Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
03/09/2026 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 | |
| SB64 | |
| Subcommittee Closeout Reports | |
| Department of Military and Veterans Affairs | |
| Department of Labor and Workforce Development | |
| Department of Natural Resources | |
| Department of Education and Early Development | |
| Judiciary | |
| Department of Public Safety | |
| Department of Fish and Game | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 263 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 265 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | 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."
1:38:00 PM
Co-Chair Schrage MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for CSSB 64(FIN) am, Work Draft 34-LS0153\R
(Dunmire, 3/6/26).
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for explanation purposes.
1:38:28 PM
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER,
explained that he would walk the committee through the
changes made in the committee substitute (CS). He stated
that the easiest way for members to follow the changes
would be to have two documents in front of them: the
redline version showing changes from version U to version
R, and the clean version R of the bill (copies on file).
He would primarily reference the redline document and
identify the corresponding page and line numbers in the
bill.
Mr. Anderson began with the first change on page 2 of the
redline document, specifically lines 16 and 17. He
explained that the same change appeared in the bill on page
2, lines 16 and 17. He noted that the language "except for
when provided in the statute reference" had been added and
that the term "personally identifiable" had been replaced
with "confidential." He stated that the change addressed
what information could be provided by the Department of
Revenue (DOR).
Co-Chair Foster asked Mr. Anderson to briefly explain the
reason for the change on lines 16 and 17.
Mr. Anderson responded that he would defer to Mr. David
Dunsmore for the explanation.
DAVID DUNSMORE, STAFF, SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, explained
that the change clarified that individuals registering to
vote through the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) application
would still have their names included on the publicly
available voter list. He noted that there had been concern
that the phrase "personally identifiable" might create
ambiguity and could potentially include a voter's name. The
language was revised at the request of the Division of
Elections (DOE) to ensure that standard voter information
would remain publicly available while confidential
information would remain protected.
Mr. Anderson moved to the next change on page 5 of the
redline document, which corresponded to page 5, line 15 of
the bill. He stated that on line 16 of the redline, the
phrase "to the extent possible" had been added. The
language applied to the process of reviewing voter
registration records and updating the master voter
registry. He explained that the change clarified that DOE
should work with other agencies when reviewing voter
registration records to the extent possible. The agencies
listed included the United States Postal Service (USPS),
the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) program,
and other agencies.
1:43:14 PM
Co-Chair Josephson asked what practical effect the phrase
"to the extent possible" would have. He suggested that it
might allow DOE to respond to complaints by stating that it
had used available systems only as time permitted.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the intent of the language was
to add clarity. He relayed that DOE had expressed concern
that some of the data sources listed in the bill might not
be available in every state or jurisdiction. For example,
certain property or sales tax records and jury duty records
might not exist or might not be accessible in all areas.
The phrase ensured that the division would not be required
by law to consult data sources that were unavailable.
Co-Chair Josephson asked whether the inclusion of the
language also reflected the fact that election
administration operated on strict timelines and that the
division needed flexibility in order to meet election
deadlines.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the timeline could be a
consideration as well. He explained that Section 8
addressed the records that would be consulted during the
voter roll cleanup process. He relayed that AS 15.07.130(a)
related to who would receive voter notices during the
cleanup process. He noted that the cleanup process occurred
annually in January, and the subsection simply added a list
of data sources that could be consulted during the review.
Co-Chair Josephson noted that the subsection [AS
15.07.130(a)] appeared to be new. He asked whether the
state had ever previously linked voter eligibility
screening to a federal database used to verify citizenship.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that he believed the answer was no.
He clarified that the subsection only identified data
sources that could be consulted during the review process.
The criteria that would trigger a voter roll cleanup notice
was located later in the bill, specifically in Section 4.
If a voter did not meet the criteria, the individual would
not receive a notice related to voter roll cleanup.
Mr. Dunsmore noted that Co-Chair Josephson's question
appeared to reference SAVE. He explained that a negative
query result from the SAVE database alone would not result
in a voter being removed from the voter rolls. He stated
that if a query produced information suggesting that a
voter might be deceased, DOE could investigate further. In
the case of a death, the division might attempt to locate a
death certificate or other documentation before removing
the individual from the voter rolls. He emphasized that the
query result itself would not directly affect a voter's
registration status.
1:47:35 PM
Co-Chair Josephson stated that he had recently read an
article in the Alaska Beacon describing situations in
states such as Missouri and Texas where voters had been
removed from the rolls following database queries without
an initial corrective process. He asked whether Alaska's
approach would differ and whether the first administrative
action in Alaska would avoid directly removing voters.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that Alaska's process would differ.
He explained that the bill would not change the existing
grounds for removing a voter from the registration rolls or
initiating the voter roll cleanup process. The procedures
would continue to be governed by state law and the National
Voter Registration Act of 1993. He stated that voters could
only be removed for specific reasons already recognized
under law, such as a voter's death, a voter registering or
voting in another state, or a felony conviction involving
moral turpitude. Other indicators, such as evidence
suggesting residency in another state, would trigger a
notification process rather than immediate removal. The
voter would receive a notification and have the opportunity
to confirm that they wished to remain registered in Alaska.
He reiterated that the bill would not authorize immediate
removal of voters in the manner described in the reports
from other states.
Representative Bynum remarked that the phrase "to the
extent possible" appeared straightforward and he understood
it had been added because DOE had requested clarity. He
asked whether any legal analysis had been conducted to
evaluate the potential legal effect of the phrase beyond
its inclusion in statute.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that no separate legal evaluation
had been requested beyond the drafting process. When the
bill was prepared, the policy rationale for the language
had been communicated to Legislative Legal Services (LLS),
and the language had been drafted accordingly.
Representative Bynum asked whether the committee could
request LLS to conduct a brief review and provide an
opinion regarding the language at a later time.
Mr. Dunsmore agreed to submit the request through LLS.
1:50:55 PM
Mr. Anderson directed the committee to the next change on
page 6, line 1 of the redline document and page 5, line 30
of the bill. The language changed the reporting deadline
from February 1 to April 1 for the report related to the
recent audit.
Representative Bynum asked for a brief explanation of the
reason for the change in the reporting deadline.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the report would require DOE to
hire an outside subject matter expert to audit the
division's voter roll cleanup processes and provide a
report to the legislature. He relayed that the division
expressed concern that the original February reporting
deadline was too soon after the January voter roll cleanup
process. He reported that the timeline was adjusted to
April to allow adequate time to complete the audit and to
ensure that the legislature would have more than a month
remaining in the legislative session to consider any
recommendations requiring legislative action.
Mr. Anderson directed the committee to additional changes
on page 6 of the redline document. He explained that
beginning on page 6, line 17, the bill included a
conforming change that created multiple subsections instead
of a single section. The change corresponded with language
appearing later on page 6, lines 27 through 30 of the
redline, which could be found in the bill on page 6, lines
25 through 28. He reported that the new language allowed
DOE to delay the publication of a data breach if law
enforcement agencies thought that public disclosure could
impede an ongoing investigation.
Mr. Anderson directed the committee to page 8 of the
redline document. He reported that the bill included
several technical conforming changes beginning on lines 21
through 27. He stated that the definition of acceptable
proof of identification for voter registration cards was
modified on line 21 of the redline, which corresponded to
page 8, lines 20 through 24 of the bill. Several items
previously accepted as proof of identity would be deleted,
including utility bills, bank statements, paychecks, and
government checks, thereby narrowing the range of materials
that could be used as identification for voter
registration.
1:54:38 PM
Co-Chair Josephson noted that hunting and fishing licenses
were also removed from the list of acceptable
identification. He asked Mr. Dunsmore whether the licenses
could still be considered valid forms of identification if
they were issued after presenting other valid
identification.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that, to the extent a hunting or
fishing license functioned as a state identification card,
it could still fall within the category of government-
issued identification. He explained that the concern that
prompted the change was that hunting and fishing licenses
were sometimes issued through private businesses rather
than directly by government agencies. He stated that the
purpose of the change was to limit acceptable documentation
issued directly by government agencies.
Mr. Anderson added that a similar change regarding
acceptable documentation materials appeared later in the
bill in Section 18 on page 10. The reasoning for the change
was similar to why the definition of acceptable material
had changed.
Mr. Anderson directed the committee to page 10 of the
redline document, beginning on page 10, lines 3 and 4 of
the redline, which corresponded to page 9, line 31 of the
bill. The change included deletions and revisions relating
to the testing official or witness. He explained that the
language was added for clarification to ensure that a
witness signature remained on the envelope. The revision
addressed a request for additional clarification and served
as a conforming change within the bill.
Mr. Anderson directed the committee to page 10, lines 19
through 25 of the redline document, which corresponded to
Section 18 of the bill. The language addressed the types of
identification documents that would be accepted for voter
registration. He stated that the section further defined
and narrowed the list of acceptable documents used to
verify voter identity.
Mr. Anderson moved to page 12 of the redline document,
lines 16 and 17, which corresponded to page 12, lines 11
and 12 of the bill. He explained that the language added
clarification stating that a voter must provide either the
voter's signature or the signature of an attesting official
or witness. He stated that the purpose of the change was to
clarify that ballots could still be cured if a witness
signature was missing. He directed attention further down
page 12 to lines 26 through 27 of the redline document,
which corresponded to page 12, lines 21 through 22 of the
bill. He explained that the language clarified that notices
sent during the ballot cure process must be mailed to the
voter's mailing address rather than any other address that
might appear on the voter's record.
Co-Chair Josephson asked whether the change related to a
previously reported situation in Fairbanks. He relayed that
an individual did not receive a ballot because the address
associated with a PFD application differed from the
individual's current location. He asked if the language was
intended to ensure that only the designated mailing address
would be used regardless of other addresses on file.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the change was not related to
the situation in Fairbanks. He explained that the language
applied specifically to the ballot curing process conducted
by DOE. When the division reviewed a ballot and identified
a curable deficiency, the division was required to send a
notice to the voter within 24 hours. He stated that the
change clarified that the notice must be sent to the
voter's mailing address if it differed from the voter's
residence address. For example, a voter might maintain a
post office box in addition to a residence address.
2:00:01 PM
Mr. Anderson directed the committee to page 13 of the
redline document, beginning at line 17 and continuing
through page 14, lines 1 and 2. He explained that an entire
section related to procedures for counting ballots during a
recount was deleted.
Co-Chair Foster asked Mr. Dunsmore to explain the reason
for removing the section. He noted that the section had
been previously added and was now being removed.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the provision had originated in
a governor's bill. He explained that DOE had sought to
clarify an existing statutory requirement regarding whether
ballots received after a deadline should be counted during
a recount. The provision was being removed from the CS
after a legislator raised concerns that repealing the
existing statute could create ambiguity about which ballots
should be counted in a recount. He explained that retaining
the existing statutory language would preserve clear
guidance on recount procedures.
Co-Chair Josephson asked for confirmation that the bill had
not made any changes to existing ballot timelines,
including the 15-day window for absentee ballots submitted
from outside Alaska.
Mr. Dunsmore confirmed that the current deadlines required
ballots mailed domestically to arrive within 10 days after
the election, and ballots mailed from outside the U.S. to
arrive within 15 days. He explained that the bill included
a provision to establish a uniform 10-day deadline for all
ballots, which would allow election results to be certified
five days sooner. Historically, very few valid ballots
arrived during the 10 to 15 day window because ballots
still needed to be postmarked by election day.
2:02:40 PM
Representative Hannan asked whether ballots arriving within
the 10 to 15 day window would still be considered valid or
whether the bill would shorten the return deadline for
international absentee ballots.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the bill would shorten the
deadline and establish a uniform 10-day return period for
all absentee ballots, including those from outside the
country.
Mr. Anderson directed the committee to page 17 of the
redline document, beginning at lines 3 through 5, which
corresponded to page 16, lines 15 and 16 of the bill. He
explained that the change revised the reporting deadline to
the legislature from November 1, 2026, to the first day of
the regular legislative session. He stated that the revised
timing aligned with standard reporting practices and
allowed additional time for DOE to compile accurate data
following the election.
Mr. Anderson continued to page 17, lines 18 through 31 of
the redline document, corresponding to page 16, lines 25
through 31 of the bill. He explained that the language
addressed applicability provisions and reflected conforming
changes resulting from the deletion of a prior section of
the bill. The revisions ensured that all remaining sections
continued to apply appropriately. He concluded his overview
of the changes.
2:05:46 PM
Representative Jimmie expressed concern that the SAVE
system was operated with involvement from private tech
companies such as Palantir. She asked whether any
confirmation had been obtained regarding whether the
private companies could access Alaskan's voter data.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that he had been researching the
privacy concerns regarding the database. He explained that
SAVE was included in the bill because access to a database
that could be queried would be useful to the state. He
noted that there had been concerns that using the database
might require the state to share sensitive voter
information. He offered reassurance that the sponsor wanted
to work with the committee to ensure that personal
information was not being compromised.
Representative Jimmie understood that SAVE kept all records
for every query for 10 years. She asked what information
was retained by the federal government when Alaska queried
SAVE and what were they allowed to do with the data.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that querying the database would
require certain identifying information, including a
voter's name, date of birth, and Social Security number. In
many cases, DOE might not have Social Security numbers for
a large portion of voters, which could limit the ability to
query the system. He stated that it remained unclear what
specific data the federal government retained from the
queries and how the information was used. He noted that the
system was operated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, which was responsible for processing citizenship
and naturalization matters, and that the agency had taken
on an expanded role through management of the database. He
reiterated that the scope of retained query data was not
fully understood.
2:08:46 PM
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Work Draft 34-LS0153\R
was ADOPTED.
CSSB 64(FIN) am was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster announced that the amendment deadline for
the bill would be Friday, March 13, at 5:00 p.m.
2:10:07 PM
AT EASE
2:11:15 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson began chairing the meeting. He explained
that the committee would continue hearing finance
subcommittee closeouts.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 64 CS WorkDraft HFIN R 030626 (2).pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2026 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 CS Workdraft Compare v. R 030626 (1).pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2026 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Calista Corporation Letter of Support for 030625.pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2026 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Support Letter AFN.2.26.26.pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2026 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Public Testimony Rec'd by 030625_R.pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2026 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Sectional Analysis Version R.pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2026 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64HCSCS(FIN) NEW FN-OOG-DOE-03-06-26.pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2026 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 HCS Summary of Changes U to R 030626.pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2026 1:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 64 Public Testimony rec'd by 030926 2026.pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2026 1:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| HB 263 HFIN Subcommittee Reports 030926pm.pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2026 1:30:00 PM |
HB 263 |