02/08/2005 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR1 | |
| SJR4 | |
| SB36 | |
| SB65 | |
| SB36 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SJR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 65 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 8, 2005
8:38 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ralph Seekins, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Hollis French
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Gretchen Guess
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 1
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to an appropriation limit.
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the budget reserve fund and to uses of money in the
general fund available for appropriation at the end of each
fiscal year; and providing for an effective date for the
amendments.
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 36
"An Act relating to applications requesting the delivery of
absentee ballots by mail."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 65
"An Act relating to certain weapons offenses involving minors;
to aggravating factors in sentencing for certain offenses
committed against a school employee; and providing for an
effective date."
MOVED CSSB 65(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SJR 1
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: APPROPRIATION LIMIT
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DYSON
01/11/05 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/11/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/11/05 (S) JUD, FIN
02/08/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SJR 4
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: BUDGET RESERVE FUND
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DYSON
01/26/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/05 (S) JUD, FIN
02/08/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 36
SHORT TITLE: ABSENTEE BALLOT APPLICATIONS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) THERRIAULT
01/11/05 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/07/05
01/11/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/11/05 (S) STA, JUD
01/20/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
01/20/05 (S) Heard & Held
01/20/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/01/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/01/05 (S) Moved CSSB 36(STA) Out of Committee
02/01/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/02/05 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP 1NR NEW TITLE
02/02/05 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, WAGONER, HUGGINS
02/02/05 (S) NR: ELTON
02/08/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 65
SHORT TITLE: OFFENSES BY MINORS/AGAINST TEACHERS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/19/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/05 (S) JUD, FIN
01/26/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
01/26/05 (S) Heard & Held
01/26/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Fred Dyson
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SJR 1 and SJR 4.
Lucky Shultz
Staff to Senator Dyson
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SJR 1 and SJR 4.
Bruce Hansen
Legislative Finance
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SJR 4.
Dave Stancliff
Staff to Senator Therriault
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 36 for sponsor.
Annette Kreitzer, Chief of Staff
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
PO Box 110015
Juneau, AK 99811-0015
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 36.
Laura Glaiser, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
PO Box 110015
Juneau, AK 99811-0015
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 36.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:38:38 AM. Senators French,
Huggins, Therriault and Chair Seekins were present.
SJR 1-CONST. AM: APPROPRIATION LIMIT
CHAIR SEEKINS announced SJR 1 to be up for discussion.
SENATOR FRED DYSON, sponsor, said that SJR 1 and SJR 4 are a
"matched pair and need to go forward together." SJR 1 is a
significant improvement over the resolution introduced last
year, but it raises some profound public policy issues that need
to be discussed at length. He explained the state has had a
constitutional spending cap since 1981 that has proved to be
ineffective. It was not based on appropriations or actual
spending. The limit could go up as high as $6 billion at this
point.
SJR 1 multiplies the two escalators, population growth and
consumer price index (CPI), instead of adding them. Although
this method makes a very small difference, experts say it's a
wiser and more economically sound way to go. It also limits
debt service to 6% of GF funding, an idea copied from the
California Legislature. Debt service in Alaska now approaches
10% and limiting the state's ability to increase indebtedness
and the resulting debt service at a key time in the state's
development is a judgment call for the Legislature. He explained
that the California Legislature was concerned about incurring
future debt and the resulting debt service payments that become
a huge component in a budget. He left the 6% number in as a
starting point, but was not convinced it is the best for Alaska.
8:44:01 AM
SENATOR DYSON said SJR 1 contains a better definition of
"emergency." Also, he realized the legislature wanted to define
what happened to excess revenues and repay the constitutional
budget reserve (CBR). Legislative Legal and Research Services
says leaving those provisions in a spending limit bill leaves
the state open to the challenge of it not being single-purpose
legislation. To remedy that, he has proposed Amendment 1, which
strips the CBR deposit provision out of SJR 1.
SJR 4 covers what happens with the CBR and excess money. It sets
a prudent cap on the CBR at $5 billion, which experts say is a
good number to have in the fund to take care of extraordinary
events or shortfalls. Experts say having funds available to
cover the financial peaks and valleys is very wise. SJR 4
provides that excess revenues will go into the CBR until the
amount reaches $5 billion. After that, 50% goes into the
Permanent Fund principal, 25% goes to citizens in the form of
dividends and 25% goes to deferred maintenance. In two years,
escalators will end up being in the $70 million to $80 million
category with present assumptions of CPI and population growth.
8:48:19 AM
SENATOR DYSON said Amendment 1 to SJR 1 provides for
emergencies, but also for extraordinary events, i.e., more money
if the gas pipeline goes forward.
8:49:12 AM
SENATOR DYSON reviewed the sectional analysis as follows.
Lines 4-5 on page 1 repeal the existing limit and replace it
with the new appropriations limit.
Lines 6-8 define what the base is and bases it on the actual
amount appropriated in the preceding fiscal year as opposed to a
cumulative escalation.
Lines 10-11 keep the limit for the annual percent change in line
with the population and the CPI, but the CPI limit can't go up
more than personal income.
8:51:33 AM
SENATOR DYSON explained that the requirement for providing
public services is ongoing and this formula multiplies, instead
of adds, the two escalators. Deflation seldom impacts the cost
of providing state services for a long time and the population
is increasing. SJR 1 is not in lock step with the CPI and that
is another policy call.
8:53:08 AM
Language on page 2, lines 11-29, is from last year's resolution.
It takes enterprise-type state activities out from under the cap
and doesn't force a reduction in state spending if there is an
increase in revenue in another area.
Line 12 on page 3 requires the commissioner of the Department of
Revenue to provide quarterly reports on expenditures and
revenues.
If Amendment 1 is adopted, line 20 on page 4 will be removed and
covered in SJR 4. Line 14 addresses a special session. If
spending exceeds the cap or if a significant change in revenue
occurs, a special session would be required. If the governor and
the legislature can't resolve the spending issues, both of them
lose their salaries after 10 days, which was taken from the
California law.
Page 5, lines 8-20, contain the 6% debt service provision. Lines
23-30 create a smooth transition to the new spending limit.
Amendment 1 deletes language relating to constitutional budget
reserve (CBR).
8:56:36 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to the language on page 3, lines 30-
31, and asked if a shortfall occurs and the Legislature must
expend money out of CBR, why that wouldn't count in the next
year's base if it just makes the funding level.
MR. SHULTZ explained that is part of the CBR language that will
be deleted with Amendment 1.
8:57:53 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked how percentage shifts with federal funding
could affect the spending limit.
MR. SHULTZ directed him to the exemptions on page 2, line 21,
that exempt federal funds from the cap.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if the state has to pick up a larger
percentage if there is a reduction in federal funds and whether
SJR 1 makes it clear that would be an increase that would not
otherwise have to be approved.
MR. SHULTZ indicated yes.
8:58:46 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT disagreed and was concerned if the federal
government is going to give the state millions less, the state
would have to "eat that."
CHAIR SEEKINS said that is what he is trying to figure out.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he thought if federal funding goes up,
the state could spend those funds.
CHAIR SEEKINS countered, "But if they go down, the state eats
it?"
MR. SHULTZ said that Senator Therriault is correct.
8:59:31 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said one of his concerns is that Alaska has
enjoyed federal largesse due to Senator Ted Stevens who has
defended the state against Washington, D.C. attacks because
Alaska's infrastructure is behind other states. And now SJR 1
freezes state funding in place and a time may come when there
are still great needs, but not as many federal dollars.
CHAIR SEEKINS responded that needs to be clarified.
9:01:15 AM
SENATOR DYSON said SJR 1 does not limit the amount of money the
state can spend when other revenue sources are coming in and it
does not mandate that the state continue a certain level of
effort. But it does provide a significant incentive to find out-
of-the-box ways to provide for Alaskans. This could limit the
amount of services because it limits the amount that can be
spent from the general fund to meet those needs. Most
jurisdictions find that a tax cap forces government to look for
alternative ways to meet public needs.
9:02:55 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS mused that they come to the state to ask for money
and then that forces the state to go to the federal government.
SENATOR DYSON said he asked Arliss Sturgulewski last spring what
the thinking was behind the Permanent Fund and was it a return
on investment to the people of Alaska for expenditure of its
resource or as a way to fund an endowment that would support the
cost of government when the oil fields decline. Ms. Sturgulewski
answered that it was a mechanism to get the money off the table
so that one generation of Alaskans couldn't spend all of it. It
was a way to preserve money for future generations.
SENATOR DYSON said he believed oil prices would be $30 in the
foreseeable future, with gas at over $5, providing steady
revenues to the state. This is an attempt to be disciplined and
wise and not waste this significant revenue stream.
9:05:18 AM
His understanding of the Statehood Act is that the founding
fathers anticipated that frontier areas would trade natural
resources for infrastructure for a long time. The U.S. Senate
was afraid Alaska could not support itself and would be a drain
on federal coffers. Alaska is in the process of trading natural
resources for infrastructure and services. Eventually Alaska
will have a large enough tax base that it won't be so dependent
on the expenditure of its natural resources. This is an attempt
to smooth out spending and investment for the long haul and
create long-term economic stability.
9:07:29 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said the many variables that can affect the amount
of money that comes in from natural resources and other sources
like the federal government need to be clear. If a cap is in
place, an unavoidable consequence might be to shift funding from
one place to another or change the threshold for the
qualification limit.
9:09:29 AM
SENATOR DYSON said 80% of the State of Idaho's budget is spent
on education and health and human services. Soon it will have to
make a choice between the two. Those two areas tend to be
formula-driven in both Idaho and Alaska. A spending limit will
force the Legislature to make tough decisions in those two
areas.
9:10:43 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said a legislator from Colorado told him that this
year the state would have the shortest school year in its
history and the university is going without state funding
because that battle is already taking place there.
SENATOR FRENCH said the Colorado spending limit was enacted in
1992; the Bell Policy Center researched that issue and found
th
that Colorado had fallen to 50 in K-12 spending per $1,000 of
personal income.
Even during the '90s, the state fell behind in per
capita spending in higher education and public health.
By 2000, Colorado spent less than other states on
public health care services, was at the bottom on on-
time immunization rates, was at the bottom in prenatal
care, had the highest rate of uninsured low-income
children in the nation, was almost last among states
in high school graduation rates, ranked almost last in
higher education and the arts, and had a growing list
of unfunded highway projects.
One Republican senator said he wouldn't vote for it again.
9:12:22 AM
SENATOR FRENCH expressed concern about locking in a system that
proves inadequate for future needs. The Legislature talked about
a spending cap in statute, because it would be easier to change;
it also talked about exempting education.
9:13:15 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said SJR 1 has some safeguards that Colorado
doesn't have. It has a no-ratchet-down provision and the ability
for the Legislature to meet emergency circumstances with a two-
thirds vote.
SENATOR DYSON said another significant difference is that
Colorado's Taxpayers' Bill of Rights (TABOR) requires voter
approval for any tax increases, but SJR 4 doesn't do that; it is
only a spending cap. Colorado is limited as much by its revenue
stream as by its cap.
9:14:27 AM
MR. SHULTZ said he had information from the January 2005 issue
of State Legislatures that talked about how Colorado's Amendment
23 excluded schools from the spending cap and provides for
annual spending increases in both primary and secondary
education. This is causing a problem because the increases occur
regardless of the cap. The cap, therefore, is not reducing
spending.
Colorado's troubles have been manageable compared to what
California faced recently when it continued to spend money to
take care of its programs. Part of the language in SJR 1 comes
from the California citizens' initiative to get out of debt.
The question is how Alaska would cover federal funding
shortfalls now and two or three years into the future. Also,
Legislative Finance indicates the need to look at that impact
two to five years out. Federal funds are expected to dwindle as
well.
9:16:57 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS said the spending cap sounds good to many
people, but when you look at other states, you wonder if it's a
good idea. He expressed concern that trying to put it into the
Constitution is trying to save us from our lack of self-
discipline. He asked if there were any corners they were
painting themselves into.
SENATOR DYSON replied that he thought it was constitutionally
appropriate for a republic to bind itself with constitutional
law. Critics point out that Alaska spends more per person than
any other state in the nation. Solving people's problems by
spending more money doesn't get to the heart of the issue. He
didn't agree with the implied principle of the state supporting
an activity the federal government quit supporting. He hoped to
empower people to do more for themselves and rely on government
less.
9:21:37 AM
MR. SHULTZ commented that President Bush is proposing to
eliminate 160 programs because the federal government is looking
at duplicative services. Forty different agencies within the
federal government deal with teenage pregnancy. The concern is
that as Alaska prospers, people will want more services. He
pointed out that the Permanent Fund would be a lot larger now if
there had been a spending limit.
9:23:58 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said he applied for a river permit years ago and
found that three different agencies were looking over the same
fish. "Why can't one agency take care of that same fish rather
than three?" Eliminating the competition for funding creates an
economy in itself and the probability that any legislature would
short-fund education is unlikely.
9:27:16 AM
SENATOR DYSON commented that Legislative Legal told the
legislature last year that a statutory spending limit is of
little value because if a sitting legislature exceeds it, the
courts will hold that it was done deliberately and supersedes
what was in statute. You can't bind future legislatures. He also
understands that of the states with spending caps, almost all
have seen significant investment activity. Industries that want
to invest in an area are worried about being subjected to deep-
pocket taxes so they are comforted by a spending cap.
9:29:41 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS moved Amendment 1.
24-LS0292\A.1
Cook
11/3/05
A M E N D M E N T 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR DYSON
TO: SJR 1
Page 2, line 29:
Delete ", (g), or (k)"
Page 3, line 7:
Delete "persons an"
Insert "persons or"
Page 3, line 20, through page 4, line 13:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 4, line 29:
Delete "(h)"
Insert "(g)"
Page 5, line 6:
Delete "(h)"
Insert "(g)"
Page 5, line 14:
Delete "many"
Insert "may"
Delete "not-self-liquidating"
Insert "non-self-liquidating"
Page 5, line 15:
Delete "general - fund-supporting"
Insert "general-fund-supported"
Page 5, line 16:
Delete "(k)"
Insert "(j)"
Page 5, following line 20:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(l) The legislature may, upon the affirmative vote
of at least two-thirds of the members of each house, adopt
an appropriation that exceeds the limit under (a) of this
section if the governor requests the appropriation in
response to extraordinary circumstances. The governor's
request must include at least the following information:
(1) identification of the specific extraordinary
circumstances; (2) the amount requested for appropriation;
(3) the period of time over which the appropriation is
intended to be used; and (4) a plan for recovering the
amount of money appropriated under this subsection. An
appropriation made under this subsection may not be used
for the payment of bonds, notes, or other evidences of
indebtedness. For purposes of this subsection,
"extraordinary circumstances" shall be defined by law
adopted by at least two-thirds of the members of each
house."
MR. SHULTZ explained that most of the changes are typos, but
lines 20-21 on page 2 introduce a new section for extraordinary
circumstances that allows the limit to be exceeded under certain
circumstances. The gasline indebtedness is an example of one.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if there were any objections to Amendment 1.
There were none and it was adopted. He announced that the bill
would be held for further discussion.
9:43:15 AM - Recess
SJR 4-CONST AM: BUDGET RESERVE FUND
CHAIR SEEKINS announced SJR 4 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR DYSON, sponsor of SJR 4, explained that it amends the
Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) Fund, which has been used to
date as a buffer in lean times, but there is a poor record of
funds being restored in fat years. SJR 4 requires that excess
revenues in one year go into repaying the CBR up to a limit of
$5 billion. Consultants have said that is a good buffer fund for
a state with a revenue picture like Alaska's. After the $5
billion is exceeded, excess revenues can be divided in a couple
of ways: 50% goes to the Permanent Fund, 25% goes to a second
dividend back to the people and the other 25% goes to working
off the deferred maintenance list. This is a way to get
financial stability. He is impressed with Senator Wilken's
arguments about compounding interest.
9:46:02 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked how much is left in the CBR.
MR. SHULTZ replied about $2.2 billion.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if any money has ever been repaid.
MR. BRUCE HANSEN, Legislative Finance, indicated that small
surpluses have been swept back into the CBR, but then they are
usually reversed back out.
9:47:07 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said the debt to the CBR is approximately $4
billion.
SENATOR FRENCH wondered what would make the legislature pay it
back in the future if it hadn't paid it back up to now.
9:47:32 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said, "We're going to build a gas pipeline."
CHAIR SEEKINS remarked that last week he saw a 32 TCF of gas
hydrate possibility for the state.
9:47:53 AM
SENATOR DYSON said he believes that Alaska is on the leading
edge of unprecedented prosperity and this is the time to
institute discipline. The world needs what Alaska has in
abundance.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he would hold SJR 4 for a future hearing.
SENATOR DYSON asked members to provide questions and issues for
discussion so that they could be researched for an improved
product.
SB 36-ABSENTEE BALLOT APPLICATIONS
9:49:54 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS announced SB 36, version G, to be up for
consideration.
SENATOR THERRIAULT, sponsor, said SB 36 addresses an absentee
ballot problem that surfaced in the 2004 general election.
Sensitive personal data was made available when individual
absentee ballot requests were mailed back to the political party
office instead of to the Division of Elections. He assured the
committee that there was no wrongdoing, but individual voters
should not feel that their privacy is under attack just because
they wish to participate in a regularly scheduled election. SB
36 requires all absentee ballot requests to be mailed directly
to the Division of Elections for confidential processing. It
also includes individuals in the section that prohibits a
political group or party from assisting or encouraging a
violation of the act.
9:51:44 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT pointed out that he had CSSB 36, version F,
and asked his staff, Dave Stancliff, to describe the changes.
DAVE STANCLIFF, staff to Senator Therriault, explained that the
CS is in response to a question raised by Senator Elton about
whether this bill and the definition in it prevents a non-
political group, like Trustees For Alaska, or an individual from
conducting the type of activities this bill seeks to prevent.
Legislative Legal agreed that it could be construed to not
protect against a non-political group or person. The CS is all-
inclusive in that no person or group, political or otherwise,
should be a third-party intercept in the election process.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if the term "person" is all-inclusive in
Alaska law.
MR. STANCLIFF replied yes, from a legal standpoint.
9:53:59 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT explained that the language on page 1, lines
11-13, encourages Alaskan voters to participate in an election
using the absentee ballot, but the ballot has to be in a form
that is approved by the director of the Division of Elections.
The form can be sent out or hand-delivered as wished.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved to adopt version F as the working
document. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
MR. STANCLIFF noted that on page 2, lines 22-23, the drafter
specified that language that says the form is to be returned
directly and not by another person or group should be on the
form itself.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if he would be in violation if his wife
delivered a ballot for him.
MR. STANCLIFF replied no.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if he registered someone to vote and gave
him a ballot, a crime would be committed if the voter filled it
out and Senator French mailed it to the division for him.
MR. STANCLIFF replied if the person is a legal registrar and
approved by the division to conduct those activities, he is
considered the same as the division so that would be legal.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if anyone could become a registrar.
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied that anyone can become a registrar,
but there are rules on how to handle the information.
9:58:34 AM
MR. SHULTZ said it does not include postal service worker
handling.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said language on page 1, lines 4-5, says a
qualified voter may apply by mail or by electronic transmission,
but it was pointed out that a person might physically walk into
the office to get an application and the Division of Elections
felt most comfortable adding "or in person".
ANNETTE KREITZER, Chief of Staff, Office of the Lieutenant
Governor, said she spoke to Laura Glaiser, director of the
Division of Elections, who expressed concern about deleting that
language and preferred adding "in person" to "by mail or by
electronic transmission" to identify the ways a person could
apply for an absentee ballot.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved to insert "in person" after "apply" on
page 1, line 4. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
10:01:39 AM
MS. KREITZER offered to find out if a registrar is considered to
be a representative of the division and get back to the
committee with an answer.
10:02:34 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS set the bill aside to await her answer.
10:02:57 AM
SB 65-OFFENSES BY MINORS/AGAINST TEACHERS
CHAIR SEEKINS announced SB 65, version G, to be up for
consideration. He reminded members that the superintendent of
schools of the Fairbanks North Star Borough suggested adding "or
in the administrative offices of a school district in which
students are also educated." Some schools have their district
offices on school property and some are off the property; some
are located hundreds of miles away from the closest school
property.
He noted that the committee is also considering Senator
Therriault's amendment to delete the administrative offices in a
school district.
SENATOR THERRIAULT withdrew his original amendment and moved
Amendment 2 to add "in which students are also educated" on page
1, line 9, after "district". He felt the location of an office
hundreds of miles away from its students doesn't deserve to be
swept into the bill. There were no objections and Amendment 2
was adopted.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved CSSB 65(JUD) out of committee with
individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal notes. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
10:10:04 AM - Recess
SB 36-ABSENTEE BALLOTS
CHAIR SEEKINS announced SB 35 to be back before the committee.
LAURA GLAISER, director, Division of Elections, said she would
answer questions.
SENATOR FRENCH said his question had to do with the handling of
absentee ballot application forms and how they get as directly
as possible from the applicant to the division. He asked her to
describe how the form makes certain that intermediaries don't
collect and take personal information from the applications.
10:11:26 AM
MS. GLAISER replied that AS 15.070.81 pertains to registration
officials and says:
The director shall appoint one or more registration
officials to serve in each precinct polling places in
election during the hours...and the election official
appointed under this section also serve as a
registration official.
10:12:09 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if giving his application to a registrar is
the same as giving it to the division.
MS. GLAISER replied that is her interpretation, but she is not
an attorney. She accepts applications from registration
officials if they have been brought in a timely manner. The law
says it should be turned in within five days, but often she
receives applications that have been signed more than five days
prior.
10:13:21 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said the intent of the bill is that a person can
be considered to have returned his application to the Division
of Elections by giving it to an election official.
10:13:54 AM
MS. GLAISER responded that AS 15.07.100 says that a registration
official shall be:
A qualified state voter and shall take an oath to
honestly, faithfully and promptly perform the duties
of the office. The training for the registration
official shall be provided by the director and does
occur through the regional offices. On the completion
of training, the director may require that officials
demonstrate their competence by a test or other
method.... The registration official serves at the
pleasure of the director. Each registration official
shall be periodically evaluated by the director based
on completeness of registration forms, timely filing
of the forms and actively attributed to the
registration official.
She said that daily tallies are made in a database for
registration officials. She read further:
A registration official shall transmit completed voter
registration forms to the election supervisor within
five days following the completion by the voter.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if standard training includes
clarification of how sensitive information should be handled,
such as photocopying.
MS. GLAISER replied yes, but some groups have told the Fairbanks
supervisor that copies are made even though they are told not
to. Other than the confidentiality prohibition, she has no way
to stop that unless she finds out that the oath is violated, she
removes that person as a registrar.
10:16:01 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said he didn't want to see normal law-abiding
people get sideways with the law and thought the form should
state that the registrar represents the division.
MS. GLAISER showed the committee a copy of last year's
application and said she would be happy to work with the
committee on language and change the regulations to reflect the
changes.
CHAIR SEEKINS agreed with Senator French's concern.
10:18:52 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS said his concern is that there are only one or
two registrars per precinct.
MS. GLAISER clarified that she is required to appoint at least
one, not just one, and that there are registration officials
throughout the state.
10:20:28 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked why language in sections 4 and 5
applies only to a form that hasn't been approved, which leaves
off the part about collecting the forms and caging voters. He
thought the committee might consider adding that language back
in.
MS. GLAISER explained that the State Affairs version targeted
unlawful interference and deletes the part about whether an
application was changed, whether a voter didn't sign it or
whether confidential information was gathered prior to turning
the application into the division.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved a conceptual amendment to insert
Sections 4 and 5 from the G version into the F version, except
instead of applying to a political group or party it would apply
to a person, which is language that makes it all-inclusive.
10:24:25 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS added that under Alaska law, "person" is an all-
inclusive term that includes political parties, corporations -
any entity whatsoever.
10:24:38 AM
MS. KREITZER said she had concerns about combining the language.
MS. GLAISER said she would like to see language included from
[version F] subparagraph 5, lines 26 and 27, stating a voter
with an absentee application form that does not comply with the
requirements.
CHAIR SEEKINS held SB 36 for further work and adjourned the
meeting at 10:26:29 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|