Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
05/05/2022 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 | |
| SB95 | |
| SB182 | |
| SB36 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 95 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
3:06:05 PM
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN 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, adopted as the working
document and amended on 5/3/22, was the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 66, Version 32-LS0322\N, Klein, 4/30/22,
("Version N"), as amended.]
3:07:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 66,
Version N, as amended, labeled 32-LS0322\N.3, Klein, 5/3/22,
which read:
Page 15, line 6:
Delete "four"
Insert "two"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:07:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN explained that under Amendment 3, a voter
who had not voted an absentee ballot for a period of two years,
as opposed to four years, would be required to reapply for an
absentee ballot by mail. He opined that lowering the timeframe
from four years to two years would increase ballot security.
3:08:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether military members had been
considered in the drafting of Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN confirmed that he had considered military
members. He maintained his belief that two years seemed more
reasonable than four.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY stated that her preference was to maintain
a four-year cycle.
3:10:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which a voter
turned in an absentee ballot at a polling station once within
four years. He asked whether that person would continue to
receive absentee ballots perpetually.
3:11:07 PM
MIKE MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor,
confirmed that as long as the voter voted within the specified
[four-year] time period, he/she would stay on the permanent
absentee voter list.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that per Amendment 3,
the voter would need to miss at least two elections [to be
removed from the permanent absentee voter list].
MR. MASON said under the current system, voters who cast a
ballot within the four-year timeframe remain on the absentee
voter list. In contrast, voters who do not cast a ballot within
the four-year timeframe are removed from the list. He shared
his understanding that Amendment 3 would shorten that timeframe
from four years to two years. He opined that voters should be
able to miss an election cycle and retain the privilege of
permanent absentee voting, whereas Amendment 3 would penalize a
voter for missing an election by removing him/her from that
list.
3:13:14 PM
MR. MASON, in response to a follow-up question from
Representative Eastman, stated that the Division of Elections
(DOE) would remove a voter from the permanent absentee voting
list if he/she missed two election cycles.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to clarify the sponsor's position
on the matter.
MR. MASON clarified the bill sponsor's position, such that a
voter would be required to reapply for permanent absentee voting
after missing two, two-year election cycles.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that a voter who signs
up for permanent absentee voting would receive four ballots in a
four-year period.
MR. MASON pointed out that currently, the division maintained a
permanent absentee voting list; however, those on the list were
sent an absentee ballot application, as opposed to a ballot.
The intent of the permanent absentee voting system proposed in
Version N, he said, was to allow a person to check a box on the
voter registration form and be sent an absentee ballot for all
state elections going forward. The aforementioned process would
exclude someone who simply filled out a traditional absentee
ballot application for one specific election.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that the permanent
absentee voting application was separate from a traditional
absentee ballot application.
MR. MASON said the bill empowers DOE to implement the system
accordingly. He clarified that the intent was for a voter to
"check a box" and be included on the permanent absentee voter
list and receive a ballot in perpetuity unless he/she met the
criteria to be removed from the list. Alternatively, a voter
who did not want to receive absentee ballots permanently could
always sign up for a traditional one-time absentee ballot to
vote in a specific election.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN shared his understanding that the application
for an absentee ballot would include a box that could be checked
in the affirmative to opt-in to permanent absentee voting. He
asked if that was correct.
MR. MASON answered yes.
3:17:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that the Municipality of
Anchorage had implemented a vote-by-mail system. She asked how
the provision in question would impact state versus local
elections.
MR. MASON shared his understanding that the bill would not
impact municipal elections; therefore, the municipal system in
Anchorage would stay the same.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR opined that Amendment 3 would defy the bill
sponsor's intent.
MR. MASON explained that the bill was drafted to allow voters to
miss an election cycle and still be included on the permanent
absentee voter list, a cost-saving measure that would make it
easier to vote.
3:19:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 6, agreed with Mr. Mason. He argued that if a
voter were to miss a primary and a general election, he/she
should be removed from the list.
3:20:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked, "You say, a moment ago, that if
someone misses both a primary and a general, then they should
have to reapply?"
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered, "Yes, if they miss two elections."
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN shared his understanding that if Amendment 3
were adopted, a voter would be removed from the list after
missing both the 2022 primary and the 2022 general election,
thereby shortening the allowance from four opportunities to vote
to two opportunities. The bill sponsor, he clarified, preferred
four opportunities.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed. He noted the four-year time span
was recommended by national organizations.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he had heard the bill sponsor
describe this as a cost-saving measure. He asked for further
explanation.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Hillary Hall.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN noted that pre-paid postage only incurred cost
if it was mailed by the recipient.
3:23:44 PM
HILLARY HALL, Government Affairs Director, National Vote at Home
Institute (NVAHI), asked Representative Eastman to rephrase the
question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how the permanent absentee voting
provision was a cost-saving measure.
MS. HALL indicated that money was saved in the application
process, as processing absentee ballot requests averaged $1 per
form.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Ms. Hall to weigh that against what
he characterized as "increased costs" associated with voters who
were on the permanent absentee voter list that had moved out of
state and continued to receive a ballot that was never voted.
MS. HALL stated that there were ways to clean that up, such as
the national change of address notification process, which the
division already practiced. Further, she reported that people
who sign up for by-mail voting are more likely to vote a ballot
compared to the average in-person voter. She characterized the
provision as a "win-win."
3:26:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which an Alaska
voter moved out of state and filed a change of address with the
United States Postal Service (USPS). He asked whether that
person would be removed from the voter registration list or
whether he/she would no longer receive absentee ballots.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, said currently, a change of address would
not trigger a response; however, Version N provided that if a
voter's previous absentee ballot, sent under this section, was
returned to the division as undeliverable, the voter would be
removed from the permanent absentee voting list. Alternatively,
if the voter's intent was to remain in Alaska or the mailing
address change was in-state, he/she would be given the
opportunity to update his/her voter registration.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked:
"What is the process by which we get to that point
where you're actually able to receive something back
as undeliverable. I understand there was some other
intervening steps in that process."
MS. FENUMIAI asked Representative Eastman to restate the
question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which an Alaska
voter moved out of state and filed a change of address with
USPS. He asked whether that person would be removed from the
voter registration list or whether he/she would no longer
receive absentee ballots.
MS. FENUMIAI sought to confirm that Representative Eastman was
referring to DOE's current list maintenance process.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Fenumiai to elaborate.
MS. FENUMIAI offered to follow up with the requested
information, as it involved a lengthy and long explanation.
MR. MASON directed Representative Eastman to a document [hard
copy included in the committee packet] titled, "Additional Info
- DOE List Maintenance."
3:32:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about the administrative burden
associated with Amendment 3, as it would require the division to
process absentee ballot applications on a two-year cycle instead
of every four years.
MS. FENUMIAI said there was no way to quantify the impact on
cost. She suggested that the two-year versus four-year cycle
was a policy call.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded to Representative Kaufman's
inference that mailing out absentee ballots in perpetuity was a
security issue. She pointed out that "the universe of potential
Alaskans involved" was limited to individuals who had opted-in
to the permanent absentee voter list and then proceeded to miss
an election or move out of state. She asked whether DOE had any
concerns about the four-year timeframe or ballots being
unreceived by the intended recipient.
MS. FENUMIAI acknowledged that election security was always a
concern; nonetheless, she expressed her hope that voters would
take the time to notify the division of a change in location.
She emphasized that the division only sent ballots to
individuals who requested them; further, verification tools had
been implemented to create adequate checks and balances in the
system.
3:36:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 3.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN objected.
3:36:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that ballots were of the utmost
importance and should be handled with great care. He believed
that Amendment 3 was overly generous; however, he intended to
support it. He expressed his concern about ballots getting
lost, misplaced, or stolen.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN said he did not support Amendment 3. He
shared a personal anecdote and likened permanent absentee voting
to autopayments on a credit card.
3:39:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN shared final comments on Amendment 3. He
recalled that an "errant" ballot was worth $1 and believed that
the added security Amendment 3 offered was worth consideration.
To those who utilize absentee ballots, he contended that the
elderly population could "become incapacitated" within the four-
year timeframe. He characterized it as "demonstrable" that
people were not great at notifying the division of a change in
location. He acknowledged the desire to make things easier but
preferred to err on the side of security while respecting the
desire for convenience.
3:41:00 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 3.
Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 to HB 66, Version N failed
by a vote of 3-4.
VICE CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 66 was held over.