Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/05/2004 09:04 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 459(STA)
"An Act relating to optically scanned and electronically
generated ballots; and providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken stated this bill, sponsored by Representative
Harris, "requires an electronic voting machine to produce a paper
record of the votes that are cast."
CINDY SMITH, Staff to Representative Les Gara, presented the bill
on behalf of Representative Gara and Representative Harris. She
testified that this bill would require a voter-verified "paper
trail" for touch screen voting machines. There have been
significant problems with the touch screen voting machines in a
number of states. Presently, if the machines malfunction or if a
vote recount is required there is not a paper ballot or an
equivalent paper record available for reference. This bill would
require, as soon as the technology is available, that touch screen
voting machines provide a paper printout to be verified by the
voter.
Senator Bunde understood that electronic voting would be more time
efficient and less expensive than the current paper ballot system.
He asserted that it is "counterintuitive" to institute a modern
electronic voting system and then require the use of old methods to
support it.
Ms. Smith responded by telling of various instances in which the
new voting machines have failed to record votes. A paper trail
would serve as an audit device to provide a record of the voter's
intent in the event that a malfunction occurs or a recount is
required.
Senator Bunde understood the concerns, and asked if the current
paper ballot voting method provided ballots in the event of a
recount.
LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, confirmed that the current system allows the
paper ballots to be used in a recount. The paper trail proposed in
this legislation would serve as a form of audit for the electronic
voting machines in the event of a recount.
Senator Bunde asked why it is necessary to use electronic voting
machines if a paper equivalent of the votes would still be
required.
Ms. Glaiser replied that the federal Help America Vote Act requires
the State to have touch screen voting machines in every voting
precinct by 2006. Alaska State law also provides for the use of
touch screen voting machines. She clarified that efficiency is not
the only benefit of electronic voting machines; they also enable
the blind and disabled to vote unassisted.
Senator Bunde asked how the blind would be able to fill out a touch
screen ballot if they are unable to use the current paper ballot.
Ms. Glaiser explained that the touch screen voting machines contain
an audio device and a keypad the blind can use to record their
vote.
Senator Bunde asked if the State would lose federal funds if it
refused to utilize the touch screen voting machines. He also asked
the amount of funding the federal government was supplying for the
purchase and implementation of the electronic machines.
Ms. Glaiser answered, yes, that $5 million has been received, and
another $11 million is expected from the federal government.
Senator Bunde asked the difference between the federal funding and
the cost of implementing a paper audit system.
Ms. Glaiser answered that she does not know that dollar amount;
however the federal funding is "no year" funding, which could be
expended any time. The State would not replace all the voting
machines at once so the optical scan and paper ballot methods would
continue to be used.
Co-Chair Wilken noted the fiscal note cost of this bill would be
almost $443,000 in FY 05, and $1.8 million each subsequent election
year.
Senator Olson asked how the State could avoid a "convoluted
situation" such as that which occurred in the State of Florida
during the presidential election of 2000.
Ms. Glaiser replied that the State of Alaska has always had a good
record regarding the voting process. The Division of Elections
would do nothing to jeopardize the integrity of the election
process. The touch screen voting machines would be implemented on a
limited basis. Today the Election Assistance Commission met and
took testimony on the touch screen voting equipment, demonstrating
that the State is not alone in questioning the accuracy of these
voting machines. The State's voting process is reviewed by such
entities as the bipartisan State Review Board and independent
AccuVote review boards in each of the election regions. The
Division is confident that the State would catch any anomalies in
the electronic voting machines, because of the State's thorough
review and testing processes. However, because the new voting
system relies on technology and an inaccessible source code, the
possibility exists that an unforeseen error could occur.
Senator Olson asked if a credible recount is possible under the
touch screen voting method.
Ms. Glaiser responded that the voter verified paper trail proposed
by this legislation is an attempt to ensure a credible recount. The
touch screen voting machines have been certified by the Federal
Election Commission, and are considered to have a sufficient audit
trail; however, there are examples, such as that cited by Ms.
Smith, that the audit trail is not adequate.
Senator Olson asked how many State voting precincts would have
touch screen voting machines in the next election.
Ms. Glaiser estimated that the State currently has 439 voter
precincts. Every precinct would be required to have at least one
touch screen voting machine for the 2006 election.
Senator Hoffman inquired about the size and the storage location
for the touch screen voting machines. He was specifically concerned
with the storage location in outlying rural communities.
Ms. Glaiser responded that the touch screen voting machines weigh
approximately 30 pounds. The machines would be mailed to the
precincts and subsequently returned to regional Division of
Elections offices for storage. Occasionally municipalities or
boroughs would store voting machines for the precincts in their
communities.
Senator Bunde assumed the State would not receive the paper voter
verification if produced, but rather the voter would assume
possession of the verification. Therefore, if a recount occurred
the Division of Elections would have to rely on voters to submit
their paper verifications. He did not understand how this process
could be trusted to accurately recapture votes.
Ms. Smith corrected that the paper verification would be submitted
to the election officials in the manner paper ballots are currently
submitted. Voters would review the paper verifications, but would
not take possession of them.
Ms. Glaiser further detailed that the touch screen voting machines
would print a paper confirmation of the votes electronically placed
by the voter. The voter would verify the accuracy of the printout
using a command on the touch screen. After being confirmed, the
print out would finish printing. Two records of the votes cast
would then exist: the record on the machine's memory card, and the
paper printout.
Senator Bunde questioned the ability of a blind voter to confirm
the paper verification unassisted. He stated his opposition to the
implementation of the touch screen voting machine in its current
design.
DANIEL LYNCH testified via teleconference from Kenai that he would
recommend an amendment allowing only the blind to use the touch
screen voting machines. The U.S. is founded on the idea that one
man equals one vote. Citizens' ability to vote must be "cherished
and protected" because it is one of the few original freedoms that
could still be exercised. For over 200 years a voting method using
paper and writing utensils was sufficient, and it remains
sufficient. He concluded by urging the Committee: "Please protect
our democracy; don't add to the apathy."
Senator B. Stevens offered a motion to report the bill from
Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
note.
Senator Bunde objected.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator B. Stevens, Senator Dyson, Senator Hoffman,
Senator Olson, and Co-Chair Wilken
OPPOSED: Senator Bunde
ABSENT: Co-Chair Green
The motion PASSED (5-1-1)
CS HB 459 (STA) MOVED from Committee with fiscal note #1 for
$442,800 from the Office of the Governor.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|