05/03/2022 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB66 | |
| SB25 | |
| HB309 | |
| HB31 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 309 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 3, 2022
3:09 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Matt Claman, Vice Chair
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Andi Story
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative James Kaufman
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 66
"An Act relating to voting, voter qualifications, and voter
registration; relating to poll watchers; relating to absentee
ballots and questioned ballots; relating to election worker
compensation; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 25(FIN)
"An Act relating to the establishment and maintenance of an
Internet website providing information on state government
financial transactions and specifying the information to be made
available on the website; and relating to the Alaska Checkbook
Online Internet website."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 25(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 309
"An Act exempting candidates for municipal office and municipal
office holders in municipalities with a population of 15,000 or
less from financial or business interest reporting requirements;
relating to campaign finance reporting by certain groups; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 309(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 31
"An Act relating to daylight saving time; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 31 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 66
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TUCK
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, JUD
04/09/21 (H) STA REFERRAL MOVED TO AFTER JUD
04/09/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/12/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/12/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/14/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/14/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/14/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/19/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/19/21 (H) Moved CSHB 66(JUD) Out of Committee
04/19/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/21/21 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 4DP 3DNP
04/21/21 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS, DRUMMOND, SNYDER,
CLAMAN
04/21/21 (H) DNP: EASTMAN, VANCE, KURKA
04/21/21 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER STA
04/21/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/29/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/29/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/06/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/06/21 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
01/25/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/25/22 (H) Heard & Held
01/25/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/12/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/12/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/19/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/19/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/19/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/21/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/21/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/21/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/26/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/26/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/26/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/28/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/28/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/28/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/03/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: SB 25
SHORT TITLE: STATE GOV'T FINANCES: WEBSITE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WIELECHOWSKI
01/22/21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
01/22/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/21 (S) STA, FIN
02/02/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/02/21 (S) Heard & Held
02/02/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/11/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/11/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
02/25/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/25/21 (S) Heard & Held
02/25/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/08/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/08/21 (S) Moved CSSB 25(STA) Out of Committee
04/08/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/09/21 (S) STA RPT CS 2DP 3NR NEW TITLE
04/09/21 (S) NR: SHOWER, HOLLAND, REINBOLD
04/09/21 (S) DP: COSTELLO, KAWASAKI
04/20/21 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/20/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/20/21 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
05/11/21 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
05/11/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
01/24/22 (S) FIN AT 1:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
01/24/22 (S) Moved CSSB 25(FIN) Out of Committee
01/24/22 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
01/25/22 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP NEW TITLE
01/25/22 (S) DP: STEDMAN, BISHOP, HOFFMAN, WILSON,
WIELECHOWSKI
02/02/22 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/02/22 (S) VERSION: CSSB 25(FIN)
02/04/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/22 (H) STA, FIN
02/17/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/17/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/03/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 309
SHORT TITLE: APOC; CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS/REPORTING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KREISS-TOMKINS
02/07/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/07/22 (H) CRA, STA
03/03/22 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/03/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/03/22 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/08/22 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/08/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/22 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/10/22 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/10/22 (H) Moved CSHB 309(CRA) Out of Committee
03/10/22 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/14/22 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 1DP 1NR 3AM
03/14/22 (H) DP: MCCARTY
03/14/22 (H) NR: SCHRAGE
03/14/22 (H) AM: DRUMMOND, MCCABE, HANNAN
03/15/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/15/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/22/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/22/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/26/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/26/22 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/28/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/28/22 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
05/03/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 31
SHORT TITLE: OBSERVE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME ALL YEAR
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ORTIZ
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, FIN
05/18/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/18/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/18/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/24/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/24/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/24/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/03/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JEFF STEPP, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a summary of changes in the
proposed CS to HB 66, Version N, on behalf of Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins, co-sponsor.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the proposed CS for HB 66, Version N.
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on amendments during the
hearing on the proposed CS for HB 66, Version N.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor of HB 66, introduced Amber
McReynolds to the committee, during the hearing on the proposed
CS for HB 66, Version N.
AMBER MCREYNOLDS
Denver, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony and answered
questions during the hearing on the proposed CS for HB 66,
Version N.
JEFF STEPP, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a summary of changes in the
proposed CS, Version O, for CSSB 25(FIN), on behalf of
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins.
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided introductory remarks and answered
questions, as the prime sponsor of CSSB 25(FIN).
DAVID DUNSMORE, Staff
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the proposed CS, Version O, for CSSB 25(FIN), on behalf of
Senator Wielechowski, prime sponsor.
ROBERT ERVINE, Division Operations Manager
Division of Finance
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the proposed CS, Version O, for CSSB 25(FIN).
ROBIN O'DONOGHUE, Communications Manager
Alaska Public Interest Research Group
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 25.
CLAIR GROSS, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a summary of changes in the
proposed CS, Version O, for CSHB 309(CRA), on behalf of
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, prime sponsor.
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the proposed CS, Version O, for CSHB 309(CRA).
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the proposed CS, Version O, for CSHB 309(CRA).
REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided brief introductory remarks, as the
prime sponsor of HB 31.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:09:06 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:09 p.m.
Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman, Vance, Kaufman, Eastman,
and Kreiss-Tomkins were present at the call to order.
HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
[Contains discussion of SB 39.]
3:11:29 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 66, "An Act relating to voting, voter
qualifications, and voter registration; relating to poll
watchers; relating to absentee ballots and questioned ballots;
relating to election worker compensation; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee, adopted as the working
draft on 4/12/22, was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for
HB 66, Version 32-LS0322\O, Klein, 3/30/22, ("Version O").]
3:12:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 66, Version 32-LS0322\N, Klein, 4/30/22,
as the working document.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:12:42 PM
JEFF STEPP, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, reviewed the changes in the proposed CS for HB 66,
("Version N"), which would replace Version O. The summary of
changes [hard copy included in the committee packet] read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, Line 1: Change in the title to list a new
crime: Adds "unlawful interference with voting."
--- Sections of Version N and Version O are the same -
--
Page 2, Line 25: Section 2 after "if applying within
30 days before" adds "or on the day of the election".
Legal advised in a memo to the Senate Judiciary
Committee (4/25/22):
"... the committee substitute uses the phrase 'within
30 days before.' Because the committee substitute
permits registration before and including election
day, these phrases should be changed to 'within 30
days before and on the day of' to make clear that the
additional requirements apply when a voter registers
on election day as well as in the 30 days before
election day."
Page 3, Lines 6-9: Section 2: Paragraph 13 (B)(ii)
rearranges "government check" and "paycheck" for
better clarity, so that "government check, or other
government document" are together; deletes "that is"
(O:3:7) and changes "displays" (O:3:8) to "displaying"
(N:3:9) for better grammar.
Page 3, Line 11: Section 2: Paragraph 14 changes
past tense to present (i.e. "had previously been" in
O:3:11 to "is" at N:3:11.
Page 3, Lines 16-26: Section 3 (g) No policy change
but rewritten for clarity/grammar.
Page 3, Lines 23 and 26: Section 3 (g) changes from
"requested language" to "designated language" for
consistency.
Page 4, Line 2: Section 4 (d) deletes "preceding an
election" (O:4:5) and added "before" (N:4:2) for
clarity.
Page 4, Line 12: Section 5 (h) change derived from
Amendment #1 (D.34), which deletes the phrase "a
voter's choice to register as nonpartisan, as
undeclared, or as affiliated with a political party or
political group and" from O:4:15-16. Simply stated,
this change eliminates the explicit opportunity to
indicate a partisan affiliation when registering at
the polls.
Page 4, Line 21: Section 6 (b) changes "who has
reregistered" to "reregistering"
Page 4, Lines 28-29: Section 7 (c) replaces "a
person who has moved" (O:5:1-2) with "or on election
day, a person transferring registration" (N:4:28-29),
so the language now reads "If a request is made within
30 days before election day or on election day, a
person transferring registration to a new precinct "
Section 8 is unchanged.
--- Section numbers of Version N and Version O are no
longer the same ---
Page 5, Line 16: Section 9 adds a new section to 15.07
titled, Voter fraud mitigation policy. This change is
derived from Amendment #34 (D.44) and declares that
it's the policy of the state to reduce voting fraud by
using reasonable and affordable tools and technology
to mitigate the potential for voting fraud, including
for the review of voter registration applications and
the master register for the names of the deceased,
felons ineligible to vote, non-citizens, and
individuals voting unlawfully. There is also a
grammatical change from "for the reviews of", which
was in Amendment #34 to "reviewing", which is now in
the bill (N:5:19).
Page 5, Line 22: Section 10 of Version N is unchanged
from Section 9 of Version O.
Page 5, Line 30: Section 11 has new language under (g)
of the Voter registration list maintenance which was
added by Amendment #35 (D.45). This allows DOE
regulations on list maintenance to also use, at their
discretion, municipal assessor databases, the US
Social Security Administration death index and the US
Department of Homeland Security's Systematic Alien
Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database on non-
citizens.
Page 6, Lines 14 - 23: Section 11 (formerly Section 10
of Version O) has a new subsection (h) and (i) also
modified by Amendment #35 (D.45), aimed at improving
Voter registration list maintenance. These changes
require the director to adopt a best practice voter
registration system to improve identity matching when
comparing registration lists with databases for list
maintenance. The change says the director must develop
a written maintenance schedule and guideline manual
and provide a report to the senate secretary and chief
clerk of the house for each legislative session.
Finally, confirmation notice must include voter
qualifications and penalties for voter fraud and voter
misconduct. Plus grammatical changes.
Page 6, Lines 27-28: Section N rearranged the phrase,
"at each polling place", for clarity.
From (Version O), "The director shall prominently
display instructions for a voter to cancel the voter's
registration at each polling place."
To (Version N), "The director shall prominently
display instructions at each polling place for a voter
to cancel the voter's registration."
Page 6, Line 29: Section 13 of Version N replaces
Sections 12 and Section 13 of Version O by Amendment
#4 (D.13). This section is related to the Appointment
and privileges of watchers and essentially says that
the same poll watcher rules apply for all elections.
--- Sections of Version N and Version O are the same
again ---
Page 7, Line 21: Section 14 is replaced by Amendment
#5 (D.1). This revises the rules on ballot
identifiers, saying ballot identifiers are required
for electronic ballots, too (as well as "official
ballots"). This deletes the option for the director to
provide an exception for ballots without identifiers.
It also specifies that the ballot identifier can be an
election official signature. Plus, grammatical change
at 7:22, to "The director shall adopt a regulation
requiring ?"(from "The director shall by regulation
require ?").
Page 8, Lines 10-12: In Section 15 at the end of (a),
amendment #38 (D.52) is added re: ballot chain of
custody requirements. This change asserts that a
signed ballot chain of custody document must accompany
groups of ballots in DOE's possession; and an election
official shall sign the ballot chain of custody
document immediately upon receiving or releasing a
ballot or group of ballots.
Section 16 is unchanged.
Page 8, Lines 30-31: Section 17: Changes "questioned
ballot procedures" to "questioned ballot declaration."
Page 9, Line 21: Section 18 is modified by Amendment
#39 (D.53), which says the questioned ballot
declaration must make clear that prosecution under AS
11 is for perjury.
Section 19 is unchanged.
Section 20 is unchanged.
Section 21 is unchanged.
Page 11, Line 1: Section 22 is changed by Amendment #1
(D.34), by adding language that says, "An envelope may
not identify a voter's party affiliation."
Section 23 is unchanged.
Section 24 is unchanged.
Section 25 is unchanged.
Section 26 is unchanged.
Section 27 is unchanged.
Section 28 is unchanged.
Section 29 is unchanged.
Page 12, Line 30: Section 30 is rewritten by amendment
#13 (D.38) related to Application for absentee ballot.
Legal added a reference to "except as permitted under
15.20.081(a)" (absentee voting statute), which allows
party affiliation on the application only if the voter
is already registered with that party or group. The
other option would have been to change 15.20.081.
Section 31 is unchanged.
Section 32 is unchanged.
Section 33 is unchanged.
Section 34 is unchanged.
Section 35 is unchanged.
Section 36 is unchanged.
Section 37 of Version O was removed by Amendment #6
(D.39), which eliminates the section allowing counting
of absentee ballots before election day.
--- Section numbers of Version N and Version O are no
longer the same ---
Section 38 of Version O was redundant with language in
Section 39 of Version N and was removed.
Section 37 (formerly O39): Clarification that "The
board shall reject an absentee ballot if ?" (15.20.203
Procedure for district absentee ballot counting
review) but then may be cured and counted (see
15.20.222 Procedure for curing uncounted ballot).
Section 38 (formerly O40): Technical change deleting
"under (a) of this section" from O:18:5 due to removal
of Section O38.
Section 39 (formerly O41) is unchanged.
Page 17, Line 26: Section 40 (formerly O42) is changed
by Amendment #40 (D.54) related to the ballot tracking
system. This says that a ballot tracking system must
be established "or procured," allowing for a third-
party vendor. Also added "or procured" in (b) for
consistency.
Section 40 (formerly O42) Section (c) of Version O is
removed by Amendment #16 (D.22). This amendment
deleted language in Section 42 of Version O providing
that online ballot tracking system must allow an
election official access to names and political
affiliations of all people on the voter registration
list.
Section 40 (formerly O42) Sec. 15.20.222 Procedure for
curing uncounted ballot added Amendment #17 (D.23),
which says cure notices can be sent via mail up to 5
days after the election, instead of up to 2 days after
the election.
Page 19, Line 23: Section 41 (formerly O43) is changed
by Amendments #19 (D.24) and #21 (D.11). First,
Amendment #19 allowed DOE to conduct an all-mail
election if the conditions in Section 43 are met, even
for general, statewide, and federal elections. Second,
Amendment #21, deleted provisions allowing for all-
mail elections (a) in second class cities with
population of 1,000 or less, upon the city's request,
and (b) in second class boroughs with populations of
3,000 or less, upon borough's request. For
consistency, Legal changed "unorganized community" to
"unincorporated community" to be consistent with
existing statutes. Also removed "party" from "party
primary" on 20:5 (per Ballot Measure 2).
Section 42 (formerly O44) is unchanged.
Page 20, Line 17: Section 43 (formerly O45) is
modified by Amendment #41 (D.59), which requires that
a voting machine or vote tally system must meet the
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) voluntary
voting system guidelines (VVSG) and be certified by
the EAC, in addition to having open-source software
technology. This also changed the deadline for the use
of federally certified open-source software from
January 1, 2028, to January 1, 2024.
Page 20, Line 31: Section 44 is new language from
Amendment #41 (D.59). The amendment also added
definitions for "commercial off-the-shelf" and "open-
source software technology."
Section 45 (formerly O46) is unchanged.
Page 22, Line 6: Section 46 is language from Amendment
#43 (D.61), which makes it unlawful interference with
voting in the second degree to "knowingly pay, offer
to pay, or cause to be paid money or other valuable
thing to a person who is not an election official,
mail carrier, or representative under AS 15.20.072 to
collect a voter's ballot."
Section 47 is a new section of definitions for
"collect" and "other valuable thing," also per
Amendment #43.
Section 47 of Version O was deleted by amendment #15
(D.42). This section, which has been removed from
Version N, had provided that voting or attempting to
vote in the name of a person who is cognitively unable
to express their vote was voter misconduct in the
first degree.
--- Sections of Version N and Version O are the same
again ---
Section 48 is unchanged.
Section 49 is unchanged.
Section 50 is unchanged.
Section 51 is unchanged.
Page 25, Line 8: Section 52 is changed by Amendment
#28 (D.6) + Conceptual Amendment 1 to #28. The
amendment requires DOE to compile lists of registered
voters whose data has been breached. The conceptual
amendment asserts that the list is "nonpublic" and
that "if the division identifies a cyber attack or
data breach, the director shall exercise caution to
protect election integrity." Clarifying language
added.
Section 53 is changed by Amendment #31 (D.46). This
cleans up references to "absentee" that should be
"early." No substantive changes.
Section 54 is unchanged.
Section 55 is unchanged.
Section 56, the repealer section, is changed by poll
watcher amendment #4 (D.13 2:6-7).
Section 57 APPLICABILITY has significant changes to
conform with addition and removal of crimes.
Section 58 is unchanged.
Section 59 has changes re: open-source voting
effective dates from 2028 to 2024.
Section 60 is unchanged.
Section 61 is unchanged.
Note: Amendment #35 (D.45) passed in S JUD
unanimously. In addition to other changes that are
incorporated in Version N, the amendment would have
added a requirement for DOE to mail a notice
requesting address confirmation or correction to
people "who do not live in the state." This
requirement is not included in Version N.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from committee members.
3:19:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY applauded Section 40 of Version N, which
allowed cure notices to be sent via mail up to 5 days after the
election instead of within 48 hours post-election. Nonetheless,
she wondered whether 5 days was sufficient. She asked when the
bulk of the "last day" ballots arrived and whether the new
timeline for curing ballots in Version N was adequate.
3:21:11 PM
MR. STEPP acknowledged that the statutory vote count was
constrained. He pointed out that the 5-day timeline pertained
to mail notifications specifically, adding that the director
could provide notifications via phone, for example, as well. He
shared his understanding that 5 days would provide enough time
to receive the ballots and send a notice of deficiency by mail.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY redirected the question to Director Gail
Fenumiai.
3:22:07 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections (DOE), Office of
the Lieutenant Governor, estimated that in a general election,
the division received the bulk of the ballots between two weeks
pre-election and two days post-election. She reiterated that
the 5-day deadline only applied to mail notifications.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY sought to confirm that the timeline
outlined in Version N would provide sufficient time for a voter
to receive an electronic notification of a deficiency and an
opportunity to cure the deficient ballot.
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed. She noted that there were other
opportunities to provide cure notices, as long as the form was
received within 14 days after the election.
MR. STEPP agreed.
3:24:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN directed attention to page 5, line 17
[voter fraud mitigation policy]. He observed that the section
was predominantly intent language and wondered why it lacked
assertive language to make the reduction of fraud through the
use of reasonable and affordable tools mandatory. He opined
that a "shall" statement was more appropriate.
MR. STEPP shared his understanding that the intent was to assert
and make a strong statement of that very intent.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that Version N was ultimately a
mechanical update that included unanimously adopted amendments
from the Senate. Therefore, he recommended directing questions
regarding intent to [Senator Shower, prime sponsor of SB 39].
He went on to remind the committee that there was "precious
little evidence" supporting the existence of voter fraud "of any
critical mass proportion;" however, to the extent that people
did perceive it as a problem, he argued that the intent language
added "symbolic polish" that spoke to the broad base of
consensus.
3:26:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN contended that his question was not
framed around any assertion of fraud; rather, his intention was
to examine the passive language in Section 9.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to the motion to
adopt the proposed CS for HB 66, Version 32-LS0322\N, Klein,
4/30/22, as the working document. There being no further
objection, Version N was before the committee.
3:27:52 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:27 p.m. to 3:31 p.m.
3:31:53 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 66,
Version N, labeled 32-LS0322\N.1, Klein, 5/2/22, which read:
Page 8, following line 28:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 17. AS 15.15.170 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.15.170. Prohibition of political
persuasion near election polls. (a) During the hours
the polls are open, a person who is in the polling
place or within 200 feet of any entrance to the
polling place may not
(1) attempt to persuade a person to vote
for or against a candidate, proposition, or question;
or
(2) physically display a photo, video, or
other image of the person's or another person's marked
ballot in an attempt to persuade a person to vote for
or against a candidate, proposition, or question.
(b) The election officials shall post warning
notices at the required distance in the form and
manner prescribed by the director."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 10, following line 2:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 21. AS 15.15.280 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.15.280. Prohibiting the exhibition of
marked ballots. A [SUBJECT TO AS 15.15.240 A] voter
may not exhibit the voter's ballot to an election
official or any other person so as to enable any
person to ascertain how the voter marked the ballot.
* Sec. 22. AS 15.15.280 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) This section does not apply to a voter who
(1) requests assistance under AS 15.15.240;
or
(2) subject to the prohibition on political
persuasion in, or within 200 feet of an entrance to, a
polling place under AS 15.15.170, shares a photo,
video, or other image of the voter's marked ballot
with another person or with the public."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 48"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 49"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 52"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 53"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 48, 49, and 51 - 53"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 46 and 47"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 61"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 62 and 63"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:32:03 PM
MR. STEPP explained that Amendment 1 would officially allow
Alaska voters to take and share ballot "selfies." He expounded
that under current law, it was technically illegal to share a
photo of oneself in the voting booth although the law went
unenforced in practice. He explained that the sharing of ballot
photos was traditionally prohibited to prevent voter
intimidation and vote buying; however, technology and the
Internet had changed the reason people take and share pictures.
3:33:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the interpretation and
practical application of Amendment 1. He asked how an attempt
to persuade a person to vote with the use of photo or video,
which was still illegal under Amendment 1, would be measured and
enforced.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his understanding that the proposed
amendment exemplified "perfect being the enemy of good." He
indicated that the intent was to rectify the blatant violation
of current statute, which created confusion. He suggested that
many members of the legislature had broken the existing law,
arguing that it needed to be resolved. He believed that the
language prefacing prohibition in Version N spoke to the
original intent of laws aimed at preventing electoral coercion
that were passed in the 1930s. That being said, he was unsure
how Amendment 1 would be enforced. He reiterated that there
were few, if any, examples of electoral coercion in this regard.
3:35:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that a person could take
a selfie holding a ballot; however, the ballot must not be
marked.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that the intent was to quell the
concern that a person may share a photo of his/her marked ballot
for the purpose of political persuasion. He opined that it was
an unlikely scenario; nonetheless, the prefatory language in
question was drafted to clarify that the aforementioned behavior
was prohibited within 200 feet of an entrance to a polling
place.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether "within 200 feet of an
entrance" was the qualifying language. In other words, a person
could share a photo of his/her marked ballot outside the 200-
foot radius, he asked.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that the operative language was
"physically displaying". He confirmed that sharing a photo of
one's ballot via social media or text would not be prohibited.
MR. STEPP directed attention to AS 15.15.280 [Sections 21 and 22
of Amendment 1], indicating that the language did not apply to a
voter who takes a ballot selfie.
3:39:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there were consequences for
breaking this prohibition.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS was unsure. He asked Mr. Flynn whether
there were any sanctions, fines, or penalties, associated with
what was colloquially known as a "ballot selfie."
3:39:47 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law (DOL), could not think of the consequences at
this time. He deferred to Ms. Fenumiai.
MS. FENUMIAI offered to follow up with the requested
information.
3:40:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked why Amendment 1 was necessary if
there was no element of enforcement. She suggested repealing
the criminality of ballot selfies without the additional
prohibition language.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that the language on page 1,
lines 9-11, pertained to a different infraction that was, in
fact, enforceable. He explained that Amendment 1 merely
clarified that the act of waiving around a marked ballot [within
200 feet of any entrance to the polling place] constituted a
form of campaigning.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE requested further insight regarding the
infraction being described in AS 15.15.070.
3:43:24 PM
MR. FLYNN cited AS 15.15.300 [prohibition on the counting of
unexhibited ballots], which provided that an exhibited ballot
should not be allowed to be placed in the ballot box. He asked
Representative Vance to reframe her question.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered to rephrase the question. He
inquired about the penalty or sanction for attempting to
persuade a person to vote for or against a candidate,
proposition, or question, within 200 feet of a polling place.
MR. FLYNN understood that DOE would pursue the removal of
campaign signs or campaign material within 200 feet. He shared
his belief that law enforcement would be involved if necessary;
further, that people committing the infractions would be
prevented from voting.
3:44:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered Section 17 in the proposed
amendment from a grammatical perspective. He suggested that
paragraph (2) was already captured between subsection (a) and
paragraph (1).
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he would be thrilled to eliminate the
language in question, characterizing it as extraneous.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE agreed with Representative Eastman. She
requested the chair's perspective, as the sponsor of Amendment
1, before proposing a conceptual amendment.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his support for conceptually
amending Amendment 1.
3:47:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1, which would delete lines 9-11 on page 1 [of the
amendment].
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:47:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that deleting lines 9-
11 would have the same effect as eliminating lines 1-16.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed.
REPRESENATIVE EASTMAN suggested that as long as the drafter from
Legislative Legal Services understood the committee's intent,
he/she could make conforming changes.
3:48:07 PM
MR. STEPP pointed out that Section 21 [in Amendment 1], which
amended Section 15.15.280, contained the central policy change.
He explained that Section 21 would exempt ballot selfies from
the statutory prohibition on exhibiting marked ballots. The new
subsection (b) [Section 22 of Amendment 21], would allow a voter
to share a photo, video, or other image of the voter's marked
ballot with another person or the public, subject to the
restriction established on page 1, lines 9-11. Therefore, he
indicated that contrary to Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
1, lines 9-11 were necessary to make the prohibition explicit.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN contended that the proposed conceptual
amendment simply eliminated repetitive language; therefore,
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 neither added nor
subtracted from AS 15.15.170. He opined that because nothing
was changing in AS 15.15.170, "Section 17 could go away."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his reluctance to making changes
"on the fly," as there could be unintended consequences.
Although he appreciated the goal of reducing statutory language,
he suggested punting the request to Legislative Legal Services.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed with Representative Claman.
However, he welcomed a "meeting of minds offline" to introduce
favorable language.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN suggested working on the proposed
amendment "offline."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that the bill almost passed the
legislature in recent years; consequently, the language had
undergone quite a bit of vetting already.
3:52:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recounted the substance of his objection
in past years. He discussed hypothetical scenarios involving
the potential exertion of influence via ballot photos. He
expressed his desire to deprive people of that option.
3:55:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1.
3:55:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN withdrew his objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
3:56:38 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr, Story,
Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of Amendment 1.
Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and Eastman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
3:57:13 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 66,
Version N, labeled 32-LS0322\N.2, Klein, 5/2/22, which read:
Page 12, following line 29:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 30. AS 15.20.066(a) is amended to read:
(a) The director shall adopt regulations
applicable to the delivery of absentee ballots by
electronic transmission in a state election and to the
use of electronic transmission absentee voting in a
state election by qualified voters. The regulations
must
(1) require the voter to comply with the
same time deadlines as for voting in person on or
before the closing hour of the polls;
(2) ensure the accuracy and, to the
greatest degree possible, the integrity and secrecy of
the ballot process;
(3) prohibit absentee voting by facsimile in
a state election."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 47"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 49"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 46, 47, and 49 - 51"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 44 and 45"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 59"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 60 and 61"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:57:18 PM
MR. STEPP stated that Amendment 2 prohibited the return of
absentee ballots by facsimile ("fax"). Currently, fax was an
allowable means for a voter to return a completed absentee
ballot to the division; however, most election security experts
cautioned that the electronic transmission of ballots, such as
by fax, presented a cyber security risk. Amendment 2, he said,
sought to strengthen election security in Alaska.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that he had introduced legislation on
the subject a number of years ago. For that reason, in
consultation with the bill sponsor, he expressed his support for
the proposed amendment.
3:58:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the intent was to prohibit
voting by fax or all electronic voting.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS answered, "Just fax."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that e-mail was not
included.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS confirmed that e-mail was not captured in
Amendment 2.
3:59:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled a time when ballots were allowed
to be submitted by fax. He remarked, "But we decided that those
days are over?"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged that it was still legally
permissible under current law.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that in effect,
Amendment 2 would remove that option.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS confirmed that ballots would no longer be
accepted by fax should Amendment 2 be adopted.
MR. STEPP agreed with that summation.
4:00:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about the options for overseas
military members to return their ballots in a timely manner.
MS. FENUMIAI conveyed that uniformed and overseas citizens could
receive a ballot in various ways, including mail, online
delivery, or fax. Returning ballots, she said, was limited to
mail or fax.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how many ballots were returned by
fax.
MS. FENUMIAI reported that in the 2020 general election, 88
ballots were issued by fax, of which 77 were returned to the
division. Additionally, 16,466 ballots were delivered via the
online delivery system, of which 12,026 were returned to the
division by either mail or fax.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the people submitting ballots
by fax were "frequent flyers" - or consistent in their chosen
method of return.
MS. FENUMIAI did not know the answer.
4:03:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the division had experienced
any problems with voting by fax.
MS. FENUMIAI answered no, not to her knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled that historically, fax was
considered one of the most secure ways to send communication.
He asked whether fax communication had become less secure.
MS. FENUMIAI was unsure of the answer. She reported that the
number of fax voters dropped between 2018 and 2020. She offered
to follow up with additional information.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN declined the offer. He stated that he was
satisfied with her indication that the division had not
experienced any problems with faxed ballots.
4:04:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN supposed that voting by fax was more
cumbersome and inconvenient, as opposed to more traditional
methods of voting. He considered the example in which an
astronaut needed to vote and wondered how people in similar
scenarios could submit a ballot in confidence if not by fax.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS characterized Representative Eastman's
statement as a comment and invited additional questions on
Amendment 2.
4:07:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked for the statutory definition of
facsimile.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to Mr. Flynn.
MR. FLYNN defined it as, "fax," as opposed to other types of
electronic delivery, such as e-mail. He offered to follow up
with the specific statutory definition.
4:08:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the reason for eliminating
the fax option.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS reiterated that testimony from election
security experts on best practices excluded fax returns, as they
were less secure. He shared his understanding that it was
possible to intercept fax returns or, in theory, alter a fax
return.
4:10:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2, such that members of the uniformed services would
be excluded from the prohibition on voting by facsimile.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS emphasized that the number of people voting
by fax was small. He remarked:
I find a certain irony in that there is a lot of
concern about secure elections and anti-fraud, and
this is the type of policy that speaks to that, and
all of the sudden the polarity flips 180 degrees and
there's lots of concern about access. So, which of
the two is it and how do you balance it?
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his preference for the committee to
vote down Amendment 2 rather than move forward on the conceptual
amendment.
4:11:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN expressed his general support for
Amendment 2. He explained that his intention was to avoid an
internal conflict by clarifying the meaning of "electronic
transmission."
4:12:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his opposition to the conceptual
amendment and highlighted the procedural customs.
4:12:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2.
4:13:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN suspected that the majority of faxed
ballots came from rural areas. Absent real world evidence that
there was a true security issue concerning voting by facsimile
in Alaska, he opposed the prohibition in Amendment 2, as it
could alienate voters.
4:15:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE discussed the task of weighing risk against
reward. She asked the sponsor of Amendment 2 to provide his
last "pitch" before voting on the motion, as she remained
undecided.
4:16:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN argued that potential alienation of
voters was qualitatively different from the Alaskan on the
International Space Station who would have no means of voting if
voting by facsimile was prohibited. He opined that the law
should be written in such a way that ensured the availability of
at least one method for every person. For that reason, he
expressed his opposition to Amendment 2.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he was pleased to hear such enthusiasm
for voter access, adding that he was curious to see how that
would manifest further on in the amendment process. He withdrew
Amendment 2.
4:17:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether Mr. Flynn found a statutory
definition of facsimile.
MR. FLYNN conveyed that there was no definition in statute. He
pointed out that there were cellphone applications that claimed
to "fax" documents; therefore, he recommended including in the
definition something "that is sent to a fax number," as opposed
to an e-mail.
4:18:39 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that Amber McReynolds was available
online for questioning. He invited additional questions on HB
66, Version N, as amended.
4:19:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 66, introduced Amber McReynolds.
4:20:03 PM
AMBER MCREYNOLDS shared her extensive background in election
administration, including her membership on the Board of
Governors of the United States Postal Service (USPS). She
recounted her experience as an election official in Denver,
Colorado, where the first ballot tracking system was created in
2009. She explained that the goal was to improve security and
reduce the volume of calls related to ballot tracking, or people
wanting to know whether their ballots had arrived. She recalled
the invention of the intelligent mail barcode and described its
evolution over the years. Ultimately, upon opting-in, the
barcode allowed for proactive communication and visible
confirmation of ballot status. Notifications included
confirmation of the ballot being printed, mailed [to the voter],
scanned for delivery [to the voter], as well as the final scan
upon arriving at the election office. Additionally, the system
provided immediate notification of a ballot deficiency to allow
an opportunity for voters to cure any mistakes. She concluded
by highlighting the benefits of a permanent absentee ballot
list. She explained that multiple states had utilized it to
create operational efficiencies and cost savings, to avoid the
processing of multiple absentee ballot applications each
election cycle. Furthermore, she touched on the convenience of
by-mail voting, noting that it was often used by rural
constituents.
4:26:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about the capacity for processing
ballots at the federal level. She asked whether the federal
legislation aimed at stabilizing USPS had resolved the existing
issues regarding capacity.
MS. MCREYNOLDS conveyed that the executive leadership team at
USPS made a commitment to improving election mail, the results
of which were seen in the 2020 election with top rates in
delivery time. She noted that the election mail team at USPS
handled vote-by-mail ballots in addition to all the other
election material sent by election officials [voter
registration, voter information cards, information booklets,
etcetera]. She explained that the handling of Alaska mail
required special provisions due to the state's geography and
unique situations. Furthermore, she reported that President
Biden's budget for 2023 included an allocation for additional
improvements to election mail and support for paid postage.
4:31:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN has how USPS interfaced with the tracking
barcode proposed in Version N.
MS. MCREYNOLDS reiterated that the intelligent mail barcode was
scanned at different points within the postal stream, similar to
the delivery of a package. She clarified that the intended
purpose of a hand postmark was to cancel the stamp so it could
not be reused. In contrast, she explained, the barcode provided
both the date and a timestamp, which was more than what the
traditional postmark offered. She recommended accepting ballots
that were postmarked [on or before election day] in addition to
ballots scanned with an intelligent barcode in the proposed
legislation to avoid alienating voters.
4:35:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the intelligent mail barcode
was preferred over the BallotTrax software.
MS. MCERYNOLDS clarified that BallotTrax consisted of software
that consumed and processed the intelligent mail barcode data.
She characterized BallotTrax as the engine for utilizing the
intelligent mail barcode information while also consuming data
from the ballot production printer, for example.
4:36:58 PM
MS. MCREYNOLDS, in response to a question from Representative
Tarr, suggested covering the cost of postage to reduce confusion
and make it easier for all voters. She acknowledged that the
line item for election improvements in President Biden's budget
for 2023 would not impact the 2022 election.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 66 was held over.
SB 25-STATE GOV'T FINANCES: WEBSITE
4:38:58 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 25(FIN), "An Act relating to the
establishment and maintenance of an Internet website providing
information on state government financial transactions and
specifying the information to be made available on the website;
and relating to the Alaska Checkbook Online Internet website."
4:39:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt the proposed House
committee substitute (HCS) for SB 25, Version 32-LS0217\O, Marx,
4/13/22, as the working document.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:39:41 PM
JEFF STEPP, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, reviewed the changes in the proposed HCS ("Version O")
for CSSB 25(FIN). The summary of changes [hard copy included in
the committee packet] read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
The draft committee substitute makes four changes to
the bill:
• On Page 5, Lines 13-15, language is added
establishing that the University of Alaska shall
annually provide an audited financial report with
revenues and expenditures for inclusion in the Online
Checkbook website.
• On Page 5, Lines 17-19, a new subsection (e) is
added establishing that the Online Checkbook shall
include data on the legislature and judiciary to the
extent it is available from the central accounting
system.
• On Page 6, Lines 6-8, the University of Alaska is
removed from the definition of "state agency."
• On Page 6, Lines 13-18, a new Section 6 is added
clarifying that the Online Checkbook does not have to
contain data on the numbers of employees and
contractors by agency for the ten years preceding the
launch of the website.
4:41:14 PM
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of SB 25, thanked the committee for hearing the bill and
expressed his support for changes proposed in Version O.
4:41:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 4,
subsection (b), and asked whether the provision was detailed
enough to ensure a user-friendly and functional website for
members of the public.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said in crafting the bill, legislation from
across the country was considered in addition to conversations
with the Department of Administration (DOA) and the executive
branch. He believed that the proposed legislation would provide
an outstanding Internet website for Alaskans at a reasonable
cost.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he appreciated the balance of cost
and functionality. He asked whether the website would provide a
permanent link to each expenditure, which could be shared with
third parties.
4:44:48 PM
DAVID DUNSMORE, Staff, Senator Bill Wielechowski, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Wielechowski, prime sponsor of
SB 25, directed questions on implementation to the department.
He explained that the choice of language was a cognizant
decision to ensure that the Alaska Checkbook Online Internet
website would not be constrained by statute and evolving
technology. He said the impetus for the bill was to catch up
with other states and allow the department to continuously
improve the website.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed his previous question to the
department.
4:46:30 PM
ROBERT ERVINE, Division Operations Manager, Division of Finance,
Department of Administration (DOA), said it was hard to
anticipate whether there would be a permanent link. Once a
transaction occurred and entered the database, he explained, it
would not change once the fiscal year closed. He noted that
there was a unique identifier attached to each transaction,
which would remain in the database forever unless it was
confidential.
4:47:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his hope that the content would
be shareable. He suggested the inclusion of an export feature
for search results or generated links to share the information.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to the motion to
adopt the proposed HCS for CSSB 25(FIN), Version 32-LS0217\O,
Marx, 4/13/22, as the working document. There being no further
objection, Version O was before the committee.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on SB 25.
4:48:58 PM
ROBIN O'DONOGHUE, Communications Manager, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AKPIRG), shared his support for SB 25. He
believed the creation of the Alaska Checkbook Online website was
critical, as it would allow members of the public to better
understand what their government officials are up to and how
they spend public dollars. He opined that it was timely and
urgent to create and pass the online checkbook in order for
Alaskans to know how the vast amount of federal dollars are
spent.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, after ascertaining that no one else wished
to testify, closed public testimony on SB 25.
4:50:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR thanked the bill sponsor for bringing this
bill forward. She expressed her support for opportunities that
helped build trust with the public and improve transparency.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN expressed his support for the bill and
thanked the bill sponsor.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated his tremendous support for the bill
and what it sought to accomplish. He acknowledged the working
collaboration demonstrated by DOA and the executive branch on
the proposal.
4:51:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report HCS for CSSB 25(FIN),
Version 32-LS0217\O, Marx, 4/13/22, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HCS CSSB 25(STA) was reported out of
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 309-APOC; CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS/REPORTING
4:52:15 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 309, "An Act exempting candidates for
municipal office and municipal office holders in municipalities
with a population of 15,000 or less from financial or business
interest reporting requirements; relating to campaign finance
reporting by certain groups; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee was CSHB 309(CRA).]
4:52:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 309, Version 32-LS0540\O, Bullard,
5/2/22, as the working draft.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:53:14 PM
CLAIR GROSS, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, provided a summary of changes in the proposed CS,
("Version O"), for CSHB 309(CRA).
4:59:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 8. He
asked whether subsection (c) applied to paper records, or
whether they were handled separately.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his understanding that the public
official financial disclosures (POFDs) submitted by a broader
subset of public officials, such as judicial officers, division
directors, et cetera, were not posted on the website. Instead,
those POFDs were kept on file and available by request. He
asked Ms. Hebdon whether that was accurate.
5:01:24 PM
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, confirmed that
Section 8 indicated that filings submitted through the
electronic filing system would be made available to the public;
however, she was unsure whether it would impact previous
statements that had been filed on paper. Paper statements, she
said, applied to municipal officers that Version O sought to
exempt. She reiterated that currently, not all electronically
filed POFDs were readily available to the public, as APOC had
chosen to publish certain statements on its website, such as
candidates, seated legislators, the governor, and the lieutenant
governor.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to clarify which POFDs were
published online and which POFDs were made available upon
request.
MS. HEBDON shared her understanding that Section 8 contemplated
paper POFDs received by municipal officers who were not required
to file electronically; however, portions of Version O sought to
exempt municipal officers from filing regardless of the method.
Should the bill pass in its current form, she understood that
paper statements would no longer be received. She added that
per Version O, all electronically filed POFDs would be made
available to the public via the commission's Internet website.
5:05:39 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that according to page 6,
line 13 of Version O, all POFDs for elected public officials or
candidates for elective office must be available online.
5:06:32 PM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), confirmed that the Chair
Kreiss-Tomkin's summary was accurate.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his desire to reconcile the
inconsistencies in Ms. Hebdon's answer to Representative
Eastman's question. He invited her to provide additional
comment to resolve any confusion.
MS. HEBDON expressed her belief that there was no confusion.
She reiterated her understanding that Version O was directing
APOC to publish all POFDs of candidates for elected office, as
well as elected public officials.
5:07:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether that would include
candidates for elected office in the past six years and
candidates for municipal office, which may not have been
published online in the past.
MS. HEBDON deferred to the bill sponsor. She was unsure whether
the bill was retroactive.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS indicated that the commission would be
responsible for interpreting Section 8 in the most practicable
way. He suggested that if it were administratively onerous to
apply the provision to past years' POFDs, it "wouldn't be a big
deal." He emphasized that his intent was to reform the system
moving forward.
5:09:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether it was necessary to include
language that would affirmatively "grandfather in" POFDs that
were submitted prior to the effective date of the proposed
legislation.
MR. BULLARD shared his understanding that Section 8 of Version O
would require the commission to make POFDs including those
filed in the last six years - accessible to the public online.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether retroactive application would
be possible.
MS. HEBDON acknowledged that retroactive application would
require more work; however, she pointed out that most POFDs were
already filed electronically. She shared her belief that the
programming could be accomplished behind the scenes through the
commission's internal programmer. She noted that her preference
would be for the application of Section 8 to be from the
effective date forward.
5:12:33 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his interest in pursuing an
amendment to that effect.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the distinction between
elected officials who were no longer elected officials and
candidates who were no longer candidates.
MR. BULLARD agreed that the section could be further clarified.
5:13:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to the motion to
adopt the proposed CS for HB 309, Version 32-LS0540\O, Bullard,
5/2/22, as the working document. There being no further
objection, Version O was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE proposed that Section 8 should be
conceptually amended if the chair was amenable.
5:14:56 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
5:16:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to HB
309, Version O, such that "beginning July 1, 2022" would be
inserted on page 6, line 16, after the first occurrence of the
word "years".
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE clarified that should the conceptual
amendment pass, Section 8 [lines 14-16] would read: "The
commission shall keep a report filed under this chapter on file
for six years beginning July 1, 2022."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Bullard whether the conceptual
amendment would suffice in terms of style and drafting
guidelines given the allowance to make conforming changes.
MR. BULLARD said he was unable to hear Conceptual Amendment 1.
He recommended that the best way to propose a conceptual
amendment was to explain what the committee wanted it to do and
leave the drafting of language to Legislative Legal Services.
5:18:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1. She moved
to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 to Version O, such that
"beginning July 1, 2022" would be inserted on page 6, line 16,
after the first occurrence of the word "years".
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion to
specify that the intent was for Section 8 to apply after the
effective date of the bill, thereby removing any retroactivity.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Bullard whether the discussion
regarding Conceptual Amendment 2 was sufficiently clear for
Legislative Legal Services to draft the language accordingly.
MR. BULLARD confirmed that the intent was clear.
5:20:41 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 to Version O. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
5:20:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled a function of the search feature
that no longer existed. He asked how difficult it would be to
create a function for searching and sharing single transactions
via a generated link for members of the public.
MS. HEBDON asked when the ability to share permanent links to
each transaction was available.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered in 2008.
MS. HEBDON explained that a different database was used in 2008,
adding that the data was never migrated to the new system. She
shared her belief that the two systems were not compatible.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how difficult it would be to build
that functionality into the current system.
MS. HEBDON did not know the answer.
5:25:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report CSHB 309, Version 32-
LS0540\O, Bullard, 5/2/22, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 309(STA) was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 31-OBSERVE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME ALL YEAR
5:26:47 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 31, "An Act relating to daylight saving
time; and providing for an effective date."
5:27:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 31, provided brief introductory remarks on the
proposed legislation.
5:27:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she was happy to support the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his support for the bill.
5:29:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report HB 31 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 31 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
5:30:56 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:31
p.m.