Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
01/25/2022 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB66 | |
| HB95 | |
| HB267 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 95 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 267 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
3:06:59 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be 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." [Before the committee was CSHB 66(JUD).]
3:08:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor
introduced HB 66. He noted that the bill may be familiar to
some, as it was originally introduced during the Thirtieth
Alaska State Legislature as House Bill 1. He paraphrased the
sponsor statement, which read in its entirety as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
In November of 2020, over 361,000 Alaskans voted.
Never in Alaska's history have so many people cast a
ballot in an election.
House Bill 66 seeks to build on the success of the
2020 election by making permanent some of the
temporary changes put in place to ensure Alaskans
could vote safely. These changes include eliminating
the witness requirement for absentee ballots and a pay
increase for election workers up to $15 per hour.
HB 66 also seeks to modernize elections in Alaska by
allowing electronic signatures and same-day voter
registration. The bill also requires absentee ballots
to be counted as they are received instead of waiting
until after the polls close on election day. This will
speed up the release of more complete election
results.
Other provisions in House Bill 66 include:
• Creating an option for permanent absentee voting for
individuals that plan to vote by mail in every
election.
• 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.
The overarching goal behind HB 66 is to remove
barriers to the ballot box at every stage of Alaska's
elections. HB 66 will make it more convenient to vote
before election day and make it easier to vote on
election day.
3:12:30 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from the committee.
3:12:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about Section 1, which removes
the requirement to register before the election. He asked about
the implications of that provision and how residency would be
demonstrated.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK directed attention to page 2, line 24,
indicating that Alaska residency would still have to be
established at least 30 days before the date of the election.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which a voter's
statement of residency had been exaggerated. He asked how the
individual would be required to prove that he/she had been a
resident for that 30-day period prior to the election.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK shared his understanding that the Division
of Elections (DOE) would consider the date of issuance on the
identification (ID) cared or driver's license or the voter's
utility bills. He deferred to the division to further discuss
the guidelines for establishing residency.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his interest in hearing from
DOE on this line of questioning.
3:15:47 PM
MICHAELA THOMPSON, Administrative Operations Manager, Division
of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, said when
reviewing residency, DOE looks at the voter registration form
and whether the individual attested to being a resident at the
address provided.
3:16:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there would be a set of
criteria by which the division would adjudicate the accuracy of
a 30-day residency declaration.
MS. THOMPSON did not have a response at this time. She offered
to follow up with the requested information.
3:17:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that under current law, a
person must be a resident of Alaska for at least 30 days before
the election to cast a ballot. Consequently, he asked why DOE
doesn't already have a mechanism in place to verify the accuracy
of a person's 30-day residency requirement.
MS. THOMPSON relayed that if an individual is updating his/her
address of residency, a completed form must be turned into the
division by the deadline. If that deadline is met, that
person's name would show up on the precinct register for voting
in person. If the updated registration was not completed by the
deadline, the individual's information would not show up on the
precinct register; therefore, when voting in person, the
individual would be required to fill out a question ballot,
which requires a name, current address of residency,
identifiers, and a signature verifying that that the
corresponding information is true. The question ballot is then
reviewed by the Question Review Board, which compares the
voter's address of residency on file to the one written on the
question ballot envelope. If the addresses differ, the board
determines whether the voter receives a partial count or a
complete rejection.
3:19:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his hope that the division
would come up with additional "robust" controls to verify the
accuracy of the information on [the voter registration]. He
sought to confirm that currently, the division does not review a
person's utility bills to verify his/her residency.
MS. THOMPSON confirmed that utility bills are not reviewed.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that presently, there is no need
for the development of such protocols by DOE, as the proposed
legislation is not yet law. He surmised that if CSHB 66(JUD)
were to become law, DOE would attend to implementing the
necessary protocols. He asked how other states process this
kind of registration.
3:20:52 PM
AMBER MCREYNOLDS, Chief Executive Officer, National Vote at Home
Institute, explained that every state has different residency
requirements, which can vary anywhere from 10 to 40 days, for
example. She recalled how Denver, Colorado, included an
affidavit in the voter registration form, as well as in the
same-day registration process. Additionally, residency was
included as a challenge provision, allowing for an additional
accountability mechanism in addition to the affidavit and
identification requirements. She further reported that on
average, it is rare that individuals participating in same-day
registration are new registrants. She added that the majority
of people utilizing same-day registration are in-state voters
who are moving within the state.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK directed attention to page 2, line 21, which
outlines the ramifications for submitting false information in
regard to residency on one's application.
3:25:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that typically,
individuals filing for same-day registration are those who have
moved in state to a new district and forgot to update their
registration beforehand.
MS. MCREYNOLDS answered that is correct. She anecdotally
reported that when same-day registration was implemented in
Colorado, an even number of Republicans and Democrats utilized
the provision; further, there was high use among military
personnel partly due to the high mobility rate within that
population. She explained that this modification streamlines
the election process and improves the voting experience for
voters regardless of their political affiliation.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked for a breakdown in percentage
between non-military and military populations and in-state
versus out-of-state.
MS. MCREYNOLDS offered to follow up with the requested
information.
3:30:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said there seems to be a fear that
allowing same-day registration would increase nefarious
activity. He asked whether there was any evidence of that in
Colorado.
MS. MCREYNOLDS said there were no issues with people trying to
"game the system" and in the rare instances when it did occur,
the system identified it. She explained that the implementation
of a real-time voter registration system made it impossible for
someone to attempt to register in multiple jurisdictions. She
emphasized that there is no evidence to support the claims of
mass voter fraud for several reasons: election officials are
good at doing their job; the system catches any illegal
activity; and most voters aren't aware of state registration
requirements.
3:34:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about the process for confirming a
voter's identity.
3:36:16 PM
MS. THOMPSON summarized the process as follows:
Currently, what occurs is that ... at a polling place,
they go and approach the election officials that have
the precinct register ... [and] provide one of the
eligible forms of registration, which is a voter ID
card, drivers license, state ID, military ID,
passport, hunting or fishing license, or other current
or valid photo of ID. The election official looks up
their name on the register and confirms the name
matches that form of identification and they have the
voter sign the register. If that person came to vote
later and they saw that someone signed on their line
previously on accident ... we would have them vote a
question ballot and provide their identifier, [which
is] something the division can review later when that
ballot comes back to the question board, and we can
determine who is the correct voter on the line and who
is the voter that filled out the question envelope.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted that a benefit of an absentee ballot
as opposed to in-person voting is that [an accidental signature]
could be corrected prior to that ballot being counted or dropped
into a ballot box.
3:38:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how the scenario in question would be
impacted by same-day registration. Additionally, she questioned
how to solve the issue of rejected ballots.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said if two people show up at the polls with
the same name, the second individual would have to be
questioned. He noted that the question ballot is one of the
best corrective measures available. He deferred to DOE for
further explanation.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to clarify the question for DOE. He
considered a scenario in which two people with the same name and
different addresses were voting in the same community. He asked
how local election officials would differentiate those two
individuals.
MS. THOMPSON clarified that the precinct register includes
registrants' addresses on it. Therefore, local election
officials have the ability to ensure that each person is signing
next to the correct name by checking the corresponding address.
3:41:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether poll workers are instructed
to confirm the address for individuals with similar names or
whether it's presumed that the voter will do that.
MS. THOMPSON responded that the officials show each person the
line in which they are to sign on, which allows the voter an
opportunity to review the information provided.
3:41:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN attempted to clarify the voting process
that the bill seeks to implement.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted that currently, a question ballot
determines how much of the ballot can be filled out by each
voter; however, if the bill were to pass, the voter would be
qualified to fill out the entire question ballot. He cited
regulation 6AAC25-643 [counting of district question ballots]
indicating that the ballots would be reviewed prior to being
counted to allow for verification ahead of time.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that "same-day
registration ... would become a question ballot automatically -
they'd review it no matter what. And I would still be
registered but the ballot would get reviewed."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK confirmed that is accurate.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN shared his understanding that in a
presidential election year, a person would be allowed to vote a
question ballot for a presidential candidate with same-day
registration despite not being allowed to vote in any Alaska
races.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK confirmed his understanding.
3:47:00 PM
PADDY MCGUIRE, County Auditor, Mason County Washington Auditor,
said after reviewing HB 66, he believed it would be a
significant step forward in correcting issues in Alaska law to
make voting from home easier and more accessible. He relayed
that one of the important lessons from the 2020 election is that
people want the safety and convenience of voting from home. He
emphasized that as a long-time election administrator, there is
nothing in the bill that has not been done successfully
elsewhere. He stated that allowing voters to choose to get
ballots at home permanently is easier for election
administrators than having voters make repeated requests and is
more convenient for voters. He reported that 70 percent of
Oregonians chose to become permanent absentee voters when Oregon
adopted vote by mail in 1998. Washington instituted same-day
registration in 2020 and pre-paid return postage in 2018, which
was immediately popular amongst voters, he said. He addressed
the ballot curing process in Washington, explaining that it acts
as a service to voters in addition to being an important
security measure. He said that in Mason County, Washington,
ballot processing begins the day after they are mailed out.
Ballots are sorted, reviewed, and scanned 17 days before the
election. Further, the ballot tally software does not provide
results prior to 8:00 p.m. on election day and the staff that
handles the ballots are sworn election workers. He noted that
it's a felony to review results early. He addressed the witness
requirement on absentee ballots, explaining that it creates a
barrier to voters with no security benefit, as election
officials cannot check the validity because witnesses are not
required to be registered voters. Last, he reported that in
Mason County, a rural county in Washington, the election workers
are paid $18 to $20 per hour. He said he was amazed to learn
the rate of pay in Alaska is lower, adding that he would not be
able to keep quality temporary workers at $12 per hour.
3:50:57 PM
MS. MCREYNOLDS emphasized the importance of putting voters
first. She opined that most election laws around the nation and
at the federal level were not designed for voters or efficiency
in terms of operations for election officials. She believed
that HB 66 would be a step forward in putting voters first and
designing a process that is more efficient, effective, and
operationally sound for election officials. She pointed out
that many of the provisions in the proposed legislation have
already been implemented in other states, such as same-day voter
registration, mail-in ballot improvements, and ballot curing.
She stated that the bill would add clarity to various parts of
Alaska law, including the allowance of poll watchers during the
election process, and would provide for pre-paid postage return
envelopes for absentee ballots, which would establish efficiency
and better customer service for all voters regardless of party
affiliation. She went on to stress the importance of paying
election workers appropriately, as the work they do is critical.
She concluded by commenting on the absentee voter list and the
option of a more permanent list, which many states have adopted
to create efficiencies for election officials.
3:57:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked Ms. McReynolds to speak to accuracy
relative to same-day registration. She asked whether there is
any evidence that same-day registration increases accuracy.
MS. MCREYNOLDS reviewed the history of voter registration and
all its components. She said many of the changes that occurred
over time were in response to desires of political campaigns and
parties, as opposed to being designed with the voter in mind.
Now, she said, the advances in technology allow the pieces to be
connected. She explained that same-day registration fits in
with a host of issues that continue to improve the accuracy of
voter registration lists and constituent data bases that exist
across many government platforms, including the data used by
elected officials to contact constituents. She said same-day
registration provides voters who have recently moved with the
accurate ballot instead of making them vote in a jurisdiction in
which they no longer live for candidates who no longer represent
them. She reiterated that same-day registration helps to
improve the accuracy of the voter list, the integrity of the
voting system, and the customer service that the voter and
constituent are experiencing when participating in the voting
process.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS summarized that without same-day
registration, voters are effectively being told to vote in a
[jurisdiction] where they no longer live.
4:07:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about the intent of Section 5,
lines 22-23.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that the language in question is
adding provisions to statute that already exist in regulation,
which pertain to the addition of items on the outside of the
ballot envelope for review.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN clarified that his question pertains to
registering as nonpartisan, undeclared, or affiliated with
political party or group.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that voters would be able to
change their voter registration on an in-person absentee ballot.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his understanding that same-day
registration provides voters with the opportunity to update
their registration or political affiliation. He asked whether
that was accurate.
MS. THOMPSON responded that the division's absentee in-person,
special needs, and question ballot envelopes currently allow
voters to update their political affiliation.
4:10:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN maintained his confusion.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that many provisions in the bill
attempt to clean up areas of regulation and add them to statute.
He acknowledged that the provision exists already, as Ms.
Thompson had stated; however, it exists through regulation not
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN wondered why a voter's affiliation would
matter in an open primary.
MS. THOMPSON acknowledged that with the new primary system, the
division would no longer refer to the voter's political
affiliation when reviewing ballots.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS restated the question from
Representative Kaufman, pointing out that Section 5 relates to
an absentee in-person ballot. He asked why currently, an
absentee ballot contains language that allows the voter to
update his/her voter affiliation.
MS. THOMPSON explained that the rationale is that the form can
be used to update the voter's information similar to a voter
registration form.
4:13:18 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS directed attention to page 3, lines 22-33,
and asked whether that language exists in regulation presently.
Effectively, he asked whether existing regulatory language is
being upgraded to statutory language.
MS. THOMPSON said she is unsure; however, the language would not
change the division's process.
4:13:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN understood that per Section 1, anyone who
wants to vote in Alaska must be a resident of both the state and
the district in which the person seeks to vote for at least 30
days prior to the election. He emphasized that the legislature
is not encouraging anyone to return to an old district from
which they moved to vote, as that would be a violation of the
law.
4:15:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY, in response to feedback she had received
from constituents, clarified that per page 7, line 26, of CSHB
66(JUD), a postage-paid return envelope would be provided with
each ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK [nodded in affirmative].
REPRESENTATIVE STORY appreciated the letters of support that had
been provided in the committee packet.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recalled that during the 2016 election,
there was perceived confusion in terms of what early voting was.
He noted that the proposed legislation seeks to remedy that
confusion. Further, he observed a general confusion regarding
the amount of postage each envelope requires, which the bill
resolves as well. Ultimately, CSHB 66(JUD) attempts to make
voting more accessible, secure, and less confusing.
4:17:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that CSHB 66(JUD) was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 66 Fiscal Note DOE 01.06.22.pdf |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Testimony Combined Letters of Support 1.24.2022.pdf |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Written Testimony_Heather OClaray_01.19.22.pdf |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 267 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 267 |
| HB 267 Section Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 267 |
| HB 267 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 267 |
| HB 267 Version A.PDF |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 267 |
| HB 95 Fiscal Note LAW 01.14.22.pdf |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 95 |
| 1.24_Final Draft HB 95 Presentation_1.25.2022.pdf |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 95 |