05/09/2007 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB162 | |
| SB171 | |
| HB92 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 162 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 171 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 9, 2007
9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lesil McGuire, Chair
Senator Gary Stevens, Vice Chair
Senator Hollis French
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Con Bunde
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 162
"An Act establishing that a general election may be conducted by
mail."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 171
"An Act relating to the withdrawal of a candidate from a
judicial retention election and the removal of such a
candidate's name from the general election ballot; and providing
for an effective date."
MOVED SB 171 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 92
"An Act removing the victims' advocate and the staff of the
office of victims' rights from the jurisdiction of the office of
the Ombudsman in the legislative branch."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Proposing an amendment to the section of the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to marriage.
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 162
SHORT TITLE: VOTING BY MAIL
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) ELTON
04/27/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/27/07 (S) STA, JUD, FIN
05/09/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
BILL: SB 171
SHORT TITLE: JUDICIAL RETENTION CANDIDACY WITHDRAWAL
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
05/03/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/03/07 (S) STA
05/09/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
BILL: HB 92
SHORT TITLE: JURISDICTION OF OMBUDSMAN: VICTIMS RTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SAMUELS, STOLTZE
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, FIN
03/20/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/20/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/24/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/24/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/24/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/26/07 (H) STA RPT 5DP 1DNP
03/26/07 (H) DP: JOHNSON, JOHANSEN, GRUENBERG,
COGHILL, LYNN
03/26/07 (H) DNP: DOLL
04/03/07 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/03/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/03/07 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/04/07 (H) FIN RPT 6DP 4NR
04/04/07 (H) DP: GARA, FOSTER, HAWKER, THOMAS,
STOLTZE, MEYER
04/04/07 (H) NR: CRAWFORD, NELSON, KELLY, CHENAULT
04/13/07 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/13/07 (H) VERSION: HB 92
04/16/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/16/07 (S) STA
05/03/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
05/03/07 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/09/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
WITNESS REGISTER
JOANNE SCHMIDT, Staff
to Senator Kim Elton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 162 on behalf of Senator Elton,
sponsor.
JASON HOOLEY, Special Assistant
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 162 and supported SB 171.
MITCHELL GAY, representing himself
Delta Junction, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 162.
BEN MULLIGAN, Staff
to Representative Stoltze
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 92 on behalf of Representative
Stoltze, co-sponsor.
LINDA LORD-JENKINS, Ombudsman
Office of the Ombudsman
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes HB 92.
KATE BERKHARDT, Assistant Ombudsman
Office of the Ombudsman
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes HB 92.
KATHY HANSEN, Victims Advocate Attorney
Office of Victims Rights
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 92.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR LESIL MCGUIRE called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:05:38 AM. Senators McGuire,
Bunde, Green, French, and Stevens were present at the call to
order.
SB 162 - VOTING BY MAIL
9:05:59 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced consideration of SB 162.
SENATOR GREEN moved to adopt committee substitute (CS) to SB
162, labeled 25-LS0667\M, as a working draft. Hearing no
objections, Version M was before the committee.
JOANNE SCHMIDT, Staff, to Senator Kim Elton, introduced the bill
to the committee. The bill gives the Division of Elections and
voters another option for casting votes by establishing that a
general election may be conducted by mail. She said there are a
variety of benefits to vote by mail which may include giving
parents with small children, seniors, or the disabled the
ability to participate in an election without having to leave
their homes. Oregon has reported an increase from 53 percent to
89 percent voter turnout in its vote by mail general elections.
Voter turnout in Alaska is about 23 percent, which is the
standard national average. By mail voting is estimated to cost
one-third to one-half less than polling place elections, an
average of $4.30 per vote by polling, and $1.23 by mail.
9:07:56 AM
SENATOR STEVENS said he has concerns with fraud with the vote by
mail system.
9:08:45 AM
MS. SCHMIDT replied that security measures could be implemented.
Oregon has been very successful preventing fraud by using
security envelopes and matching signatures which minimize
tampering. Vote by mail came about after the computer-based
election systems used in Florida proved to be terribly
fraudulent. This bill would not prevent voters from casting
ballots at polls.
SENATOR BUNDE asked for clarification of Oregon's increased
voter turnout numbers, and if polling places in Alaska remained
the same how vote by mail would save money.
9:11:10 AM
MS. SCHMIDT answered that at the beginning Oregon's voter
turnout was 23 percent just like the national average. Over a
five year period of vote by mail the number went up to 59
percent and finally last year to 89 percent, which is
unprecedented in the nation. This bill would allow the Division
of Elections to make the decision to hold an election by mail.
If they choose to do so, it would be up to them whether or not
to remove some of the polling places and federal regulations
provide that a polling place cannot be arbitrarily removed,
particularly in rural communities.
SENATOR BUNDE said there are rural communities with very high
voter turnout. He asked if the Division of Elections asked for
this legislation.
MS. SCHMIDT answered no but they don't oppose it either. The
heart of the legislation is a desire to get people involved in
the democratic process.
SENATOR BUNDE said voter participation in his district is over
60 percent.
9:12:53 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked what the difference is between a person
asking for an absentee ballot, which they can do now, and voting
by mail.
MS. SCHMIDT answered that every registered voter with a valid
address would be mailed a ballot, rather than just by request.
9:13:51 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said he is more of a proponent of this idea than
he thought. Experience shows that vote by mail gets more people
involved in the democratic process. He is not aware of any
instance of voter fraud from vote by mail that has produced an
adverse election result. He believes this is a way to get more
people voting and he enthusiastically supports the bill.
SENATOR BUNDE said he supports more people involved in the
voting process, but doesn't think this bill achieves that goal.
CHAIR MCGUIRE said she also has concerns about fraud and the
idea of block voting. Block voting can occur when someone is
mailed a ballot, doesn't know the issues or the candidates, and
asks their neighbors for opinions. This concerns her, because
when a vote is cast it should mean something. The act of asking
for a ballot says something. Also, if a voter is being pressured
by a family member to vote a certain way, a polling place may
provide relief from that pressure.
9:18:02 AM
SENATOR STEVENS said he thought it would be relatively easy to
vote another person's ballot and wondered if that was of concern
to the Division of Elections.
JASON HOOLEY, Special Assistant, Office of the Lieutenant
Governor, Juneau, said the integrity of the voting process and
preventing fraud are the greatest concerns.
SENATOR BUNDE asked why the Division of Elections didn't propose
this type of process previously.
MR. HOOLEY answered that to his knowledge the division and the
bill sponsor have not talked a great deal about the legislation.
He believes the division would like more time to collaborate
with the sponsor to further understand the intentions of the
bill. Voter participation and engagement and increasing turnout
are shared goals.
9:21:10 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE said she would like to see an analysis of where
voters have found difficulty requesting an absentee ballot. She
believes that the ability to vote at home makes the difference
for some between voting or not. She wondered if there were other
options considered that would increase voter access by mail.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked for clarification of the methods used in
Oregon to prevent voter fraud.
MS. SCHMIDT answered that in Oregon the ballot is first placed
in a secrecy envelope then placed inside another envelope. The
outside envelope is signed by the voter, which is then matched
to the signature on the voter's registration form.
CHAIR MCGUIRE said the bill will be held over so that the
sponsor and the Division of Elections can discuss the
legislation. She said Alaska's overall voter turnout number is
dismal, and she is especially concerned about the lack of young
people voting.
9:24:03 AM
SENATOR STEVENS said many people don't vote because they don't
feel prepared. Not voting is also a right. He would like to see
more voter turnout by informed voters.
CHAIR MCGUIRE said she would like to hear information on the
repeated argument that increasing voter turnout results in more
Democrats voting.
MS. SCHMIDT said quite a bit of research was done in Oregon and
they found that Republicans and Democrats favored voting by mail
equally. This was also true for males and females. Additionally,
when a voter has the opportunity to spend more time thinking
about whom they're voting for, if they have their ballot for a
couple weeks and can read the voter pamphlet they may likely be
more informed.
9:26:37 AM
MITCHELL GAY, Delta Junction, said he is forming a group called
Alaska Liberty and Freedom Movement and his greatest concern
with the bill is the possibility of voter fraud. Another problem
he sees with vote by mail has to do with Alaska's large military
and temporary worker population. Many of these people register
to vote to establish residency and don't take the time to go to
the polls for an election, but a vote by mail system would
change that. Even though they are registered voters they are not
permanent Alaska residents so their votes would not reflect what
permanent residents feel. Vote by mail would create issues and
conflicts particularly in this area. His group is creating a
petition addressing mail-in voting in his region. He believes
most people in his area would be against vote by mail in any
form except for absentee voting.
9:29:22 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked for clarification of the changes his group
is proposing in its petition.
MR. GAY answered there is almost equal numbers of temporary and
permanent residents in his area and a mail-in vote on borough
issues would not truly represent the residents there.
CHAIR MCGUIRE set SB 162 aside for further discussion.
SB 171 - JUDICIAL RETENTION CANDIDACY WITHDRAWAL
9:30:27 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced consideration of SB 171.
JASON HOOLEY, Special Assistant, Office of the Lieutenant
Governor, Juneau, said this legislation allows judicial
candidates to withdraw their name from general election ballots
if the candidate informs the Division of Elections 48 days prior
to the election. This opportunity is currently available to
political and nominating petition candidates but not judicial
candidates. In 2006, the division was contacted by a judicial
candidate who was considering withdrawing his name, but no
explicit statutes existed for the situation. The division was
advised by Department of Law that the same standards for
political and nominating petition candidates' withdrawal could
apply.
CHAIR MCGUIRE closed public testimony on SB 171.
SENATOR GREEN moved to report SB 171, from committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying zero fiscal note.
Hearing no objections, the motion carried.
HB 92 - JURISDICTION OF OMBUDSMAN: VICTIMS RTS
9:32:57 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced consideration of HB 92.
BEN MULLIGAN, Staff, to Representative Stoltze, bill co-sponsor,
introduced the bill to the committee. The bill would remove the
Office of Victims Rights (OVR) from the Ombudsman's
jurisdiction. When the OVR was created it was meant to act as a
sister agency to the Ombudsman. The reason for this bill is to
remove a potential conflict between the two offices. For
example, the Ombudsman could be representing an incarcerated
individual and ask the OVR for information about that
individual's victim.
9:34:37 AM
LINDA LORD-JENKINS, Ombudsman, Anchorage, testified that she is
opposed to the bill. She recognizes the importance of the work
done by the OVR and referrals are routinely made to them if it
appears they are better suited to handle a complainant's issues.
This legislation is a result of a complainant's dissatisfaction
with OVR action.
MS. LORD-JENKINS stated that OVR has taken the position that
their office is a special Ombudsman for crime victims. This
position is contrary to every public statement of mission
previously made by OVR. Arguments that Ombudsman oversight would
add an unnecessary layer of investigation or reverse an OVR
decision reflects a misunderstanding of her office's function.
Investigation of OVR actions and whether they comply with their
own statutes and regulations is what is considered. OVR
functions do not require exemption from Ombudsman jurisdiction.
MS. LORD-JENKINS also said Ombudsman oversight does not present
a huge burden of labor for OVR. In the years since OVR was
created, The Ombudsman has received only two complaints against
the agency. Additionally an agency cannot be forced to take an
action. If an investigation "reveals arbitrary and capricious
exercises of discretion based on improper or irrelevant grounds"
then the Ombudsman is authorized to recommend alternate courses
of action.
MS. LORD-JENKINS' concern is if the Ombudsman doesn't have
jurisdiction to investigate complaints against OVR who does. OVR
has asserted that complainants can protest to the Alaska Bar
Association. However, the bar investigates ethical complaints
not allegations about the completeness of an investigation.
Ombudsman review of the statutes indicates OVR's assertion that
the legislature has authority to investigate complaints against
OVR is not entirely correct. Alaska statute 24.65.110(d)
requires that no confidential information be released to any
person. Before the legislature determines that OVR should be
removed from Ombudsman jurisdiction, a legal opinion should be
requested.
MS. LORD-JENKINS said the question has been raised that the
Ombudsman has a conflict of interest when investigating OVR
complaints because the Ombudsman accepts complaints from inmates
against the Department of Corrections. The number of complaints
filed by inmates is large but the Ombudsman does not advocate
for inmates. The Ombudsman's role is to determine if a state
agency action is fair and reasonable. Additionally, mechanisms
are in place to prevent a conflict between an OVR represented
victim and a person accused of the crime. Ms. Lord-Jenkins
strongly encourages rejecting the bill.
9:44:49 AM
SENATOR BUNDE asked if this bill originates from a single case.
MS. LORD-JENKINS answered yes.
SENATOR FRENCH commented that AS 24.55.100 authorizes the
Ombudsman to investigate the administrative acts of agencies.
Investigation of the governor, lieutenant governor, a member of
the legislature, and justices of the Supreme Court are excluded.
He asked if this bill would add the Office of Victims Rights to
that list of excluded offices.
MS. LORD-JENKINS answered yes.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if individuals with complaints against
defense or prosecuting attorneys had the right to be heard by
the Ombudsman.
MS. LORD-JENKINS answered yes, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction
over the Department of Law.
9:46:48 AM
SENATOR FRENCH referred to the sponsor statement that says, "The
OVR is staffed by attorneys with specialized knowledge; the
Ombudsman is not. This raises the question of 'institutional
competency' when the Ombudsman lacks that special legal
knowledge necessary to investigate." He noted that the Ombudsman
is already overseeing legal decisions and asked how many years
this has been the case.
MS. LORD-JENKINS answered since the office was formed in 1975.
SENATOR FRENCH asked who would handle a complaint against OVR
actions if this bill passed.
MS. LORD-JENKINS answered she did not know.
9:49:46 AM
KATE BERKHARDT, Assistant Ombudsman, Juneau, said if this bill
passed OVR would be immune from all oversight. An individual
could complain about OVR to their legislator but statutes
ensuring confidentiality would prevent OVR from providing
information to the legislator investigating the complaint.
KATHY HANSEN, Victims Advocate Attorney, Office of Victims
Rights, Anchorage, said Ms. Lord-Jenkins is mistaken about the
statutory role and obligations of the OVR. Alaska statute 24.65
assigned advocacy and ombudsman duties to the Office of Victims
Rights. The Court of Appeals held that the OVR is the special
Ombudsman for crime victims in Alaska. If HB 92 does not pass an
Ombudsman will have the authority to investigate an Ombudsman.
OVR's position is that would be an unnecessary layer of
oversight and waste of resources. If there is a question about
OVR's statutory authority the place to address it is in AS
24.65.
MS. HANSEN said she is concerned that if HB 92 does not pass
victims might go to the Ombudsman or the OVR for help and they
might obtain different findings. Ombudsman findings might not be
based on a complete understanding of the criminal justice
system. She said legislative intent in AS 24.65 was to give the
OVR director final discretionary decision on cases that come
before them. Even superior court judges cannot review the
discretionary decisions of the OVR. All the court can do is hear
complaints that OVR is not following its own statutory
requirements.
MS. HANSEN said provisions in AS 24.65.200 exempt OVR from
subpoena or discovery of privileged information. Even the
Ombudsman is prohibited from access to privileged information
held by the OVR. The simple fix is to pass HB 92. If the
legislature decides it wants the Ombudsman to have oversight
over OVR, AS 24.55 will need to be substantially restructured.
9:58:27 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE said her concern is for an individual to retain
access to the complaint process. The senator feels if this bill
passes, an individual's rights may get quashed.
MS. HANSON responded that protecting those rights is an
important concern. ORV already has greater protections in place
for crime victims than the Ombudsman. Because the OVR is staffed
by bar certified attorneys they operate under Alaska Bar
Association ethical standards. If a client is dissatisfied with
the way a case is investigated they can go to the bar
association or to their legislator for assistance.
10:00:58 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced HB 92 would be set aside for further
discussion.
CHAIR MCGUIRE adjourned the Senate State Affairs meeting at
10:01:36 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|