HB 1-ELECTION REGISTRATION AND VOTING  2:05:57 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 1, "An Act relating to absentee voting, voting, and voter registration; relating to early voting locations at which persons may vote absentee ballots; and providing for an effective date." 2:06:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, pointed out the importance of every Alaskan having the opportunity to have their voices heard in an election process, and paraphrased the sponsor statement as follows [original punctuation provided]: The right to vote embodies the spirit of American democracy. Casting a vote is the most discretely effective way to have one's voice heard in the political process. When we exercise our right to vote we impact our community far beyond an election: we are able to elect individuals who will make decisions on our behalf about how our government will be run, set the policies that will guide our state, and how resources, both national and local, are distributed. Unfortunately, a surprising number of Americans don't exercise their right to vote. On average, only about half of eligible US voters cast ballots. Although, Alaska is one of a handful of states which exceeded 50 percent voter turnout in 2014, almost half of Alaskan voters are effectively not being heard. House Bill 1 includes a series of changes designed to increase voter participation and access to voting across the state by improving and clarifying the voting process. These changes include: Providing same day voter registration to allow all eligible Alaskans the opportunity to vote; Enhancing online voter registration with electronic signatures to make the registration process quicker and easier; Ensuring the same early voting locations are available during every election; Creating on option for permanent absentee voting for individuals that plan to vote by mail every year; and Clarifying and unifying terminology for early voting to remove confusion between early voting and absentee in-person voting. By adopting the changes in House Bill 1, we can take a step forward to increase the voice of all Alaskans. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that the House State Affairs Standing Committee hearings received feedback from the Division of Elections seeking to clean-up and basically update Title 15, which had not been updated since the 1960s. He pointed out that part of the clean-up language was bringing Alaska's statutes up- to-date with the current procedures of the Division of Elections. 2:08:47 PM KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State Legislature, explained that Section 1 removes language requiring a voter to register before an election within 30 days, as a voter can register to vote the same day they vote but they must have lived in their district for 30 days. MS. KLOSTER advised that Sec. 2 permits a person, registering or reregistering as a voter, to apply using an electronic signature. 2:10:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked the sponsor to describe any concerns or feedback from the public as to registering and voting the same day versus the 30 day requirement. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that the only concerns received were with regard to verification at the time the ballot was counted. He noted that, similar to Alaska's early voting or in- person absentee voting, the ballots are always under review prior to being counted. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she had heard opposition with regard to the 30 day versus "the no requirement for a 30 day election." REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified that currently a person can vote in-person absentee and change their voter registration within 10 days of the election. He explained that the first section of the legislation allows a first time voter to change their voter registration within 10 days of the election as well as a person previously allowed to vote. He further explained that the questioned ballot and absentee ballot serves the dual purpose of being a ballot, and also a place to indicate any changes. He further explained that Section 1 allows a voter to vote down the ballot, and not just the top of the ballot. 2:12:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether the voter still had to register 30 days prior, but they could change their registration. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK disagreed, and clarified that Section 1 requires a voter to be a resident 30 days prior to voting, the residency requirement remains in statute and in the Constitution of the State of Alaska. Section 1 allows a voter who has been a resident [of a district] longer than 30 days to register to vote and vote up to the same day of the election, he said. 2:13:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to page 2, line 2, of the bill and asked whether "jurisdiction" represented another state or country. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out that the language currently exists under AS 15.07, and paraphrased from page 2, line 2, "and is not registered to vote in another jurisdiction outside of the State of Alaska." REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the bill, page 2, line 2, and paraphrased "is not registered to vote in another jurisdiction." He asked whether there was a mechanism by which someone registered in another state could unregister before the election day. He commented that in the event the legislation announces to Alaskans they can register without waiting the 30 days, he said he would hate for someone to show up to vote but could not vote because this language says they cannot have registered to vote previously. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to the Division of Elections to speak to how the division currently deals with that issue. He advised that last year Alaska joined the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) system, which is a manner in which to verify a person's voter registration in another state. He commented that Representative Eastman's question was whether or not someone could unregister from another state to be certain they were not in violation of this statute, and deferred to Ms. Kloster. MS. KLOSTER advised that when registering to vote in Alaska, there is a box to mark on the ballot indicating whether the person is registered to vote in another state, and when that box is marked the person is removed from the voter rolls in the other state. Currently, she said, in order to vote in the election the person must have lived in Alaska for 30 days, with the exception that they could vote for the president of the United States. However, this reads that Alaska's same day voter registration allows the person to vote down ballot, but it does not change the requirement that the person must have lived in the state or district for 30 days. 2:15:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that the registration and un- registration is automatic on the day the person fills out the form, which could be the day of the election. He asked why this bill maintained that language because the statute says, "You know, you can do this as long you're not registered." He opined that the un-registration process was not automatic and it would not allow him to un-register from another state, then register to vote in Alaska, and then vote all on the same day. MS. KLOSTER deferred to the Division of Elections, and said that currently, in order for the division to be certain the person was not voting in two separate states and was within the 30 day mark, the person would vote a questioned ballot allowing the information to be authenticated before the vote was actually counted. 2:17:17 PM MS. KLOSTER, continuing the sectional analysis, advised that Sec. 2, permits a person registering or reregistering as a voter to apply using an electronic signature, such as "My Alaska" and in the manner in which a person registers for the permanent fund dividend. She advised that Sec. 3, allows that the director of the Division of Elections determine the form of the electronic signature and a definition that works best for the division. Ms. Kloster said that Sec. 4, allows a qualified voter to register on the same day of the election or within 30 days of residency. She explained that Sec. 5, amends the section referring to the form of the voter's certificate [used for voting an absentee in-person, special needs, or questioned ballot] and the person can include any information they would like to change. The section also adds the language "special needs." Sec. 6, she advised, makes certain the absentee or questioned ballot includes a "special needs ballot" under that definition. Sec. 7, clarifies that a voter registering or reregistering would vote a questioned ballot, which would then be reviewed to make certain the person was a qualified voter, she said. [Ms. Kloster skipped Sec. 8 in the sectional analysis.] 2:18:57 PM MS. KLOSTER noted that Sec. 9, is clean-up language referring to voting absentee or questioned ballot. Sec. 10, she said, "Again the same thing." Sec. 11, clarifies the terminology for early voting, rather than absentee or absentee in-person voting, she explained. 2:19:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to Secs. 10 and 11, and asked Ms. Kloster to explain the sections and the new language. MS. KLOSTER responded that the current terminology is "absentee or absentee in-person" voting, meaning early voting two weeks prior to the election. There was some confusion, she noted, as to what absentee in-person voting actually meant so the sponsor changed the terminology to say that it is all called "early voting." REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that under Sec. 11, in the event a person votes absentee by mail, or votes at an early voting station and votes in-person, the terminology would now be "early voting." MS. KLOSTER answered that Representative Reinbold was correct and explained that none of the procedures were changed within the Division of Elections, the bill simply changes the terminology. 2:21:31 PM CHAIR CLAMAN referred to the bill, page 4, and noted that Ms. Kloster advised that the goal was to change the terminology to "early voting" and do away with [the current terminology]. Yet, he pointed out, absentee voting was listed three to four times on the page. He then asked that if the goal was to change the terminology to early voting, why does the bill still call it absentee voting. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that the reason was due to current statutes. Sec. 9, he explained, relates to a person claiming to be a registered voter but for whom no evidence of registration could be located in the precinct, that person would then vote absentee or questioned ballot. In that manner, he further explained, verification would happen after the person voted and prior to the ballot being counted. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, in response to Representative Reinbold's question, answered that the State of Alaska has only six actual early voting locations. At those locations information can be immediately verified as to where a person currently lived, their exact precinct number, and their vote would be counted without any question. There are 181 locations where a person can vote absentee in-person up to 15 days prior to the election. It was discovered during the 2014 election that many people were turned away and told they couldn't vote absentee because they were present to vote, he advised. The intent of this legislation is clarification and the committee will continue to see absentee and questioned ballots listed through the statutes. The presentation would get to the sections calling it "early voting," he advised. 2:23:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to Sec. 9, and asked the sponsor to drill down as to his goal in changing the language. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK reiterated that in the event a person's information could not be verified at the time of voting, they could vote absentee or questioned ballot and their eligibility would be verified during the time it was necessary to count that ballot. 2:24:25 PM- REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX described the legislation as attempting to make the process consistent, which was a good thing. She asked whether the division had shared the reason for the somewhat convoluted and arcane manner of early voting and then absentee in-person voting terminology. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK described the evolutionary process as follows: initially, there was absentee voting because the person could not make it to their polling location or was out-of-state; it then evolved to an absentee mail-in ballot for the convenience of voting and not leaving home; it then evolved into opening stations for those who preferred to vote early and called it absentee in-person voting; and the intent of the legislation is consistency throughout. He added there are also special needs voting and other voting methods to keep consistent. He related that this bill turned into a cleanup bill for Title 15. 2:26:07 PM MS. KLOSTER, in continuing the sectional analysis, advised that Sec. 12, clarifies the privileges of poll watchers and brings the statutes up-to-date while clarifying the current practice of allowing individuals to watch what is going on while people are voting. The language changes an "initiative or referendum" to "ballot proposition" to include both initiative and referendum. This section also clarifies in statute that the candidate, a group, or an organization is allowed one or more poll watchers, which is the division's current practice, she advised. 2:27:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the definition of "party" for this section because the statewide definition of what constitute a party is that it must have a certain number of voters. He commented that this discussion has been at the precinct level and that a precinct could have 90 percent to 100 percent of its voters belonging to a party that was not large enough to be considered a statewide party. Under the current language, he opined that party would not be qualified to have a poll watcher. MS. KLOSTER replied that the bill does not change the definition and pointed out that the bill read "a candidate" and a candidate would be able to have a poll watcher. In speaking with the division, she said it had advised it "doesn't really turn away people that want to come and poll watch." She remarked that the division had not run into any issues at this point, and clarified that "anyone that is running and they want to be there, whether it be a ballot proposition or a candidate that's running, no matter what party they are in, they can have someone there." 2:28:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it was her understanding that a group not large enough to be a party could qualify under this language. MS. KLOSTER answered that the sponsor envisioned this was inclusive of everyone of any group. 2:29:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that many years ago she was in a situation where the division would not let her have an individual poll watcher in the general election because it wanted to leave that totally to the party. She stated that if this is what the division is doing currently, it is a good idea to clarify the intent. MS. KLOSTER said the sponsor wanted the intent in the statute to avoid issues in the future. 2:30:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the bill, page 5, line 7, and described the language as distinguishing candidates representing a political party from candidates who do not represent a political party. In the event the idea is to be inclusive to all candidates, possibly the limiting language should be removed. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK advised that the language does not allow just any public member to be a poll watcher, and referred to [Sec. 15.10.170(a)] page 5, lines 1-6], which read as follows: (a) In a general election, special election, or special  runoff election under AS 15.40.141, a [THE] precinct party committee, where an organized precinct committee exists, or the party district committee where no organized precinct committee exists, or the state party chair [CHAIRPERSON] where neither a precinct nor a party district committee exists, ... REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to page 6, where, he said, the language allows it to be opened up for others, and opined the language is all inclusive. He acknowledged that the language does not include "just anyone who wants to be a poll watcher that's not sanctioned by a party, or a candidate, or a ballot initiative, or one way or the other." 2:32:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked that staff provide the "exact, what it does versus the comparison" of what the bill changes. She asked Representative Tuck whether he had said the language opens it up to almost anyone that wants to be a poll watcher. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that the language opens it up to almost anyone, but there are conditions. Basically, he explained, any organization or organized group that sponsors or poses a ballot proposition or recall, may appoint one or more watchers at each precinct or counting centers for each individual candidate rather than solely a party. CHAIR CLAMAN referred to Representative Reinbold's request [for staff to prepare a comparison] of the previous process versus the current process, and reminded her that the capitalized letters in brackets depict the language being removed from statute, and the bolded underlined language depicts the language being added. Therefore, he remarked, Representative Reinbold already has the information as to how the language was being changed from existing statute. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she must email to inquiring constituents, and she was happy to do that, but sometimes constituents have a difficult time with the brackets and underlining. MS. KLOSTER advised that she had prepared a document identifying what each section depicted on one line and she could send it to Representative Reinbold. It was important to the sponsor, she described, "that we didn't just let a whole bunch of people in there into the poll watching" in order to keep the area clear for people voting. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that was her exact concern as she has several people in her district "doing this for a long, long, long time" who want a thorough explanation, especially regarding Secs. 12 and 13. 2:34:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the bill, page 5, line 16, wherein language was being removed that dealt with citizenship requirements, and he did not see that language coming back up in other areas of the bill. He asked whether there was concern that not enough foreign poll watchers were allowed at the polling places. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to Sec. 13, and explained that Title 15 was being reorganized and cleaned-up to make certain it read well, and page 6, lines 17-18, read, "A watcher must be a United States citizen." CHAIR CLAMAN explained to Representative Eastman that there are instances where a sponsor starts with a bill and people start thinking of amendments to try to make it bigger and better, thereby making a small bill into a big bill. This is an instance where the sponsor started with a small bill long enough ago that someone decided to make it into a big bill before it came to the House Judiciary Standing Committee, he further explained. 2:36:08 PM MS. KLOSTER, in continuing the sectional analysis, advised that in moving things around, the language deleted from Sec. 12 was placed into Sec. 13. She said that Sec. 14 added a declaration attesting to the truth and accuracy of the information offered as to the same day voter registration questioned ballot. MS. KLOSTER advised that Secs. 15-17, relates to the declaration added to all questioned ballots that the Division of Elections had requested. Sec. 18, changes the terminology of early voting and adds the designation of an early voting station. MS. KLOSTER advised that in approximately 2014, there was an effort by a number of organizations such as, "Get Out the Native Vote, AFN" to have early voting stations in a number of the state's rural areas offering everyone access to early voting. Under this section, the language keeps those early voting stations consistent every single year so every Alaskan has the opportunity to early vote. Secs. 19-22, relates to early voting terminology updates. Sec. 23, allows for voter registration updates. Currently, when a person votes and includes their information, they update their voter registration on the day they are voting. However, she pointed out, under the current practice, the voter registration is not updated if the person voted by facsimile or email, and this is one of the clean-up areas the division requested. Therefore, if a person votes by facsimile or email, all of their information would be updated. 2:38:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to Sec. 21, and asked Ms. Kloster to focus on any major changes in the section, and the intent of the sponsor. MS. KLOSTER reiterated that AS 15.20.064 is related to early voting and if a voter's eligibility to vote could not be verified by the election official during the early voting process, they would vote an absentee questioned ballot. The ballot would then go through an additional review process by the Division of Elections to ensure the person was eligible before the vote was counted, she explained. 2:40:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked how that process was different from the current process. MS. KLOSTER answered that it is additional language to clarify in statute that in the event a voter was voting a questioned ballot this is the review process to follow. She deferred to the Division of Elections. 2:41:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to Sec. 21, and offered concern that the results of the election may be delayed and asked whether that issue had been addressed. MS. KLOSTER deferred to the Division of Elections, and referred to the PFD voter initiative, wherein when signing up for the permanent fund dividend (PFD), the person would be registered to vote. She pointed out that there should not be a huge impact because more people will be registered to vote after signing up for the PFD. 2:42:36 PM MS. KLOSTER, in continuing the sectional analysis, explained as follows: Sec. 22 changes terminology to early voting; Sec. 23 relates to updating voter registration via email and facsimile; and Sec. 24 is a new subsection. Current absentee ballot language read that if a person preferred an absentee ballot each year they had to fill out an application. This language requests permanent absentee voting such that a person signing up could stipulate they preferred to receive an absentee ballot to their home every single year without the necessity of applying. However, she said, should the mail be returned, the person would fall off the list of voters automatically receiving an absentee ballot each year. Also, she explained, the person receiving the absentee ballot must vote every year, and if they have not voted within four years the absentee ballot would not continue to be sent to the person and they would be required to re-apply in order to participate, and they do not, at all, fall off the voter rolls. 2:43:45 PM MS. KLOSTER advised that Sec. 25 relates to [a voter changing party affiliation within 30 days before the primary election] wherein they vote an absentee in-person, special, or questioned ballot [with the voter's new affiliation indicated on the voter's certificate attesting that the information is true and correct], which appears on the envelope. Sec. 26, she said, offers that "electronic signature" has the meaning given in existing AS 09.80.190. 2:44:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Sec. 25 of the bill, page 11, lines 11-12, and the "30th day" references designating an individual's party affiliation. Although, he said, the next few lines read that if a person changed their party, the new party kicks in. He asked why it was necessary to designate both because it's whatever party they are a member of on election day, and also it's whatever party at the 30th day. He asked whether that language was required to tell the Division of Elections what absentee ballots to mail, and asked the significance of keeping those two contradictory pieces of language. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that currently, the language is 30 days before the primary election, and "then we have this condition," and paraphrased as follows: "If a voter changes party affiliation within 30 days then the voter shall vote an absentee, in-person, special needs, or questioned ballot at the primary election with the voter's new party ..." He explained that within 10 days of the election a person can change their party affiliation "as you early vote," and this was added to keep everything consistent up to the same day voting. He reiterated that a person can use that ballot envelope to update any information they would like to update, including changing party affiliation. Although, he said, he was unsure why the language was drafted in this manner and that Legislative Legal and Research Services may discuss this issue at a later time. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she has concerns regarding Sec. 25, and she would speak with the sponsor's office. 2:46:54 PM MS. KLOSTER referred to Sec. 27 and advised it refers to the early voting change in terminology; Sec. 28 is conforming language for same day voter registration; Sec. 29 repeals information dealing with the same day voter registration of a 30 day requirement; Sec. 30 relates to Transitional Provisions: Regulations; and Sec. 31 is the effective date. CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 1. 2:48:18 PM EUGENE HABERMAN, Unincorporated Area of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, said he represents himself and added that the comments he made earlier today on HB 200 reflect his comments on this bill. He referred to the phrase "poll watcher" in HB 1, and asked what happens after the election when dealing with the ballots. He said he is denied his right to observe counting the ballots and verifying they are legitimate before opening the envelopes, and so forth. In the past, he said, Anchorage sent out letters advising it had rejected the ballot envelope and the person had an opportunity to appeal, but last night there was the situation in which it did not provide that opportunity. He referred to the lower voter turnout in the local and state elections and noted there were occasions where there were differences of a few votes as to who won the election. He said, "when you do not have an opportunity for a party to be told beforehand that their ballot is not going to be counted and their right to appeal" creates a situation where someone would say the elections weren't legitimate, and that's what's going on at the state level. He reminded the committee of the last state primary election where there was a court proceeding, and what stood out was that the "head of elections" went on record advising "that she's going to do on the job training." He expressed that the person in charge of election should not be learning on the job, and the lack of education of the party responsible for state elections leads the situation to where legitimacy cannot be shown to be valid. 2:51:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked that Mr. Haberman e-mail his testimony to Chair Claman's office or her office. CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Reinbold, advised that Eugene Carl Haberman was testifying. 2:52:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that he appreciated Mr. Haberman's concern with regard to someone's vote not being counted with no opportunity to appeal, and noted that if that is the case in current state law it should be reviewed. He related that he knows of an individual who received that letter in mail advising that their vote did not count, and when the person tried to figure out why, the division could not find any reason why it would have not let the person vote. 2:53:05 PM MICHAEL HAWFIELD said he represents himself, he agrees with Mr. Haberman's concerns, and he looks forward to Representative Chris Tuck pursuing some of those issues. He expressed strong support for HB 1, and noted that during the last election while assisting new voters regarding how the process worked, he particularly noted that voters who wanted to vote early but didn't know much about registration. He remarked that this effort to clarify and streamline the whole process of registration, and especially early voting is very important. He stressed that there are so many younger people turned off to the whole process of voting, which is a significant part of the depression of voter response in Alaska's elections. The sanctity of elections is paramount and he related that he applauds the work by Representative Tuck in creating a bill that will help immensely. 2:55:12 PM CHAIR CLAMAN listed the people available for questions. After ascertaining that no one wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 1. 2:55:43 PM CAROL THOMPSON, Absentee & Petition Manager, Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, in response to Chair Claman, said she was unsure she should address whether the administration supported HB 1 because it was a question for the director of the division, and she was not prepared to answer the question. 2:56:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to a previous question regarding page 2, lines 1-2 of the bill, and asked why the bill retains lines 1-2 as is, and paraphrased: "(4) ... as required under AS 15.07 and is not registered to vote in another jurisdiction." He asked whether this bill provides for automatic un- registration in another jurisdiction when the person registers to vote, whether that process was relatively instantaneous, and if that was the case, why does the stipulation remain that the person cannot be registered in another jurisdiction. 2:57:34 PM MS. THOMPSON explained that within current voter registration, a person must be registered 30 days prior to an election. This particular language speaks to the fact that a person cannot be registered to vote in another jurisdiction or another state, and people would have been able to notify those states of the person's cancellation through Alaska's voter registration application, or they could contact the state itself and request cancellation. As far as the intention of the bill, at this point, how that would be addressed at the same day registration level would have to be determined. She remarked that at this point, with regard to a person not on a precinct register, if they go to a polling place on election day and vote a questioned ballot, the question of whether the person was registered in another state is not on that particular envelope and would have to be addressed in some manner through the sponsor's bill. 2:58:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted this is not new language being added, and asked whether there was a discrepancy. MS. THOMPSON reiterated that, at this point, the question was not on the envelope, although, it is part of the voter oath in the declaration at the bottom of the ballot, which read as follows: ... I am not registered to vote in another state, or I have taken the necessary steps to cancel that registration. ... 2:59:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that currently it is not necessary for a voter to be registered within 30 days of an election when voting for a presidential candidate. Therefore, she said, if there is any language or anything that needs to be done to un-register oneself from another jurisdiction it presumably should be performed by the Division of Elections, or this bill can take care of it, hopefully. 3:00:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to Secs. 1 and 8 of the bill, noting that Sec. 1 addressed voting in a house district indirectly, and Sec. 8 addressed that issue directly. He asked whether a person could vote the down ballot for a house district representative if they moved into the house district that same day. MS. THOMPSON responded that currently, a person would go to their polling place on election day and if their name does not appear on the precinct register, they are afforded the opportunity to vote the questioned ballot. Or, in the event they indicated they no longer live in that particular district, they are afforded the opportunity to vote a questioned ballot. The questioned ballot envelope, she explained, allows the voter to list their current address and when those questioned ballots come back from the polling place to the Division of Elections it performs a review of their information on the database system. In the event there is a conflict of districts, the division does not count the house district portion and it works its way up the ballot. The process, she explained, is that the division would start with the house district and whether the person was registered at the same senate district, and in the event they are registered in the same senate district the division would count that race. She related that should the voter not be registered in the house or senate districts; the division would count all of the statewide races. 3:01:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP questioned whether it was current law that a person must be registered in a house district for 30 days to vote that particular seat on the ballot. MS. THOMPSON answered in the affirmative. 3:02:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to Senate Bill 9 [passed in the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature] and described it as a significant elections reform bill. He noted that part of the bill was to encourage voter notification and updating state voter registration rolls through an ability to partner with nonprofit cooperative efforts lead by states rather than the federal government. He asked whether the program had been implemented. MS. THOMPSON responded that in 2016, the division performed outreach using the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) program. The division performed outreach to all 2016 un- registered voters advising they could register to vote. This year, she offered, the division will work to match Alaska's list against other state lists to determine whether voters may be registered in more than one state, and the division will continue to work that process. 3:03:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered a scenario that someone moved into House District A from House District B, and had not changed their registration until they arrived at the polling place, or they changed their registration through an absentee ballot they received while living in House District B. Except, she said, they voted when they were in House District A, indicating a different address. She asked whether their vote for either House District A or B counted. MS. THOMPSON answered that voters have only one ballot, the division would determine which house district they resided in and compare it with the house district they voted and if they were not registered in the same house district as the ballot, that portion of the ballot would not count and it is considered a partially counted ballot. 3:04:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX explained that she was talking about a voter receiving their [absentee] ballot before they moved, but hadn't yet voted their ballot. Then, on election day the voter decides they don't want to go to the polls and votes the ballot they lugged from their prior address. The voter then fills out the [absentee ballot] with all of the statewide candidates, the senate, and House District B, and the voter also lists on their absentee ballot an affirmation of their address. When the division looks at the address it realizes the person was no longer living in House District B, and was actually living in House District A. She said she assumed the ballot where they voted for the candidate running in House District B, yet showing an address in House District A, doesn't count. She asked whether she was correct. MS. THOMPSON explained that the person requesting an absentee ballot by mail must submit their absentee ballot application first. The division receives the voter's application, processes the application with their residence address, and the ballot sent to the person is based upon their residence address. The voter then receives the absentee ballot envelope with the signature, witnessing, and identifier requirements. In that situation, she explained, if the person was registered in the district 30 days before the election and that is the residence address the division has on file, that is the ballot the division sends to them and that ballot would be counted in full. Although, she said, if the person provided the division with their application after the 30 day registration deadline with the new residence address, the division would send them the ballot for that district; however, it would not count because they did not register in the district timely. 3:07:26 PM CHAIR CLAMAN offered a scenario of a person living in Representative LeDoux's district 30 days before the election, but they move to Chair Claman's district 15 days before the election, and the person receives an early ballot in the mail listing Chair Claman's district. Under HB 1, the division would send the person the ballot for the new district because they would be re-registered in Chair Claman's district and receive that ballot, he asked. MS. THOMPSON answered that the intention of the bill is to allow for same day registration so long as the person had been a resident of the district for 30 days. She related that there would have to be some type of process, or some sort of notification on the envelope itself that read "I've been a resident of a district for 30 days," that the sponsor may consider. It would still come back to that 30 day requirement of being a resident in that district, to determine whether or not the person would be eligible to vote that house or senate district ballot, she explained. 3:08:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX opined that when she voted an absentee ballot it asked for her address. MS. THOMPSON interjected that in the event Representative LeDoux was discussing absentee ballot by mail, there is not a question on the ballot as to the person's residence address. The person simply signs the ballot, has it witnessed, and provides an identifier because under state law those three items are required. The person must first apply in order to receive the ballot, which is where the application states that the person must provide a residence address. 3:09:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to Chair Claman's scenario regarding someone moving into his district and voting by mail, and said that it would be an absentee ballot for Representative LeDoux's district because the requirement is that they must live in Chair Claman's district within the 30 day time requirement. In that situation, he explained, the division would not even have known to change the ballot to Chair Claman's district until the person changed their voter registration to Chair Claman's district. 3:10:28 PM CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Reinbold, advised he did not plan to put HB 1 on the calendar tomorrow and the Division of Elections would be available when the bill was next heard. 3:11:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Sec. 15.10.170, page 5 of the bill, and opined that a person, as a member of a ballot group or party, or a candidate, is allowed a poll watcher. Although, he noted, if they are a member of a group trying to become a party they do not receive a poll watcher. MS. THOMPSON responded that it is the interpretation of the Division of Elections that it does allow for a person affiliated with a small minor party, or a political group. She then referred to [Sec. 15.10.170, page 5, lines 2-6] and paraphrased as follows: (a) In a general election, special election, or  special runoff election under AS 15.40.141, a [THE] precinct party committee, where an organized precinct committee exists, or the party district committee where no organized precinct committee exists, or the state party chair [CHAIRPERSON] ...   MS. THOMPSON explained those would be the four recognized political parties of the State of Alaska at this time, Democrat, Republican, Alaska Independent, and Libertarian Parties. She continued paraphrasing the section as follows: (a)... where neither a precinct nor a party district committee exists, may appoint one or more [PERSONS AS] watchers in each precinct and counting center. MS. THOMPSON further explained that that allows for watchers. She continued paraphrasing the section as follows:   (a)... A [FOR ANY ELECTION. EACH] candidate not representing a political party may appoint one or more watcher for each precinct or counting center in the candidate's respective district of the state [FOR ANY ELECTION].  MS. THOMPSON explained that any other candidate appearing on the ballot is allowed to have [one or more] watcher. 3:13:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN restated his question and referred to the un-recognized Veterans' Party that does not have candidates in all of the different precincts and districts. In the districts where the Veterans' Party does not have a candidate to grab a poll watcher, and the candidate was not a member of a state recognized party to receive a poll watcher, he asked how they would receive a poll watcher. MS. THOMPSON paraphrased that it read: "a candidate not representing a political party." The Veterans' Group, she explained, would be a political group that had not met political party status, and opined that the Veterans' Group would fall under that definition. 3:14:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that he would have had the same thoughts, except in a couple places in the statute when discussing groups, "we specifically limit the group" receiving a poll watcher to a group dealing with a ballot measure, for example. In the event the group does not have that caveat, he offered his belief that they did not qualify. MS. THOMPSON commented that this may be an area for the sponsor to specifically add "political groups." REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that the only way a political group would have a poll watcher, for example the "Veterans' Group" is if it had a candidate in that district. In order to have poll watchers outside of that district, he explained, they would have to have someone at a higher level statewide candidate or a senate candidate if they just wanted to look at poll watchers. He said he agrees there is a limit in the language to prevent poll watchers that do not necessarily have a candidate in that election. However, in describing limitations put on poll watchers, he offered the example that the Veterans' Group having a candidate, referendum, proposition, initiative, or was weighing in on an issue as a group, would be allowed a poll watcher. 3:16:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether, currently, there is a manner in which a person could appeal their vote not being counted. MS. THOMPSON answered there are specific Alaska statutes advising the Division of Elections how to handle ballots missing information, and the division is to reject those ballots under a particular statute at this time. 3:17:00 PM MS. THOMPSON, in response to Representative Eastman, agreed there is no appeal process. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK opined that "when it does not affect the outcome then it doesn't go to a higher level," but it does go to a higher level if it can affect the outcome, and the Division of Elections would contact those people individually. In the cases where someone may have received a letter advising their ballot didn't count, the person's ballot may not have had any effect on the outcome of the election. For example, he offered, if there were 50 of those uncounted votes with a 100 vote spread, those ballots would not have an effect on the outcome. However, if the vote spread was 25 votes, the Division of Elections would contact people as there would be that additional layer, he explained. MS. THOMPSON explained that ballots are looked at again through the recount process, but the division still has to follow the guidelines of statute advising how to count or not count a ballot. She further explained that a vote can be challenged through the recount process, or even the observation process, because during the division's process of reviewing ballots candidates can have a person there to observe. In the event the validity of the count of a ballot, or even the rejection of a ballot, was challenged, the division would look at that challenge and go back to the law, she said. 3:19:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that during the last election he personally went to his local Division of Elections to observe the count in his own race, and he was told he could not observe because the local office needed permission from the higher office, and the higher office hadn't provided that permission so he did not have that opportunity. He asked whether those policies had changed since the last election. MS. THOMPSON related that she was unaware of the exact circumstances and was unable to address his question. 3:20:16 PM CHAIR CLAMAN described the idea of cancelling a voter registration in another state as akin to cancelling a driver's license from another state. He related that a good part of the bill is that when registering in Alaska, the person un-registers in another state because the average public person probably doesn't even know where to write to un-register. The states are communicating with each other and it makes sense to check a box and unregister in another jurisdiction. To the extent that is lacking in the bill he encouraged a provision in that regard. CHAIR CLAMAN referred to the effort to call all early voting ballots "early voting" ballots, and that a questioned ballot puts the ballot on hold in order to verify the information. He opined that trying to define all the early and absentee and other ballots as just early ballot is good. Although, he said, in looking through the bill "you didn't do it very well" as there should be a definition explaining that "early ballot includes absentee and all the others, and then call them early ballots throughout" because even though the goal is to say "early and absentee," the bill has people showing up on election day and receiving an absentee ballot. He surmised that the people should either receive the actual ballot because it is election day, or receive a questioned ballot, and then any ballot prior to election day is called an early ballot. He commented that he applauds the idea of simplifying the name so people are not so confused, but it appears many absentee ballots are still referenced in the bill and it would be useful to clean-up that language. [HB 1 was held over.]