Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
05/18/2021 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 | |
| HB95 | |
| HB177 | |
| HB158 | |
| HB94 | |
| HB31 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 95 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 94 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 95-ELECTIONS; ELECTION INVESTIGATIONS
3:08:00 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 95, "An Act relating to elections and
election investigations."
3:08:59 PM
CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL), on
behalf of the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by request
of the governor, introduced HB 95. She paraphrased the sponsor
statement [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Dear Speaker Stutes:
Under the authority of Article III, Section 18, of the
Alaska Constitution, I am transmitting a bill
authorizing the Attorney General to investigate
potential violations of election laws of regulations.
This legislation would permit the Attorney General to
investigate alleged election violations identified by
the director of the Division of Elections, a member of
the public, or by the Attorney General. A member of
the public may submit a complaint alleging a violation
to the Division of Elections within 30 days of the
election or the violation, whichever is later. If the
complaint alleges a violation of AS 15.13, the
Division will forward the complaint to the Alaska
Public Offices Commission for further review. For
other election related allegations, the Division of
Elections does a preliminary review for completeness,
request missing information as necessary, and may also
dismiss complaints that are determined to be
frivolous. Otherwise, complaints are forwarded to the
Attorney General for action.
In investigating an allegation, the Attorney General
has the authority to compel witness testimony, issue
subpoenas, and to produce documents or other evidence.
The Attorney General also has the authority to hold
hearings, administer oaths, make interrogatories,
require written affidavits, and examine documentary
evidence. Upon concluding an investigation, the
Attorney General will share the results with the
Division of Elections. If the Attorney General
determines a violation of an election law or
regulation has occurred, the Attorney General may
bring a civil action to compel compliance with the
law. The information collected over the course of the
investigation will remain confidential unless it is
used as the basis for a decision by the Division of
Elections or is used as the civil action.
If the Attorney General brings civil action in court,
the Attorney General may petition for, and the court
may award the state, a civil penalty of up to $25,000
per violation. The court may also award the state
reasonable attorney's fees and investigation costs.
I urge your prompt and favorable action on this
measure.
MS. MILLS clarified that HB 95 would only provide investigatory
tools, adding that any ultimate determination would still occur
in court. As no penalty authority would be given to the
attorney general, a court order would still be required to
enforce an injunction or to bring fines against a "bad actor."
She highlighted quicker reaction times and a lower evidentiary
standard as benefits to a civil investigation.
3:14:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY acknowledged that the intent of the
legislation was to find bad actors who may be attempting to
corrupt the election process; nonetheless, she pointed out that
processes were already in place to verify signatures and cure
ballots.
MS. MILLS agreed. She said she had confidence in the 2020
election; however, she expressed concern that there was a trust
and integrity problem that could be addressed by the proposed
legislation. She proceeded to provide examples of how the bill
would work should it be enacted.
3:18:07 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, DOL, presented a
sectional analysis of HB 95 [included in the committee packet],
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Purpose of Bill: Division of Elections does not have a
method of investigating alleged civil violations of
Title 15. This bill authorizes the attorney general to
investigate potential violations and seek compliance
through the courts or report back to the Division of
Elections so the director can pursue corrective
action.
Section 1 This bill has only one section. It adds a
section to the Elections Title 15 chapter 56 on
Election Offenses, Corrupt Practices, and Penalties,
authorizing the attorney general to investigate
potential violations of Title 15 (except for
violations of AS 15.13 which are addressed by the
Alaska Public Officers Commission) alleged in
complaints filed with the Division of Elections and
referred to the attorney general, or that otherwise
come to the attorney general's or Division of
Elections Director's attention.
The bill authorizes the attorney general to:
? issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum (subpoenas
for testimony and documentation);
? administer oaths and hearings in the process of
investigation;
? require persons under investigation to make full and
fair disclosures regarding the alleged violation, in
writing and under oath; and
? examine and make copies of any documents related to
the investigation.
? The attorney general may also pursue compliance with
the elections code (except for violations of AS 15.13
which are addressed by the Alaska Public Officers
Commission) by initiating a civil action in court for
an injunction and may petition for up to $25,000 per
violation.
The attorney general is authorized to advise the
Division of Elections Director of investigation
outcomes so the Director can seek corrective action.
The investigation information itself is not public
record, but the attorney general may issue a public
statement describing conduct that violates local,
regional, state or federal elections law.
3:22:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, referring to Subsections (g) and (h) on
page 3 of the bill, asked for further clarification of the
language "about to engage" and questioned when the attorney
general would have the authority to act on a person who had not
yet committed a crime.
MS. MILLS recalled suspicious absentee applications that were
received [by DOE]. She explained that if those applications had
been processed and a person voted an absentee ballot
fraudulently, the counting of that vote could be stopped if
there was supporting evidence of an ongoing or forthcoming
violation.
3:24:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there was a substantive
difference between fees and civil penalties.
MS. MILLS explained that civil fines were imposed by a court
whereas civil penalties were typically an administrative action.
She noted that initially, the bill borrowed outdated language
from the Consumer Protection Act, adding that "civil fines" was
the correct term, which was the reason for the requested change.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS considered a scenario in which a person was
found in violation of the Consumer Protection Act, which per his
understanding, still used the word "fees" instead of "civil
fines." He asked whether a penalty could only be administered
by the courts due to the outdated language.
MS. MILLS clarified that the Consumer Protection Act used the
term "civil penalty" when it should say "civil fine." She
stated that the court would still enforce the verbiage "civil
penalty;" nonetheless, cleaning up the statute would allow for
proper use of language.
3:26:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about best practices in other
states and whether Alaska was modeling those practices.
MS. MILLS reported that similar authority existed in 25 other
states. Within those 25 states, the delegation of authority
varied between the attorney general, a board of elections, or
the secretary of state. She pointed out that in Alaska, the
Office of the Attorney General performed similar investigations
into consumer protection; therefore, she reasoned that it would
be efficient and effective to delegate this authority to that
office.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about injunctive relief and what
it would look like under this proposal.
MS. MILLS said essentially, injunctive relief was the court
declaring that a violation had occurred and that the person
responsible needed to stop.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked when a "hard stick" [strict
enforcement] would come into the process if that person refused
to stop.
MS. MILLS pointed out that civil fines could be imposed;
additionally, a person could be found in contempt of court at
which point, severe penalties could be enforced.
3:30:47 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Subsection (b) of the bill,
which indicated that campaign violations would be referred to
the Alaska Public Offices commission (APOC), as opposed to DOL.
He asked whether APOC had been consulted on the construction of
that responsibility.
MS. MILLS said no specific discussion with APOC had occurred.
She reasoned that APOC had specific penalties and laws that DOE
was unfamiliar with. She said, "Let's keep campaign finance
where it is."
3:32:04 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 95 was held over.