Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/11/1996 03:32 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
April 11, 1996
3:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bert Sharp, Chairman
Senator Randy Phillips, Vice-Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Dave Donley
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Jim Duncan
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 32
Establishing YUKLA 27 Remembrance Day.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 192(FIN) am
"An Act relating to housing assistance provided by the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation and to its rural housing programs, to
the corporation's supplemental housing development grants to
regional housing authorities, and to housing programs of regional
housing authorities; permitting regional housing authorities to
make, originate, and service loans for the purchase and development
of residential housing; and amending the definitions of `rural' and
`small community' as applied in various housing programs."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 211(FIN)
"An Act relating to voter registration and to state election
administration."
SENATE BILL NO. 182
"An Act relating to elections; relating to the division of
elections; relating to voter registration procedures; and providing
for an effective date."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HCR 32 - No previous Senate committee action.
HB 192 - No previous Senate committee action.
HB 211 - No previous Senate committee action.
SB 182 - No previous Senate committee action.
WITNESS REGISTER
Bryce Edgmon, Aide
Representative Richard Foster
State Capitol, Juneau, AK 99801-1182¶(907)465-3789
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HB 192
Bruce Kavarok, Executive Director
Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority
P.O. Box 995, Nome, AK 99762¶(907)443-5256
POSITION STATEMENT: supports HB 192
John Bitney
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 101020, Anchorage, AK 99510-1020¶(907)561-1900
POSITION STATEMENT: supports HB 192
Patti Swensen, Aide
Representative Con Bunde
State Capitol, Juneau, AK 99801-1182¶(907)465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HB 211
Gaye J. Vaughan, Borough Clerk
Kenai Peninsula Borough
144 N. Binkley, Soldotna, AK 99669-7599¶(907)262-4441
POSITION STATEMENT: submitted written testimony opposing HB 211
Diane Shriner
Division of Elections
P.O. Box 110017, Juneau, AK 99811-0017¶(907)465-4611
POSITION STATEMENT: supports HB 211 except for 2 sections
POSITION STATEMENT: representing governor-prime sponsor SB 182
Jed Whittaker
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on HB 211 and SB 182
Mike O'Callaghan
1540 Medfra St., Anchorage, AK ¶(907)277-8889
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on HB 211
Kathleen Strasbaugh, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300, Juneau, AK 99811-0300¶(907)465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on HB 211 and SB 182
Bob Motznik
8301 Briarwood, Anchorage, AK 99516¶(907)344-6254
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on HB 211
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-28, SIDE A
HCR 32 YUKLA 27 REMEMBRANCE DAY
Number 001
CHAIRMAN SHARP called the Senate State Affairs Committee to order
at 3:32 p.m. and brought up HCR 32 as the first order of business
before the committee.
Number 025
SENATOR LEMAN made a motion to discharge HCR 32 from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
Number 035
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated HCR 32 was discharged
from the Senate State Affairs Committee.
HB 192 AHFC HOUSING LOANS
CHAIRMAN SHARP brought up HB 192 as the next order of business
before the Senate State Affairs Committee. He called the sponsor's
representative to testify.
Number 050
BRYCE EDGMON, Aide to Representative Richard Foster, prime sponsor
of HB 192, stated the bill is directed towards helping meet home
financing needs in rural Alaska. Mr. Edgmon read the sectional
analysis in members' bill packets, which was submitted by AHFC.
Section 1 would allow regional housing authorities to originate and
service mortgage loans.
Section 2 would allow supplemental housing development grant funds
to be used for both on-site and off-site water and sewer
facilities.
Section 3 attempts to clarify the existing statute. It does not
make any substantive changes.
Section 4 establishes a priority system for the allocation of
supplemental housing development grant funds used to pay for off-
site water and sewer facilities.
Section 5 exempts projects constructed under the Building Material
Loan Program from energy standards provided under AS 18.56.096(c).
Section 6 exempts projects constructed under the Building Material
Loan Program from construction standards provided under AS
18.56.300.
Section 7 amends the statute regarding the Rural Assistance Loan
Program to allow for the refinancing of rural mortgages in the same
manner as AHFC's mortgage programs allow for the refinancing of
urban loans.
Section 8 would allow AHFC to make loans for rural non-owner
occupied housing, to the extent feasible, to someone who already
has an AHFC loan for an existing owner-occupied residence.
Section 9 expands the existing Building Materials Loan Program to
allow for small ($20,000.00 or less), unsecured loans for borrowers
who have either restrictive deed lands or have no title to their
HUD Mutual Help home. [Mr. Edgmon informed the committee that
federal law prohibits people who own homes on native allotments
from using the land as collateral in securing a loan.]
Section 10 is a conforming change to coordinate this statute with
the change made in the first part of Section 12.
Section 11 is a conforming change to coordinate this statute with
with the change made in the first part of Section 12.
Section 12 clarifies the definition of non-owner occupied housing
as rental housing. In addition, the definition of multi-family
rental house is changed from an 8 to a 16 unit dwelling.
Section 13 would bring the term "housing" into compliance with
industry standards that view the term as owner-occupied housing of
up to 4 units.
Number 185
BRUCE KAVAROK, Executive Director, Bering Straits Regional Housing
Authority, testifying from Nome, stated the authority serves Nome
and sixteen other communities in the Nome area. Mr. Kavarok stated
the Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority and the Association
of Alaska Housing Authorities, which represents Alaska's fourteen
regional housing authorities and AHFC, support HB 192. The bill
has significant importance for Alaska's regional housing
authorities in their mission to provide decent, safe, sanitary, and
affordable housing to families throughout Alaska. Several of the
housing programs now available from AHFC and other sources like the
Farmers' Home Administration and the Veterans' Administration are
severely under-utilized in rural Alaska. Part of the reason is
village economics, but another part is the lack of rural access to
information and the basic mechanics of loan programs. There are
low and moderate-income families in his region and throughout the
state who could benefit from one or more of these programs and
achieve their goals of home ownership.
MR. KAVAROK stated that there is virtually no tradition for
conventional mortgage lending in housing development in rural
Alaska. Expanding access to AHFC loans, as HB 192 would do,
coordinating with lending institutions, and the recent willingness
of the secondary mortgage market (FHA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, for
example) to participate in rural housing programs appear as a few
bright spots on the horizon. Mr. Kavarok also gave a run-down of
the sections of HB 192.
Number 245
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked Mr. Kavarok if he could explain the
language on page 6, lines 4-7 regarding the restricted deed issued
by the Secretary of the Interior.
MR. KAVAROK replied there are two types of deeds that he runs into.
The Native Allotment act of 1909 specified that native allotments
above 260 acres could be selected. The deed is held in trust by
the Secretary of the Interior on behalf of the allottee.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if it is held in trust forever.
MR. KAVAROK responded, yes. A development that HB 192 doesn't
address is the Federal Housing Development Act of 1992. That act
established a home-loan guarantee program which provides for a
federal subsidized loan guarantee for financial institutions,
including AHFC, to protect them when they make mortgage loans on
these types of restricted deeds. The drive behind that legislation
was Indian reservations in the lower forty-eight, where
reservations are all trust land held by the federal government. He
believes AHFC has either participated or is looking at
participating in one of the first loans of this kind in Alaska that
would take advantage of that federal home loan guarantee.
Number 290
JOHN BITNEY, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, stated AHFC
supports HB 192.
Number 295
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if refinancing is not allowed right
now.
MR. BITNEY responded that currently, refinancing is not an option
under state statutes relating to AHFC. If a person were to
refinance their mortgage right now, they would have to do
substantial improvements to their home in order to get a new loan.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if that is an oversight in the laws
dealing with AHFC.
MR. BITNEY stated he is not familiar with the history, but he would
say it's definitely an oversight, since it's a very common mortgage
option nation-wide.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked Mr. Bitney if he's received copies of the
amendments, and if so, how does AHFC feel about the amendments?
MR. BITNEY responded he has seen 3 1/2 amendments. He stated he
would like to address the amendment applying to Section 1. That
amendment would attempt to limit regional housing authorities to
making loans only in rural areas of the state. Apparently there
was some concern expressed that, by bringing regional housing
authorities into urban Alaska, they might compete with traditional
mortgage lenders. AHFC worked with the Mortgage Bankers
Association to come up with compromise language. Committee members
have that amendment, which is labeled amendment #2. Amendment #2
would limit the regional housing authorities to making loans in
rural areas. There would be an exception for making loans in urban
areas to under-served borrowers.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked what the mortgage bankers think about
amendment #2.
MR. BITNEY replied he did not speak to them directly, but it is his
understanding that the "under-served borrowers" term was their
suggestion for a compromise.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated that is his understanding also.
Number 335
MR. BITNEY stated that AHFC does not have a position on the other
amendments.
SENATOR DONLEY made a motion to adopt amendment #1 for purposes of
discussion.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated that amendment #1 would allow regional
housing authorities to originate and service loans in rural areas,
as defined in HB 192. It would also allow them to originate and
service loans to "under-served urban borrowers". This amendment
seemed to be satisfactory to all concerned parties.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if amendment #1 would be a new Section 1.
MR. BITNEY responded amendment #1 would be a revision to Section 1.
Number 355
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if this would prohibit a mortgage
lending institution from serving a small community.
MR. BITNEY replied it would not. Section 1 only applies to the
ability of a regional housing authority to get into the loans
business.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if this would be in competition with
mortgage lending institutions.
MR. BITNEY responded that was a concern that the banks had. This
language was compromise language worked up with the Mortgage
Bankers Association. They were concerned with regional housing
authorities getting into making loans in urban areas, in
competition with them. This would limit urban activities to just
serving under-served borrowers.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there were objections to amendment #1.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS objected. He stated he wanted to check it
out. How many bankers have looked at this?
SENATOR LEMAN stated the amendment would limit the agency a little
bit more.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked that the roll be called on amendment #1.
Amendment #1 passed by a vote of 3 yeas, 1 nay, and 1 absent.
Voting for the amendment were Senators Sharp, Leman, and Donley.
Voting against the amendment was Senator Phillips. Senator Duncan
was absent.
Number 385
SENATOR LEMAN made a motion to adopt amendment #2.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated the purpose of amendment #2, of which
language was contained in the original bill but was removed on the
House floor, is to establish age 55.
SENATOR LEMAN stated that "age 55" is the definition under federal
law.
SENATOR DONLEY asked who took the language out.
CHAIRMAN SHARP responded it was Representative Martin.
SENATOR LEMAN thought that Representative Martin thought "age 55"
was broadening it. But it was actually hurting seniors that the
state definition didn't match the federal definition. "Age 55" was
taken out on the floor of the House, and he probably didn't realize
the ramifications.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there was any objection to amendment #2.
Hearing no objection, he stated the amendment was adopted.
SENATOR DONLEY made a motion to adopt amendment #3 for purposes of
discussion.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated that amendment #3 would assure that any funds
coming from AHFC to the regional corporations would be used in
accordance with the Equal Housing Opportunity laws.
Number 405
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there was objection to amendment #3.
Hearing no objection, he stated the amendment was adopted.
SENATOR DONLEY made a motion to discharge HB 192 from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated HB 192 was discharged
from the Senate State Affairs Committee.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked who in the Mortgage Bankers
Association approved the language in amendment #1.
MR. BITNEY responded it was the president of the Mortgage Bankers
Association.
HB 211 VOTER REGISTRATION & ELECTIONS
CHAIRMAN SHARP brought up HB 211 as the next order of business
before the Senate State Affairs Committee. He called the sponsor's
representative to testify.
PATTI SWENSEN, Aide to Representative Con Bunde, prime sponsor of
HB 211, stated HB 211 would do five things:
1) Require the names of inactive voters to be maintained on the
official voter registration list;
2) Authorizes the preparation and distribution of the voter
registration list;
3) Requires the Division of Elections to purge deceased voters
monthly, and convicted felons promptly;
4) Increase communications from the Division of Elections to
absentee voters and to questioned ballot voters after the primary
regarding the status of their vote;
5) Prohibits the appointment of any state employees to the data
processing review board.
Number 445
SENATOR LEMAN asked what type of information people who purchase
voter lists will receive.
MS. SWENSEN responded they can receive active and inactive under HB
211.
SENATOR DONLEY thinks one of the biggest problems relating to
elections right now is allowing ballots that come in after the
election date to be counted. He does not think that other states
allow ballots that arrive after the date of an election to be
counted.
MS. SWENSEN stated she hasn't heard of a problem with that.
Number 480
DIANE SHRINER, Division of Elections, stated the division supports
HB 211, with the exception of two sections. She stated a letter
was submitted to the committee outlining the concerns of the
Division of Elections. The division has no problem with expanding
the voter registration lists available to candidates. But in some
precincts, adding inactive voters to the official register
available at the precincts could add as many as 2,000 voters.
Until we bring the state law into compliance with the National
Voter Registration Act, we are not presently purging or clearing
any voters from the roles, and haven't done so in several years.
It's been approximately four years since any voters have been
removed from the roles. The division thinks it would be confusing
to never remove voters from the roles. The Division of Elections
has just processed over 26,000 registrations through the permanent
fund dividend applications. Approximately 13,000 of those did
contain address changes.
Number 515
MS. SHRINER stated the other section the division is concerned with
is Section 9. If we were to send a written summary of the reason
for the challenge of all partially counted ballots, which occurs
when someone votes outside their precinct or district, that could
be very discouraging. The division does take Representative
Bunde's concerns seriously.
SENATOR LEMAN thinks that at any given time, the information on the
voter list for his district has a 20% inaccuracy rate.
SENATOR DONLEY suggested limiting sending permanent fund dividends
to addresses where people were registered to vote; you would
probably get really accurate information.
MS. SHRINER noted the Division of Elections thinks that it probably
has attracted a lot of people who think they aren't going to get
their permanent fund dividend if they don't update voter
registration information.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated one of the most frustrating things for people
is having to vote a challenged ballot because they're not on the
voter registration lists. He thinks it would be beneficial to have
an inactive list to accommodate a voter in that situation.
Number 562
SENATOR DONLEY asked if the division has a position on modifying
the absentee voting process, as far as a cutoff date for counting
ballots.
MS. SHRINER responded the history of that is that Alaska is remote
and we have a great number of overseas voters and the mail is not
very reliable. Part of the reason for extending the deadline for
receiving absentee ballots is to ensure that ballots mailed by the
deadline are actually received. Ballots must be mailed by the date
of the election, but are counted if they are received within
fifteen days after the election.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if the division has a position on whether they
like those rules or not.
MS. SHRINER replied that has not been addressed this year.
Number 585
SENATOR LEMAN asked if voters would be purged after two election
cycles or two years.
MS. SHRINER responded that SB 182 and HB 349 would change that from
two years. But two years is not in compliance with federal law,
and we are moving to comply by making it four calendar years, or
two general election cycles.
TAPE 96-28, SIDE B
MS. SHRINER stated people's names are not purged from voter
registration lists after four years if they simply haven't voted,
but only if the division has had no contact at all with them in
four years.
Number 580
JED WHITTAKER stated he has a problem with Section 1 of HB 211. He
thinks that most citizens like to complain about politicians, but
they don't accept responsibility for informing themselves. He
doesn't think it's too much to ask that a citizen register to vote
and occasionally vote. He thinks having inactivated voters on the
list could create the potential for fraud. Mr. Whittaker also has
a problem with Section 10. He thinks the language is broad. The
Data Processing Review Board should have a representative from
every political party, not just two political parties. He
commended Representative Bunde for addressing the inadequacies in
Title 15. He also suggested conducting elections by mail. Mr.
Whittaker thinks ballots should be counted at the precinct and at
the computer tabulation level.
Number 530
MIKE O'CALLAGHAN stated there is a fundamental problem with
elections in the State of Alaska. The court recently declared that
the 1992 and 1994 primaries and subsequent elections were conducted
illegally. According to information from Bob Motznik, Joe Swanson
allowed 1,543 people to vote illegally in the last election. Those
names were purged from the voters roles as inactive. State law
specifies that the Division of Elections purge inactive voters
after two years, and the division has no authority to do anything
other than what the law dictates. The law also specifies that if
a person's name has been purged, they must re-register 30 days
prior to the next election in order to be eligible. The director
allowed these votes to be cast as contested ballots, and they were
counted. As we all know, Knowles won by 500 votes. He has a
problem with that.
MR. O'CALLAGHAN stated it is important that with the National Voter
Registration Act there is no purging. Under that law, no names can
be purged from any voter list. He thinks that is a fundamental
violation of state's rights in conducting elections. He encouraged
a more restrictive application, which is allowable under law. He
thinks names should be purged from voter registration lists.
Certainly they could be kept on a separate list. Regarding Section
10, there were significant problems with the Data Processing Review
Board during the last election. Three days prior to the election,
the top three people on the state-wide board were Division of
Elections employees. He sees a conflict of interest in having
division employees overseeing the data processing. So he is glad
to see that a state employee may not serve on the board. But he
was discouraged to see that none of the Data Processing Review
Boards across the state were constructed according to law. The
boards don't have any information; the test decks that they run
through the systems are designed by the contractor. He stated
there were significant problems with voter elections in the valley
[Matsu Valley]. When the test deck was run through the system
seven days before the election, they found an error: that error
would have allowed votes cast for one candidate to be counted for
another candidate. Another problem in the valley was the computer
program was checked 24 hours before the election, and they said
there wasn't a problem. However, during the counting of votes, a
problem was found. He stated he knows of other problems, but they
pertain mostly to SB 182, so he will hold that testimony. He
thinks it's extremely important that the purging law be followed.
Number 465
SENATOR DONLEY asked if there is a court case or some other basis
for counting the votes of people who aren't properly registered to
vote.
KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
(Juneau), Department of Law, replied she doesn't know to which
incident Mr. O'Callaghan is referring. She assumes he was
referring to challenged ballots that were counted with which he
disagreed. The doctrine is that the voter receives the benefit of
the doubt, and the law is interpreted to allow a voter to cast
their ballot.
SENATOR DONLEY asked what the current policy of the division is
regarding purging.
MS. STRASBAUGH responded there is a difference between "inactive"
and "purged". If they're on the inactive list, they would be
permitted to vote. The inactive list is growing increasingly
larger because of a problem with enforcing the current purge law.
It is not true that you cannot purge at all. The federal act is
euphemistic in its' reference to purging, but there is a purging
process, it's just much more involved.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if a person is purged, then their vote isn't
counted, but if they're on the inactive list, then their vote is
counted.
MS. STRASBAUGH stated if they are in the right place and can show
their residency; it isn't just carte blanche.
Number 430
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked how people registered to vote in his
district could have residence addresses in Palmer, Wasilla, Nome,
and other areas outside his district. He stated that about 10% of
the people registered to vote in his district actually reside
outside the district.
MS. SHRINER replied that the division is not even inactivating
anyone anymore. They are not doing anything until they get some
clarification on the federal law. The division supports having the
voter lists as clean and true as possible.
Number 390
BOB MOTZNIK, testifying from Anchorage, stated that the election in
1994 turned into a royal mess. He repeated some of the problems
related to the committee in writing. The Division of Elections
failed to change the voter registration of many voters who filed
changes long before the deadline for doing so. The Data Processing
Review Board is an oversight board; it's purpose is to determine
whether the Division of Elections did their job correctly. There
should not be any elections staff on that board. It is his
understanding that the test decks that were run were made by the
vendor. In his experience, it is the Data Processing Review
Board's job to test the program, which would mean they would make
the test decks to verify the accuracy, not the vendor. A lot of
these problems were brought out in the court case against the
governor's race. The Attorney General just said, "Oh, everything's
okay." Of course, he was defending the state, so he has to say
that everything is okay. Mr. Motznik thinks that people who took
the time to vote should know if their ballots aren't counted.
Number 330
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS made a motion to discharge HB 211 from the
Senate State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated HB 211 was discharged
from the Senate State Affairs Committee.
SB 182 ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATION & VOTER REG'N
Number 325
CHAIRMAN SHARP brought up SB 182 as the next order of business
before the Senate State Affairs Committee.
DIANE SHRINER, Division of Elections, representing the governor,
prime sponsor of SB 182, stated that the primary sections if this
bill are housekeeping sections. Those sections would bring the
Division of Elections into compliance with the National Voter
Registration Act. Two substantive sections are Sections 21 and 41.
The division would entertain removing Section 41, which is a pilot
program for voting by mail. The division feels that it is getting
too late in the election cycle. The house thinks we should move in
the direction of by-mail voting, but that the subject needs more
study. We would like to see a bill that addresses just the by-mail
voting subject, but after it's had more study.
Number 260
KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
(Juneau), Department of Law, stated the Justice Department had
concerns with HB 303 (from several years ago), which would have
adapted Alaska's laws to the National Voter Registration Act. The
concerns were well-taken, so we withdrew our request for pre-
clearance to avoid the interposing of objections. We are now back
before you to ask for some changes. It really isn't the Justice
Department's job to enforce the voter registration act. However,
they are entitled to address things which, in their view, deter
voters in protected classes. For that reason, we have removed some
remaining references to oaths, and changed that to an attestation
procedure. Section 7 is directed at having two election cycles,
instead of two years. In the house, that was changed to four
years, instead of two election cycles. On page 5, line 5, she
thinks it should say absentee and mail ballots, instead of just
absentee, because there are some elections that occur by mail, such
as REAA elections.
MS. STRASBAUGH stated it's true that their inactivation process is
not really a purging. The National Voter Registration Act doesn't
use the word purge. It does have a process for finding out if
someone can still vote or not. There is a way to clean up the list
even under this law.
Number 185
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS made a motion to adopt the State Affairs
Committee substitute for SB 182.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated the committee
substitute was adopted.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS made a motion to adopt an amendment to page
5, line 5: add "or a ballot by mail" after "absentee ballot".
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated the amendment was
adopted.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS offered an amendment to page 14, line 24:
delete Section 41.
Number 160
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there was any objection. Hearing none, he
stated the amendment was adopted.
CHAIRMAN SHARP is concerned that not purging names from the voter
registration lists will increase the opportunity for fraud.
Number 110
JED WHITTAKER stated there should be a bonified signature on a
voter registration form. He doesn't think it's sufficient to
register to vote by fax machine.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked what kind of safeguard there is on
that.
MS. SHRINER stated she will look for an answer to that question.
MR. WHITTAKER stated that a lot of people don't vote anymore, and
there's something wrong with that. Democracy is falling down. He
thinks Section 30 would make it more expensive for candidates to
share information with citizens. He thinks that should be free to
candidates, because they are performing a public service and trying
to uplift this flailing democracy that we have now. Section 30
would raise the price for putting your position in the official
election pamphlet.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked why the price is being raised.
MS. SHRINER responded that the cost of that pamphlet is several
times the amount in the bill. There hasn't been an increase to
that since the mid-1980's.
MR. WHITTAKER thinks that infringes on the freedom of speech.
Given the role that money plays in today's campaigns, he thinks
raising the price might be prohibitive to some candidates.
CHAIRMAN SHARP announced that the meeting needed to come to a
close. He asked the pleasure of the committee regarding SB 182.
Number 025
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS made a motion to discharge SB 182 from the
Senate State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated SB 182 was discharged
from the Senate State Affairs Committee.
Number 006
CHAIRMAN SHARP adjourned the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting
at 5:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|