Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
01/25/2022 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 | |
| HB95 | |
| HB267 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 95 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 267 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 95-ELECTIONS; ELECTION INVESTIGATIONS
4:18:28 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 95, "An Act relating to elections and
election investigations."
4:18:52 PM
CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division, Office of
the Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL), on behalf of the
House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by request of the
governor, provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled "HB 95; An
Act Relating to Elections and Election Investigations" [hard
copy included in the committee packet]. She outlined the
purpose of HB 95 on slide 2 as follows, "To authorize the
Attorney General to conduct civil investigations into election
law violations and to bring civil enforcement actions if a
violation is found." She continued to slide 3, explaining that
under current statute, if DOE identifies suspicious behavior,
the only recourse is a criminal referral. The proposed
legislation, she said, would provide another alternative by
allowing for a civil investigation referral as well [slide 4].
She turned to slide 5, which listed the advantages of a civil
investigation: halting unlawful behavior efficiently; an
appropriate evidentiary standard for the alleged violation; and
empowering DOE to ensure adherence to proper elections
processes. Slide 6 outlined examples where parallel civil
action and criminal prosecution may occur. Slide 6 read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Audits of Medicaid providers may lead to civil
recoveries of overpayment or injunctions; and may be
prosecuted under criminal laws.
•Civil licensing actions and criminal prosecutions
concerning allegations of abuse or neglect at assisted
living facilities
•Civil Child In Need of Aid (CINA) investigations of
neglect or abuse that may be prosecuted criminally
MS. MILLS progressed to slide 7, which provided a flow chart of
the proposed complaint referral process. If the bill were to
pass, upon receiving a complaint, DOE would determine whether it
warranted investigation and either dismiss it or send the
complaint to the Attorney General (AG), who has the discretion
to conduct an investigation.
4:23:43 PM
MS. MILLS concluded the presentation on slide 8, indicating that
she had elected to skip the sectional analysis [slides 8-15].
4:23:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to clarify how the process being
created by the proposed legislation would change DOE's existing
authority to pursue an investigation.
MS. MILLS answered that currently DOE does not have the
authority to conduct a civil investigation into election law
violations.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that under current
language, DOE must turn all civil complaints over to the Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC) if it's a violation of AS
15.13, as opposed to sending them to the Attorney General.
MS. MILLS confirmed that as the entity that oversees campaign
finance, APOC has its own authority to investigate; therefore,
the intent is to ensure that if DOE receives a complaint that
should have been sent to APOC, it gets referred there by the
division.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which the
Attorney General becomes aware of activity that warrants an
investigation based on the violation of election law. He asked
what authority the AG has to pursue that investigation or refer
it elsewhere.
MS. MILLS said that in a civil context, the AG could attempt to
conduct a review based on the available information; however,
subpoenas could not be engaged, nor could the confidential
gathering of information. Alternatively, in a criminal context,
the AG could work with law enforcement and utilize the tools law
enforcement has at its disposal. She emphasized that regarding
a civil investigation, without the enactment of HB 95, the AG
would be reviewing only public records to determine whether a
violation could be filed.
4:26:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to the language "upon
the Attorney General's own motion" on page 2, line 8, of HB 95.
He asked whether that is the operative language, which indicates
that the AG has the authority to start that investigation.
MS. MILLS confirmed that if the Attorney General determines
there is an issue, regardless of whether a referral has
occurred, then the AG has the ability to initiate a civil
investigation.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN turned attention to Section 1, on page 1
of the bill, which provides that the legislation only pertains
to complaints filed within 30 days of a violation or within 30
days of an election. He suggested that the language is overly
restrictive and asked why the 30-day requirement was included
and whether it impacts the AG's authority to pursue an
investigation that may have been filed after that timeframe.
MS. MILLS answered that the AG can start an investigation at any
time. She conveyed that the language in question is merely
giving a process by which a member of the public could file a
complaint; nonetheless, she pointed out that criminal behavior
or a violation of the law can always be reported. She indicated
that the purpose of the 30-day time limit is for a combination
of efficiency and prioritization.
4:30:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the ability of other states
to conduct civil investigations [pertaining to the violation of
election law]. Additionally, she asked about the need for this
legislation.
MS. MILLS reported that after conducting a review of other
states, somewhere between 20-25 have civil investigatory
authority at the state level. She indicated that some states
have a board of elections - which has investigative authority -
rather than a Division of Elections, while others grant that
authority to the Secretary of State. In response to a question
of need, she recalled 2018, when the division noticed suspicious
behavior in the absentee ballot applications for House District
16. She explained that at the time, all DOE could do was set
them aside and hand them over to law enforcement. She said HB
95 would provide the division with the authority to identify
whether an issue exists and whether it should be pursued.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the compelling need for this
legislation. She asked, "Has this just been a bubbling thing
that came to you from the Division of Elections?"
MS. MILLS shared her understanding that it's been an "ongoing
drip" of issues that come up, which cannot be resolved. She
noted that concerns were also raised during the signature
gathering process. She opined having the tools to look into
suspicious activity would help build the trust and integrity of
the system, as people would know that their concerns could be
addressed.
4:36:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his understanding that HB 95
specifically limits the scope to violations of election rule or
law adopted under this title. He asked whether that is an
appropriate scope or whether other election laws or rules in
other titles should be included.
MS. MILLS replied that she is unaware of any glaring areas that
would need to be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that he did not notice any
provision included in the bill that requires DOE to cooperate
with any investigation the AG may choose to pursue. He wondered
whether the addition of such language had been considered.
MS. MILLS directed attention to the fourth bullet point under
"Proposed Clarifications" on slide 14 of the PowerPoint
presentation, which states, "Requires states agencies to provide
the AG documents needed for investigation while permitting the
documents to remain confidential if they are confidential." She
noted that corresponding language was added to the companion
bill in the Senate. She emphasized that [the Office of the
Attorney General] was in support of that proposed clarification.
4:38:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN returned attention to the scope of the
bill and asked how "applicable statewide" would interface with
the Municipality of Anchorage.
MS. MILLS clarified that the bill would not engage with any
municipal elections. She reiterated that the scope is
specifically directed at statewide, state-run elections.
4:39:34 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 95 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 66 Fiscal Note DOE 01.06.22.pdf |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Testimony Combined Letters of Support 1.24.2022.pdf |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Written Testimony_Heather OClaray_01.19.22.pdf |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 267 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 267 |
| HB 267 Section Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 267 |
| HB 267 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 267 |
| HB 267 Version A.PDF |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 267 |
| HB 95 Fiscal Note LAW 01.14.22.pdf |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 95 |
| 1.24_Final Draft HB 95 Presentation_1.25.2022.pdf |
HSTA 1/25/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 95 |