Legislature(2005 - 2006)BELTZ 211
05/05/2005 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB277 | |
| HB94 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 94 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 277 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CSHB 94(FIN) AM-ELECTIONS/VOTERS/POLTICAL PARTIES
4:49:34 PM
CHAIR GENE THERRIAULT announced HB 94 to be up for
consideration.
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS moved Version R as the working document.
There was no objection.
LAURA GLAISER, Director of the Division of Elections, Office of
the Lieutenant Governor, reminded members that they heard the
companion bill, SB 76, in early February and noted that a number
of changes had been made since that hearing. She suggested that
a review of the sectional highlight spreadsheet would be the
best way to follow the changes. [A copy may be found in the bill
file.]
She reviewed the CSHB 94(FIN)am Sectional Highlight.
ISSUE: VOTER REGISTRATION
BILL SECTION: 1,2,4,7
PROPOSED: Power of attorney may register on behalf of a
voter.
CURRENT LAW: Cannot register or make changes with a power
of attorney.
BILL SECTION: 4,7
PROPOSED: Submit voter registration forms by scanning.
CURRENT LAW: Can submit in person, by mail or by fax.
BILL SECTION: 3
PROPOSED: Voter record presumptive evidence of voter's
residence.
CURRENT LAW: Voter card is presumptive evidence - card may
not be current.
BILL SECTION: 5
PROPOSED: Only voter or power of attorney may mark party
affiliation on voter registration form unless voter already
registered in that party.
CURRENT LAW: Not addressed.
BILL SECTION: 8
PROPOSED: Definition of non-partisan and undeclared voters.
CURRENT LAW: Current practice, not defined in law.
BILL SECTION: 9
PROPOSED: Voter list to protect confidentiality of voters.
CURRENT LAW: No mention of confidentiality protections when
preparing list of voters.
BILL SECTION: 58
PROPOSED: Defines "re-registration" for voters inactivated.
CURRENT LAW: Not addressed.
4:53:02 PM
ISSUE: PRECINCT BOUNDARY/POLLING PLACE CHANGES
BILL SECTION: 10
PROPOSED: Letters to affected voters; Publish one notice in
local paper; Post if no local paper; Post on Division's website,
Notice to clerks, Native groups, community councils, etc.
CURRENT LAW: Letters to affected voters - current practice;
Not required to publish for polling place; Publish 3 times for
boundary changes; Posting if no local paper - same; Remainder
currently not required.
BILL SECTION: 55
PROPOSED: Publish notice of precinct/polling place changes
in OEP.
CURRENT LAW: Not required.
BILL SECTION: 62
PROPOSED: Repeals language regarding written notice, as
changes were incorporated in AS 15.10.090.
CURRENT LAW:
4:53:40 PM
ISSUE: BALLOTS/ENVELOPES
BILL SECTION: 11
PROPOSED: Ballot rotation for all candidates except those
for State House.
CURRENT LAW: Placement of candidates' names randomly
determined by Director.
BILL SECTION: 13
PROPOSED: Election workers to record ballots destroyed or
returned for destruction.
CURRENT LAW: Not required. Could affect ballot
accountability records.
BILL SECTION: 14
PROPOSED: Hand count verification of 1 precinct (5% of
votes cast) per district by State Review Board prior to election
certification.
CURRENT LAW: Not required.
BILL SECTION: 15
PROPOSED: Voter certificate on ballot envelope notice re:
false statements are punishable by law.
CURRENT LAW: Voter signs that information is true and
accurate.
BILL SECTION: 25
PROPOSED: If voter fails to mark choice of primary ballot,
Division will send ballot according to affiliation. If
unaffiliated, voter to get ballot with greatest range of
candidates.
CURRENT LAW: Not addressed.
MS. GLAISER said that last provision was removed in Version R
because the Department of Law advised that current law doesn't
offer a primary ballot with the greatest range of candidates
from the greatest number of parties.
4:56:05 PM
ISSUE: INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT OF VICE-PRESIDENT
BILL SECTION: 12
PROPOSED: Names on ballot same as party candidates.
CURRENT LAW: Not addressed. No legal procedure for a
candidate like Ralph Nader.
BILL SECTION: 28
PROPOSED: Process for qualifying as an Independent
candidate.
CURRENT LAW: Not addressed.
BILL SECTION: 29,30
PROPOSED: Votes for electors and duties of electors same as
party candidates.
CURRENT LAW: Not addressed.
4:56:48 PM
ISSUE: EARLY VOTING
BILL SECTION: 16
PROPOSED: Sites to be designated by Director by January 1st
of an election year.
CURRENT LAW: No deadline.
MS. GLAISER said it Version R accommodates the suggestion that
June 1 would be a more appropriate date.
BILL SECTION: 62
PROPOSED: Repeals duplicative language.
CURRENT LAW: Addressed in AS 15.20.045.
4:57:43 PM
ISSUE: ABSENTEE VOTING
BILL SECTION: 17
PROPOSED: Reduce witnesses required for submitting a "by
fax" ballot. No longer required to by US citizens.
CURRENT LAW: Two witnesses. Witnesses were required to be
US citizens.
BILL SECTION: 18
PROPOSED: Apply for absentee ballot by scanning
application.
CURRENT LAW: Apply in person, by mail or by fax.
BILL SECTION: 1,2,18
PROPOSED: Power of attorney may apply for absentee ballot.
CURRENT LAW: Cannot apply for absentee ballot on behalf of
voter with power of attorney.
BILL SECTION: 18
PROPOSED: Only voter or power of attorney may mark party
affiliation unless voter already registered in that party.
CURRENT LAW: Not addressed.
BILL SECTION: 18
PROPOSED: Only voter or power of attorney may mark choice
of primary ballot.
CURRENT LAW: Not addressed.
BILL SECTION: 19
PROPOSED: Reduce witnesses required for submitting a "by
mail" ballot to one.
CURRENT LAW: Two witnesses required.
BILL SECTION: 19
PROPOSED: Voter to certify under penalty of perjury that
the statements are true.
CURRENT LAW: Not required.
BILL SECTION: 20
PROPOSED: Defines overseas voter - AS 15.05.011.
CURRENT LAW: Military APO or FPO address.
4:59:06 PM
ISSUE: RECOUNTS
BILL SECTION: 21
PROPOSED: Raises deposit amounts.
CURRENT LAW: Current amounts have not been addressed since
1986.
4:59:31 PM
ISSUE: BY MAIL VOTING
BILL SECTION: 22
PROPOSED: Division will not mail ballots to address
previously recorded as "undeliverable."
CURRENT LAW: Required to mail ballots to addresses that are
"undeliverable" - ballot integrity issue.
4:59:53 PM
ISSUE: VOTING SYSTEMS
BILL SECTION: 23
PROPOSED: Division to use only those machines/systems
approved by FEC.
CURRENT LAW: No standards required. Previous administration
approved new software that had not been certified at time of
election.
5:00:03 PM
ISSUE: CANDIDATES
BILL SECTION: 24,26,27
PROPOSED: At time of filing, a candidate will meet the
constitutional age requirements on the 1st day of the first
session.
CURRENT LAW: Not addressed.
5:00:26 PM
ISSUE: INITIATIVES, REFERENDUM, RECALL
BILL SECTION: 31,38,46
PROPOSED: Application to include printed name, signature,
address, and numerical identifier of sponsors.
CURRENT LAW: Signatures required.
BILL SECTION: 32,39,47
PROPOSED: Sponsors support action. Additional sponsors will
give name address and numerical identifier.
CURRENT LAW: Support of action not addressed. Numerical
identifier not required but will help qualify the sponsors. No
similar language for recall.
BILL SECTION: 33,40,48
PROPOSED: Printed name and numerical identifier, and date
when signed is required.
CURRENT LAW: Signature and address only.
MS. GLAISER explained that the proposed change is to address the
problem of whether or not a petition signer was a qualified
voter at the time of signing. If there is a date placed on the
petition book at the time of signing then that question could be
answered.
5:01:55 PM
SENATOR KIM ELTON posed a hypothetical situation to question
whether the date is attached to the petition book or the
signature.
MS. GLAISER clarified that the voter dates the petition when he
or she signs it. The date has nothing to do with the petition
circulation; it's to ensure that the voter was registered at the
time of signing. .
ISSUE: INITIATIVES, REFERENDUM, RECALL CONTINUED
BILL SECTION: 33,40,48
PROPOSED: Booklets to be sequentially numbered.
CURRENT LAW: Current practice. Not addressed in law.
BILL SECTION: 33,40,48
PROPOSED: Petition to include minimum cost to the state to
certify and review - does not include legal costs.
CURRENT LAW: Not required.
BILL SECTION: 33,40,48
PROPOSED: Petition to include cost of implementing proposed
law or conducting recall election.
CURRENT LAW: Not required.
BILL SECTION: 34,41,50
PROPOSED: Qualifications of circulator - citizen, at least
18 years old, Alaskan resident.
CURRENT LAW: In practice as a result of Buckley ruling, but
not set out in law.
BILL SECTION: 35,43,52
PROPOSED: Printed name and numerical identifier, and date
when signed required when withdrawing name from petition.
CURRENT LAW: Voter's signature and address required.
BILL SECTION: 36,44,53
PROPOSED: Repeal and reenacted certification of circulator.
Circulator to sign inclusive affidavit.
CURRENT LAW: Does not comply with Buckley decision.
BILL SECTION: 37,45,54
PROPOSED: Display of proposed law at polling place - at
least 5 copies available and one posted.
CURRENT LAW: 10 copies available and 3 posted.
BILL SECTION: 42,51
PROPOSED: Circulator may not receive payment greater than
$1. Prohibitions and penalties defined.
CURRENT LAW: Current language for initiative petitions. Not
addressed for referendum and recall.
BILL SECTION: 49
PROPOSED: Removes language regarding "duplicate copy" of a
recall petition.
CURRENT LAW: There are no "duplicate copies" of a recall
petition. All are sequentially numbered.
BILL SECTION: 58
PROPOSED: Defines "numerical identifier" as voter's date of
birth, Alaska driver's license or ID number, last 4 digits of SS
number, or voter ID number.
CURRENT LAW: No requirement for additional information
makes qualifying voter's signatures more difficult.
5:04:50 PM
ISSUE: RECOGNIZED POLITICAL PARTIES
BILL SECTION: 56
PROPOSED: Sets out process for a political group to become
a party. Ensures that a party cannot lose status during the
election cycle. Explains verification process.
CURRENT LAW: Not addressed, though procedure was in place
to protect the parties.
SENATOR ELTON asked if a section was removed from Version R and,
if so, what it did.
MS. GLAISER responded Section 57 was removed from Version R. The
result is that the definition was returned to what is current
law.
BILL SECTION: 57
PROPOSED: Defines political party - 2% of the total votes
cast for governor at the preceding election OR 2% of the total
votes for US Senate OR 2% of the total votes for US
Representative at the most recent general election or when a
governor was elected... OR... 2% of the number of registered
voters.
CURRENT LAW: 3% of total votes cast for governor OR if
governor not on ballot, 3% of total votes cast for US Senate OR
if neither on ballot, 3% of total votes cast for US
Representative OR registered voters totaling 3% of the number of
votes cast in that election.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if that was passed last year.
MS. GLAISER replied yes. What wasn't removed is the process for
a political group to become a party and retain its status during
an election cycle. Also it explains the verification process.
She said that the division has tried to do that even though it
isn't set out in law so it's not really fair to parties. Section
59 of Version R does set it out in law.
SENATOR ELTON asked for verification that Version R defines
political party as 3%, which is the same as in current law.
MS. GLAISER said that's correct.
CHAIR THERRIAULT added it's the difference between 2% of the
total registered voters versus 3%. The bill passed last year had
a sort of cascading standard.
SENATOR ELTON questioned what parties would be qualified under
the version that passed the House compared to Version R and what
parties might drop out if there is a return to the 3% standard
under Version R.
MS. GLAISER explained that the same parties would have
qualified. No one party or group would be added, but 3% of the
total votes cast is a lower number than 2% of the total
registered voters.
SENATOR ELTON asked if the "recipe" was the same even though the
percentage was different.
MS. GLAISER answered no; the "recipe" changed. She read current
law and said the House version allowed qualification in several
different areas: governor, or US Senate, or US House in the same
election cycle. Current law is an either or requirement. If a
governor were not on the ballot, you would look at the US
Senate. If there were no US Senate election then you would look
at the US House. She reiterated Chair Therriault's explanation
that current law has a cascading test while the House version
offers options for qualification.
5:10:18 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT noted that it's now more difficult to purge the
voter rolls. He suggested that for that reason it's more valid
to use a percentage of the votes that were cast. Also, with a
cascading test you go with the race on the ballot that's likely
to generate the most voter participation.
SENATOR ELTON stated that it would be helpful to see a chart
that lists the marginal parties and compare the number of
qualifications between two versions.
MS. GLAISER said she prepared a comparison chart for the House
State Affairs Committee that would give a general idea. She
offered the following:
· On General Election Day in 2004 there were 472,160
registered voters.
· 3% of those who voted for US Senate equaled 9,329. The only
parties that would have qualified were the Republicans and
Democrats.
· 3% of those who voted for US Representative that nominated
a candidate receiving equaled 9,298. The Republican Party,
the Democrat Party and the Green Party would have
qualified.
· 2% of those who registered to vote when there was a date
certain requirement equaled 8,977. She noted that number
would always be greater if the mark is "registered to
vote." Turnout is never 100% so 3% of the turnout would be
smaller than 2% of those registered to vote.
She said she would gather the information Senator Elton
requested.
SENATOR ELTON requested information on the range of percentages
that other states use as well.
MS. GLAISER told him she had that information from the previous
year. She further informed the committee that as a result of
litigation, the Alaska Supreme Court found that the 3% of total
votes cast rule is sufficient.
CHAIR THERRIAULT added that the legislation from last year was
based on a lower court decision. He asked if that is the
decision that was just confirmed.
MS. GLAISER replied she wasn't sure about that, but she did know
that 3% was upheld.
5:14:25 PM
MS. GLAISER continued the review:
ISSUE: INCORPORATION ELECTIONS
BILL SECTION: 59,60
PROPOSED: Defines "qualified voter" as a person registered
to vote within the proposed municipality or borough for at least
30 days before an election.
CURRENT LAW: "qualified voter" was defined as being a
resident of the municipality or borough for 30 days before an
election.
BILL SECTION: 61
PROPOSED: Defines qualified voter as a person who has the
qualifications under AS 15.60.010.
CURRENT LAW: Not addressed.
5:15:08 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT directed attention to page 7, line 20 of
Version R and noted that the attorney general's office suggested
using "attestation" rather than "oath."
MS. GLAISER explained that the state must comply with the
National Voter Registration Act. Attestation is in current law
and is the proper term.
CHAIR THERRIAULT referenced page 13, line 20 and asked Ms.
Glaiser to reiterate the reasoning behind the request for the
date change.
MS. GLAISER explained that the division initially picked January
1 of an election year as the date to designate locations for
early voting. Waiting until June 1 is reasonable because the
division could still organize election worker efforts and have
supplies available. Furthermore, ballot printing can't be
ordered before then because that's the last day to file as a
candidate.
CHAIR THERRIAULT noted there were no further questions for Ms.
Glaiser. He asked Mr. Balash to review the changes proposed in
Version R.
5:17:40 PM
JOE BALASH, Staff to the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee,
stated that he would speak to changes in Sections 11,12, and 13
that occur on pages 9,10, and 11. They came about as a result of
observations made during the most recent federal and state level
election.
The changes relate to the activities of 527 organizations, which
are a creation of federal law. He explained that these
organizations aren't required to disclose the money sources and
they engage in voter registration and voter turnout efforts.
Political parties don't have the same advantage, he said. Every
dollar a political party raises has to be from private sources;
neither corporate nor union money may be used. However, he said,
we don't want to go back to the days when soft money went to
parties and was dumped into campaign ads.
To address that issue, Section 13 amends AS 15.13.400 by adding
a new paragraph (17) to define "party building." He read the
proposed definition and pointed out that the Legislature has
previously defined both terms in a manner that has strengthened
how APOC looks at ad content to determine whether or not only
hard dollars can be used for an ad. He further explained that:
By defining party building in a negative way in the
context of an electioneering communication or an
express communication, that exception for party
building can be allowed in the 610 days after an
election but not in the next 120 days, which are the
120 days before the next election.
Federal law requires that any activity by a party be done with
hard dollars in the 60 days before the general and the 60 days
before the primary. In Alaska that means that every dollar a
state party spends in the 120 days before the general election
must be hard dollars.
5:21:15 PM
Section 11 defines "contribution" and Section 12 defines
"expenditure". They make allowances for party building
functions, but because of the way party building is defined,
that money would not be able to be used to influence the outcome
of an election.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked him to go over the list of things that
would be covered in the definition of party building.
MR. BALASH read, "...the activities of a political party to
register voters, organize precincts, districts, and regions, and
otherwise engage in activities that build, maintain, or
strengthen a political party in this state..." A voter
registration drive; a door-to-door effort to register new
arrivals to an area; organizing a local precinct or district;
and putting on a party picnic or rally or convention would be
included as long as the activity didn't occur in the 120 day
period before the election.
5:23:20 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked if it would be considered party building to
make polling phone calls so that information could be passed on
to candidates if the calls occurred prior to 120 days before a
general election.
MR. BALASH responded as long as the activity didn't fall under
an "express communication" definition, it would not be
proscribed in the time prior to 120 days before an election. The
"express communication" standard exists whether it's an election
year or not and is a communication that, " when read as a whole
and with limited reference to outside events or context can be
determined to be nothing other than an exhortation to vote for
or against a candidate."
SENATOR ELTON mentioned phone calls that ask whether you knew
that person X participated in activity Y and asked whether that
kind of communication could be considered party building.
MR. BALASH replied not in Alaska; that would fall under the
definition of an electioneering communication. That was new law
in either 2001 or 2002, he said.
CHAIR THERRIAULT opened teleconference testimony.
5:27:39 PM
JIM SYKES testified via teleconference. He informed the
committee that he sent written comments that were directed to
the House version, which he described as generally a good bill.
With regard to Version R, he strongly encouraged the committee
to restore what had been Section 57, which amended AS
15.60.010(23)(A)(B)(C) and (D). He further recommended amending
subparagraph (D) to recognize a political party as one half of
one percent.
He explained that in the US just the Republican Party, the
Democratic Party, and two other political parties have a 2%
registration requirement. That, he said, is an extremely high
requirement.
Until 1996 there was no avenue for political parties to acquire
recognition through registration. At that time it was
established that 3% of the votes in the governor race was
required for recognition. The Green Party challenged the 3%
requirement, but the Alaska Supreme Court has yet to hear the
case. The superior court did issue a preliminary injunction
saying that the Green Party showed a modicum of support even
though it didn't achieve 3% in the governor race. He emphasized
that the House version dealt with that requirement and
established the 2% level for any statewide race.
He suggested that if the committee wanted to go along with what
the percentage is then it should be the same as a nominating
petition. The Vogler challenge spoke to this small amount of
support, he said. He noted that political parties have more
rights and responsibilities than a candidate that is on the
ballot as a result of a nominating petition, but registering
people to the political party is much more difficult than
getting people to sign a nominating petition.
Smaller political parties have an additional hurdle because the
primary election race has changed virtually every time since
1996. He pointed out that nonpartisan voters currently have more
options in choosing a ballot than anyone who is registered to a
political party. Because of dissatisfaction with the major
parties, independent voter registration is at a high, he said.
It's additionally burdensome in Alaska where the law has
changed. People want to preserve the maximum options since they
were accustomed to voting an open blanket primary before 1996.
He reiterated that registering voters to a political party is an
extremely difficult test to meet. He said he has always worked
to make elections bills fair to all political parties and those
who are not registered to a political party. I've tried to make
sure that what is done is straightforward and easy to understand
and good public policy regardless of what your political
leanings may be, he concluded.
5:37:24 PM
AMY PAGE testified from Juneau and told the committee that she
believes that Alaska has had good election procedures and she
was impressed with how the recount effort was managed. She said,
the bill you got from the House is "pretty good" and you should
pass it.
CHAIR THERRIAULT noted there was no further testimony and
announced he would hold the bill.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|