Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
04/09/2013 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB63 | |
| HB139 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 63 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 139 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 63-CONTRACTS FOR PREPARATION OF BALLOTS
8:07:45 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was CS FOR
SENATE BILL NO. 63(STA), "An Act making contracts for the
preparation of election ballots subject to the provisions of the
state procurement code."
8:08:39 AM
SENATOR ANNA FAIRCLOUGH, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor,
presented CSSB 63(STA). She said the proposed legislation would
bring back fairness and competition, by requiring the Alaska
Division of Elections to use the state procurement code to
solicit bids for the preparation of election ballots.
8:09:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said he appreciates the sponsor's
bringing forward CSSB 63(STA), because printers in the Fairbanks
area have complained to him that they have never had a shot at
printing [election ballots]. He indicated he would like some
explanation regarding [paragraph] (10), on page 3, [lines 4-19],
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
(10) A nonpartisan ballot shall be
designed for each judicial district in which a justice
or judge is seeking retention in office. The ballot
shall be divided into four parts. Each [AND EACH]
part must bear a heading indicating the court to which
the candidate is seeking approval, and provision shall
be made for marking each question "Yes" or "No."[.]
Within each part, the question of whether the justice
or judge shall be approved or rejected shall be set
out in substantially the following manner:
(A) "Shall . . . . . . . be
retained as justice of the supreme court for 10
years?";
(B) "Shall . . . . . . . . . be
retained as judge of the court of appeals for eight
years?";
(C) "Shall . . . . . . . be
retained as judge of the superior court for six
years?"; or
(D) "Shall . . . . . . . be retained as judge of the
district court for four years?" [PROVISION SHALL BE
MADE FOR MARKING EACH QUESTION "YES" OR "NO."]
8:10:41 AM
LAURA PIERRE, Staff, Senator Anna Fairclough, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Fairclough, sponsor of CSSB
63(STA), pointed out that the change made in paragraph (10) is a
technical one: the language regarding a provision for marking
each question "yes" or "no" was moved by the bill drafter in
Legislative Legal and Research Services from lines 18-19 [to
lines 7-8].
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON observed that by moving the language,
the intent is that it would apply to [subparagraphs (A) through
(D)], rather than just to subparagraph (D).
MS. PIERRE responded that is correct.
8:12:03 AM
KEVIN FRALEY, Owner, Print Works & Super Software, testified in
opposition to CSSB 63(STA). He said the proposed legislation
would "take away the appropriate decision-making power" of the
Division of Elections, thus handicapping the division, which he
warned would make it more difficult to ensure the
accountability, security, and integrity of Alaska's elections.
He talked about an exemption given to the division, which would
be taken away under CSSB 63(STA), and about an "understanding of
what is the highest priority." He indicated the focus of
conversation has moved to printers and fair bidding, he
questioned if "the outcome of an election has taken a back seat
to fostering fair competition," and he asked if an election is
"less important today than it was then." He said the main focus
since the division was given the exemption has been on the
voters and the division's ability to give the voters the tools
they need to cast their votes. He asked the committee to
consider what is most important: to provide fair bidding of a
printing job and (indisc.) the printers or to ensure that the
ballots work on Election Day.
MR. FRALEY stated that having produced the ballots for Alaska's
last six elections, he knows from experience that the project is
"far more than simply putting ink on paper." He opined that the
division is not ordering half a million tourism brochures, but
is dealing with the most critical and delicate component of
state and federal elections: the ballot. He reiterated that
the proposed legislation would handicap the division,
potentially preventing the division from guaranteeing the
integrity of future elections. He stated that making wise and
prudent decisions is the responsibility of the committee, and he
opined that focusing on "making a few bucks for Alaskans" and
"making it ... fair for a few print shops" in the state is
wrong. He said the one factor that can derail an election is if
the ballots are printed incorrectly. He opined that the
proposed legislation is about ballots; therefore, the
conversation must stop being about "being fair and competitive
to a few businesses."
MR. FRALEY asked the committee to consider the repercussions of,
for example, ballots not feeding correctly through the voting
units. He talked about an occurrence in Anchorage where ballots
were not distributed properly, and as a result older voters
could not cast a vote. He indicated that jobs were lost as a
result of that incident. He said the division deserves thanks,
but instead, would be penalized under CSSB 63(STA), which would
take away the division's ability to make the decisions it
believes need to be made. He emphasized that the division has
done nothing wrong.
8:17:37 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if there is only one printer who can print
ballots accurately and get them delivered on time.
MR. FRALEY answered that there are two printers in the state who
are certified to produce ballots.
8:18:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked Mr. Fraley to confirm he had
testified he is the one who has held the contract for the last
six [elections].
MR. FRALEY answered that is correct.
8:18:26 AM
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH emphasized that Mr. Farley's company is
beyond reproach, and the bill is not a reflection of anything
that he has done, but is just about trying to offer a fair
process for all. She suggested asking Mr. Farley if he had
referred to the certification process for the AccuVote System,
and she offered her understanding that that process may have
changed over time. She said she introduced a bill many years
ago, during which discussions were held regarding the technical
aspects required for certification. She said many of the
printers today are much more technically savvy than they were
five years ago.
8:19:35 AM
MR. FRALEY said the printer responsible [for printing ballots]
must fully comply with requirements, such as registration and
ink density, as well as understand what can go wrong with voting
machines and how critical alignment is. He said he is not sure
if the Division of Elections has "that guideline," but said he
knows the division fully understands what can go wrong. He
opined it is critical that the process of certification take
place. He added, "There is a difficulty in that, and that is
that the person that is responsible to produce those
certifications is a major competitor, and they're not interested
in certifying more people."
8:21:31 AM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, said she does not believe there is a full-
fledged certification process at the present time.
Nevertheless, she said Mr. Fraley is correct that a printer must
have in-depth knowledge of many factors involved with ballot
printing.
8:22:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked if it is possible that presuming
more than one or two printers in Alaska could be qualified to
print ballots is "rash and foolish."
8:23:02 AM
MS. FENUMIAI answered she would not call it rash and foolish.
She explained that the division is not against competitive
bidding and understands the sponsor's intent; however, even
though the proposed legislation has been amended from low bid to
full-fledged request for proposal (RFP), there are still risk
factors involved in changing to an unknown printer.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON indicated his previous question had been
tongue-in-cheek, because he is offended at the thought that
other printers in the state could not handle the precise nature
of the print work. He offered his understanding that there are
excellent printers who have wanted the opportunity to submit a
proposal to the state but "have not yet been able to do so."
MS. FENUMIAI said she knows of one other printer in the state
that has printed ballots and approached the division "at one
point in time." She offered her understanding that the division
has not been approached by any other printer in Alaska inquiring
about ballot printing.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON proffered that under CSSB 63(STA), other
[printers] throughout the state would be afforded the
opportunity.
MS. FENUMIAI concurred that [printers] would have the ability to
provide a competitive sealed bid.
8:24:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked Ms. Fenumiai to describe the risk,
to which she previously referred.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that when printing ballots, the print
marks and cut marks need to be exact. If the ballots are cut
incorrectly, they may be misread and have to be hand counted,
thereby slowing down the process and perhaps giving cause for
some voters to wonder if their votes will count. She related
that since Mr. Fraley's company has been printing ballots, the
division has "never encountered an incident like that."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he presumes there are consequences
spelled out for any mistakes made by the current printer, and he
asked how those consequences would differ from those given other
prospective printers.
MS. FENUMIAI deferred to Vern Jones, the chief procurement
officer for the State of Alaska. Notwithstanding that, she
stated that a contractor that fails to fulfill an RFP bid would
see ramifications; however, she said she does not know if the
same kind of penalties would apply to [mistakes made by] a sole-
source provider.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said it seems like the division would have
a lot to say about the criteria that goes into a contract,
irrespective of whether the contract is based on RFPs or a sole
source.
8:28:09 AM
MS. FENUMIAI, in response to Chair Lynn, confirmed that the
division does receive proofs from the printer; however, she said
it is not possible to tell during the proofreading process
whether the tiny marks are "off." The printer runs test ballots
through the units to ensure that "the tiny marks are recording
correctly." She said the test is required by the division. She
deferred to Mr. Fraley for further explanation of the process.
8:29:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER recalled that Mr. [Fraley] had commented
that an RFP process would threaten security, and he said he
would like assurance that the security process would not be
adversely affected under CSSB 63(STA). He then queried which
company printed the state's election ballots before Print Works
& Super Software.
MS. FENUMIAI, to Representative Keller's first question, said
there is an accountability factor - involving the proper
numbering, sequencing, and delivery of ballots - which she does
not believe would be in jeopardy, because it could be spelled
out specifically in the RFP. Regarding the second question, she
relayed that prior to 2002, ballots were printed Outside. She
offered her understanding that the company used was Sequoia
Printing Services in California. The decision was made to move
to an in-state printer in 2002.
8:31:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES opined that there would always be
transitions and risks; therefore, she asked if the division has
a "solid set of criteria and safeguards" ready to apply to an
RFP. She asked if the division would consider a test ballot as
part of the RFP process.
8:32:51 AM
MS. FENUMIAI answered that she thinks [having] ballot printing
equipment and prior ballot printing experience is important.
She named that which would be set out in an RFP: testing and
proofing requirements, explanation of the numbering and
"stubbing" systems, and the accountability for packaging and
delivery. She opined that the testing of ballots prior to
delivery is one of the most important things done to ensure
properly working ballots that will work on election day.
8:33:51 AM
MS. FENUMIAI, in response to Representative Kreiss-Tomkins,
stated that the division is "going to implement the law to the
will of the legislature." She said the division worked with the
bill sponsor in terms of changing from a low-price-only system,
which the division agrees is probably not in the best interest
of the state. She concluded, "We can live with the bill the way
that it is written." In response to follow-up questions, she
said "the exemption" has been in place since 1986, and other
states have a variety of ways to address ballot printing.
8:35:25 AM
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH proffered that about a decade ago, Alaska
began counting ballots electronically, following which the state
transitioned in to the AccuVote system, which required the state
purchase new equipment, which made it more critical to have a
printer that could work within specifications. She recollected
that when the AccuVote system was first put in place, testing
and certification was required to be allowed to use the
machines. She described allowing other [printers] to compete as
a transition period for the state. She reiterated that Mr.
Farley's company has done a great job, but said printers across
the state would like the opportunity to compete for the job.
8:36:45 AM
CHAIR LYNN [closed public testimony].
8:36:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSSB 63(STA) out of
committee, with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB 63(STA) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 CSSB63(STA).pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| 02 CSSB 63(STA) Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| 03 CSSB 63(STA) Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| 04 CSSB 63(STA) Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| 05 SB 63(STA) Fiscal Note.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| 06 SB63 ADVANCE PRINTING.PDF |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| 07 SB63 AT PUBLISHING.PDF |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| 08 SB63 SERVICE BUSI PRINT.PDF |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| 09 SB63 TECHNI PRINT.PDF |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| 10 SB63 Letter of Support State Chamber.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 63 |
| 01 HB 139.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 139 |
| 02 HB139 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 139 |
| 03 HB139 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 139 |
| 04 HB139 Anchorage Research.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 139 |
| 05 HB139 National Research.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 139 |
| 06 HB139 Letter of Support Longworth.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 139 |
| 07 HB139-DOC-OC-04-04-13.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 139 |
| 08 Letters of Support HB139.PDF |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 139 |
| 09 Additional Letters of Suppot HB139.PDF |
HSTA 4/9/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 139 |