Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
05/16/2022 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB72 | |
| HJR1 | |
| HB66 | |
| SB25 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 72 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 66
"An Act relating to voting, voter qualifications, and
voter registration; relating to poll watchers;
relating to absentee ballots and questioned ballots;
relating to election worker compensation; and
providing for an effective date."
3:50:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, SPONSOR, introduced HB 66. He
explained the purpose of the bill. He reported that the
bill dealt with modernizing the elections, voting, and
ballot processes through a series of mechanisms that
ensured more access, security, transparency, and faith in
the states election systems. He elaborated that the bill
originally created an option for permanent absentee voting
for individuals that plan to vote by mail in every
election. In 2020, due to the COVID pandemic, 365 thousand
Alaskans voted by mail, which made it the most successful
election in history with the highest number of voters
participating. He relayed other provisions from the Sponsor
statement:
? Requiring the Division of Elections to offer a voter
the option to fix a mailed-in absentee ballot if
there are errors.
? Calling for the same early voting locations to be
available during every election.
? Clarifying that candidates and groups sponsoring
ballot initiatives can have poll watchers.
Representative Tuck communicated that HB 66 was heard in
the State Affairs Committee in the prior session with the
knowledge that there were other election bills in process.
He worked comprehensively with other legislators, the
Senate, and the Lieutenant Governors office to produce the
current version of the bill. He listed all the provisions
contained in the bill: absentee ballot curing, permanent
absentee voting, updating voters lists, voluntary
cancelation of voter registration, ballot security, an
election offense hotline, an absentee ballot application
process, signature verification program, watermarking
ballots, prepaying postage costs for absentee ballots, same
day voter registration, increased pay for election workers,
election audits, risk limiting audits, forensic audits, and
open source software.
3:55:13 PM
Representative Josephson acknowledged the great effort put
into crafting the bill. He asked what was in the bill that
appealed to both progressives that wanted to expand voting
opportunities and to conservatives that were concerned with
election security. Representative Tuck thought that the
question was difficult to answer. He indicated that there
was no opposition from outside voter groups to the current
version of HB 66. He proposed listing the provisions that
were originally in SB 39 [Ballot Custody/Tampering; Voter
Reg; Mail] sponsored by Senator Shower. He interjected that
some provisions in the bill were also from the various
governors election bills. He commented that all the
election bills had some sort of ballot curing. The current
legislation included the best process. He thought everyone
wanted to see a cure in ballots and did not think it was
neither conservative nor liberal. He interposed that HB 66
and HB 39 included permanent absentee voting. In addition,
the governors voting bills allowed voters to request
absentee ballots for up to 4 years and were then required
to reapply. His only concern with doing it the governor's
way, was that someone might forget they had to reapply
after the fourth year. He noted that updating the voter's
list came out of SB 39, and the governor's bill. The same
applied to cleaning up the voter rolls. The provision
concerning voluntary cancelation of voter registration and
the election offense hotline was derived from SB 39 as well
as chain of custody ballot security. He noted that in the
last municipal election the same ballot tracking system was
successfully used. Signature verification provisions were
taken from HB 66 and SB 39. He detailed that HB 66
eliminated the second signature requirement and SB 39
employed signature verification machines used in the
Anchorage Municipal election. He pointed out that absentee
ballot applications provisions mostly resulted from HB 66,
but a few were from the governors bill. He noted that
watermarking ballots was a provision from SB 39 and prepaid
postage costs, same day voter registration, and increased
pay for election workers statutes were contained in the
original version of HB 66. The election audit provisions
were from a combination of all bills. He clarified that the
proper terminology for election audits was risk limiting
audits and typically not forensic audits. He noted that
forensic examinations only applied to the routine forensic
examinations of each precinct tabulator prior and after an
election. Finally, the open source software proposal
originated out of the collaborative process.
4:01:22 PM
Representative Carpenter cited the concept of ballot
harvesting, when ballots were collected on behalf of
voters and taken to a drop box or polling place. He
wondered if the issue was addressed in the bill.
Representative Tuck responded that it was not directly
addressed. He furthered that the ballot security and chain
of custody provisions closely monitored ballots. It proved
difficult to determine how to address it in the bill. He
deferred further answer to the Division of Elections.
Co-Chair Foster noted Ms. Fenumiai was online.
Representative Tuck interjected that the bill placed
restrictions on organizations sending voters applications
for absentee ballots because voters were inundated with
applications during the prior mail in ballot election.
Representative Carpenter referred to the upcoming special
election for the interim federal House of Representatives
seat that would be a vote by mail only election. He
expressed concern regarding every voter receiving a ballot
and the potential for ballot tampering. He wondered how the
bill prevented the situation from occurring. Representative
Tuck replied that the bill did not address the issue. He
shared that the bill was trying to seek a balance and did
not address the more controversial issues. He noted that
some wanted all mail in elections. Personally, he liked
being able to bring his children to the voting polls with
him. The bill attempted to provide a sense of safety in the
election cycles by adding the new security measures.
Representative Carpenter was aware that the bill was a
compromise. He inquired what would prevent ballots from
being fraudulently submitted in a mail in ballot election
where ballots could be delivered to drop boxes or polling
places.
4:05:18 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, OFFICE OF
THE GOVERNOR (via teleconference), relayed that currently
mail in ballots required an identifier and a witness's
signature. The procedures had been in statute for a long
time. She believed that they served a special and unique
purpose in deterring voter fraud. The bill addressed
signature verification for all by mail elections and was an
added layer of security. She noted that all mail elections
were only carried out under special circumstances. She
delineated that the upcoming by mail election to fulfill
the remainder of the deceased Representative Don Youngs
congressional house seat was done by mail because of time
constraints for scheduling an election. She added that an
all-mail-in ballot election for a statewide election was a
rare occurrence.
4:06:35 PM
Representative Carpenter asked if the bill would have to
pass regarding signature verification or whether it was
already in place. He was worried about signature forging
for the upcoming election and wondered if safeguards were
in place. Ms. Fenumiai responded that there was no
signature verification currently in statute. She reiterated
that what was currently needed from the voter was to
provide an identifier and the ballot was signed in the
witness of another voter. She expounded that it would take
an act of collusion to fraudulently vote in the upcoming
mail election. The identifier would have to match the
identifier on the voter's record when the ballot was
returned. Representative Carpenter deduced that someone
committing fraud would only need the witness' personal
identifier and they could forge the witness' signature. He
asked if he was correct. Ms. Fenumiai responded, "That was
a correct statement."
4:09:34 PM
Representative Josephson asked if the bill would be well
received in the other body. Representative Tuck responded
in the affirmative. He noted that the current version of
the bill was mostly identical to the Senate version. He
guessed that concurrence by both bodies was likely.
Representative Carpenter asked Representative Tuck to point
out the section regarding signature verification.
Representative Tuck deferred the answer to the Department
of Law.
4:11:27 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF LAW
(via teleconference), noted that the provisions were
contained in Section 44 and in Section 46.
Representative Tuck appreciated the consideration of the
bill. He had been involved with election revisions over the
years. He noted the good effort among all contributors.
Co-Chair Foster indicated he would be recessing the
meeting.
4:13:49 PM
AT EASE
6:16:56 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster reported there was one item left on the
agenda.