Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
05/14/2025 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| SB96 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB174 | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 64(FIN) am
"An Act relating to elections; relating to voters;
relating to voting; relating to voter registration;
relating to election administration; relating to the
Alaska Public Offices Commission; relating to campaign
contributions; relating to the crimes of unlawful
interference with voting in the first degree, unlawful
interference with an election, and election official
misconduct; relating to synthetic media in
electioneering communications; relating to campaign
signs; relating to voter registration on permanent
fund dividend applications; relating to the
Redistricting Board; relating to the duties of the
commissioner of revenue; and providing for an
effective date."
3:32:45 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked for an introduction of the bill.
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, CHAIR, SENATE RULES COMMITTEE,
introduced the legislation. He stated that the bill had
been in the works for many years, and included provisions
from ten different bills that had been introduced by many
different legislators and the governor's office.
3:34:29 PM
AT EASE
3:35:56 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster noted that the bill was large and
substantial. His intent was to hear the introduction at
present, and may come back later if possible.
DAVID DUNSMORE, STAFF, SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, provided
a PowerPoint presentation titled "SB 64 Election Reform"
(copy on file). He began with slide 2, "SB 64 is a
Comprehensive Election Reform Package":
Cleans up Alaska's voter rolls
Removes barriers to voting
Faster and more transparent results reporting
Ballot tracking barcodes for absentee ballots
Bans the use of undisclosed deepfakes to influence
elections
Additional provisions to modernize Alaska's election
laws
Mr. Dunsmore addressed slide 3, "SB 64 Includes Provisions
from Bills Proposed by Republican, Democratic, and
Independent Legislators in Recent Legislatures":
32nd Legislature
• SB 39 (Sen. Shower)
• HB 66 (Rep. Tuck)
• HB 157 (Rep. Rasmussen)
• HB 267 (Rep. Schrage)
• HB 286/ SB 167 (Governor)
33rd Legislature
• SB 1 (Sen. Shower)
• SB 5 (Sen. Shower)
• SB 7 (Sen. Shower)
• SB 19 (Sen. Kawasaki)
• HB 37 (Rep. Schrage)
• HB 129 (House Judiciary)
• SB 138 (Senate State Affairs)
• HB 358 (Rep. Cronk)
Mr. Dunsmore pointed to slide 4, "SB 64 includes several
provisions from HB 63/ SB 70 introduced by the governor
this year":
Repeals the requirement that poll worker pay be set by
regulation
Repealing the requirement that absentee ballots that
arrive after the deadline be counted during recounts
Allowing cover sheets for absentee ballot packets to
be submitted electronically
Adding becoming ineligible for a PFD to the list of
criteria that triggers a voter roll clean-up notice
Beginning absentee ballot review 12 days before the
election, governor originally propose 10 days but the
Senate extended it to 12 days
Stopping special needs ballots from being rejected due
to mistakes by poll workers or representatives
Requiring postpaid return envelopes for absentee
ballots
3:39:06 PM
Mr. Dunsmore turned to slide 5, "Voter registration list
clean-up":
In 2022 it was estimated that Alaska's voter
registration list was equal to 106 percent of the
adult population. SB 64 streamlines the process of
removing voters who have left the state.
Adds several indications of residency in another state
to the list of factors that trigger notice and
clarifies the definition of residency for voting.
Voters who do not verify their registration are moved
to inactive status. Inactive voters will not appear on
precinct registers although their votes will be
counted, and their registration reactivated if they
vote or request an absentee ballot.
3:39:53 PM
Mr. Dunsmore turned to slide 6, "Current Voter List
Maintenance Process":
• Every January DOE mails nonforwardable notices to
voters who have not voted, updated their registration,
or signed a petition within two general elections or
who have had mail from DOE returned to sender.
• If the voter does not respond confirming their
address, DOE mails a second forwardable notice
informing the voter that if they do not confirm their
address within 45 days their registration will be
inactivated.
• Inactive voters registrations are canceled
completely if the voter does not vote or contact DOE
within two general elections.
Mr. Dunsmore looked at slide 7, "Expedited process under SB
64":
• DOE will mail a single forwardable notice requesting
voters confirm their address within 45 days
• SB 64 expands the number of voters who will be sent
notices to include voters who there is evidence have
claimed residency in another state
• This process remains in compliance with the
requirements of the National Voter Registration Act
3:41:17 PM
Mr. Dunsmore moved to slide 8, "SB 64 requires notices be
sent when DOE learns a voter?.":
• Registers to vote in another state
• Receives a driver's license in another state
• Registers a vehicle in another state
• Receives public assistance from another state
• Serves on a jury in another state
• Obtains a resident hunting or fishing license from
in another state
• Pays resident tuition for a public university in
another state
• Receives a residential property tax exemption in
another state
• Receives a benefit only available to residents of
another stat
3:41:33 PM
Mr. Dunsmore turned to slide 9, "Annual Review of Master
Voter List":
Requires DOE to hire a nationally recognized subject
matter expert to review the voter registration list
Expert will prepare an annual report to the
Legislature making recommendations for improving
Alaska's list management practices
Mr. Dunsmore addressed slide 10, "Clarifies the definition
of residency and process to challenge a voter's residency":
This bill clarifies that a voter's residence is a
place where they have an articulable and reasonable
plan to return to whenever they are absent.
It also establishes that the presumption a voter's
registered address is accurate can be rebutted by
evidence that they reside at another location.
3:42:42 PM
Mr. Dunsmore moved to slide 11, "Voter ID reforms":
• Adds tribal IDs to the list of acceptable IDs for
voting and voter registration
• Removes hunting and fishing licenses from the list
of acceptable identification
• Requires that utility bills, government checks,
paychecks, or other government documents must be
issued within the last 60 days to be used as
identification
Representative Tomaszewski asked if a state or other
picture ID was required to vote.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that Alaska did not require a picture
ID. Alaska's voter registration cards were not picture ID.
Representative Tomaszewski asked if the bill included a
provision stating that a person needed a photo ID when
voting.
Mr. Dunsmore replied in the negative.
Representative Bynum asked whether the presentation would
include current acceptable processes, and what was actually
being removed from law.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that there was not a slide with those
specific ID requirements. The voter ID provisions showed up
several places in statute.
Representative Bynum would coordinate with staff on the
alignment for proper preparation for the debate portion of
the bill process.
3:45:37 PM
Mr. Dunsmore moved to slide 12, "Codifies a procedure for
voters to cancel their registration":
Currently the Division of Elections will cancel a
voter's registration if they request, but it is not
required by statute.
Voters would be allowed to cancel their registration
in person or electronically.
The process for cancelling a registration would be
posted at polling places.
Mr. Dunsmore addressed slide 13, "Updating election related
crimes":
• Adds opening or tampering with ballot envelopes or
packages, and hacking election equipment or software
to the crime of unlawful interference with an election
• Adds knowingly disclosing results before the polls
close or any confidential election information to the
crime of election official misconduct in the first
degree
• Both of these crimes are class C felonies
Mr. Dunsmore highlighted slide 14, "Codifies Data Sharing
Between PFD Division and DOE":
Data will be shared monthly for purposes of voter
registration, confirming residence of a voter,
identifying duplicate registrations, detecting voters
who moved, and detecting ineligible voters
Data will include addresses, whether the applicant
opted out of voter registration, and names of people
attesting to the applicant's residency
SB 64 also codifies PFD applicant's right to opt-out
of registering to vote or updating their registration
3:47:42 PM
Mr. Dunsmore turned to slide 15, "SB 64 removes barriers to
voting":
Repeals the witness signature requirement for absentee
by mail ballots
Stops special needs ballots from being rejected
because of mistakes by poll workers or representatives
Creates a ballot curing process
Requires secure ballot drop boxes be made available
Requires postage paid return postage for absentee by
mail envelopes
Mr. Dunsmore discussed slide 16, "Repeals the witness
signature requirement for by-mail ballots":
• In the 2022 special primary election, 2,724 ballots
were rejected because of a missing witness signature-
1.7 percent of all ballots cast.
• Witness signature rejections disproportionately
affected rural Alaska and military voters.
• In District 38, 10.9 percent of all ballots cast
were rejected for missing witness signatures in the
2022 special primary.
• In the 2024 general election, District 18, which is
mostly Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, had more by
mail ballots rejected than any other district.
• There is no indication of any misconduct with these
rejected ballots.
Representative Bynum // Senate minority members. He asked
if the bill was compiled by a taskforce //
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the provisions to repeal the
witness signature // there had been a bill by a previous //
He concluded slide 16 //
3:50:03 PM
Mr. Dunsmore moved to slide 17, "The witness signature
requirement provides no meaningful election integrity
protection":
• DOE has testified that they do not verify that
witness signatures meet the statutory requirement that
they be from a person at least 18.
• The Division accepts as valid any mark made in the
witness signature portion of the envelope.
• There is no practical way for DOE to verify the
identity and age of witnesses from other states and
countries.
• The absentee by-mail envelope does not even provide
space for the witness to print their name or provide
their date of birth.
Co-Chair Foster would recess the meeting. He would keep
public testimony open throughout the process.
3:52:08 PM
RECESSED
5:59:10 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony and would leave it
open throughout the process. He intended to hear the bill
the following day at both meetings. He wanted to get
through the bill introduction during the current meeting
and review fiscal notes. He realized there was some urgency
to see the bill move during the current year while making
sure to do the due diligence. He had been encouraged to set
an amendment deadline for the following evening, but it was
very soon. People seemed to be okay with setting an
amendment deadline of Saturday morning at 9:00 a.m.
Representative Allard wondered if the amendment deadline
could be pushed to Saturday at noon. She had not been
briefed on the bill.
Co-Chair Foster stated he would set an amendment deadline
of noon on Saturday with the intent of hearing the
amendments and reporting the bill out later that day.
6:04:29 PM
AT EASE
6:04:40 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the public testimony call in
numbers.
6:05:36 PM
AT EASE
7:14:48 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster am deadline for Saturday at 12pm but
requested submission of the amendments as soon as possible.
7:17:40 PM
MELISSA PATACK, MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION, LOS ANGELES, CA
(via teleconference), testified to propose an amendment
section 64 of the bill starting on page 26. She referred
to the "deceptive synthetic media section" of the bill. She
remarked that the amendments aligned with laws adopted in
several other states. She stated that the first amendment
would add a timeframe to the provision, which was "within
ninety days of an election." She furthered that in the
paragraph that exempted certain services, that other
applications were also exempted as long as they were not
the creator of the synthetic deceptive media.
Representative Stapp remarked that the synthetic media
would ban "memes", and felt that he was struggling with the
intention of the section.
Ms. Patack responded that that parody and satire were
protected by the first amendment, but remarked that there
may be synthetic portrayal in the future.
Representative Bynum asked the testifier to follow up with
her suggestions via email.
7:22:52 PM
DAVID JOHNSON, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), did not
like the bill. He said he was knowledgeable about voting,
and remarked that dead people were voting. He stated that
the problem was not solved, and felt that the hand count
portion was excluded. He stressed that correct numbers
were important. He asked to look at a logic and accuracy
test, and felt that the machines could be breached. He felt
that there was no transparency, and stressed that non-
citizens should not be voting
7:29:28 PM
Representative Allard asked him to email her his remarks.
Mr. Johnson said the email would not work. He would email
Senator Shower.
Representative Stapp asked if he considered the bill an
election reform bill or a voter fraud bill.
Mr. Johnson responded that no one was held accountable for
voting.
7:31:32 PM
ALEX KOPLIN, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), felt
opposite as the previous testifier and supported elections,
and felt that the division was doing a good job. He
appreciated the collaboration and compromise of the
legislators.
Representative Stapp appreciated the comments on
incrementalism.
7:36:14 PM
Mr. Dunsmore continued the presentation on page 18:
Alaska Law Generally Allows Self-Certification of
Documents, and the Division of Elections Accepts Self-
Certification of Petition Booklets
Representative Allard asked about it disenfranchising
military voters.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that in the previous general election,
the district that had the highest number of rejected
absentee ballots was a district with mostly military
voters.
Representative Allard asked what was the proof or
statistics from the Division of Elections on that assertion
of disenfranchisement. She wondered whether it was because
of lack of witness signature on the ballot.
Mr. Dunsmore responded in the affirmative.
Representative Allard thought they should still do the
witness signature.
Representative Stapp asked what mechanism could be utilized
instead of the witness signature.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that it would be the same as the
current mechanism for special needs ballots and questioned
ballots, which was to verify the identifiers provided by
the voters. He furthered that the Senate Finance Committee
added the sharing of the names of those who had attested
for availability for investigation.
Representative Stapp wondered whether there was a link
between permanent fund dividend (PFD) fraud and voter
fraud. He asked for an elaboration on that mechanism.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that it was the data sharing on the
PFD application.
7:41:20 PM
Representative Allard asked about active duty military
members, and the assertion of the lack of witness
signature.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the Division of Elections only
provided the data at the district level.
Representative Allard asked why the largest city requested
that there were signatures on the ballot, and why the state
would counter that request.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that it did not require a witness
signature. He stated that the municipality used signature
verification software. He stated that the fiscal notes were
cost-prohibitive on that software.
Representative Allard surmised that the Municipality of
Anchorage did not support witness signatures on ballots.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that he did not know how recent a
change that took place.
Representative Allard disagreed. She queried what were the
security measures in place to ensure that someone was not
forging a signature.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that the voter was required to provide
an identifier that would be verified in the ballot process.
He stated that the process was already in place.
Representative Allard surmised that there was nothing added
as security for the absentee ballot.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that there had been no evidence of
the witness signature providing election integrity. He
shared that there was no verification of witness signature.
7:45:43 PM
Representative Allard asked what the proof was that there
was no proof of fraud.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the last point was that there
had not been any evidence of fraud being prevented but
there was evidence of voters ballots being thrown out for a
technical error on the witness signature.
Representative Allard asked why it would not be stricter
for the Division of Elections to implement verification of
the witness signature.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the law required that the
witness be over 18 years old. He stated that there was no
possibility on the envelope for the witness to provide
further verification measures.
Representative Allard stressed that other states did
enforce the witness verification. She stressed that voters
were disenfranchised, because those individuals were not
notified that their ballot was determined to be a
rejection.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that it was in the bill included
ballot curing, and the division did sent people a letter
when their letter was thrown out.
Representative Allard asked how they knew it was voter
fraud if they did not check the signature.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that ballots would not be rejected
for the lack of witness signature, but would be rejected
for an identifier.
Representative Allard thought it would allow people to
commit voter fraud due to the bill, because of the lack of
witness signature.
7:50:19 PM
Representative Bynum wondered if there were options for
voters to have their vote be counted if their ballot was
rejected by the Division of Elections.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that the division determined that to
be a prohibition against voting twice.
Representative Bynum asked about the signature verification
issue, and argued that the fiscal note issue was really a
matter of policy. He wondered whether there were
discussions about adding further witness signature
verification requirements in the law.
Mr. Dunsmore did not think that discussions came up in the
Senate.
Representative Bynum felt that the issue was more important
that the fiscal note. He wondered about the design of the
ballots.
7:55:46 PM
Mr. Dunsmore asked if he was talking about the ballot
envelope or the ballot itself.
Representative Bynum replied that he was concerned with the
ballot envelope.
Mr. Dunsmore replied there were no specifics in statute
about the envelope.
Representative Bynum felt that the instruction process
could be clearer for voters.
Mr. Dunsmore stated that there were no specifications about
the ballot envelope in statute.
7:57:44 PM
Co-Chair Josephson expressed concern about the rejected
ballots due to the lack of witness signature. He wondered
whether there were circumstances where there was a witness
signature, that was never verified, and the ballot was
accepted as a valid ballot. He wondered whether a ballot
was rejected due to a lack of witness signature, even
though the person was an actual person submitting a ballot.
Mr. Dunsmore agreed, and replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Josephson looked forward to correcting that issue.
Representative Jimmie wondered how someone be able to
obtain a required witness signature from an adult 18 or
older to validate their ballot.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the youth ambassador program
was available, but they would not meet the statutory
requirements for a witness signature.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that there was not an attempt to
enforce the witness signature verification, because a
witness may not be a registered voter.
8:01:39 PM
Representative Allard wondered if there was a way to
investigate voter fraud through the division.
8:02:02 PM
CAROL BEECHER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, OFFICE OF
THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (via teleconference), the Division
of Elections did not investigate, rather there were issues
referred to the Department of Law to make the decision
whether to investigate.
Representative Allard asked if there was input by the
division that the witness signature should be removed from
statute.
Ms. Beecher responded that the division did not make
policy, but rather commented on the outcome of the policy.
Representative Allard wondered whether the witness
signature was beneficial to the ballot submission. She
queried the cost of the witness signature.
Ms. Beecher responded that the cost of the witness
verification for Anchorage, which was estimated to be $1
million for each witness verification machines. She
restated that it was not the role of the division to make
policy statements.
Representative Allard asked if she personally thought that
the witness signature helped or did not help the Division
of Elections.
Ms. Beecher responded that the witness signature was in
statute and had been for many years. She stressed that
there had been no evidence of fraud.
Representative Allard asked if fraud had been committed
with the witness signature.
Ms. Beecher responded that they had turned over what was
something untoward on a witness signature, which resulted
in prosecution.
8:07:19 PM
Representative Allard asked if it was $1 million for each
machine.
Ms. Beecher responded that it was based on the cost of
machines that the municipality had, so the regions would
be the ones that had to have the machine.
Representative Allard remarked on the large cost difference
between $5 million and $12 million.
Representative Bynum requested the number of machines in
the Municipality of Anchorage.
Ms. Beecher responded that there was only one machine.
Representative Bynum felt that not having any connecting
information could be problematic. He wondered whether the
ballot curing would solve the problem of an incomplete
ballot.
Mr. Dunsmore responded in the affirmative. He felt that
there would still be a requirement of the voter to take a
proactive step.
Representative Bynum asked what the timeframe was for
ballots to be sent out.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the ballot could be mailed 45
days before the election.
8:11:50 PM
Representative Jimmie stated that in rural Alaska in 2022
there was 13.74 percent rejection rate. She stressed that
it was significantly higher than the state average. She
felt that it indicated disenfranchisement.
Mr. Dunsmore agreed.
Representative Allard remarked that the rural communities
could "count the tapes" and "send the tapes." She surmised
that there could be an adjustment date, and felt that the
deadline should be changed to the day of the election.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that votes cast in precincts in mostly
rural districts did a hand count on site. He remarked that
there were not subsequent counts, but there were several
villages that were not included in the counts.
Representative Allard asked if most ballots were impacted
due to lack of witness signatures.
Mr. Dunsmore replied in the affirmative.
Representative Allard asked why they could not get witness
signatures.
8:15:11 PM
Representative Jimmie stressed that the weather impacted
the transportation of the ballots.
Representative Allard surmised that most rural communities
voted by absentee ballot.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that there were some in person
precincts, but some villages did not have access to a
precinct. He also stressed the problem of staffing polling
places.
Representative Allard felt that the state was failing the
constituents. She asked how many people in rural voted by
absentee, due to not having reasonable access to a polling
place.
Mr. Dunsmore replied that he did not know the data.
Representative Allard asked if she could pose the question
to Ms. Beecher.
Ms. Beecher responded that she would follow up with the
specific, and shared that there were permanent absentee
voting sites.
Representative Allard asked if voters could call in and
vote on the phone.
Ms. Beecher responded that they could not vote over the
phone but could vote via fax.
Representative Allard wondered whether they voted on sample
ballots.
Ms. Beecher would follow up on that question.
8:20:28 PM
Representative Bynum commented that the election system was
overall very complicated for many different reasons.
Representative Jimmie commented that absentee voting was
important in rural areas.
Representative Allard was concerned that the maker of the
bill was using the military as an excuse, but felt that it
did not line up with her percentages.
Mr. Dunsmore would verify the information.
8:24:05 PM
Representative Hannan asserted that there were a variety of
ways for Alaskans to participate in voting. Ser husband had
never voted in person because he was always commercial
fishing and it was not possible.
Representative Johnson was nervous that they could do due
diligence they needed to do in the next few days on the
bill, and did not think there was enough time to work on
it.
Co-Chair Foster stated that he would recess the meeting
until 9 the next morning.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda for the
following morning.
SB 64 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
[Although he said adjourned, he intended to say recessed.
The meeting was treated as recessed. The meeting reconvened
the following morning at 9:13 a.m. See separate minutes
dated 5/15/25 for detail.]