04/11/2022 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB207 | |
| HB157 | |
| SB229 | |
| SB39 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 207 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 229 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 157 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 11, 2022
1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Roger Holland, Chair
Senator Mike Shower, Vice Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Robert Myers
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 207
"An Act restricting the release of certain records of
convictions; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 157(FIN)
"An Act requiring the disclosure of the identity of certain
persons, groups, and nongroup entities that expend money in
support of or in opposition to an application filed for a state
referendum or recall election; relating to the location of
offices for the Alaska Public Offices Commission and the
locations at which certain statements and reports filed with the
commission are made available; relating to the duties of the
Alaska Public Offices Commission; clarifying the limits on
making, accepting, and reporting certain cash campaign
contributions; relating to campaign finance reporting by certain
groups; increasing the time the Alaska Public Offices Commission
has to respond to a request for an advisory opinion; repealing a
reporting requirement for certain contributions; relating to
contribution limits and recall campaigns; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED SCS CSHB 157(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 229
"An Act relating to misconduct involving confidential
information; relating to artifacts of the state; and relating to
penalties regarding artifacts or historic, prehistoric, or
archeological resources of the state."
- MOVED CSSB 229(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 39
"An Act relating to elections; relating to voter registration;
relating to ballots and a system of tracking and accounting for
ballots; establishing an election offense hotline; designating
as a class A misdemeanor the collection of ballots from other
voters; designating as a class C felony the intentional opening
or tampering with a sealed ballot, certificate, or package of
ballots without authorization from the director of the division
of elections; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 207
SHORT TITLE: ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) SHOWER
02/22/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/22 (S) STA, JUD
03/10/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/10/22 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/17/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/17/22 (S) Heard & Held
03/17/22 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/22/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/22/22 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/22 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/29/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/29/22 (S) Moved CSSB 207(STA) Out of Committee
03/29/22 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/30/22 (S) STA RPT CS 2DP 1NR SAME TITLE
03/30/22 (S) DP: SHOWER, KAWASAKI
03/30/22 (S) NR: COSTELLO
04/06/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/06/22 (S) Heard & Held
04/06/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/11/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 157
SHORT TITLE: APOC; REPORT REFERENDA/RECALL CONTRIBUTOR
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RASMUSSEN
03/31/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/31/21 (H) STA, JUD
04/17/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/17/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/17/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/27/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/27/21 (H) Moved HB 157 Out of Committee
04/27/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/28/21 (H) FIN REPLACES JUD REFERRAL
04/28/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/28/21 (H) STA RPT 1DP 1NR 5AM
04/28/21 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS
04/28/21 (H) NR: TARR
04/28/21 (H) AM: CLAMAN, STORY, EASTMAN, KAUFMAN,
VANCE
05/03/21 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM ADAMS 519
05/03/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/03/21 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/04/21 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM ADAMS 519
05/04/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/04/21 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/13/21 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM ADAMS 519
05/13/21 (H) Moved CSHB 157(FIN) Out of Committee
05/13/21 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/14/21 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NEW TITLE 4DP 5NR
05/14/21 (H) DP: LEBON, JOSEPHSON, RASMUSSEN,
MERRICK
05/14/21 (H) NR: ORTIZ, CARPENTER, THOMPSON, WOOL,
FOSTER
05/19/21 (H) LIMIT ALL DEBATE TO 2 MIN EACH Y23 N16
E1
05/19/21 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
05/19/21 (H) VERSION: CSHB 157(FIN)
01/18/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/22 (S) STA, JUD
01/21/22 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
02/17/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/17/22 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/01/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/01/22 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/03/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/03/22 (S) Heard & Held
03/03/22 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/24/22 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/24/22 (S) Moved CSHB 157(FIN) Out of Committee
03/24/22 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/25/22 (S) STA RPT 3DP
03/25/22 (S) DP: SHOWER, HOLLAND, COSTELLO
03/28/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/28/22 (S) Heard & Held
03/28/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/04/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/04/22 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/08/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/08/22 (S) Heard & Held
04/08/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/11/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 229
SHORT TITLE: STATE HISTORICAL ARTIFACTS; CRIMES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/11/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/11/22 (S) JUD, RES
03/23/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/23/22 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/06/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/06/22 (S) Heard & Held
04/06/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/08/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/08/22 (S) Heard & Held
04/08/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/11/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 39
SHORT TITLE: BALLOT CUSTODY/TAMPERING; VOTER REG; MAIL
SPONSOR(s): SHOWER
01/25/21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/21
01/25/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/21 (S) STA, JUD
01/26/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/26/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
01/28/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/28/21 (S) Heard & Held
01/28/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/02/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/02/21 (S) Heard & Held
02/02/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/09/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/09/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
02/11/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/11/21 (S) Heard & Held
02/11/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/16/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/16/21 (S) Heard & Held
02/16/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/18/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/18/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/25/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/25/21 (S) Heard & Held
02/25/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/16/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/16/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/16/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/18/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/30/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/30/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/01/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/01/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/08/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/08/21 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/15/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/15/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/15/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/20/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/20/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/21/21 (S) STA WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE,RULE
23
04/22/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/22/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/22/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/22/21 (S) STA AT 6:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/22/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/22/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/04/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/04/21 (S) Moved CSSB 39(STA) Out of Committee
05/04/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
05/07/21 (S) STA RPT CS 1DP 1DNP 2NR 1AM NEW TITLE
05/07/21 (S) DP: SHOWER
05/07/21 (S) DNP: KAWASAKI
05/07/21 (S) NR: COSTELLO, REINBOLD
05/07/21 (S) AM: HOLLAND
05/07/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/07/21 (S) Heard & Held
05/07/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/08/21 (S) JUD AT 10:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
05/08/21 (S) Heard & Held
05/08/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/08/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/08/22 (S) Heard & Held
04/08/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/11/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
207.
LISA PURINTON, Chief
Criminal Records and Identification Bureau
Division of Statewide Services
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
207.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
SB 207.
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff
Representative Sara Rasmussen
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 157 on behalf of
the sponsor.
DAWSON MANN, Staff
Senator Robert Myers
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the changes from Version I to
Version G of SB 229.
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered legal questions on Amendment 1 to
SB 229.
SCOTT OGAN, Staff
Senator Mike Shower
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 229 on behalf of Senator
Shower.
JUDY BITTNER, Chief/State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of History & Archeology Alaska Historical Commission
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 229.
ED KING, Staff
Senator Roger Holland
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained Conceptual Amendment 1 to SB 229
on behalf of the committee.
SCOTT OGAN, Staff
Senator Mike Shower
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a summary of SB 39 on behalf of the
sponsor.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director
Division of Elections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
39.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:34:19 PM
CHAIR ROGER HOLLAND called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Myers, Hughes, Shower, Kiehl, and Chair
Holland.
SB 207-ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
1:34:53 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 207
"An Act restricting the release of certain records of
convictions; and providing for an effective date."
[CSSB 207(STA) was before the committee.]
1:35:11 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND opened public testimony on SB 207; finding none,
he closed public testimony on SB 207.
1:35:41 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said he raised questions at the last hearing, but
since then, he had reviewed the statutes and spoke to advocates
for the bill and is satisfied that the bill as written is in
good shape.
1:36:44 PM
SENATOR MYERS stated that the committee previously held
discussions on background checks used by employers or landlords
to check on job applicants or potential renters. He asked how
this bill would affect background checks for those applying for
legal guardianship or adoption.
SENATOR SHOWER deferred to the Department of Law or the
Department of Public Safety.
1:38:21 PM
KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety, Anchorage, Alaska, responded that
the background checks performed by the Department of Public
Safety were for employment or criminal justice purposes. She
deferred to Ms. Purinton to respond to background checks for
foster care or adoption.
1:38:54 PM
LISA PURINTON, Chief, Criminal Records and Identification
Bureau, Division of Statewide Services, Department of Public
Safety, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that a person would request a
complete criminal history report for the purpose of adoption.
Since that request was outside the scope of SB 207, any
marijuana convictions would be displayed in the background
check.
1:39:33 PM
SENATOR HUGHES related her understanding that even if this bill
passed, a person could walk in and obtain the complete
background records, which is great for those in proximity to a
courthouse. She asked whether a person seeking the complete
background check could write, call, or email a request or if the
person must physically go to a courthouse.
1:40:30 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Office of the Administrative
Director, Alaska Court System, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that
under the bill, people would not be able to view marijuana
records on CourtView from their homes. However, a person could
go to any of the state's 42 courthouses and view any unpublished
case via kiosks. She pointed out that this information is not
available by phone.
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether that information was available if
the person requested it by mail.
MS. MEADE said she was uncertain. She offered her view that
small courthouses would likely be able to respond; however, the
Anchorage courthouse probably would not have the staff to
respond due to its heavy workload.
1:42:07 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked if a person could send someone to the
courthouse to check records at a kiosk on their behalf.
MS. MEADE agreed they could. She stated that there are public
kiosks in the court lobby for the public to access any
unpublished cases. She characterized it as a more expanded view
of the CourtView available at home.
1:42:52 PM
SENATOR HUGHES expressed concern about equal access to
information, especially for those with physical limitations. She
asked whether Ms. Meade could research and report to the
committee.
MS. MEADE commented that this bill addresses two completely
different things. Although CourtView is often used for
background checks since the information is input by clerks for
the court system's use, it is not audited. She acknowledged that
many people, including landlords, employers, and others, use it
because it provides good information. However, someone seeking
to obtain a criminal background check should request it from the
Department of Public Safety (DPS). She noted that DPS receives
federal funding and communicates with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) so the report is broad; however, CourtView
was not intended for that purpose.
1:45:01 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked Ms. Purinton whether a person or small
business owner could call or send a letter to DPS requesting a
thorough background check if they could not go to a kiosk.
MS. PURINTON responded that criminal records are confidential
and can only be released with a signed waiver by the individual
authorizing the release of the information. She said if a person
cannot come into any DPS location, they could use a DPS online
release form. If the person wanted to share that information
with their landlord or employer, they would sign the release.
The department would mail it to the individual or any person
designated to receive the information.
SENATOR HUGHES asked her to clarify that the records would be
accessible if the person released the information. Thus, a
business owner or landlord could not obtain the records without
first obtaining the person's permission.
MS. PURINTON agreed that the individual would sign a form to
authorize the court to release the information.
1:47:32 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 207 in committee.
HB 157-APOC; REPORT REFERENDA/RECALL CONTRIBUTOR
1:47:38 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of HB 157 CS FOR HOUSE
BILL NO. 157(FIN) "An Act requiring the disclosure of the
identity of certain persons, groups, and nongroup entities that
expend money in support of or in opposition to an application
filed for a state referendum or recall election; relating to the
location of offices for the Alaska Public Offices Commission and
the locations at which certain statements and reports filed with
the commission are made available; relating to the duties of the
Alaska Public Offices Commission; clarifying the limits on
making, accepting, and reporting certain cash campaign
contributions; relating to campaign finance reporting by certain
groups; increasing the time the Alaska Public Offices Commission
has to respond to a request for an advisory opinion; repealing a
reporting requirement for certain contributions; relating to
contribution limits and recall campaigns; and providing for an
effective date."
[CSHB 157(FIN) was before the committee.]
CHAIR HOLLAND noted that this was the third hearing and the
committee adopted a committee substitute (CS), Version G, during
the previous hearing. Amendments 1 and 2 were adopted, and
Amendment 3 was withdrawn on 4/8/22.
1:48:13 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND moved to adopt Amendment 4, work order 32-
LS0669\G.4.
32-LS0669\G.4
Bullard
4/11/22
AMENDMENT 4
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HOLLAND
TO: SCS CSHB 157(JUD), Draft Version "G"
Page 1, line 9, following "opinion;":
Insert "relating to penalties assessed for
campaign finance violations;"
Page 6, following line 14:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 13. AS 15.13.390(a) is amended to read:
(a) Subject to (e) of this section, a [A] person
who
(1) fails to register when required by
AS 15.13.050(a) or who fails to file a properly
completed and certified report within the time
required by AS 15.13.040, 15.13.060(b) - (d),
15.13.110(a)(1), (3), or (4), (e), or (f) is subject
to a civil penalty of not more than $50 a day for each
day the delinquency continues as determined by the
commission subject to right of appeal to the superior
court. A person who fails to file a properly completed
and certified report within the time required by
AS 15.13.110(a)(2) or 15.13.110(b) is subject to a
civil penalty of not more than $500 a day for each day
the delinquency continues as determined by the
commission subject to right of appeal to the superior
court;
(2) whether as a contributor or intermediary,
delays in reporting a contribution as required by
AS 15.13.040(r) is subject to a civil penalty of not more
than $1,000 a day for each day the delinquency continues as
determined by the commission subject to right of appeal to
the superior court;
(3) whether as a contributor or intermediary,
misreports or fails to disclose the true source of a
contribution in violation of AS 15.13.040(r) or
15.13.074(b) is subject to a civil penalty of not more than
the amount of the contribution that is the subject of the
misreporting or failure to disclose; upon a showing that
the violation was intentional, a civil penalty of not more
than three times the amount of the contribution in
violation may be imposed; these penalties as determined by
the commission are subject to right of appeal to the
superior court;
(4) violates a provision of this chapter, except
as otherwise specified in this section, is subject to a
civil penalty of not more than $50 a day for each day the
violation continues as determined by the commission,
subject to right of appeal to the superior court; and
(5) is assessed a civil penalty may submit to
the commission an affidavit stating facts in mitigation;
however, the imposition of the penalties prescribed in this
section or in AS 15.13.380 does not excuse that person from
registering or filing reports required by this chapter.
* Sec. 14. AS 15.13.390(d) is amended to read:
(d) When an action has been filed in the superior
court under AS 15.13.380, upon proof of the violation, the
court shall enter a judgment in the amount of the civil
penalty authorized to be collected under [BY (a) OF] this
section.
* Sec. 15. AS 15.13.390(e) is amended to read:
(e) If the commission or superior court finds that
the violation was
(1) not a repeat violation or was not part of a
series or pattern of violations, was inadvertent, was
quickly corrected, and had no adverse effect on another
[THE] campaign [OF ANOTHER], the commission or the court
may
(A) [(1)] suspend imposition of the
penalties; and
(B) [(2)] order the penalties set aside if
the person does not engage in a similar violation for
a period of one year;
(2) inadvertently committed by a candidate, the
maximum financial penalty the commission or the court may
impose may not exceed 20 percent of the total contributions
made to the candidate's campaign."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
1:48:17 PM
SENATOR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes.
1:48:29 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND explained that Amendment 4 took a different
approach to accomplish the goal of Amendment 3. Under Amendment
4, penalties for candidates who made mistakes on their reports
would be limited to 20 percent of the total contributions
received by their campaigns. This limit intentionally excludes
large independent groups since they are generally well funded
with sophisticated treasurers. He stated the intent of Amendment
4 was to remove potential obstacles for candidates for making an
inadvertent mistake that could result in large fines. He
acknowledged that limiting the penalties for candidates but not
political groups might open a door for equal protection
challenges. However, the public purpose served by making this
distinction justifies this approach. In addition, individual
candidates and large political action groups are not similarly
situated, further justifying the different treatment. He
directed attention to the language on page 2 of Amendment 4.
1:49:33 PM
SENATOR MYERS stated that the language says, "inadvertently
committed by a candidate." He noted that his campaign had a
volunteer serving as the campaign treasurer who handled most of
the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) reporting. He asked
whether the language included campaign staff or volunteers or
only the candidate.
1:50:19 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff, Representative Sara Rasmussen , Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, responded by reading the
definition for "candidate" in AS 15.13.400, which read:
(1) "candidate"
(A) means an individual who files for election
to the state legislature, for governor,
for lieutenant governor, for municipal
office, for retention in judicial office,
or for constitutional convention delegate,
or who campaigns as a write-in candidate
for any of these offices; and
(B) when used in a provision of this chapter
that limits or prohibits the donation,
solicitation, or acceptance of campaign
contributions, or limits or prohibits an
expenditure, includes
(i) a candidate's campaign treasurer and a
deputy campaign treasurer;
(ii) a member of the candidate's immediate
family;
(iii) a person acting as agent for the
candidate;
(iv) the candidate's campaign committee;
and
(v) a group that makes expenditures or
receives contributions with the
authorization or consent, express or
implied, or under the control, direct
or indirect, of the candidate;
1:51:07 PM
SENATOR KIEHL related that as a casual observer of APOC, he did
not find that APOC typically fined candidates up to 20 percent
for making inadvertent mistakes. He wanted to ensure that this
amendment was offered as a bar against a future commission going
"off the rails" rather than using 20 percent as a target.
1:51:45 PM
SENATOR SHOWER said he appreciated the approach and surmised
that 20 percent for a large group was not unreasonable. He
agreed with Senator Kiehl that 20 percent should not be the
target amount.
1:52:49 PM
SENATOR SHOWER removed his objection.
CHAIR HOLLAND found no further objection, and Amendment 4 was
adopted.
1:53:16 PM
SENATOR SHOWER moved to report the Senate committee substitute
(CS) for CSHB 157, work order 32-LS0669\G, as amended, from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s).
CHAIR HOLLAND found no objection, and SCS CSHB 157(JUD) was
reported from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:53:48 PM
At ease
SB 229-STATE HISTORICAL ARTIFACTS; CRIMES
1:55:40 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 229 "An Act relating to
misconduct involving confidential information; relating to
artifacts of the state; and relating to penalties regarding
artifacts or historic, prehistoric, or archeological resources
of the state."
CHAIR HOLLAND noted that this was the third hearing and there
was a committee substitute (CS) for the committee to consider.
1:56:03 PM
SENATOR SHOWER moved to adopt the CS for SB 229, work order 32-
GS2541\G, as the working document.
1:56:18 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.
1:56:43 PM
DAWSON MANN, Staff, Senator Robert Myers, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, read the summary of changes from
Version I to Version G of SB 229 on behalf of the committee.
1:56:56 PM
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
(VERSION I TO VERSION G)
Change 1: Sections 1, 3, and 6 of version I were
deleted
Change 2: The classifications were changes so that
"intentional" violations of AS 41.35.200(a)
or (b) are class C felonies
Change 3: The definition of "artifact" was deleted
1:57:31 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND removed his objection; he found no further
objection, and Version G was adopted.
1:57:54 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 32-
GS2541\G.1.
32-GS2541\G.1
Bullard
4/11/22
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR KIEHL
TO: CSSB 229(JUD), Draft Version "G"
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "is convicted of violating a provision of"
Insert "knowingly violates [IS CONVICTED OF
VIOLATING A PROVISION OF]"
Page 1, line 14, following the second occurrence of
"(b)":
Insert ", and the value of the affected historic,
prehistoric, or archeological resource is equal to or
greater than $2,500,"
Page 2, line 2:
Delete all material and insert:
"(c) If it is necessary in prosecuting a
violation of AS 41.35.010 - 41.35.240 to determine the
value of a historic, prehistoric, or archaeological
resource, the appraised value of the historic,
prehistoric, or archeological resource at the time and
place of the crime is the value. In determining the
degree or classification of a crime under this
section, amounts involved in criminal acts committed
under one course of conduct, whether from the same
person or several persons, shall be aggregated.
(d) In this section, "intentionally" and
"knowingly" have the meanings given in
AS 11.81.900(a)."
Page 2, line 6:
Delete "AS 41.35.210(b) and (c)"
Insert "AS 41.35.210(b) - (d)"
1:58:03 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.
1:58:07 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained that Amendment 1 would place a threshold
value on the felony and make removing any artifact a potential
felony. He stated the intent was to capture only those taking
high-value artifacts. Amendment 1 would hold an offender to a
"knowing" mental state, subject to a misdemeanor, so a person
must intentionally remove or sell a historic archeological
resource valued at $2,500 or more for the penalty to rise to a
felony.
1:59:08 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked for the reason to set the value of an
archeological resource or artifact at $2,500.
1:59:19 PM
SENATOR KIEHL answered that he picked a value that seemed
appropriate. He was unsure whether the threshold was set high
enough to avoid capturing a hiker who picked up railroad spikes
or tiles without realizing their value. He envisioned that the
person would face criminal penalties but not felony penalties.
However, someone who takes a basket from an archeological dig
site thousands of years old should face a more severe penalty.
2:00:21 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated that the genesis of the bill was to
address the theft of state assets, including old WWII artifacts
that could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. He offered
his view that even a small widget could be worth $5,000 to
$10,000, and a WWII jeep's value could range from $50,000 to
$100,000 for collectors, depending on the jeep's condition. He
agreed that the intent was not to cast the net so wide that
someone who took a little piece of something they found while
hiking would face felony charges. Still, it was essential to set
a felony penalty for those intentionally coming to the state to
extract entire assets with historical value. He asked whether
the Department of Law would suggest a different amount, such as
$15,000. He further asked whether the department was concerned
about any equal protection or other issues.
2:03:04 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law, Juneau, Alaska,
stated that the threshold was a policy decision for the
legislature. She deferred to the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) for any comments.
SENATOR SHOWER noted that his staff previously worked as a DNR
manager, so Mr. Ogan may have some insights.
2:03:41 PM
SCOTT OGAN, Staff, Senator Mike Shower, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, stated that when he previously
served as a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manager, his
staff worked with the Office of History Archeology on navigable
water issues. During that time, they found an old mining boat
artifact with significant historical value to the state. A naval
architect calculated the load and draft for the boat, which
helped resolve issues related to navigable waters. Thus, the
definition should include significant historical value to the
state rather than just setting a dollar value for the artifact.
2:07:30 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND pointed out that he was comfortable with a
threshold of $2,500.
2:08:07 PM
SENATOR HUGHES acknowledged that although someone couldn't sell
the dilapidated mining boat on eBay, it had significant
historical value to DNR. She asked how DNR would determine the
monetary value of artifacts.
2:09:20 PM
JUDY BITTNER, Chief/State Historic Preservation Officer, Office
of History & Archeology Alaska Historical Commission, Division
of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural
Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, responded that archeologists and
historians often do not put a market value on artifacts due to
the intrinsic value or information that these artifacts yield.
Instead, the site is essential in understanding the
contribution. For example, Mr. Ogan mentioned finding a boat
next to a river, which provides an association. Some states
consider the disturbance of a site and base the value on the
cost to restore the site and on the amount of information lost
rather than to determine the market value of the individual
artifacts removed. For example, the loss of the artifact might
mean that a significant amount of information archeologists
could gain from that site was lost. She explained that artifacts
in museums are valued for insurance purposes, but that valuation
is not currently done by the Office of History and Archeology.
However, if the bill had a provision to put a value on
artifacts, DNR would have to figure out a way to do so.
2:12:01 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked whether the Office of History and Archeology
could examine an artifact in the field and make an initial
determination if the value was greater or less than $2,500.
MS. BITTNER maintained that archeologists in the field do not
look at the monetary value of an artifact but consider the
information it provides to understand the site. For example,
archeologists might discover a small set of microblades from a
13,000-year-old site and glean information about the technology
used and how people hunted rather than seek to determine the
market value. She said she was unaware of any archeologist who
places a monetary value on artifacts or collections from a site.
2:13:28 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated that some artifacts might only have
intrinsic value, such as the crumbling boat DNR found. However,
the committee also considered abandoned equipment found at a
crash or other site. He recalled that the threshold for a felony
was $750 for property crimes but noted that even small pieces of
equipment might be valued at $2,500. He said he could not
support Amendment 1 due to the low threshold for the value of
the historic, prehistoric, or archeological resource. He pointed
out that some people come to Alaska and remove whole assets,
such as a WWII jeep, truck, or plane valued above $15,000.
2:15:48 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said while he deeply values historical records and
artifacts, it is challenging to differentiate and decide which
objects have more historical value than others. Amendment 1 uses
current law, which states that if a person knowingly takes an
archeological resource of the state, it constitutes a class A
misdemeanor. Thus, it would establish a criminal penalty for
taking the microblade or flint knife.
SENATOR KIEHL stated that the old Treadwell Mine in Juneau had a
natatorium constructed with white hexagonal tiles. After the
mine cave-in in 1917, the tiles were strewn along the beach and
have continued to be popular items for people to pick up. He
surmised the committee would not want that collecting to be a
felony. Still, these tiles likely would be considered a
historical resource of the state. Amendment 1 would create a
higher threshold than the crime of theft because it is difficult
for a layperson to assess the value of a historic resource.
Amendment 1 speaks about an appraised value, often used to value
museum objects or for wills or estates. Thus, someone would need
to testify as an expert witness to identify an artifact as a
valuable, historical thing.
2:18:45 PM
SENATOR KIEHL expressed his willingness to raise the threshold
value of an item to avoid catching the person who inadvertently
picks up an artifact while beachcombing. He further noted that
Amendment 1 requires an intentional mental standard.
2:19:08 PM
SENATOR MYERS indicated he had questions about the mental states
in Amendment 1. He posed a scenario where someone goes to an
archeological site and finds something they believe could be
sold on eBay for $5,000 or $10,000. He asked whether it would
fall under the felony statute.
2:20:01 PM
MS. SCHROEDER responded that the person would need to have a
conscious objective when taking an artifact. She agreed the
scenario described by Senator Myers would fall under the
intentional standard.
2:20:16 PM
SENATOR MYERS posed another scenario where someone goes to an
archeological site, finds something, and brings it home as a
keepsake. The person may or may not know its value but likes the
object. He asked whether it would fall under the felony
provision, the misdemeanor, or something else.
MS. SCHROEDER stated that property crimes don't require a mental
state related to the monetary threshold, but only for the mental
state necessary for the act.
2:21:18 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked which mental state would apply to someone
who finds an artifact and may or may not know the monetary value
but takes the object home.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that the knowing mental state means the
person was aware of a substantial probability of its existence,
so the person in his scenario would likely meet the knowing
standard unless they did not believe it was an artifact, but
they might also meet the intentional state.
2:22:05 PM
SENATOR MYERS related another scenario where someone goes on a
hike across state land that was previously a mining claim, finds
a gold pan, takes it home, but does not think about its
historical significance.
2:22:39 PM
MS. SCHROEDER answered that would not constitute a crime.
2:22:49 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked how often these crimes happen. He
envisioned Amendment 1 would apply if someone brought in a crew
and removed a significant artifact from the state via a barge.
He viewed that action as intentionally taking an artifact, which
seemed different than someone randomly finding an artifact and
keeping it. He asked whether low-level offenses were a problem
or if the intent of the bill and Amendment 1 was to address
people taking significant, historical artifacts from the state.
MS. SCHROEDER was unsure how often this occurs. She deferred to
DNR to respond. She noted that in the entire time that the
Department of Law had tracked these cases, the department
received only two referrals. She reviewed those cases and found
that each one met the intentional standard.
2:24:20 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked how often people are taking artifacts from
state lands.
2:24:46 PM
MS. BITTNER responded that it happens quite often in remote
areas where it would be difficult to apprehend them. The
department had found evidence of sites where artifacts were
being dug up and removed. DNR previously conducted joint
operations with the federal agencies in instances where people
posted videos on social media with them using metal detectors,
digging up artifacts, and marketing them. However, it is
difficult to prosecute those cases.
MS. BITTNER stated that the intent was to identify offenders
with a repetitive pattern of digging up sites. She acknowledged
that there were significant operations by those collecting WWII
aircraft parts. During her tenure, the office sometimes had
intervened, retrieved the artifacts but had not prosecuted the
looters. She reiterated that it was difficult to enforce these
laws due to the nature and remoteness of many historical sites.
However, she offered her believe that it was important for the
legislature to identify unlawful acts and create penalties to
address theft at historical sites for those removing artifacts.
CHAIR HOLLAND maintained his support for using a threshold of
$2,500. He offered his view that it's easy to view rusted-out
items and equate them as low-value artifacts but acknowledged
that probably only an appraiser could determine an item's value
was $15,000.
2:27:59 PM
SENATOR HUGHES wondered if Amendment 1 would trigger a fiscal
note since an official appraisal would need to determine the
value of the artifacts. She asked whether it would create any
legal issues because the archeologist would not provide an
appraisal but only estimate the intrinsic value.
MS. BITTNER responded that she would research whether the state
could find appraisers at the state museum or the University of
Alaska who could provide the necessary expertise. She said she
was unsure whether it would trigger a fiscal note. However,
DNR's federal partners enforce federal historic preservation
laws, so they may have appraisers.
2:30:10 PM
MS. SCHROEDER pointed out that Amendment 1 related to the
appraised value of the historic, prehistoric, or archeological
resource, so guestimates would not suffice to prove the elements
of the offense.
2:30:31 PM
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that an agency
overseeing the resources would refer criminal behavior but not
engage in appraising the item's value. He stated that the
prosecutor would build out the record to prove the elements of
the case. He asked whether he had interpreted the process
correctly.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that an officer or investigator would
conduct an investigation. One element of the case would be the
valuation of the artifacts, and the officer would subsequently
send the case to the prosecutors to review. She surmised that
prosecutors would likely summon the appraiser as a witness
during the trial.
SENATOR SHOWER wondered whether the committee should consider a
conceptual amendment. He offered his view that a higher limit
would help. In his experience visiting aviation crash sites,
nothing taken was less than $2,500, and some artifacts were
worth vastly more. He cautioned members that $2,500 seemed very
low.
SENATOR HUGHES commented that the state would pay for an
appraisal, whether the Department of Natural Resources or the
Department of Law provided it.
MS. SCHROEDER agreed.
2:33:20 PM
SENATOR SHOWER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1
CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENT 1 TO AMENDMENT 1
Line 7 of Amendment 1 would read, "... equal to or
greater than $10,000 or of significant historical
value to the state."
SENATOR SHOWER acknowledged that an appraisal would likely be
necessary, but the higher threshold would focus on items of
significant value.
2:34:46 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.
CHAIR HOLLAND restated that Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
1 would read, "... equal to or greater than $10,000 or of
significant historical value to the state."
2:35:12 PM
ED KING, Staff, Senator Roger Holland, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, pointed out that Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 should be read in conjunction with AS 41.35.230(2),
which read:
(2) "historic, prehistoric, and archeological
resources" includes deposits, structures, ruins,
sites, buildings, graves, artifacts, fossils, or other
objects of antiquity which provide information
pertaining to the historical or prehistorical culture
of people in the state as well as to the natural
history of the state.
MR. KING suggested Ms. Schroeder discuss the interplay between
the proposed amendment and current law.
2:35:51 PM
MS. SCHROEDER pointed out that raising the threshold to $10,000
would create the same issues that were previously discussed. She
deferred to DNR as to whether the department could articulate
significant historical value to the state, which would be an
element of the offense that the state would need to prove.
2:36:25 PM
SENATOR SHOWER said he started the process to limit it to WWII
artifacts, but the bill morphed and expanded. He indicated his
willingness to return to the original concept for the bill,
which was to protect WWII assets in Alaska. It would likely be
easy to identify them as WWII assets since they were
manufactured from 1938 to 1945. Other artifacts have intrinsic
value, so it could be more challenging to place a monetary value
on them.
SENATOR KIEHL offered his view that the heart of the bill was
good because of its breadth. He emphasized that the state does
not want 9,000-year-old Ravenstail weavings from Karst caves on
Prince of Wales Island collected and sold. However, he was
unsure how a prosecutor would prove how something had more
significant historical value to the state than the definition
Mr. King read. He suggested that if the language reads "or," the
state could still prove the dollar value. He said he was okay
with Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
2:38:29 PM
SENATOR HUGHES stated her preference to include all artifacts
rather than limit it to WWII crash sites; however, Conceptual
Amendment 1 offered two options.
2:38:58 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked whether phrasing $10,000 or significant
historical value raised any issues.
MS. SCHROEDER responded that she is not an expert in artifacts,
so she was unsure she could articulate what constitutes
significant historical value, but someone at DNR may be able to
do so.
2:39:34 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND stated his concern was more focused on the legal
aspects but asked Ms. Bittner for her perspective.
MS. BITTNER responded that DNR has the methodology for
determining and evaluating items of historical significance to
the state. She explained that the department established the
criteria and process to evaluate historical items, including
determining whether the object had historical significance.
2:40:28 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND removed his objection; he found no further
objection, and Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was
adopted.
2:40:51 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND stated that Amendment 1, as amended, was before
the committee.
CHAIR HOLLAND removed his objection; he found no further
objection, and Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted.
2:41:56 PM
SENATOR SHOWER pointed out that there was a companion bill to SB
229.
2:42:15 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND asked whether "artifacts" is included in the
definition of "archeological resources" in current law.
MR. KING explained that "artifact" appears in the definition.
Defining "artifact" would only apply within the definition. He
stated that it is the definition found in the dictionary, so it
was assumed there was no need for that additional language.
2:43:23 PM
SENATOR SHOWER moved to report the CS for SB 229, work order 32-
GS2541\G, as amended, from committee with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR HOLLAND found no objection, and CSSB 229(JUD) was reported
from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
CHAIR HOLLAND stated that the committee authorizes Legislative
Legal Services to make conforming and technical changes to
accomplish the committee's intentions.
2:44:04 PM
At ease
SB 39-BALLOT CUSTODY/TAMPERING; VOTER REG; MAIL
2:46:14 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 39 "An Act relating to
elections; relating to voter registration; relating to ballots
and a system of tracking and accounting for ballots;
establishing an election offense hotline; designating as a class
A misdemeanor the collection of ballots from other voters;
designating as a class C felony the intentional opening or
tampering with a sealed ballot, certificate, or package of
ballots without authorization from the director of the division
of elections; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR HOLLAND noted that this was the fourth hearing in this
committee and a committee substitute (CS) was adopted during the
previous hearing. He asked the sponsor if he had any comment on
the CS.
2:46:50 PM
SENATOR SHOWER stated that Mr. Ogan would speak to the committee
substitute.
2:47:31 PM
SCOTT OGAN, Staff, Senator Mike Shower, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided a summary of SB 39. He
said the sponsor's goal in revising election statutes was to
make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. The sponsor worked with
people with wide-ranging views. He hoped the process taken with
SB 39 would provide other states with a consensus model. He
noted that many states made accusations and floated conspiracy
theories. He stated that the sponsor preferred to use the
approach of consensus building in the committee substitute (CS).
MR. OGAN offered his belief that voting is a cornerstone of the
US democracy. He emphasized the need for voter confidence in the
voting system. Otherwise, he believed that the US would be in
serious trouble.
MR. OGAN pointed out that the Division of Elections had a data
breach that exposed personal information, the voter rolls need
updating, and the public is concerned about election security.
He stated that since the division follows the current statutes,
the legislature must address these issues as a policy-setting
body.
2:50:05 PM
MR. OGAN outlined changes in the bill to same-day registration,
including that voters must provide sufficient proof of identity,
submit a signed affidavit confirming residency in the district
under the penalty of perjury, and vote a questioned ballot. The
bill would increase opportunities for poll watchers and enhance
ballot security and chain of custody. Currently, election laws
allow ballots to be destroyed in the precincts. This bill would
require all ballots to be delivered to a central location for
destruction, which could help ensure the security of ballots
from the time they leave the Division of Elections until their
return.
2:54:17 PM
MR. OGAN stated that absentee ballots in Section 32 requires
online ballot tracking with a USPS barcode. He noted the
committee would be considering an amendment that would allow the
division to contract with private sector companies.
MR. OGAN stated that SB 39 would allow for early counting of
absentee ballots but make it a felony to disclose that
information. He surmised that it would cut down on time to tally
votes on Election Day.
2:55:27 PM
MR. OGAN stated that SB 39 would tighten up late arrival ballots
with ballot tracking by USPS. It would use voter signature
technology and eliminate the need for two witnesses to verify a
voter's identification. He stated that if a voter makes a simple
mistake on their ballot, the division will send a text to the
voter, so they can come to the division to cure their ballot. He
characterized it as not overly burdensome. The bill would
authorize the division to mail out ballots in small communities
when emergencies arise.
2:56:50 PM
MR. OGAN stated that SB 39 requires open-source voting to allow
the public to review the codes since none of the vendor's
hardware would be proprietary. This should eliminate any
conspiracy theories about the manipulation of voting machines.
SB 39 would create new crimes for intentionally tampering,
breaching, or hacking ballots. It would increase poll workers'
pay since the division has difficulty recruiting people.
MR. OGAN stated that the bill would offer a permanent absentee
ballot provision, although this provision still needs a little
work. He indicated that the committee could decide whether to
limit the permanent absentee ballot to four years. The bill
would require a strict chain of custody for voting equipment and
it increases cybersecurity.
2:59:29 PM
SENATOR SHOWER explained that a risk-limiting audit was
different from a forensic audit, which provides a money trail.
The risk-limiting audit would look at ballot counts and
registration. He outlined some concerns with the upcoming
election, including that the division will have a mass mailing
of ballots with no chain of custody. He was unsure whether the
division would institute a tracking system for all ballots
mailed to voters. He expressed concern that the ballots will not
require a signature verification, and the division does not plan
to cross-check the compromised voters affected by the data
breach. He explained that the open-source algorithm is to push
the voter identification data to allow voters to analyze the
data themselves.
3:01:05 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether the division would require proof of
30-day residency for same-day voter registration or if the same-
day registrants will merely fill out a form and sign their name.
MR. OGAN responded that the voter must provide a rent receipt or
other sufficient proof in person and vote a questioned ballot.
3:02:19 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to Section 23, lines 25-27, related to
early voting. He asked whether this provision switches early
voting stations to in-person absentee voting, making it a little
harder to vote. He stated his preference for preserving
anonymity, which was eroded by creating an envelope. He offered
his belief that early voting should use the same procedure as
regular in-person voting on Election Day. Thus, a person should
walk in, show identification, and receive their ballot.
MR. OGAN was unsure but believed that he filled out an absentee
ballot form when he was an early voter when he voted.
3:04:35 PM
SENATOR MYERS stated that he previously voted both absentee and
early voting. He noted that the Fairbanks North Star Borough
(FNSB) allows for early voting until a few days before the
election, then it switches to an in-person absentee voting. The
state allows early voting through Election Day and double checks
signatures against the voter rolls. He said the state does not
allow in-person absentee voting unless the voter requests it or
votes a questioned ballot.
3:05:33 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections, Juneau, Alaska,
responded that Senator Myers is correct that there are two
distinct processes for early voting and absentee in-person
voting. Early voting takes place in the Division of Election's
five regional offices. Absentee-in-person voting happens in the
non-regional offices. Some offices have multi-district ballots,
others have single-district sites, and some have ballots for all
40 districts. Those are strictly absentee-in-person locations.
It is considered early voting, but voters must fill out an
absentee-in person oath and voter certificates at polling
places, including at the airport, and the university. However,
those are strictly absentee in-person locations. It is voting
early, but voters must fill out the absentee-in-person oath and
voter certificates. Those documents are returned to the
division, and the voter's eligibility is determined once the
ballot is received and reviewed by the Absentee Review Board.
3:07:30 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked about open-source software; he was only
aware of one company for voting tabulators. He wondered whether
the sponsor could provide names of other companies so he could
verify that the committee was not inadvertently writing in a
sole-source contract. He related his understanding that nothing
in the bill eliminates paper ballots for special needs voting
machines with voter-verifiable paper trails. He pointed out
everything in that process was re-countable and auditable.
SENATOR KIEHL wondered why the division would use open-source
software if it is not the best software. He suggested that if it
crashes more often, it could create more hiccups that must be
verified, potentially decreasing voter confidence. He suggested
the state should use the best software, then check and verify
the results.
3:09:08 PM
SENATOR SHOWER offered to provide the number of the open-source
software companies. He noted the one company he heard from still
needed to obtain federal certification. He indicated he
consistently heard the public impression was that the current
company lacks transparency since its algorithm is proprietary.
He noted the lack of transparency in the election process was
one of the most problematic concerns. He acknowledged that some
of the concerns were based on national conspiracy theories. The
Division of Elections said the state would need to go through
Dominion to obtain data pre-election and post-election, which is
proprietary information. However, that information would be
available with an open-source company and given to citizens who
want it.
3:12:32 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 39 in committee.
3:12:45 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Holland adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 229 version G.pdf |
SJUD 4/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 229 |
| SB 229 Summary of Changes (version G).pdf |
SJUD 4/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 229 |
| SB 229 Amendment G.1.pdf |
SJUD 4/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 229 |
| HB 157 Amendment #4 (G.4).pdf |
SJUD 4/11/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 157 |