Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/21/2022 03:00 PM House 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 | |
| HB396 | |
| HB66 | |
| HB316 | |
| SB161 | |
| HB256 | |
| SB66 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 161 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 396 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 271 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
3:15:56 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 66, "An Act relating to voting, voter
qualifications, and voter registration; relating to poll
watchers; relating to absentee ballots and questioned ballots;
relating to election worker compensation; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee was the proposed CS,
"Version O," labeled 32-LS0322\O, Klein, 3/30/22, adopted as the
working document on 4/12/22.]
3:16:22 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 66.
3:16:38 PM
ROBERT WELTON opined that the goal of the system should be to
make it easier to vote and harder to cheat. He added his belief
that barriers to voting should only be erected if a verified
need arose. Although he expressed his support for the bill's
expansion of early registration, he highlighted two major
concerns. Firstly, he argued that requiring absentee voters to
reapply if they hadn't voted absentee in over four years was
problematic. He recalled testimony provided by Director
Fenumiai, Division of Elections (DOE), during a Senate State
Affairs Standing Committee that confirmed the absence of fraud
amongst absentee voting in the 2020 election. For that reason,
he believed there was no need to increase restrictions.
Additionally, he suggested that the absentee voting provision in
question likely violated federal election law, which did not
allow states to strike voters from the roll for failing to vote.
He took issue with the provision requiring mandatory signature
verification on all absentee ballots for similar reasons.
Furthermore, he suggested that tighter restrictions on absentee
voting could open the process to partisan abuse.
3:19:59 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:20:31 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony on HB 66.
3:21:30 PM
MIKE MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor,
pointed out that the change to the absentee voting system
referenced by Mr. Welton corresponded to the Senate version of
the bill that aligned with Governor Dunleavy's election bill.
The provision in the Senate bill would allow voters to request
absentee ballots for four years, after which they would be
required to resubmit an application. He clarified that Version
O would give Alaskans the option to receive absentee ballots by
mail for all future state elections without having to fill out
an application each year. Currently, he noted, Alaska
maintained a permanent absentee voting list that was authorized
by regulation, as opposed to statute.
3:22:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the rationale for the four-
year requirement in the governor's bill.
MR. MASON said that question would be better addressed to
Senator Shower [prime sponsor of SB 39]. He maintained that
under Version O, absentee voters would always be able to receive
an absentee ballot without making a formal request each year.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY, in response to Mr. Welton's testimony, was
unsure which section of Version O would violate federal law.
MR. MASON reiterated that Mr. Welton was mistakenly referring to
the Senate bill [SB 39].
REPRESENTATIVE STORY remarked, "So that does not violate federal
law?"
MR. MASON shared his understanding that arbitrarily removing a
voter from a registered list would violate federal law. He
stressed that Version O did not include such a provision.
3:24:46 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions for Ms. Schroeder,
Department of Law (DOL).
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked Ms. Schroeder to delineate between
fraud that may occur prior to voting versus fraudulent election
results.
3:26:27 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
DOL, explained that there were different criminal offenses
relating to voter registration fraud, which occurred before
election day, and fraudulent voting with the intent of affecting
the election outcome, such as intentionally voting more than
once.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the elements of perjury.
MS. SCHROEDER indicated that perjury occurred when a person
knowingly falsifies a sworn statement under penalty of perjury.
She added that in a perjury case, it must be proven that the
defendant believed the sworn statement to be true.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that a sworn statement
did not require the raising of one's right hand.
MS. SCHROEDER confirmed that raising one's right hand was not
required. She defined a sworn statement as, "a statement
knowingly given under oath or affirmation attesting to the truth
of what is stated, including a notarized statement, or a
statement knowingly given under penalty of perjury under AS
09.63.020."
3:29:07 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS considered a scenario posed during a prior
hearing in which suspiciously fraudulent behavior was observed
on election day, such as the use of falsified identification.
He asked how the Criminal Division would process the reported
incident.
MS. SCHROEDER stated that DOL encouraged citizens to report
suspicious activity to DOE. The division would investigate the
incident and, if it rose to the level of criminal offense, the
evidence would be compiled and forwarded to the Criminal
Division. She said the case would be treated and screened by
DOL as any other criminal case.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how many referrals the Criminal
Division received for suspicious instances regarding voter fraud
in recent decades.
MS. SCHROEDER reported that there were only 10 instances in the
entire history of the Criminal Division that were accepted, of
which 5 were still open and 5 were closed.
3:31:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how many of the 10 cases came
through DOE.
MS. SCHROEDER suspected that the division was involved in all
10.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether anything was lacking from
statute to allow effective prosecution of election-related
offenses.
MS. SCHROEDER was unaware of any requested changes to the
current criminal code in that regard. She opined that the
current election law was robust.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what statute of limitations applied
to election related offenses.
MS. SCHROEDER answered five years.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked when the five-year clock "starts
ticking."
MS. SCHROEDER said when DOL became aware of the offense.
3:34:58 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 66 was held over.