motor voter
sets a compliance date, January 1, 1995, "without a big
hammer over our heads." She believed the compliance date
was set in the hope the states would "see the wisdom in
making it easier for people to vote."
Number 175
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT questioned whether or not the
committee wanted the drafting attorney to give a sectional
analysis of SSHB 346. He would like to have one.
Number 178
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER replied there is a sectional analysis
and the drafting attorney could go over it with the
committee.
Number 180
CHAIR VEZEY believed the committee had been asking questions
about the philosophy of SSHB 346. He believed the fiscal
note from Health and Social Services did not reflect much
more than the cost of printed materials. The department
estimates 10 minutes per client for each processing agent.
Number 194
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated she would appreciate it if Jack
Chenoweth, could speak about the issue of access and if SSHB
346 would expand the number of people who could get
registered in Alaska.
Number 200
CHAIR VEZEY said he would like the committee to bring out
their questions first and then perhaps the witnesses could
answer them.
Number 204
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG asked how the $10 fee to register a
vehicle in person applies to registering to vote at the same
time.
CHAIR VEZEY replied the fee could be interpreted as a head
tax or poll tax. He was not sure.
Number 211
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT responded to Representative Olberg, " I
hope we've taken care of that problem," referring to the $10
fee.
CHAIR VEZEY examined another fiscal note from Health and
Social Services (H&SS) for $155,000 which is based on the
personal services of .32 of a full-time equivalent at Clerk
Typist III (FTE), from 7.35 equivalent of FTE's. (Reference
page 2, paragraph 2, of H&SS Institutions and Administration
fiscal note, on file.) He examined the fiscal note from
H&SS Women, Infants & Children Division, which ranges about
$10,000 for 1995, then $21,000 in 1996. He stated the
committee does not have a fiscal note from the Division of
Motor Vehicles (DMV), but does have a zero fiscal note from
the Department of Corrections. The Office of the Governor,
Division of Elections, has a $90,000 fiscal note. Chair
Vezey felt it would "be impossible to have any state laws
where it's easier to register than the state of Alaska."
Two citizens of the state can register another voter in
Alaska. A noncommissioned officer of the armed forces can
register a voter in Alaska. He believes Alaskan residents
are not purged from registration polls unless they have not
voted for three years of elections cycles.
Number 258
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER responded under the federal motor voter
bill, it is required that the state not purge individuals
for not voting. Representative Ulmer agreed there are a
number of ways to vote, but particularly in rural Alaska,
there is a fairly large percentage who are not registered to
vote.
Number 262
CHAIR VEZEY stated these individuals do apply for permanent
fund dividends (PFD), and when they receive the PFD
application, a voter registration application is included.
Number 264
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER responded if voter registration was in
more places, where individuals come in to get services, it
will make it easier for people to register simultaneously
with other processes. She believed this would help achieve
her public policy goal.
Number 274
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if any figures had been
calculated to estimate how many people SSHB 346 might entice
to register, and if it focused towards the cost of
registering an individual.
Number 279
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER was not sure, but she guessed the
Division of Elections had not broken down the cost on a per
person voter basis versus the current cost. She offered to
let the Division of Elections explain in more detail.
Number 287
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG stated he would also like to have the
sectional analysis examined. He quoted from page one of the
H&SS, Women, Infants & Children fiscal note," DPH
(Department of Public Health) and grantee staff must also
assist applicants who request help in completing the voter
registration forms and mail in the completed forms for
individuals who do not wish to mail them themselves. Under
federal law, public health applicants must be requested to
agree to decline in writing to register to vote, and written
declinations must be retained in state records." He then
asked if state employees are supposed to suggest party
affiliation to individuals.
Number 305
CHAIR VEZEY replied, under present law, party affiliation is
an optional category of information. He had not checked to
see if SSHB 346 would change this provision.
Number 307
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER clarified there is a provision which
prohibits a registration official or assistant from seeking
to influence a voter registration applicant's political
preference regarding political party. Assistants would be
instructed not to interfere with an applicant's party
selection.
Number 313
CHAIR VEZEY received a fiscal note from the Department of
Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles. He commented to
the committee that Jack Chenoweth, Legal Services Division,
was available to testify although he had not signed the
witness register.
Number 334
JACK CHENOWETH, SSHB 346 DRAFTING ATTORNEY, LEGAL SERVICES
DIVISION, introduced himself.
Number 339
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG clarified that Mr. Chenoweth was
speaking about SSHB 346.
CHAIR VEZEY was not aware of a sponsor substitute.
Number 348
MR. CHENOWETH stated HB 346 and SSHB 346 are "identical
except for a definition supplied to (indiscernible) of
public assistance that narrows the programs that must
comply."
Number 350
CHAIR VEZEY stated he did not have a copy of SSHB 346 in his
packet.
Number 352
MR. CHENOWETH stated SSHB 346 is proposed, because years ago
Congress decided it ought to have a larger role in
overseeing federal elections. The Motor Voter Act
specifically states that the provisions, required of states,
are required because of federal elections. He believed the
changes being proposed in law to comply with the Motor Voter
Act should not result in a "dual registration system - one
for federal office and one for everything else.." The
changes proposed in SSHB 346 would be "across the board,"
although the requirements of the Motor Voter Act are
"imposed upon the conduct, by the state, of its federal
elections." Only four sections of the Motor Voter Act are
pertinent to the changes proposed in SSHB 346. The
requirements relating to voter registration has to be made
simultaneously with the motor vehicle driver's license.
MR. CHENOWETH sensed the Department of Public Safety's
current process of forwarding the registration applications
to the Division of Elections was not sufficient. The
language of the Motor Voter Act states,"each state motor
vehicle driver's license application, including any renewal
application submitted to the appropriate state motor vehicle
authority under state law, shall serve as an application for
voter registration unless the applicant fails to sign the
voter registration application." In summary, there will be
a one or two page form requiring all the information
normally given as part of a motor vehicle registration form
combined with specific voter registration information,
determining district area, etc. SSHB 346 makes this form
change. If an individual changes his/her address at the
DMV, it will correspondingly change his/her election
registration address, unless the individual chooses not to
do so. The National Voter Registration Act requires voter
registration applications by mail, of which Alaska does
extensively. SSHB 346 changes will conform state law to
organize the content of the mail-in form to federal
requirements. Public assistance agencies were also
recognized, under the federal Motor Voter Act, as agents for
voter registration. SSHB 346 addresses programs which deal
with Medicaid, AFDC, food stamps, and the Women, Infants &
Children program as the agents for voter registration.
These programs are primarily within H&SS, as public
assistance, and will receive and process application
materials. There are also federal requirements which
require the state to try to contact an individual before
his/her registration is purged. Getting no response or an
incomplete response from the individual is the only
legitimate way to purge individuals registrations from the
master registration role. An inactive registration status
is no longer accepted federally.
MR. CHENOWETH believed the Lieutenant Governor's Office or
the Governor has submitted a bill comparable to SSHB 346.
HB 346 was drafted in the fall of 1993, based upon Mr.
Chenoweth's review of the National Voter Registration Act.
He agreed with Chair Vezey that Alaska does have an open
registration system; however, the federal government has
required that four areas be addressed. He stated SSHB 346
was drafted in response to these four areas.
(REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS left the meeting at 8:25 a.m.)
CHAIR VEZEY clarified the scope of SSHB 346 is federal
elections.
Number 452
MR. CHENOWETH said yes, the federal government requires the
National Voter Registration Act apply to elections to
federal office. Rather than maintain a dual system, one at
state level for legislative and gubernatorial elections and
one for federal elections, a blended system will cease
registration requirement misconceptions between the two
elections.
Number 462
CHAIR VEZEY asked Representative Olberg if an examination of
the sectional analysis was still necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG said it was not necessary.
Number 468
Hearing no objection, CHAIR VEZEY decided not to examine the
sectional analysis.
Number 469
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked what the consequences would be if
Alaska did not comply with the Federal Motor Voter Act.
Could someone challenge the validity of the vote in a
federal election.
Number 476
MR. CHENOWETH replied there would likely be a challenge to
the vote. By the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Alaska must
submit any changes in elections through the Department of
Justice for approval. Certain citizens may try to take
Alaska to court for not being in compliance with the
National Voter Registration Act. He believed the state may
lose, and there would be a federal court order telling the
state to comply. A comparable bill to HB 346 would then
have to be passed by a future legislature due to a court
order.
Number 489
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired if there are any states already
implementing similar policies to those covered in SSHB 346,
or have they not had the opportunity.
Number 491
MR. CHENOWETH suspected most states are dealing with these
changes in 1994. North Dakota, was exempted, because it
does not have voter registration. By federal law, a citizen
of North Dakota can walk in, show citizenship of that state,
and vote without proof of registration. Other states have a
system whereby an individual can register to vote and caste
a vote simultaneously, which exempts them from the federal
law requirements. Approximately 45 states are currently
involved in the same initiating process as Alaska. A 1996
election year set date is allowed federally, for those
states which have state Constitutional amendments to send to
the ballot. Alaska should have its statutes changed by
January 1, 1995.
Number 510
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if there were any exemptions or
possibly a waiver which could apply to Alaska because of the
permanent fund dividend and voter registration mailing
process.
Number 513
MR. CHENOWETH replied he had not seen any kind of waiver in
the federal act which would apply to Alaska. He felt the
Division of Elections may be better able to find an
exemption or waiver.
Number 523
CHAIR VEZEY introduced LAURA GLAISER as the next to testify.
Number 529
LAURA GLAISER, STAFF PERSON, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, offered
suggestions to SSHB 346. She said the policies stated by
Mr. Chenoweth are all in compliance with SB 303, drafted by
her office. Representatives from the Federal Election
Commission and the Department of Justice (DOJ) worked with
her to draft a bill which arrived at the Department of Law
in September or October, and was submitted as SB 303. She
said, in drafting the bill, waivers and exemptions were not
seen. When the permanent fund dividend application process
was illustrated to representatives from the DOJ, they could
only reply "we won't tell you what you can do to be in
compliance, we'll just sue you when you aren't." Ms.
Glaiser stated the DOJ will not review a state's bills first
to see if they are even near compliance. The DOJ is going
to wait until Alaska is challenged and then force the state
to make the changes. SB 303 is an attempt to make the most
minimum changes to Alaska's laws. She asked if (they) cared
if SB 303 affected voter turnout, believing registering
additional people will not help, if they do not go to the
polls to vote. The Federal Election Commission told Ms.
Glaiser they were not concerned with voter turnout. She
noted she had been working with Representative Ulmer on HB
346 and pointed out there had been changes to suit their
concerns in SSHB 346.
MS. GLAISER was concerned about Section 5 of SSHB 346,
requiring witnessing of a by-mail voter registration
application, because Section 93 of the Federal Act states
that no requirement can be made for notarization or other
formally authentication may be included. SB 303 has removed
witnessing from all of the forms. She relayed that other
states are similarly blending these changes into their state
laws, even though the federal act primarily relates to
federal elections. To set up a separate program for only
federal elections would be nearly impossible to do.
(REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS returned to the meeting at 8:38
a.m.)
Number 569
CHAIR VEZEY asked if SB 303 passed, the state would no
longer allow two persons to witness a voter registration,
and make it harder to register to vote.
Number 572
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG clarified SB 303 requires no witnesses
to register to vote, the "Chicago provision."
Number 574
CHAIR VEZEY responded any person could fill out a form, sign
it, and they are registered.
Number 575
MS. GLAISER explained the provision related to by-mail voter
registration and by-mail voting. She saw a conflict between
requiring those who apply in person to be witnessed and not
requiring witnessing from those who apply by mail.
Number 581
CHAIR VEZEY believed the current mail-in form requires the
signature of two citizens of the state of Alaska.
Number 582
MS. GLAISER replied yes.
Number 584
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER clarified signatures are required at
present, and also in SSHB 346. She pointed out SSHB 346 has
eliminated the requirement of a notary. She felt the
requirement to notarize was the provision in conflict with
federal law, and asked Ms. Glaiser if it was her
understanding that the interpretation is that the federal
law requires no witnessing requirements for registration by
mail.
Number 590
CHAIR VEZEY was not aware of anywhere in voter registration
or voting where a notary signature is required.
Number 592
MS. GLAISER stated a notary is required by existing law.
Number 596
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER referenced page 3, Section 5, of the
existing law AS 15.07.070(b), regarding the notary public.
SSHB 346 would remove this. Page 3, line 17-22, of the
existing law can be read with regard to what notarization is
required.
Number 600
MS. GLAISER noted the exact language of the law had been,
and is suggested to be removed in SSHB 346 as well as SB
303. "The form shall be executed before notary public, a
commissioned officer of the armed forces including the
national guard, a district judge or magistrate, a United
States Postal Official, or other person qualified to
administer oath. If none of the officials listed in this
subsection is reasonably accessible, the person shall have
the form witnessed by two persons over the age of 18 years."
CHAIR VEZEY clarified a notary is a public official who can
register an individual to vote.
MS. GLAISER said yes.
Number 607
CHAIR VEZEY asked why the notary requirement should be taken
out; thereby, narrowing the number of public officials who
can register individuals to vote
Number 609
MS. GLAISER responded with the federal mandate, it is
believed the removal of all the stipulations will make it
easier for a person to vote. When the Federal Elections
Commission was asked whether witnessing was formal
authentication, they replied yes.
Number 613
CHAIR VEZEY commented the federal government seemed to be
advocating the election process be opened up to election
fraud. The current form at least gives some independent
verification that the information is true. He gave an
example of fraud, which used to take place years ago in
Chicago, where names from the cemetery were used to register
voters. He felt the results of SSHB 346 would be ludicrous.
Number 618
MS. GLAISER shared Chair Vezey's concerns. She stated when
she met with the federal government, it was very frustrating
to her because their legislators who worked on this Act were
not present at any of the meetings. She could not find any
other response for Alaska to get into compliance.
Number 627
CHAIR VEZEY felt opening up the elections and inviting voter
fraud would not be a "feather in the cap of democracy."
Voter fraud has been a serious problem in the United States.
He stated the legality of John F. Kennedy's presidential
election as an example.
MS. GLAISER replied she has read extensively on voter fraud;
however, Alaska must work within the federal mandate. The
federal government argued is "it is just as easy to have two
fraudulent witnesses as it is to commit fraud on your own."
Individuals do still have to sign a disclaimer that the
information given is true, and it is a misdemeanor if it is
falsified.
Number 639
CHAIR VEZEY commented an individual could, in the meantime,
vote ten times under false names.
Number 640
MS. GLAISER replied only once.
Number 642
CHAIR VEZEY stated people can be very clever and there are
records of dead people voting in the United States.
Number 644
MS. GLAISER believed Chair Vezey's concerns had been voiced
in Congress and "this is what's resulted."
Number 646
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG stated at the Oil Spill Trustees
meeting, there is never a written legal opinion when they
discuss a proposal. Something is proposed, passed on to the
Justice Department, and the Justice Department says they do
not like it. When the Oil Spill Trustees ask the DOJ if
they want to put their disagreement in writing, they reply,
"no we would not." If the DOJ did submit a written
disagreement, Representative Olberg stated, the court would
probably find the statement illegal. He felt Ms. Glaiser
may have had a similar type of conversation with the DOJ.
Number 655
CHAIR VEZEY said if this scenario troubled Representative
Olberg, he should note there has been about a 25 percent
increase in the number of federal attorneys within the last
year or two.
Number 658
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT felt the objective of the federal
mandate is to get people registered, even if they do not
want to respond and vote. He could not understand why the
federal mandate was introduced as it is. Representative
Kott expressed concern over the purging of records, and
wondered if the records would swell tremendously. What
would the Division of Elections do to minimize the overload
and keep track of those moving around and out of the state.
MS. GLAISER replied she had similar concerns. Alaska is
fortunate to have a computerized voting system, other states
are in a much worse position in trying to adapt. The
Division of Elections has a computerized registration list,
which will be the master copy to suit the federal mandate.
The district printouts will be in order because Alaska has
questioned and absentee ballots, a form of "fail safe
voting" in federal terms. The concern of the federal
mandate is federal elections. No one in Alaska will have
their rights abridged by the current process of purging
individuals from the voting system. The lack of voting
cannot be the only reason a person is purged, a notice must
be sent.
TAPE 94-18, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. GLAISER said the voters will have the opportunity to
vote honestly and fairly with the questioned ballot system.
If a person votes on a questioned ballot, he/she will
automatically be put back on the master list. Signing a
petition, after not voting for two-four years, will
automatically move a person back on to the precinct and
district lists. The federal mandate has helped the Division
of Elections open up the voting system and make it better
and more accessible to Alaskans.
Number 015
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified the lists will be clear and
expressed his current lists have three or four families
assigned to the same household. Because the current problem
may compound by two-fold, Representative Kott felt the lists
would not be very clear.
Number 033
MS. GLAISER responded the Division of Elections is doing the
best they can to work with the voter registration cards. It
is the person's responsibility to keep the cards clear and
the Division makes the changes as soon as they are
available. The simultaneous registration through motor
vehicles, provided by the motor voter law, will enhance the
records.
Number 049
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG asked if every seasonal employee who
comes to Alaska and accesses any of these services is going
to be or may be registered to vote.
Number 058
MS. GLAISER answered as long they meet the requirements for
voter registration, they will be registered. Individuals
who are trying to receive permanent fund dividends are
already registering to vote and will probably continue to do
so. SSHB 346 and SB 303 do not include provisions to block
this kind of registration. The Division of Elections is
open to suggestions.
Number 073
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked for the other two suggestions Ms.
Glasier had mentioned, as the committee had only heard one.
Number 077
LAURA GLAISER stated Section 10 of SSHB 346, considers those
people working within state agencies, which have been
declared voter registration agencies, to be considered
registrars. Therefore, requiring training and possible
testing and evaluation by the Division of Elections. She
stated, in the research she has done with the Division of
Elections, in SB 303 the affected state agencies would be
considered voter registration agencies, but not registrars.
This is to give the agencies the freedom to perform their
registration tasks, without requiring the testing,
evaluation, and the record keeping by the Division of
Elections. As registrars, she said, they would just add to
the bureaucracy, and the testing and evaluation by the
Division of Elections will require a full-time employee to
manage it.
MS. GLAISER mentioned her concern with state agencies
assisting people in the voter registration application. She
suggested the use of a sheet that state agencies could hand
out which gives a written description of the different
parties. Each party could write a 50-word or less
description in their own words. This would avoid putting
the state employee in an awkward position when a person asks
a compromising question.
MS. GLAISER noted SSHB 346 fails to designate a chief
election official and Section 10 of the National Voter
Registration Act requires each state to designate a state
officer to be responsible for the coordination of this Act.
SB 303 names the director of the Division of Elections to do
this.
Number 139
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER returned to the registrars issue in
Section 10 of Federal Motor Voter Act. If the employee
assisting registration is not considered a registrar, but
should have some training, how important is it to designate
that employee as somebody else. She wanted to clarify if
Ms. Glaiser meant only one employee in the agency or more,
and if they would be properly trained.
Number 154
MS. GLAISER replied there would be a training seminar for
those employees within the agencies that would be providing
the voter assistance. If a trained employee left his/her
position, the responsibility would exist to train the
incumbent employee or have a yearly refresher training
seminar. The training for registrars currently takes about
15-20 minutes. Not naming the separate agencies as
registrars will prevent them from having to be tested and
evaluated.
Number 173
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked if the agency employees should be
specially designated as voting assistants, so they do get
the training and are different from other employees without
the training. The additional step up to registrar would not
be required.
Number 176
MS. GLAISER answered SB 303 did not name the employees
specifically. Through regulation, policy and procedure
between the agencies, they were going to be accepted as
those people who will be assisting filling out the forms.
She did not have a problem with naming them voting
assistants and then define it in SSHB 346. Her objective
was to avoid the added bureaucracy, cost, and record keeping
to the state.
Number 189
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked if registrars had to keep track
of how many people they register and send it in.
Number 191
MS. GLAISER responded the registrars system is kept
separately in a computer file. They are tested, can be
evaluated, are responsible to the director, and they are
appointed at the director's will. She noted this provision
is an agreement between the agency and the Division of
Elections to come into compliance with the federal act. The
agencies do not serve at the pleasure of the director, so as
not to come into conflict with certain agency rules.
Number 217
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified that this is an unfunded
mandate from the federal government and there are no grant
monies available.
MS. GLAISER answered Representative Kott was correct.
Number 227
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT wondered what the percentage of
unregistered individuals in Alaska might be.
Number 231
MS. GLAISER replied she was not sure, but she guessed 67
percent were not registered. At the last general election,
82.9 percent of voters turned out to vote. She noted this
percentage of voting individuals was relayed to the Federal
Election Commission. The participation and voter
registration drives in Alaska are phenomenal, she thought.
Number 242
CHAIR VEZEY believed there are approximately 340,000
registered voters and a significantly high percentage of
voter registration in Alaska.
Number 252
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Ms. Glaiser if 82.9 percent
applied to registered voters.
MS. GLAISER said Representative Kott was correct. The
Division of Elections is researching how much it would cost
to increase voter registration and at what percentage it
would increase. They do not know now. She explained that
if 85 percent are reached through motor vehicle
registration, every household is reached with permanent fund
dividend applications, and others reached through H&SS, the
registration process will overlap. The Division of
Elections would like to do the most at the least expense.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented the cliental which will now be
registered generally do not vote. He noticed the conflict
in the objective to get people registered, but not to
ensure they actually vote. He felt the objective should be
the latter. Representative Kott asked what the status of SB
303 was.
MS. GLAISER answered SB 303 was in Senate State Affairs
Committee and will be heard next week.
Number 283
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG inquired if there were any statistics
as to how many people actually registered with the
application included with the permanent fund dividend (PFD)
application.
MS. GLAISER replied the first year, there were a great deal
of errors with individuals filling out the form incomplete.
The form serves as a notification of a change of address,
more so than increasing voter registration. There is a low
percentage which affect increasing voter registration.
Number 297
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG commented the state pays people a
dividend to register to vote and asked what more incentive
must there be. An individual acquires an address, driver's
license, and a voter registration when they first come to
Alaska to establish a residency date to get a dividend. He
noted Alaska is the only state which pays $900 a year to
register to vote and asked Ms. Glasier if that had been
suggested as a possible exemption.
MS. GLAISER affirmed Representative Olberg, and replied the
attorney she has dealt with has worked with Alaska on
reapportionment issues and he was very familiar with the
unique features Alaska has to offer. She said the
attorneys, with their knowledge, still could not answer or
confirm Alaska would be exempt with the PFD application.
She has been in several meetings to discuss challenging
solely on the basis of the PFD application, and no one felt
secure the state would win in court. Having the court
decide something much worse for the state was more of a
concern.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS reiterated other states were given
waivers and wanted to know why they were.
Number 324
MS. GLAISER responded North Dakota was exempted because they
have no voter registration at all, and the other possibility
was if an individual could register simultaneously at the
poll when going to cast a vote. Congress' intent was to
make in as simple as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS asked if both of those exemptions
were used in North Dakota.
CHAIR VEZEY clarified there were two states.
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS understood.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG suggested the committee should
consider the options that Ms. Glaiser mentioned as
exemptions. At least an individual would have to physically
be there to vote.
Number 348
MS. GLAISER responded Alaska cannot go back and change our
current laws, it would have had to be in place when the
president signed the Federal Motor Voter Law.
Number 355
Hearing no more testimony, CHAIR VEZEY held SSHB 346 in
committee for further review. He called for a recess at
9:06 a.m. and noted HB 483 would be postponed by sponsor
request.
HCR 27 - SUPPORT NRA GUN SAFETY PROGRAM
Number 374
CHAIR VEZEY called the meeting back to order at 9:12 a.m.
and opened HCR 27 for discussion.
Number 379
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, HCR 27 SPONSOR, gave an overview
of the bill. HCR 27 is an attempt to encourage school
children in Alaska to learn to protect themselves from gun
accidents. HCR 27 is not an advocacy program for gun
ownership, it simply informs children on how to protect
themselves. Similar to what children once learned about
fire safety, stop-drop-and roll, the gun safety training
program for kindergarten through sixth grade will teach them
if there is a firearm present to leave the area and tell an
adult. This program also applies to children who come
across poorly stored firearms in the home. Representative
Bunde realized the fact that since the NRA is sponsoring HCR
27, it might make some individuals nervous; however, he
repeated, it does not advocate the possession or use of
weapons. He commented that 560 children between the ages
10-14 died from firearm injuries. One out of eight deaths
in children is due to firearm injuries. High schools have
an increasing rate of violence and teaching children at a
young age to stay away from them would be beneficial.
Representative Bunde has owned firearms since he was twelve
and his father taught him safety and responsibility.
Children, these days, are not raised around firearms as much
as they were in the past, and now have a greater chance of
seeing one for the first time at the neighbors or in a
backpack at school. Firearm accidents are preventable and
the Eddie Eagle Program would give children "thrust" to be
able to protect themselves and tell an adult in a firearm
situation.
(REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG reentered from the recess at 9:15
a.m.)
Number 449
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS commented page 2, line 12, states,
"whereas teachers and police departments in 42 states have
already implemented a gun safety program for some elementary
schools." He then asked if this was taken from one of his
sources of information, as he imagined some teachers in
every state teach gun safety.
Number 457
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE responded the information in HCR 27 was
information he received from the Eddie Eagle Program. These
programs are formally recognized, as opposed to a section in
a health safety class. He believed the Mat-Su area was the
only area in Alaska with 27 schools teaching a firearms
safety program. He was "grim" to say Anchorage schools do
not have these programs and seem to be "in no great hurry to
establish a program." Representative Bunde was informed by
a parent there had been three firearm incidents in two
schools in south Anchorage, and they are not being reported
to the press or police. Apparently the school system wanted
to reduce panic or deal with the problem themselves. He
stated "on very good authority...in a related area, teachers
were told to quit bringing complaints, no more kids were
going to be suspended because it was making the school
system look bad." Suspension has been a punishment for
bringing firearms on campus.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER did not mind endorsing gun safety, but
she would like to see a video of the specific program before
she endorsed it. Without more information on the Eddie
Eagle Program, she would be more inclined to support general
gun safety programs.
Number 488
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied he did have a video tape,
posters, and coloring books. The tape had been given to
someone, but he could get another.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER encouraged the committee to watch the
video tape before adopting the program. She noted a title
may be misconceiving about the contents of the tape.
Number 496
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the video tape was the same as
the one he had seen involving the police and the woman
dialing 911.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE answered no, the Eddie Eagle video tape
was aimed at young children being a cartoon with an eagle
flying around and commenting.
Number 501
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the tape he had seen, published by
the NRA, begins with a two minute discussion of an incident,
then blends into the Eddie Eagle portion. This tape had a
four-five minute clip on the gun safety program and he
wondered if it was the same tape.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied the materials he has are what
is available for use in the classrooms and Representative
Kott may have the promotional tape about the program.
Number 509
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT questioned page two, line 13, if it was
referring to the actual Eddie Eagle Program or various gun
safety programs.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE answered the Eddie Eagle Program.
Number 514
CHAIR VEZEY said his packet did not include any information
about the narrative of the Eddie Eagle Program. He wanted
to know if he was missing it.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE had not handed it out on the assumption
the committee already knew what the program was about.
Number 518
CHAIR VEZEY replied he had not known about it, but was
certain it was a good program. House State Affairs
Committee is the only committee of referral and he would let
the committee decide.
Number 522
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE would like the committee to review the
tape before passing HCR 27 out of committee. The tape is
already on order and it should be available soon.
Hearing no objection from the committee to wait and see tape
CHAIR VEZEY agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the content of the tape had been
well discussed. The theme of the program tells children to
tell an adult if they see a gun.
Number 533
CHAIR VEZEY moved to the Fairbanks teleconference site.
OLIVER BURRIS, TANANA VALLEY SPORTSMENS ASSOCIATION,
testified in favor of HCR 27. He has been a hunter safety
instructor for 31 years in Alaska and a NRA firearms
instructor for 22 years. Alaska has one of the highest
death and accident rates in the United States. Forty states
have mandatory hunter safety training programs, a result of
which has been a steady decline in hunting accidents
throughout the nation. In 1992, only 146 people were killed
by hunting accidents. More than ten times that number were
killed in bicycle accidents. Juvenile hunting fatalities
have dropped due to hunter safety training which the NRA
started 40 years ago. The Eddie Eagle program "is not
experimental and not research." The amount of firearms will
not reduce, but the number of juvenile accidents can.
Number 567
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked if Mr. Burris said 44 states have
a mandatory hunter safety program.
MR. BURRIS clarified, only 40 states.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked if the programs were for an adult
hunter safety requirement.
MR. BURRIS replied there is variation between states on
whether one has to be an adult or a juvenile to take the
program.
Number 574
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked if the programs were a
requirement to acquire a hunting license for those states.
What was their process?
Number 576
MR. BURRIS answered, in some states the program is a
requirement for a hunting license, and even if a license is
not required, a juvenile must take the program before going
hunting. States vary between everyone having the program
and new hunters or juveniles only.
Number 584
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked if Mr. Burris felt this would be
a good idea for Alaska.
MR. BURRIS responded it was another issue, but he was in
favor of it.
Number 586
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER questioned if any of the schools in his
community are currently using the program or if they have
had experience with it.
Number 588
MR. BURRIS replied some of the schools teachers have used
the program on an individual basis. There has not been an
adoption of the program by any school he knows of.
Number 591
DICK BISHOP, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, STATEWIDE ORGANIZATION
OF OUTDOOR USER GROUPS, ADVOCATES OF THE PROPER USE AND
LAWFUL USE OF FIREARMS, testified in support of HCR 27. He
said, HCR 27 will help educate children about safety in
relation to firearms. The program is important in terms of
preventing accidents among young people. The Eddie Eagle
program is a successful program and he appreciated
Representative Bunde for introducing it. Alaska should take
an active role in reducing the amount of firearm accidents.
Number 608
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER questioned whether the program had been
used very much in Mr. Bishop's community. If he knew of a
teacher who had experience with the program in his/her
classroom, she would like to talk to them to find out how it
was used, the children's reactions to it, and if it made a
difference.
Number 615
MR. BISHOP said he would contact Representative Ulmer if he
found a teacher in his community. If not, he would look in
other areas. There have been various attempts to adopt
firearms education programs, but they have not received
widespread integration into the school curriculums.
Number 625
CHAIR VEZEY moved to the Bethel teleconference site.
Number 626
VERN KEEZER testified in favor of HCR 27 and agreed with Mr.
Burris and Mr. Bishop. He felt the Eddie Eagle program would
be appropriate for older students, as well as elementary.
For those in the hunting age of 10-18, hunter safety
training should be available to them at the same time.
Number 634
Hearing no more testimony, CHAIR VEZEY held HCR 27 in
committee for further review.
HB 392 was opened for discussion. He stated Representative
Sean Parnell is chairing a House Finance Subcommittee
meeting and could not come to testify; however, RICHARD
VITALE would take his place. CHAIR VEZEY explained HB 392
is a technical bill which adopts into statute many of the
current regulations, regarding the Alaska Permanent Fund
Dividend, and clarifies issues that Mr. Vitale will
highlight in his overview.
HB 392 - PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND PROGRAM
Number 654
RICHARD VITALE gave an overview of HB 392. HB 392 addresses
three subjects. First, many of the regulations will being
adopted into statute to simplify things that have already
been proven to work. As regulations it is easier for them
to change, but as statutes there will not be a lot of
changes without the scrutiny of the legislature. This is at
the request of Representative Parnell and the Permanent Fund
Dividend Division. Second, HB 392 will close loopholes and
try to bring back some of the statutes and regulations to
the original intent of the PFD legislation. Legal
challenges over the past couple years have created
loopholes. Third, and the most pressing, HB 392 will
address a court decision of late, which disallowed the
piggyback rule, which states a person out of the state with
a spouse on an allowable absence, also gets that allowable
absence. The court just ruled the spouse that is
accompanying the person does not get the allowable absence,
therefore, does not get their PFD. The last two years are
now disallowed for approximately 1,600 people. HB 392 would
retroactively put these people back in, as well as, fix the
problem for the future.
Number 675
TOM WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR, PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, joined MR. VITALE at the table to
testify. He felt Mr. Vitale's summary of HB 392 was
accurate. A vast majority of HB 392 makes technical
corrections, appropriately moves items into statute that are
currently in regulation. He offered to examine the
sectional summary with the committee. Section 1, for
technical purposes, updates a reference to correspond to the
amendments made in Section 12.
Number 687
CHAIR VEZEY clarified that paragraph B3 would be changed to
B4.
MR. WILLIAMS answered that Chair Vezey was correct. In
Section 2 the primary emphasis was to redefine allowable
absences as eligibility criteria, instead of elements of
residency, as current statutes do. Section 2 also
eliminates the multiple references to individual. He stated
individuals, who have lived in Alaska for several years,
take offense when the PFD Division says they are not out on
an allowable absence, therefore, not a resident for PFD
purposes.
TAPE 94-16, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked if a person were to marry a
nonresident outside or inside the state would the
nonresident spouse be eligible for the piggyback rule.
Number 008
MR. WILLIAMS answered no, the current PFD statutes state an
individual is a state resident, if they are physically
present in the state or on one of the defined allowable
absences. Two years ago in SB 327, there was a
clarification made that the definition of residency should
correspond to the definition already contained in Title 1,
the general state definition of residency. By moving the
allowable absence out of the definition of residency for PFD
purposes, has no effect on the linkage to the true
definition of the state resident.
CHAIR VEZEY clarified to Representative Ulmer, Section 2
eliminates six repetitions of the word "individual,"
clarifies an individual has to be a resident on the date of
application, it does not define what a resident is. The
only addition is that it clarifies that a person is eligible
for a dividend if he/she is not present in the state for one
of the reasons which is considered to be an allowable
absence.
Number 039
MR. WILLIAMS continued examining the sectional analysis.
Section 3 closes a loophole for children born out of state
to nonresidents, and exempts children from the current six
month predeparture residency requirement that would be
enacted in Section 5. When SB 327 was enacted, there was an
amendment that allowed an individual or child of an eligible
resident on allowable absence to qualify for a dividend,
even though the child had not been physically present in the
state. Prior to that time, a child born out of state had to
return back to the state to receive a PFD. When the
amendment to SB 327 was adopted two years ago, a loophole in
the wording of it existed. For example, a nonresident
couple lives out of state, he moves to Alaska and
establishes residency, she remains out of state and has a
baby, he then claims the child as an eligible dependent and
claims a PFD for that child. This example is not what the
original legislation was intended to do. HB 392 would make
sure the child would have to be an allowable absence. HB
392 would not interfere with the original intent of the
changes made in SB 327.
Section 4 addresses the issue of what happens with a
suspended imposition of sentence (SIS). AS 43.23.005(d)
makes an individual who was incarcerated for a felony
conviction ineligible for a dividend. It has been
questioned if an individual was granted an SIS and if the
terms were completed, whether or not a true conviction
exists. Section 4 clarifies even with an SIS, the
individual would also lose eligibility for a dividend and
the conviction would not be overturned.
Section 5 places in statute all absences currently allowable
by statute and regulation. Section 5 eliminates the
Department of Revenue's (DOR) discretion to add allowable
absences. Section 5 also moves into statute, the six month
predeparture regulatory requirement for absences exceeding
180 days during the qualifying year. The language in the
allowable absence list has minor technical changes and is
consistent with current laws by recommendation of
Legislative Legal staff.
Section 6 ensures an applicant must sign their application
and adds the requirement for verification into statute.
Having verification from two witnesses reduces the chances
for fraud.
Section 7, similar to Section 4, basically will keep
penalties intact, even with an SIS, for trying to defraud
the program.
Section 8 allows duplicate payments of dividends to be
assessed without a time limit. In SB 327, there were
changes made in the statute of limitations to identify
erroneous dividend payments, whereby the 10 year period was
reduced to 3 years. He stated the DOR wanted the ability to
retrieve erroneous payments regardless of the time elapsed.
Section 9 allows the DOR to withhold payments if an
applicant has an unpaid assessment pending. The DOR will
withhold payment until there is a resolution of the prior
year assessment, but the DOR is limited to take timely
action.
Section 10 makes the DOR's current authority to establish
deadlines explicit.
Section 11 clarifies language to correspond to the original
intent as administered from the beginning of the program.
Section 12 gives the PFD program priority in recovering
erroneous payments before all other levies, executions,
garnishments, and attachments. The IRS or Child Support
authorities, for example, would not be able to confiscate
the dividend before PFD officials, if a dividend was
accidentally paid to an ineligible person.
Section 13 corrects a grammatical error.
Section 14 adds language to make it clear that the intent of
the statute cannot be circumvented by having a judgment
assigned to a court, only to be distributed to a private
party, by the court, on the assigner's behalf. The court
system challenged a provision within SB 327, whereby the
dividend could only be assigned to a government agency.
This change would clarify the intent of the statute.
Section 15 places into statute most of the current
confidentiality regulations. The DOR would like
clarification as to what can and cannot be disclosed from
the dividend file, since it is one of the largest single
sources of data in Alaska. An individual's privacy is a
concern.
Section 16 deletes the references to absences and the
definition of state resident, this is in concert with
Section 2. Absences are redefined as eligibility criteria
in Section 3, and the specific absences are listed in
Section 5. Section 16 clarifies that while absent, an
individual must maintain at all times, an intent to return
to remain permanently in order to retain residency. Section
16 is also renumbered as appropriate.
Section 17 reaffirms 1992 and 1993 eligibility of
individuals accompanying their eligible resident spouse.
Superior Court Judge Dana Fabe's December 16, 1993, decision
invalidated the "piggyback" provision of 15 AAC 23.163
(c)(15) effective January 1, 1992. This will affect
approximately 1,600.
Sections 18, 19, and 20 relate to the effective dates.
(Sectional analysis available on file.)
Number 286
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER understood Section 17 to be a major
issue, in terms of both people and money; therefore, she
wanted Mr. Williams to go over it again. She clarified a
couple would have to have been married and living in Alaska,
being eligible for a PFD, to then leave with an allowable
absence. By definition the accompanying spouse would
similarly be given the allowable absence, thus allowed to
receive the PFD. She asked Mr. Williams if she was correct.
Number 298
MR. WILLIAMS responded she was correct. The "piggyback"
provision has been in regulation since the beginning of the
program, because it did not make sense to grant an
individual an allowable absence and not treat his/her family
similarly. A regulation was adopted to account for this
provision. SB 327, in part, addressed a concern as to how
the DOR was viewing the eligibility of spouses of
nonresidents. Specific language was added which said, in
essence, the DOR shall consider all the relevant facts in
determining an individual's residency. The original bill
draft stated, "and you cannot consider the residency of an
individual spouse as the only reason to deny the spouse."
He mentioned on the House floor there was an amendment
proposed that said residency could not be considered at all.
When that amendment was adopted, the DOR noted it would
invalidate the "piggyback" rule. Accordingly, the House
adopted other language which said, "residency could not be
the principle factor." The DOR had thought this change
solved the problem, however, Superior Court Judge Fabe
concluded the "piggyback" rule was basing an individual's
eligibility or residency as the principle factor.
Number 351
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG asked how this conflict had gotten to
court or why was a judge involved.
Number 354
MR. WILLIAMS stated the court challenge came as a result of
an Alaska resident, who was absent with a nonresident, the
nonresident was serving in the military, therefore the
resident claimed she should have also been given an
allowable absence. The DOR did not see the regulation
allowed for this. Judge Fabe did agree with the DOR on this
issue, but in reviewing the whole issue, she felt the
"piggyback" rule was invalidated by the changes made in SB
327.
Number 372
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER clarified Section 17 only applies if
they were married in Alaska and both were eligible for
dividends before they left Alaska. Both individuals have to
be eligible to then have allowable absence.
Number 378
MR. WILLIAMS replied a nonresident is not entitled to a
dividend. It does not matter where the marriage takes
place, only that both residents are eligible before
departure.
Number 383
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER responded they must then be a family
unit or their allowable absence could not "piggyback."
MR. WILLIAMS clarified a spouse or a minor dependent.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER believed then it does matter where the
couple is married, because they have to be a family unit
before they left the state.
Number 389
MR. WILLIAMS responded in order to claim the "piggyback"
allowable absence, Representative Ulmer was correct.
Number 391
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified Section 17 was basically the
same section he dealt with in Judiciary, Representative
Eldon Mulder's bill, a couple of weeks ago. He had similar
concerns about residency, particularly relating to military
families, and asked if Section 17 would resolve this problem
and afford those dependents PFD checks.
Number 404
MR. WILLIAMS answered Section 17 would not resolve the
concerns raised in House Judiciary about HB 75. Section 17
will resolve problems caused by Judge Fabe's court decision.
Section 17 does not allow an individual resident
accompanying a nonresident to retain eligibility for the
dividend. Residents accompanying residents on allowable
absence, to remain eligible for the dividend.
Number 418
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS saw the DOR's point with Section 12,
where the PFD program is the first in line for receiving
unallowed payments. For the overall residents of the state,
however, the DOR would be better off to allow for a child
support payment first, which would be more beneficial to the
state. He felt there was probably more cost associated with
attempting to recover those funds if they did not have this
first option, rather than retrieving for the PFD program.
Number 433
MR. VITALE stated Representative Parnell's opinion on this
subject. Representative Parnell felt the money never
belonged to these individuals in the first place, and once
it is presented in this manner it may set a bad precedent.
To give the money to another party to cover the individual's
debt is to acknowledge that it was their money to begin
with. The money should be given back since it is "akin to
stolen money," although not intentionally stolen. Child
support provisions are worthy, but the DOR should have the
money back first.
Number 447
CHAIR VEZEY noticed the time being near 10:00 a.m. and asked
what time session was.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT answered 11:00 a.m.
Number 450
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER visualized a military couple that
becomes eligible and they leave the state, saying they
intend to remain residents. She then asked how long this
couple could be out of state and still receive a PFD check.
Number 460
MR. WILLIAMS responded, as long as the couple can
demonstrate residency, basically indefinitely. Under
regulation, there is a presumption that an individual who
has been absent for five years, for most of the allowable
absences, does not really have the intent to return to
remain permanently. This presumption can be overcome in
unique cases of demonstrating ties to the state. Regulation
does state the DOR will consider facts in determining
whether an individual has overcome the five year presumption
against them. There is a higher threshold of proof after
five years.
Number 475
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER was curious as to how the DOR deals
with people on allowable absences differently whether or not
they intend to maintain residency. She believed the
regulations Mr. Williams was referring to were used by
people who review the applications. She asked if there were
any percentages determining how long and how many people on
allowable absences have been gone for.
MR. WILLIAMS replied there is currently a question on the
PFD application that asks "you the last time that you have
lived here for six consecutive months." Based on this
question and edit criteria, the DOR selected only 600
individuals for an eligibility determination last year.
This number does not include their spouses or their
dependents. He stated bright-line criteria is not readily
available for this area, and it would be easier to
administer, if perhaps the law said after a certain period
time, an individual could not get the dividend. The DOR has
received letters from individuals who complain of people who
are out of state, who still receive dividends, and do not
intend to return to Alaska.
Number 515
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER directed to Chair Vezey, HB 392 may be
an opportunity to insert a bright-line, which might say
after eight years, if a person has not returned to Alaska to
live, the presumption changes. A different test, rather
than the initial one, may be administered. She felt HB 392
might be a good opportunity for the state to "close the
door" or put people on notice that they need genuine intent
to return to Alaska.
Number 528
MR. WILLIAMS replied the DOR would welcome any bright-line
criteria because it makes the administration easier and
reduces their use of discretion. Using discretion has been
known to result in additional appeals.
Number 535
On behalf of Representative Parnell, MR. VITALE entered he
is in very much in favor of bright-lines and tightening down
the program. There had been initial dialogue about a five
year limit; however, this provision was stalled because it
would eliminate Senators Murkowski and Stevens, and
Congressman Young from the PFD.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER clarified her point was not an
automatic elimination, just a change in the presumption
after the bright-line to require more proof.
Number 541
MR. VITALE responded to do what Representative Ulmer
suggested the PFD would then be brought into judgment roles,
which would have to be clarified. He stated intent is
really hard to define. There is another option such as the
introduced bill, which states a person cannot receive the
money until he/she comes back for a year. He emphasized
Representative Parnell would be very willing to entertain
wording in that manner.
Number 554
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS noted students out of state may
succumb to the large registration drives on their campuses
to vote federally, which would automatically eliminate them
from the PFD. Registering out of state would automatically
make them nonresidents, so it would take them another year
to qualify as a residents, which in turn deprives them of
the PFD for two years. He was concerned for these students
and realized it would be hard to judge a valid mistake. He
then asked if the DOR has any type of consideration which
would put one of these students back on line sooner than two
years.
MR. WILLIAMS replied, in all instances, when an individual
registers to vote in another state, they are declaring they
are a resident of that state. The DOR is well aware of the
problem, but he felt there was not a reasonable basis for
saying "we believe your original intent is to remain a
resident here." Regardless of voter registration or
applying for property tax exemption, Title 1 states "you are
a resident of the state of Alaska, until such time as you
take steps inconsistent with that residency, or to establish
residency elsewhere."
Number 590
CHAIR VEZEY questioned whether it was good legislative
drafting practice to incorporate into a statute, a former
statute, referring to Section 17. He felt it may be cleaner
to incorporate the paragraph of the former statute in HB 392
and not require a person to have to research what it says.
Hearing no more testimony, CHAIR VEZEY held HB 392 in
committee to be rescheduled and allow time for amendments to
be proposed.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Vezey adjourned the meeting at 10:16 a.m.
BILLS NOT HEARD
HB 483: "An Act relating to payment of permanent fund
dividends of certain individuals who have
been absent from the state; and providing for
an effective date."
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|