03/15/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR4 | |
| HB94 | |
| SB36 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HCR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 94 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 152 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 2005
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative John Harris
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Encouraging the establishment of a methamphetamine watch
program.
- MOVED HCR 4 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 94
"An Act relating to qualifications of voters, requirements and
procedures regarding independent candidates for President and
Vice-President of the United States, voter registration and
voter registration records, voter registration through a power
of attorney, voter registration using scanned documents, voter
residence, precinct boundary and polling place designation and
modification, recognized political parties, voters unaffiliated
with a political party, early voting, absentee voting,
application for absentee ballots through a power of attorney, or
by scanned documents, ballot design, ballot counting, voting by
mail, voting machines, vote tally systems, initiative,
referendum, recall, and definitions in the Alaska Election Code;
relating to incorporation elections; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 94(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 36(JUD)
"An Act relating to absentee ballots."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 114
"An Act relating to the retaining of certain privileges of a
parent in a relinquishment and termination of a parent and child
relationship proceeding; relating to eligibility for permanent
fund dividends for certain children in the custody of the state;
relating to child in need of aid proceedings and juvenile
delinquency proceedings; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 152
"An Act amending the definition of the term 'state agencies' as
it presently applies to the provisions of law that establish the
Telecommunications Information Council and as it applies under
Executive Order No. 113; relating to information systems in the
legislative branch and to the Telecommunications Information
Council; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HCR 4
SHORT TITLE: METH WATCH PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAMRAS
03/04/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/04/05 (H) STA, JUD
03/15/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 94
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/21/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/05 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/03/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/03/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/03/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/08/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/08/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/10/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/10/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/10/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/17/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/17/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/19/05 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/19/05 (H) Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled
03/08/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/08/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/15/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 36
SHORT TITLE: ABSENTEE BALLOTS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) THERRIAULT
01/11/05 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/07/05
01/11/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/11/05 (S) STA, JUD
01/20/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
01/20/05 (S) Heard & Held
01/20/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/01/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/01/05 (S) Moved CSSB 36(STA) Out of Committee
02/01/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/02/05 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP 1NR
NEW TITLE
02/02/05 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, WAGONER, HUGGINS
02/02/05 (S) NR: ELTON
02/08/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/08/05 (S) Moved CSSB 36(JUD) Out of Committee
02/08/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/10/05 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 1NR
NEW TITLE
02/10/05 (S) DP: SEEKINS, THERRIAULT, HUGGINS
02/10/05 (S) NR: FRENCH
03/02/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/02/05 (S) VERSION: CSSB 36(JUD)
03/03/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/03/05 (H) STA, JUD
03/15/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
JANE PIERSON, Staff
to Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HCR 4 on behalf of
Representative Ramras, sponsor.
ANNETTE KREITZER, Chief of Staff
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
94.
LAURA GLAISER, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of the
division during the hearings on HB 94 and SB 36.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 36, as sponsor.
RANDY RUEDRICH, Chair
Alaskan Republican Party
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 36.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:04:15 AM. Present at the call
to order were Representatives Gatto, Elkins, Lynn, Ramras,
Gardner, and Seaton. Representative Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HCR 4-METH WATCH PROGRAM
8:07:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Encouraging the establishment
of a methamphetamine watch program.
8:07:51 AM
JANE PIERSON, Staff to Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced HCR 4 on behalf of Representative
Ramras, sponsor. She stated that communities across America are
suffering from the plague of methamphetamine ("meth") production
and usage. She said "Meth watch" is the first national effort
in curbing the spread of meth; it will provide a critical step
in educating communities about the drug. Ms. Pierson said "Meth
watch" is a voluntary program that started in Kansas as a
public/private partnership in 2001. Currently, 11 states have
implemented the program, and 22 states are looking into doing
so. The goals of the program are: to engage retailers, law
enforcement, state and local agencies, and other key partners to
reduce the precursor products for illicit manufacturing of
methamphetamines; to increase community awareness; and to assist
local communities in addressing the problem. She emphasized the
important link between education of citizens and the capture of
meth manufacturers. She said all public awareness initiatives
would be tailored to targeted audiences. She added that
specific programs can be tailored to child protective workers,
utility workers, cable operators, and various community "first
responders."
8:09:30 AM
MS. PIERSON listed the different ways that the program is
promoted. She reported that since implementing the program,
Kansas has reported benefits, including the reduction in the
number of meth labs and unifying grant programs to fund and
educate communities. She said there are prerequisites to
receiving funding. Communities applying for grants shall
prioritize meth prevention and education, have past experience
in community coalition building, and be part of an existing
coalition that includes medical and public health officials,
educators, youth-serving community organizations, and members of
law enforcement. She said that the bill will: authorize
professional prevention staff to develop research and science-
based prevention strategies for the community to be served;
demonstrate the ability to operate a community-based meth
prevention and education program; establish prevalence through
the use of community needs assessments; and establish goals and
objectives based on need assessment.
MS. PIERSON stated that the appropriate money for fiscal year
(FY) 2006-07 should be asked for from the general fund and
Department of Health and Social Services for grants under AS
47.30.520 through AS 47.30.620.
8:11:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that the committee packet contains
a press release from Kansas, dated September 17, that lists
workshops that have been done in various states. She noted that
the press release includes mention that Alaska has asked the
Kansas Department of Health and Education for assistance in
setting up a meth watch program. She pointed out that there is
another press release in the committee packet dated February 20,
2005, that lists Alaska as one of the states that has already
been assisted in implementing a meth watch program. She asked
Ms. Pierson if she knows where Alaska is in the process of
setting up a program.
8:11:54 AM
MS. PIERSON replied that Prince of Wales Island has instigated a
meth awareness program that is not the official meth watch
program.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked what a meth awareness program is.
MS. PIERSON replied that the program would: make people aware
of the drug and its effects; teach people what signs to look for
to detect a meth lab in their community; and educate children,
teachers, and retailers.
8:12:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that reducing the number of labs
may not necessarily go hand in hand with reducing the amount of
meth that enters a community. He explained, "It's a free
market, and if somebody goes out of business, somebody [else]
takes up the slack."
8:13:13 AM
MS. PIERSON, in response to a question from Representative
Gatto, said she thinks the system is two-fold, because it would
reduce the supply of the precursor chemicals and bring the
awareness into the community of what is happening.
8:13:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS commented that the work with [the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)] on HCR 4 is
being done in conjunction with HB 149, which deals with the
supply of pseudoephedrine. Additionally, he indicated an
increase of penalties "for child endangerment and for
manslaughter for cooking up a bad batch of meth." He noted that
[the Division of Juvenile Justice in DHSS] already has extensive
school programs. He mentioned juvenile court, intervention, and
substance abuse programs. He added, "So we anticipate that this
meth watch would be the education component and it's not
designed to create funding for another position in law
enforcement."
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS stated that meth is cooked up in little
kitchens in people's homes, and often children are in those
homes - sometimes even participating in the making of the meth.
He indicated that urban areas may retail the meth, whereas rural
areas have the small labs. He named the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-
Su) Valley and North Pole as area in the state where the problem
is more severe.
8:15:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if, under current law, a retailer
can refuse to sell pseudoephedrine to people.
MS. PIERSON replied that she didn't know if a retailer could
refuse the sale, but he/she could call the police. She
mentioned that Kansas has a reporting form.
8:16:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 2, lines 20-
26, which read as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature
urges the Department of Health and Social Services to
take the lead in establishing a meth watch program in
Alaska, to apply for available grants from the federal
government, and to request appropriation of matching
funds by the Alaska State Legislature if necessary, to
encourage other eligible entities to apply for funding
from both government and private sources, to assist
community organizations in applying for funding and
implementing local meth watch programs, and to help
educate Alaskans about methamphetamine abuse and the
presence of meth labs in their communities.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that AS 44.29.020 sets forth the
duties of DHSS and "doesn't seem to have anything specifically
that covers this." She noted that HB 141 had already been heard
by the House Judiciary Standing Committee, and he suggested that
an amendment be offered to that bill which would incorporate
"the substance of lines 20-26 on page 2 that would assign to
[DHSS] the ability to carry out just what you have on here." He
added, "I think that would fit under the title of the bill, and
then you would have the authorization you need as well as this
resolution."
8:18:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if the resolution would be sent to
anyone other than DHSS.
8:20:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the resolution will be
filed by the governor and then the sponsor can distribute it
wherever he wishes. He explained, "We don't have to distribute
it specifically. That kind of thing usually is in a joint
resolution where it goes to members of Congress or the secretary
of state or something like that. But this is something that you
can just distribute wherever you wish."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated his support for the resolution.
8:21:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report HCR 4 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objections, HCR 4 was reported out of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 94-ELECTIONS
8:21:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 94, "An Act relating to qualifications of voters,
requirements and procedures regarding independent candidates for
President and Vice-President of the United States, voter
registration and voter registration records, voter registration
through a power of attorney, voter registration using scanned
documents, voter residence, precinct boundary and polling place
designation and modification, recognized political parties,
voters unaffiliated with a political party, early voting,
absentee voting, application for absentee ballots through a
power of attorney, or by scanned documents, ballot design,
ballot counting, voting by mail, voting machines, vote tally
systems, initiative, referendum, recall, and definitions in the
Alaska Election Code; relating to incorporation elections; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR SEATON announced that the committee substitute (CS) for HB
94, Version 24-GH1048\Y, Kurtz, 2/28/05 was adopted as a work
draft [during the March 8 House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting], and therefore was before the committee.
[The motion to adopt Amendment 4, as amended, was left pending
at the March 8, 2005, House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting.]
8:22:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that the committee table
Amendment 4 [as amended].
CHAIR SEATON announced that, there being no objection, Amendment
4 [as amended] was tabled.
8:23:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Amendment 5, labeled 24-
GH1048\Y.7, Kurtz, 3/14/05, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 3, following the second occurrence of
"voter registration":
Insert "and absentee ballot requests"
Page 1, following line 11:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 13.26.332 is amended to read:
Sec. 13.26.332. Statutory form power of
attorney. A person who wishes to designate another as
attorney-in-fact or agent by a power of attorney may
execute a statutory power of attorney set out in
substantially the following form:
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
THE POWERS GRANTED FROM THE PRINCIPAL TO THE
AGENT OR AGENTS IN THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT ARE VERY
BROAD. THEY MAY INCLUDE THE POWER TO DISPOSE, SELL,
CONVEY, AND ENCUMBER YOUR REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY,
AND THE POWER TO MAKE YOUR HEALTH CARE DECISIONS.
ACCORDINGLY, THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT SHOULD ONLY BE
USED AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT, YOU SHOULD SEEK
COMPETENT ADVICE.
YOU MAY REVOKE THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY AT ANY
TIME.
Pursuant to AS 13.26.338 - 13.26.353, I,
(Name of principal) , of (Address of
principal) , do hereby appoint (Name and
address of agent or agents) , my attorney(s)-in-
fact to act as I have checked below in my name, place,
and stead in any way which I myself could do, if I
were personally present, with respect to the following
matters, as each of them is defined in AS 13.26.344,
to the full extent that I am permitted by law to act
through an agent:
THE AGENT OR AGENTS YOU HAVE APPOINTED WILL HAVE
ALL THE POWERS LISTED BELOW UNLESS YOU
DRAW A LINE THROUGH A CATEGORY; AND
INITIAL THE BOX OPPOSITE THAT CATEGORY
(A) real estate transactions ( )
(B) transactions involving tangible personal
property, chattels, and goods ( )
(C) bonds, shares, and commodities transactions( )
(D) banking transactions ( )
(E) business operating transactions ( )
(F) insurance transactions ( )
(G) estate transactions ( )
(H) gift transactions ( )
(I) claims and litigation ( )
(J) personal relationships and affairs ( )
(K) benefits from government programs and military
service ( )
(L) records, reports, and statements ( )
(M) delegation ( )
(N) voter registration and absentee ballot requests
( )
(O) all other matters, including those specified as
follows: ( )
______________________________________________________
___
______________________________________________________
___
______________________________________________________
___
IF YOU HAVE APPOINTED MORE THAN ONE AGENT, CHECK
ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
( ) Each agent may exercise the powers conferred
separately, without the consent of any other agent.
( ) All agents shall exercise the powers conferred
jointly, with the consent of all other agents.
TO INDICATE WHEN THIS DOCUMENT SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE, CHECK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
( ) This document shall become effective upon the date of
my signature.
( ) This document shall become effective upon the date of
my disability and shall not otherwise be affected by
my disability.
IF YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT THIS DOCUMENT SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE ON THE DATE OF YOUR SIGNATURE, CHECK
ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
( ) This document shall not be affected by my subsequent
disability.
( ) This document shall be revoked by my subsequent
disability.
IF YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT THIS DOCUMENT SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON THE DATE OF YOUR SIGNATURE AND
WANT TO LIMIT THE TERM OF THIS DOCUMENT, COMPLETE THE
FOLLOWING:
This document shall only continue in effect for
________ ( ) years from the date of my signature.
NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF THE POWERS
GRANTED IN THIS DOCUMENT
You may revoke one or more of the powers granted
in this document. Unless otherwise provided in this
document, you may revoke a specific power granted in
this power of attorney by completing a special power
of attorney that includes the specific power in this
document that you want to revoke. Unless otherwise
provided in this document, you may revoke all the
powers granted in this power of attorney by completing
a subsequent power of attorney.
NOTICE TO THIRD PARTIES
A third party who relies on the reasonable
representations of an attorney-in-fact as to a matter
relating to a power granted by a properly executed
statutory power of attorney does not incur any
liability to the principal or to the principal's
heirs, assigns, or estate as a result of permitting
the attorney-in-fact to exercise the authority granted
by the power of attorney. A third party who fails to
honor a properly executed statutory form power of
attorney may be liable to the principal, the attorney-
in-fact, the principal's heirs, assigns, or estate for
a civil penalty, plus damages, costs, and fees
associated with the failure to comply with the
statutory form power of attorney. If the power of
attorney is one which becomes effective upon the
disability of the principal, the disability of the
principal is established by an affidavit, as required
by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed my
name this ____ day of __________, ____.
_____________________________
____
Signature of Principal
Acknowledged before me at
____________________________ ________________________
on ______________________________.
Signature of Officer or Notary
* Sec. 2. AS 13.26.344 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(p) In a statutory form power of attorney, the
language conferring general authority with regard to
voter registration and absentee ballot requests shall
be construed to mean that the principal authorizes the
agent to register the principal to vote or request an
absentee ballot for the principal."
Page 1, line 12:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 3"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, line 8:
Following "written"
Insert "general power of attorney or a written
special"
Delete "specifically"
Page 4, lines 16 - 17:
Delete "as set out in AS 15.07.050"
Page 7, line 12:
Delete "person"
Insert "individual"
Page 7, line 13:
Delete "person"
Insert "individual"
Page 7, line 14, following "written":
Insert "general power of attorney or a written
special"
Page 7, line 15:
Delete "specifically"
Delete "person"
Insert "individual"
Page 25, line 7:
Delete "secs. 23 - 46"
Insert "secs. 25 - 48"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Amendment 5 is "the old Amendment
3," to which committee members had expressed concern that the
term "voting" was too broad. He directed attention to page 2,
line 25 [as numbered on the amendment], which read: "(N) voter
registration and absentee ballot requests". He said that is
narrowly defined on page 4, lines [21-25, as numbered on the
amendment], which read: "that the principal authorizes the
agent to register the principal to vote or request an absentee
ballot for the principal." Representative Gruenberg said the
principal is the person who exercises the power of attorney,
while the agent is the "holder" of the power of attorney. In
addition, he noted that page 5 [as numbered on the amendment]
shows a change [which would be inserted on page 3, line 8, and
on page 7, line 14, of Version Y] to make it clearer that both a
general and a special power of attorney would be authorized.
8:25:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Amendment 5.
8:26:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Representative Gatto,
explained that the original bill specified a "special power of
attorney" and Amendment 5 "basically just says you can also use
a general [power of attorney]." Representative Gruenberg said,
to his knowledge, the Division of Elections does not object [to
Amendment 5].
8:26:50 AM
ANNETTE KREITZER, Chief of Staff, Office of the Lieutenant
Governor, revealed that she has worked closely with the director
of the Division of Elections. She confirmed that the term had
been too broad, and she said Representative Gruenberg has
narrowed it per the request of the division. She stated that
[the Office of the Lieutenant Governor] supports [Amendment 5].
8:27:32 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked again if there was any objection to the
motion. There being none, Amendment 5 was adopted.
8:27:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Amendment 6, labeled 24-
GH1048Y.6, Kurtz, 3/14/05, which read as follows:
Page 5, lines 17 - 30:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 7. AS 15.10.090 is repealed and reenacted
to read:
Sec. 15.10.090. Notice of precinct boundary or
polling place designation and modification. The
director shall give full public notice if a precinct
is established or abolished, if the boundaries of a
precinct are designated, abolished, or modified, or if
the location of a polling place is changed. Public
notice must include
(1) whenever possible, sending written
notice of the change to each affected registered voter
in the precinct;
(2) providing notice of the change
(A) by publication on three different days
in a local newspaper of general circulation in the
precinct; or
(B) if there is not a local newspaper of
general circulation in the precinct, by posting
written notice in three conspicuous places as close to
the precinct as possible; at least one posting
location must be in the precinct;
(3) posting notice of the change on the
Internet website of the division of elections; and
(4) providing notification of the change to
the appropriate municipal clerks, community councils,
tribal groups, presiding officers, Native villages,
and village regional corporations established under 43
U.S.C. 1606 (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act)."
CHAIR SEATON moved Amendment 1 to Amendment 6, labeled 24-
GH1048\Y.10, Kurtz, 3/14/05, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 17:
Delete "and"
Page 1, line 21, following "Settlement Act)":
Insert "; and
(5) inclusion in the official election
pamphlet"
Page 1, following line 21:
Insert new material to read:
"Page 23, following line 15:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 47. AS 15.58.020 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.58.020. Contents of pamphlet. Each
election pamphlet must contain
(1) photographs and campaign statements
submitted by eligible candidates for elective office
in the region;
(2) information and recommendations filed
under AS 15.58.050 on judicial officers subject to a
retention election in the region;
(3) a map of the house district or
districts of the region;
(4) sample ballots for house districts of
the region;
(5) an absentee ballot application;
(6) for each ballot proposition submitted
to the voters by initiative or referendum petition or
by the legislature,
(A) the full text of the proposition
specifying constitutional or statutory provisions
proposed to be affected;
(B) the ballot title and the summary of the
proposition prepared by the director or by the
lieutenant governor;
(C) a neutral summary of the proposition
prepared by the Legislative Affairs Agency;
(D) statements submitted that advocate
voter approval or rejection of the proposition not to
exceed 500 words;
(7) for each bond question, a statement of
the scope of each project as it appears in the bond
authorization;
(8) a maximum of two pages of material
submitted by each political party;
(9) additional information on voting
procedures that the lieutenant governor considers
necessary;
(10) for the question whether a
constitutional convention shall be called,
(A) a full statement of the question placed
on the ballot;
(B) statements not to exceed 500 words that
advocate voter approval or rejection of the question;
(11) under AS 37.13.170, the Alaska
permanent fund annual income statement and balance
sheet for the two fiscal years preceding the
publication of the election pamphlet;
(12) under AS 15.10.090, notice of
(A) the establishment or abolition of a
precinct;
(B) the designation, abolition, or
modification of precinct boundaries; and
(C) a change in the location of a polling
place."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Glaiser to address Amendment 1 to
Amendment 6.
8:30:47 AM
LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, said the amendment would allow the division
to include in the official election pamphlet "only those polling
place changes that we make at the time." She said the precinct
boundary modifications are done before the division goes to
publication on the official election pamphlet. She explained
that some polling place changes are emergencies and need to be
made closer to the election. Regarding the fiscal implications,
she noted that there are currently "filler pages"; therefore,
there would be no additional costs. She offered further
details.
CHAIR SEATON said the reason he is offering the amendment is
that the official election pamphlet is where most people look to
find information on voting, and "this would include it in
there."
8:32:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to Amendment 1 to
Amendment 6.
MS. GLAISER, in response to a questions from Representative
Gatto, explained the difference between a page intentionally
left blank and filler pages and offered examples. She said she
can't speak to the development of the official election
pamphlet. She said, "There are areas where there's basic
information ... applicable to all people who may be interested,
and we would do our best to finesse that and make it make sense
to the people who are using the election pamphlet." In response
to a question from Chair Seaton, she confirmed that there is a
table of contents in the front of the pamphlet.
8:33:56 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any further objection to
Amendment 1 to Amendment 6. There being none, Amendment 1 to
Amendment 6 was adopted.
8:34:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Am 2 to Am 6, labeled 24-
GH1048\Y.9, Kurtz, 3/14/05, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "on three different days"
Insert "once"
8:34:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
8:34:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that the amendment would
return language back to the way it originally was. He asked Ms.
Glaiser to explain.
8:35:27 AM
MS. GLAISER said current law requires the division to send a
notice to every voter when a polling place changes, but it does
not require that the division advertise at all. She said the
division always placed an advertisement in local papers to
notify voters of the polling places closer to election day. She
said, "That's one section of law: [AS] 15.10.020." She
explained that [Amendment 2 to Amendment 6] would change AS
15.10.090, which is about precinct boundary and polling place
designations. She said the state used to advertise three times,
on three different days, but never sent a notice to the voters.
She stated, "We're adding the notice requirements here; we're
sending a letter now, ... with this amendment. That will cost
approximately $6,000 - $8,000. However, we're now reducing the
notice requirements to one day, and ... the understanding is
that that publication that we do in newspapers closest to an
election, for polling places, addresses that." She said the
intent is not to do a notice every time the division has a
polling place modification, but instead to [give] notice [to]
people of a polling place location. She said there will be a
savings, and she'll work today to get the committee the exact
numbers. She noted that when a form of this amendment was
before the committee, the fiscal note was approximately $23,000.
8:37:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his understanding that it will
be a very significant reduction.
MS. GLAISER said she can't promise [how significant], but she
reiterated that there would be a reduction.
8:37:35 AM
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection. He asked if there was any
further objection. There being none, Amendment 2 to Amendment 6
was adopted.
8:37:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that there appeared to be some
ambiguous language on [page 1], line 19 [as numbered on
Amendment 6], which is the use of the term "presiding officers".
He said it is unclear what is meant by that term, and he offered
to remove it or address it in the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
8:38:54 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he would prefer a motion to remove the term.
8:39:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved [Conceptual] Amendment 3 to
Amendment 6 as follows:
On page 1, line 19 of Amendment 6
Delete "presiding officers"
8:39:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to [Conceptual]
Amendment 3 to Amendment 6. There being none, it was so
ordered.
8:40:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted for the record that at a recent
meeting of the Mountain View Community Council, that council
unanimously supported [paragraph] (4), [text previously provided
within Amendment 6].
8:40:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 6, as amended.
There being no objection, Amendment 6, as amended, was adopted.
8:40:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 7, labeled 24-
GH1048\Y.8, Kurtz, 3/14/05, which read as follows:
Page 5, following line 30:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 8. AS 15.15.030(6) is repealed and
reenacted to read:
(6) The names of the candidates for each
office shall be set out in the same order on ballots
printed for use in each house district. The director
shall randomly determine the order of the names of the
candidates for state representative for each house
district. The director shall rotate the order of
placement of the names of candidates for governor,
lieutenant governor, United States senator, United
States representative, and state senator on the ballot
for each house district."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 25, line 7:
Delete "secs. 23 - 46"
Insert "secs. 24 - 47"
8:40:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
8:40:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the state prints a different
ballot in each House election district, because there are
different candidates for each House race. He noted that [the
amendment] would affect everybody on the ticket except House
candidates. He offered further details. He said this system
would be less expensive and easier for the Division of
Elections.
8:43:14 AM
MS. GLAISER confirmed, "This would zero out what would have been
a potential fiscal note." Should there be 3 candidates in a
state Senate race, she noted, one person would never be rotated
to the top, because there are basically only two rotations
available in a Senate district. Furthermore, [Amendment 7]
would create more proofing burden on the division; however, she
said the division can handle it. She added, "If you truly
believe that rotation ... is the purest form, then the House
members are not allowed to enjoy that benefit under this
amendment. ... The rotation is not pure or complete; ... it's
shortened." She said it's the policy call of the legislature.
8:44:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained the reason for rotation. He said there
can be a significant advantage to being first on the ballot, and
he noted that many options were considered [last year].
8:46:32 AM
MS. GLAISER, in response to a question from Representative Lynn,
said the current process of random draw would be used for the
House.
8:46:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted, "There are three sentences to
the amendment." The first sentence says the ballot would be set
for each House district. The second sentence, he noted,
addresses Representative Lynn's question; it says that the
director [of the division] shall randomly determine the order of
the names of the candidate for state representative for each
House district. He added, "They also now do it for all the
statewide candidates, randomly, starting in district 1." The
third sentence, he concluded, says the director of the division
shall rotate the order of placement of names for the statewide
candidates and state Senator candidates on the ballot for each
House district.
8:47:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said, "I want to oppose this." He said he
likes the traditional method of scanning down a ballot to look
for a candidate alphabetically. He asked if there is a legal
challenge that would make him want to favor the amendment.
8:48:31 AM
MS. GLAISER responded that there is no current litigation in
which the division is involved regarding ballot rotation, but
there has been in the past. She stated her understanding that
the random draw change to the current ballot rotation method was
offered as a cost savings measure. She gave further details.
8:49:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated his understanding that the division doesn't
currently list alphabetically.
8:49:37 AM
MS. GLAISER explained that all 26 letters are put in a box and
she selects each letter in a random draw. She said sometimes
that can be completed before the filing deadline. That
information becomes available online and candidates take
interest in finding out the results.
8:50:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the reason that candidates look at
the division's web site to find out who is going to be listed
first is because there is a perceived difference of being first
on the ballot as being to some advantage. He said, "This
amendment doesn't take care of House races, but it does take
care of all of the other races. At least no one candidate would
appear at the top of all ballots - even in Senate races." In
response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, he said
there are people who could testify on the bill. He asked
committee members if they needed to hear further testimony
regarding the bill and concluded [after no audible response]
that they did not.
8:51:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON, speaking to his previous objection, said he thinks
the amendment "clarifies some of the situations for most of the
races" without [adding] a fiscal note. He noted that one of the
reasons that ballot rotation was looked at as being somewhat
problematic was that "we were looking at sample ballots and you
would get a sample ballot in and you might not be able to take
the sample ballot into the polling place; however, this cures
that, because there's a sample ballot in your official election
ballot for every House district, so you can take your sample
ballot in and it will be identical ... to the ballot [on which]
you're voting."
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection [to Amendment 7]. He asked
if there was any further objection.
CHAIR SEATON recognized Representative Gatto's objection [that
was not audibly stated].
8:53:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question from
Representative Gatto, explained how he created the sample page
[included in the committee packet, stapled behind Amendment 7].
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO observed that someone who had been at the
bottom of the list twice in a row could be there a third time,
since it would be random.
8:54:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied that's true. He stated that
[Amendment 7] would repeal and reenact an existing statute that
says the director [of the Division of Elections] randomly
chooses the order for each election.
8:55:39 AM
CHAIR SEATON, in response to a follow-up question from
Representative Gatto, explained that the capital letters on the
sample page attached to Amendment 7 stand in place of candidate
names.
8:55:45 AM
MS. GLAISER, in response to a request for further clarification
from Representative Gatto, explained that the letters of the
alphabet correspond with the first letter of the candidate's
name. If three candidates have the same letter to their last
names, the second letter in the name would be used to
alphabetize.
8:58:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO withdrew his objection to Amendment 7.
8:58:48 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any further objection. There
being none, Amendment 7 was adopted.
8:59:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved Amendment 8, labeled 24-GH1048\Y.2, Kurtz,
3/9/05, which read as follows:
Page 24, following line 13:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 49. AS 15.60.010(23) is amended to read:
(23) "political party" means an organized
group of voters that represents a political program
and that
(A) [THAT] nominated a candidate for
governor who received at least three percent of the
total votes cast for governor at the preceding general
election at which a governor was elected [OR HAS
REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE STATE EQUAL IN NUMBER TO AT
LEAST THREE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL VOTES CAST FOR
GOVERNOR AT THE PRECEDING GENERAL ELECTION];
(B) [IF THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR WAS NOT ON
THE BALLOT AT THE PRECEDING GENERAL ELECTION BUT THE
OFFICE OF UNITED STATES SENATOR WAS ON THAT BALLOT,
THAT] nominated a candidate for United States senator
who received at least three percent of the total votes
cast for United States senator at the preceding
general election or at the most recent general
election at which a governor was elected; [THAT
GENERAL ELECTION OR HAS REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE STATE
EQUAL IN NUMBER TO AT LEAST THREE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
VOTES CAST FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR AT THAT GENERAL
ELECTION; OR]
(C) [IF NEITHER THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR NOR
THE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES SENATOR WAS ON THE BALLOT
AT THE PRECEDING GENERAL ELECTION, THAT] nominated a
candidate for United States representative who
received at least three percent of the total votes
cast for United States representative at the preceding
general election or at the most recent general
election at which a governor was elected; [THAT
GENERAL ELECTION] or
(D) has registered voters in the state
equal in number to at least two [THREE] percent of the
total number of voters registered in the state on
March 31 of the most recent election year [VOTES CAST
FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE AT THAT GENERAL
ELECTION];"
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
8:59:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
8:59:29 AM
CHAIR SEATON said [Amendment 8] clarifies political parties -
when they occur and how they are certified by the director of
the Division of Elections. He directed attention to page 24,
lines 9-13, [subsection (e)] of Version Y, which read as
follows:
(e) The director may not withdraw recognized
political party status from a political group that no
longer meets the definition of political party except
following the verification immediately after a general
election at which a governor was elected. The
director shall notify the political group in writing
of the withdrawal of recognition.
CHAIR SEATON indicated that that language speaks to when the
political party status is withdrawn. He said:
What this bill does is it addresses that you can
qualify as a political party by getting 3 percent of
the governor's race, the U.S. Senator race, or a U.S.
House race at the time the governor's elected; and if
you did that until after the next gubernatorial
election, you're a political party. Or, if in the
interim election, you have 3 percent of one of the
statewide races - a U.S. Senate or a U.S. House race -
you can then qualify as a political party, and it will
be through the governor's race, at which time that
determination is made.
9:02:39 AM
There was some concern that other language made it so
that it was four years from interim to interim. There
was also concern that if you had someone in a
political party that got 15 percent at a gubernatorial
race, and then at the interim race you didn't have
someone running, someone else could just declare
themselves in your party, put their name in, and not
ever advertise, not run, not get three percent, and
then that would eliminate you as a political party
before the next gubernatorial race.
Current law has it ... that 3 percent in the
governor's race and then you're good through the next
governor's race. We had a lawsuit that came forward
..., and the courts have determined that that was
unreasonable to say it had to be the governor's race;
that getting 3 percent in any statewide race should be
enough to qualify you as a political party. The
effect of this ... is that there's a bright clear line
that political parties, if [they] qualify at either
the gubernatorial race or the interim race, ... are a
political party until after the next gubernatorial
race.
9:04:00 AM
MS. GLAISER indicated that another way for a party to qualify is
shown on page 2, lines [6-9, as numbered on Amendment 9], which
read as follows:
(D) has registered voters in the state equal
in number to at least two [THREE] percent of the total
number of voters registered in the state on March 31
of the most recent election year [VOTES CAST FOR
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE AT THAT GENERAL
ELECTION];"
9:04:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained that there is quite a bit of variation in
the number of people who vote in a presidential year compared to
a nonpresidential year; therefore, the 3 percent of people who
voted in the last election is not nearly as directive of what a
political party is as how many people are registered in the
state.
9:05:17 AM
MS. GLAISER directed attention to a handout in the committee
packet labeled, "Political Party Status/Percentage of Registered
Voters," which showed - for the years 2000, 2002, and 2004 - the
number of registered voters on the general election day, "3
percent of those who voted for U.S. Senate," and "the parties
that would have qualified if that were the bar." If the number
had been lowered to 2 percent in 2004, for example, three
parties would have qualified: the Republican Party, the
Democrat Party, and the Alaska Independent Party. She offered
further explanation.
9:06:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON observed, "These are alternating qualifications, so
in ... 2002 you would have four parties that qualified. Three
of them would have qualified through 3 percent of someone
running, and you would have an additional party that qualified
by having 2 percent of the registered voters." He asked if that
is correct.
9:07:10 AM
MS. GLAISER answered affirmatively.
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Glaiser for the division's thought
regarding using the percentage of registered voters instead of
the number of people who voted in a previous election.
MS. GLAISER said the division currently operates with those two
opportunities for a party to seek and retain status; therefore,
the division "could certainly operate with this amendment, as
well."
9:08:25 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Glaiser if she looked at "the current
law, which is 3 percent of the people who voted in the past
election, versus 2 percent of the registered voters.
9:08:36 AM
MS. GLAISER turned to the handout and the example for 2004,
which shows that 3 percent of those who voted for U.S. Senate
equaled 9,329, while 2 percent of the registered voters on 4/3
was 8,977. She observed that the numbers are fairly close. In
the example for 2002, she pointed out, 3 percent of those who
voted for governor was 6,986; however, 2 percent of those who
registered to vote was 8,964. She noted that there would be
variables in an election year where there is a greater draw, for
example, during a presidential election year.
9:09:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Glaiser to address the March 31 date for
"the determination of the percent compared to the number of
registered voters."
9:09:49 AM
MS. GLAISER said she was not able to provide an answer at that
time. She said she would like to leave the March 31 date and
perhaps work with the House Judiciary Standing Committee to
ensure that that is the proper date. She indicated that she
wants to pick a date that's reasonable and allows candidates to
know whether the party that they would like to choose to run in
is a qualified, recognized, political party, or whether they
would need to choose to run as an Independent.
9:11:04 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated the intent is that someone who wants to run
for an office under a party banner would know whether the party
officially exists, or not, or whether he/she has to get a
petition signature before filing. He offered further details.
9:11:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS stated his support of Amendment 8.
9:11:57 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to Amendment 8.
9:12:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated for the record that he would be
happy to work with the division and Representative Seaton
regarding any change to the March 31 date. Also, he wants to
flag the question that was raised about the construction of the
sentence on page 24, lines 9-11 [of Version Y]. He said the
sentence is poorly drafted and he will work with the division in
the House Judiciary Standing Committee to make that language
clearer.
9:12:57 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the language in question is Section
(e), on page 24.
9:13:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his objection [to Amendment
8].
9:13:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that, there being no further objection,
Amendment 8 was adopted.
9:13:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to adopt Amendment 9, labeled 24-
GH1048\F.16, Kurtz, 3/3/05, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 9, following "recall,":
Insert "the crime of unlawful interference with
voting,"
Page 23, following line 15:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 47. AS 15.56.035(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person commits the crime of unlawful
interference with voting in the second degree if the
person
(1) has an official ballot in possession
outside of the voting room unless the person is an
election official or other person authorized by law or
local ordinance, or by the director or chief municipal
elections official in a local election;
(2) makes, or knowingly has in possession,
a counterfeit of an official election ballot;
(3) knowingly solicits or encourages,
directly or indirectly, a registered voter who is no
longer qualified to vote under AS 15.05.010, to vote
in an election; [OR]
(4) as a registration official
(A) knowingly refuses to register a person
who is entitled to register under AS 15.07.030; or
(B) accepts a fee from an applicant
applying for registration; or
(5) delivers to an individual a partially
completed voter registration application form or a
partially completed absentee ballot application form
unless the individual has specifically requested
assistance from the person in completing the form."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
9:14:32 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes. He asked, "If I
wanted to mail a ballot to somebody, I couldn't have their name
printed on the ... registration form. Is that correct?"
9:14:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER answered yes.
9:14:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS stated what he likes best about HB 94 is
that it's "a low common denominator bill"; it keeps making it
progressively easier for people to participate in the democratic
process. Representative Ramras stated opposition to Amendment
9, because he said he thinks it discourages that common
denominator.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner and
Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 9. Representatives Gatto,
Lynn, Ramras, and Seaton voted against it. Therefore, Amendment
9 failed by a vote of 2-4.
9:17:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS moved Conceptual Amendment 10, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided, with some formatting
changes]:
Page 13
*Sec.30. AS 15.45.340 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(b) A circulator may not receive payment or agree
to receive payment [that is greater than $1 a
signature], and a person or an organization may not
pay or agree to pay an amount [that is greater than $1
a signature,] for the collection of signatures on a
petition.
Page 14
Sec.32. AS 15.45.360 is repealed and reenacted to
read:
[(8) if the circulator has received payment or
agreed to receive payment for the collection of
signatures on the petition, the circulator, before
circulating of the petition, prominently placed in the
space provided under AS 15.45.320(6) the name of each
person or organization that has paid or agreed to pay
the circulator for collection signatures on the
petition.]
Page 17
Sec.39. AS 15.45.580 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(b) A circulator may not receive payment or agree
to receive payment [that is greater than $1 a
signature,] and a person or an organization may not
pay or agree to pay an amount [that is greater than $1
a signature,] for the collection of signatures on a
petition.
Page 18
Sec.41. AS 15.45.600 is repealed and reenacted to
read:
[(8) if the circulator has received payment or
agreed to receive payment for the collection of
signatures on the petition, the circulator, before
circulating of the petition, prominently placed in the
space provided under AS 15.45.560(5) the name of each
person or organization that has paid or agreed to pay
the circulator for collection of signatures on the
petition.]
[deleted language bracketed]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
9:20:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS stated that he thinks the voters spoke to
the legislature when they asked for a modification of the ballot
initiative process to three quarters of the districts with a
minimum of 7 percent in each district. He indicated his concern
is people may be passionate about putting an initiative on the
ballot, but are not so passionate that they want to stand out on
the street corner [to collect signatures], and those people try
to influence the election process by paying people to solicit
and collect those signatures. He stated, "If you're passionate
enough to put ballot initiative out into the public forum, then
you should be passionate enough to stand out there yourself and
collect the ballot."
9:20:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she disagrees with [Amendment 10].
She said a person can feel very passionate about an issue, but
cannot by him/herself, or with the help of a few acquaintances,
collect enough signatures, because it's not possible to be in
enough places in the state and spend enough time collecting
those signatures. She said, "If you can do fundraising and get
assistance from other concerned people to do it, I think that's
a legitimate way of bringing the issue forward."
9:21:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Amendment 10 is difficult to
understand, so he stated his opposition, "for the same reason."
9:22:12 AM
MS. GLAISER told Representative Ramras that he also needs "to
pick up [AS] 15.45.110 and [AS] 15.45.130, if in fact you don't
want circulators to be paid for initiative petitions." She also
mentioned [AS] 15.45.340 and [AS] 15.45 360 and added, "The 300
chapter is referendum, and the 500 and [AS] 15.45.600 is for
recall." Ms. Glaiser said it's required by law that a
circulator declares that he/she has been paid. If the
circulator turns in his/her books at the last minute and hasn't
had that certification done, the result may be that that booklet
is partially or completely invalidated. Ms. Glaiser mentioned a
court case and said a judge told the Division of Elections to
start removing barriers [in order to] make it easy and clear for
a petition carrier to carry a petition through the process. The
proposed legislation should make things easier. She said an
amendment like [Amendment 10] would help the division qualify
more signatures, because it's "one less bar."
9:24:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS clarified that it is a conceptual
amendment that he wants applied to any mention of payment
throughout HB 94. He said he sees Representative Gruenberg's
point that the numbering in the amendment doesn't correlate to
the numbering in the bill.
9:24:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated that he has a problem with
the amendment. He echoed Ms. Glaiser's comment that HB 94 is
supposed to make the process easier and friendly for a voter.
He said both the initiative process and recall process are
important, the latter because it allows inept or corrupt
officials to be recalled by the voters. If Amendment 10 passes,
it would make the process more difficult.
9:25:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON said the dispersion of signatures throughout House
districts was increased in the last election, which means that
there are substantial costs by "people that are doing this on a
statewide basis." He said he doesn't think $1 will result in a
profitable business of generating initiatives, but he does think
[the $1] does help to defray some of the costs. He stated his
opposition to Amendment 10. He indicated that he would like to
make it easy for people to know which areas they have to fill
out.
9:27:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he agrees philosophically with
[Representative Ramras] about paying people to gather signatures
for an issue. He said it opens the door for large advocacy
groups from out of the state to come to the state to work to get
certain issues defeated. He stated his support of Amendment 10.
9:28:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he agrees that large sums of money can come
from Outside; however, that wouldn't be a result of the $1
amount.
9:28:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if a person could contract for a
person to work for $10,000 to collect signatures.
9:28:57 AM
MS. GLAISER responded as follows:
My understanding is there's nothing that prevents
that, but if you are circulating a petition, you do
have to declare and sign in as a circulator. And
then, once as a circulator, this lies in effect. So,
[for] that you're paid $1 a [signature] - you know, it
would still show up.
And to the point of how much money's involved: If
you're gathering over 20,000 signatures at $1 a
signature, that would cost a group over $20,000 - not
save them money, but cost them money - to pay someone
to gather signatures.
9:29:32 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn and Ramras
voted in favor of Amendment 10. Representatives Gardner,
Gruenberg, Gatto, and Seaton voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 10 failed by a vote of 2-4.
9:30:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS moved Amendment 11, labeled 24-
GH1048\G.12, which read as follows:
Page 8, following line 12:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 15. AS 15.20.450 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.20.450. Requirements of deposit and
recount cost. The application must include a deposit
in cash, by certified check, or by bond with a surety
approved by the director. The amount of the deposit
is $2,500 [$300] for each precinct, $10,000 [$750] for
each house district, and $50,000 [$10,000] for the
entire state. If the recount includes an office for
which candidates received a tie vote, or the
difference between the number of votes cast was 20 or
less or was less than .5 percent of the total number
of votes cast for the two candidates for the contested
office, or a question or proposition for which there
was a tie vote on the issue, or the difference between
the number of votes cast in favor of or opposed to the
issue was 20 or less or was less than .5 percent of
the total votes cast in favor of or opposed to the
issue, the application need not include a deposit, and
the state shall bear the cost of the recount. If, on
the recount, a candidate other than the candidate who
received the original election certificate is declared
elected, or if the vote on recount is determined to be
four percent or more in excess of the vote reported by
the state review for the candidate applying for the
recount or in favor of or opposed to the question or
proposition as stated in the application, the entire
deposit shall be refunded. If the entire deposit is
not refunded, the director shall refund any money
remaining after the cost of the recount has been paid
from the deposit. If the cost of the recount exceeds
the amount of the deposit, the recount applicant shall
pay the remainder upon notification by the state of
the amount due."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 21, line 4:
Delete "secs. 20 - 43"
Insert "secs. 21 - 44"
9:30:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes.
9:30:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS stated that it costs a lot of money to do
recounts. He continued:
We have some folks that are paying the deposit, as it
is now, and then ... the recount is done, and if it's
not to their satisfaction, they don't step up and pay
the full cost. As a result, it's costing the Division
of Elections money. When the ... person who puts in
the request and the deposit doesn't get the desired
outcome, they walk away from their obligations. So, I
think it's appropriate to increase ... the cost.
9:31:25 AM
MS. GLAISER responded that the Office of the Governor did offer
legislation that included [the language of Amendment 11] in it.
She clarified, "It was a bill that had part of what is now
included in SB 36; this is picking up the rest of that and
placing it in our bill as an amendment." She said the cost of
running a statewide recount did reach almost $40,000 "this
year," and that was just "with an Accuvote and doing some part
of a hand count." She said adding the touch screen will
increase the cost of the state's conducting a recount. She said
the division is not "wedded to the numbers." She said if there
is a close margin in a race, there is no requirement for deposit
in current law, and that would remain unchanged in the
amendment.
9:32:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked, "If you don't win on the recount, do you
then have to pay the cost?"
9:33:58 AM
MS. GLAISER referred to [the last portion of AS 15.20.450],
which read as follows:
If, on the recount, a candidate other than the
candidate who received the original election
certificate is declared elected, or if the vote on
recount is determined to be four percent or more in
excess of the vote reported by the state review for
the candidate applying for the recount or in favor of
or opposed to the question or proposition as stated in
the application, the entire deposit shall be refunded.
If the entire deposit is not refunded, the director
shall refund any money remaining after the cost of the
recount has been paid from the deposit.
9:34:44 AM
MS. GLAISER said the point is that the deposit falls short of
the actual cost to the state.
9:34:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding [of Amendment 11] is that
if there's a recount that comes out exactly the same as the
original vote, the losing candidate has to pay the cost of the
recount. He continued as follows:
I know that's not the intent, but before it was only a
deposit, and now ... in this amendment it's a deposit
and, if the cost exceeds that amount, then you're
going to have to pay the amount due. And I just want
to make sure that we have it so that if there's an
automatic recount and it comes out exactly the same
way, that the loser doesn't have to pay the cost of
the recount, even though they weren't required to put
a deposit in. But we've never had a thing where you
have to pay the amount whether it's above the deposit
as well.
9:35:59 AM
MS. GLAISER reiterated that this language was part of the
governor's bill. She offered her understanding that the legal
review did say that it was not going to change anything except
for the language specifying that if it exceeds the amount of a
deposit the additional costs would be paid. She said it's her
understanding that what Chair Seaton is suggesting would not be
the case under [Amendment 11].
CHAIR SEATON said sometimes things are unintentionally written,
and he indicated that he was reading the language [to ensure
that had not occurred].
9:36:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO directed attention to line 14 [as numbered
on Amendment 11], which read: "and the state shall bear the
cost of the recount." Then he directed attention to the added
language on [lines 21-23, as numbered on the amendment], which
read: "If the cost of the recount exceeds the amount of the
deposit, the recount applicant shall pay the remainder upon
notification by the state of the amount due." He observed that
the recount was zero, so the recount certainly would exceed the
amount [of the deposit]. He asked, "Isn't that a conflict?"
9:37:15 AM
MS. GLAISER stated her understanding that "the sentences prior
to that relieve that burden." She added that she is not an
attorney.
9:37:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO offered an example whereby two different
attorneys could make two different arguments depending on which
part of the language they cite. He said the language is not
clear.
9:38:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated that it costs a lot of money to
run an election, as well as to do a recount. Not only would
[Amendment 11] raise the amount to a significant level, it
wouldn't allow a candidate who is requesting a recount to know
what the cost would be up front. She said for that reason alone
she has to oppose [Amendment 11].
9:39:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks it would be fair to hear
from the public, because "this was not part of the original
bill." He directed attention to the figure of "$50,000" on line
7 [as numbered on the amendment], which he remarked is
significantly more than the cost of the recount in the Tony
Knowles/Lisa Murkowski race, which was $35,000-$40,000.
9:40:10 AM
MS. GLAISER reiterated that the addition of conducting a recount
with the touch screen voting equipment is going to put excessive
burden on the state. She said she was asked to look at a
reasonable cost. She added that the division does not have a
record of anybody asking for a recount in a precinct, but that's
the way the current law is read. She said it's a policy call,
for the state to decide whether it wants to be reimbursed or
cover the cost.
9:41:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if a recount on a precinct would be done by
the statewide staff or the district.
9:41:34 AM
MS. GLAISER replied that the law requires that the director
conduct the recount. She said, "We would ... do whatever was
the most reasonable, in order to conduct that recount." She
stated that most recounts have been done in Juneau. She offered
examples.
9:42:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Glaiser to explain why she is
anticipating that it will cost more to do a recount for the
touch screen ballots.
9:42:32 AM
MS. GLAISER indicated that, based on feedback from other states,
the process of conducting a recount for the touch screen ballots
is time consuming, because the receipt is small and must be hand
counted, versus "just running the ballots through and then doing
a random sample hand recount." She reiterated that the division
is offering the numbers, not as solid numbers, but to open the
question: "Is ... it worth consideration?"
9:43:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for an example of the dollar
amount for a recount of a House district in an urban area.
9:43:30 AM
MS. GLAISER indicated that a recent recount cost $7,000 -
$8,000.
9:44:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his understanding that there was
a recount done, not necessary to change the "total numerical
winner," but to challenge the accuracy of the counting. He
continued:
If the purpose of a requested recount is to achieve a
reform in the system of counting ballots and
conducting elections, why is it that only if the
election results are changed, the ultimate winner
would -- the money be not charged? Because, the
requesting group could be seeking to get [a] more
accurate count, rather than to necessarily change
their result, and they could achieve a significant
victory if they achieve that result, because, let's
say there was widespread fraud in the way the election
was conducted, although the other person might
ultimately win by a vote or two. It's kind of a
rhetorical question, but do you see what I'm trying to
get at here?
9:45:53 AM
MS. GLAISER responded that it's a policy call of the
legislature.
9:46:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON said the [deposit amounts] have been set high,
which makes sense. He said, "It seems to me if we're setting a
high enough figure to cover a substantial part of the cost -
even if it's not 100 percent of the cost - we accomplish the
state's goal of saying we're not going to get frivolous
recounts, because people are going to have to pay a lot of money
to do it. ... The open-ended nature of beyond the deposit is
problematic for me." He said if other committee members have
the same concern, he would entertain a motion for a conceptual
amendment to strike that language added at the bottom of the
amendment.
9:47:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 11, as follows:
Beginning on page 1, line 21 of Amendment 11:
Delete "If the cost of the recount exceeds the amount
of the deposit, the recount applicant shall pay the
remainder upon notification by the state of the amount
due."
9:48:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no objection
from Ms. Glaiser, asked the committee if there was any objection
to [Conceptual] Amendment 1 to Amendment 11. There being none,
[Conceptual] Amendment 1 to Amendment 11 was adopted.
9:48:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Amendment 2 to Amendment 11, as
follows:
On page 1, line 7 of Amendment 11:
Delete $50,000
Insert $35,000
9:49:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected. He said it's troubling, because
he wants to vote against [Amendment 11] and has to decide
whether to vote for the reduction.
9:49:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 2 to Amendment 11.
9:49:49 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Lynn voted in favor
of Amendment 11 [as amended]. Representatives Gardner,
Gruenberg, Gatto, Elkins, and Seaton voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 11, as amended, failed by a vote of 1-4.
9:50:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report CSHB 94, as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objections, CSHB 94
(STA) moved out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
SB 36-ABSENTEE BALLOTS
9:51:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 36(JUD), "An Act relating to absentee
ballots."
9:51:47 AM
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor of
SB 36, stated that the bill would require all absentee ballot
requests be delivered directly to the Division of Elections for
confidential processing. He explained that [during the 2004
general election] those people who had requested absentee
ballots were directed to mail their absentee ballots back to an
address belonging to one of the political parties. He said it
was unclear whether there was any kind of wrongdoing, but "when
you have this situation where an individual party interjects
itself in that flow of information between the voter and the
Division of Elections, there is the possibility of shenanigans
to take place." The proposed legislation would clarify that the
application sent out is one that is approved by the director of
the Division of Elections, which would ensure that the
application only requests information that is required by state
law, as well as allow the director to ensure that the right type
of paper is being used. The bill would also clarify that the
voter shall submit the application directly to the Division of
Elections.
9:53:59 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT directed attention to Sections 4 and 5, which
deal with penalties for any recurrence of the activity that took
place during the last election. He noted that in Section 2, at
the request of the director of the Division of Elections, the
amount of time [before the election] that the ballot request has
to be in to the division was changed from 7 days to 10 days.
Section 3 specifies the regulations that would be adopted to
implement bill.
9:55:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 2, line 19,
and asked for the definition of "personal information".
9:55:49 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT suggested that the director may know if there
is a definition within the entire section of statute; however,
he said the personal information requested on the absentee
ballot is: date of birth, social security number, and "things
of that nature." He said the intent was that all of that
information is somehow concealed when the voter's absentee
information is run through the mail.
9:55:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that he understands that's
the intent of the sponsor; however, he said he hopes the
legislative history is clear, and the regulations would define
what is meant by personal information.
9:56:25 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied, "If they don't already have a
definition that would fulfill that, or a general definition of
applicability by the court system that fulfills that currently,
they certainly would have the regulatory authority to do that."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that's sufficient.
9:56:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered an example whereby a student
government at a high school is sponsoring a voter registration
drive to encourage 18-year-olds to register. She asked if it
would be a violation for the student government to take the
completed applications and return them to the division en masse.
9:57:01 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he thinks it would probably be allowable
if those applications were "dropped off and then put right in
the mail box." Conversely, if the applications were held for
any length that may allow for the gleaning of information, he
said that would be disallowed. In general, he clarified, the
intent is that no outside person would have access to the
information.
9:58:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated that she agrees with the thrust of
the bill. She directed attention to [page 2], lines 22-23,
which specify that "the form is to be returned by the voter
directly to the division, and not to another person providing
the form". She said that language would preclude such things as
student government from [collecting the information].
9:58:21 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he thinks all schools have an outgoing
mail basket in which the applications could easily placed.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER responded, "Right, but the student
government people who are running the table couldn't say, 'We'll
take it and we'll mail it for you,' under this bill."
SENATOR THERRIAULT surmised that the most direct route to the
mail system is the best, but he added that he would have no
problem with a student being directed to drop off the
application at the front office after lunch, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER indicated that if a teenager is asked to
do that, "it goes into the abyss."
SENATOR THERRIAULT deferred further comment to the director of
the Division of Elections.
9:59:24 AM
LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, pointed out that Representative Gardner's
question relates to voter registration, while the bill addresses
changes regarding absentee ballot by-mail requests. She offered
further details. She said any delay between the voter and the
division is stressful and makes her sad, because there are
people who do not get ballots. She noted that in a voter
registrar process, the people in student government have to be a
registrar, they are responsible to state, and they have
undergone training. She revealed that there is no training
related to an absentee by-mail drive, thus "that responsibility
is absent."
10:01:09 AM
RANDY RUEDRICH, Chair, Alaskan Republican Party, stated his
support of SB 36 in its current form.
10:01:39 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
10:01:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he doesn't think it should be
illegal if someone carries the application to the post office,
particularly regarding Representative Gardner's example. He
said he thinks the committee should consider "some accommodation
for something like that," for ease of collection.
10:02:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Glaiser to address the concern previously
stated by Representative Gardner regarding [page 2, lines 22-
23].
10:02:56 AM
MS. GLAISER noted that this question was raised in the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee, and she offered her understanding
that the Division of Elections is not "voter police." She
explained that the division is not going to hunt down "someone
who has done someone a favor and dropped an application into the
mail." She said the bill would address what was a widespread
problem, which she indicated was that "tens of thousands" [of
absentee by-mail applications] went through another source.
10:03:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON indicated his agreement.
10:03:58 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT outlined that the possibility of trouble can
occur when an organized group is doing the collecting. He
offered an example.
10:05:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER redirected attention to page 2, line 23.
She offered an example of a wife mailing an application for her
husband. She said she thinks the language needs amending.
10:05:38 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Representative Gardner if she thinks
someone would actually bring a charge against the wife.
10:05:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER indicated her concern is that the
legislature not write legislation that may have those
consequences, even if they may be unlikely.
10:06:02 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT stated that he personally does not think this
issue is a problem.
10:06:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO directed attention to a sentence on page 1,
beginning on line 12, which read: "The voter shall submit the
application directly to the division of elections." He said
that sounds like the person has to walk into the division to
submit the application.
10:06:32 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that SB 36 was heard and held.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:06:43 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|