Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/04/1995 08:07 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
April 4, 1995
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice-Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Joe Green
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 267: "An Act relating to review and expiration of regulations;
and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SB 5: "An Act prescribing the use and characteristics of voting
booths employed in elections and the color of ballots
used in state primary elections."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 211: "An Act relating to voter registration and to state
election administration."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
SB 92: "An Act requiring that, in addition to its operating
budget, all activities of the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation are subject to the Executive Budget Act.
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
*HB 232: "An Act establishing an economic development tax credit;
and providing for an effective date.
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
JOSH FINK, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Tim Kelly
State Capitol Building, Room 101
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3822
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for SB 5
DAVID KOIVUNIEMI, Acting Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Court Plaza Building, 4th Floor
Juneau, AK 99811-0017
Telephone: (907) 465-4611
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information for CSSB 5 and HB 211.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
Alaska State Capitol, Room 108
Juneau, AK 99701-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Sponsor Statement for SB 5
LARRY BAKER
3947 Lacarno
Anchorage, AK 99518
Telephone: (907) 563-6387
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided support on HB 211
BOB MOTZNIK
8301 Briarwood
Anchorage, AK 99516
Telephone: (907) 344-6254
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 267
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION REVIEW AND EXPIRATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES,Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/17/95 779 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/17/95 779 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/20/95 825 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY
03/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/23/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/28/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/30/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/04/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 5
SHORT TITLE: ELECTION BALLOTS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) KELLY,Salo
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 14 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/6/95
01/16/95 14 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 14 (S) STA, FIN
02/14/95 (S) STA AT 03:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/14/95 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/16/95 315 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP 1NR SAME TITLE
02/16/95 315 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV #1)
03/02/95 454 (S) FIN RPT 6DP 1NR (STA)CS
03/02/95 454 (S) ZERO FN (GOV #1)
03/02/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 520
03/03/95 (S) RLS AT 11:20 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/03/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/14/95 600 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/14/95
03/14/95 603 (S) HELD TO 3/15 CAL FOR 2ND RDG
03/15/95 619 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/15/95 619 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/15/95 619 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
03/15/95 619 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 5(STA)
03/15/95 619 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
03/15/95 635 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/17/95 764 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/17/95 765 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/30/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/04/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 211
SHORT TITLE: VOTER REGISTRATION LAWS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/95 529 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 529 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
04/04/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 92
SHORT TITLE: AHFC SUBJECT TO EXEC. BUDGET ACT
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/21/95 349 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/21/95 349 (S) STA, FIN
02/28/95 (S) STA AT 03:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/28/95 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/95 436 (S) STA RPT 4DP
03/01/95 436 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV #1)
03/15/95 617 (S) FIN RPT 6DP 1NR
03/15/95 617 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (REV #1)
03/15/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 532
03/15/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/16/95 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/16/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/17/95 664 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/17/95
03/17/95 666 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/17/95 666 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
03/17/95 666 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 92
03/17/95 666 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
03/17/95 679 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/20/95 802 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/20/95 802 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/30/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/04/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 232
SHORT TITLE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/06/95 590 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/06/95 590 (H) ECD, STA, L&C, FINANCE
03/21/95 (H) ECD AT 09:00 AM CAPITOL 17
03/21/95 (H) MINUTE(ECD)
03/22/95 850 (H) ECD RPT CS(ECD) 6DP
03/22/95 850 (H) DP: KELLY,MOSES,MACLEAN,KOHRING
03/22/95 850 (H) DP: SANDERS, ROKEBERG
03/22/95 850 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (REV)
03/22/95 850 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
03/22/95 850 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
04/04/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-42, SIDE A
Number 000
The House State Affairs Committee was called to order at 8:10 a.m.
by Chair James. A silent roll was taken. Present were
Representatives Ivan, Porter, Ogan, Willis, Robinson and James.
Not present was Representative Green.
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES announced they would not be hearing SB 92 as
per the schedule. A committee substitute (CS) for the bill was in
the making, so they would hold it over to next Thursday.
CHAIR JAMES said HB 229 is a bill intended to prohibit loud sound
systems sponsored by Representative Norman Rokeberg. The sponsor
asked for the committee to waive the bill. Chair James said they
would deal with it after the other bills.
HB 267 - REVIEW AND EXPIRATION OF REGS
CHAIR JAMES said the first bill on the agenda was HB 267, which was
the review and expiration of regs. Chair James directed the
committee to the fiscal notes for HB 267, and also a position paper
from the Alaska Council of School Administrators in their committee
packets. She said the CS for HB 267 was Version F, which came
about by and through the subcommittee meeting they had with the
Administration and Representative Willis. The subcommittee made a
list of changes in Section 8 of the original bill. In the original
bill there was a list of items the department would have to provide
to the Administrative Regulation Review Committee. They would
include items that the Administration would not normally have, and
they would have caused a fiscal note for their preparation. The
subcommittee reworded the section to say that only those things
normally prepared would be provided to the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee, and that they will respond reasonably
to the requests of the Administrative Review Committee for other
information.
Number 084
CHAIR JAMES referred to page 3, line 20, stating an addition that
the Fish and Game Board regulations would be exempted; also, any
regulation that refers to federal law. So the committee aide could
highlight the changes for greater clarity, Chair James decided to
put the bill at the end of the agenda. She moved on to CSSB 5.
SB 5 - COLOR OF PRIMARY BALLOTS
Number 122
CHAIR JAMES said that in the committee packets they have the
original bill that came over from the Senate. It was the State
Affairs Committee substitute for SB 5, and a question came up from
Representative Willis about which version, the original or Version
K. The committee packets only had the CS, Version K. Chair
James asked the sponsor which documents were the correct ones to
use.
Number 163
JOSH FINK, Legislative Assistant to Senator Kelly, did not have the
same packet as the committee. He put together his own packet, and
he said that he could tell the committee what sections came over in
the original bill from the Senate. The letter number was G.
CHAIR JAMES focused on the House Concurrent Resolution with a
prospective CS behind it, Version K, which is a work draft provided
by the sponsor. She said that some of the suggestions in the
House Concurrent Resolution are nearly identical to items included
in HB 211 on Voter Registration, which is Representative Con
Bundes bill. There are also similarities in Representative Jerry
Mackies bill that is presently in House Rules.
Number 190
MR. FINK said he was testifying on Senator Kelly's behalf, because
Senator Kelly was unable to be there. What the committee had
before them was a proposed CS by Senator Kelly for their
consideration. The original Senate Bill as it passed the Senate is
contained in Section 8, 9 and 10. These sections require that
primary ballots be printed on white paper, to prevent the invasion
of voting secrecy that has occurred with different colored ballots
in the last primary election. It will also require changing one
half of the voting booths in each polling place. Rather than
using the new suitcase booths, which lack privacy, the booths will
require curtains. According to the Division of Elections they
have enough booths so availability of curtained booths is not a
problem, and there is a zero fiscal note on those sections. The
remainder of the proposed CS contains new provisions and is
accompanied by a proposed committee resolution to allow for a title
change. Mr. Fink said Senator Kelly believes, if we are going to
enact any voting reform, it should occur this year, and, in
particular, not in a voting year. Session is nearly on its
eightieth day and this is the only election form bill that has
passed from one body and came to the other. After the Lieutenant
Governors Transition Team report on the Division of Elections came
out, Senator Kelly perused that, then incorporated into the CS the
provisions he thought were nonpartisan and noncontroversial. He
met with Lieutenant Governor Ulmer to discuss these provisions, who
is in agreement. The next thing is to speak with the Division of
Elections. Senator Kelly would urge the committee to accept the
drafted resolution for the title change and adopt the CS.
MR. FINK requested permission from Chair James to briefly review
the provisions of the bill. After being granted permission, he
began with Section 1. Section 1 provides that the information
provided when voting a question ballot constitutes a change of
address request and/or registration for future elections.
Currently, another form is used. Sections 2 and 3 provide that the
director of the division must purge deceased voters and felons
promptly after receiving such information, and at least once a
month thereafter. Sections 2 and 3 are the only sections in this
proposed CS that are contained in Representative Con Bundes bill.
Section 4 provides that the division director is directly
responsible for the hiring, performance and evaluation, promotion,
termination, and all other employee matters in the division.
Section 5 and 23 go together to enact the same change. They
provide that all division employees, except for the division
director and four regional directors, are classified employees.
Since putting together the CS, Senator Kelly met with Lieutenant
Governor Ulmer and discussed it with her at length. There is an
amendment on these sections, and Mr. Fink asked that they hold
consideration on the bill until the Division of Elections explains
the reason for the amendment. Section 6 strengthens the training
requirements of the division staff, requiring the director to
prepare a plan for the Lieutenant Governor describing the
comprehensive training provided to the division employees during
the calendar year. Section 7 provides that on the ballots the
order of names be randomly selected within each district rather
than rotating names. If there are 40 house districts, there are
40 different ballots, and in each house district you would have a
random selection, so your statewide candidates would have a
different order. From talking to people, Senator Kelly said the
rotation of names has a negligible affect, if any at all. Random
selection will save the division about $100,000 to $200,000
dollars.
Number 260
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked about random selection and what
they compared it with in their analysis.
Number 265
MR. FINK said they compared it to the rotation selection, and the
comparison study was done on a national level. Many states have
eliminated the alphabetical rotation of names because of the cost.
He went on to explain the changes in Sections 8 and 9, which
provides that half the voting booths in each precinct be the
curtain booths. Section 10 requires that all ballots be white.
Sections 11 through 22, which, he explained, are contained in
Representative Mackies bill that is presently in House Rules.
Representative Mackie met with the Speaker and Senator Kelly, and
he indicated that he preferred Senator Kellys bill to be the
vehicle. He has offered to help them. These Sections, 11 through
22, provide that all candidates must appear on primary ballots. He
asked Chair James if it would be appropriate to hand out the
amendments.
CHAIR JAMES said he could do that.
MR. FINK discussed the Lieutenant Governors concerns as per the
transition reports. One was the depoliticization of the Division
of Elections. Except for the four regional directors, this CS
would put the employees in the civil service, or a classified
service. The transition team had some concern that these employees
would be in a bargaining unit, and political action committees
could engage in behavior that gives the perception of impropriety.
The amendment would have the hiring and promotion and termination
rules, and personnel rules, in regulation apply to classified
service, but the employees would not be in the classified service.
They would be between classified and exempt. That is what the
longer amendment achieves. Also, the CS would inadvertently put
them in classified service and allow them to be involved in
political activity at the precinct level. The first amendment
would prohibit political activities by members of the division and
put them in the status where the personnel rules would apply, yet
they are not classified employees. They introduced the second
amendment, which is the shorter one, at the request of the
Lieutenant Governor would end the $.50 a registrar gets for
registering someone to vote. It involves considerable paperwork
administratively, and is time consuming; in addition, with the new
federal motor voter law, it is illegal now to require witnesses on
voter registration forms. This would eliminate the potential for
fraud.
Number 322
CHAIR JAMES determined from her committee aide and Mr. Fink that
this bill only had a Finance referral after it left State Affairs.
She said they would take testimony on the bill, but she felt
uncomfortable adding all these things to a Senate Bill at this
time, because they were very substantial amendments. She recalled
that Mr. Fink had indicated that he filed a bill with these extras
in the Senate.
MR. FINK concurred, saying Senator Kelly introduced a bill to
familiarize the Senate with the new provisions. He has no
intentions of taking it to the Floor, but it is scheduled for
hearings. It was scheduled to be heard in Senate State Affairs
next week. His concern is that if we do not take action this year
they will miss the opportunity altogether.
Number 349
CHAIR JAMES said she did not think that serious election reform
should be ramrodded through. She said this is an extensive bill to
go through one committee of referral before going to Finance. Her
plan was to take testimony, then let the committee decide on what
to do with the bill.
Number 357
DAVID KOIVUNIEMI, Acting Director, Division of Elections, Office
of the Lieutenant Governor wished to acknowledge, as per what Josh
Fink said, that there was a meeting between Senator Kelly and
Lieutenant Governor Ulmer. At that meeting they worked out the
provisions and included them in the proposed amendment. Mr.
Koivuniemi had some comments to make regarding particular sections
of SB 5. First, in Section 1, until the 1994 primary and general
election, the Division of Elections used the question ballot
envelope as the registration document. However, the prior
director changed that to not allow question ballot envelope to
serve as a registration document. The intent for the upcoming
presidential election is to reinstate the question ballot as a
registration document. In presidential elections the 30 day
registration period is waived and they can register on the day they
vote. With regard to the section about deletions of felons, and
death deletes, that is currently the practice of the Division of
Elections, so no conflict exists. He brought up the concerns of
Lieutenant Governor Ulmer and the transition team about putting
them in classified service because they would enter into a
bargaining unit that would be politically active, which is
inappropriate. The purpose of the Lieutenant Governor and the
transition team is to depoliticize the Division of Elections.
That is why the amendment Mr. Fink described was requested.
Number 420
MR. KOIVUNIEMI said he had previously testified on provisions that
were included in Representative Jerry Mackies bill. The other
deletion the division is proposing is the payments to the
registrars, which Mr. Fink explained earlier in his testimony.
They track payments to registrars by having them witness the
registration document. Under the National Voter Registration Act,
witnessing of voter registration is no longer required.
CHAIR JAMES said the drafter of SB 5 was there and wondered if
anyone had questions for the person. There were no questions, so
she brought up the options they had when considering SB 5.
Number 444
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS voiced a request to hold the bill over
until at least Thursday and deal with it at the next meeting.
There are major provisions made to this bill, which they must
consider, and he felt reluctant to make any decision on it.
CHAIR JAMES asked the committee if they had any objections.
Hearing none, Chair James said they would hold the bill until the
next meeting, on Thursday, April 6. The next item on the agenda
was HB 211, by Representative Con Bunde.
HB 211 - VOTER REGISTRATION LAWS
Number 465
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said that he would like to refer to the CS
and he hoped the committee would adopt the CS. He provided a blank
CS, which is Version G. Representative Bunde provided his
statement for HB 211. There was a sponsor statement, however, he
did not read it verbatim. He stated the goal of HB 211 was to
decrease the need for questioned ballots in the primary and general
elections by assuring the accuracy of the official voter
registration list. The CS for HB 211 would accomplish the goal in
three ways: First, this legislation would change the composition
of the official registration list. Second, it would provide for
more frequent purging of the convicted felons and deceased voters.
Third, it would increase communication between the Division of
Elections and absentee and question ballot voters.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said the first and second sections of HB 211
call for the addition of inactive voter list to the active voter
list. There are two voter lists currently: The active list refers
to voters who have voted within the last two years, and the
inactive list refers to persons who have not voted in the last two
years. Current federal legislation now requires that there not be
this two year limitation. Previously, the state of Alaska said
that if you had not voted in two years you had to re-register.
Now, once you register you are maintained on an inactive list. An
inactive active list would include a person who has not voted for
the past two years, is registered, and whose name does not appear
on the official registration list. When Representatives request
a registered voter list they do not get a total list. They only
get the active list. If an inactive voter is contacted by his or
her Representative they may convert quickly to the active list.
Also, this legislation requires a list of inactive voters be
available at the polling place, so the voter information and ID can
be checked. This would eliminate the need for a question ballot.
The Division of Elections estimated that the addition of this list
would decrease questioned ballot need by approximately 2000 votes
statewide.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained that Sections 3 and 4 of this bill
direct the Division of Elections to purge deceased voters monthly,
and convicted felons promptly. Research shows cause for concern
that some people might vote in a deceased persons place. If the
Division of Elections does not obtain the necessary information
from the Department of Corrections regarding felony convictions,
the names are not purged from the official voter list.
Potentially, a convicted felon could vote before his/her name is
purged. There is the potential for voter and permanent fund
dividend (PFD) fraud here, and this bill will eliminate the
potential threat of fraud. They counted 14,144 question ballots
statewide in the last general election. Of these, 5,131 ballot
were totally counted, 7,883 ballots were partially rejected, and
1,129 ballots were totally rejected. This means that the vote more
than likely counted for statewide offices, but not for their
particular Representative and Senator. Most people were not even
aware their votes did not count. Representative Bunde continued to
explain the changes, and stated that Sections 5 through 9 of HB 211
increase the amount of communication between the Department of
Elections and absentee and questioned ballot voters. When a ballot
is totally rejected or partially rejected by the Division of
Elections, the Director of the Division of Elections must notify
the voter within 60 days of certification of the general election,
and they must be notified in a more timely fashion in the primary
election. People who moved and whose address change had not been
changed promptly were required to vote a question ballot in the
primary election. This meant they were not allowed to vote for
their individual Representatives: They had to vote either in the
district where they previously lived and vote for a Representative
not in their current district, or vote a question ballot in their
new district and would not be able to vote for their Representative
and Senator. They were disenfranchised, Representative Bunde
believed, to their most important level of government: Their state
Representatives and Senators. The final section of HB 211, Section
10, prohibits the appointment of any state employees to the data
processing review board. After speaking with Lieutenant Governor
Ulmer they decided that State Employee is too broad and should
read any Division of Elections employee. This provision will
keep the data processing review board objective and impartial.
Alaskas last data review board was largely made up of state
employees.
Number 573
CHAIR JAMES had some election questions for Representative Bunde.
First, when people register to vote in Alaska she did not think it
would make any difference if people moved from precinct to
precinct. The Division of Elections would pick that up. She
questioned if someone came from another state, if they are notified
that they were registered in this state.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI returned to the committee table to answer the
question. He said that all states exchange voter information.
Number 585
CHAIR JAMES said she had many voters in her district whose votes
did not count. Some were absentee voters. One, in particular,
always voted, but when he went to vote his name could not be found
on the list. He had his voter registration card, but the election
panel gave him a question ballot. His vote was not counted, and
the problem she discovered was that he had the same name as a
person in Anchorage. She wondered if it was a problem with the
system or just a mess up.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI said it was not a perfect system, but he could do
some research and get her an answer. They try to use an
identifier, like a voter ID or a social security number, but
clerical errors happen occasionally.
Number 606
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that some say there is difficulty
getting a bill through in an election year. If it concerns
candidates directly he would agree, but he does not think this
bill, which focuses on voting and on voters, is so controversial
that it would not go through.
Number 620
MR. KOIVUNIEMI testified again on HB 211, to say that this bill
clears up the registration update problem. He said they hear
stories often about deceased voters voting. More than likely they
were clerical errors. He had a concern about Section 2, page 1,
line 14, about having the active and inactive voter list. He has
a concern with the word including. What he would propose that
the Division of Elections do to implement this section would be to
have two separate lists, one with the active voters and one with
the inactive: Not a merged list. This way people could get the
lists separately.
Number 688
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER said his first take was that there
were a considerable number of people who left the state, but in
terms of reciprocity, for states exchanging voter information, he
asked if the Division of Elections purges them from the list.
These people are either in the state and not voting, or in another
state and not voting.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI said that was a good assumption.
Number 690
CHAIR JAMES commented on that point, saying she has a military base
in her district: Eielson Air Force Base. This year, she did an
experiment and sent letters and cards, with a return receipt
request, to the nonvoting people in her district. The letter
included a card asking why the person did not vote. She has a
huge box of returns. Her biggest concern, she said was the
percentage of voters in her district. Also she got a number of the
cards back, but some cards said they did vote. She suspected this
was part of their clerical errors. Many had forwarding addresses
that expired, and these were still on the voter registration list.
TAPE 95-42, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. KOIVUNIEMI answered that they are on the active list for the
last two elections, then they go on the inactive status after not
voting for two years. They cannot be purged, or removed from the
list, for six years.
Number 010
CHAIR JAMES asked, for clarification, if the list they get for the
voters in a district would be with or without the purged name.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI said the list would be without the purged names.
CHAIR JAMES replied that there must be another list that included
inactive people, or those who have not voted for two or more years.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI said there is not presently a list. They are in the
system, but it would require programming some changes to allow them
to pull up that list. There has been no law mandating them to
produce that list, so that was part of what Representative Bunde
was trying to do with this list. He wants this list to be made
available.
Number 045
CHAIR JAMES wondered if those people, who havent voted for two
years and are on this inactive list, if they have left the state
and re-registered somewhere else, would get purged.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI said that theoretically, it is how things should
work. They do receive those all the time.
CHAIR JAMES confirmed that they would not be on the inactive list
once they moved; however, they could be deceased or out of state.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI said there are also people who only vote on
presidential years. The number of absentee ballots requested in a
presidential year show that. In 1994, there was something like
15,000 to 20,000 absentee applications. In 1992, for the general
election there were over 38,000.
Number 071
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that Section 1 of HB 211 is in the
previous bill they heard. Section 2 is not in the previous bill,
and the rest of it is.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI said not everything after Section 2 is in the other
bill. They presently send letters to voters who have had their
absentee or question ballots completely rejected. They dont send
letters to partial rejects; this bill would require that they do,
but SB 5 would not.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what section that was.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI told him that Sections 6 through 10 address the
issue of mailing letters to partially and totally rejected ballots.
Number 121
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked if they had adopted the CS for this bill.
CHAIR JAMES said that had not yet adopted the CS.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI said the only other comment he had about deceased
voters was that the practice of the division is to get the list
from Vital Statistics, they go through the obituaries in the daily
newspapers. One more thing, the division endorses the amendment
suggested by Representative Con Bunde about not allowing election
workers to be on the Data Processing Review Board.
LARRY BAKER, from Anchorage, testified by teleconference in support
of HB 211. He made some observations and said he had germane
testimony. In a recent campaign, in Senate District J, they
identified 42 residents after the campaign who had notified the
Division of Elections in the primary, by filling out their question
ballot envelope of their residency. However, the Division of
Elections failed to change that information. Consequently, their
ballots were rejected in the primary. They went back to their
precincts and voted again, on another question ballot, because of
address questions. Their ballots were rejected again.
MR. BAKER commented on the testimony of Mr. Koivuniemi, who said
these are just clerical issues. In Senate District J alone, 11,000
votes were cast and 836 were rejected because of various issues.
Some were accepted in the Senate race, some in the government race,
and others were accepted in the House race, so it is not just a
matter of people moving over one line to another. There was
another item in this bill that was not reflected. He said when
considering election reform, they should definitely review the
boundary lines, because between the primary and general election
the boundary lines were shifted in some cases. In Senate District
J, 112 residents were shifted between the primary and general
election, and there was not any notification to the candidates that
a change took place. He thought the issue of the election district
boundaries should be addressed, and candidates should be informed
of the changes.
Number 255
BOB MOTZNIK, former member of Anchorage Data Processing Review
(DPR) Board, testified that he was on the Board for six years, and
he has worked on elections for 20 years. He said he always found
the Division of Elections tried to do their best, but the last
election was a mess. There was minor reapportionment, and how that
works is that the Division of Elections makes a JIF table. He
explained the table, saying if a person lived on East Northern
Lights, between 1000 and 2000 and are on the even side of the
street, they are in such and such a precinct. The JIF table
determines what precincts people are in. However, because of the
reapportionment they had to remake the JIF table, and there were
errors made in the table causing people to go in the wrong
precincts, and some in the wrong districts. For example, the
Pioneers Home was in the wrong district during the primary, and
they voted for the wrong candidates, and their votes were counted
for the wrong candidates. The impression Mr. Motznik had was that
because of procedural and personnel changes they lost their
efficiency. People changed their addresses, but many of those
changes were not processed until after the general election. He
did some investigating on his own and learned that many ballots
were not accurately counted. He said there were about 14,000
question ballots statewide. Those are not available from
elections that are machine readable. In order to determine how
many votes were partially counted, you have to pay $150, get the
whole state list, then count them by district. He discovered that
the rules for counting question ballots were different in the
Northern Region compared to the rules in the rest of the state.
There were provisions in the election laws not followed in the last
election.
MR. MOTZNIK brought up the court case challenging the Governors
race. He said it was almost embarrassing to read the Attorney
Generals response after hearing that people were in the wrong
district in the primary and their votes counted wrong, that it was
no big deal. Mr. Motznik said it is a big deal. People were
disenfranchised, yet you hear in the court testimony the Attorney
General saying it means nothing. Mr. Motznik said he did not know
how the rule could be enforced, but the Attorney General represents
the state, and the only way to enforce the rule on an election
official who has performed malconduct is to sue the state, and now
you are fighting the Attorney General. He said that if a candidate
loses an election by a few votes and wishes to challenge the
election, that person would not have much money, and they would
have ten days to sue the state. The malconduct that occurs within
elections is usually not enforced. Getting back to their
discussion about dead people voting, he said that was a small issue
compared to the others. Maybe four people who voted had died, but
there are probably 1000 people who put in address correction
requests that were not processed by elections, so their votes were
not counted.
MR. MOTZNIK said he was the Chairperson of the DPR Board in
Anchorage for three primary and general elections. Last time,
Joseph Swanson, the Director of the Division of Elections planned
to appoint the election supervisor in each area to be the chair of
the DPR Board. After some complaining he did not make them the
chairpersons, he only put them on the Board. Mr. Motznik disclosed
that most of the people on the DPR Boards were new, which was a
problem. The supervisor of elections is in charge of counting the
ballots, and overseeing the operation of the election, so there is
a problem when that person is also on the DPR Board. This is the
board to determine if the job was done right. In Mr. Motzniks
opinion, there is a direct conflict in this. The point was that
the Division of Elections people should not be on the DPR Board.
This is especially true about those people who are in some way
affected by the outcome of an election, or involved in the counting
of the ballots. There are people in data processing who maintain
the state network, so they are involved in transmitting the votes
from Fairbanks to Anchorage, for instance, to go into a statewide
poll. If manipulation of the votes was intended, this would be
where it would happen: Before the votes reached Anchorage.
Number 500
MR. KOIVUNIEMI returned to make some comments on Mr. Motzniks
testimony. He declared that vote accumulation is no longer done at
data processing centers in Anchorage. It is done by the Division
of Elections internally. In prior years it was done on the
mainframe computer, but not any longer. He said there is a problem
between the Division of Elections and municipalities. They do
voter history for the municipalities, but they do not use their
question ballots as a change of address for their purposes. The
transition team strongly encouraged them to do something to improve
the address corrections process. He said, in reference to what
Larry Baker implied, that he was not blaming all the problems with
voter registration on clerical errors. A major problem had to do
with the question ballot envelope not serving as a registration
document. Both SB 5 and HB 211 address the problem, and he thinks
it will correct the problem. Another thing was that nearly all the
testimony on these two bills made it clear that a major problem is
staff turnover within the Division of Elections. The provisions of
SB 5 aim to take care of these problems.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER questioned the boundary changes in the Senate
district between the primary and general election. He wondered why
the Division of Elections did not notify the candidates.
Number 547
MR. KOIVUNIEMI disclosed that the voters were sent notices to
inform them that they were put in the wrong district during the
primary, and it was corrected during the general, but he could not
answer why the candidates were not notified. He agreed that it
definitely should have been done. Candidates should be the first
to be notified.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated that she registered many people to
vote, but knowing the changes were not being made in the computer
she told the people to keep their registration forms. Quite a few
of them called her to say they voted, and had their forms, but they
were not on the computer list, so she wondered if their votes were
counted.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI expressed uncertainty. Normally, if someone could
establish that they were properly registered before the 30-day
filing date, they should be allowed to vote, but they might not get
to vote in at least one election.
Number 565
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it is amazing how many people move at
election time. She told the committee that one of the security
officers in the building commented that he voted in the election
that had her name on the ballot, and he thought he was in
Representative Eltons district. He moved from the valley to
Douglas, so he was, in fact, in Representative Eltons district.
What he did not know is that his vote did not count.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI concurred that if he voted in the valley his vote
for the House seat probably did not count. If he voted in downtown
Juneau and he was still listed as registered downtown, then his
vote would have counted downtown. They can only base their
presumptions on the information they have on record for individual
voters.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there is a procedure, or if the bill
fixes these problems of re-registrating to vote at the time of a
municipal election, but the new address not getting processed.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI said there is not anything yet, but the transition
team discussed the problem, and one of the resulting
recommendations he is passing on to the new Director of the
Division of Elections is that they should work with the
municipalities.
Number 591
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wondered if Mr. Koivuniemi would estimate
what the requirements would be. He asked if it would require a
change of statute or procedure, or what?
MR. KOIVUNIEMI said he thought it could be done by procedure. He
said that municipalities use the list from the Division of
Elections, but he did not know the methods used by municipalities
to update their voter registrations.
Number 609
CHAIR JAMES had a question about the notification of the question
ballots. She was not aware of any notification, but she began
getting telephone calls from people who voted on absentee ballots
that were not counted, so she knew there were letters being sent
out. Her question pertained to if letters were sent out
selectively.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI said that when votes were totally rejected the voter
was notified by letter advising them of the total rejection of
their ballot. Partial rejections were not being notified.
However, under HB 211 they would also be notified.
Number 618
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wanted Mr. Koivuniemi to explain what Mr.
Motznik said early, that the votes of people in the Northern
districts were counted differently than the rest of the state.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI said he did not know anything about that. He said
he intended to talk to Mr. Motznik about it after the meeting to
find out what he was referring to. It was the first time he ever
heard that.
MR. MOTZNIK handed Chair James a sample of the voter list as
evidence of the different method used in the Northern district. To
explain the codes, he said that the names on the list that have an
M," means count in everything but the judicial races. If they
look in the middle of the column, it says District 37, Precinct 60,
and that is the precinct they voted in. Toward the beginning of
the column is the district and precinct that the person was
registered in. Next to it is the mailing address they put in when
they voted on question ballots. The names with an M are not
registered in the District 37 but they were given a code of M
that says their House and Senate votes were counted in District 37.
They are registered all over the place. That is the opposite of
what the rest of the state does.
Number 640
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that there were problems in the last
election, but we learn from our mistakes and improve. HB 211 will
put emphasis on maintaining efficiency with elections, and keeping
voters enfranchised. Some responsibility will be put back on
voters by promptly notifying them. Representative Bunde said if
anyone wished to entertain amendments to the CS, he would speak to
that.
Number 650
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved to accept the CS, Version G, as the
working draft, dated 3/30/95. There being no objections, the
motion passed.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked about Section 2, which refers to the
master list. He asked if those could be separated: One to show
the current voter list and another to identify the deceased list.
He asked if those would be provided to the different precincts.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE did not see the necessity of one master list
to show all the names. There could be an active and inactive list.
They would have to adjust the language so the inactive list is
available.
Number 661
CHAIR JAMES said a conceptual amendment would work on that.
Number 672
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved conceptually that Section 2 be amended
to allow for separate lists, active and inactive, but both being
available at the election site.
Number 676
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE had another amendment for HB 211. On page 5,
line 3, where it says a state employee may not serve as member of
the Data Processing Review Board, the amendment changes it to
Division of Election employee.
CHAIR JAMES asked if the amendment was written out.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that it was not. Initially he was only
going to change the wording from state employee to Division of
Election employee.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he saw no problem the way it is, saying
any state employee. All state employees are considerably
affected by elections, directly or indirectly.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON thought it might be necessary to hear from
Mr. Motznik again for an opinion.
Number 697
MR. KOIVUNIEMI said his personal opinion was that it should be
restricted to employees in the Division of Elections. He did not
think they should take a whole class of people, because of their
employment, and say they are no longer qualified to serve on such
a Board.
TAPE 95-43, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR JAMES asked if Representative Porter had any answers about
the concern Mr. Koivuniemi indicated, to exclude all state
employees whether or not they have direct or indirect interest.
Representative Porter had said they do have an interest, so she
wondered if he saw a legal challenge by not having state employees
serving.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER did not think so. If the concern is of the
two divisions, and then everyone else was left in, then they could
appoint who ever they wished. They could even appoint
commissioners.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wanted to leave it as it is, with only the
Division of Elections. Her attitude was that they get trust back
into the system. Many rules have not been followed, so they should
only get the division people out of it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved to amend that it would be a Division
of Election employee instead of a state employee.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected, so Chair James asked for a roll
call vote. Representatives Ivan, Porter, Ogan, James voted
against the amendment. Representatives Robinson and Willis voted
in favor of the amendment. Being 4-2 against the amendment, the
amendment failed.
Number 150
CHAIR JAMES said the CS was before the committee. They amended it
conceptually in Section 2, to provide for two lists.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked to go off the record for a few minutes.
Chair James agreed to have an at ease.
CHAIR JAMES called the meeting back to order and asked what the
committee wished to do with this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that they move from committee with
individual recommendations and fiscal notes as attached, CS for HB
211, Version G, as amended. There being no objection, CS, Version
G, for HB 211 passed out of committee.
SB 5 - ELECTION BALLOTS
CHAIR JAMES said they would go back to revisit SB 5.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that he believed both proposed
amendments for identified M-4 and M-3 were acceptable as
written. He moved that amendment M-3 be identified as Amendment
1, and move its adoption. Then he stopped and said he was
getting ahead of things. Representative Porter then moved House CS
for CS for SB 5, work draft Version K, as the committees work
draft. There being no objection, the motion passed.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER then moved to identify M.3 dated 4/3/95 as
Amendment 1, and move its adoption. There being no objections, the
motion passed: Amendment 1 was approved.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER then moved that they identify amendment M.4
dated 4/3/95 as Amendment 2, and move its adoption. There being no
objections, the motion passed: Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved Amendment 3, to removed or delete the
two appropriate sections, Section 2 and Section 3. Hearing no
objections, the motion passed and Amendment 3 was approved.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to pass from committee with individual
recommendations and fiscal notes as attached, House CS for CS for
SB 5, Version K, as amended.
MR. FINK asked the committee that they again consider the
resolution to change the title, which will now be necessitated.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection to moving the bill
out. Hearing no objections House CS for CS for SB 5, Version K,
was passed.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER then moved that the committee adopt and move
from committee the HCR, unnumbered /A, dated 3/27/95. There were
no objections, so HCR unnumbered /A, dated 3/27/95 passed.
Number 197
CHAIR JAMES said that concludes the election bills. She said they
would leave HB 232 and HB 267 to begin the Thursday, April 6,
meeting. Then she said she had a request from Representative
Rokeberg to waive an act prohibiting certain amplified sounds from
automobiles and providing for an effective date. There was no
fiscal note. It had a further referral to Health, Education and
Social Services, and Judiciary.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what certain sounds they were talking
about.
CHAIR JAMES explained the bill said if the motor vehicle sound
amplified system was audible outside of the motor vehicle.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked about playing music on a nice sunny day
and your favorite Beach Boy tune came on.
CHAIR JAMES said she was not asking them about the bill, she wanted
to know if they want to hear it or waive it.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said it sounds like he would want to hear it,
but out of respect for Representative Rokeberg he said he would not
object.
Number 205
CHAIR JAMES asked if anyone objected to waiving the bill from State
Affairs. There being no objections the bill was waived out of
State Affairs.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|