02/12/2004 03:35 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 12, 2004
3:35 p.m.
TAPE (S) 04-5&6
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens, Chair
Senator John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Gretchen Guess
Senator Lyman Hoffman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 279
"An Act authorizing and relating to the issuance of bonds by the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation for safe and clean water and
hygienic sewage disposal facility capital projects and other
capital projects; providing for the repayment of the bonds and
bond costs; relating to the dividend paid to the state by the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation; and providing for an
effective date."
MOVED CSSB 279(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 255
"An Act relating to traffic preemption devices."
HEARD AND HELD
OVERVIEW ON "HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT": DIVISION OF ELECTION
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 230(STA)
"An Act relating to political signs on private property."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 279
SHORT TITLE: AHFC WATER & SEWER BONDS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/23/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/04 (S) STA, FIN
02/03/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/03/04 (S) Heard & Held
02/03/04 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/12/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: SB 255
SHORT TITLE: ILLEGAL USE TRAFFIC PREEMPTION DEVICE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) THERRIAULT
01/12/04 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/04
01/12/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (S) STA, JUD, FIN
02/12/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: HB 230
SHORT TITLE: POLITICAL SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HOLM
03/31/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/31/03 (H) TRA, STA
04/29/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
04/29/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/03 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
05/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/06/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/06/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
05/06/03 (H) Moved CSHB 230(TRA) Out of Committee
05/06/03 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
05/07/03 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) 4DP 2NR
05/07/03 (H) DP: OGG, KOOKESH, FATE, HOLM;
05/07/03 (H) NR: KOHRING, MASEK
05/07/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/07/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/08/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/08/03 (H) Heard & Held
05/08/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/09/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/09/03 (H) Moved CSHB 230(STA) Out of Committee
05/09/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/12/03 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 3DP 3NR
05/12/03 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, HOLM, LYNN; NR: SEATON,
05/12/03 (H) DAHLSTROM, WEYHRAUCH
05/17/03 (H) CORRECTED CS(STA) RECEIVED
05/17/03 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
05/17/03 (H) VERSION: CSHB 230(STA)
05/18/03 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/18/03 (S) STA, JUD
02/12/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
WITNESS REGISTER
Bryan Butcher
Legislative Liaison
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
4300 Boniface
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 279
Dennis Michel
Legislative Aide to Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke to the CS for SB 255 for the sponsor
Gary Powell
Alaska State Fire Marshall
Department of Public Safety
PO Box 111200
Juneau, AK 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 255
Dave Tyler
Alaska Fire Chiefs Association
Fairbanks, AK 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 255
Laura A. Glaiser
Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
P.O Box 110017
Juneau, AK 99811-0017
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave Division of Elections Overview
Todd Larkin
Staff to Representative Jim Holm
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced CSHB 230(STA) for the sponsor
Nona Wilson
Legislative Liaison
Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities
3132 Channel Dr.
Juneau, AK 99801-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CHHB 230(STA)
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-5, SIDE A
CHAIR GARY STEVENS called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. Present were Senators
Stedman, Cowdery and Chair Gary Stevens. Senator Guess attended
via teleconference and Senator Hoffman arrived several minutes
after the meeting was convened.
SB 279-AHFC WATER & SEWER BONDS
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced SB 279 to be up for consideration.
He asked for a motion to adopt the committee substitute (CS).
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY made a motion to adopt CSSB 279 \D version
as the working document. There was no objection and it was so
ordered.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS explained that the only change between the
original bill and the committee substitute relates to the
specific provisions of the bond authorization. On page 5, line
7, the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation is authorized to issue
bonds to finance "$19,818,300 in capital improvements for
village safe and clean water and hygienic sewage disposal
facilities either directly or as a matching money required by
grants for those purposes, and $5,181,700 to finance other
capital projects."
SENATOR COWDERY requested verification that the only change is
to identify the projects that the money would be used for.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS replied, "That is exactly true." The projects
were previously identified in the attached fiscal note so this
change provides clarification. He asked Mr. Butcher to speak to
that.
BRYON BUTCHER, legislative liaison, AHFC, participated via
teleconference to say he agreed with what had been said. The CS
specifies, in the bill, the amount of money allocated for
village safe water projects in the FY05 capital budget as well
as the funds for non-specific other capital projects.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS inquired whether he had any objection to
specifying the amounts in the bill.
MR. BUTCHER replied, "We are fine with the bill."
JOE DUBLER, finance director with AHFC, identified himself via
teleconference and said he had no comments to add.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS, commenting via teleconference, thanked
Mr. Butcher for agreeing to the changes in the bill. She had no
further comments.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a motion.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to move CSSB 279(STA) from
committee with the attached fiscal note.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS clarified that the fiscal note was revised
and it shows $3 million for the bond issue. There being no
objection, the bill moved from committee.
SB 255-ILLEGAL USE TRAFFIC PREEMPTION DEVICE
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced SB 255 to be up for consideration.
He noted a committee substitute (CS) had been prepared and he
would like a motion to adopt it as the working document.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY made a motion to adopt CSSB 255, \D
version. There was no objection and it was so ordered.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Michel to step forward and speak to
the bill.
DENNIS MICHEL, legislative aide to Senator Gene Therriault,
explained that the CS pertains to splitting Section 1,
subsection (b) into two parts. Added is a second section, (2),
which includes authorized employees of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities to the group of people that
may possess or use traffic preemption devices for official road
maintenance related purposes.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted the committee hadn't heard the bill
previously and it would be helpful if Mr. Michel would give a
brief synopsis to highlight its importance.
MR. MICHEL began by informing members that traffic preemption
devices are readily available over the Internet to anyone with
the money to buy one. The purchaser must check a box stating
they are an emergency service provider, but there's no follow up
so you won't be caught if you lie. As a result, a growing number
of civilians own and use these devices.
SB 255 makes it unlawful to possess or use a traffic preemption
device if you aren't operating an emergency vehicle. Those who
may use the devices include authorized state or municipal
employees who are installing, repairing, or maintaining the
devices. As previously stated, the CS includes DOT/PF employees
in the group that may possess or use the devices for authorized,
road maintenance related purposes.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if this would include private businesses
that put out cones for traffic control.
MR. MICHEL replied as long as the company is conducting road
maintenance type work authorized by the DOT/PF they would be
allowed to use the devices. He noted, however, that emergency
vehicles such as police, fire and ambulances use the devices
more frequently.
SENATOR COWDERY questioned whether wrecking trucks would be
included.
MR. MICHEL acknowledged he wasn't able to answer the question,
but would be happy to find out.
SENATOR COWDERY then inquired about getting radio stations that
use horns and sirens in their on-air advertising to stop doing
so. A constituent, in all seriousness, asked him to pose the
question, he said.
MR. MICHEL conceded that it would overstep his bounds to give an
answer, but he would make an inquiry.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS gleaned that the intent is for these devices
to be used in an official capacity only and inquired where the
CS states that a legal and authorized preemption device may not
be used if there is no emergency.
MR. MICHEL read subsection (c) (1) on page 2 where an emergency
vehicle is defined.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS replied the definition of an emergency
vehicle is clear. However, it isn't clear that they intend that
the emergency vehicle be on an emergency mission for it to be
authorized to have and use a traffic preemption device. He asked
Mr. Michel whether he thought that might be at all confusing.
MR. MICHEL admitted it is a bit confusing and he could look at
the wording.
SENATOR COWDERY brought up the traffic control issue again.
"There's a lot of traffic control [that] goes on here, under
contract to the private sector... I don't know if that would be
a description of an emergency, but the fact is they're out there
in high traffic zones." He used a hockey game at the Sullivan
Arena as an example.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS agreed that is one of several important
questions that must be addressed.
SENATOR COWDERY stated he would take advice from the Department
of Transportation (DOT) and the Alaska State Troopers or police.
MR. MICHEL said he previously contacted the troopers, North Star
Volunteer Fire Department and the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) and he would take the questions raised back for further
discussion.
MR. MICHEL had no additional comments.
GARY POWELL, Alaska State Fire Marshall and director of the
Division of Fire Prevention, DPS, testified that, "In a number
of Alaskan communities, traffic preemption is very important to
safe and efficient response to a genuine emergency."
The integrity of the system is important for the public to
support the system, he said. Because the devices are readily
available on the Internet, it's reasonable to assume that
private use will proliferate and traffic controls will be
manipulated unnecessarily. To maintain public support for the
system they feel this is a timely piece of legislation. He noted
the commissioner sent a letter of support.
SENATOR LYMAN HOFFMAN questioned how private users would be
apprehended.
MR. POWELL reported that in the system he is familiar with, a
log is maintained, which makes it easy to determine when someone
other than an authorized emergency responder has manipulated a
traffic signal. Locating the unauthorized user would be
difficult however.
SENATOR HOFFMAN pointed out that it's unlikely that unauthorized
use would be noted if there isn't conflicting use at a traffic
signal.
MR. POWELL responded that in the course of a normal stop, police
observe the equipment in a car so it's not impossible for the
police to notice unauthorized possession.
SENATOR HOFFMAN wasn't convinced and noted, "Many people are not
stopped for five and ten years."
MR. POWELL agreed.
SENATOR COWDERY found nothing to indicate that enforcement would
be successful.
MR. POWELL acknowledged it would be difficult to pinpoint
unauthorized use without technology to capture transmissions
from the devices. Although he wasn't sure, he said, "They
operate on a receiver basis so I would expect, if it became a
real problem something could be set up..."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted the bill doesn't say it's illegal to
use, "It says unlawful possession is a class A misdemeanor."
SENATOR STEDMAN asked for verification that there is a log kept
when a law officer changes a signal.
MR. POWELL said that is correct. The system he is familiar with
logs the time a particular unit preempts a signal.
SENATOR STEDMAN commented it appears that police would know if
repetitive unauthorized use occurred in a particular area.
MR. POWELL thought that would be correct.
SENATOR COWDERY commented he would like to follow up on the
issue of possession.
MR. POWELL added he would like to see the bill include language
such as, "possession with the intent to use."
SENATOR COWDERY thought it was confusing and asked for the
committee to work with the sponsor.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Senator Guess if she had any questions.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS, participating via teleconference,
replied her questions had already been asked.
DAVE TYLER, Alaska Fire Chiefs Association, spoke via
teleconference to describe the system. Traffic signals have a
device mounted on top that receives a signal from the strobe
light on an emergency vehicle. Unless the preemption device is
very high end, the user will have a strobe light on their
vehicle that is visible to police and others.
He referred to page 1, line 6 of the original bill and noted
that the original bill addressed both users and people that
possess a traffic preemption device.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked him for pointing that out and said
his staff also pointed that out. In the proposed CS, Sec.
11.56.825 addresses both possession and use.
MR. TYLER then answered Senator Hoffman's question about other
traffic control situations saying this only works at
intersections that have a red/green control light. The strobe on
the emergency vehicle turns that lane green and all the other
lanes red so the emergency vehicle has control of the
intersection. If more than one vehicle with a strobe is at an
intersection, the vehicle that arrived first has control. The
idea is to create a safer environment at the intersection not to
clear the intersection so you can go through at top speed.
MR. TYLER said he would like to ask Mr. Michel a question. It
was his understanding that the CS would include city buses as a
local decision, but that wasn't done. He noted that air quality
and DOT grants were available to expand these systems and the
Municipality of Anchorage was interested. With regard to
including buses, he explained that the system is actually a two-
tier priority system so that fire and emergency vehicles would
always have priority over a bus or other maintenance vehicle.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS stopped Mr. Tyler to say page 2, line 3, the
definition of an emergency vehicle excludes buses so he wasn't
sure what he was asking.
MR. TYLER replied the municipalities wanted buses to be included
because of the funding that is available if buses are part of
the system.
His final comments were to advise that wreckers and vehicle
removal equipment wouldn't have access to traffic preemption
devices and that he too finds some radio station advertizements
to be distracting.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said the issue Senator Cowdery raised was
whether the vehicles that move the traffic cones to direct
traffic after an accident would have the preemption devices. He
understands Mr. Tyler to say they would not be included.
MR. TYLER repeated he understands vehicle wreckers would not be
included.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how school buses fit into the picture.
MR. TYLER said they don't fit in the picture. Municipal buses
were the only buses discussed.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Michel to step forward and clarify
the following:
· The definition of official capacity.
· Are vehicles that put out cones to divert traffic included?
· The issue of enforcement
· Buses
MR. MICHEL dealt with Senator Cowdery's question first and told
members that the vehicles that put down and pick up traffic
cones don't use traffic preemptory devices so they don't need to
be addressed in the bill. They were considered and the decision
was that it wouldn't be safe for those vehicles to use
preemption devices.
He asked if buses were the next issue.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS replied Mr. Tyler from the Alaska Fire Chiefs
Association asked the question about buses.
MR. MICHEL read Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities from page 1, line 15, and said, "Under there I would
see a bus being a vehicle of that public facility and
therefore..."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS told him that refers to the state agency so
it wouldn't include municipal buses.
MR. MICHEL said, "Okay."
SENATOR HOFFMAN said he thought the testimony was that buses
should be eligible to carry the devices, but emergency vehicles
would take precedence in the two-tier priority system.
MR. MICHEL agreed.
SENATOR HOFFMAN added Mr. Tyler's point was that the agreement
was that buses were to be included, but that didn't happen.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if he was talking about the definition
on page 2, line 3 and that it doesn't include buses.
SENATOR HOFFMAN said, "He's saying there should be another
section in here that buses are included, but they do not preempt
emergency vehicles."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Michel if he knew why Mr. Tyler
wanted to include buses.
MR. MICHEL replied, "The best way to describe it is you're
trying to get traffic to flow as easily as possible and by
civilians using these traffic preemption devices - they can
disrupt traffic patterns because all these lights are timed. As
a bus using it - that's a bus filled with 50 people instead of
50 cars so that helps facilitate traffic flowing."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if that means that a bus would be able
to use a traffic preemption device at any time along its route.
MR. MICHEL said, "That is correct sir."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS observed that might raise havoc in Anchorage.
MR. MICHEL suggested a different approach might be better.
Emergency vehicles were established as the primary group to use
the devices and exemptions were listed subsequently.
Perhaps, he proposed, clarifying how the buses work is in order.
"In other states, buses are allowed to use car pool lanes,
allowed to go through right turn only lanes. So this would just
be another way for a bus to use traffic to facilitate
transportation."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if he had any other clarification. He
then noted Senator Cowdery had a question.
SENATOR COWDERY said he would like to clear the constitutional
problem of possession before the bill was heard again.
SENATOR HOFFMAN added the wording should be, "possession with
intent to use."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS commented the idea is sound and good
intentioned, but a number of questions were raised and he didn't
intend to move the bill that day. He asked Mr. Michel if he had
any more comments.
MR. MICHEL replied he would address the questions next time.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said it was his intention to hear the bill
next week if the schedule permitted. He thanked Mr. Michel and
held SB 255 in committee.
4:10 pm
OVERVIEW HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT - DIVISION OF ELECTIONS
LAURA GLASIER, director of the Division of Elections, handed out
written copies of the overview and responded to questions after
the review of HAVA.
HAVA - "The Help America Vote Act of 2002."
Implementation to Date - Overview
Since the last meeting:
· They adopted the State Plan, drafted by the Division of
Elections
· Sponsored HB 266, it was signed into law and the Department
of Justice pre-cleared Alaska's election reform law
· The division submitted the plan to the FEC and is waiting
for the FEC to publish it in the federal resister
· Administrative Complaint regulations were drafted and pre-
cleared by the Department of Justice
· Alaska received $5 million in Title I money and $1.139
million reimbursed funds for early investment in the Accu-
Vote Optical Scan machines in 1998. Received $100,000 grant
to improve accessibility studies
· Met to discuss plan for adopting the "Touch Screen" voting
systems
HAVA 2003 State Legislation
· Registrants are required to provide an identifier of either
social security number, last 4 digits of social security
number, Alaska driver's license number or state ID number
when registering to vote
· Registrants are required to provide their date of birth
when registering to vote
· Registrants' identification options when registering to
vote were expanded to include state ID card and current and
valid photo ID
· Establishes that registrants, when initially registering to
vote by mail or by fax, must provide proof of identity.
They may provide a copy of either their driver's license,
state ID, current and valid photo ID, birth certificate,
passport or hunting and fishing license to prove their
identity. If a voter, initially registering to vote by mail
or fax, does not provide a copy of his/her proof of
identity, the Division of Elections will attempt to verify
a voter's identity through the Division of Motor Vehicles
· Requires a "free access" system for questioned voter to
learn whether their ballot was counted and if not, why.
HAVA Technology 2004
The director and regional supervisors discussed a plan for
implementing the Touch Screen units. A pilot project is planned
in a limited number of locations in the 2004 election cycle.
Just like the Accu-Vote Optical Scan units, the Accu-Vote Touch
Screen units have a verifiable audit capacity. The units record
the votes, not only on the memory card, but also on a redundant
memory built into the system. They also have the ability to
generate ballots for recount purposes.
HAVA requires one Touch Screen unit in each precinct by 2006. If
the Legislature requires voter verifiable printed receipts, the
division cannot implement the Touch Screen units in 2004 because
the required modification has yet to be certified by the
FEC/FEAC Standards Board. If the division is able to implement
the touch screen units in 2004, the following reflects the
locations the equipment will be used:
· Four regional office absentee voting stations
· Certain absentee voting stations
· Select polling locations such as senior centers to reach
voters with a disability
2004 Legislation
The division will introduce legislation to the Legislature to:
· Expand Early Voting to other absentee voting locations in
addition to the regional offices
· Reduce witnessing requirements for absentee mail voting
· Vote tallying equipment must meet standards approved by the
Federal Election Commission
· Define requirements, procedures and accountability for
initiative, referendum and recall processes
· Define process on how a political group may gain recognized
political party status
HAVA and the Future
Division of Elections must accomplish the following by 2006
· Implement one Touch Screen unit in each precinct for those
with disabilities
· Purchase and implement a new statewide voter registration
system to replace the 1985 mainframe system
· Survey polling locations in 2005 to determine additional
accessibility needs
· Establish an interactive statewide voter list
The following are questions that were asked during and after the
overview.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked whether voters are able to find out
whether their questioned ballot was counted.
MS. GLASSIER said the State of Alaska was ahead of the curve and
questioned ballot voters have been able to receive a letter
telling them the part of their ballot that was counted, but they
aren't notified of that fact at the polling station. The new
requirement is that the election worker must give the voter
instructions on how to find out about their ballot as well as
providing an 800 number that they can call.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Ms. Glassier to explain a voter
verifiable printed receipt.
TAPE 04-5, SIDE B
4:20 pm
MS. GLASSIER replied there are different systems in the
development stage. Some people believe a voter verifiable
receipt means that there's something similar to a register tape
that's protected under Plexiglas, printing alongside as you're
working on the Touch Screen equipment. The voter verifies that
whatever they touch on the screen is printed on a separate
receipt.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS commented that the voter wouldn't walk away
with that type receipt.
MS. GLASSIER responded some believe an in-hand receipt is an
option, but that could cause confusion if the voter was supposed
to put that receipt in a box outside the booth and they put the
receipt in his/her pocket instead. The vote total from the
screen would be different than the one in the box.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS remarked that if someone walked away with a
receipt showing how they voted, that would raise questions about
a secret ballot and he hopes Alaskan voters will never have a
printed receipt.
MS. GLASSIER said that discussion hasn't taken place in Alaska,
but other states are wrestling with that question. She added
there is technology that provides a marked ballot at the same
time a voter uses the Touch Screen. The voter would place the
marked ballot in the optical scan machine. The benefit to that
system is that there are ballots to count if a recount is called
for. The question with that system is whether it provides voters
with disabilities the ability to cast a private and independent
vote.
SENATOR HOFFMAN pointed out that the governor's B plan calls for
voting by mail and he questioned how that complies with the Help
America Vote Act.
MS. GLASSIER honestly stated that she didn't know, but she said
she would inquire if he would like her to do so.
SENATOR HOFFMAN said he thought that should be discussed because
plan B is a possibility.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if this is a closed and protected
system such that hacking isn't of great concern.
MS. GLASSIER replied the system is protected, but she couldn't
testify that anything is completely protected. With regard to
secure transmission of information, she explained that a hacker
would have to know exactly when the election worker picks up the
phone, which phone they were using, the phone number they call,
and the exact 3 to 5 seconds that the transmission is made.
She told members that there is a lot of bi-partisan human
process in the election system in Alaska, which makes this
system more secure than other states. There are many checks and
balances to the system. The server isn't on the Internet and the
division is moving toward ensuring that the Gems computers will
be in a locked area just as the ballots are locked currently.
She noted that Senator Johnny Ellis has a piece of legislation
that deals with the voter verifiable receipts and has an
effective date of 2006.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS verified that if legislation such as that
becomes law, it wouldn't be used until 2006, but the division's
Touch Screen pilot program could go forward in 2004.
MS. GLASSIER said she understands that most of those
modifications are still in the research and development stage,
but Senator Ellis's legislation has a 2006 effective date in
part to accommodate the division's pilot program.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS advised Ms. Glassier that the committee would
hear Senator Ellis's bill, SB 296, on Thursday, February 19.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked whether anyone could use a Touch Screen
unit or is use limited to the handicapped.
MS. GLASSIER replied the Touch Screen is open to anyone and
federal law calls for each precinct to have one machine by 2006.
SENATOR HOFFMAN noted that most small communities in Alaska have
just one precinct so that will be expensive. For instance, he
represents 75 communities and only four have more than one
precinct and Senator Lincoln represents twice as many
communities.
MS. GLASSIER reported the good news is that HAVA came with
federal funding. Maintenance of effort is required so although
the state must provide a 5 percent match, it has already
received $5 million and another $4 million is due. When the
State Plan has gone through the federal register and is reviewed
by the FEAC standards board, more money will be available, so
with the state match there will be sufficient money available to
purchase the equipment.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked where that state equipment would be stored
between elections.
MS. GLASSIER said they are still working on the particulars and
she realizes the problems associated with storing sensitive
equipment in an unheated, un-insulated building. The Touch
Screens were shipped in large boxes that don't work well with
bush planes and snowmobiles, but the division is addressing the
problems now.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if the current system could be
streamlined. Because the entire Yukon Delta area has their
election district in Nome and it seems as though it would make
more sense to have it in either Bethel or Anchorage, he wondered
when the system was reviewed.
MS. GLASSIER admitted she has looked at that issue and he makes
a good case. The division could make the shift if directed to do
so by the Legislature.
SENATOR HOFFMAN replied he believes it is incumbent upon the
division to recommend that the system isn't efficient if that's
what they have found.
MS. GLASSIER stated that the division believes that they have
always served the state well. There were no complaints to the
prior administration related to the Division of Elections. This
is her first election cycle and with the HAVA monies, the
division will be able to provide additional trainers. Because
the regional supervisor is currently in Nome and has so many
areas in which to train election workers, it takes a lot of
time. The division will be looking at the system more after the
2004 election.
SENATOR HOFFMAN emphasized getting from Nome to Bethel is
difficult, time consuming and expensive. Starting in Nome, you
travel to Kotzebue and then to Anchorage and then to Bethel.
Although this may have made sense in 1940, it certainly doesn't
today.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked Ms. Glassier for the presentation.
CSHB 230(STA)-POLITICAL SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced CSHB 230(STA) to be up for
consideration. The bill relates to political signs on private
property. He stated he did not intend to move the bill that day.
He asked Mr. Larkin to step forward and introduce the bill.
TODD LARKIN, staff to Representative Jim Holm, described the
legislation as follows:
HB 230, we brought it forward because we thought it
was an issue of free speech that the state had
overlooked in its zeal to keep the federal government
happy and comply with what it thought were federal
requirements. We've talked to the Federal Highway
Administration and we found that we didn't necessarily
have to make all the restrictions we were making.
MR. LARKIN read the following from the sponsor statement:
The ability of citizens to express political opinion,
even to advocate for the same, is a fundamental right.
This basic right becomes even more pronounced when the
expression is made on one's own private property.
Currently, state law prohibits the posting of campaign
or political signs within road view or 660 feet
(whichever is greater). This applies to federally
funded roads and state roads. The restriction includes
private property. If you or I were to erect a "NO WAR
IN IRAQ" or "SUPPORT THE TROOPS" sign today within the
distance limits, we would be in violation of state
law. The reasoning for this restriction has its
genesis in the Federal Highway Beautification Act of
'65. It has been interpreted to say that without a
sign restriction, political or otherwise, Alaska may
lose federal highway funds for being out of
compliance. Correspondence with the Federal Highway
Administration on this subject shows this to be
untrue.
Similar restrictions, contained in city/county
ordinance or state law, have been struck down in three
out of four state supreme courts: Washington, Oregon,
Colorado, and California. A U.S. district court in
Missouri found in '93 that very few restrictions could
be placed on signage erected on private property. The
U.S. Supreme court heard a case in '94 concerning
private property and upheld the rights of the property
owner. Further, there is a landslide of peripheral
case law relating to this subject. If AS 19.25.105
stands as currently written, the state of Alaska is in
danger of litigation and certain defeat.
We have a country, which is based on the premise that
all powers reside in the people and that the
government derives its authority from the consent of
the governed. Hence, we the people have the right to
advocate or choose who governs us. This right should
have little or no restriction.
This law needs to be amended, first to save the time
and expense to the individual citizen who must
challenge the current restriction of free speech, and
second to save the state the cost of defense plus the
likely legal fees awarded to a victorious citizen.
MR. LARKIN stated that the sponsor had no objection to the two
proposed amendments. Federal highways recommended the amendment
to tightly define the intent of the statement "political
noncommercial sign" so it wouldn't allow indirect commercial
advertising. Department of Transportation asked that it be clear
in statute that they retain all authority in rights of way and
department easements. The bill covers the land from the edge of
that line out to 660 feet.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if the state is currently out of
compliance and has any federal funding been lost.
MR. LARKIN replied the state has not lost any funding. The one
state that did lose funding had the money refunded once they
became compliant and it wasn't related to this issue.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if there is a size limitation and used an
Acme fence sign as an example.
MR. LARKIN replied he would defer to the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF), but current
statutes deal with that type of example. This issue is something
new.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted Nona Wilson from DOT/PF was present to
answer questions.
SENATOR COWDERY remarked DOT/PF expended little enforcement
effort in the last governor's election, but there have always
been games associated with the placement of political signs. He
asked what provisions there would be for enforcement and would
four small grouped signs be the same as one large sign.
MR. LARKIN reported that one of the first restrictions they set
on the new exception to the 660-foot rule is addressed on page
2, line 15-16. It says, "individual or conjoined signs do not
exceed 32 square feet total per side;"
SENATOR COWDERY announced he places his political signs on each
of his driveways. One sign is placed so that traffic flowing out
of Anchorage can view it and the other is placed to accommodate
incoming traffic. He asked if this would be illegal since he
owns two lots or is it a grey area.
MR. LARKIN called political signs a super protected form of
speech. This legislation makes it clear that you may not be on
the land that DOT/FP controls, but if you're on your private
property from the line where DOT/FP control stops out to the 660
foot beautification margin, his reading and the intent is that
the signs are legal.
SENATOR COWDERY then said he would like to have a site
identified.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS labeled the proposed amendment \U.3,
amendment number 1 and the proposed amendment \U.1, amendment
number 2 then asked Mr. Larkin to explain amendment number 1.
23-LS0780\U.3
Utermohle
10/7/04
A M E N D M E N T 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: CSHB 230(STA)
Page 2, line 18, following "hazard;":
Insert
"(C) the signs are located outside of
department easements;"
Page 2, line 19:
Delete "(C)"
Insert "(D)"
23-LS0780\U.1
Utermohle
10/7/04
A M E N D M E N T 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: CSHB 230(STA)
Page 1, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is
amended by adding a new section to read:
INTENT. It is the intent of the Alaska State Legislature
that political signs on private property not pose an opportunity
for indirect commercial advertising."
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
MR. LARKIN replied, "The original suggestion from DOT was to say
that all of this occurs outside of [the] right-of-way or
department easements." He continued to say that AS 19.25.105(a)
speaks to outside the right-of-way and they are expanding the
language slightly to include easements in an effort to clear any
ambiguity regarding easement versus right-of-way because "DOT
uses their easements in the exact same fashion."
SENATOR HOFFMAN made a point of clarification saying, "DOT has
the right-of-way. They don't own it we own it; the state owns it
so we decide what happens there."
MR. LARKIN agreed that Senator Hoffman is correct.
SENATOR COWDERY touched on signs placed in windows in
subdivisions to emphasize the point that enforcement might be
difficult.
MR. LARKIN noted he included a number of court cases on this
detail in the packets. He assured members that there wouldn't be
ambiguity when referring to the precedents.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked whether the two proposed amendments might
not open the door to legal challenges.
MR. LARKIN replied his office holds the opinion that the State
of Alaska and DOT does not and, even with the amendments, will
not have the constitutional authority to restrict that specific
form of speech.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Senator Guess if she had any questions.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS, attending via teleconference, thanked
him for checking and said she had no questions at that time.
5:00 pm
NONA WILSON, legislative liaison with DOT/PF, prefaced her
testimony by saying Rick Kauzlarich who handles all rights-of-
way and easement issues was in Anchorage and although she would
try to answer all questions, she was not an expert.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if the proposed amendments came from
the department.
MS. WILSON advised that the department reviewed HB 230
thoroughly and requested including amendment number 1, 23-
LS078\U.3, to make a clear line of demarcation where private
property stops and the DOT easement or right-of-way starts and
who has the say when you have a political sign. She suggested,
"This is mostly just a housekeeping point."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for verification that even though it is
private property, the intention is that no signs are allowed on
the department easement.
MS. WILSON confessed it gets fuzzy for her at this point, so she
used Mr. Kauzlarich's example.
Say you're going down Egan Expressway...and it comes
up that we [DOT] need to build a sidewalk. It just so
happens that someone's private property abuts right
where we want to build. So, I believe, an easement in
an agreement between the private property owner and
say the Department of Transportation that says okay,
you can have this ten feet of my private property to
have a sidewalk on it. When that happens, DOT assumes
the authority over that ten feet and everything behind
it is up to the private property owner.
MS. WILSON said she asked Mr. Kauzlarich whether the property
owner could place a sign just beyond the sidewalk and was told
the property owner could do that. She admitted she didn't know
how many signs would be allowed or the size requirements either.
TAPE 04-6, SIDE A
5:10 pm
SENATOR COWDERY said his comment about signs in windows stemmed
from the fact that federal funds might be used on roads in front
of a house with a sign in the window.
MS. WILSON said she hasn't considered that problem since his
question was the first to raise that point.
SENATOR COWDERY followed up to ask about whether this has
anything to do with utility easements that are not owned by DOT.
MS. WILSON didn't care to speculate, but agreed to get an answer
for him.
SENATOR COWDERY noted that the property owner pays taxes on a
utility easement, but they can't use that portion of the
property.
MS. WILSON said that would be a municipal issue.
SENATOR BERT STEDMAN asked if he heard her say that the state
would have more authority over an easement than a municipality
would have.
MS. WILSON understood that when an easement is granted, the
party that is granted the easement has control of that portion
of the property. "If DOT had an easement with the utility, that
chunk of land would be under DOT's control. That wouldn't say
that it would keep maintenance operators and maybe the
municipality from going on there and doing their work..." She
continued to say that there might by an exception for utilities.
SENATOR STEDMAN said that is a point to clarify and he would
appreciate knowing a bit more about the rights granted on the
issuance of an easement.
MS. WILSON admitted that was a good question and she would talk
to Mr. Kauzlarich.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced that even though he didn't intend
to move the bill then, he would like to adopt amendment 1
because it offers some clarification.
SENATOR HOFFMAN raised the question of whether or not
"department" is defined in the statute.
MR. LARKIN conceded he was wondering whether the amendment
should specify the Department of Transportation.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS thought that was an important clarification
and asked for a motion.
SENATOR COWDERY said he would move the amendment.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said that would be as amended, which is, "the
signs are located outside of Department of Transportation
easements;"
23-LS0780\U.3
Utermohle
10/7/04
A M E N D M E N T 1
[AS AMENDED BY SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE]
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: CSHB 230(STA)
Page 2, line 18, following "hazard;":
Insert
"(C) the signs are located outside of
Department of Transportation easements;"
Page 2, line 19:
Delete "(C)"
Insert "(D)"
MS. WILSON agreed with the wording.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if there was objection and there was
none. He stated he would hold proposed amendment 2 until it
could be discussed further.
MR. LARKIN advised that proposed amendment 2 is a clarification
requested by both DOT and Federal Highway Administration. It
states the Legislature's intent that political signs on private
property are not providing an opportunity for indirect
commercial advertising.
He reported the sponsor supports that proposed amendment.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS replied the committee would hold that until
another hearing.
There were no further questions or comments.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS held CSHB 230 in committee and adjourned the
meeting at 5:20 pm
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|