SB 82-ELECTIONS; ELECTION INVESTIGATIONS  4:18:13 PM CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 82 "An Act relating to elections and election investigations." [CSSB 82(JUD), work order 32-GS1645\I, was the working document although references are to the work draft version B that the Judiciary Committee amended then passed from committee.] 4:18:52 PM CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Law, Juneau, Alaska, on behalf of the administration, presented a PowerPoint to introduce SB 82. She stated that the purpose of SB 82 is to authorize the attorney general to conduct civil investigations into Title 15 election law violations and bring civil enforcement actions if a violation is found. Under current statute, if the Division of Elections notices suspicious behavior related to an election, the only option is for the division to refer the matter for criminal investigation. Ms. MILLS advised that SB 82 would add a civil investigation tool similar to what the Department of Law does for consumer protection investigations, but on an expedited basis. She recounted the advantages of civil investigations. Action can be taken more quickly, the evidentiary standard of proof is not as high, and the Department of Law can more quickly get information to the division it may need to make determinations during the election. When needed, criminal and civil investigations could run concurrently. 4:21:31 PM MS. MILLS skipped ahead to slide 7 to discuss the complaint referral process. She said an investigation can start with a complaint from a member of the public, when the division notices something out of the ordinary in the election process, or the attorney general can initiate an investigation. Under SB 82, the division would review a complaint that is filed and in consultation with the Department of Law determine whether it warrants investigation. If not, the complaint would be dismissed. If the complaint warrants further review, it would be forwarded to the attorney general who has discretion to conduct an investigation and prioritize cases. 4:22:54 PM THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Labor and State Affairs Section, Department of Law, Anchorage, Alaska, continued the presentation with a review of the steps of an investigation from less formal to more formal. Informal discovery includes voluntary interviews with victims, witnesses, and the target of the investigation. More formal techniques include subpoenas for testimony or documents from agencies. He noted that the bill sets out standard deadlines with the option to move faster for an impending election. At the end of the investigation, the attorney general has the option of providing a notice of findings to the division, going to court to seek enforcement, or referral for criminal investigation. 4:24:10 PM MR. FLYNN presented the sectional analysis for SB 82, including the changes made in the previous committee. SB 82, "An Act relating to elections and election investigations" adds one new section to AS 15.56: Subsection (a) would allow anyone can file a written complaint alleging a violation of state election laws or regulations to the Division of Elections. The complaint must be filed within 30 days after an election or 30 days after the alleged violation occurred, whichever is later. Subsection (b) directs the Division of Elections to refer alleged violations of campaign finance laws under AS 15.13 to the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC). The division has the discretion to refer all other complaints to the attorney general. If the complaint is incomplete, frivolous, or does not allege a violation, the division can request additional information or it could dismiss the complaint. Subsection (c), as amended, allows the attorney general to investigate an alleged violation by issuing subpoenas and interrogatories and by obtaining records from agencies. Subsection (d), as amended, explains that the attorney general must serve the subpoenas and may initiate contempt proceedings as prescribed by other laws. Subsection (e), as amended, allows the attorney general to obtain a court order requiring a response through a subpoena or interrogatory in a shorter amount of time than is provided in subsection (c). Subsection (f), as amended, allows the recipient of a subpoena or interrogatory under subsection (c) to file an opposing lawsuit, which the court must expedite. The court may choose to hear the attorney general's argument ex parte. Subsection (g), as amended, directs the attorney general to provide the division with the result of the investigation and a notice of findings once the investigation is complete. In the event a complaint against a state agency or employee has merit, the division will make reasonable effort to respond. 4:26:23 PM Subsection (h), as amended, provides that the notice of findings and the record that supports the findings are public records subject to the Public Records Act. But intelligence information the attorney general has gathered or provided to law enforcement is not subject to disclosure. Subsection (i) allows the attorney general to sue for injunctive relief after the investigation provided the alleged violation is not a violation of campaign finance laws. Subsection (j), as amended, allows the attorney general to seek a fine of no more than $250,000 per violation along with reasonable fees and costs, including the cost of the investigation. 4:27:00 PM MR. FLYNN noted that subsection (k) was added by amendment. Subsection (k) would require the attorney general to file an action against a candidate or elected official within two years of the filing of the complaint. Subsections (l) and (m) allow the division and the attorney general to adopt regulations to implement this section. Subsection (n) clarifies that the person filing the complaint may always go to court. Subsection (o) defines frivolous, state agency and state employee. 4:28:13 PM SENATOR KAWASAKI said he had a number of questions, but he was willing to wait for a written response if the answers were lengthy. He raised the following questions: • Is there an appeal process for dismissed complaints? • What does information regarding intelligence information include and why would that not be part of the public record under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)? MS. MILLS answered that while there is no specific administrative appeal process if the division dismisses a complaint, this does not preclude the complainant from going to court or the attorney general initiating an independent investigation. MS. MILLS, addressing the second question regarding intelligence information, explained that the terms come from the Consumer Protection Act, which makes the record of the investigation and intelligence information confidential. She noted that the Judiciary Committee determined that the public would benefit from having some of the records be public, so they bifurcated those into a record of investigation and intelligence information. The record of investigation includes anything needed to support the notice of findings and everything else, such as tips, is considered intelligence information. SENATOR KAWASAKI asked why a tip would not be disclosable information. MS. MILLS answered that a tip might lead to an additional investigation and if disclosed, could hinder a future investigation CHAIR SHOWER advised that he read the list in statute of what would be exempted. 4:33:33 PM SENATOR REINBOLD asked if it was wise to have the attorney general in charge of the process since that is an appointed rather than elected position. MS. MILLS pointed out that the Department of Law already works with sensitive matters that do not always align with the position of elected officials and they have to find a balance. In addition, the bill does not preclude going to court so the information would be made public. 4:35:25 PM SENATOR REINBOLD expressed concern that every person would not hold to such a high bar. CHAIR SHOWER commented on the importance of getting legislative intent on the record and the notion of an elected or appointed attorney general or an elected inspector general. 4:36:16 PM CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on SB 82. 4:36:40 PM MORGAN LIM, representing Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocate (PPAA), Juneau, Alaska, stated that PPAA opposes both SB 82 and SB 83. He reported that in the first quarter of 2021, more than 361 voter suppression measures have been introduced in 47 states. He posited that they are part of a nationwide trend as many elected officials try to make it more difficult to cast a ballot. He said SB 83 imposes burdensome voter identification requirements on absentee voters and limits in-person voting in communities with populations of less than 750. SB 82 perpetuates the unsubstantiated narrative that election offenses are widespread. Both bills claim to be combating election fraud, but in reality are bills in search of a problem. Both bills will likely disenfranchise voters, he said. MR. LIM stated that PPAA supports policies that make it convenient for eligible voters to register and cast a ballot and opposes burdensome requirements for identification for absentee voting and refusing to allow ballot curing. He pointed out that the promise of equal access at the ballot box has not been achieved when Black, indigenous, and people of color communities are more likely to face barriers to voting. Nationwide there are inadequate polling places, increasingly limited voting hours, disenfranchised formerly incarcerated persons, and systematic efforts to suppress votes. He concluded saying that Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates urges the committee not to advance either SB 82 or SB 83. 4:39:35 PM CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on SB 82 and held the bill in committee. He advised that written testimony could be submitted to ssta@akleg.gov.