Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/19/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB216 | |
| HB94 | |
| SB63 | |
| SB93 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 94 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 63 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | SB 93 | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 94
An Act relating to qualifications of voters,
requirements and procedures regarding independent
candidates for President and Vice-President of the
United States, voter registration and voter
registration records, voter registration through a
power of attorney, voter registration using scanned
documents, voter residence, precinct boundary and
polling place designation and modification, recognized
political parties, voters unaffiliated with a political
party, early voting, absentee voting, application for
absentee ballots through a power of attorney, or by
scanned documents, ballot design, ballot counting,
voting by mail, voting machines, vote tally systems,
initiative, referendum, recall, and definitions in the
Alaska Election Code; relating to incorporation
elections; and providing for an effective date.
LAURA GLASIER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, OFFICE OF
THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, stated that many of the changes
could be categorized as "housekeeping" efforts, modifying
current statutory language to more clearly define the
Division's policy and procedure:
· Changing work sites versus construction sites.
· Presumptive evidence of a voter's address as the
record, not the voter card;
· Defining non-partisan and undeclared voters;
· Protecting voter information of domestic violence
victims in accord with confidentiality laws improved
last year;
· Defining process for Independent candidates for
President/Vice President elections;
· Ensuring consistency in the definition of "overseas
voter";
· Makes clear age requirements for serving once
elected;
· Clearly outlines "recognized political party status"
and the qualification standards for parties;
· Changes to Title 29 to clearly define "qualified
voter", regarding who is registered to vote within
the proposed borough/municipality at least 30 days
prior to an election;
· Defines re-registration; and
· Repeals duplicative language regarding Regional
Supervisor's offices as Absentee Voting Stations.
Ms. Glasier continued that the legislation would allow a
voter, through power of attorney, to allow another to
register to vote or make changes to their registration or to
fill out an application by a mail ballot in the voter's
behalf. Additionally, the legislation would reduce the
witnessing requirement for an absentee by mail or by
electronic transmission from two to one witness.
Ms. Glasier continued, HB 94 would add, "scanning" as
another means to transmit voter registration or by mail
absentee ballot request to the Division. The Division
currently accepts the forms in person, by mail or by fax.
The proposed legislation would require the Division to
implement "ballot rotation" for the names of those
candidates running for governor, lieutenant governor, United
States senator, United States representative, and State
senator on the ballots printed for each house district.
Placement of names of candidates for State House races would
appear in random order as determined by the Director, as is
the current practice. Current law requires the Director to
determine a random order for all candidates placed on
ballots used in each house district.
INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS
Ms. Glasier noted that the legislation would improve ballot
security by adding that ballots would not be mailed to a
voter whose address has been identified as being
undeliverable. The election boards must report the number
of ballots destroyed to increase accountability of ballots.
It would also add standards for voting machines and vote
tally systems.
PETITIONS, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
Ms. Glasier pointed out that improvements to those sections
were suggested to make the process more "user friendly" for
Alaskans and to make the act of "petitioning the government"
more consistent. It would add "printed name" and
"numerical identifier" for a petition signer. It would
remove language requiring the circulator's name be
prominently displayed on the petition. While not enforced
by the Division since the Buckley decision in 2000,
statutory changes had not been made to date.
Ms. Glasier commented that it would remove language
concerning an additional 100 signatures when filing a recall
petition. Current law requires 10% of those who voted in
the preceding general election and it is unclear if the 100
signatures were to be part of the 10% total.
Ms. Glasier pointed out that in the House Judiciary
Committee, there were no witness and/or absentee voters on
absentee ballot envelope that false statement are punishable
by law. It would reduce the percentage of votes required by
the party candidates to remain as a recognized political
party. The deposit amounts for recounts would be raised:
· Per precinct from $300 dollars to $1,000 dollars
· Per house district from $750 dollars to $2,000 dollars
· Statewide from $10,000 dollars to $15,000 dollars
2:09:20 PM
Representative Holm pointed out that the amount of statewide
dollars changed from $10 to $15 thousand dollars. He asked
the cost of a statewide recount. Ms. Glasier replied that
the last statewide recount cost approximately $38 thousand
dollars. The initial proposal was for $50 thousand dollars.
It is anticipated that with the new touch screen voting
equipment, it is going to cost more to conduct a recount of
that nature. She admitted it is a "high bar" and that it
would be a Legislative policy decision.
2:10:45 PM
Representative Croft referenced candidate rotation and asked
if there was evidence that the order of candidates made an
election difference. Ms. Glasier replied that there have
been studies done regarding the placement of a candidate's
name on the ballot. Some studies have indicated it could
make between 2% and 3% difference. She pointed out that
Alaska uses the ballot rotation. A full ballot rotation
will cost more if House members are included.
Representative Croft questioned the proposed way of doing
business. Ms. Glasier explained that the rotation takes
place from presidential elections through the State Senate.
Representative Croft thought it was "odd" not to include
House members in the rotation. Ms. Glasier pointed out that
action happened this year in the House State Affairs
Committee.
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if the Division currently rotates
the names. Ms. Glasier explained that current law requires
that the director of the Division randomly draw names,
creating placement on the ballot.
2:13:34 PM
Co-Chair Meyer agreed with Representative Croft that was
"weird" and asked what the additional cost would be to
include House. Ms. Glasier advised that to do a complete
ballot rotation, it would cost between $70 and $80 thousand
dollars. She noted additional concerns when ordering the
ballots.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the Division of Elections had a
preference. Ms. Glasier responded that it would be a
legislative policy call; the Division believes that random
printing would be the candidate's preference.
2:14:34 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze commented on various factors occurring in
his own elections and did not think that ballot positioning
really mattered.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT work draft version #24-
GH1048\C, Kurtz, 4/18/05, as the version of the bill before
the Committee. Representative Croft OBJECTED to hear the
changes.
SUZANNE CUNNINGHAM, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER,
highlighted the changes made to committee substitute © from
the previous version of the bill (X):
· Section 18; Page 12, Lines 26-28
· Section 14; Page 10, Line 29-31 & Page 11, Line 1-12
· Section 34; Page 21 Lines 15-31 & Page 22, Lines 1-5
· Section 31; Page 20, Lines 24-29
· Section 55; Page 31
Representative Croft asked if "alternatives" remained in the
committee substitute.
2:19:07 PM
Ms. Cunningham replied they did.
2:19:16 PM
Representative Croft WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, the committee substitute was adopted.
2:19:37 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze pointed out Sections 40 and 48 in
referenced to the dollar limit for collecting signatures; he
asked if there were constitutional limits. He noted that he
did not like the idea of paying for gathering signatures.
Ms. Glasier advised that there had been a discussion about
zeroing that out in the House State Affairs Committee and it
was determined unconstitutional.
Vice-Chair Stoltze referenced Section 55 and asked if there
had been discussion regarding lowering the threshold to 1%.
Ms. Glasier noted that there had been a discussion, however,
the Division realized that it should be a legislative policy
call. There has been a recent court decision regarding Mr.
Metcalf's challenge regarding the 3% and if he should be
allowed on the ballot. She did not know the result.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if it were reduced to 1%, would the
Division still not comment. Ms. Glasier agreed.
2:22:41 PM
JIM SYKES, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ELECTIONS
ADVISORY, GREEN PARTY OF ALASKA, stated that HB 94 is
basically a good bill that addresses some long-standing
problems. He pointed out one concern, which is out of line
from requirements within the bill and those of other states,
regarding the recognition of political parties using a
registration test. (Sec. 55. AS 15.60.010(23)(D)).
Mr. Sykes pointed out that the current bill indicates 2% of
registered voters, which would be an extremely tough
requirement and out of balance for recognizing the
difficulty of meeting such a registration test. The goal of
the legislation needs to provide clarity, fairness, and
openness. Committee members have the responsibility to
protect the rights of all political parties and all of
voters, including the 51% not registered to any political
party. Mr. Sykes thought that a reasonable and legally
defensible requirement would be ½ of 1% of registrations.
The current proposal represents a 27% increase over 2002 law
and would not be in line with the Alaska Supreme Court,
which has repeatedly favored openness over increased
restrictiveness.
Mr. Sykes added that there are two minor parties in all the
United States that exceed a 2% voter registration. One is
the Alaska Independence Party and the 2% was not exceeded
until the election of Walter Hickel and John Coghill Sr. in
1990. Primary laws currently favor non-affiliated voters by
allowing them more choices than anyone registered to a
political party, which increases the reluctance of
independent voters to register to a particular political
party if they perceive they are limited to choosing only one
party's ballot. National trends have seen independent voter
registrations reach new heights. He stressed that the ½ of
1% would better protect the rights of all Alaskan voters and
would be more legally defensible and in-line with the
State's requirements for a "modicum of support".
Mr. Sykes noted that it was not right that Alaska have a
test 4x times greater than the average of other similarly
situated registration states. He added that the Supreme
Court of Alaska has ruled that Alaska's voters are entitled
to the least restrictive mechanisms possible consistent with
the State's need to achieve its legitimate goals. The
Supreme Court of Alaska has also ruled that the difficulty
of qualifying through one route cannot be justified by the
openness of the other. In effect, at a minimum, Alaska's
parties and voters are entitled to the least restrictive of
the most common mechanisms of qualifying for full ballot
access in both the primary and in the general elections.
Mr. Sykes offered to answer questions of the Committee.
2:29:04 PM
MYRL THOMPSON, SELF, SUSITNA VALLEY, commented that the
committee substitute was a "fairly good" bill. He
identified changes made during the legislative process.
Regarding the number proposed, as an independent, it would
be difficult to pay $10 thousand dollars and would place a
small party at a distinct disadvantage.
Mr. Thompson mentioned the dollar indicated for collecting
signatures and worried about out-of-state hires. Regarding
the percentage, Mr. Thompson recommended that 1% could be an
"okay" amount for the parties as it was fair and could
enhance the voting process.
2:33:26 PM
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1 for the Division
of Elections. (Copy on File). Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Ms. Glasier advised that the House Judiciary Committee had
added that section to the bill and it was then determined
that there were structural problems within the paragraphs.
The intent of the House Judiciary Committee was to require a
mandatory hand count of one precinct per House district that
could be counted for 5% of the votes cast in that election.
Amendment #1 clarifies the language and intent of the
process to be followed by the Division.
Co-Chair Chenault pointed out that Section © states that the
director "may" count the ballots from that precinct. He
suggested changing it to "shall". Ms. Glasier emphasized
that it needs to be "may". Co-Chair Chenault disagreed.
Ms. Glasier advised that "may" is in current law, noting
Page 10, Line 20, highlights current law.
Co-Chair Chenault pointed out that Line 23, indicates the
discrepancy of hand counts under A (3) and that the director
"shall" conduct a ballot hand count. Ms. Glasier replied
that there are instances where a mandatory handout is not
necessary. If there is a difference between a machine count
and a hand count, then "shall" would be used. She stressed,
it is important to determine the degree of the discrepancy.
2:38:08 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze inquired if there was enough flexibility
in the language to request a recount for a single precinct.
Ms. Glasier explained that was found in two different areas
of the law. In the law regarding recounts, citizens can
request only:
· A precinct,
· House district, or
· Statewide recount.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked about the "cherry pick" precincts.
Ms. Glasier replied that a person or group could go through
and have a particular precinct recounted under the Alaska
recount statute. The version before the Committee could
allow that. Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if the Division had
policy comments regarding the practice. Ms. Glasier replied
that it has been State law for years and to do precinct-by-
precinct would cost substantially more.
2:40:43 PM
Representative Holm asked if there was a request to audit
seven House districts, would the Division audit only those
seven or would they audit the entire State. Ms. Glasier
replied they would audit the seven districts.
Representative Holm asked how it would be handled if the
cost was $38 thousand dollars and there were a case with no
bearing on the House districts but instead on the entire
state. Ms. Glasier did not understand the question.
Representative Holm reiterated the query. Ms. Glasier
stated that in the House Judiciary Committee, there was
language added that requires a mandatory hand count by the
Division's State Review Board. After the election has been
certified and the group requested a recount, the Board would
determine how the recount was to be conducted.
2:43:29 PM
In response to concerns voiced by Vice Chair Stoltze, Ms.
Glasier explained that the ballots are pulled and
administratively, the Division is ready to "step up to the
plate". As a precinct choice, there is no proof that anyone
would choose that option.
Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTIONS, Amendment #1 was adopted.
2:46:44 PM
DR. JOE SONNEMAN, SELF, JUNEAU, voiced concern with various
changes that have occurred in Alaskan politics. HB 94 does
add some name rotation back in, which he thought was a good
move. The bill provides a provision to guarantee that any
new vote counting equipment or machine specifically requires
a paper trail or receipt, which is also good.
Dr. Sonneman addressed the financial aspects and fiscal
impact and concerns with the automatic hand count of one 5%
precinct per district. He noted that he had chaired the
2004 Recount Committee. Some members of that Committee were
concerned that in this computerized age, problems could
occur. The function of the hand count provides a cross
check. The State has only one programmer for all of the
ballots, which is of concern. Even though to date, there
have been no problems, now is a different age.
Dr. Sonneman addressed the deposit required for recounts.
He noted that the Alaskans for Fair Elections were required
to come up with $10 thousand dollars in five days, which was
difficult. There has been no abuse of the system at the
current financial level. Recounts have an audit function
and if the amount is raised to a higher level, vote-counting
audits would rarely occur. If it is necessary to raise the
amount, he requested that it not be raised beyond the $15
thousand dollars set by the previous Committee.
2:51:47 PM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired the amount spent on the last recall.
Ms. Glasier replied it was $38 thousand dollars. In
response to comments by Dr. Sonneman, Ms. Glasier pointed
out that there is no statutory provision indicating an
amount of time required to raise money to conduct a recount.
She pointed out that the Alaskans for Fair Elections
requested a recount because exit polling indicated a
different number than was measured. She reiterated that
there is no statutory limitation in State law.
2:53:54 PM
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2 as proposed by
Representative Paul Seaton. (Copy on File). Vice-Chair
Stoltze OBJECTED.
2:54:38 PM
LOUIE FLORA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, noted that
the State Affairs Committee rewrote the "political party"
section of the bill to accomplish a fair process that would
prevent cross party tampering with party status. A multiple
section technical amendment was offered in the House
Judiciary Committee, however, an amendment to the amendment
unintentionally changed the application of that section.
Amendment #2 would reinsert the original language, "at which
a governor was elected".
Vice-Chair Stoltze did not think that the amendment could
fit in the adopted committee substitute. Co-Chair Chenault
stated that it would fit into the House Judiciary version.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON pointed out that Amendment #2
fits into Section (E), House Judiciary version and Page 31,
Line 16, of the work draft before the Committee. The effect
of Amendment #2 is that the Division could not terminate a
party status until after the general election.
2:59:53 PM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired about discussion in the House State
Affairs Committee. Representative Seaton noted that it had
been carefully crafted to accomplish the intended goal and
that it would not go beyond the gubernatorial election.
Co-Chair Chenault asked if there had to be a party to
nominate. (Inaudible). Representative Seaton replied the
person could be nominated if there existed a party status.
If beyond the required percentage was received, the person
could maintain political status, determined after the
political election. The status would remain through the
next gubernatorial election. Co-Chair Chenault was
concerned with situations in which a person decided to run
in a party that did not want him to represent their ballot;
he asked what would happen and would the party loose their
status.
3:02:20 PM
Ms. Glasier acknowledged that parties have that influence
now by their party rules. There are letters in the
Division's file, which indicate that there are candidates
that are not supported by their party. The Division of
Elections cannot keep the person off the ballot.
Representative Seaton added that Amendment #2 would prevent
that from happening. Party status would not be withdrawn
through the next gubernatorial election. If a person files
as a candidate, they can file for the party they want and
that is what is placed on the ballot.
Co-Chair Chenault understood it could limit who ran under a
party banner. Representative Seaton did not know of any
mechanism in which the party could remove the person from
running.
3:05:48 PM
Ms. Glasier clarified that was true unless the person failed
to meet the rules of the party. It is not legal to "tip the
race". A party does have some influence over their
candidates. The proposed changes open up different levels
where candidates can successfully obtain the 2%.
3:07:17 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the Division of Elections supported
Amendment #2. Ms. Glasier replied it would be a policy call
by the Legislature.
Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTIONS, Amendment #2 was adopted.
3:08:03 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #3 to Section
55, reducing the three references of "two percent (2%)" to
"one percent (1%)". Representative Hawker OBJECTED.
Vice-Chair Stoltze thought that the change would be in line
with what the courts have ruled on the status of emerging
parties. He thought 1% was still in line and that he
respects the role of the other party in the process. It
would be a policy call.
Representative Hawker argued that there are merit benefits
to a political party and that the change should raise the
amount rather than lower it.
Co-Chair Meyer questioned if it had been changed from "3%"
to "2%" upon recommendation from the Division. Ms. Glasier
replied that change had been made in a Committee hearing;
the House Judiciary Committee then changed it to "2%" in the
other sections. She highlighted a state-by-state percentage
requirement of registered voters. Those numbers vary
between 1% and 5%.
Representative Croft spoke to the change recommended by Vice
Chair Stoltze, pointing out the distinction within Section
(D). He recommended that only Section (D) be reduced to 1%,
on Page 32, Line 14.
3:14:50 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze restated his motion; Page 31, Line 22;
Page 31, Line 30; and Page 32, Line 9, deleting "two percent
(2%)" and inserting "one percent (1%)".
3:15:54 PM
In response to Co-Chair Meyer, Vice-Chair Stoltze pointed
out that those areas are only "election" areas.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Stoltze, Croft, Moses
OPPOSED: Hawker, Kelly, Meyer, Chenault
Representative Foster, Representative Holm, Representative
Joule and Representative Weyhrauch were not present for the
vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-4).
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #4, Page 32,
Line 14, change the "two percent (2%)" to "one percent
(1%)". Representative Hawker OBJECTED.
3:17:43 PM
Representative Croft addressed the right to be on a ballot,
regardless of party affiliation.
3:18:01 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze questioned the concept. Representative
Croft preferred that the State establish a standard that is
defensible and "stop playing games with that section".
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Stoltze, Croft
OPPOSED: Kelly, Moses, Hawker, Meyer, Chenault
Representative Foster, Representative Holm, Representative
Joule and Representative Weyhrauch were not present for the
vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-5).
3:19:37 PM
Representative Hawker addressed the compensation for
circulators of petitions. He mentioned that there was no
indication that the circulators be Alaska residents and
questioned if there would be legal concerns if that language
was added. Ms. Glasier understood that they had to be
residents.
Representative Croft pointed out language on Page 21,
Section 32, which indicates the qualifications for a
circulator. Representative Hawker was assured.
3:21:01 PM
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #5, which
would delete Sections 24 & 25, beginning on Page 15. He
stated that deletion would address concerns with someone too
young at the time of the election, being elected. Ms.
Glasier pointed out that was actually addressed in Sections
23, 24, & 25; a change was made in the House State Affairs
Committee.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if the age requirements were being
removed. Representative Croft explained those requirements
are constitutional.
Representative Kelly inquired how the deletion could improve
current policy. Representative Croft advised that the
constitution clarifies the age requirement. The question
becomes what happens with someone running, who did not make
the age requirement by the first day of session.
3:25:59 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze inquired the intended time allotment.
Representative Croft thought that the State citizens should
choose, not the Legislature.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Moses, Croft
OPPOSED: Stoltze, Foster, Hawker, Kelly, Chenault,
Meyer
Representative Holm, Representative Joule and Representative
Weyhrauch were not present for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-6).
3:27:40 PM
Ms. Glasier referenced Page 13, Line 29, noting a change
made in the House Judiciary Committee. She thought that
there should be a "the" on Page 14, Line 3 or perhaps a
"the" added to Line 31, Page 13. She thought the sentence
was grammatically incorrect.
Representative Hawker MOVED Amendment #6, a conforming
conceptual amendment to make sure that the language "falls
together". Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED in order to conceptually
prepare the amendment.
Representative Hawker thought that passage of the bill,
could authorize legal staff to make the necessary changes to
Section 21 to address the grammatical change. Co-Chair
Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further
OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment #6 was adopted.
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT CS HB 94 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 94 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with a new fiscal note by the Office of
the Lt. Governor.
3:30:28 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|