HB 1-ELECTION REGISTRATION AND VOTING  3:57:16 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS 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." 3:58:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK presented HB 1, as prime sponsor. He paraphrased from the sponsor statement, which read 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 can 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 [sic] 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. 4:00:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked for a definition of "permanent absentee". REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied that when someone goes to a voting location to "early vote" it is called "in-person absentee voting." He asserted there was confusion, even among poll watchers, about whether an absentee voter could vote in-person. He maintained that "absentee voting" is a term used by the Division of Elections (DOE) referring to how the ballot is processed. He relayed that one does not have to be absent from his/her district to vote absentee. He said that voting absentee is a form of early voting or voting by mail. He concluded that if one votes at an election polling location prior to the day of the election, it is referred to as "in-person absentee voting." REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that when she visits homes in her district, she has discovered on numerous occasions that the person registered to vote at that address is no longer living at that address and now lives in another voting district. She said that in referring to her voter file, she has discovered that the person who moved is still voting in Representative LeDoux's district. She relayed that she has asked DOE if a candidate, poll watcher, or anyone else could challenge that person's vote and was told "no." She compared it to moving out of state and voting as if still an Alaskan resident. She asked if the vote could be challenged and if something could be done to rectify this situation. 4:03:59 PM JOSIE BAHNKE, Director, Central Office, Division of Elections (DOS), Office of the Lieutenant Governor, asked if Representative LeDoux was referring to challenging the vote of a permanent absentee voter. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said, "No, not a permanent absentee voter." She gave the example of someone living on the south side of Anchorage who keeps coming back to Midtown to vote; who has never changed his/her voter registration to reflect where he/she now lives; who no longer owns property in Midtown; and who no longer is a resident of Midtown. She asserted that elections can be very close and expressed her belief that it is inappropriate for someone to vote in a district in which he/she no longer lives. She asked why there isn't a mechanism to challenge a voter who is voting outside of his/her district. 4:05:57 PM LAURI WILSON, Elections Supervisor, Southeast Region, Division of Elections (DOE), Office of the Lieutenant Governor, answered that there are times when a voter moves and does not update his/her residence address with DOE, and it is up to the voter to notify DOE of an address change. She mentioned that a voter of a precinct could challenge another voter's eligibility for voting in that precinct at the time of voting, and the voter who has been challenged would vote a question ballot, which would be subject to review by the review board and elections staff. She said that during the absentee and question ballot review process, observers are present who can challenge the eligibility of the voter during the review process, and the challenges can be brought forth to the director of elections for review. She reiterated that it is up to the voter to notify DOE when he/she changes residences, and the law allows a person to have one place of residence. She added there are exceptions, which allow a voter to be away from his/her residence and continue to vote. 4:08:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she brought this concern forward to see if HB 1 could be amended to address it. She asked if there is any mechanism for objecting to a vote, if she has knowledge that someone is not living in the district in which he/she is voting. MS. WILSON replied that DOE cannot remove voters from the voter rolls based on a belief that the voter does not live in the district anymore. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if there was a mechanism for challenging a vote cast by someone outside the district, such as signing an affidavit declaring his/her reasons for believing that the voter is not living in that district, and the complaint would result in DOE contacting the voter to verify residence. MS. WILSON answered that if a voter votes in the district from which he/she has moved, and it is brought to the attention of DOE through a complaint, the law is broad in considering the intent of the voter to possibly return to his/her old residence. If he/she is still an Alaskan voter, he/she may continue to use the old address for voting purposes. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asserted that is the law for people moving out of state and considering returning to Alaska. She attested that her concern involves someone who owns a home in southside Anchorage, sells that home, and has no intention of returning, because he/she now owns a home in Midtown. MS. WILSON reiterated that it is up to the individual to notify DOE of a residence address change, so that the voter registration record can be updated. She added that without the update, that location continues to be his/her voting residence. 4:11:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that a statutory change would be needed to prevent that situation from happening. MS. WILSON responded that's possible. She asserted that the issues are the intent of the voter regarding residency and the intent of Alaska statute allowing for temporary residence, such as a work camp, as it relates to voting. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asserted that her concern is not related to the person who is working away from home temporarily but for the person who sells his/her home and, for whatever reason, continues to vote in his/her old district. She asked if under current law that is legal. MS. WILSON responded that making Alaska voter laws stricter must be addressed through statute. 4:12:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered that the observation of a voter voting outside his/her district becomes trickier regarding an absentee or mail-in ballot. MS. WILSON stated that the absentee review boards in the regional DOE offices review all absentee ballots, whether they are by mail, absentee in-person, or special needs. She asserted that during the review process, an observer can challenge the eligibility of the voter whose ballot is being reviewed, and the challenge will be referred to the director to review and decide, case by case. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that by Election Day, there are already a certain number of absentee ballots counted. She asked if those ballots are reviewed by the absentee review board or if they are considered absentee in-person ballots. 4:14:20 PM MS. WILSON stated that there are different processes regarding absentee votes. There is a permanent absentee voter (PAV), someone who automatically gets an absentee ballot from DOE, and an absentee in-person voter. All absentee ballots are reviewed by the absentee review board. She explained that early voting is like voting at the poll on Election Day - it is a "live" ballot of an eligible voter, and it is not subject to a review process. She attested that any ballot that is not by early voting or Election Day voting at the precinct goes through the review process. She summarized that the ballots that go through the review process are absentee ballots, special needs ballots, and question ballots. MS. WILSON went on to say that no ballots are counted before the polls close at 8:00 p.m. on Election Day. Absentee ballots are reviewed by DOE staff; voter history is entered into the computer system; and each ballot is independently reviewed by a review board. She added that a deadline date is chosen by DOE staff which represents the date by which absentee ballots must have been received and reviewed to be counted on Election Day after the polls close. All other absentee ballots are counted in subsequent counts after they are reviewed. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if there is any provision for poll watchers to observe the counting of absentee ballots or early voting ballots. MS. WILSON replied yes. They are not poll watchers but observers who are present during the ballot count and review. 4:19:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed his support for increasing voter turnout through the proposed legislation. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS indicated HB 1 would be held over.