04/26/2022 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB66 | |
| HB142 | |
| HB271 | |
| HB396 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 271 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 309 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 396 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 26, 2022
4:54 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Matt Claman, Vice Chair
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Andi Story
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative James Kaufman
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 66
"An Act relating to voting, voter qualifications, and voter
registration; relating to poll watchers; relating to absentee
ballots and questioned ballots; relating to election worker
compensation; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 142
"An Act relating to eligibility for the permanent fund
dividend."
- MOVED CSHB 142(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 271
"An Act relating to the Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 271 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 396
"An Act restricting certain investments of state funds in
certain Russian entities; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 396(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 316
"An Act providing for a standardized improvement tracking system
for state agencies."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
HOUSE BILL NO. 309
"An Act exempting candidates for municipal office and municipal
office holders in municipalities with a population of 15,000 or
less from financial or business interest reporting requirements;
relating to campaign finance reporting by certain groups; and
providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 66
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TUCK
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, JUD
04/09/21 (H) STA REFERRAL MOVED TO AFTER JUD
04/09/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/12/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/12/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/14/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/14/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/14/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/19/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/19/21 (H) Moved CSHB 66(JUD) Out of Committee
04/19/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/21/21 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 4DP 3DNP
04/21/21 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS, DRUMMOND, SNYDER,
CLAMAN
04/21/21 (H) DNP: EASTMAN, VANCE, KURKA
04/21/21 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER STA
04/21/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/29/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/29/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/06/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/06/21 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
01/25/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/25/22 (H) Heard & Held
01/25/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/12/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/12/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/19/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/19/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/19/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/21/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/21/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/21/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/26/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 142
SHORT TITLE: PFD ELIGIBILITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MCCARTY
03/20/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/20/21 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/09/21 (H) STA REFERRAL MOVED TO AFTER JUD
04/09/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/21/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/21/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/21/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/26/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/26/21 (H) Moved CSHB 142(JUD) Out of Committee
04/26/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/28/21 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NEW TITLE 3DP 2NR 1AM
04/28/21 (H) DP: SNYDER, KREISS-TOMKINS, CLAMAN
04/28/21 (H) NR: EASTMAN, DRUMMOND
04/28/21 (H) AM: VANCE
04/29/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/29/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/04/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/04/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/04/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/19/21 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM ADAMS 519
05/19/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/08/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/08/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/08/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/22/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/22/22 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/29/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/29/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/12/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/12/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/26/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 271
SHORT TITLE: AIDEA: MEMBERSHIP; RESPONSIBILITIES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
01/18/22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/14/22
01/18/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/22 (H) STA, FIN
03/17/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/17/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/17/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/29/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/29/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/19/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/19/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/19/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/21/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/21/22 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 4/26/22>
04/26/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 396
SHORT TITLE: DIVEST INVESTMENTS IN RUSSIAN ENTITIES
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
03/09/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/09/22 (H) STA, FIN
03/10/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/10/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/10/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/15/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/15/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/17/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/17/22 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/22/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/22/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/19/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/19/22 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/21/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/21/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/21/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/26/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
MATT ROE, Head of Product
Voting Works
California
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on the proposed CS for HB 66, Version O.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the proposed CS for HB 66, Version O, as the prime sponsor.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the proposed CS for HB 66, Version O.
MIKE MASON, Staff
Representative Chris Tuck
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions, on behalf of
Representative Tuck, prime sponsor, during the hearing on the
proposed CS for HB 66, Version O.
SANA EFRID, Executive Director
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the amendment
process on the proposed CS for HB 142, Version W.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN MCCARTY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the proposed CS for HB 142, Version W, as the prime sponsor.
COREY BIGELOW, Operations Manager
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the proposed CS for HB 142, Version W.
EMILY NAUMAN
Legislative Legal Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the proposed CS for HB 142, Version W.
ACTION NARRATIVE
4:54:48 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 4:54 p.m.
Representatives Eastman, Tarr, Vance, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins
were present at the call to order. Representatives Kaufman,
Story, and Tarr arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
[Contains discussion of SB 39.]
4:56:44 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 66, "An Act relating to voting, voter
qualifications, and voter registration; relating to poll
watchers; relating to absentee ballots and questioned ballots;
relating to election worker compensation; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee, adopted as the working
draft on 4/12/22, was the proposed CS, Version 32-LS0322\O,
Klein, 3/30/22, "Version O."]
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS welcomed invited testimony.
4:58:24 PM
MATT ROE, Voting Works, explained that Voting Works was a non-
partisan non-profit organization that built election software.
He stated that the goal of his testimony was to briefly describe
what open-source software was and how it applied to election
administration. He stated that he would be speaking from his
experience implementing open-source software but would not be
speaking to the specifics of Voting Works products. He
explained that the "source" in open source referred to source
code, which was the set of instructions written by programmers
that a computer follows to achieve the desired software
behavior. He used an example of source code, which he described
as "a complicated recipe for baking a cake," but qualified that
for most software the source code was kept secret and available
only to the original programmers. By contrast, open-source
software had source code that was always available to anyone who
wished to see it. Mr. Roe continued his remarks by asserting
that much of the software used today (including all major web
browsers and much of software that powered the Internet) was
open source. He emphasized that the key benefit of open-source
technology was transparency. He cited that open-source software
was used in almost every industry, including scientific
research, financial services, and cybersecurity. He asserted
that in the world of election administration, especially when
the country was particularly polarized, open-source transparency
provided a common ground of facts that could be trusted and
verified. He described malicious code that changed votes as an
example of a problem that could be dispelled by a technical
review of the open-source code. He emphasized the importance of
proper security procedures, which should be transparent. He
mentioned the public accountability of election officials.
5:02:37 PM
MR. ROE wanted to discuss how open-source voting systems were
used in practice. He asserted that open-source voting systems
were used just like any other voting system with well-
established practices for certifying, testing, and operating
voting equipment. He stated that the only change introduced to
the election process by open-source software would be increased
transparency and public confidence in the election outcome. He
opined that SB 39 represented a non-partisan commitment to
increasing the transparency and security of Alaskan elections
throughout the entire cycle of the election.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Mr. Roe was familiar with the
language relating to open-source voting systems in Version O.
MR. ROE answered yes.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited him to comment on the provisions in
Version O.
5:06:22 PM
MR. ROE clarified that he was familiar with the original version
of HB 66. He offered to read a section of an amendment [to SB
39, the companion bill to HB 66,] that was offered in the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee (SJUD). He indicated his support
for the language in Amendment 41 to CSSB 39(JUD), [labeled 32-
LS0204\D.59, Klein, 4/20/22], which read:
Sec. 15.20.910. Standards for voting machines and vote
tally systems. The director may approve a voting
machine or vote tally system for use in an election in
the state upon consideration of factors relevant to
the administration of state elections. A voting
machine or vote tally system must meet the United
States Election Assistance Commission's voluntary
voting system guidelines and be certified by the
commission, use only open-source software technology
or commercial off-the-shelf software and firmware, and
satisfy the requirements of AS 15.15.032(c).
MR. ROE explained that Amendment 41 continued by defining both
"commercial off-the-shelf" and "open-source software
technology." He shared his understanding that Amendment 41 was
adopted by SJUD.
5:08:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE sought to clarify how open-source software
would help improve Alaska's voting system.
MR. ROE clarified that transparency was the key benefit of open-
source technology, as it allowed anyone to review the source
code of the voting equipment. As a result, he said, the
increase in understanding and transparency would increase public
confidence in the election outcome, especially in the context of
heavy polarization or distrust in the existing voting equipment.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Mr. Roe to describe, in layman's
terms, how the public would access the source code.
MR. ROE said the specific implementation was ultimately up to
the Division of Elections (DOE), Office of the Lieutenant
Governor. He provided several examples of how other states were
providing source code to the public, including GitHub, a website
for software development that allowed users to store, manage and
view code, as well as track the changes made to that code.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the general public would be
able to understand the source code. More specifically, she
questioned whether source code was displayed in layman's terms,
such as, "There were 350 votes in precinct 1, and 642 votes in
precinct 2, and there were 5 question ballots ? [that had to be]
recounted."
MR. ROE made a distinction between open-source software and
different aspects of a transparent voting system. He explained
that a transparent voting system and its implementation should
include the ballot count via reports and auditing evidence,
which was one layer of transparency. He clarified that sharing
the code for public inspection was an additional layer of
transparency.
5:14:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked [which states] were using the open-
source technology and what voting equipment was compatible with
it.
MR. ROE reported that the Voting Works open-source voting system
was being used in five counties in Mississippi. Additionally,
Voting Works developed an open-source, post-election auditing
tool, named Arlo, which was used in 12 states. In 2016, he
said, New Hampshire successfully implemented open-source ballot
marking devices statewide. Los Angeles County, he continued,
built a voting system, referred to as Voting System for All
People, that they planned to open source. Additionally,
California allowed counties to pilot open-source voting systems
with a certification process. He added that several state
legislatures, including New Jersey and Tennessee, had introduced
legislation that would require open-source voting technology.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how much the voting machines cost.
MR. ROE reported that the Voting Works open-source voting system
was 50 percent of the total cost of ownership relative to a
closed-source voting system.
5:17:45 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the specific cost of a
Voting Works voting machine.
MR. ROE stated that the price of the Voting Works voting machine
was posted on the Voting Works website. He reported that a
variety of reports had analyzed the cost of voting equipment in
given jurisdictions and found that the price was between $5,000
and $10,000.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether open-source election
equipment was on track for federal certification by 2024.
MR. ROE shared that Voting Works planned to federally certify by
2023.
5:20:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the unanswered questions
from the previous hearing on Version O had been answered, such
as the rationale for the statutory retention requirements
[pertaining to election material].
5:20:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 66, sought to clarify whether Representative
Eastman was referring to the retention of ballots.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that he was referring to the
retention of all documents, including ballots.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that the retention requirements
were included in the bill to preserve integrity and ensure that
nothing was destroyed until after the election was certified in
case questions arose.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared his understanding that the current
language in Version O reduced the length of retention. He asked
whether the bill sponsor would be amiable to an amendment that
increased or maintained the current statutory retention
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK indicated that Version O required election
material to be retained for 22 months. He asked whether
Representative Eastman was hoping to extend that amount of time.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that under current law, the
current retention requirement was four years.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK conveyed that it was a policy call for the
committee to make.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether DOE had any perspective on
the length of document retention or the merits of two years
versus four years.
5:23:25 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, explained that the division retained
records according to the state's record retention schedule. She
declined to opine on 22 months versus four years.
5:24:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE directed attention to Section 44,
Subsection (c), and inquired about the definition of "forensic
examination."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK acknowledged that there was no statutory
definition of forensic examination. He suggested replacing the
term with "Risk-Limiting Audit (RLA)."
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE pointed out that Section 43, paragraph (5),
made reference to a party primary. She asked whether that term
was still applicable.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK confirmed that the language needed to be
changed due to the passage of Alaska Ballot Measure 2 [Top-Four
Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative
(2020)]. He shared that Representative Claman was drafting a
forthcoming amendment to address the language in question.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE directed attention to page 19, lines 3-4,
and asked why an election official would need access to the
political affiliations of all persons.
5:27:12 PM
MIKE MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor,
shared his understanding that the language in question was the
subject of an amendment to the companion bill in the Senate [SB
39]. Further, he shared his belief that it would be challenging
to exclude a person's political affiliation from the voter
records.
5:27:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN turned attention to Section 44,
Subsection (d), and asked why a precinct tabulator needs to
connect to the Internet 24 hours before the polls open on
election day. He suggested prohibiting Internet connectivity
entirely.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that precinct tabulators require
internet connection to be tested and checked prior to the
election to confirm their ability to function properly.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it was necessary to access
the tabulators remotely ahead of time to test them.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered yes, to ensure that they work
properly. He directed the question to Ms. Fenumiai.
MS. FENUMIAI asserted that Representative Eastman was referring
to the logic and accuracy testing, which was performed in the
division's regional offices prior to field deployment. She
clarified that they are not connected to the Internet when
voting occurs.
5:30:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why the tabulators needed the
capability of connecting to the Internet.
MS. FENUMIAI stated that the Internet connection allowed the
tabulators to transmit the election results in a timely manner.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that per Section 44,
Subsection (d), the tabulators could not be connected to the
Internet from 24 hours before the polls open on election day
until 14 days after the polls close. He asked whether there was
another rationale for connecting the tabulators to the Internet
or a cellular network.
MS. FENUMIAI described how the tabulators were briefly connected
to the Internet to transmit the election results following poll
closure. She added that, should the bill pass in its current
form, the division would need to find a different method to
collect the results from the majority of the precincts that
relied on an analogue or cellular network to transmit results.
MR. MASON pointed out that the language in question was not
included in the original version of the bill. He explained that
it was added in an effort to compromise with the Senate version
of the bill. He directed attention to the following sentence in
Subsection (d), which specified that "all tabulator data shall
be loaded from the tabulator onto a separate storage device and
transmitted from a computer that is not connected to the
tabulator."
5:33:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested removing the ability to connect
to the Internet entirely, as the connection would not be used to
transmit results.
MR. MASON pointed out that removing the connectivity entirely
would preclude the ability to update or fix the open-source
software on the tabulator.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the software could be
updated with CD-Rom or USB.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that Representative Eastman draft
an amendment to address his concerns.
5:35:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned whether two days post-election
was sufficient time for the director to send notifications of
deficient ballots for the curing process. She shared her
understanding that [SB 39] was amended to include a five-day
deadline and inquired about the rationale for the expanded
timeline [in the Senate].
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed his support for the ballot curing
process. He deferred to Ms. Fenumiai.
MS. FENUMIAI was unsure why the Senate made that change. She
opined that any curing process put into statute should allow for
the maximum amount of time possible.
5:37:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the division was amenable to
five days post-election, as opposed to two days. She opined
that dive days seemed more reasonable.
MS. FENUMIAI agreed that more time would be favorable.
5:39:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed her concern about the language,
"the director shall immediately make a reasonable effort to
contact the voter", on page 19, lines 17-18. She suggested that
"reasonable effort" needed further clarification.
MR. MASON highlighted that the ballot curing sections [Section
41 and Section 42] mirrored provisions in Governor Dunleavy's
election bill. He explained that the original version of HB 66
included a more lenient [ballot curing] system that utilized an
affidavit.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, in response to a follow-up question from
Representative Tuck, opined that "reasonable effort" was
ambiguous and could be challenged. Additionally, she agreed
with Representative Story's suggestion of increasing the two-day
time period. She went on to address the minimum pay for
election workers. She expressed her support for raising their
pay to $15.50; however, she wondered whether the
prescriptiveness of the language would prevent election workers
from being paid more than $15.50
MR. MASON recalled the drafting process of the original version
of HB 66, indicating that the intent was to reflect DOE's
processes during the 2020 election. He opined that the language
would not restrict election workers from being paid more than
the minimum amount. Further, he suggested tying the pay scale
to a step above minimum wage, to ensure that their wages would
be adjusted annually for inflation.
5:45:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked the director to weigh in on the pay
scale and the difficulty of attracting employees.
MS. FENUMIAI understood the language [in Section 53] to mean
that the division shall pay not less than $15.50. Nonetheless,
she acknowledged that by cementing an arbitrary number in
statute, the division would have less flexibility to make pay
increases. She believed that it would be easier to keep rates
of pay in regulation, as opposed to statute, and adjust them
accordingly with the budget increases provided by the
legislature. She noted that DOE had submitted a budget request
to increase election worker compensation to $20 per hour for
precinct workers, which would require amending the regulations
to accommodate the new rates of pay if passed.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that the statutory language in
Version O, should it pass, would supersede the regulatory pay
increase; therefore, the division's plan for the upcoming
election would be impacted.
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed. She maintained her belief that keeping
the pay scale in regulation would provide the division with more
flexibility to increase pay, which was much needed, she opined.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether Ms. Fenumiai would prefer that
the minimum compensation for election workers exist in statute,
as written in Version O, or that the pay scale remain a
regulatory item.
MS. FENUMIAI suggested that the word "minimum" could lead to
speculation about pay increases. Additionally, she asserted
that pay increases were a budgetary concern, as raising the
minimum pay from $12.50 an hour to [$15.50] was a substantial
increase for the division.
5:48:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN returned attention to Section 44 and
asked how a person would identify whether a precinct tabulator
was connected to a cellular network.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that the current precinct tabulators were
not equipped with an internal mechanism to connect to the
Internet, adding that they used an external modem to connect.
She said if the bill were to pass, the precincts would not be
provided with the external modems to attach to the tabulators.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN pondered strengthening the language to
clarify that modem connections were not permissible. He asked
whether that would create a hardship for the division.
MS. FENUMIAI offered to follow up with the requested
information.
5:50:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN directed attention to Section 44,
subsections (d) and (e), and asked whether there were safeguards
against someone accessing the computer [that the storage device
connects to].
MS. FENUMIAI conveyed that Alaska remained a paper-based ballot
system, which in itself was a safeguard. She emphasized that
the machines underwent logic and accuracy testing conducted by
bipartisan boards before each election. Additionally, the
machines were sealed with security seals, which were not broken
for any reason.
5:52:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether myAlaska had the capacity to
[send notifications to voters]. She suggested implementing a
notification system that could be used for tracking and curing
ballots.
MS. FENUMIAI said she was unfamiliar with innerworkings of
myAlaska. She added that currently, DOE did not use the website
for anything. She conveyed that Ballot Trax would be used for
the upcoming special election, which had the ability to notify
voters who had opted in of the need for a cure.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE requested additional information on Ballot
Trax.
MS. FENUMIAI offered to follow up with the requested
information.
5:56:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN sought to confirm that voters were purged
from the voter roll after failing to vote for four consecutive
years.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Ms. Fenumiai.
MS. FENUMIAI remarked that the list maintenance procedure
involved a "lookback" of two years. She stated that a voter
remained on the roll for two federal general election cycles, or
four years, past the point of inactivity.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked Ms. Fenumiai to opine on [Risk-
Limiting Audits (RLAs)] and whether they offered a valid method
for verifying the accuracy of the system.
MS. FENUMIAI declined to comment at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether she would feel comfortable
sharing her opinion on that subject in the future.
MS. FENUMIAI believed that it was a policy call for the
legislature. She added that the division would carry out the
statute as directed.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether the director would advise
the legislature upon the discovery of any gaps or flaws in the
auditing system.
MS. FENUMIAI remarked that it was not the director's role to
advise the legislature on those decisions. She reiterated that
she had not read through the proposed auditing provisions in
great detail; nonetheless, she acquiesced that if directed to do
so, the division would comply.
5:59:06 PM
MR. MASON noted that Mr. Roe was available to speak to RLAs.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether RLAs could be trusted and
whether they were "the best way to go" in regard to the auditing
process.
MR. ROE stated that all post-election audits, including RLAs,
were important tools in addition to open-source voting
equipment. Ultimately, he said, building secure systems
included multiple layers of protection.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether Version O required the
renewal of absentee ballot requests each election cycle.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that after requesting an absentee
ballot, the voter could continue to vote absentee until he/she
missed two election cycles, in which case the voter would need
to reapply. He emphasized that permanent absentee voting was
optional.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN shared his belief the requiring voters to
request an absentee ballot annually would act as a "failsafe"
against unused ballots being sent out into "the ether."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said permanent absentee voting was a policy
call. Nonetheless, he pointed out that absentee voting made it
more convenient for senior citizens, disabled people, and those
living in rural Alaska. He conveyed that the idea was to
capitalize on the success of the [2020] election, which saw over
60 percent statewide participation due to the the convenience of
by-mail voting. He added that he opposed the idea of requiring
voters to reapply for absentee ballots on an annual basis.
6:04:35 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the proposed CS for HB 66,
Version O, was held over.
HB 142-PFD ELIGIBILITY
6:06:07 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 142, "An Act relating to eligibility for
the permanent fund dividend." [Before the committee, adopted as
the working draft on 4/12/22, was the proposed CS for HB 142,
Version 32-LS0491\W, Nauman, 3/28/22, "Version W."]
6:06:44 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew Amendment 1 to Version W, [labeled
32-LS0491\W.1, Nauman, 3/29/22], which was tabled during the
hearing on 4/12/22.
6:07:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopted Amendment 3 to Version
W, labeled 32-LS0491\W.3, Nauman, 3/29/22, which read:
Page 2, lines 19 - 20:
Delete ", as determined by the Alaska Commission
on Postsecondary Education,"
Insert "[, AS DETERMINED BY THE ALASKA COMMISSION
ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION,]"
Page 4, line 10:
Delete ", applies"
Insert "and AS 43.23.008(a), as amended by sec. 2
of this Act, apply"
[The committee treated the amendment as though it had not been
previously moved and tabled during the hearing on 4/12/22.]
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected. He invited Ms. Efrid to comment
on the proposed amendment.
6:08:07 PM
SANA EFRID, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education (ACPE), said ACPE had no official
position on Amendment 3. Additionally, she directed attention
to Section 2, paragraph (2), confirming that ACPE had a process
in place for determining whether a comparable program was
reasonably available in the state for vocational, professional,
or other educational programs. She emphasized that the
commission followed the statute as directed by the legislature.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection to Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that it was a question of
whether that task should be the responsibility of ACPE. He
indicated that he was undecided and would leave it to the will
of the committee.
6:11:16 PM
A roll call vote was taken. No representatives voted in favor
of the motion to adopt Amendment 3. Representatives Tarr,
Story, Claman, Vance, Kaufman, Eastman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 0-6.
6:12:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 4 to Version W,
labeled 32-LS0491\W.4, Nauman, 3/29/22, which read:
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "armed forces"
Insert "uniformed services [ARMED FORCES]"
Page 4, following line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 43.23.008(f) is amended to read:
(f) In [FOR PURPOSES OF (a)(7) OF] this section,
(1) "family member" means a person who is
(A) [(1)] legally related to the individual
through marriage or guardianship; or
(B) [(2)] the individual's sibling, parent,
grandparent, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter,
uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, or first cousin;
(2) "uniformed service" means the Army,
Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Space
Force, and the Commissioned Corps of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Public
Health Services."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, line 10:
Delete "applies"
Insert "AS 43.23.008(a), as amended by sec. 2 of
this Act, and AS 43.23.008(f), as amended by sec. 3 of
this Act, apply"
[The committee treated the amendment as though it had not been
previously moved and tabled during the hearing on 4/12/22.]
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected. He recalled that Amendment 4 was
tabled due to questions regarding what constituted deployment
for the Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Public Health Services.
He asked whether Representative Story or Representative Eastman,
who both offered to follow up on the matter, had any information
for the committee's consideration.
6:12:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY relayed that the members of Public Health
Services Commissioned Corps were "stationed somewhere and could
then be deployed for emergencies or any other reason, which is
similar to how it worked for members of the armed forces." She
reported that members of the NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps
were assigned to ships or shore locations and must go there to
remain in the service.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared his understanding that the
different branches of the uniformed services were "not all
created equal." He pointed out that he had attempted to capture
similar language in several forthcoming amendments. He
expressed his hope that the committee would settle on the most
comprehensive language.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that he was more comfortable with the
language in Amendment 4. He invited Representative McCarty to
comment on the proposed amendment.
6:15:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KEN MCCARTY, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 142, indicated that it was a policy at the
committee's discretion.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to Amendment 4.
There being no further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
6:16:28 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 6 to Version W,
labeled 32-LS0491\W.6, Nauman, 3/29/22, which read:
Page 4, following line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 43.23.008(d) is amended to read:
(d) If [AFTER] an individual has been absent
from the state, including for a reason allowed under
(a) of this section, for more than 120 [180] days in
each of the five preceding qualifying years, the
department shall presume that the individual is no
longer eligible for a dividend [A STATE RESIDENT. THE
INDIVIDUAL MAY REBUT THIS PRESUMPTION BY PROVIDING
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO THE DEPARTMENT THAT
(1) THE INDIVIDUAL WAS PHYSICALLY PRESENT
IN THE STATE FOR AT LEAST 30 CUMULATIVE DAYS DURING
THE PAST FIVE YEARS; AND
(2) THE INDIVIDUAL IS A STATE RESIDENT AS
DEFINED IN AS 43.23.295]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, line 10, following "APPLICABILITY.":
Insert "(a)"
Page 4, following line 11:
Insert "(b) AS 43.23.008(d), as amended by sec.
3 of this Act, applies to the permanent fund dividend
2028 qualifying year for the 2029 dividend year, and
thereafter.
* Sec. 5. Section 3 of this Act takes effect
January 1, 2028."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 4, line 12:
Delete "This"
Insert "Except as provided in sec. 5 of this Act,
this"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that Amendment 6 changed the
allowable absence exemption from 180 days to 120 days and
removed the rebuttable presumption. However, after further
discussion with the Permanent Fund Dividend Division, Department
of Revenue (DOR), he decided to amend the amendment. He moved
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 6, such that the figure
"120" on page 1, line 5, of the proposed amendment, would be
replaced with "180", effectively returning the allowable absence
threshold back the original language, as it exists under current
law.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. He questioned how the proposed
amendment would change the bill if Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 6 were to pass.
6:17:25 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that, should the conceptual
amendment pass, Amendment 6 would remove the rebuttable
presumption. The amendment would no longer change the allowable
absence threshold from 180 days to 120 days.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN removed his objection to the motion to
adopt the conceptual amendment. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 6 was adopted.
6:17:59 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, in response to a question from
Representative Claman, explained that by removing the rebuttable
presumption, a person who failed to meet the minimum residency
thresholds could no longer collect a permanent fund dividend
(PFD) after the 5-year time period.
6:19:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether an individual serving in
Alaska's federal delegation, such as Congressman Young, who
spent the majority of his time in Washington DC, would no longer
be allowed to collect a dividend.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS punted the question to Mr. Bigelow.
Additionally, he asked Mr. Bigelow to restate the effect of
Amendment 6.
6:21:13 PM
COREY BIGELOW, Operations Manager, Permanent Fund Dividend
Division, DOR, explained that Amendment 6, as conceptually
amended, removed the rebuttable presumption, making it so
individuals who had been allowably absent for greater than 180
days could no longer rebut the presumption. In other words,
those individuals could no longer provide a reason that showed
their intent to remain Alaskan indefinitely.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Bigelow to respond to the
scenario posed by Representative Eastman.
MR. BIGELOW said he was unsure whether Amendment 6 would remove
a congressman from collecting his/her PFD after five years. He
offered to follow up with the requested information.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Nauman to speak to the same
question.
6:23:20 PM
EMILY NAUMAN, Legislative Legal Services, confirmed that
Alaska's federal delegation would no longer be eligible for a
dividend if they were absent from the state for longer than 180
days, or 5 consecutive years.
6:24:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY pointed out that Section 2, paragraph
(9), of Version W allowed otherwise eligible individuals who
were absent from the state during the qualifying year to remain
eligible for the PFD if they were serving as a member of the
United States Congress.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that after five years of claiming
allowable absences in statute, including the absence referenced
by Representative McCarty, Amendment 6 would no longer allow
those individuals to retain their PFD eligibility. He asked Ms.
Nauman if that was correct.
MS. NAUMAN answered yes. She reiterated that if Amendment 6
were to pass, individuals who were absent from the state for
over 180 days would no longer be eligible for a dividend even if
they claimed an allowable absence.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew Amendment 6.
6:26:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY withdrew Amendment 7.
6:26:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 8 to Version W,
labeled 32-LS0491\W.10, Nauman, 3/31/22, which read:
Page 1, lines 10 - 11:
Delete "168 [72] consecutive"
Insert "120 [72 CONSECUTIVE]"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
6:26:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Amendment 8 changed "168
consecutive" to "120" on page 1, lines 10-11 of Version W. He
explained that it would reduce the required threshold of
physical presence in Alaska in order to collect a PFD.
Additionally, he pointed out that the proposed amendment would
remove the requirement that the hours be consecutive.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Bigelow whether the division had
an opinion on Amendment 8.
6:28:01 PM
MR. BIGELOW said the proposed amendment would create some
complexities for the both the division and Alaskans in terms of
providing documentation that showed they were in the state
during that time.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY said he had no comments on Amendment 8.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.
6:29:03 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Vance, and
Kaufman voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 8.
Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 8 failed by a vote of 3-4.
6:29:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 9 to Version W,
labeled 32-LS0491\W.11, Nauman, 4/1/22, which read:
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "and"
Insert "[AND]"
Page 2, line 11, following "compliance":
Insert "; and
(8) did not register to vote or vote in
another state or a jurisdiction outside the state
during the qualifying year"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
6:29:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 9 clarified that
any person who registered to vote outside Alaska during the
qualifying year would not be eligible to receive a PFD.
6:30:50 PM
MR. BIGELOW noted that the proposed amendment would require the
addition of a new section to the dividend application.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked him whether a similar question
already existed on the application.
MR. BIGELOW confirmed that there was a question on the PFD
application that asked whether the applicant had voted or
registered to vote in another state or country. The language,
he said, was used in determining allowable absences and
eligibility whereas the new language would need to be added as a
standalone question that would help identify the need for a
residency-severing action.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the implication of answering
the existing application question in the affirmative.
MR. BIGELOW answered, "An attestation to their U.S. citizenship
and automatic voter registration."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited the bill sponsor to comment on
Amendment 9.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY said he had no comment.
6:33:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN returning to the previous line of
questioning, asked Mr. Bigelow to read the question on the
existing PFD application regarding voting in another
jurisdiction.
MR. BIGELOW said he did not have the application in front of
him.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to table Amendment 9 to allow the
division time to respond. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
6:34:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 10 to Version W,
labeled 32-LS0491\W.9, Nauman, 4/2/22, which read:
Page 1, line 10, following "has":
Insert "(A)"
Page 1, line 13, following "AS 43.23.008"
Insert "; or
(B) maintained a driver's license issued
under AS 28.15.111 as follows:
(i) if the individual is 18 years of age or
older, the two calendar years before the qualifying
year; or
(ii) if the individual is under 18 years of
age, the difference between the individual's age and
16"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
6:34:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 10 specified
that maintaining [an Alaskan] driver's license was indicative of
a person's intent of remaining an Alaskan resident. He
remarked, "The implication being if you haven't maintained a
driver's license and you're old enough to have a driver's
license and you, for example, have a driver's license from
another state, then you would not be eligible to receive a
dividend."
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY pointed out that not all Alaskans have a
driver's license; therefore, Amendment 10 would alienate certain
residents. He characterized the proposal as a "slippery slope."
REPRESENTATIVE STORY spoke in opposition to Amendment 10, as it
would alienate senior citizens and people with disabilities.
6:36:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether maintaining an Alaskan
identification (ID) card was required for PFD eligibility.
MR. BIGELOW said it was not a requirement.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection for the reasons
specified by Representative Story.
6:37:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Amendment 10.
6:38:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN [moved to adopt Amendment 11 to Version
W, labeled 32-LS0491\W.12, Nauman, 4/1/22]. He explained that
the only pertinent difference between Amendment 4 and the
proposed amendment was the deletion of "on active duty."
Amendment 11 read as follows:
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "on active duty"
Insert "[ON ACTIVE DUTY]"
Delete "armed forces"
Insert "uniformed services [ARMED FORCES]"
Page 4, following line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 43.23.008(f) is amended to read:
(f) In [FOR PURPOSES OF (a)(7) OF] this section,
(1) "family member" means a person who is
(A) [(1)] legally related to the individual
through marriage or guardianship; or
(B) [(2)] the individual's sibling, parent,
grandparent, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter,
uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, or first cousin;
(2) "uniformed service" means the Army,
Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Space
Force, and the Commissioned Corps of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Public
Health Services."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, line 10:
Delete "applies"
Insert "AS 43.23.008(a), as amended by sec. 2 of
this Act, and AS 43.23.008(f), as amended by sec. 3 of
this Act, apply"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
6:39:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, as a point of order, characterized
Amendment 11 as dilatory, as the committee had already adopted
Amendment 4. He recommended that the committee vote on the
proposed amendment without further discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Amendment 11.
6:40:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 12 to Version W,
labeled 32-LS0491\W.13, Nauman, 3/31/22, which read:
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "armed forces"
Insert "uniformed services [ARMED FORCES]"
Page 4, following line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 43.23.008(f) is amended to read:
(f) In [FOR PURPOSES OF (a)(7) OF] this section,
(1) "family member" means a person who is
(A) [(1)] legally related to the individual
through marriage or guardianship; or
(B) [(2)] the individual's sibling, parent,
grandparent, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter,
uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, or first cousin;
(2) "uniformed service" means the Army,
Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Space
Force, the Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and Public Health
Services, the Alaska National Guard, and the Alaska
Naval Militia."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, line 10:
Delete "applies"
Insert "AS 43.23.008(a), as amended by sec. 2 of
this Act, and AS 43.23.008(f), as amended by sec. 3 of
this Act, apply"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN indicated that Amendment 12 would include
members of the Alaska National Guard and the Alaska Naval
Militia in the definition of "uniformed service."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Representative Eastman had
any knowledge of an individual who was denied eligibility based
on their membership in the Alaska National Guard or Alaska Naval
Militia.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered no. He stated that his intent
was to recognize their service.
6:42:32 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS remarked, "I think that there's a lot of
theoretical instances that are very redeemable of why we'd want
to allow someone to be absent, I guess it's just without
affirmative knowledge that these circumstances exist ?"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN interjected and shared several examples.
He opined that all state service should be considered.
6:44:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY, after discussing the question with the
Alaska National Guard, pointed out that if a member of the
Alaska National Guard or the Alaska Naval Militia was "called
up" they would transition to active-duty status, which was
already captured in the bill language under allowable absences.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN speculated that the National Guard was
referring to active-duty state service, whereas the statute
referred to active-duty federal service.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Amendment 12.
6:45:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 13 to Version W,
labeled 32-LS0491\W.14, Nauman, 4/2/22, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "dividend;":
Insert "relating to a permanent fund dividend for
an individual whose conviction has been vacated or
reversed, or who has received a pardon for the
conviction;"
Page 2, following line 11:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 43.23.005 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(i) An individual who was ineligible to receive
a permanent fund dividend for a dividend year under
(d) of this section because of a conviction is
eligible to receive the permanent fund dividend for
each year the individual was ineligible if
(1) the individual's conviction is vacated or
reversed, and
(A) the charges on which the conviction was
based are later dismissed; or
(B) the individual is retried and found not
guilty; or
(2) the individual receives a pardon for
the conviction.
(j) To receive a permanent fund dividend under
(i) of this section, the individual shall apply for
the permanent fund dividend not later than two years
after the dismissal, not guilty finding, or pardon
under (i) of this section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, following line 7:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 43.23.025(a) is amended to read:
(a) By October 1 of each year, the commissioner
shall determine the value of each permanent fund
dividend for that year by
(1) determining the total amount available
for dividend payments, which equals
(A) the amount of income of the Alaska
permanent fund transferred to the dividend fund under
AS 37.13.145(b) during the current year;
(B) plus the unexpended and unobligated
balances of prior fiscal year appropriations that
lapse into the dividend fund under AS 43.23.045(d);
(C) less the amount necessary to pay prior
year dividends from the dividend fund in the current
year under AS 43.23.005(h) and (i), 43.23.021, and
43.23.055(3) and (7);
(D) less the amount necessary to pay
dividends from the dividend fund due to eligible
applicants who, as determined by the department, filed
for a previous year's dividend by the filing deadline
but who were not included in a previous year's
dividend computation;
(E) less appropriations from the dividend
fund during the current year, including amounts to pay
costs of administering the dividend program and the
hold harmless provisions of AS 43.23.240;
(2) determining the number of individuals
eligible to receive a dividend payment for the current
year and the number of estates and successors eligible
to receive a dividend payment for the current year
under AS 43.23.005(h); and
(3) dividing the amount determined under
(1) of this subsection by the amount determined under
(2) of this subsection.
* Sec. 5. AS 43.23.048(a) is amended to read:
(a) The restorative justice account is created
as a separate account in the dividend fund. The
commissioner shall transfer from the dividend fund to
the restorative justice account each fiscal year an
amount equal to the amount that would have been paid
during the previous fiscal year to individuals who
were ineligible to receive dividends under
AS 43.23.005(d) if they had been eligible. The
commissioner may not adjust the amount transferred
under this section for prior year dividends paid under
AS 43.23.005(i)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, line 10, following "APPLICABILITY":
Insert "(a)"
Page 4, following line 11:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(b) AS 43.23.005(j), added by sec. 2 of this
Act, applies to an individual who is eligible under
AS 43.23.005(i), added by sec. 2 of this Act, and
whose dismissal, not guilty finding, or pardon
occurred on or after the effective date of this Act.
(c) AS 43.23.048(a), as amended by sec. 5 of
this Act, applies to transfers made by the
commissioner on or after the effective date of this
Act."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
6:45:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN described that Amendment 13 related to
PFD eligibility for an individual whose conviction had been
vacated or reversed, or who had received a pardon for the
conviction.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY pointed out that the proposed amendment
appeared to be unrelated to the military or uniformed services,
which was the focus of the bill.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Bigelow for the division's
perspective on Amendment 13.
MR. BIGELOW said it would be a policy consideration for the
committee. He stated that the proposed amendment would create
uncertainty for the division in terms of calculating the formula
based on the unknown number of potential applicants in any given
year. Additionally, he pointed out that the division retained
records for 21 years. He questioned what would happen if a
conviction were overturned after 21 years.
6:48:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN maintained his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his belief that "pardoned"
individuals should be eligible for lost dividends.
6:49:35 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kaufman, Eastman,
and Tarr voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 13.
Representatives Story, Claman, Vance, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 13 failed by a vote of 3-4.
6:50:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 14 to Version W,
labeled 32-LS0491\W.15, Nauman, 4/4/22, which read:
Page 2, following line 11:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 43.23.005 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(i) An individual who was ineligible to receive
a permanent fund dividend for a dividend year under
(a)(6) of this section because the individual was not
physically present in the state is eligible to receive
the permanent fund dividend for each year the
individual was ineligible if the individual
(1) was absent from the state to serve in
the uniformed service and the service does not qualify
as an absence allowed under AS 43.23.008(a)(3); in
this subsection, "uniformed service" has the meaning
given in AS 43.23.008(f); and
(2) within one year after the completion of
service under (1) of this subsection, returns to the
state with the intent to remain indefinitely.
(j) To receive a permanent fund dividend under
(i) of this section, the individual shall apply for
the permanent fund dividend not later than one year
after returning to the state under (i)(2) of this
section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "armed forces"
Insert "uniformed services [ARMED FORCES]"
Page 4, following line 7:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 43.23.008(b) is amended to read:
(b) An individual may not claim an allowable
absence under
(1) paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (4) - (16)
[(a)(1) - (16)] of this section unless the individual
was a resident of the state for at least six
consecutive months immediately before leaving the
state;
(2) paragraph (a)(3) of this section unless
the individual, during the qualifying year, was
(A) a resident of the state; and
(B) physically present in the state for at
least 180 days.
* Sec. 5. AS 43.23.008(f) is amended to read:
(f) In [FOR PURPOSES OF (a)(7) OF] this section,
(1) "family member" means a person who is
(A) [(1)] legally related to the individual
through marriage or guardianship; or
(B) [(2)] the individual's sibling, parent,
grandparent, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter,
uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, or first cousin;
(2) "uniformed service" means the Army,
Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Space
Force, and the Commissioned Corps of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Public
Health Services.
* Sec. 6. AS 43.23.025(a) is amended to read:
(a) By October 1 of each year, the commissioner
shall determine the value of each permanent fund
dividend for that year by
(1) determining the total amount available
for dividend payments, which equals
(A) the amount of income of the Alaska
permanent fund transferred to the dividend fund under
AS 37.13.145(b) during the current year;
(B) plus the unexpended and unobligated
balances of prior fiscal year appropriations that
lapse into the dividend fund under AS 43.23.045(d);
(C) less the amount necessary to pay prior
year dividends from the dividend fund in the current
year under AS 43.23.005(h) and (i), 43.23.021, and
43.23.055(3) and (7);
(D) less the amount necessary to pay
dividends from the dividend fund due to eligible
applicants who, as determined by the department, filed
for a previous year's dividend by the filing deadline
but who were not included in a previous year's
dividend computation;
(E) less appropriations from the dividend
fund during the current year, including amounts to pay
costs of administering the dividend program and the
hold harmless provisions of AS 43.23.240;
(2) determining the number of individuals
eligible to receive a dividend payment for the current
year and the number of estates and successors eligible
to receive a dividend payment for the current year
under AS 43.23.005(h); and
(3) dividing the amount determined under
(1) of this subsection by the amount determined under
(2) of this subsection."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, line 10:
Following "APPLICABILITY.":
Insert "(a)"
Delete "applies"
Insert "AS 43.23.008(a), as amended by sec. 3 of
this Act, AS 43.23.008(b), as amended by sec. 4 of
this Act, and AS 43.23.008(f), as amended by sec. 5 of
this Act, apply"
Page 4, following line 11:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) AS 43.23.005(j), added by sec. 2 of this
Act, applies to an individual who is eligible under
AS 43.23.005(i), added by sec. 2 of this Act, and
whose absence from the state began on or after the
effective date of this Act."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
6:50:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 14 would allow
members of the uniformed services who had left the state to
reclaim eligibility if they returned to Alaska with the intent
to remain indefinitely within one year after completion of their
service.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY expressed concern about the proposed
amendment.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.
6:52:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN reiterated that the proposed amendment
would allow Alaskans who had completed their service to collect
a dividend if they returned to the state. He opined that
Alaskans who served their state should be eligible for a PFD.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that Amendment 14 related
to backpay specifically.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN nodded in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether Representative Eastman's
intent was to allow the applicable individuals to receive
backpay from prior years.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered yes. He remarked:
Going forward, you would not be eligible to apply
while you're away, because you're no longer eligible,
but if later, within the timeframe, you met the
requirements, then you would be eligible ? your
military service would qualify as an allowable
absence, but you wouldn't be able to apply until you
returned to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN called the question.
6:55:23 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman voted in
favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 14. Representatives
Vance, Kaufman, Tarr, Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 14 failed by a vote of 1-6.
6:55:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Amendment 15.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to take from the table Amendment 9,
labeled 32-LS0491\W.11, Nauman, 4/1/22, which read:
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "and"
Insert "[AND]"
Page 2, line 11, following "compliance":
Insert "; and
(8) did not register to vote or vote in
another state or a jurisdiction outside the state
during the qualifying year"
There being no objection, Amendment 9 was before the committee.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Bigelow whether he had an update
on the existing questions on the PFD application.
6:56:11 PM
MR. BIGELOW answered yes. He reported that two questions on the
current application asked whether the individual had registered
to vote in another state or country or voted in a state election
in another state or country. He explained that the language was
used to determine whether the applicant had taken a severing
action based on the regulations regarding maintaining residency.
6:57:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Mr. Bigelow was suggesting
that the topic addressed in Amendment 9 already existed in
regulation as a prevailing policy.
MR. BIGELOW said, "That would be correct."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that a person who answered one or
both of those questions in the affirmative would be ineligible
for a dividend.
MR. BIGELOW answered yes, as that would be viewed as a
residency-severing action.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that there was no reason to go
forward with Amendment 9, as it was already addressed in
regulation.
6:58:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN agreed with Representative Claman;
however, he recalled testimony given during a previous hearing
that discussed college students who had accidentally registered
to vote in another state. He asked whether registering to vote
in another state was always viewed by the division as a severing
action.
6:59:34 PM
MR. BIGELOW said there were exceptions, such as individuals who
had registered to vote 60 days prior to a presidential election
for the sole purpose of voting in that election. He explained
that the division was looking out for students or young adults
who potentially got caught up in a campaign to vote in a
presidential election, not realizing that in doing so, they were
registering to vote in another state.
7:01:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN maintained his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Amendment 9.
7:02:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report CSHB 142, Version 32-
LS0491\W, Nauman, 3/28/22, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 142(STA) was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 271-AIDEA: MEMBERSHIP; RESPONSIBILITIES
7:02:44 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 271, "An Act relating to the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority; and providing for
an effective date." [Before the committee, adopted as the
working draft on 4/19/22, was the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 271, Version 32-LS1364\I, Klein, 4/15/22, "Version
I."]
7:03:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report CSHB 271, Version 32-
LS1364\I, Klein, 4/15/22, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 271(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 396-DIVEST INVESTMENTS IN RUSSIAN ENTITIES
7:03:29 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 396, "An Act restricting certain
investments of state funds in certain Russian entities; and
providing for an effective date." Before the committee, adopted
as the working draft on 4/21/22, was the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 396, Version 32-LS1618\I, Nauman,
4/15/22, "Version I."
7:03:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report CSHB 396, Version 32-
LS1618\I, Nauman, 4/15/22, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 396(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
7:04:37 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 7:04
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 66 Testimony League of Women Voters Alaska 04.21.2022.pdf |
HSTA 4/26/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Info - Little Hoover Commission April 2021.pdf |
HSTA 4/26/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 271 Amendment I.1 - Kreiss-Tomkins.pdf |
HSTA 4/26/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 Letter of Support - Susitna River Coalition 04.21.22.pdf |
HSTA 4/26/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 142 Amendment W.16 - Eastman.pdf |
HSTA 4/26/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 142 |
| HB 396 Fiscal Note DOR-TRS-04-22-22.pdf |
HSTA 4/26/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 396 |
| HB 396 Amendment I.1 -- Kreiss-Tomkins.pdf |
HSTA 4/26/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 396 |
| HB 142 Amendment Packet with Votes HSTA 04.26.22.pdf |
HSTA 4/26/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 142 |