Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/07/2004 06:40 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 284 - VOTER AND PERM FUND APP RECORDS PRIVATE Number 2021 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284(FIN) am, "An Act making information on a permanent fund dividend application, other than the applicant's name, confidential, and relating to disclosure of that confidential information; and relating to confidential information in voter registration records." Number 2048 SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, indicated that SB 284 ensures that permanent fund dividend (PFD) application information, except for an applicant's name, is kept private with certain exceptions: (1) to a local, state, or federal government agency; (2) in compliance with a court order; (3) to the individual or agency who files an application on behalf of another; (4) to a banking institution to verify the direct deposit of a permanent fund dividend or correct an error in that deposit; and (5) as directed to do so by the applicant SENATOR GUESS relayed that through the committee process, SB 284 was changed such that the current version also makes much of the information on voter registration records confidential, information such as: (1) the voter's age or date of birth; (2) the voter's social security number, or any part of that number; (3) the voter's driver's license number; (4) the voter's voter identification number; (5) the voter's place of birth; (6) the voter's signature The committee took an at-ease from 7:25 p.m. to 7:26 p.m. SENATOR GUESS pointed out that the current version of SB 284 also allows a person to request that his/her residential address be kept confidential if he/she provides a different mailing address. The latter will accommodate victims of domestic violence who wish to keep their residential address confidential. She noted, however, that the bill also contains exceptions wherein confidential voter registration information may be disclosed, such as in situations involving elections. SENATOR GUESS offered her belief that when people fill out a PFD application, they do not realize that their name and address may be disclosed to the public. Although there are instances in which such information should be disclosed, it would be better public policy, she opined, if this information were kept confidential with only few exceptions. She noted that the provisions pertaining to PFD application information will apply to applications for the 2005 PFD. She mentioned that she would be willing to work during the interim with the people who have concerns with the bill, so long as its intent is maintained, that intent being that this information shouldn't be public except that access to it may be part of the governmental process. She indicated that she doesn't have any problems with a proposed amendment that members have before them. Number 2194 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS directed attention to Section 1, subsection (b), and asked whether it could generate problems such as allowing people to vote in one district though they are registered in another. SENATOR GUESS said she did not think so because although a person has the option of keeping residential address information from the public, it is still required on the voter registration form. The Division of Elections is still going to have the residential addresses of voters, and it will still have to verify where voters live. She mentioned, however, that the bill might impact the information a candidate gets about voters in his/her district. REPRESENTATIVE GARA mentioned that he'd provided members with information from the Division of Elections which confirms that there is a difference between a voter identification number and a voter ascension number, which many candidates use to correlate voting lists and which is not used to identify a voter. Currently and under the bill, the voter identification number is and will be kept confidential, but it may be helpful, he suggested, to clarify that a voter's ascension number may be released to the public. He indicated that he would be offering an amendment to that effect. TAPE 04-80, SIDE B Number 2354 SENATOR GUESS confirmed that the ascension number is randomly generated and is not a unique identifier. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 2, line 10, which says, "(3) the subject of a recall election if the voter voted in the recall election". SENATOR GUESS indicated that this language addresses a concern raised on the Senate floor. Currently, it is a requirement that a person voting in a recall election must reside in the district that is holding the recall election; the aforementioned language enables the subject of a recall election to check on whether the voters who voted in the recall election actually resided in the district. SENATOR GUESS, in response to a question regarding PFD applications, said that under the bill, the only information that the public will still have access to will be the names of those who submit PFD applications. One reason for this is that a PFD payment is an expenditure, and there should be a public accounting of expenditures. Another reason is to assist in the prevention of fraud. In response to another question, she reiterated that local, state, or federal government agencies would still have access to the confidential information on a person's PFD application, and that that information could still be released in compliance with a court order. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, returning to the issue of recall elections, offered his belief that current statute says that where a voter should vote is conclusively determined by his/her voter registration card. In other words, if a person moves, he/she is still considered a member of the district that is listed on his/her voter registration card until he/she submits a change to the division of elections. Because of this, he opined, the language on page 2, line 10, isn't relevant. Additionally, he questioned why the subject of a recall election should be treated differently than the subject of a regular election; in other words, shouldn't any candidate be able to verify that only voters registered in his/her district voted at an election. SENATOR GUESS opined, however, that recall elections are different than regular elections, since they come about because the people of a district sign a petition that says a person holding office should be recalled; therefore, it is reasonable to allow the subject of a recall election to have access to residential address information. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that perhaps the stipulation should be that the person signing such a petition must live in the district. SENATOR GUESS mentioned that the language currently in the bill pertaining to this issue is what the drafter recommended. Number 2048 LORI DAVEY, President, Motznik Information Services, Inc., said she would be testifying in opposition to SB 284. She went on to say that although she can sympathize with victims of domestic violence who want to keep their addresses confidential, there are a lot of legitimate businesses that utilize the PFD and voter registration files to verify a person's last know address, for example, for use in process serving, and to provide notification of property foreclosures. Additionally, many private and governmental organizations that utilize address information get it from private databases such as that compiled by Motznik Information Services. As currently worded, the bill precludes companies such as Motznik Information Services from obtaining address information from the PFD and voter registration files, and so her company would be unable to fulfill its current contractual obligations, for example, to attorneys, process servers, and title companies. MS. DAVEY, with regard to voter ascension numbers, offered her belief that such numbers are unique identifiers that stay with a person, and asked that the public still be allowed to access ascension numbers. She suggested that more could be done to the bill to satisfy everyone's concerns, and recommended that the legislature wait until next session before adopting such a measure. She said that several of her customers were shocked that this legislation exists, and suggested that there should be time to do a full impact study and come up with fair way for the people that legitimately use these files to still have access to them, while still protecting peoples' privacy. Characterizing the goals of SB 284 as noble, she said she agrees that address information from PFD applications should not be something that can simply be downloaded from the division's web site; however, she remarked, "I would encourage you to oppose this bill at this point, and give us a chance to work it out and come up with language that's more favorable and fair for everybody." She thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify. Number 1892 CHAIR McGUIRE directed attention to what became known as Amendment 1, labeled 23-LS1596\VA.1, Kurtz, 5/6/04, which read: Page 3, line 1: Delete "and" Page 3, line 2: Delete "." Insert "; and" Page 3, following line 2: Insert a new paragraph to read: "(6) to a contractor who has a contract with a person entitled to obtain the information under (1) - (5) of this section to receive, store, or manage the information on that person's behalf; a contractor receiving data under this paragraph may only use the data as directed by and for the purposes of the person entitled to obtain the information." CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that [Amendment 1] would add an exception to the list of those that could still access and make use of confidential PFD application information. MS. DAVEY offered her belief, however, that [adoption of Amendment 1] would require that her company maintain a separate database for local, state, and federal government agencies, but doing so would not be feasible or cost effective; furthermore, banks, attorneys, title companies, and process servers, for example, would not have access to information that they can currently get from her company. CHAIR McGUIRE acknowledged that a few extra steps might be necessary. MS. DAVEY noted that title companies are required by [federal law] to use a person's last known address when foreclosing on property; as currently written, SB 284 will take away their access to what might possibly be the most recent information. She also offered her belief that birth, death, and marriage statistics can be gleaned from the PFD application information. SENATOR GUESS indicated that [Amendment 1] clarifies her intent, and reiterated that she would be willing to work during the interim to address the concerns of interested parties. It becomes a policy call, she remarked, one that will determine who the government can share information with when that information has been given to it by its citizens. Acknowledging that the PFD information database is by far one of the best, she said that she is concerned with keeping victims of domestic violence safe, and so it could be that some entities might no longer have access to this information via that database. CHAIR McGUIRE asked Senator Guess whether she would have an objection to changing the effective date to either February 1, 2005, or March 1, 2005. Such a change would enable the legislature to address any problems that arise. SENATOR GUESS said she wouldn't have a problem with such a change, and noted that Section 1 pertains to voter registration information and that Section 2 pertains to the PFD application information, which would entail information provided on the 2005 PFD application. She opined that any potential problems could be fixed by the next legislature before any requested information is made available. Number 1677 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided previously]. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. SENATOR GUESS, in response to a question, indicated that she has no problem with adding language that clarifies that a voter ascension number [may be released]. Number 1621 REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, a handwritten amendment, which, with corrections, read [original punctuation provided]: Insert at p. 2 line 23 "(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the release of a voter's voter ascension number, provided that information may be released under other provision of law." Number 1614 CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to Amendment 2. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, after declaring a potential conflict in that he has used Motznik Information Services, Inc., said he agrees with the concept of trying to keep victims of domestic violence safe, and that he supports SB 284. REPRESENTATIVE GARA and CHAIR McGUIRE suggested that all members might have the same potential conflict. Number 1579 REPRESENTATIVE GARA moved to report CSSB 284(FIN) am, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 284(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|