Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/12/2022 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 | |
| HB142 | |
| SB182 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 412 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
3:10:07 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).]
3:10:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 66, labeled 32-LS0322\O, Klein, 3/30/22,
as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:11:06 PM
JEFF STEPP, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, provided an explanation of changes in the proposed CS
for HB 66 ("Version O"). He paraphrased a 16-page document,
titled "HB 66 Explanation of Changes Version I to Version O"
[hard copy included in the committee packet].
3:20:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether "risk-limiting audit" (RLA)
was defined in the bill. Additionally, she asked how it
differed from a forensic audit.
3:22:47 PM
MIKE MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that the RLA was a new form of post-
election audit that cut down on the number of ballots that
needed to be audited, as it was statistically based. He added
that a RLA would provide statistical confidence that an
incorrect election result was not made official. He said as
part of adopting the regulations, the Division of Elections
(DOE) would be required to consult with recognized statistical
experts, equipment vendors, and municipal clerks that were
familiar with these audits.
3:24:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE noted that DOE already conducted a precinct
audit. She asked whether the RLA would be in addition to that
and how it would change from the current practice.
MR. MASON shared his understanding that it would be in addition
to the existing practice. He explained that the RLA was a
statistical model that considered a sample size of ballots as
opposed to reviewing each individual ballot. He noted that the
sample size would be larger if the margin for the election
results was narrow, and vice versa. He offered to follow up
with more detailed information.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE shared her understanding that open-source
software created less need for forensic audits. She asked for
further information on open-source technology.
MR. MASON deferred to Ms. Fenumiai.
3:26:55 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, said she was not a qualified expert on
open-source software and declined to speak on the subject.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested consulting with Senator Shower's
office.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE believed that open-source software would
allow for a more transparent process. She sought to confirm
that once the ballots were counted, open-source technology would
allow that information to be viewed.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his understanding that the
description provided by Representative Vance reflected the
intent shared by Senator Shower.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE directed attention to the signature
verification in Section 39. She asked whether signature
verification would be the only identifier used to verify a
ballot.
MR. MASON recalled earlier conversations among lawmakers about
this topic. He explained that signature verification was added
in place of the witness signature.
MS. FENUMIAI believed that the proposed legislation did not
remove the additional identifier requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Ms. Fenumiai to speak to the
signature verification. She asked what would be required of the
division.
MS. FENUMIAI acknowledged that it was an entirely new process
that would require the purchase of signature verification
equipment, software, and training.
3:32:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether people would be able to
submit an electronic signature for the division to have on hand
for verification.
MS. FENUMIAI said signatures were currently captured via the
voter registration system.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the verification would be
completed manually or via automation.
MS. FENUMIAI was unsure. She referenced the signature
verification process used by the Municipality of Anchorage,
which relied on a "human element." She said best practices in
other states would be considered.
MR. MASON confirmed that the bill would require DOE to provide
training on signature comparison and associated software to
election officials.
3:35:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of CSHB 66(JUD), shared his understanding that 3 or 4
machines would be needed to verify signatures for the entire
state.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited broader comments on Version O from
the bill sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK emphasized the collaborative effort that was
put forth to produce Version O.
3:36:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Section 43 would allow for a
vote-by-mail election to be held in Alaska.
MS. FENUMIAI shared her understanding that according to the
language in Section 43, any federal election could not be
conducted by mail.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that under Section 43,
the current special election for the U.S. House seat could not
be conducted by mail.
MS. FENUMIAI pointed out that under current law, the director
could conduct an election by mail if held at a time other than
the general party primary or municipal election. She said that
provision gave her statutory authority to conduct the special
primary election by mail.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he was not opposed to by-mail
elections; however, the language in the bill reflected "the
nexus of offices and thinking." He said it could be worth
another conversation, as the option to conduct a by-mail
election in unusual or extenuating circumstances was useful.
3:40:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN returned the discussion to the RLA and
asked whether it would restrict the types of audits that could
be performed.
MR. MASON shared his understanding that it would not preclude
any of the current auditing methods for election results.
Instead, he said, it would add one more tool to the toolbox for
DOE.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recounted an experience in 2017 when he
chaired STA and held a hearing on election reform. He explained
that RLAs came up in that meeting as a recommended best practice
from a variety of authorities. He offered to bring in some
election security experts to provide testimony on RLAs.
3:42:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to page 10, line 13 of
Version O. He sought to confirm that the RLA could only be used
if a recount would change the outcome of the election.
MR. MASON answered no. He understood the language to mean that
after each election but before certification, the director [of
DOE] shall conduct an RLA of selected election results. He
added that further regulations would be developed to identify
which results would be audited.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a drafter was available to
comment on the language in question.
3:43:57 PM
NOAH KLEIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, asked Representative Eastman to repeat the
question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN interpreted the language on page 10, line
13, to suggest that the RLA could only be used if a recount
would change the outcome of the election.
MR. KLEIN clarified that the occurrence of the RLA would not be
dependent on risk; instead, the RLA would be conducted to limit
risk.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that the purpose of the RLA was
to avoid recount efforts if it would change the result of the
election. He expressed concern that the RLA "[would] have
nothing to do with whether or not the ballots themselves are
correct, or legal, or lawful, or fraudulent because we're
tying it to the recount."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said that was not the intent of the RLA.
3:47:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how passage of the proposed
legislation would impact ballot retention.
MR. MASON said the only significant change was that all ballots
would be retained for 22 months.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the current record
retention requirements.
MS. FENUMIAI conveyed that the current DOE records retention
schedule required all ballots to be retained for 22 months and
other election materials to be retained for 4 years post
certification.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the motivation for
changing the 4-year requirement for "other election materials"
to 22 months.
MR. MASON pointed out that the language in question was taken
directly from SB 39, sponsored by Senator Shower.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS confirmed.
3:50:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN noticed that "absentee voting stations"
would be renamed "early voting stations" and asked for the
reasoning.
MR. MASON shared his understanding that there had been confusion
across much of Alaska between the meaning of early voting and
absentee in-person voting; thus, the intent of Version O was to
clarify that misunderstanding by calling all stations "early
voting stations" despite the fact that an in-person absentee
ballot would be cast from those locations.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed with Mr. Mason's interpretation. He
recalled that people had been accidentally turned away from
early voting in rural Alaska during the 2016 election due to
poll workers' misunderstanding of absentee in-person voting. He
reiterated that in an attempt to eliminate the confusion, all
stations would be renamed "early voting stations."
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said he was still confused. He inquired
about the different types of ballots.
MR. MASON shared his understanding that the type of ballot would
not be changed. For example, an individual who showed up to an
early voting station would still be casting and absentee in-
person ballot.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Fenumiai whether that was
correct.
3:55:14 PM
MS. FENUMIAI clarified that early voting and absentee in-person
voting were two distinct processes. She explained the
procedural differences, stating that early voting locations were
stationed at the five regional elections offices and did not
require the completion of an absentee in-person affidavit
envelope. She added that an individual would sign the voter
certificate and vote the ballot with no further review of
eligibility required. Alternatively, absentee in-person voting
occurred outside the regional election offices at single site
voting locations. The voter was required to provide
identification and complete a ballot envelope with appropriate
identifiers and an election official's signature, she said.
Those ballots were retuned to the division and logged by staff,
at which point the voters' eligibility was determined.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about the "structural"
differences between the early voting ballots and the absentee
in-person ballots.
MS. FENUMIAI reiterated that the voters' eligibility for early
voting was determined on location while eligibility for absentee
in-person voters was determined later by the absentee review
board after staff had processed the ballots at the regional
offices.
3:58:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN surmised that for the absentee in-person
process, there was not enough staff to verify registration on
location.
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed that only early voting centers had access
to the statewide voter registration database.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether anyone would be "left
behind" by renaming the voting stations to "early voting
stations."
MS. FENUMIAI said no one would be left behind. She shared that
she was not aware of the aforementioned confusion regarding
absentee in-person ballots and early voting. She said the
differentiation was purely for the division to identify which
processes were performed at which locations. She reiterated
that the name change would have no impact on methods of voting.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS emphasized that it was purely a semantic
change. He explained that he typically cast an absentee in-
person ballot at Sitka City Hall before election day, which per
Version O, would be renamed an early voting station;
nonetheless, an absentee in-person ballot would still be cast
from that location.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN suggested renaming the voting centers
"voting stations."
4:01:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about the ballot tracking system
and whether the system would only be available for individuals
who chose to vote absentee.
MR. MASON answered yes, it would only apply to the absentee
voting system.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to page 19, line 17, which provided
that the "the director shall immediately make a reasonable
effort to contact the voter" regarding a ballot deficiency. She
suspected that the language "reasonable effort" could be
challenged and suggested adding further clarification, such as a
"within 48 hours", for example.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that ballot curing was a policy area
with overlapping legislation.
4:05:17 PM
MR. STEPP acknowledged that there were different ballot curing
provisions in different bills. Ultimately, he said, the intent
was to assign the director the responsibility of determining an
appropriate timeframe in which to respond.
MR. MASON noted that the bill would allow the director to
contact the voter through additional methods, such as electronic
mail, telephone call, or text message, instead of just sending a
deficiency notice.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR reiterated that "reasonable effort" was the
concerning language, as it could be ambiguous.
MS. FENUMIAI agreed that "reasonable effort" seemed unclear.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked how the division would track the
director's "reasonable effort."
MS. FENUMIAI speculated that the division would need to develop
some kind of system for tracking the attempts made to contact
voters.
4:09:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY directed attention to page 1, line 10, and
inquired about the 30-day registration requirement.
MR. MASON stated that Representative Story was referring to what
was known as "same-day voter registration." He shared his
understanding that anyone who took advantage of the same day
voter registration, or the 30-day timeframe, could vote a
special needs ballot, absentee in-person ballot, or question
ballot, as those ballots were reviewed by the division; however,
they could not vote a regular ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY observed that Version O would create a lot
of additional work for DOE. She inquired about the fiscal note.
MR. MASON said the current fiscal note was no longer
representative of the bill, as it has greatly expanded by
Version O. He summarized associated costs according to Version
I of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY wondered whether the division had concerns
about any specific provisions in Version O.
MS. FENUMIAI said the division had not had the opportunity to
review it in detail. She pointed out that there were some
sections that outlined current practices, such as the question
ballot process that Mr. Mason had referenced. She suggested
that there were duplicative items in the proposed legislation.
4:16:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned why people's ballots had been
thrown out in past elections and asked how that could be
corrected.
MS. FENUMIAI said the lack of a witness signature was a big
factor, as well as a missing signature or being postmarked after
election day.
4:17:47 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to the adoption of
the proposed CS for HB 66, labeled 32-LS0322\O, Klein, 3/30/22,
as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his objection.
4:18:35 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr, Story,
Claman, Vance, Kaufman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of the
proposed CS. Representative Eastman voted against it.
Therefore, Version O was adopted as the working document by a
vote of 6-1.