04/12/2022 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB66 | |
| HB142 | |
| SB182 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 412 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 12, 2022
3:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Matt Claman, Vice Chair (via teleconference)
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Andi Story
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative James Kaufman
Representative David Eastman (via teleconference)
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."
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 182(JUD)
"An Act establishing the crime of interference with emergency
communications."
- HEARD & HELD
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
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
BILL: SB 182
SHORT TITLE: INTERFERENCE WITH EMERGENCY SERVICES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WILSON
02/08/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/22 (S) JUD
02/16/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/16/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/16/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/25/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/25/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/25/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/28/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/28/22 (S) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 03/02/22>
03/02/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/02/22 (S) Moved CSSB 182(JUD) Out of Committee
03/02/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/04/22 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 2NR SAME TITLE
03/04/22 (S) DP: HOLLAND, MYERS, HUGHES
03/04/22 (S) NR: SHOWER, KIEHL
03/04/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/04/22 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/09/22 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/09/22 (S) VERSION: CSSB 182(JUD)
03/14/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/14/22 (H) STA, JUD
04/12/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JEFF STEPP, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced the proposed CS for HB 66,
Version O, and provided an explanation of changes, on behalf of
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins.
MIKE MASON, Staff
Representative Chris Tuck
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on the proposed CS for
HB 66, Version O.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
CSHB 66(JUD).
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
CSHB 66(JUD).
NOAH KLEIN, Attorney
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
CSHB 66(JUD).
REPRESENTATIVE KEN MCCARTY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided introductory remarks on the CS for
HB 142, Version W, as the prime sponsor.
ANNA MACKINNON, Director
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the CS for HB 142, Version W.
EMILY NAUMAN, Deputy Director
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the CS for HB 142, Version W.
SENATOR DAVID WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced CSSB 182(JUD), as the prime
sponsor.
JASMIN MARTIN, Staff
Senator David Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a sectional analysis of CSSB
182(JUD), on behalf of Senator Wilson, prime sponsor.
JAMES COCKRELL, Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on CSSB 182(JUD).
JOEL BUTCHER, President
Alaska Joint Chapter of NENA and APCO
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on CSSB 182(JUD).
JACOB BUTCHER, Communications Manager
Mat-Com Dispatch Center
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on CSSB 182(JUD).
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:08:23 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:08 p.m.
Representatives Kaufman, Tarr, Story, Eastman (via
teleconference), Claman (via teleconference) and Kreiss-Tomkins
were present at the call to order. Representative Vance arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
3:10:07 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 was CSHB 66(JUD).]
3:10:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 66, labeled 32-LS0322\O, Klein, 3/30/22,
as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:11:06 PM
JEFF STEPP, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, provided an explanation of changes in the proposed CS
for HB 66 ("Version O"). He paraphrased a 16-page document,
titled "HB 66 Explanation of Changes Version I to Version O"
[hard copy included in the committee packet].
3:20:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether "risk-limiting audit" (RLA)
was defined in the bill. Additionally, she asked how it
differed from a forensic audit.
3:22:47 PM
MIKE MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that the RLA was a new form of post-
election audit that cut down on the number of ballots that
needed to be audited, as it was statistically based. He added
that a RLA would provide statistical confidence that an
incorrect election result was not made official. He said as
part of adopting the regulations, the Division of Elections
(DOE) would be required to consult with recognized statistical
experts, equipment vendors, and municipal clerks that were
familiar with these audits.
3:24:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE noted that DOE already conducted a precinct
audit. She asked whether the RLA would be in addition to that
and how it would change from the current practice.
MR. MASON shared his understanding that it would be in addition
to the existing practice. He explained that the RLA was a
statistical model that considered a sample size of ballots as
opposed to reviewing each individual ballot. He noted that the
sample size would be larger if the margin for the election
results was narrow, and vice versa. He offered to follow up
with more detailed information.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE shared her understanding that open-source
software created less need for forensic audits. She asked for
further information on open-source technology.
MR. MASON deferred to Ms. Fenumiai.
3:26:55 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, said she was not a qualified expert on
open-source software and declined to speak on the subject.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested consulting with Senator Shower's
office.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE believed that open-source software would
allow for a more transparent process. She sought to confirm
that once the ballots were counted, open-source technology would
allow that information to be viewed.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his understanding that the
description provided by Representative Vance reflected the
intent shared by Senator Shower.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE directed attention to the signature
verification in Section 39. She asked whether signature
verification would be the only identifier used to verify a
ballot.
MR. MASON recalled earlier conversations among lawmakers about
this topic. He explained that signature verification was added
in place of the witness signature.
MS. FENUMIAI believed that the proposed legislation did not
remove the additional identifier requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Ms. Fenumiai to speak to the
signature verification. She asked what would be required of the
division.
MS. FENUMIAI acknowledged that it was an entirely new process
that would require the purchase of signature verification
equipment, software, and training.
3:32:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether people would be able to
submit an electronic signature for the division to have on hand
for verification.
MS. FENUMIAI said signatures were currently captured via the
voter registration system.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the verification would be
completed manually or via automation.
MS. FENUMIAI was unsure. She referenced the signature
verification process used by the Municipality of Anchorage,
which relied on a "human element." She said best practices in
other states would be considered.
MR. MASON confirmed that the bill would require DOE to provide
training on signature comparison and associated software to
election officials.
3:35:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of CSHB 66(JUD), shared his understanding that 3 or 4
machines would be needed to verify signatures for the entire
state.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited broader comments on Version O from
the bill sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK emphasized the collaborative effort that was
put forth to produce Version O.
3:36:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Section 43 would allow for a
vote-by-mail election to be held in Alaska.
MS. FENUMIAI shared her understanding that according to the
language in Section 43, any federal election could not be
conducted by mail.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that under Section 43,
the current special election for the U.S. House seat could not
be conducted by mail.
MS. FENUMIAI pointed out that under current law, the director
could conduct an election by mail if held at a time other than
the general party primary or municipal election. She said that
provision gave her statutory authority to conduct the special
primary election by mail.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he was not opposed to by-mail
elections; however, the language in the bill reflected "the
nexus of offices and thinking." He said it could be worth
another conversation, as the option to conduct a by-mail
election in unusual or extenuating circumstances was useful.
3:40:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN returned the discussion to the RLA and
asked whether it would restrict the types of audits that could
be performed.
MR. MASON shared his understanding that it would not preclude
any of the current auditing methods for election results.
Instead, he said, it would add one more tool to the toolbox for
DOE.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recounted an experience in 2017 when he
chaired STA and held a hearing on election reform. He explained
that RLAs came up in that meeting as a recommended best practice
from a variety of authorities. He offered to bring in some
election security experts to provide testimony on RLAs.
3:42:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to page 10, line 13 of
Version O. He sought to confirm that the RLA could only be used
if a recount would change the outcome of the election.
MR. MASON answered no. He understood the language to mean that
after each election but before certification, the director [of
DOE] shall conduct an RLA of selected election results. He
added that further regulations would be developed to identify
which results would be audited.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a drafter was available to
comment on the language in question.
3:43:57 PM
NOAH KLEIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, asked Representative Eastman to repeat the
question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN interpreted the language on page 10, line
13, to suggest that the RLA could only be used if a recount
would change the outcome of the election.
MR. KLEIN clarified that the occurrence of the RLA would not be
dependent on risk; instead, the RLA would be conducted to limit
risk.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that the purpose of the RLA was
to avoid recount efforts if it would change the result of the
election. He expressed concern that the RLA "[would] have
nothing to do with whether or not the ballots themselves are
correct, or legal, or lawful, or fraudulent because we're
tying it to the recount."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said that was not the intent of the RLA.
3:47:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how passage of the proposed
legislation would impact ballot retention.
MR. MASON said the only significant change was that all ballots
would be retained for 22 months.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the current record
retention requirements.
MS. FENUMIAI conveyed that the current DOE records retention
schedule required all ballots to be retained for 22 months and
other election materials to be retained for 4 years post
certification.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the motivation for
changing the 4-year requirement for "other election materials"
to 22 months.
MR. MASON pointed out that the language in question was taken
directly from SB 39, sponsored by Senator Shower.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS confirmed.
3:50:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN noticed that "absentee voting stations"
would be renamed "early voting stations" and asked for the
reasoning.
MR. MASON shared his understanding that there had been confusion
across much of Alaska between the meaning of early voting and
absentee in-person voting; thus, the intent of Version O was to
clarify that misunderstanding by calling all stations "early
voting stations" despite the fact that an in-person absentee
ballot would be cast from those locations.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed with Mr. Mason's interpretation. He
recalled that people had been accidentally turned away from
early voting in rural Alaska during the 2016 election due to
poll workers' misunderstanding of absentee in-person voting. He
reiterated that in an attempt to eliminate the confusion, all
stations would be renamed "early voting stations."
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said he was still confused. He inquired
about the different types of ballots.
MR. MASON shared his understanding that the type of ballot would
not be changed. For example, an individual who showed up to an
early voting station would still be casting and absentee in-
person ballot.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Fenumiai whether that was
correct.
3:55:14 PM
MS. FENUMIAI clarified that early voting and absentee in-person
voting were two distinct processes. She explained the
procedural differences, stating that early voting locations were
stationed at the five regional elections offices and did not
require the completion of an absentee in-person affidavit
envelope. She added that an individual would sign the voter
certificate and vote the ballot with no further review of
eligibility required. Alternatively, absentee in-person voting
occurred outside the regional election offices at single site
voting locations. The voter was required to provide
identification and complete a ballot envelope with appropriate
identifiers and an election official's signature, she said.
Those ballots were retuned to the division and logged by staff,
at which point the voters' eligibility was determined.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about the "structural"
differences between the early voting ballots and the absentee
in-person ballots.
MS. FENUMIAI reiterated that the voters' eligibility for early
voting was determined on location while eligibility for absentee
in-person voters was determined later by the absentee review
board after staff had processed the ballots at the regional
offices.
3:58:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN surmised that for the absentee in-person
process, there was not enough staff to verify registration on
location.
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed that only early voting centers had access
to the statewide voter registration database.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether anyone would be "left
behind" by renaming the voting stations to "early voting
stations."
MS. FENUMIAI said no one would be left behind. She shared that
she was not aware of the aforementioned confusion regarding
absentee in-person ballots and early voting. She said the
differentiation was purely for the division to identify which
processes were performed at which locations. She reiterated
that the name change would have no impact on methods of voting.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS emphasized that it was purely a semantic
change. He explained that he typically cast an absentee in-
person ballot at Sitka City Hall before election day, which per
Version O, would be renamed an early voting station;
nonetheless, an absentee in-person ballot would still be cast
from that location.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN suggested renaming the voting centers
"voting stations."
4:01:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about the ballot tracking system
and whether the system would only be available for individuals
who chose to vote absentee.
MR. MASON answered yes, it would only apply to the absentee
voting system.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to page 19, line 17, which provided
that the "the director shall immediately make a reasonable
effort to contact the voter" regarding a ballot deficiency. She
suspected that the language "reasonable effort" could be
challenged and suggested adding further clarification, such as a
"within 48 hours", for example.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that ballot curing was a policy area
with overlapping legislation.
4:05:17 PM
MR. STEPP acknowledged that there were different ballot curing
provisions in different bills. Ultimately, he said, the intent
was to assign the director the responsibility of determining an
appropriate timeframe in which to respond.
MR. MASON noted that the bill would allow the director to
contact the voter through additional methods, such as electronic
mail, telephone call, or text message, instead of just sending a
deficiency notice.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR reiterated that "reasonable effort" was the
concerning language, as it could be ambiguous.
MS. FENUMIAI agreed that "reasonable effort" seemed unclear.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked how the division would track the
director's "reasonable effort."
MS. FENUMIAI speculated that the division would need to develop
some kind of system for tracking the attempts made to contact
voters.
4:09:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY directed attention to page 1, line 10, and
inquired about the 30-day registration requirement.
MR. MASON stated that Representative Story was referring to what
was known as "same-day voter registration." He shared his
understanding that anyone who took advantage of the same day
voter registration, or the 30-day timeframe, could vote a
special needs ballot, absentee in-person ballot, or question
ballot, as those ballots were reviewed by the division; however,
they could not vote a regular ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY observed that Version O would create a lot
of additional work for DOE. She inquired about the fiscal note.
MR. MASON said the current fiscal note was no longer
representative of the bill, as it has greatly expanded by
Version O. He summarized associated costs according to Version
I of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY wondered whether the division had concerns
about any specific provisions in Version O.
MS. FENUMIAI said the division had not had the opportunity to
review it in detail. She pointed out that there were some
sections that outlined current practices, such as the question
ballot process that Mr. Mason had referenced. She suggested
that there were duplicative items in the proposed legislation.
4:16:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned why people's ballots had been
thrown out in past elections and asked how that could be
corrected.
MS. FENUMIAI said the lack of a witness signature was a big
factor, as well as a missing signature or being postmarked after
election day.
4:17:47 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to the adoption of
the proposed CS for HB 66, labeled 32-LS0322\O, Klein, 3/30/22,
as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his objection.
4:18:35 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr, Story,
Claman, Vance, Kaufman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of the
proposed CS. Representative Eastman voted against it.
Therefore, Version O was adopted as the working document by a
vote of 6-1.
HB 142-PFD ELIGIBILITY
4:19:36 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 3/29/22, was the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 142, Version 32-LS0491\W, Nauman,
3/28/22, "Version W."]
4:20:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KEN MCCARTY, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 142, provided brief introductory remarks on
Version W.
4:20:54 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:20 p.m. to 4:24 p.m.
4:24:38 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 32-
LS0491\W.1, Nauman, 3/29/22], which read:
Page 4, following line 7:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 43.23.008(e) is amended to read:
(e) To determine whether an individual intends
to return and remain in the state indefinitely, the
department shall consider all relevant factors,
including
(1) the length of time the individual was
absent from the state compared to the length of time
the individual was physically present in the state;
(2) the frequency and duration of voluntary
return trips to the state during the past five years;
(3) whether the individual's intent to
return to and remain in the state is conditioned on
future events beyond the individual's control;
(4) the ties the individual has established
with the state or another jurisdiction, as
demonstrated by
(A) maintenance of a home;
(B) payment of resident taxes;
(C) registration of a vehicle;
(D) except as provided in (g) of this
section, registration to vote and voting history;
(E) acquisition of a driver's license,
business license, or professional license; and
(F) receipt of benefits under a claim of
residency in the state or another jurisdiction;
(5) the priority that the individual gave
the state on an employment assignment preference list,
including a list used by military personnel.
* Sec. 4. AS 43.23.008 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(g) An individual who is absent from the state
for a reason permitted under (a)(1) or (2) of this
section but who the department determines is
ineligible because the individual voted or registered
to vote outside the state regains eligibility for a
permanent fund dividend if, during the qualifying year
or the year immediately preceding the qualifying year,
the individual
(1) is physically present in the state at
some time during the qualifying year;
(2) registers to vote in the state or
cancels the individual's voter registration outside
the state; and
(3) is otherwise eligible."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, line 10, following "APPLICABILITY.":
Insert "(a)"
Page 4, following line 11:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) AS 43.23.008(e), as amended by sec. 3 of
this Act, and AS 43.23.008(g), added by sec. 4 of this
Act,
(1) apply to the permanent fund dividend
2023 qualifying year for the 2024 dividend year and
thereafter; and
(2) may not be applied to allow an
individual to regain eligibility for a qualifying year
before 2023."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:25:18 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to Ms. Mackinnon, as the proposed
amendment was drafted in communication with the Permanent Fund
Dividend Division.
4:25:35 PM
ANNA MACKINNON, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division,
explained that Amendment 1 would allow students who accidentally
voted out of state to correct that error and maintain
eligibility for the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD).
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared his understanding that it would be
a crime for a student to vote in another state if he/she was
still a resident in Alaska. He asked why the legislature should
overlook that and allow the individual to qualify for the PFD.
MS. MACKINNON explained that many students unintentionally
register to vote in another state, unaware that it would make
them ineligible to receive a PFD.
4:28:14 PM
DIRECTOR MACKINNON, in response to a follow up question from
Representative Eastman, said it would be a policy decision. She
conveyed that many students and parents felt disenfranchised in
these scenarios.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN believed that this situation highlighted
an education issue in Alaska. He argued that the solution for
accidentally committing a crime in another state was not to
allow the students to maintain their PFD eligibility. Instead,
he opined that the concern should be addressed through education
efforts.
4:30:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE directed attention to Section 4 on page 2,
lines 2-7, of Amendment 1. She asked whether the student, after
registering to vote in another state in 2020, would lose
eligibility in 2021 and regain eligibility in 2022.
MS. MACKINNON pointed out that the effective date of 2023 would
nullify Representative Vance's example. Nonetheless, she
acknowledged that if the student met the criteria in paragraphs
(1)-(3) of Section 4, the division could remedy the mistake.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE sought to clarify that a student who
registered to vote in another state would lose eligibility for
the dividend that year.
MS. MACKINNON answered, "Correct."
4:33:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed concern about paragraph (2) on
page 2, line 10, of Amendment 1. He suggested that the language
may encourage people to vote twice from two different states in
the same election.
DIRECTOR MACKINNON said that would never be the case, as the
election timeline was different than the application period.
Further, she explained that the division wouldn't become aware
of this error until the student filed for the following year's
dividend.
4:35:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his concern.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS tabled Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN wondered whether the solution to the
questions posed by Representative Eastman was contained in HB
66.
4:37:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, [labeled 32-
LS0491\W.2, Nauman, 3/29/22], which read:
Page 3, line 19:
Delete "(16), or (17)"
Insert "or (16) - (18) [(16), OR (17)]"
Page 3, line 27, following "(17)":
Insert "serving as a volunteer for a religious or
charitable program;
(18)"
Page 3, line 31:
Delete "(4) - (16)"
Insert "(4) - (17) [(4) - (16)]"
Page 4, line 3:
Delete "(4) - (16)"
Insert "(4) - (17) [(4) - (16)]"
Page 4, line 6:
Delete "(1) - (16)"
Insert "(1) - (17) [(1) - (16)]"
Page 4, line 7:
Delete "(4) - (16)"
Insert "(4) - (17) [(4) - (16)]"
Page 4, following line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 43.23.008(b) is amended to read:
(b) An individual may not claim an allowable
absence under (a)(1) - (17) [(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."
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(b), as amended by sec. 3 of
this Act, apply"
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected.
4:38:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 2 would create
an exemption for individuals serving as a volunteer for a
religious or charitable program.
4:39:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY opined that specifying religious and
nonprofit organizations would open the bill up "to a lot of
different things." He argued that it was a dangerous path to go
down.
DIRECTOR MACKINNON stated that Amendment 2 was a policy decision
for the legislature.
4:40:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how religious or charitable program
would be defined.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he would look to the federal
definitions for tax status and organizations that regularly send
individuals overseas for periods of service.
4:41:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR maintained her objection.
4:42:20 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Vance, and
Kaufman voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 2.
Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 4-3.
4:43:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3, [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"
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected.
4:43:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 3 would remove
the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education's (ACPE's)
adjudicatory role for determining the availability of comparable
education programs in Alaska, per AS 43.23.008(a)(2). He shared
his understanding that the commission was not fulfilling this
requirement and did not see it as part of its mission.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether that was true.
DIRECTOR MACKINNON said she had no knowledge of whether ACPE was
fulfilling that provision. Nonetheless, she contended that it
was a statutory requirement.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Representative Story whether she had
any insight on this matter.
4:44:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY did not know the answer. She believed that
the intent of AS 43.23.008(a)(2) was to provide consumer
protection for students.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he was not necessarily opposed to
Amendment 3; however, he suggested that ACPE should weigh in.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested tabling Amendment 3 to a later
bill hearing at which the commission would be present to
testify.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed. He announced that Amendment 3 was
tabled.
4:47:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 4, [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"
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected.
4:47:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the intent of Amendment 4
was to include all members of the uniformed services in the
exemptions section to allow those individuals to retain PFD
eligibility.
4:48:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY spoke in favor of Amendment 4. She
emphasized the importance of recognizing these uniformed service
members, the Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Public Health Services in
particular, as those individuals were often sent on long
deployments. She reported that 15 Alaska residents served in
the NOAA Commissioned Corps.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that 231 Alaskans served in the
Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Services.
4:50:52 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared a personal anecdote. He asked
whether a member of the Public Health Services Commissioned
Corps who performed his/her residency in Maine followed by 20
years of service in Sitka would be able to claim dividend
eligibility in Maine, if Maine had a dividend program.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said, per his intent, the answer would be
no. He clarified that the focus was a uniformed services member
on deployment, as opposed to permanent station.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked what constituted deployment for NOAA
and Public Health Services Commissioned Corps.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY deferred to Ms. MacKinnon.
4:52:49 PM
MS. MACKINNON said the terms of deployment were provided under
the Universal Code of Military Justice. She pointed out that
uniformed service members on deployment would also be subject to
the 5-year rule, as it currently existed, the 72-hour rule, and
the intent to return.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS repeated his question, asking what
constituted deployment for the Commissioned Corps of the NOAA
and Public Health Services.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his understanding that the
legislature could borrow the federal definition of deployment.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS reiterated his interest in "nailing down"
the definition.
4:55:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered to follow up with the definition.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that Amendment 4 was tabled.
4:55:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 5, [labeled 32-
LS0491\W.5, Nauman, 3/29/22], which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "eligibility":
Insert "of active duty members of the armed
forces for the permanent fund dividend; relating to
the physical presence in the state requirement for
eligibility"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
4:55:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that the intent of Amendment 5
was to provide additional clarification of active duty members
by requiring physical presence in the state for eligibility.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY expressed his appreciation for the
clarification offered in the proposed amendment.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that Amendment 5 was a
title change.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR highlighted the issue with conforming
language, as Amendment 4 replaced "armed forces" with "uniformed
services."
4:56:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE suggested that Legislative Legal Services
could be authorized to make the appropriate conforming changes.
4:56:44 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:57:09 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he would provide Legislative Legal
Services with the appropriate latitude for conforming changes
when final action was taken.
4:57:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that the significance of the
proposed amendment was unclear. He asked what inspired
Amendment 5.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE deferred to the bill sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY said, "this bill, HB 142, is really
talking about military or changes to uniformed services only."
4:59:11 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Nauman how the adoption of
Amendment 1 would interact with the adoption of a title change
amendment as embodied by Amendment 5.
4:59:58 PM
EMILY NAUMAN, Deputy Director, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, shared her understanding that
Amendment 5 would narrow the title to lock in the procedural
intent of the bill. In response to Chair Kreiss-Tomkins'
question, she indicated that authorizing Legislative Legal
Services to making conforming changes would remedy any issues.
5:00:56 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 5 was adopted. He announced that
the bill would be held over.
SB 182-INTERFERENCE WITH EMERGENCY SERVICES
5:01:32 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 182(JUD), "An Act establishing
the crime of interference with emergency communications."
5:02:01 PM
SENATOR DAVID WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor,
introduced CSSB 182(JUD). He presented the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Senate Bill 182 establishes the offense of
interference with emergency communications. This
statute would apply when a person: repeatedly makes
911 calls to report something they know has already
been reported, repeatedly calls 911 when there is no
emergency, harasses or threatens a 911 operator, or
disrupts communications between 911 operators and
first responders.
Interference with emergency communications - the
misuse, abuse, and disruption of 911 dispatch centers
- is a problem that severely impacts public safety and
emergency response by delaying responses to real
emergencies. It is prevalent at dispatch centers
across Alaska and must be addressed.
During these disruptive events, other urgent emergency
calls must be placed on hold or delayed to meet
standards; industry standards are that all 911 calls
must be answered within 15-20 seconds. A dispatcher
could be required to place the parent of a choking
child on hold to answer repeated calls from a
harassing individual who is not in need of emergency
services, delaying necessary life-saving measures.
Under the language in the bill, that harasser could be
charged. Currently, state statute does not address
harassing behavior specific to 911 dispatch centers,
nor does it give law enforcement adequate recourse to
stop the behavior.
This problem is not unique to Alaska. Other states
have developed legislation that makes interfering with
emergency communications an arrestable offense - which
is the most effective way to stop the interference -
thus allowing 911 telecommunicators to focus on
legitimate emergencies.
5:04:49 PM
JASMIN MARTIN, Staff, Senator David Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Wilson, prime sponsor,
presented a sectional analysis of CSSB 182(JUD), which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1: Adds a new section (.785. Interference with
emergency communications) to AS 11.56. (Criminal Law,
56. Offenses Against Public Administration).
(a) Establishes that a person commits a crime of
interference with emergency communication when they:
(1) Call 911 to elicit a first responder response
for a previously reported incident when there has
been no change in circumstances, and they have
been instructed to stop calling
(2) Make repeated 911 calls when there is no
emergency.
(3) Threaten 911 operator during a call to 911.
(4) Disrupt emergency communications:
(A) Between 911 operators and first
responders,
(B) Between first responders.
(C) Between a 911 operator and a person
reporting an emergency.
(b) Clarifies that that (4)(a) does not apply to in
person communications.
(c) Defines: emergency communication," "emergency
communication center," and "emergency communication
worker."
(d) Establishes that this crime is
(1) A class C felony if the interference results
in death or serious physical harm.
(2) Otherwise, it is a class A misdemeanor.
Section 2: Adds a section to uncodified law that
specifies that this act is not applicable to offenses
committed prior to this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether the bill sponsor had
considered including an exemption for someone with behavioral
health disorders.
SENATOR WILSON answered yes, it was considered. He argued that
the proposed legislation would help with intervention. If the
bill were to pass, he explained that after violating the law,
individuals with behavioral health disorders would most likely
be sent to therapeutic court where they could seek the help that
they need.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she would hate to see someone who was
experiencing a mental health crisis charged with a felony. She
asked whether therapeutic court was an option.
5:09:24 PM
SENATOR WILSON said that would be decided by the court and the
prosecuting attorneys.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared a personal anecdote. He explained
that his grandmother, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, would
call the police incessantly. He expressed concern that someone
like his grandmother could be charged with a class C felony if
the bill were to pass.
5:11:06 PM
MS. MARTIN directed attention to page 1, lines 12-13, of CSSB
192(JUD), which stated that a person "makes repeated emergency
communications knowing that there is not a police, fire, or
medical emergency;". She argued that the onus would be placed
on the prosecutor to prove that the defendant knew there was no
emergency.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his interest in hearing from a
drafter or someone with legal insight to ensure that the intent
described by Ms. Martin would be achieved.
5:12:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE directed attention to page 3, lines 6-8,
which addressed the criminalization of these acts. She asked
whether repeat offenders would be informed that their actions
were illegal if the bill were to pass. Additionally, she asked
whether the bill sponsor had considered creating a graduated
approach with a first offense, second offense, and so on, to
provide individuals with the opportunity to correct their
behavior.
MS. MARTIN shared her understanding that in terms of public
outreach, emergency dispatchers would be allowed to inform
repeat offenders that their actions were against the law.
5:14:26 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS welcomed invited testimony.
5:14:49 PM
JAMES COCKRELL, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety (DPS),
conveyed that DPS was in support of the proposed legislation.
He stated that the consequences of repeat calls could be fatal
if the operator was unable to respond to a true emergency.
Further, he pointed out that the bill would provide protection
for dispatchers who regularly dealt with high stress situations.
5:17:01 PM
JOEL BUTCHER, President, Alaska Joint Chapter of NENA and APCO,
conveyed that the Alaska Joint Chapter of APCO and NENA
represented over 150 emergency communications professionals and
approximately 40 communications centers in Alaska. He expressed
support for the proposed legislation. He indicated that
emergency call centers were too often plagued with interference
by repeat callers. He summarized the different types of
interference that the legislation would statutorily criminalize.
He argued that the bill was not intended to affect individuals
with behavioral health disorders; instead, it would provide
dispatchers with a tool to discourage repeat callers.
5:21:11 PM
JACOB BUTCHER, Communications Manager, Mat-Com Dispatch Center,
noted that he had been employed as a 911 telecommunicator for
nearly 16 years. He shared several personal anecdotes that
detailed his experience with emergency communication
interference and spoof calls. He asked the committee members to
place themselves in the position of calling 911 in an emergency
only to be placed on hold for a harassing call. He emphasized
that most true emergencies were those where seconds counted.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that CSSB 182(JUD) would be held
over.
5:24:28 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:24
p.m.