Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/08/2005 01:00 PM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB26 | |
| HB94 | |
| HB53 | |
| HB279 | |
| HB130 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| HB 26 | |||
| + | HB 94 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 279 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 94(STA)
"An Act relating to qualifications of voters, requirements and
procedures regarding independent candidates for President and
Vice-President of the United States, voter registration, voter
residence, precinct boundary and polling place designation and
modification, political parties, voters unaffiliated with a
political party, early voting, absentee voting, ballot design,
ballot counting, voting by mail, voting machines, vote tally
systems, qualifications for elected office, initiative,
referendum, recall, and definitions in the Alaska Election
Code; and relating to incorporation elections."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, characterized this legislation as being "a
major piece of election reform". It is an updated version of a bill
that was introduced but not adopted the previous Legislative
Session.
Ms. Glaiser stated that this bill would clean up and enhance
current election provisions, including minor changes such as
changing the term "work site" to "construction site"; proposing
that the voter record rather than the voter card be the presumptive
evidence of a voter's residence; including the definition of non-
partisan and undeclared voters; "protecting voter information of
domestic violence victims in accordance with confidentially laws
approved last year; defining the process for independent candidates
for Vice President and President; sharing consistency in the
definition of an overseas voter; making clear age requirements for
serving once selected; and clarifies recognized political party
status and how the Division notifies a party". Changes to Title 29
would include "clearly" defining a qualified voter as one
registered to vote within a proposed borough or municipality at
least 30 days prior to an election as a hardship is currently
incurred by the requirement that a person must live in an area. The
bill would "define re-registration and repeal duplicate language"
regarding regional supervisors and absentee voting stations.
Ms. Glaiser spoke to the "major changes" proposed in the bill
regarding such things as allowing a voter through power of attorney
to register to vote, and make changes to their registration. Other
changes would include reducing the witnessing requirements for
absentee by mail or electronic transmission from two witnesses to
one. The Division desired that witness be a United States (U.S.)
citizen, however that requirement was eliminated in the House State
Affairs Committee.
Co-Chair Green asked for further information regarding the witness
requirements.
Ms. Glaiser responded that current law requires two U.S. witnesses
for a faxed voted ballot and two witnesses for a by-mail ballot.
The Division recommended changing both those voting scenarios to
one witness who must be a U.S. citizen; House action eliminated the
U.S. citizenship requirement, but incorporated language that would
subject a person making false statements on the absentee ballot to
the act of perjury.
Co-Chair Green understood that, were they to submit an "ineligible
witness", the person submitting the absentee ballot would be
subject to that punishment.
1:16:57 PM
Ms. Glaiser affirmed.
Ms. Glaiser continued that the bill would incorporate scanning as
another mode of transmitting voter registration or by mail absentee
ballot requests to the Division. Current acceptable transmittal
means include delivery in person, by mail, or by fax.
Ms. Glaiser informed the Committee that, while current law requires
the Director of the Division of Elections to determine a random
order for all candidates, the House added language requiring the
Division to implement a ballot rotation for the names of those
candidates running for governor, lieutenant governor, U.S. senator,
U.S. representative, and State senator for each district. "The
names of the candidates for State House races will appear in random
order as determined by the Director as is the current practice."
Ms. Glaiser pointed out that the Division advanced language that
"would improve ballot security by adding that the ballots would not
be mailed to a voter whose address has been identified as being
undeliverable". In addition, election boards must notify the
Division of the number of ballots that have been destroyed to
increase accountability. Voting machine and vote tally machine
standards provisions were also included in the bill.
Ms. Glaiser stated that a large portion of the bill would be
dedicated to improving the process pertaining to petitions,
referendums and recalls. The changes would make the process "more
user friendly" for citizens and would make the process of
"petitioning the government more consistent". One change would be
the inclusion of a "printed name and numerical identifier for a
petition signer". The numerical identifier language added by the
House Judiciary Committee would include such things as date of
birth, last four digits of one's social security number, Alaska
driver's license number, or State or voter identification number.
This information "would improve the Division's ability to qualify a
voter's signature".
1:18:22 PM
Ms. Glaiser stated that the proposed changes in the qualifications
pertaining to a circulator or petitioner would align the State with
the Buckley ruling in that, while the circulator must be 18 years
of age, an Alaskan resident, and a U.S. citizen, they would not be
required to be a registered voter.
Ms. Glaiser noted that "language that was the basis for the
Division requiring accountability reports from the petition
sponsors has been removed", as a Court ruling considered that
requirement to be "an undue burden and a barrier for petition
carriers".
Ms. Glaiser also pointed out that language requiring the
circulator's name to be prominently displayed on the petition was
eliminated. While the Division had chosen not to enforce that
provision following the year 2000 Buckley ruling, the Statutes had
not been changed.
Ms. Glaiser continued that language regarding the number of
signatures required on a recall petition was clarified by the
removal of language pertaining to 100 signatures. Going forward,
ten percent of the voters in the preceding general election would
be required to sign a recall petition.
Ms. Glaiser stated that one of the changes advanced by the House
Judiciary Committee was to reduce the percent of votes required by
party candidates for the party to continue as a recognized
political party. "The amounts for recounts were raised" as depicted
in the sectional analyses contained in Members' packets. The
amounts had not been reset since 1986.
1:19:52 PM
Ms. Glaiser specified that the legislation would also require
petitions, referendums or recalls to specify in the petition
booklet "the minimum cost to the State for the review and
certification of those petitions". In addition, the cost to the
State, were the act approved by the voters must be provided.
Ms. Glaiser stated that language was added on the House Floor that
"no one supplying an absentee ballot application may pre-mark the
primary ballot choice for a voter before mailing it out". Language
was also added that specified that "only a voter or a person with a
power of attorney could mark party affiliation on a voter
registration or absentee ballot application unless the mark is
consistent with the voter's current registration record".
Ms. Glaiser noted that the Senate State Affairs Committee changed
the word "oath" in Section 6(a) (11) back to "attestation" as is
reflected in current law. That word would be consistent with the
national voter registration act. The use of the word "oath" was
incorrect.
Ms. Glaiser informed the Committee that, while the Senate State
Affairs Committee added Sections 11, 12, and 13, she could not
speak to those sections was they pertained to law that she did not
administer.
Ms. Glaiser stated that Section 19 changed the date by which the
Director must identify locations for early voting sites. The
proposed date of June first would replace the existing January
first date. This was a Division request as moving the date closer
to the election date would provide more time to determine the most
appropriate sites for that activity. The June first date would
continue to provide the Division the time required for ordering
ballots, supplies, and the hiring of election workers.
1:21:14 PM
Ms. Glaiser noted that the Senate State Affairs Committee removed
language adopted on the House Floor that would have provided a
ballot with the greatest range of candidates from the most parties
to an unaffiliated voter who failed to mark a primary ballot
choice. This language was removed, as no such ballot exists in
Alaska because it has "closed primaries in which there are
individual ballots for individual parties". Therefore the House
language was inconsistent with existing State law. The Senate
Judiciary Committee also removed language that would change
existing qualifiers for recognized political parties.
Co-Chair Green described this as being "a huge bill". Continuing,
she asked whether any language in the bill would provide the
Division the ability to "clean up" the State's voter registration
lists.
1:22:39 PM
Ms. Glaiser responded that the bill would not address purging of
the voter registration list. The federal Department of Justice
(DoJ) and the National Voter Registration Act "heavily monitor the
portion of the law regarding that endeavor". The Division has
conducted internal discussions in this regard; however, it would
require tremendous effort and coordination with DoJ. As a
consequence of existing State law, the Division has been notified
by DoJ that the State is one of a few with more registered voters
than people over the age of 18. The Division has responded to DoJ,
and as result, an effort in this regard might be forthcoming.
1:23:34 PM
Co-Chair Green asked whether State or federal law would allow for
the requirement that a person "at the time of voting" update their
address information. This would seem to be the most feasible manner
through which to update records. The fact that a high percent of
the Division's mailings are returned is a point of frustration.
Many addresses are old and past the time allotted by the U.S. Post
Office for forwarding. Efforts such as developing an unobtrusive
method to update records at the voting poll should be furthered.
Ms. Glaiser responded that requesting people to update their
address at the time of voting would not be obtrusive. The process
of Questioned Ballots currently allows that. While State or federal
law would not prohibit asking for address verification, it would
slow down the polling process.
Co-Chair Green asked whether permission to ask for address
verification would be required in State Statute.
Ms. Glaiser stated that this would be researched.
Co-Chair Green expressed that a determination would be appreciated,
as this is an important issue.
1:26:27 PM
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether the inclusion of a FY 2007 capital
budget request for a dedicated staff position to work with the
federal DoJ in regards to the State's Voter Registration list might
be appropriate. To that point, he asked whether such an effort
could be accomplished in one year.
1:26:57 PM
Ms. Glaiser responded that this effort would involve more than
"just a body", as the person must be able to speak on behalf of the
Division. In addition, she was unsure whether a temporary or
contract employee could conduct negotiations on behalf of the
State. This suggestion could be further reviewed and could be
funded through the Help America Vote Act.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that this issue is worthy of discussion, as
the voter registration process should be improved.
Co-Chair Green remarked that the voter registration list issue must
be frustrating for the Division. She estimated that half of
Division's mailings are returned.
Ms. Glaiser nodded in affirmation.
1:28:26 PM
Senator Dyson asked for further information about how the Division
could change the voter registration list so that potential victims
could be protected from perpetrators.
1:28:48 PM
Ms. Glaiser explained that SB 284, which became law the previous
Session, would allow any voter who had a separate mailing and
residence address to keep their residence address protected. In
addition, law now specified that the Division could not release
information such as a social security number or date of birth.
Senator Olson inquired as to how people in Rural areas of the State
that do not have such things as post office box mail delivery would
be able to receive absentee ballots or other mailings. He voiced
concern that voter apathy might occur were those individuals to
think their ballots would be questioned.
Ms. Glaiser understood the question to be how to ensure by-mail
voters or absentee voters that their votes would be counted. In
other words, the question is whether this bill might provide those
people further consideration. She voiced the understanding that
there is nothing currently in the bill that would address this
concern. The action of a voter "to keep their registration current
is the most important thing".
Ms. Glaiser expressed that Alaska is "a great State" because people
call the regional Election office if they do not receive a ballot
or something expected does not arrive. The only section that speaks
primarily to Rural communities is the section regarding
undeliverable addresses in REAA/CRSA election districts. The
Division would no longer send a ballot to an address that is known
to be undeliverable. "That is an election integrity question."
1:31:40 PM
Co-Chair Green ascertained therefore, that, at some point, it is
incumbent upon the voter to be aware.
Ms. Glaiser stated that the undeliverable address ballot issue is
addressed in Sec. 25 of the bill. She qualified that the decision
to not send a ballot to an undeliverable address would only apply
to the REAA/CRSA elections, which are exclusively conducted by
mail. It would not apply to absentee voting by mail ballots as that
process is one in which the voter first sends the Division an
application containing a mailing address to which the ballot is
then sent. That procedure would maintain the process integrity.
1:32:21 PM
JOE SONNEMAN informed the Committee that he holds a PhD in
Government and has a Law Degree. This education has attributed to
his interest in election procedures. He mentioned that at one time
he had filed a lawsuit to assist in restoring the State's long-
standing practice of rotating candidate names. He voiced
appreciation for the fact that the House State Affairs Committee
incorporated rotation provisions into the bill at zero cost. To
that point, he asked that the Committee support that language and
the other provisions supported by the House in the bill.
Mr. Sonneman continued that he had also served as chair of the
Alaskans for Fair Elections group that was involved in the 2004
State recount effort. Thus he has reviewed the provisions in this
bill that address the recount issue. Again, he voiced support for
the work conducted by the House committees in that regard. He
"commended the House version of the bill to the Committee for
consideration. The differences between the bill that reported from
the House and the Senate committee substitute is that the Senate
version basically re-instills "soft money. It would allow unlimited
spending for political party building with no record of
contribution or expenditure". While people who support strong
political parties might favor that endeavor, he opined that the
"wider Alaskan view" might differ. He noted that an amendment to
delete that language could be forthcoming, that and he "would
commend that amendment".
Mr. Sonneman addressed language in Sec. 57, which was included in
the House version of the bill, but not included in the Senate
committee substitute. Sec. 57 would redefine political parties and
lower the qualifier requirement from three percent to two percent.
Currently, the Alaska Independence Party, which more than likely
draws votes from the Republican Party, would qualify as a political
party under either the two or three percent requirement. The change
to two percent would allow the Green Party to continue to qualify
as a political party. That would affect the votes for the
Democratic Party "almost to the same degree that" the Alaska
Independence Party would affect the Republican Party. Therefore,
one could say that the House version of the bill "is more balanced
on its affect on the major parties and preserves smaller parties in
Alaska".
Mr. Sonneman shared that he has closely followed this bill through
its House processings. The House committees did good work, and he
commended the House Version to the Committee. Were the Senate bill
to be favored, he urged that Sec. 57 be re-incorporated into it.
MYRL THOMPSON, who defined himself as a Susitna Valley resident,
past Legislative candidate, and initiative and recall effort
participant, voiced that he has followed the movement of this
legislation through its House and Senate hearing process. The
Senate State Affairs committee substitute, which added Sections 11,
12, and 13, "poisoned" a very good House bill.
1:37:19 PM
Mr. Thompson applauded the efforts conducted by the Division of
Elections and the House. However, the Senate's inclusion of
Sections 11, 12, and 13 would push "backwards" campaign reform
efforts intended to reduce "soft money" from out-of-State "5270"
special interest groups influencing Alaskan politics. Therefore, he
asked that Sections 11, 12, and 13 be omitted from the bill. "Soft
money" would also place small political groups at "a distinct
disadvantage". He defined "soft money" as money that "there is no
trail on".
Mr. Thompson noted that 51-percent of voters in the State have no
party affiliation. The Senate State Affair's action of eliminating
the changes the House proposed in Sec. 57 would result in there
being fewer qualified small political parties in the State. This
would serve to increase the number of non-party affiliated voters.
Mr. Thompson stated that the people of the State have strongly
supported campaign reform efforts opposing soft money. The removal
of language in Sec. 57 that would decrease the percent of voters
required in support of a political party from three percent to two
percent of registered voters and the addition of Sections 11, 12,
and 13, that would allow for increased "soft money", are
contentious issues to him. He shared that during discussions with
some employees of the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) it
was apparent that they "strongly disagreed" with the inclusion of
Sections 11, 12, and 13 in the bill. He voiced disappointment that
representatives from APOC have not testified in this regard.
Nonetheless, their opposition "is on record".
Co-Chair Green assured that APOC was aware of today's hearing. APOC
"is set up to administer the law; they do not set policy".
Mr. Thompson interjected that it was his understanding that APOC
had been unaware of the Senate State Affairs Committee hearing on
the bill. After that hearing, the bill was supposed to have been
transmitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
1:41:04 PM
Co-Chair Green specified that APOC does not, "set policy nor do
they write law. They implement the law and the policy".
Mr. Thompson acknowledged.
Co-Chair Green asked whether State action could impact the action
of a "5-27".
Mr. Thompson determined that State action would not affect this
federal law.
Co-Chair Green stated that her question was directed to clarify
remarks made by Mr. Thompson in this regard; State action "would
not change the status" of that law which would allow for "the
complete formation of a group that has a set purpose to receive
unlimited" support. The reality is that "we have no impact over
that". Furthermore, she questioned the statistical validity of how
many people are aligned with a party, as, according to her
calculations, approximately 35 to 40 percent of the people on voter
mailing lists "don't exist". Were those lists cleaned up, the
numbers might reflect there being a greater number of organized
party voters. The numbers could "be skewed" were the whole numbers
factored in.
Mr. Thompson commented that by passing Sections 11, 12, and 13, the
State would be "setting up a quasi 5-27. In other words, we're
getting money influencing our system that we don't have any idea
where its coming from…big money doesn't come from small people, it
comes from groups that are certainly interested in influencing our
politics and with no record of them, that's the reason that APOC
has some problem because that's something that they do".
1:43:46 PM
Co-Chair Green reiterated that, "they can have their problem
personally, but as a matter of policy, they implement Statute. They
implement regulation. They do not establish law or policy. They are
welcome to testify personally, but not on Statute being proposed."
Mr. Thompson stressed that Sections 11, 12, and 13 would allow
"soft money".
Co-Chair Green expressed that Alaska is unique in regards "to the
ability of the level" of the party's participation with candidates.
Alaska's qualifications "are very low" when compared to other
states. "Our candidacy and active campaigns does more to party
building than the party does" for the candidate "as far as
financing our campaigns". The low limit that the party could
contribute does not allow otherwise.
The bill was HELD in Committee.
RECESS TO CALL OF CHAIR: 1:45:02 PM / 6:56:25 PM
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 94(STA)
"An Act relating to qualifications of voters, requirements and
procedures regarding independent candidates for President and
Vice-President of the United States, voter registration, voter
residence, precinct boundary and polling place designation and
modification, political parties, voters unaffiliated with a
political party, early voting, absentee voting, ballot design,
ballot counting, voting by mail, voting machines, vote tally
systems, qualifications for elected office, initiative,
referendum, recall, and definitions in the Alaska Election
Code; and relating to incorporation elections."
The bill was again before the Committee.
Co-Chair Green asked whether there were any further questions for
the Division of Elections in regards to this bill. None were
forthcoming.
Amendment #1: This amendment deletes the entirety of Sections 11,
12, and 13 from the bill, beginning on page nine, line 20 and
concluding on page 11, line 14.
In addition, the amendment replaces Applicability references "34-
57" with "31 - 54" in Sec. 65, on page 35, line two.
Senator Hoffman offered Amendment #1, on behalf of Senator Olson.
Co-Chair Green objected.
Senator Hoffman explained that the removal of these sections would
address the concerns relating to "soft money".
Co-Chair Green restated her earlier comments in regards to the fact
that the State could not influence the federal law pertaining to
"5-27s". These sections would simply allow "some money to go to the
party for party building". Since this State has much tighter
restrictions than other states in regard to the amount of money an
individual or an organized party could contribute to a candidate,
the levels of concern in this regard would be lower than that
experienced in other states. "The roof is low in our State."
Senator Dyson voiced appreciation for the issues brought forward in
this discussion. He noted that a friend of his from Florida had
commented that Alaska's "election process is so unique and so
precious, we ought to be very very careful about messing with it."
Even though extreme efforts have been exerted in this regard, the
opportunity is there for it to be "messed with". While it is "an
imperfect system", the language in question "is at least a small
attempt to allow some other folks to have access to resources". He
voiced being "comfortable with the situation at this time".
Senator Hoffman thought, incorrectly, that Senator Dyson's initial
remarks about "not messing with the system" were an indication that
he was going to support the amendment, as removing the Sections
would "not mess with the system".
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Hoffman
OPPOSED: Senator Dyson, Co-Chair Wilken, and Co-Chair Green
ABSENT: Senator Stedman, Senator Bunde, and Senator Olson
The motion FAILED (1-3-3)
Amendment #1 FAILED.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SCS HB 94 (STA) was REPORTED from
Committee with zero FY 07 fiscal note #3, dated April 21, 2005,
from the Division of Elections, Office of he Lieutenant Governor.
7:01:13 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|