Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
03/16/2026 09:00 AM 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 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 64 | 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."
9:08:48 AM
Co-Chair Schrage MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for CSSB 64(FIN) am, Work Draft 34-LS0153\B
(Dunmire, 3/14/26).
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
9:09:21 AM
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER,
introduced himself.
DAVID DUNSMORE, STAFF, SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI,
introduced himself.
Mr. Anderson thanked the committee for accommodating the
timeline of the bill. He explained that he would be
referring mostly to the redline document (copy on file) and
suggested that members also refer to the document to follow
along. He would also reference the proposed committee
substitute (CS), version B, the summary of changes (copy on
file), and the redline version that had been distributed
earlier that morning. He added that Mr. Dunsmore would be
available to address technical questions regarding the
changes.
Mr. Anderson directed members to page 3 of the redline
document. He explained that there were two changes on the
page, which could be found in the bill on page 3, line 23.
He noted that the word "or" had been added. He explained
that the addition of "or" was sometimes a technical or
conforming change when clauses were involved, but in this
instance, it had been added to address a concern raised by
Representative Allard and to clarify that one condition or
another would apply rather than requiring all conditions.
He further explained that subsection H, which required
maintaining a physical address outside the state for the
full duration of 28 months, had been deleted because it
related to criteria for triggering voter roll cleanup.
9:12:00 AM
Representative Bynum asked whether the addition of the word
"or" at the end of section 3 meant that items A through G
would each function independently, such that any one of
those items would operate as an "or" condition.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the "or" operation had already
existed in the bill. He explained that the change corrected
a drafting issue that Representative Allard had identified.
He stated that the prior language had been unclear as to
whether multiple criteria had to be met. The addition of
"or" made it clear that meeting any one of the listed
criteria would trigger notice.
Co-Chair Foster noted that Ms. Carol Beecher, the director
of the Division of Elections (DOE), was available online
for questions.
Mr. Anderson moved to page 5 of the redline version. He
explained that several changes appeared at the top of the
page, which could be found in the bill on page 5, lines 3
through 5. He stated that the phrase "registering to vote"
had been deleted and replaced with "applying for a
Permanent Fund Dividend," unless the Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD) application constituted the voter's initial
registration. He indicated that the change clarified the
intent of the provision.
Mr. Anderson directed members to another change on page 5,
line 14 of the bill. He explained that the reference to the
Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE)
program had been removed and replaced with the phrase "one
or more systems for verifying citizenship." He stated that
the change resulted from discussions regarding database
queries used during the review process.
Mr. Dunsmore clarified that the change related to databases
consulted during the review process under regulations
adopted by DOE.
Representative Stapp asked what specific systems were being
referenced if not SAVE. He stated that he was not aware of
other systems that verified citizenship.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the change was intended to
provide flexibility for DOE as additional systems might be
developed. He explained that his understanding was that the
expansion of the SAVE database to include broader data
beyond noncitizen records was currently subject to
litigation. He stated that a court decision could
potentially limit the use of the database for citizenship
verification purposes. The revised language allowed the
division to identify alternative tools if necessary. He
added that subsequent changes would include additional
parameters governing the use of similar databases.
9:16:07 AM
Representative Hannan noted that in the proposed CS, the
new changes on page 5 were not underlined. She asked
whether those changes, including the language "one or more
systems for verifying citizenship" on line 15 and the new
subsection extending onto page 6, should be underlined
prior to final printing.
Mr. Anderson responded that the subsection had been added
as a new section. He explained that line 6 the bill
reflected that it was amended by adding new subsections,
and underlining was not required.
Mr. Anderson directed members to additional changes in the
redline beginning on page 5, line 26, through page 6, line
8. He explained that the new subsection established the
safeguards referenced by Mr. Dunsmore. He stated that the
provision addressed how data submitted to outside entities
needed to be handled, including requirements for encryption
and restrictions on data retention.
Mr. Dunsmore elaborated that the provision required any
data shared with an external entity to be encrypted,
whether the entity was a government agency or non-
governmental organization. He explained that the receiving
entity was required to use the data solely for assisting
the division with reviewing voter rolls and it could not
retain the data after use. He stated that the language was
developed in consultation with DOE, which indicated that
large-scale data queries would require uploading bulk voter
data rather than conducting individual manual searches. He
emphasized that the provision established safeguards to
protect confidential voter information.
Representative Jimmie asked if, under current law, a voter
whose ballot was rejected might not be aware of the
rejection and therefore have their vote excluded without an
opportunity to correct it.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that he understood the question to
refer to ballot curing provisions. He explained that under
current law, when a ballot was rejected, DOE was required
to send a notice to the voter. However, the voter did not
currently have an opportunity to correct the issue or have
the ballot counted after it was rejected.
9:20:01 AM
Mr. Anderson moved to page 7 of the redline. He explained
that a change found on page 7, lines 6 through 8 of the
bill added language requiring that there be notification
within 30 days after a data breach if the breach occurred
or was discovered 14 or more days before an election, or
after certification of election results. He stated that the
language clarified the timing requirements for data breach
notifications.
Mr. Anderson continued to an additional change on page 7,
lines 16 through 17 of the bill. He explained that the
phrase "early and absentee voting" had been revised to
"absentee voting and, where available, early voting." He
stated that the change related to the responsibilities of
the rural liaison in conducting outreach in communities.
Mr. Anderson directed attention to the top of page 13 of
the redline. He explained that the change could be found in
the bill on page 12, line 29. He noted that it was a minor
technical adjustment, but important because it referenced a
section of law. He stated that the word "how" had been
removed and replaced with "that," followed by language
indicating that the issue may be cured under the
subsection. He explained that the language added clarity.
Mr. Anderson moved to page 16 of the redline. He explained
that the change could be found in the bill on page 16,
lines 12 through 13. He stated that language had been
deleted relating to the applicant's affirmation of
residency, including names and contact information of
individuals listed to verify residency, as well as the
applicant's voter registration status if known. He deferred
to Mr. Dunsmore for further explanation of the deletion.
Mr. Dunsmore explained that the deletions were made
following discussions with DOE. He stated that the original
intent had been to provide additional data to assist in
verifying voter roll accuracy. However, DOE Director Carol
Beecher indicated that the data would not be useful for
verification purposes. He noted that one of the deleted
paragraphs would have required the PFD Division to transmit
voter registration status information, which was data that
DOE already had in its possession.
Mr. Anderson continued down page 16 of the bill to line 20.
He explained that a prior version of the bill repealed AS
15.07.064(g), but that repeal had been removed. He stated
that the statute related to updating a voter's mailing
address based on PFD applications and would remain in
effect.
Mr. Anderson continued to page 17 of the redline, which
included several conforming changes. He explained that new
uncodified law had been added, which could be found on page
17, lines 9 through 10 of the bill. The addition created
one new provision addressing regulations and one addressing
procurement. He explained that the provisions appeared on
page 17, lines 11 through 14, and lines 17 through 21 of
the bill. He stated that the language directed the
development of regulations necessary to implement the bill
and required compliance with procurement code provisions
for implementation.
9:25:11 AM
Mr. Anderson continued to page 18 of the redline. He
explained that the corresponding provision could be found
on page 17, line 26 of the bill. He stated that an
effective date had been added for sections 32 and 33, which
addressed the regulation and procurement provisions. He
explained that the effective date was immediate, allowing
the division to begin work upon enactment of the bill. He
stated that the updated effective date would enable the
department to begin developing regulations and conducting
procurement activities necessary for implementation.
Representative Galvin asked if the overall cost might be
reduced considering the number of changes made to the bill
and the delayed implementation timeline. She inquired
whether the fiscal notes remained accurate under the
revised version of the bill.
Mr. Anderson suggested that DOE respond to the question.
9:26:41 AM
CAROL BEECHER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS (via
teleconference), responded that DOE did not anticipate that
the cost would be reduced and she understood that the
fiscal notes remained accurate.
Representative Hannan noted that most provisions would take
effect on August 31, 2026, while certain sections would
take effect in January of 2027. She asked whether the
ballot curing process would be in effect for the 2026
general election.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the effective date in the bill
would occur after the primary election but before the
general election.
Representative Hannan asked for confirmation that the
curing process would apply to the 2026 general election but
not the primary election.
Mr. Dunsmore responded in the affirmative. He added that
the only provision not in effect at the time of the general
election would be the clarification of the definition of
"true source" related to ballot questions and measures,
which would take effect on January 1, 2027, to avoid
altering disclosure requirements during an active election
cycle.
Representative Bynum asked whether an updated sectional
analysis of the bill would be provided.
Mr. Anderson responded that an updated sectional analysis
for version B had not yet been prepared. He requested that
the sponsor's office [Senator Bill Wielechowski] provide an
updated version.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that he would prepare and provide an
updated sectional analysis by the end of the day.
Representative Bynum noted that there had been prior
discussions with DOE about which provisions could be
implemented immediately and which required delayed
implementation. He asked whether the sponsor's office had
considered the same question. He thought that several
provisions in the bill should be implemented immediately
upon enactment. He asked why implementation would be
delayed, especially for provisions related to voter IDs. He
did not see any problems with implementing the provisions
prior to the next election. He understood that none of the
voter roll elements would take effect until the August 31,
2026, effective date. He asked if his understanding was
correct.
9:30:49 AM
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the changes to the effective
dates resulted from a meeting between Senator Wielechowski
and DOE to address concerns about timing. He stated that
the bill included transitional provisions to allow the
division to begin procurement and regulatory work
immediately. The remaining provisions were structured to
take effect in time for the general election. He suggested
that Ms. Beecher could provide further detail on potential
timing constraints. He added that DOE had indicated in its
fiscal note that it would need to update informational
posters at polling places as part of implementation, which
would require administrative action and incur a modest
cost. The provisions related to voter roll review would not
take effect immediately. He noted that the voter roll
cleanup process occurred every January and the delayed
effective date would not interfere with the division's
ability to implement the new requirements. He suggested
that Ms. Beecher could provide additional information.
Representative Bynum noted that the statutory language
allowed the DOE director discretion to conduct voter roll
review at a time of the director's choosing, but not later
than January. He understood that if the provision were
effective immediately, the division could choose whether to
act sooner or wait until January. However, he understood
that the provision would not be implementable until after
August of 2026 if the effective date were to be delayed. He
asked whether his interpretation was correct.
Mr. Dunsmore confirmed that Representative Bynum's
understanding was correct. He added that while the division
could potentially choose to initiate voter roll cleanup
earlier, there were constraints under the National Voter
Registration Act, including restrictions on conducting
voter roll maintenance within 45 days of an election. He
explained that the constraints created timing limitations
as the primary election approached.
Representative Bynum asked Co-Chair Foster whether Ms.
Beecher would be available in person for a future committee
meeting about the bill.
Co-Chair Foster responded that the current plan was to set
an amendment deadline for the coming Thursday and to take
up amendments on Friday. He stated that if the committee
desired to have Ms. Beecher present before that time,
arrangements could be made.
9:34:36 AM
Representative Jimmie asked whether it would be preferable
to pass the bill now rather than waiting. She noted that
without an effective date, nothing would change. She asked
Mr. Dunsmore if he agreed.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that he agreed. He thought that the
bill included several provisions aimed at improving
election integrity protections. For example, the bill would
allow ballot curing, enabling voters whose ballots were
otherwise valid but rejected to have an opportunity to
correct issues and have their votes counted. He added that
the bill would also expand criteria for voter roll cleanup
beginning in the next January cycle. He noted that similar
concerns regarding discrepancies between the number of
registered voters and the voting-age population had been
raised at a national level. He explained that without the
expanded criteria created in the bill, DOE would not have
authority to expand voter roll maintenance beyond its
current practices.
Representative Galvin stated that she wanted to better
understand implementation timing given the complexity of
the bill and the number of sections it contained. She noted
that the primary election was approximately five months
away and asked whether any portions of the bill could be
implemented prior to the primary election if different
effective dates were established.
Ms. Beecher responded that the division believed it could
implement most provisions in the bill. She explained that
the most challenging elements would be the ballot curing
system and the ballot tracking system, which would require
implementation by the general election rather than the
primary.
Representative Galvin stated that her understanding was
that at least two components could not be implemented until
the general election, while other provisions could be
implemented earlier. She asked if it would be feasible to
establish additional effective dates to allow earlier
implementation of certain provisions. For example, a
potential approach could be implementing multiple phased
effective dates.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the sponsor's office could work
with Representative Galvin's office if she wished to pursue
an amendment. He noted that the bill represented a
carefully negotiated bipartisan agreement and he could not
commit to supporting specific amendments without further
consultation with legislators involved in the negotiations.
Representative Galvin appreciated Ms. Beecher's help and
hoped discussions would continue.
9:39:42 AM
Representative Bynum asked if DOE intended to provide a
breakdown of each section of the bill with corresponding
implementation timelines. He relayed that he had requested
the breakdown at a prior meeting and asked if it would
still be provided.
Ms. Beecher asked Representative Bynum if the question was
whether the division would provide a list identifying which
provisions could be implemented immediately and which would
require additional time.
Representative Bynum responded in the affirmative. He
stated that his understanding based on discussion in a
prior committee meeting was that the division would provide
the committee with a section-by-section timeline indicating
when each provision could be implemented. He asked whether
the information would still be provided.
Ms. Beecher responded that the division planned to provide
the requested information. She stated that the division
would likely provide the section-by-section implementation
timeline later that afternoon.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Ms. Beecher. He suggested that he
could schedule an additional committee meeting before the
committee heard amendments to the bill to review the
updated information. He noted that members might have
additional questions and he wanted to ensure that questions
were answered.
9:41:53 AM
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Representative Bynum OBJECTED. He thought that many
questions remained and that further information was needed
before proceeding. He stated that he did not believe it was
prudent to move forward with the CS.
9:42:28 AM
AT EASE
9:43:54 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Bynum WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Work Draft 34-LS0153\B
was ADOPTED.
CSSB 64(FIN) am was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reiterated that he intended to schedule
another meeting to discuss additional questions and
information. He announced that the amendment deadline was
Thursday, March 19, at 12:00 p.m. He reviewed the agenda
for the afternoon's meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 64 CS HFIN WorkDraft v.B 031426.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2026 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 Summary of Changes R to B 031526.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2026 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 HCS Comparison of 34-LS0153_R and 34-LS0153_B 031626.pdf |
HFIN 3/16/2026 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |