Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
05/06/2021 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB108 | |
| SB109 | |
| SB82 | |
| SB1 | |
| SB4 | |
| SB115 | |
| SB83 | |
| HB3 | |
| SJR12 | |
| SB91 | |
| SB117 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 82 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 115 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 117 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 82-ELECTIONS; ELECTION INVESTIGATIONS
4:18:13 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 82
"An Act relating to elections and election investigations."
[CSSB 82(JUD), work order 32-GS1645\I, was the working document
although references are to the work draft version B that the
Judiciary Committee amended then passed from committee.]
4:18:52 PM
CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division, Department
of Law, Juneau, Alaska, on behalf of the administration,
presented a PowerPoint to introduce SB 82. She stated that the
purpose of SB 82 is to authorize the attorney general to conduct
civil investigations into Title 15 election law violations and
bring civil enforcement actions if a violation is found. Under
current statute, if the Division of Elections notices suspicious
behavior related to an election, the only option is for the
division to refer the matter for criminal investigation.
Ms. MILLS advised that SB 82 would add a civil investigation
tool similar to what the Department of Law does for consumer
protection investigations, but on an expedited basis. She
recounted the advantages of civil investigations. Action can be
taken more quickly, the evidentiary standard of proof is not as
high, and the Department of Law can more quickly get information
to the division it may need to make determinations during the
election. When needed, criminal and civil investigations could
run concurrently.
4:21:31 PM
MS. MILLS skipped ahead to slide 7 to discuss the complaint
referral process. She said an investigation can start with a
complaint from a member of the public, when the division notices
something out of the ordinary in the election process, or the
attorney general can initiate an investigation. Under SB 82, the
division would review a complaint that is filed and in
consultation with the Department of Law determine whether it
warrants investigation. If not, the complaint would be
dismissed. If the complaint warrants further review, it would be
forwarded to the attorney general who has discretion to conduct
an investigation and prioritize cases.
4:22:54 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Labor
and State Affairs Section, Department of Law, Anchorage, Alaska,
continued the presentation with a review of the steps of an
investigation from less formal to more formal. Informal
discovery includes voluntary interviews with victims, witnesses,
and the target of the investigation. More formal techniques
include subpoenas for testimony or documents from agencies. He
noted that the bill sets out standard deadlines with the option
to move faster for an impending election. At the end of the
investigation, the attorney general has the option of providing
a notice of findings to the division, going to court to seek
enforcement, or referral for criminal investigation.
4:24:10 PM
MR. FLYNN presented the sectional analysis for SB 82, including
the changes made in the previous committee.
SB 82, "An Act relating to elections and election
investigations" adds one new section to AS 15.56:
Subsection (a) would allow anyone can file a written
complaint alleging a violation of state election laws
or regulations to the Division of Elections. The
complaint must be filed within 30 days after an
election or 30 days after the alleged violation
occurred, whichever is later.
Subsection (b) directs the Division of Elections to
refer alleged violations of campaign finance laws
under AS 15.13 to the Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC). The division has the discretion to refer all
other complaints to the attorney general. If the
complaint is incomplete, frivolous, or does not allege
a violation, the division can request additional
information or it could dismiss the complaint.
Subsection (c), as amended, allows the attorney
general to investigate an alleged violation by issuing
subpoenas and interrogatories and by obtaining records
from agencies.
Subsection (d), as amended, explains that the attorney
general must serve the subpoenas and may initiate
contempt proceedings as prescribed by other laws.
Subsection (e), as amended, allows the attorney
general to obtain a court order requiring a response
through a subpoena or interrogatory in a shorter
amount of time than is provided in subsection (c).
Subsection (f), as amended, allows the recipient of a
subpoena or interrogatory under subsection (c) to file
an opposing lawsuit, which the court must expedite.
The court may choose to hear the attorney general's
argument ex parte.
Subsection (g), as amended, directs the attorney
general to provide the division with the result of the
investigation and a notice of findings once the
investigation is complete. In the event a complaint
against a state agency or employee has merit, the
division will make reasonable effort to respond.
4:26:23 PM
Subsection (h), as amended, provides that the notice
of findings and the record that supports the findings
are public records subject to the Public Records Act.
But intelligence information the attorney general has
gathered or provided to law enforcement is not subject
to disclosure.
Subsection (i) allows the attorney general to sue for
injunctive relief after the investigation provided the
alleged violation is not a violation of campaign
finance laws.
Subsection (j), as amended, allows the attorney
general to seek a fine of no more than $250,000 per
violation along with reasonable fees and costs,
including the cost of the investigation.
4:27:00 PM
MR. FLYNN noted that subsection (k) was added by amendment.
Subsection (k) would require the attorney general to
file an action against a candidate or elected official
within two years of the filing of the complaint.
Subsections (l) and (m) allow the division and the
attorney general to adopt regulations to implement
this section.
Subsection (n) clarifies that the person filing the
complaint may always go to court.
Subsection (o) defines frivolous, state agency and
state employee.
4:28:13 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he had a number of questions, but he was
willing to wait for a written response if the answers were
lengthy. He raised the following questions:
• Is there an appeal process for dismissed complaints?
• What does information regarding intelligence information
include and why would that not be part of the public record
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
MS. MILLS answered that while there is no specific
administrative appeal process if the division dismisses a
complaint, this does not preclude the complainant from going to
court or the attorney general initiating an independent
investigation.
MS. MILLS, addressing the second question regarding intelligence
information, explained that the terms come from the Consumer
Protection Act, which makes the record of the investigation and
intelligence information confidential. She noted that the
Judiciary Committee determined that the public would benefit
from having some of the records be public, so they bifurcated
those into a record of investigation and intelligence
information. The record of investigation includes anything
needed to support the notice of findings and everything else,
such as tips, is considered intelligence information.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked why a tip would not be disclosable
information.
MS. MILLS answered that a tip might lead to an additional
investigation and if disclosed, could hinder a future
investigation
CHAIR SHOWER advised that he read the list in statute of what
would be exempted.
4:33:33 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if it was wise to have the attorney
general in charge of the process since that is an appointed
rather than elected position.
MS. MILLS pointed out that the Department of Law already works
with sensitive matters that do not always align with the
position of elected officials and they have to find a balance.
In addition, the bill does not preclude going to court so the
information would be made public.
4:35:25 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed concern that every person would not
hold to such a high bar.
CHAIR SHOWER commented on the importance of getting legislative
intent on the record and the notion of an elected or appointed
attorney general or an elected inspector general.
4:36:16 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on SB 82.
4:36:40 PM
MORGAN LIM, representing Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocate
(PPAA), Juneau, Alaska, stated that PPAA opposes both SB 82 and
SB 83. He reported that in the first quarter of 2021, more than
361 voter suppression measures have been introduced in 47
states. He posited that they are part of a nationwide trend as
many elected officials try to make it more difficult to cast a
ballot. He said SB 83 imposes burdensome voter identification
requirements on absentee voters and limits in-person voting in
communities with populations of less than 750. SB 82 perpetuates
the unsubstantiated narrative that election offenses are
widespread. Both bills claim to be combating election fraud, but
in reality are bills in search of a problem. Both bills will
likely disenfranchise voters, he said.
MR. LIM stated that PPAA supports policies that make it
convenient for eligible voters to register and cast a ballot and
opposes burdensome requirements for identification for absentee
voting and refusing to allow ballot curing. He pointed out that
the promise of equal access at the ballot box has not been
achieved when Black, indigenous, and people of color communities
are more likely to face barriers to voting. Nationwide there are
inadequate polling places, increasingly limited voting hours,
disenfranchised formerly incarcerated persons, and systematic
efforts to suppress votes.
He concluded saying that Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates
urges the committee not to advance either SB 82 or SB 83.
4:39:35 PM
CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on SB 82 and held the bill
in committee. He advised that written testimony could be
submitted to [email protected].