Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/02/2004 12:04 PM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 02, 2004
12:04 PM
TAPES
SFC-04 # 103, Side A
SFC 04 # 103, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Gary Wilken convened the meeting at approximately 12:04
PM.
PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Co-Chair
Senator Gary Wilken, Co-Chair
Senator Con Bunde, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Ben Stevens
Senator Donny Olson
Also Attending: REPRESENATIVE MIKE HAWKER; REPRESENTATIVE BILL
STOLTZE; SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS; ROBERT STORER, Executive Director,
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, Department of Revenue; LUCKY
SCHULTZ, Staff to Senator Fred Dyson; BRUCE TANGEMAN, Fiscal
Analyst, Legislative Finance; CHERYL FRASCA, Director, Office of
Management and Budget, Office of the Governor
Attending via Teleconference: There were no teleconference
participants.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HJR 26-CONST. AM: PF APPROPS/INFLATION-PROOFING
The Committee heard from the bill's sponsor and the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation. The bill was held in Committee.
HJR 9-CONST AM: APPROPRIATION/SPENDING LIMIT
The Committee heard from the bill's sponsor as well as the sponsor
of SJR 3. Additional testimony from the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation, Legislative Finance, and the Office of Management and
Budget was presented. The bill was held in Committee.
SB 284-PF DIVIDEND APPLICATION RECORDS PRIVATE
The Committee heard from the sponsor, adopted a committee
substitute and one amendment, and reported the bill from Committee.
HB 298-DISTRIBUTIONS OF APPROPS FROM PERM FUND
This bill was scheduled but not heard.
AT EASE 12:06 PM /12:06 PM
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 26(FIN)
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to and limiting appropriations from the Alaska
permanent fund based on an averaged percent of the fund market
value.
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken noted that CS HJR 26 (FIN), Version 23-LS1006\Z,
which is sponsored by the House of Representatives Rules Committee,
by request of the Legislative Budget & Audit Committee, would
provide the opportunity to amend the State's Constitution in order
to limit annual appropriations from the Alaska Permanent Fund to
five percent of the Fund's average market value.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Chair, House of Representatives (House)
Ways and Means Committee, stated that the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation (APFC) Board of Trustees originated this proposal,
which is commonly referred to as the "'clean' Percent of Market
Value (POMV) method." He characterized the proposal as "a
management tool" for the operations of the APFC, as it would "best
protect the value of the fund over the long-term future" and would
"provide for a stable and predictable" amount of money to be
available from the Permanent Fund for future Legislative
appropriation. He also acknowledged that "a number of conceptions"
are being discussed through which to accomplish the proposed
objectives.
ROBERT STORER, Executive Director, Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation, Department of Revenue, reiterated that the APFC Board
of Trustees, after several years of study, developed this proposal
and considers it to be a "superior method" through which to manage
Fund assets.
Mr. Storer explained that the proposal would "memorialize inflation
proofing in the Constitution … by limiting the amount of funds that
can be appropriated from the Permanent Fund to no more than the
real income or no more than five percent of the Permanent Fund in
any given year." He stated that the proposal would also "marry the
management of the Fund with current investment strategies."
Mr. Storer expressed that one benefit derived from this proposal
would be that Legislators would be assured of "an annual payout
from year to year." Continuing, he declared that the proposed
payout methodology would be "more stable than the existing
methodology based on realized income." He cautioned, however, that
were the State to implement the proposed methodology there could be
times when no payout would be available.
Mr. Storer shared that as a result of current "considerable market
appreciation," the Fund has approximately "five billion dollars in
profits separated between realized income and unrealized income,"
and that, due to market conditions, "in just twelve short months
the amount of money that has become available has changed
dramatically." He cautioned, however, that the reverse scenario
could occur depending on financial market volatility. He pointed
out that, while the Fund has, historically, reflected steady
growth, market volatility has not been incorporated in the
extrapolations. He communicated that, were market volatility
included, the proposed methodology would prove to provide a more
stable payout.
Mr. Storer stated that this proposal "would prevent overspending in
the good years" as had previously occurred during the Bull Market
years; specifically in the areas of the State's Retirement Plans,
Endowment Funds, and Foundations. He stated that without
"discipline" in spending, that scenario might re-occur under the
current methodology. He declared that the proposed plan would
maintain the purchasing power of the entire Fund rather than just
the principal.
Senator Bunde asked whether the proposed plan would address the
issue of double inflation proofing which is argued to result from
inflation proofing combined with additional revenue derived
annually from oil royalties.
Mr. Storer responded that the APFC does not support the argument
that the Permanent Fund is being double inflation proofed. In fact,
he continued, he would provide Committee Members with a copy of a
paper [copy not provided] recently developed by the Fund's Director
of Finance that addresses this issue. Continuing, he stated that
"the key reason" the Fund is not considered as being double-
inflation proofed "is that once the appreciation of equities is
converted into realized income, it can be distributed under the
current scenario." He noted that the Royalties issue is a
Constitutional question "as it is embedded" in the State's
Constitution.
Senator Bunde stated that the financial methodologies of funds such
as the Harvard University Trust Fund are often exampled when
proponents discuss the POMV plan. However, he attested, these funds
do not incorporate royalties and instead grow as a result of the
interest generated by the endowment. Therefore, he declared that
comparing the Permanent Fund to such things as Harvard's endowment
fund is a more complicated issue.
Mr. Storer responded that the comparison of the POMV proposal to
plans such as the Harvard University Endowment Fund revolves on the
issue that "the payout is limited to a percentage of the value of
the total fund." Continuing, he declared that while the Permanent
Fund receives additional contributions in the form of royalties,
these other endowment funds annually receive donations from former
students and other sources. These contributions, he attested are
recognized as on-going contributions and are incorporated in the
anticipated growth of the funds.
Senator Bunde observed that were the State to continue to guarantee
inflation proofing of the Fund, continuing discussions regarding
this issue should be encouraged, as he stated, the scenario could
be likened to parents continuing to contribute to a 401K plan while
their children were starving.
Senator Dyson voiced appreciation for the back-up material the APFC
supplied to the Committee; specifically the handout titled "Alaska
Permanent Corporation Percent of Market Volume talking points April
2004" [copy on file]. He referenced a section of that material that
states, "Inflation proofing is inherent and no longer requires an
appropriation. *The Fund is invested for a 5% real rate of return
after inflation. If 5% is withdrawn, the increase in value due to
inflation will remain in the Fund." He asked the location of
language that supports this statement in the bill.
Mr. Storer responded that this language is "probably not"
specifically addressed in the bill. Continuing, he stated that the
Fund's payout target is limited to no more than five-percent "over
time." He also noted that currently the Fund's asset allocation
targets "a five-percent return in excess of inflation" on its
investments, and he stated that this legislation would provide
"guidance" that would assist the PFC " He voiced confidence "that
over time, we will achieve that goal." He noted that HB 298-
DISTRIBUTIONS OF APPROPS FROM PERM FUND is companion legislation to
this bill as it would provide additional statutory guidance, such
as a "a ten-year moving average" as "the benchmark" upon which to
compare Fund returns to inflation. He noted that were this goal
unmet, less money would be available for appropriation.
Representative Hawker understood Senator Dyson's question to be
whether this bill explicitly states that, "the Fund makes its
investments for a five-percent rate of return." Continuing, he
noted that language in Section 2(b), on page two, lines one and two
addresses the amount of money that could be appropriated.
(b) Appropriations from the permanent fund for a fiscal year
may not exceed five percent of the average of the market
values of the fund on June 30 for the first five of the six
fiscal years immediately preceding that fiscal year.
Representative Hawker stated that this language would provide the
Board of Trustees and the Fund's employees and managers a target of
a five percent return after inflation as the necessary investment
benchmark upon which to develop investment models. Therefore, he
opined that this legislation does establish that benchmark rate of
return.
Senator Dyson voiced that the responses to his question are
"somewhat" unsatisfying as he had hoped they would acknowledge that
the amounts reflected in Section 2(b) be adjusted for inflation. He
suggested that the language be changed to a five percent of the
market value in real rather than "inflated dollars."
Representative Hawker responded that adding language to the effect
of allocating up to five percent of after inflation dollars each
year would lead to the boarder discussion of what "is implicit" in
the "pure market value formulation." Continuing, he explained that
the investment model this bill is based upon recognizes that in the
future there might be individual or combined years "with great
market gains" or market declines. He stated that the goal of this
legislation is to adopt "the concept of aggregate value" in that
the Fund's investments would demonstrate that, over time, they
could perform at levels in which their rate of return is in excess
of five percent as opposed to dwelling on whether the gains
resulted from inflation proofing or royalties.
Mr. Storer declared that the Corporation "invests to achieve a five
percent real rate of return" and "strongly" believes this goal is
achievable. He stated that Senator Dyson's suggestion that the
language be more explicit could create more problems as it might
require "time to achieve that goal." He reflected that with the
exception of the most recent years, the Fund's historical real rate
of return, over time, has been in excess of six-percent. Therefore,
he stressed that the period of time over which to achieve the goal
would be an issue.
Senator Dyson commented that even though the bill is strengthened
by language mandating that a payout be based on a five-year
average, he is concerned that the resolution's sponsors "are
reluctant" to specify in the resolution that the payout would be
based on a five-percent real rate of return after inflation.
Mr. Storer declared that the Corporation stands by that fact that
the payout would be based on a five-percent real rate of return
after inflation, as depicted on the Corporation's website. However,
he declared the concern is that adding further language would
confuse the issue regarding long-term verses short-term issues.
Senator Dyson opined that the inclusion of the language, "after
inflation," would serve to garner more support for the resolution.
AT EASE 12:26 PM / 12:27 PM
Senator Dyson asked the sponsors to provide the Committee with
further information regarding their position on this language
issue.
Mr. Storer responded that a "good answer" would be forthcoming.
Senator Bunde commented that while he supports this resolution, he
is worried about citizens' response to the complexity of the issue.
Co-Chair Wilken ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9(FIN) am
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to an appropriation limit.
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken explained that CS HJR 9 (FIN) am, Version 23-
LS0435\O.A would allow Alaskan voters to decide whether or not to
adopt a Constitutional spending limit amendment in the 2004 General
Election. He noted that following testimony by Representative Bill
Stoltze, the sponsor of this bill, Senator Dyson and his staff
would explain the differences between this bill and the related
bill, SJR 3-CONST AM: APPROPRIATION/SPENDING LIMIT, that they are
sponsoring.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, the bill's sponsor, stated that this
legislation was introduced "as an independent stand-alone
Constitutional amendment" that is not linked to other legislation.
He noted that in order to address the State's fiscal crisis, a
multitude of ideas including such things as using Permanent Fund
earnings, instituting new taxes, and developing other non-
traditional revenue sources are being discussed. However, he
continued, the intent of this legislation is to assure that the
State proceed in these manners in "a controlled fashion." In
conclusion, he stated that the best action to take in regards to
this bill and the Senate bill, SJR 3, that similarly proposes a
Constitutional amendment pertaining to an appropriation spending
limit would be to understand the differences between the two bills.
LUCKY SCHULTZ, Staff to Senator Fred Dyson, the sponsor of SJR 3,
referred the Committee to a comparison analysis of the two bills
titled "Comparison of HJR 9 and SJR 3" [copy on file]. He pointed
out that one of the four major differences between the two bills is
a "no ratchet down provision" is included in SJR 3 but not in HJR
9. This provision in SJR 3, he explained, specifies that in a year
in which the formula reflects an appropriation decrease, the
spending limit would be retained at the previous year's level. He
disclosed that other states that increase and decrease
appropriations depending on a formula have been negatively impacted
when their appropriation decreases. As a result, he continued,
Colorado and other states have implemented a "no ratchet down
provision."
Mr. Schultz stated that the comparison chart also reflects
provisions that are included in HJR 9 but not included in SJR 3 as
follow: Item #11, which pertains to language in Section 1,
Subsection 16(c) located on page two, lines five through seven of
HJR 9, specifies that in order to exceed the appropriation limit by
up to two-percent, a 2/3 vote of the legislature would be required;
Item # 12 which pertains to language in Section 1, Subsection
16(c), page two, lines seven through ten of HJR 9 that specifies
that in order to exceed the limit above two-percent but less than
four-percent, a 3/4 vote of the legislature would be required; and
Item #13 which pertains to language in Section 1, subsection 16(c),
page two, lines ten through twelve of HJR 9 that would not allow
exceeding the limit by more that four-percent. He explained that
while SJR 3 does not include this limiting language, it does
include provisions through which the limit could be exceeded in
order to address "extraordinary circumstances."
Mr. Schultz noted that both bills include provisions with which to
address disasters or emergencies as declared by the Governor.
Mr. Schultz stated that another difference between the two bills is
addressed in Item #3 on the aforementioned handout regarding how
the appropriations are determined in each bill.
[NOTE: HJR 9 appropriation language being referenced is located in
Section 1, subsection 16 (a) on page one, beginning on line six of
the bill that reads as follows.]
Section 16. Appropriation Limit. (a) Appropriations made for a
current fiscal year shall not exceed the average amount
appropriated for the earliest three of the four fiscal years
immediately preceding that current fiscal year, increased or
decreased by the less of
(1) seventy-five percent of the sum of the following:
(A) the percentage rate of change in the cost of
living for the three calendar years preceding the calendar
year during which the immediately preceding fiscal year began;
plus
(B) the percentage rate of change in the State
population for the three calendar years preceding the calendar
year during which the immediately preceding fiscal year began;
or
(2) the percentage rate of change in the personal incomes
of State residents for the three calendar years preceding the
calendar year during which the immediately preceding fiscal
year began.
[NOTE: The SJR 3 appropriation language being referenced is located
in Section 1, subsection 16 (a) on page one, beginning on line six
of the bill that reads as follows.]
Section 16. Appropriation Limit. (a) Subject to (b) of this
section and except as provided in (d), (e), and (f) of this
section, appropriations made for a current fiscal year shall
not exceed the average amount appropriated for the earliest
three of the four fiscal years immediately preceding that
current fiscal year by more than the sum of the following:
(1) the percentage rate of change in the Consumer Price
index for all urban consumers for the Anchorage metropolitan
area compiled by a federal agency during the two calendar
years preceding the calendar year during which the immediately
preceding fiscal year began, but not to exceed the percentage
change in personal income of State residents during the two
calendar years preceding the calendar year during which the
immediately preceding fiscal year begins; plus
(2) the percentage rate of change in the State population
during the two calendar years preceding the calendar year
during which the immediately preceding fiscal year began
compiled by a State department.
Mr. Schultz pointed out that the appropriation formula utilized by
HJR 9 would designate 75-percent of the sum of cost of living and
population whereas SJR 3 would use 100 percent of the sum of
inflation and population.
Mr. Schultz also noted that, as identified in Item #7 of the
comparison chart, the HJR 9 appropriation calculation is based upon
the rate of change being the sum of three years whereas SJR 3
specifies the rate of change as being the sum of two years.
Furthermore, he pointed out that these differences would equate to
"a one percent per year increase in HJR 9 on the limit over SJR 3."
He further explained that this would equate to an $85 million
difference between the two bills through FY 09, which is the
termination date identified for both bills.
Senator Dyson asked for confirmation that HJR 9, with its
determining factor of 75 percent of the sum of population and
inflation, "has a steeper" uphill curve because its rate of change
is over a three-year period as compared to SJR 3's two-year period.
Mr. Schultz affirmed. He stated that, according to information
provided by Legislative Finance, the State is projected to annually
experience a three-percent inflation factor and a one-percent
population growth factor for a total factor of four-percent per
year. Continuing, he stated, that utilizing HJR 9's three-year
timeline with this four-percent factor would equate to 12 percent.
Therefore, he calculated that the HJR 9 appropriation calculation
formula would be nine percent based on its 75-percent of 12-percent
formula. In contrast, he continued, the four-percent per year
factor would equate to an eight percent appropriation calculation
utilizing SJR 3's two-year 100-percent formula. Therefore, he
summarized, HJR 9's formula would reflect a one-percent increase
per year over that of SJR 3.
Co-Chair Wilken asked that the graph titled "CS SJR3 & CS HJR9
Compare" [copy on file], dated May 2, 2004, be reviewed as the HRJ
9 numbers it reflects surprised many Senators, including himself,
as they had understood that the provisions of HJR 9 were "more
restrictive." Specifically, he asked for details about how the
University of Alaska receipts factor into the equation, as depicted
on Line #17 of the graph, which states that, " The most significant
difference between the two bills is that HJR9 exempts university
tuition only. SJR3 exempts all non-GF [general fund] university
receipts".
Mr. Schultz affirmed that how University receipts are recognized in
the formulas is one of the four major areas of difference in the
two bills. Continuing, he explained that while SJR 3 would exempt
numerous University receipts including tuition and other receipts
that are not federally or state funded, HJR 9 would only exempt
University tuition receipts. He shared that the differing
approaches to University receipts would amount to a difference
between the two proposals of approximately $150 million, as
reflected in the graph with SJR 3's FY 05 appropriation limit being
approximately $150 million less than that proposed for HJR 9.
Co-Chair Wilken asked for confirmation that the appropriation limit
difference reflected in the graph could be contributed specifically
to University receipts.
Mr. Schultz confirmed.
Co-Chair Wilken understood therefore, that while the comparison
slope of each bill's appropriations as depicted on the graph is
"about the same", the lesser appropriation level shown for SJR 3 is
the result of how University receipts are factored.
Mr. Schultz clarified that the HJR 9 slope is similar to that of
SJR 3 except that it's slope reflects the one percent higher
formula calculation.
Co-Chair Wilken asked for confirmation, therefore, that HJR 9's
slope increase in the out-years is the result of the one percent
factor difference.
Mr. Schultz concurred.
Senator Dyson explained that the difference "in the vertical axis
is the University receipts," and that the out-year slope difference
is the result of the one-percent formula calculation difference.
Co-Chair Wilken acknowledged that explanation.
Co-Chair Green stated that she had expected to view corresponding
numbers somewhere in the comparison charts, perhaps in FY 2000 or
FY 2001, as she expected that there should be a base from which to
begin both bills' calculations. Continuing, she inquired as to the
reason that, FY 02 and FY 03, which reflect actual numbers, are
different.
Mr. Schultz responded that the graph was adjusted to reflect,
"going backwards", exemptions such as the University receipts.
Co-Chair Green asked the reason it was deemed necessary to make
these adjustments when looking at previous years.
Mr. Schultz responded that these adjustments were conducted in
order "to compare apples to apples."
Co-Chair Green argued that only the dollars looking forward from FY
04 should be adjusted to reflect these exemptions. She opined that
previous years' dollars are unaffected and should reflect actuals.
Mr. Schultz responded that in order to calculate the proposed
formulas, it was deemed necessary to exempt the University receipts
in the preceding years.
Co-Chair Green argued that any prior year adjustments would affect
the slopes reflected on the graph.
Co-Chair Wilken understood that, in FY 06, the annual growth
projection for HJR 9 would be $164 million and the growth
projection for SJR 3 would be $112 million. He recalled recent and
separate testimony that specified that the State would be required
to provide $107.6 million for the Public Employee Retirement System
[PERS] and Teachers Retirement Systems [TRS] in FY 06. Therefore,
he asked whether these PERS and TRS obligations must be provided
for from these projected amounts.
Mr. Schultz affirmed that this would be required. Continuing, he
clarified that some funding for the PERS and TRS obligation was
included "in the fixed base for FY 04 and FY 05, both to smooth the
chart but also for transition" purposes.
Co-Chair Wilken concluded therefore that PERS and TRS obligations
for FY 07, FY 08, and FY 09 must be subtracted from the
projections. In summary, he surmised that the annual growth for the
forthcoming four years would be "more than consumed" by the
projected PERS and TRS obligation.
Mr. Schultz agreed.
Co-Chair Wilken informed the Committee that he had requested the
Division of Retirement and Benefits to provide "official" FY 06
PERS and TRS projections.
Co-Chair Green asked whether "the transition language" in HJR 9 is
similar to that of SJR 3.
Mr. Schultz responded that the transition language is "very
similar" with the exception of the differing base numbers due to
the University receipt exemptions.
Senator B. Stevens observed that in Section 30, which is the
transition language section of each bill, reference is made, on
page three, line 21 of HJR 9, to Section 16 (D) of Article IX of
the Constitution, whereas in SJR 3's Section 30, on page three,
line 19, the reference is to Section 16 (C) of Article IX in the
Constitution. He stated that this appears to be a technical error
as, otherwise, the language in each section is identical.
Mr. Schultz understood that the language should be identical.
Senator B. Stevens stated that this discrepancy should be examined.
Mr. Schultz agreed.
Senator Dyson asked regarding the base year adjustment that was
required in order to apply the proposed formulas.
BRUCE TANGEMAN, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance Division,
responded that, while it is too early to determine the budget
outcomes of FY 04 and FY 05, the numbers utilized would provide the
$120 to $150 million "headroom" necessary for projected budgetary
requirements for such as PERS and TRS in FY 06.
Senator Dyson specified that, in light of the State's "recent
budget reductions … a cushion" of approximately $150 million was
built into the projections "in order to make the formulas work."
This, he continued, would provide a floor from which to expand to
provide for projected PERS, TRS, and Medicare and Medicaid
increases.
Senator Bunde expressed the understanding that the State's deficit
would exceed $10 billion in ten years as the result of inflation,
PERS, TRS, Medicare and Medicaid expenses.
CHERYL FRASCA, Director, Office of Management and Budget, Office of
the Governor, affirmed that, based on the FY 05 budget projections
and going forward, the Department of Revenue projects that there
could be a one billion dollar budgetary shortfall in approximately
six or seven years based on a $22 per barrel of North Slope crude
oil price.
Senator Bunde understood therefore that the deficit amount he had
shared was "in the ballpark."
Ms. Frasca replied that, "they could be."
In response to Senator B. Stevens earlier question regarding the
differing articles identified in Section 30, Mr. Schultz clarified
that the language is correct, as the adoption of either bill would
change the Constitution in that were HJR 9 adopted, the language in
the Constitution being referenced would be Section 16(d) of Article
IX, and were SJR 3 adopted, the language in the Constitution being
referenced would be Section 16(c) of Article IX.
Representative Stoltze affirmed that this is a complicated process.
Co-Chair Wilken complimented the efforts being undertaken in this
endeavor and ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284(STA)
"An Act relating to an optional election to prevent the name
and address of a permanent fund dividend applicant from being
disclosed, except to a local, state, or federal government
agency, or in compliance with a court order."
This was the second hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that this legislation would require the
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC) to keep Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD) applicant application information private with the
exception being in cases where information was required by the
State or federal government. He reminded the Committee that during
the first hearing on this bill, Co-Chair Green had asked regarding
the confidentially of voter registration information.
SFC 04 # 103, Side B 12:52 PM
Co-Chair Green moved to adopt committee substitute, CS SB 284,
Version 23-LS1596\U as the working document.
There being no objection, Version "U" was ADOPTED as the working
document.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS, the bill's sponsor, explained that with the
exception of an applicant's name, additional PFD applicant
information must be kept confidential. The Version "U" committee
substitute, she explained, would expand the confidentially
requirement to include voter registration information and would
allow a voter to request that their residential address be kept
private and not open to public inspection were the voter to provide
a separate mailing address.
Senator Bunde asked for verification that language in Section 1,
subsection (b)(2) on page two, lines six and seven, "would not
impede" the Division of Elections' requirement that a person's
voter registration include their residential address when they
have, for instance, a post office mailing address. The residency
information, he continued, is necessary to uphold the requirement
that a person must vote in the precinct in which they reside.
Senator Guess responded that this legislation would not affect the
Division of Elections ability to do its job, as it would only
restrict information that would be open to the public. She stated
that language in Section 1 subsection (c)(1) addresses the issue
regarding local, state, or federal government agencies' ability to
access needed information.
Amendment #1: This amendment deletes language in Section 1,
subsection (b)(1) on page two, lines four and five that would allow
a voter's name to kept confidential were they a victim of domestic
violence.
Co-Chair Green moved to adopt Amendment #1.
Co-Chair Green stated that this amendment is being offered in order
to allow the Division of Elections voter registration lists to
contain the names of all persons registered to vote. Continuing,
she pointed out that domestic violence victim's security would
continue to be maintained without this language as separate
language in Section 1, Subsection (b)(2) would allow a person to
elect to have their residential address kept confidential.
Therefore, she continued, this amendment would serve to remove
unnecessary language from the bill.
There being no objection, Amendment #1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether this legislation would comply with
federal laws.
Senator Guess responded in the affirmative.
Senator Dyson moved to report the bill, as amended, from Committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note.
There being no objection, CS SB 284 (FIN) was REPORTED from
Committee with a new zero fiscal note from the Department of
Revenue, dated April 30, 2004.
RECESS TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR 1:00 PM / 3:07 PM
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Gary Wilken adjourned the meeting at 03:07 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|