Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/17/2021 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 | |
| HB123 | |
| HB157 | |
| HB148 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 157 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 157-APOC; REPORT REFERENDA/RECALL CONTRIBUTOR
4:00:53 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 157, "An Act requiring the disclosure of
the identity of certain persons, groups, and nongroup entities
that expend money in support of or in opposition to an
application filed for a state referendum or recall election; and
providing for an effective date."
4:01:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SARA RASMUSSEN, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, introduced HB 157. She conveyed that the proposed
legislation would move the statutory boundary for disclosing
certain contributions and expenditures from those made to
influence a referendum or recall election to an earlier point in
the statutory process. It would require the reporting of
certain campaign finance activity prior to the collection of
signatures, she said. This would align both the
recall/referendum reporting requirements with reporting
requirements for ballot initiatives. She noted that an article
from the Alaska political blog, "the Alaska Landmine,alerted
her to the issue. She concluded that Alaskans deserved to know
who was funding any referendum or recall election. She pointed
out that financial contributions were a significant part of
relaying a campaign message or successfully collecting
signatures. She said she hoped the bill would make the process
more transparent. Further, she believed that aligning
[reporting] requirements would create less confusion for those
working on recall/referendums or ballot initiatives.
4:03:13 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff, Representative Sara Rasmussen, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rasmussen, prime
sponsor, presented a sectional analysis of HB 157 [included in
the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Sections 1: AS 15.13.010(b) Applicability related to
State Election Campaigns. Adds language related to
initiative proposal, referendum, and recall
applications.
Sections 2: AS 15.13.050(a) Registration before
expenditure. Adds language related to referendum and
recall applications.
Sections 3: AS 15.13.065(c) Contributions. Adds
language related to referendum and recall
applications.
Sections 4: AS 15.13.110(e) Filing of Reports.
Rewrites the language related to those receiving or
making expenditures to support or oppose referendums.
This language is identical to the language contained
in AS 15.13.040(k) for ballot proposition reporting
requirements and AS 15.13.110(g) for ballot initiative
reporting requirements.
Sections 5: AS 15.13.110 Filing of Reports. Adds a
new subsection (k) for those receiving or making
expenditures to support or oppose a recall. This
language is identical to Section 4 of this bill and AS
15.13.040(k) for ballot proposition reporting
requirements and AS 15.13.110(g) for ballot initiative
reporting requirements.
Sections 6: AS 15.13.400(4) Definitions. Modifies
the definition of "contributions" to include groups
and referendum and recall applications.
Sections 7: AS 15.13.400(7) Definitions. Modifies
the definition of "expenditures" to include referendum
and recall applications.
Sections 8: AS 15.13.400(7) Definitions. Modifies
the definition of "group" to include referendum and
recall applications.
Sections 9: Uncodified law. States that this Act
applies only to referendums or recalls that are filed
on or after the effective date of this Act.
Sections 10: Provides for a January 1, 2022 effective
date.
4:06:19 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that the current campaign [to recall
the governor] had been "front and center." He said he was
always struck by the gaping loophole in the laws and believed
that fixing [that loophole] would make sense for all parties.
4:06:53 PM
SCOTT KENDALL, informed committee members that he worked as an
attorney in Anchorage but was testifying in a personal capacity.
He pointed out that there were people on both sides of a current
effort [to recall Governor Mike Dunleavy]; nonetheless, the
proposed legislation would treat both sides equally. He
emphasized that regardless of the political affiliation, [HB
157] would keep everyone honest. He conceded that he might seem
like an odd advocate for the bill. He disclosed that he was one
of the authors of Governor Dunleavy's recall and one of the
attorneys who successfully challenged the denial of that recall;
additionally, he said he had personally donated funds to the
recall campaign. He noted that he was also one of the authors
of Alaska Ballot Measure 2 in 2020 [Top-Four Ranked-Choice
Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative] that promoted
election transparency. He conveyed that he found it evident
from his experience as a campaign and elections attorney that
the current void in the law harmed the public overall by
shielding political activities from disclosure, which led to
needless controversy and speculation. He stated that Alaskans
had a right to transparency. He opined that all organizations
supporting or opposing Governor Dunleavy's recall campaign were
complying with current law; however, the law lacked disclosure
requirements. He acknowledged the public attention regarding
the lack of financial transparency from the "Recall Dunleavy"
movement and drew attention to an equally troubling detail,
explaining that when a public official was under recall, that
public official could solicit unlimited donations from virtually
any source without disclosure. He characterized the loophole in
the law with respect to the finances of recall elections and
referendums as "incredibly harmful," adding that it undermined
the public's faith in elections. He said regardless of the
individuals who may be involved in a future recall, his opinion
was that the status quo was untenable. He said [the loophole]
was a "massive blind spot" for the public; further, that it
created an unacceptably high risk of potential corruption and
undue influence on sitting elected officials. For those
reasons, he urged [committee members'] to support the proposed
legislation.
4:10:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY thanked the bill sponsor and agreed that
there seemed to be a gap in the law. She asked whether
requiring disclosures from referendums and recall initiatives
was a common practice in other states.
MS. KOENEMAN offered to follow up with information on the
requirements in other states.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked why the proposed legislation did not
have an immediate effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN opined that changing the reporting
requirements in the middle of an effort to recall the governor
could create a political environment in which the bill may not
advance. She noted that she would not be opposed to any current
recall campaign sharing its financial information by choice.
She emphasized her desire for a clean transition and shared her
hope that current recalls would not be impacted by this, as that
could create a barrier for the proposed legislation.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that any changes in commercial
fishing regulations were scheduled for the "nadir" of the
offseason, indicating that this could be similar.
4:13:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE questioned why the bill excluded municipal
referendums.
MS. KOENEMAN pointed out that there were many different
reporting requirements for municipalities, noting that the
proposed legislation focused on state elections. Nonetheless,
she offered to look into the municipal code.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN added that she was open to considering
how the addition of municipal or borough requirements for local
recalls would impact the bill.
4:14:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how long Alaskan have had the right
to recall their public officials.
MS. KOENEMAN deferred the question to Ms. Hebdon.
4:15:25 PM
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission, said she was unsure.
MS. KOENEMAN believed the requested information was in the
Alaska Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how many recall efforts had been
successful.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN share her understanding that there had
never been a successful recall campaign at the state level.
Nonetheless, she believed that with the increased occurrence of
recall efforts during elections, financial reporting
requirements should be as transparent as possible.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS concurred that there had been very few, if
any, successful recall elections in state history. As a
supporter of the bill, he expressed concern that recall
campaigns were not required to disclose their financials, which
he characterized as a "black box of a campaign apparatus"
regardless of whether the recall came to fruition. He pointed
out that all the money was unaccounted for and being used for
political communication. He reiterated that even if the recalls
never resulted in an election, there was still a massive
transparency problem, which the proposed legislation would
solve.
4:18:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN agreed that there had never been a
successful recall effort. He expressed concern that if the
hurdles to successfully recalling an elected official were such
that it had never been accomplished, it could appear
[controversial] if legislators were to add to the administrative
and regulatory burden.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN maintained that the proposed
legislation would provide the public with a transparent
procedure for financial contributions. She said the recall
process itself could be considered in a different bill, but the
proposed legislation before the committee was solely about
financial reporting requirements. She believed that the public
had the right to know who funded the organizations both
supporting and opposing a recall referendum. She pointed out
that the same rules applied to ballot initiatives. She stressed
the importance of providing a greater level of transparency.
4:20:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked at what point would the right to
recall be effectually regulated out of existence. He questioned
whether there were too many regulations and whether "the
financial expense were too high to exercise this right."
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN contended that the bill did not pertain
to that. She acknowledged that an elected official had never
been successfully recalled; however, under the current reporting
requirements, there were many unanswered questions about the
funding on either side, she said. She asserted that it was not
her intention to change the outcome of a recall election with
the proposed legislation. She added that her goal was to ensure
that Alaskans knew who was behind the funding, which was not
possible under current law.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that many elected officials who
were subject to a recall campaign might have resigned before
suffering the public shame of being evicted from office, which
could be a reason for the lack of "positive proof points." That
said, he believed that was a distinct and separate issue from
the question of financial transparency. He added that if
Representative Eastman wished to pursue legislation that
revisited the thresholds for recalling an elected official, it
would be guaranteed a hearing in this committee.
4:23:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE questioned how the recall process would be
altered if this bill were to pass.
MS. HEBDON stated that the major change would be the time of
reporting. Currently, reporting was not required during the
signature gathering phase, she said. She remarked:
Generally, because of the definitions of contribution
and expenditure - because it does not currently
include money raised and spent in support or
opposition to a recall or referendum during that
signature gathering phase, it's not reportable
activity. It's only reportable once it makes the
ballot and becomes a ballot question. So, in essence,
it would be a timing thing - they would be reporting
money in and money out as soon as they began the
signature gathering phase.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for verification that the bill did
not include additional [requirements]; however, it would
implement an earlier timeframe for reporting.
MS. HEBDON confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there were fees associated
with an earlier reporting timeframe.
MS. HEBDON replied that there were no fees associated with APOC
reporting. She added that she was unfamiliar with the Division
of Elections and whether there would be fee associated with
filing an application for recall or referendum.
MS. KOENEMAN, per the Division of Elections, reported that
referendums and initiatives required a deposit of $100 upon the
initial filing, which would not change if this bill were to
pass.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his belief that legislators, as
candidates, should hold themselves to the same standards that
they expect of others, indicating that the legislature often
espoused user fee mechanisms to other groups in Alaska despite
APOC itself lacking a user fee mechanism.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about the timeline for that
initial deposit of $100 [to the Division of Elections] and how
that differed from the reporting timeline.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN understood that the $100 fee was
deposited with the initial application. She explained that the
proposed legislation would only change the timeline for
reporting financial contributions, such that it would coincide
with signature gathering.
4:28:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what steps were involved in the
collection of signatures and whether there were associated fees.
4:28:27 PM
MS. KOENEMAN relayed that for recall petitions, the application
could not be submitted within the first 120 days of the term of
office. After 120 days, the application, which included a name,
office, and three sponsors to serve as the recall committee, was
filed with the Division of Elections. Further, she said that 10
percent of individuals who voted in the preceding general
election of the official sought to be recalled were required,
100 of whom would serve as sponsors. Afterwards, the division
director certified the recall or notified the recall committee
on grounds for refusal. Once certified, the director prepared
the petition booklets for circulation throughout the state or
House/Senate district. She added that recall campaigns were
allowed 180 days to gather the signatures of qualified voters.
After the signatures were collected, the division verified the
signers of the petition booklets and upon review, notified them
of proper or improper filing within 30 days. At that point,
under current law, the APOC reporting would initiate with the
following requirements: "the first report shall report the
contribution or contributions on a form prescribed by the
commission no later than 30 days after the contribution that
requires them to report is made." She offered to submit the
aforementioned information to the chair for distribution.
4:32:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that additional resources be
provided for recalls and referendums, as regulations on those
efforts were increasing. Further, he characterized [recalls] as
an "unfair fight."
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN contended that it was unfair to
represent the proposed legislation as intending to "increase
regulations." She clarified that the bill would provide more
transparency by changing the timeline for existing regulations.
4:33:59 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 157 was held over.
4:34:27 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB157 Hearing Request 3.31.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 Version A.PDF |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB157 Letter of Support - Kendall 4.2.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB157 Sectional Analysis 3.31.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB157 Sponsor Statement 3.31.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 Additional Info - Press Release 3.31.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 Legislative Legal Memo 3.31.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 123 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 Version A.PDF |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Letter of Support - O’Domin 4.13.12.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Letters of Support.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 PowerPoint Presentation - Anderson-Singh 3.30.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 Additional Info - AOGA Response Letter 3.26.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 Hearing Request Memo.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 123 Legal Memo re State Recognitin of Tribes 3.25.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB 148 Sectional Analysis - 4.6.21.pdf |
HRES 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Sponsor Statement - 4.6.21.pdf |
HRES 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Version A.PDF |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Additional Info - APDC Position Statement_Final_R2.pdf |
HRES 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Fiscal Note - 4.12.2021.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Hearing Request Memo - 4.6.2021.pdf |
HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Letter of Support - ASPLS 4.8.21.pdf |
HRES 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |