Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
05/03/2022 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB66 | |
| SB25 | |
| HB309 | |
| HB31 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 309 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
[Contains discussion of SB 39.]
3:11:29 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 committee substitute (CS) for
HB 66, Version 32-LS0322\O, Klein, 3/30/22, ("Version O").]
3:12:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 66, Version 32-LS0322\N, Klein, 4/30/22,
as the working document.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:12:42 PM
JEFF STEPP, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, reviewed the changes in the proposed CS for HB 66,
("Version N"), which would replace Version O. The summary of
changes [hard copy included in the committee packet] read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, Line 1: Change in the title to list a new
crime: Adds "unlawful interference with voting."
--- Sections of Version N and Version O are the same -
--
Page 2, Line 25: Section 2 after "if applying within
30 days before" adds "or on the day of the election".
Legal advised in a memo to the Senate Judiciary
Committee (4/25/22):
"... the committee substitute uses the phrase 'within
30 days before.' Because the committee substitute
permits registration before and including election
day, these phrases should be changed to 'within 30
days before and on the day of' to make clear that the
additional requirements apply when a voter registers
on election day as well as in the 30 days before
election day."
Page 3, Lines 6-9: Section 2: Paragraph 13 (B)(ii)
rearranges "government check" and "paycheck" for
better clarity, so that "government check, or other
government document" are together; deletes "that is"
(O:3:7) and changes "displays" (O:3:8) to "displaying"
(N:3:9) for better grammar.
Page 3, Line 11: Section 2: Paragraph 14 changes
past tense to present (i.e. "had previously been" in
O:3:11 to "is" at N:3:11.
Page 3, Lines 16-26: Section 3 (g) No policy change
but rewritten for clarity/grammar.
Page 3, Lines 23 and 26: Section 3 (g) changes from
"requested language" to "designated language" for
consistency.
Page 4, Line 2: Section 4 (d) deletes "preceding an
election" (O:4:5) and added "before" (N:4:2) for
clarity.
Page 4, Line 12: Section 5 (h) change derived from
Amendment #1 (D.34), which deletes the phrase "a
voter's choice to register as nonpartisan, as
undeclared, or as affiliated with a political party or
political group and" from O:4:15-16. Simply stated,
this change eliminates the explicit opportunity to
indicate a partisan affiliation when registering at
the polls.
Page 4, Line 21: Section 6 (b) changes "who has
reregistered" to "reregistering"
Page 4, Lines 28-29: Section 7 (c) replaces "a
person who has moved" (O:5:1-2) with "or on election
day, a person transferring registration" (N:4:28-29),
so the language now reads "If a request is made within
30 days before election day or on election day, a
person transferring registration to a new precinct "
Section 8 is unchanged.
--- Section numbers of Version N and Version O are no
longer the same ---
Page 5, Line 16: Section 9 adds a new section to 15.07
titled, Voter fraud mitigation policy. This change is
derived from Amendment #34 (D.44) and declares that
it's the policy of the state to reduce voting fraud by
using reasonable and affordable tools and technology
to mitigate the potential for voting fraud, including
for the review of voter registration applications and
the master register for the names of the deceased,
felons ineligible to vote, non-citizens, and
individuals voting unlawfully. There is also a
grammatical change from "for the reviews of", which
was in Amendment #34 to "reviewing", which is now in
the bill (N:5:19).
Page 5, Line 22: Section 10 of Version N is unchanged
from Section 9 of Version O.
Page 5, Line 30: Section 11 has new language under (g)
of the Voter registration list maintenance which was
added by Amendment #35 (D.45). This allows DOE
regulations on list maintenance to also use, at their
discretion, municipal assessor databases, the US
Social Security Administration death index and the US
Department of Homeland Security's Systematic Alien
Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database on non-
citizens.
Page 6, Lines 14 - 23: Section 11 (formerly Section 10
of Version O) has a new subsection (h) and (i) also
modified by Amendment #35 (D.45), aimed at improving
Voter registration list maintenance. These changes
require the director to adopt a best practice voter
registration system to improve identity matching when
comparing registration lists with databases for list
maintenance. The change says the director must develop
a written maintenance schedule and guideline manual
and provide a report to the senate secretary and chief
clerk of the house for each legislative session.
Finally, confirmation notice must include voter
qualifications and penalties for voter fraud and voter
misconduct. Plus grammatical changes.
Page 6, Lines 27-28: Section N rearranged the phrase,
"at each polling place", for clarity.
From (Version O), "The director shall prominently
display instructions for a voter to cancel the voter's
registration at each polling place."
To (Version N), "The director shall prominently
display instructions at each polling place for a voter
to cancel the voter's registration."
Page 6, Line 29: Section 13 of Version N replaces
Sections 12 and Section 13 of Version O by Amendment
#4 (D.13). This section is related to the Appointment
and privileges of watchers and essentially says that
the same poll watcher rules apply for all elections.
--- Sections of Version N and Version O are the same
again ---
Page 7, Line 21: Section 14 is replaced by Amendment
#5 (D.1). This revises the rules on ballot
identifiers, saying ballot identifiers are required
for electronic ballots, too (as well as "official
ballots"). This deletes the option for the director to
provide an exception for ballots without identifiers.
It also specifies that the ballot identifier can be an
election official signature. Plus, grammatical change
at 7:22, to "The director shall adopt a regulation
requiring ?"(from "The director shall by regulation
require ?").
Page 8, Lines 10-12: In Section 15 at the end of (a),
amendment #38 (D.52) is added re: ballot chain of
custody requirements. This change asserts that a
signed ballot chain of custody document must accompany
groups of ballots in DOE's possession; and an election
official shall sign the ballot chain of custody
document immediately upon receiving or releasing a
ballot or group of ballots.
Section 16 is unchanged.
Page 8, Lines 30-31: Section 17: Changes "questioned
ballot procedures" to "questioned ballot declaration."
Page 9, Line 21: Section 18 is modified by Amendment
#39 (D.53), which says the questioned ballot
declaration must make clear that prosecution under AS
11 is for perjury.
Section 19 is unchanged.
Section 20 is unchanged.
Section 21 is unchanged.
Page 11, Line 1: Section 22 is changed by Amendment #1
(D.34), by adding language that says, "An envelope may
not identify a voter's party affiliation."
Section 23 is unchanged.
Section 24 is unchanged.
Section 25 is unchanged.
Section 26 is unchanged.
Section 27 is unchanged.
Section 28 is unchanged.
Section 29 is unchanged.
Page 12, Line 30: Section 30 is rewritten by amendment
#13 (D.38) related to Application for absentee ballot.
Legal added a reference to "except as permitted under
15.20.081(a)" (absentee voting statute), which allows
party affiliation on the application only if the voter
is already registered with that party or group. The
other option would have been to change 15.20.081.
Section 31 is unchanged.
Section 32 is unchanged.
Section 33 is unchanged.
Section 34 is unchanged.
Section 35 is unchanged.
Section 36 is unchanged.
Section 37 of Version O was removed by Amendment #6
(D.39), which eliminates the section allowing counting
of absentee ballots before election day.
--- Section numbers of Version N and Version O are no
longer the same ---
Section 38 of Version O was redundant with language in
Section 39 of Version N and was removed.
Section 37 (formerly O39): Clarification that "The
board shall reject an absentee ballot if ?" (15.20.203
Procedure for district absentee ballot counting
review) but then may be cured and counted (see
15.20.222 Procedure for curing uncounted ballot).
Section 38 (formerly O40): Technical change deleting
"under (a) of this section" from O:18:5 due to removal
of Section O38.
Section 39 (formerly O41) is unchanged.
Page 17, Line 26: Section 40 (formerly O42) is changed
by Amendment #40 (D.54) related to the ballot tracking
system. This says that a ballot tracking system must
be established "or procured," allowing for a third-
party vendor. Also added "or procured" in (b) for
consistency.
Section 40 (formerly O42) Section (c) of Version O is
removed by Amendment #16 (D.22). This amendment
deleted language in Section 42 of Version O providing
that online ballot tracking system must allow an
election official access to names and political
affiliations of all people on the voter registration
list.
Section 40 (formerly O42) Sec. 15.20.222 Procedure for
curing uncounted ballot added Amendment #17 (D.23),
which says cure notices can be sent via mail up to 5
days after the election, instead of up to 2 days after
the election.
Page 19, Line 23: Section 41 (formerly O43) is changed
by Amendments #19 (D.24) and #21 (D.11). First,
Amendment #19 allowed DOE to conduct an all-mail
election if the conditions in Section 43 are met, even
for general, statewide, and federal elections. Second,
Amendment #21, deleted provisions allowing for all-
mail elections (a) in second class cities with
population of 1,000 or less, upon the city's request,
and (b) in second class boroughs with populations of
3,000 or less, upon borough's request. For
consistency, Legal changed "unorganized community" to
"unincorporated community" to be consistent with
existing statutes. Also removed "party" from "party
primary" on 20:5 (per Ballot Measure 2).
Section 42 (formerly O44) is unchanged.
Page 20, Line 17: Section 43 (formerly O45) is
modified by Amendment #41 (D.59), which requires that
a voting machine or vote tally system must meet the
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) voluntary
voting system guidelines (VVSG) and be certified by
the EAC, in addition to having open-source software
technology. This also changed the deadline for the use
of federally certified open-source software from
January 1, 2028, to January 1, 2024.
Page 20, Line 31: Section 44 is new language from
Amendment #41 (D.59). The amendment also added
definitions for "commercial off-the-shelf" and "open-
source software technology."
Section 45 (formerly O46) is unchanged.
Page 22, Line 6: Section 46 is language from Amendment
#43 (D.61), which makes it unlawful interference with
voting in the second degree to "knowingly pay, offer
to pay, or cause to be paid money or other valuable
thing to a person who is not an election official,
mail carrier, or representative under AS 15.20.072 to
collect a voter's ballot."
Section 47 is a new section of definitions for
"collect" and "other valuable thing," also per
Amendment #43.
Section 47 of Version O was deleted by amendment #15
(D.42). This section, which has been removed from
Version N, had provided that voting or attempting to
vote in the name of a person who is cognitively unable
to express their vote was voter misconduct in the
first degree.
--- Sections of Version N and Version O are the same
again ---
Section 48 is unchanged.
Section 49 is unchanged.
Section 50 is unchanged.
Section 51 is unchanged.
Page 25, Line 8: Section 52 is changed by Amendment
#28 (D.6) + Conceptual Amendment 1 to #28. The
amendment requires DOE to compile lists of registered
voters whose data has been breached. The conceptual
amendment asserts that the list is "nonpublic" and
that "if the division identifies a cyber attack or
data breach, the director shall exercise caution to
protect election integrity." Clarifying language
added.
Section 53 is changed by Amendment #31 (D.46). This
cleans up references to "absentee" that should be
"early." No substantive changes.
Section 54 is unchanged.
Section 55 is unchanged.
Section 56, the repealer section, is changed by poll
watcher amendment #4 (D.13 2:6-7).
Section 57 APPLICABILITY has significant changes to
conform with addition and removal of crimes.
Section 58 is unchanged.
Section 59 has changes re: open-source voting
effective dates from 2028 to 2024.
Section 60 is unchanged.
Section 61 is unchanged.
Note: Amendment #35 (D.45) passed in S JUD
unanimously. In addition to other changes that are
incorporated in Version N, the amendment would have
added a requirement for DOE to mail a notice
requesting address confirmation or correction to
people "who do not live in the state." This
requirement is not included in Version N.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from committee members.
3:19:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY applauded Section 40 of Version N, which
allowed cure notices to be sent via mail up to 5 days after the
election instead of within 48 hours post-election. Nonetheless,
she wondered whether 5 days was sufficient. She asked when the
bulk of the "last day" ballots arrived and whether the new
timeline for curing ballots in Version N was adequate.
3:21:11 PM
MR. STEPP acknowledged that the statutory vote count was
constrained. He pointed out that the 5-day timeline pertained
to mail notifications specifically, adding that the director
could provide notifications via phone, for example, as well. He
shared his understanding that 5 days would provide enough time
to receive the ballots and send a notice of deficiency by mail.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY redirected the question to Director Gail
Fenumiai.
3:22:07 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections (DOE), Office of
the Lieutenant Governor, estimated that in a general election,
the division received the bulk of the ballots between two weeks
pre-election and two days post-election. She reiterated that
the 5-day deadline only applied to mail notifications.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY sought to confirm that the timeline
outlined in Version N would provide sufficient time for a voter
to receive an electronic notification of a deficiency and an
opportunity to cure the deficient ballot.
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed. She noted that there were other
opportunities to provide cure notices, as long as the form was
received within 14 days after the election.
MR. STEPP agreed.
3:24:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN directed attention to page 5, line 17
[voter fraud mitigation policy]. He observed that the section
was predominantly intent language and wondered why it lacked
assertive language to make the reduction of fraud through the
use of reasonable and affordable tools mandatory. He opined
that a "shall" statement was more appropriate.
MR. STEPP shared his understanding that the intent was to assert
and make a strong statement of that very intent.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that Version N was ultimately a
mechanical update that included unanimously adopted amendments
from the Senate. Therefore, he recommended directing questions
regarding intent to [Senator Shower, prime sponsor of SB 39].
He went on to remind the committee that there was "precious
little evidence" supporting the existence of voter fraud "of any
critical mass proportion;" however, to the extent that people
did perceive it as a problem, he argued that the intent language
added "symbolic polish" that spoke to the broad base of
consensus.
3:26:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN contended that his question was not
framed around any assertion of fraud; rather, his intention was
to examine the passive language in Section 9.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to the motion to
adopt the proposed CS for HB 66, Version 32-LS0322\N, Klein,
4/30/22, as the working document. There being no further
objection, Version N was before the committee.
3:27:52 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:27 p.m. to 3:31 p.m.
3:31:53 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 66,
Version N, labeled 32-LS0322\N.1, Klein, 5/2/22, which read:
Page 8, following line 28:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 17. AS 15.15.170 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.15.170. Prohibition of political
persuasion near election polls. (a) During the hours
the polls are open, a person who is in the polling
place or within 200 feet of any entrance to the
polling place may not
(1) attempt to persuade a person to vote
for or against a candidate, proposition, or question;
or
(2) physically display a photo, video, or
other image of the person's or another person's marked
ballot in an attempt to persuade a person to vote for
or against a candidate, proposition, or question.
(b) The election officials shall post warning
notices at the required distance in the form and
manner prescribed by the director."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 10, following line 2:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 21. AS 15.15.280 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.15.280. Prohibiting the exhibition of
marked ballots. A [SUBJECT TO AS 15.15.240 A] voter
may not exhibit the voter's ballot to an election
official or any other person so as to enable any
person to ascertain how the voter marked the ballot.
* Sec. 22. AS 15.15.280 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) This section does not apply to a voter who
(1) requests assistance under AS 15.15.240;
or
(2) subject to the prohibition on political
persuasion in, or within 200 feet of an entrance to, a
polling place under AS 15.15.170, shares a photo,
video, or other image of the voter's marked ballot
with another person or with the public."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 48"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 49"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 52"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 53"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 48, 49, and 51 - 53"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 46 and 47"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 61"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 62 and 63"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:32:03 PM
MR. STEPP explained that Amendment 1 would officially allow
Alaska voters to take and share ballot "selfies." He expounded
that under current law, it was technically illegal to share a
photo of oneself in the voting booth although the law went
unenforced in practice. He explained that the sharing of ballot
photos was traditionally prohibited to prevent voter
intimidation and vote buying; however, technology and the
Internet had changed the reason people take and share pictures.
3:33:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the interpretation and
practical application of Amendment 1. He asked how an attempt
to persuade a person to vote with the use of photo or video,
which was still illegal under Amendment 1, would be measured and
enforced.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his understanding that the proposed
amendment exemplified "perfect being the enemy of good." He
indicated that the intent was to rectify the blatant violation
of current statute, which created confusion. He suggested that
many members of the legislature had broken the existing law,
arguing that it needed to be resolved. He believed that the
language prefacing prohibition in Version N spoke to the
original intent of laws aimed at preventing electoral coercion
that were passed in the 1930s. That being said, he was unsure
how Amendment 1 would be enforced. He reiterated that there
were few, if any, examples of electoral coercion in this regard.
3:35:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that a person could take
a selfie holding a ballot; however, the ballot must not be
marked.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that the intent was to quell the
concern that a person may share a photo of his/her marked ballot
for the purpose of political persuasion. He opined that it was
an unlikely scenario; nonetheless, the prefatory language in
question was drafted to clarify that the aforementioned behavior
was prohibited within 200 feet of an entrance to a polling
place.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether "within 200 feet of an
entrance" was the qualifying language. In other words, a person
could share a photo of his/her marked ballot outside the 200-
foot radius, he asked.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that the operative language was
"physically displaying". He confirmed that sharing a photo of
one's ballot via social media or text would not be prohibited.
MR. STEPP directed attention to AS 15.15.280 [Sections 21 and 22
of Amendment 1], indicating that the language did not apply to a
voter who takes a ballot selfie.
3:39:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there were consequences for
breaking this prohibition.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS was unsure. He asked Mr. Flynn whether
there were any sanctions, fines, or penalties, associated with
what was colloquially known as a "ballot selfie."
3:39:47 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law (DOL), could not think of the consequences at
this time. He deferred to Ms. Fenumiai.
MS. FENUMIAI offered to follow up with the requested
information.
3:40:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked why Amendment 1 was necessary if
there was no element of enforcement. She suggested repealing
the criminality of ballot selfies without the additional
prohibition language.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that the language on page 1,
lines 9-11, pertained to a different infraction that was, in
fact, enforceable. He explained that Amendment 1 merely
clarified that the act of waiving around a marked ballot [within
200 feet of any entrance to the polling place] constituted a
form of campaigning.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE requested further insight regarding the
infraction being described in AS 15.15.070.
3:43:24 PM
MR. FLYNN cited AS 15.15.300 [prohibition on the counting of
unexhibited ballots], which provided that an exhibited ballot
should not be allowed to be placed in the ballot box. He asked
Representative Vance to reframe her question.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered to rephrase the question. He
inquired about the penalty or sanction for attempting to
persuade a person to vote for or against a candidate,
proposition, or question, within 200 feet of a polling place.
MR. FLYNN understood that DOE would pursue the removal of
campaign signs or campaign material within 200 feet. He shared
his belief that law enforcement would be involved if necessary;
further, that people committing the infractions would be
prevented from voting.
3:44:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered Section 17 in the proposed
amendment from a grammatical perspective. He suggested that
paragraph (2) was already captured between subsection (a) and
paragraph (1).
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he would be thrilled to eliminate the
language in question, characterizing it as extraneous.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE agreed with Representative Eastman. She
requested the chair's perspective, as the sponsor of Amendment
1, before proposing a conceptual amendment.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his support for conceptually
amending Amendment 1.
3:47:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1, which would delete lines 9-11 on page 1 [of the
amendment].
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:47:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that deleting lines 9-
11 would have the same effect as eliminating lines 1-16.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed.
REPRESENATIVE EASTMAN suggested that as long as the drafter from
Legislative Legal Services understood the committee's intent,
he/she could make conforming changes.
3:48:07 PM
MR. STEPP pointed out that Section 21 [in Amendment 1], which
amended Section 15.15.280, contained the central policy change.
He explained that Section 21 would exempt ballot selfies from
the statutory prohibition on exhibiting marked ballots. The new
subsection (b) [Section 22 of Amendment 21], would allow a voter
to share a photo, video, or other image of the voter's marked
ballot with another person or the public, subject to the
restriction established on page 1, lines 9-11. Therefore, he
indicated that contrary to Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
1, lines 9-11 were necessary to make the prohibition explicit.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN contended that the proposed conceptual
amendment simply eliminated repetitive language; therefore,
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 neither added nor
subtracted from AS 15.15.170. He opined that because nothing
was changing in AS 15.15.170, "Section 17 could go away."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his reluctance to making changes
"on the fly," as there could be unintended consequences.
Although he appreciated the goal of reducing statutory language,
he suggested punting the request to Legislative Legal Services.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed with Representative Claman.
However, he welcomed a "meeting of minds offline" to introduce
favorable language.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN suggested working on the proposed
amendment "offline."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that the bill almost passed the
legislature in recent years; consequently, the language had
undergone quite a bit of vetting already.
3:52:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recounted the substance of his objection
in past years. He discussed hypothetical scenarios involving
the potential exertion of influence via ballot photos. He
expressed his desire to deprive people of that option.
3:55:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1.
3:55:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN withdrew his objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
3:56:38 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr, Story,
Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of Amendment 1.
Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and Eastman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
3:57:13 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 66,
Version N, labeled 32-LS0322\N.2, Klein, 5/2/22, which read:
Page 12, following line 29:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 30. AS 15.20.066(a) is amended to read:
(a) The director shall adopt regulations
applicable to the delivery of absentee ballots by
electronic transmission in a state election and to the
use of electronic transmission absentee voting in a
state election by qualified voters. The regulations
must
(1) require the voter to comply with the
same time deadlines as for voting in person on or
before the closing hour of the polls;
(2) ensure the accuracy and, to the
greatest degree possible, the integrity and secrecy of
the ballot process;
(3) prohibit absentee voting by facsimile in
a state election."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, line 22:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 26, line 23:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 47"
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 49"
Page 26, line 24:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 50"
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 26, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50"
Insert "secs. 46, 47, and 49 - 51"
Page 27, line 2:
Delete "Sections 43 and 44"
Insert "Sections 44 and 45"
Page 27, line 3:
Delete "Section 58"
Insert "Section 59"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "secs. 59 and 60"
Insert "secs. 60 and 61"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:57:18 PM
MR. STEPP stated that Amendment 2 prohibited the return of
absentee ballots by facsimile ("fax"). Currently, fax was an
allowable means for a voter to return a completed absentee
ballot to the division; however, most election security experts
cautioned that the electronic transmission of ballots, such as
by fax, presented a cyber security risk. Amendment 2, he said,
sought to strengthen election security in Alaska.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that he had introduced legislation on
the subject a number of years ago. For that reason, in
consultation with the bill sponsor, he expressed his support for
the proposed amendment.
3:58:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the intent was to prohibit
voting by fax or all electronic voting.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS answered, "Just fax."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that e-mail was not
included.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS confirmed that e-mail was not captured in
Amendment 2.
3:59:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled a time when ballots were allowed
to be submitted by fax. He remarked, "But we decided that those
days are over?"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged that it was still legally
permissible under current law.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that in effect,
Amendment 2 would remove that option.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS confirmed that ballots would no longer be
accepted by fax should Amendment 2 be adopted.
MR. STEPP agreed with that summation.
4:00:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about the options for overseas
military members to return their ballots in a timely manner.
MS. FENUMIAI conveyed that uniformed and overseas citizens could
receive a ballot in various ways, including mail, online
delivery, or fax. Returning ballots, she said, was limited to
mail or fax.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how many ballots were returned by
fax.
MS. FENUMIAI reported that in the 2020 general election, 88
ballots were issued by fax, of which 77 were returned to the
division. Additionally, 16,466 ballots were delivered via the
online delivery system, of which 12,026 were returned to the
division by either mail or fax.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the people submitting ballots
by fax were "frequent flyers" - or consistent in their chosen
method of return.
MS. FENUMIAI did not know the answer.
4:03:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the division had experienced
any problems with voting by fax.
MS. FENUMIAI answered no, not to her knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled that historically, fax was
considered one of the most secure ways to send communication.
He asked whether fax communication had become less secure.
MS. FENUMIAI was unsure of the answer. She reported that the
number of fax voters dropped between 2018 and 2020. She offered
to follow up with additional information.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN declined the offer. He stated that he was
satisfied with her indication that the division had not
experienced any problems with faxed ballots.
4:04:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN supposed that voting by fax was more
cumbersome and inconvenient, as opposed to more traditional
methods of voting. He considered the example in which an
astronaut needed to vote and wondered how people in similar
scenarios could submit a ballot in confidence if not by fax.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS characterized Representative Eastman's
statement as a comment and invited additional questions on
Amendment 2.
4:07:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked for the statutory definition of
facsimile.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to Mr. Flynn.
MR. FLYNN defined it as, "fax," as opposed to other types of
electronic delivery, such as e-mail. He offered to follow up
with the specific statutory definition.
4:08:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the reason for eliminating
the fax option.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS reiterated that testimony from election
security experts on best practices excluded fax returns, as they
were less secure. He shared his understanding that it was
possible to intercept fax returns or, in theory, alter a fax
return.
4:10:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2, such that members of the uniformed services would
be excluded from the prohibition on voting by facsimile.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS emphasized that the number of people voting
by fax was small. He remarked:
I find a certain irony in that there is a lot of
concern about secure elections and anti-fraud, and
this is the type of policy that speaks to that, and
all of the sudden the polarity flips 180 degrees and
there's lots of concern about access. So, which of
the two is it and how do you balance it?
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his preference for the committee to
vote down Amendment 2 rather than move forward on the conceptual
amendment.
4:11:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN expressed his general support for
Amendment 2. He explained that his intention was to avoid an
internal conflict by clarifying the meaning of "electronic
transmission."
4:12:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his opposition to the conceptual
amendment and highlighted the procedural customs.
4:12:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2.
4:13:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN suspected that the majority of faxed
ballots came from rural areas. Absent real world evidence that
there was a true security issue concerning voting by facsimile
in Alaska, he opposed the prohibition in Amendment 2, as it
could alienate voters.
4:15:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE discussed the task of weighing risk against
reward. She asked the sponsor of Amendment 2 to provide his
last "pitch" before voting on the motion, as she remained
undecided.
4:16:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN argued that potential alienation of
voters was qualitatively different from the Alaskan on the
International Space Station who would have no means of voting if
voting by facsimile was prohibited. He opined that the law
should be written in such a way that ensured the availability of
at least one method for every person. For that reason, he
expressed his opposition to Amendment 2.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he was pleased to hear such enthusiasm
for voter access, adding that he was curious to see how that
would manifest further on in the amendment process. He withdrew
Amendment 2.
4:17:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether Mr. Flynn found a statutory
definition of facsimile.
MR. FLYNN conveyed that there was no definition in statute. He
pointed out that there were cellphone applications that claimed
to "fax" documents; therefore, he recommended including in the
definition something "that is sent to a fax number," as opposed
to an e-mail.
4:18:39 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that Amber McReynolds was available
online for questioning. He invited additional questions on HB
66, Version N, as amended.
4:19:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 66, introduced Amber McReynolds.
4:20:03 PM
AMBER MCREYNOLDS shared her extensive background in election
administration, including her membership on the Board of
Governors of the United States Postal Service (USPS). She
recounted her experience as an election official in Denver,
Colorado, where the first ballot tracking system was created in
2009. She explained that the goal was to improve security and
reduce the volume of calls related to ballot tracking, or people
wanting to know whether their ballots had arrived. She recalled
the invention of the intelligent mail barcode and described its
evolution over the years. Ultimately, upon opting-in, the
barcode allowed for proactive communication and visible
confirmation of ballot status. Notifications included
confirmation of the ballot being printed, mailed [to the voter],
scanned for delivery [to the voter], as well as the final scan
upon arriving at the election office. Additionally, the system
provided immediate notification of a ballot deficiency to allow
an opportunity for voters to cure any mistakes. She concluded
by highlighting the benefits of a permanent absentee ballot
list. She explained that multiple states had utilized it to
create operational efficiencies and cost savings, to avoid the
processing of multiple absentee ballot applications each
election cycle. Furthermore, she touched on the convenience of
by-mail voting, noting that it was often used by rural
constituents.
4:26:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about the capacity for processing
ballots at the federal level. She asked whether the federal
legislation aimed at stabilizing USPS had resolved the existing
issues regarding capacity.
MS. MCREYNOLDS conveyed that the executive leadership team at
USPS made a commitment to improving election mail, the results
of which were seen in the 2020 election with top rates in
delivery time. She noted that the election mail team at USPS
handled vote-by-mail ballots in addition to all the other
election material sent by election officials [voter
registration, voter information cards, information booklets,
etcetera]. She explained that the handling of Alaska mail
required special provisions due to the state's geography and
unique situations. Furthermore, she reported that President
Biden's budget for 2023 included an allocation for additional
improvements to election mail and support for paid postage.
4:31:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN has how USPS interfaced with the tracking
barcode proposed in Version N.
MS. MCREYNOLDS reiterated that the intelligent mail barcode was
scanned at different points within the postal stream, similar to
the delivery of a package. She clarified that the intended
purpose of a hand postmark was to cancel the stamp so it could
not be reused. In contrast, she explained, the barcode provided
both the date and a timestamp, which was more than what the
traditional postmark offered. She recommended accepting ballots
that were postmarked [on or before election day] in addition to
ballots scanned with an intelligent barcode in the proposed
legislation to avoid alienating voters.
4:35:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the intelligent mail barcode
was preferred over the BallotTrax software.
MS. MCERYNOLDS clarified that BallotTrax consisted of software
that consumed and processed the intelligent mail barcode data.
She characterized BallotTrax as the engine for utilizing the
intelligent mail barcode information while also consuming data
from the ballot production printer, for example.
4:36:58 PM
MS. MCREYNOLDS, in response to a question from Representative
Tarr, suggested covering the cost of postage to reduce confusion
and make it easier for all voters. She acknowledged that the
line item for election improvements in President Biden's budget
for 2023 would not impact the 2022 election.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 66 was held over.