Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/28/2022 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 | |
| HB66 | |
| SB66 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 309 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
[Contains discussion of SB 39 and HB 96.]
3:19:39 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first 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, adopted as the working
draft on 4/12/22, was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for
HB 66, Version 32-LS0322\O, Klein, 3/30/22, ("Version O").]
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from committee members.
3:20:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 49,
Subsection (a), which pertaining to election fraud. He asked
whether the criminalization was dependent on the violation
changing the outcome of the election.
3:21:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, stated that
much of the language in the proposed legislation was adopted
from the companion bill in the Senate [SB 39]. He added that he
was unsure why the language in question was included. He opined
that election fraud should be recognized as such regardless of
the outcome of the election.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about Section 47, paragraph (5),
which qualified voting "in the name of another person who is
cognitively unable to express that person's vote" as voter
misconduct in the first degree.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK conveyed that there were allowable
exceptions for voting on behalf of someone who is disabled;
however, a ballot should not be filled out on an individual's
behalf if he/she is not cognitive, he expressed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested qualifying a person who votes
or attempts to vote under the name of another person as voter
misconduct.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out that voting in the name of
another person was covered under AS 15.56.040(a)(1). He
expounded that Section 47, paragraph (5) [AS 15.56.040(a)(5)],
was attempting to criminalize the behavior of voting on behalf
of a disabled person who isn't cognitive.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed concern that the language in
paragraph (5) did not accurately capture the expressed intent,
as it did not clarify that voting on behalf of a disabled person
(who possesses cognitive awareness) was allowable.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK shared his understanding that existing
statutory language provided for that exception. He deferred to
Mr. Flynn.
3:26:46 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law (DOL), suggested that Representative Tuck was
referring to the special needs statute, which allowed a person
to assist a disabled voter with everything except the voting
decision.
3:27:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether each type of ballot was
processed uniquely by the Division of Elections (DOE).
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Ms. Fenumiai.
3:28:27 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, DOE, Office of the Lieutenant Governor,
explained that absentee in-person, special needs, and question
ballots were all reviewed by either the absentee review board or
the question review board to determine the voters' eligibility
before the ballots were opened and counted.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about the difference between the
absentee in-person ballot and the question ballot.
MS. FENUMIAI defined the absentee in-person ballot as a ballot
cast from one of the 150 (plus) absentee or early voting
locations within Alaska. She noted that the absentee in-person
ballots were reviewed by the absentee review board and underwent
the same process used to review by-mail ballots. In contrast,
the question ballot was cast from a precinct on election day by
a person whose name was absent from the precinct register or a
person who lacked identification. The question ballots, she
said, were analyzed by the question review board and underwent
the same review process as absentee in-person ballots.
3:31:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE sought to confirm that there were five
distinct types of ballots.
MS. FENUMIAI described the various types of ballots. Polling
place ballots were filled out at a polling location on election
day and were not reviewed. Absentee by-mail ballots had to be
applied for and underwent the same review process as absentee
in-person ballots. Special needs ballots were cast by people
who were unable to be physically present at a polling location
due to age, illness, or disability. She noted that special
needs ballots were delivered and signed by a designated personal
representative. These ballots were also reviewed by the
absentee review board. Question ballots, as previously
described, were voted from the polling locations on election day
and reviewed by the question review board before being counted.
Finally, ballots cast from the early voting centers, which were
located at the division's five regional offices, required voters
to verify their address on file in the voter registration
system. If the address was verified, a voter certificate was
printed and signed by the voter, and the ballot was cast with no
further review, as their eligibility had already been determined
on location. If the address provided didn't match the one on
record, the voter would cast an absentee in-person ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE considered a scenario in which a person
tried to vote on election day from a district in which he/she
was not registered. She asked what kind of ballot that person
would vote.
MS. FENUMIAI said it would depend on the location. If the
individual attempted to vote from an early voting location, an
absentee in-person ballot would be cast. In contrast, the
individual would vote a question ballot if he/she attempted to
vote from a voting location in which his/her name was missing
from the precinct register.
3:35:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE considered a scenario in which a disabled
person wanted to both register and vote a special needs ballot
in the same day. She asked how that would be accommodated.
MS. FENUMIAI said, under current law, that person would simply
vote a special needs ballot. However, she shared her
understanding that under the proposed legislation, the
individual in question could register and vote simultaneously
with the submission of a special needs ballot.
3:36:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 45 and
asked whether the director should be able to disqualify a voting
machine from use if it was not in compliance with the voting
system standards approved by the Federal Election Commission as
required by 42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(5) (Help America Vote Act of
2002).
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that there were proprietary
machines that were compliant with the [Help America Vote Act of
2002]. He expounded that per the added language in Version O,
only voting machines with open-source software technology would
satisfy the requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his concern that the language
in Section 45 did not reflect the intent.
3:39:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR reiterated her interest in clarifying the
language pertaining to the procedure for curing uncounted
ballots on page 19, lines 17-20. Specifically, she expressed
concern about the term "reasonable effort" and the 48-hour,
deadline post-election day. She asked the director to elaborate
on the ideal ballot curing process.
MS. FENUMIAI said she had not had the opportunity to consider an
ideal ballot curing process.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pondered what the ideal process might look
like. She suggested changing the 48-hour timeline to five days
to provide sufficient time.
MS. FENUMIAI offered to follow up with a proposal for the ballot
curing process. She explained that ideally, upon the
identification of a deficiency, staff would be designated to the
curing process and making contact with the voter.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR welcomed the idea of a forthcoming proposal.
MS. FENUMIAI suggested that someone from the Division of Law
(DOL) could offer a solution that would make "reasonable effort"
less ambiguous.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS highlighted Ms. Fenumiai's workload given
the special election to fill Congressman Don Young's seat. He
asked Mr. Flynn to respond to Representative Tarr's line of
questioning.
3:45:18 PM
MR. FLYNN pointed out that the 48-hour deadline on page 19, line
20, only applied to notices sent by mail or email. He
speculated that the division could send other types of notices.
He highlighted the ballot tracking software as a potential
method for notifying voters of a deficiency. He reiterated that
the real deadline to cure a ballot remained 14 days post-
election, per paragraph (1) on page 20, as opposed to 48 hours,
as suggested by Representative Tarr.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked Ms. Hall from the National Vote at
Home Institute (NVAHI) to describe the curing process in other
states.
3:46:57 PM
HILLARY HALL, Director, Government Affairs, NVAHI, conveyed that
the existing language was "spot on" with the practices in other
states. Additionally, she commended Version O for its use of
ballot tracking, which would speed up the process dramatically.
Further, she emphasized the importance of dedicating funds to
educating voters on how to opt-in to that process when they
signed up to vote by mail.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR sought to confirm that the timeline for
ballot curing in Version O was consistent to those implemented
in other states.
MS. HALL answered yes. Nonetheless, she deferred to the
director to speak to the practicability for the division. She
explained that the intent of the initial 48-hour notice was to
"get the message out," however, it may take longer to reach the
voter.
3:49:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the state currently used a
ballot tracking system for absentee ballots.
MS. FENUMIAI said the division planned to use BallotTrax for the
upcoming election in August. She noted that the BallotTrax
system was already up and running.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE sought to confirm that this would be the
first time using BallotTrax.
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed [that the upcoming election would be the
first time using BallotTrax]. She noted that the division had
used a "homebuilt 'My Voter' Portal" [in the past], which
provided similar functions.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether Ballot Tracks had the ability
to provide notifications of deficient ballots to voters.
MS. FENUMIAI shared her understanding that BallotTrax would have
that capability if the cure process were to become law.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether [BallotTrax] could be
utilized to track ballots that were not absentee ballots.
MS. FENUMIAI was uncertain. She shared her belief that, without
some kind of electronic (indisc.), it would not be possible.
She noted that the BallotTrax enrollment process allowed the
user to select text, phone, or email notifications.
3:52:57 PM
MS. HALL sought to confirm that the current line of questioning
pertained to the notification process for emergency ballots and
other types of ballots.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE answered yes.
MS. HALL said it would depend on how that information was being
tracked. She assured the committee that BallotTrax was one of
the top companies. She shared her understanding that if the
information was in a data file, there would likely be a way to
incorporate that; however, it could include additional costs, as
the system was designed for absentee ballots.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE emphasized her interest in further
exploring the ability to track special needs ballots, which
could ease some of the public's anxiety.
3:54:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR suggested amending AS 15.20.222 [procedure
for curing uncounted ballot] on page 19 to solidify a two-step
curing process one for mail notifications and another for
electronic notifications. She asked whether there were benefits
to using an affidavit for the ballot curing process.
MS. FENUMIAI was unsure whether an affidavit was necessary. She
added that she did not know what the Municipality of Anchorage
used for signature cures. She deferred to Ms. Hall.
3:56:50 PM
MS. HALL asked Representative Tarr to rephrase her question.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that there were several different
versions of election bills under consideration in the Alaska
State Legislature, in which varying models of ballot curing were
used. One, she recalled, used an affidavit. She asked whether
that practice should be considered in Version O.
MS. HALL reported that affidavits were standard practice among
other states. She highlighted a new technology, called
"TXT2Cure," that utilized an affidavit to provide updated
identification via text. She noted that BallotTrax was
partnering with the TXT2Cure Program.
3:58:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 36 and
questioned the practicability of observing the election
supervisor's review of absentee ballots during the 10-day window
preceding the day of the election. He expressed concern that
volunteers would not be able to observe that process due to the
heightened workload during that time period.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that the 10-day window was
expanded [from seven days] to provide more time for DOE to
process ballots. He indicated that the goal of the language in
question was to increase participation and oversight.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the signature verification
process outlined in Section 38. He questioned the capability of
the software used in other states.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out that the language in question
was taken directly from the governor's election bill [HB 96].
He reported that Alaska would require five signature
verification machines at $750,000 per machine. He conveyed that
the proposed legislation included training on signature
verification to add an additional layer of verification. He
offered to invite Patty McGuire back before the committee to
answer any remaining questions on the subject.
4:04:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 39,
Subsection (b), and asked how the word "may" would be
interpreted. He expressed concern that the current language in
Version O, "An absentee ballot may be rejected if", was more
subjective than the original language ["An absentee ballot may
not be counted if".
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Mr. Klein from Legislative Legal
Services.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that Mr. Klein was unavailable.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified that the change referenced by
Representative Eastman was a drafting decision intended to make
the statute easier to read. Returning to an earlier comment
from Representative Tarr pertaining to Section 42, he sought to
confirm that she had suggested eliminating lines 13-17 on page
19.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR clarified that she had suggested eliminating
lines 17-19, thereby clarifying the provision and removing the
ambiguous "reasonable effort" language.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted the Mr. Klein had returned and was
available for questions.
4:09:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN redirected his previous question to Mr.
Klein. He asked how the word "may" would be interpreted in
Section 39, Subsection (b). He expressed concern that the
current language in Version O, "An absentee ballot may be
rejected if", was more subjective than the original language
["An absentee ballot may not be counted if".
NOAH KLEIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency (LAA), understood that the word "may" was
intended to identify that some of the ballots would not be
rejected due to the ability to cure, which historically, was not
an option. He offered to draft a solution to remedy the
concern, such as "an absentee ballot shall be rejected unless
it's cured," if it was the will of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN turned his attention to page 16, line 30,
and asked whether the word "or" should be replaced by "and."
4:11:08 PM
MIKE MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor,
explained that the language in question was intended to account
for mail that was not postmarked; additionally, it allowed the
use of the tracking barcode. He concluded that the goal was to
count all legally cast ballots that were submitted on or before
election day with the understanding that a new barcode system
would be used.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his belief that "and" would be
more appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified that inserting the word "and"
instead of "or" would require that the qualifiers in both
subparagraph (A) and (B) be met before rejecting a ballot, as
opposed to one or the other.
4:12:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether adequate controls were in
place to prevent the results of early voting from "leaking out"
and somehow inhibiting turnout on election day.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Ms. Fenumiai to speak to
existing security measures.
MS. FENUMIAI clarified that under current statute, the counting
of ballots and release of results was prohibited from occurring
until after poll closure; however, the ballot review processes
could take place before election day.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether anything in Version O would
change those practices.
MS. FENUMIAI answered no. She cited AS 15.20.201(a) [Section
36], which allowed the review boards to start the review process
earlier. This provision would allow more ballots to be deemed
eligible for the count on election night.
MR. MASON clarified that in its current form, Version O allowed
the absentee ballot count to begin before election day. He
explained that the decision was made during the drafting process
to quell the angst about absentee ballot totals not being
available before election day [during the 2020 election]. He
directed the committee's attention to Section 37, Subsection
(b), which allowed the counting team to begin counting absentee
ballots no fewer than seven days preceding the day of the
election. The provision directed the first count of absentee
ballots to be reported to the district absentee ballot counting
board no later than 8:00 p.m. on election day. He acknowledged
that this change would require certain security measures, which
would be decided on and implemented by the division.
4:16:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked how to ensure proper security and
whether legislative action was needed to accommodate that.
MS. FENUMIAI answered no. She explained that despite the
ballots being reviewed by the absentee review board and then
scanned by the regional counting board, the results would not be
uploaded until after poll closure, which was overseen by the
regional election supervisor.
4:18:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether campaigns, candidates, and
political parties had the right to observe the counting process.
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed that there was an opportunity for people
to observe the process from a distance.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether observers would be required
to sign a confidentiality agreement.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that the results were not known until the
counts were concluded on each machine. She added that the
reports were only printed after the supervisor loaded the
information into the main system.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that observers would
still be able to see the markings on the ballots.
MS. FENUMIAI shared her understanding that the observers were
not in close enough proximity to see that information.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the point of observation
if people were not close enough to see the details on the
ballots.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that historically, people were watching
for the envelopes to come out sealed from the secure ballot
room. She asserted that members of the regional counting board
were the only people allowed to open the envelopes and send them
through the machines. She reiterated that only DOE employees
and the counting boards had access to the ballots.
4:20:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked, "It strikes me if observers
aren't allowed to observe ballots or what's on them, maybe we
should call them something other than observers."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS characterized Representative Eastman's
comments as "chasing a ghost," adding "these concerns about what
the problem is that, I think, your question presupposes we're
trying to solve." He recalled his experience sitting in a room
for a recount, as his first election was sufficiently close. He
assured the committee that there was nothing nefarious and
nothing to be concerned about. Further, he opined that DOE
comported itself with the utmost professionalism and confidence.
He remarked, "If there's a problem that you're trying to solve,
state the problem, and we can pursue that with the Division of
Elections."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded that he thought "one of the
main reasons for some aspects of the bill" was to increase
public confidence in the process - that it be done correctly.
He highlighted an important aspect is ensuring that both parties
"have someone to be able to observe" that the handling of the
ballots - how they are being counted - is accurate. He
concluded, " So, it subverts that purpose if we're going to
say that those who are observing are going to be kept far
enough away from that process to where they won't actually be
able to come away from that process with any sufficient
confidence one way or another." He shared his belief that the
observers would not be able to answer whether the process ran
smoothly and whether the count was accurate.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that Representative
Eastman was suggesting that the observers maintain a literal
tally, perhaps by hand, of the number of ballots being run
through the scanner on election night to ensure the integrity of
the election.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN contended that a tally may not be
necessary; however, he argued that they should be able to see
that the ballots looked the same, for example, or whether their
candidates name was missing from a ballot.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS remarked, "You'd think that if candidates'
names were missing from the ballot, you'd hear that on election
day."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR agreed with Chair Kriess-Tomkins. She
shared her belief that the division was professional, competent,
and committed to following the law. She opined that it was
incumbent upon public officials to dispel mistruths or myths.
She thanked Director Fenumiai for her hard work.
4:25:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK indicated that his intent was to model as
much as possible after the state of Colorado. He recalled his
own experience watching a recount. He assured Representative
Eastman that, despite being behind plexiglass, all the
activities taking place could be viewed.
MS. HALL clarified that scanning and tabulating were different.
She reiterated that scanning occurred ahead of time, while
tabulation occurred before the results were posted.
Furthermore, she pointed out that the speed at which ballots
went through the scanners was too fast for an observer to keep
track of each individual ballot. She indicated that in
Colorado, the role of observers was to watch the chain of
custody and to see whether the ballots came from a sealed ballot
box, for example. Additionally, to observe whether proper
recordkeeping was being collected. As to whether the results
were accurate, she said, the addition of Risk-Limiting Audits
(RLAs) would verify and assure that the ballots and the tally
were correct. She opined that Version O, in its current form,
addressed all concerns and added an extra layer of transparency
by allowing more observers to see the process.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the technology used in
Alaska would have an adjudication screen.
MS. FENUMIAI clarified that the adjudication screens were not
used during the ballot counting process that Ms. Hall had
described.
4:27:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN acknowledged that the conversation was
interesting; however, the issues being discussed were becoming
narrower in scope, he opined. He urged the chair to "put a pin"
[in this line of questioning].
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said, "That counsel is noted."
4:28:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the intent of Section 40,
pertaining to signature verification and the use of initials or
common nicknames.
MR. MASON explained that his "given" name was Michael; however,
he always signed "Mike" a common nickname for his signature.
He shared another example of his best friend, named Christopher,
who went by the nickname "CB." He added that the intent of
Section 40 was "to allow people to be who they are and still
have their vote count."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the signed name must match
the voter's signature in the voter registration records or
whether a common nickname would be acceptable.
MR. MASON expressed his hope that DOE would be given the
discretion to make that determination.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how common nicknames were processed
during the signature verification process in Colorado.
4:31:13 PM
MS. HALL stated that when a nickname was used in conjunction
with a last name, it often provided enough of the signature to
verify. She added that as long as the first name was a version
of the individual's given name, it should be enough to confirm
the voter's identity. She highlighted her experience working
with signature documentation experts in the police force,
indicating that the use of common nicknames was common practice.
Further, she pointed out that many voters registered to vote
many years ago and forgot how they signed their name on the
form. She concluded that the signature verification process
should allow for both security and accuracy while allowing for
most voter participation.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether his ballot would be
rejected if he signed with his initials, "DE."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that his mother, Dolores Marta
Tuck, went by "Marta" and signed her name as "D. Marta Tuck."
He added that in this case, the "D" would be appropriate. He
speculated that if Representative Eastman were to sign "DE," the
ballot would require a cure.
4:33:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE pointed out the, per the bill language, the
voter's signature would be compared to the signature on file
with the division. She explained that if "DE" was the way in
which Representative Eastman signed his name consistently, that
would be accepted. Only when a changed occurred, she said,
would a cure be necessary. She expressed relief that the curing
process was being pursued in the proposed legislation. She
inquired about the protocol for changing the location of a
polling station.
MS. FENUMIAI asked whether Representative Vance was referring to
Section 23.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE answered yes.
MS. FENUMIAI noted that Section 23 of Version O pertained to
early voting stations specifically. She added that currently,
there was no procedure in place for changing locations other
than providing notice of the locations on DOE's website. She
conveyed that sometimes, changes happened on short notice. She
clarified that there was a process outlined in statute for
changing the location of a polling station.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what kind of agreement was secured
with the building owner for the use of a specific location for a
polling place.
MS. FENUMIAI responded that a polling place agreement form was
signed.
4:37:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether Section 23, concerning early
voting stations, was consistent with the existing statutory
language regarding polling locations.
MS. FENUMIAI cited AS 15.10.090 [Notice of precinct boundary or
polling place designation modification.] She noted that
[Section 23] was not as detailed.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there was any litigation
concerning the change of polling stations that the committee
should be aware of.
MS. FENUMIAI said she was unaware of any litigation related to
early voting locations or absentee in-person stations. She
recalled an emergency change [to a polling location] during the
2020 election, which was litigated; however, she did not have
details of the legal proceedings readily available.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed her interest in preserving the
rights of the property owners while ensuring consistent voting
locations.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recalled numerous location changes during
the 2016 election. He characterized the frequent changes as a
voter suppression method, as many voters did not know where to
vote. He stated that the intent was to ensure that a polling
location would remain in place for at least two years until
redistricting to prevent a repeat of 2016.
4:41:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE requested insight from DOL.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recalled language [from the original version
of the bill] the provided ample notification of any location
changes. Additionally, the division could not make a unilateral
change to the location of a polling station unless a list of
criteria was met.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what would happen if an error was
made in the voter registration records that assigned a voter to
the wrong precinct.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK highlighted the benefits of same-day
registration. If a voter's name was missing from the precinct
roll, he/she could register for same-day registration and vote a
question ballot, he said.
4:45:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which the
appropriate ballot was not available and asked how that would be
accommodated under Version O.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK attempted to clarify the scenario. He
sought to confirm that Representative Eastman was asking about a
person who had moved from one district to another without
changing his/her voter registration information. When that
person showed up at the polling location to vote, he explained,
he/she would only be able to vote on the senate race (if that
person's new home was still located within the same Senate
district).
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 11, which
outlined the process for canceling a voter's registration. He
asked why cancelling registration at a polling place was
necessary and whether cancelling one's registration would
nullify a cast ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK indicated that the intent was to keep the
voter rolls as clean as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the cancellation would
impact the vote.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered no.
MR. MASON cited Section 11, clarifying that the director was
required to develop a process for cancellation both in person
and electronically.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN turned attention to Section 13 and asked
why a watcher must be a United States (U.S.) citizen.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed that U.S. citizenship should only be
a requirement for voting, not for observing.
4:48:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 32. He
posed a scenario in which an out-of-date application was sent
out that did not include party affiliation. He asked what the
consequences would be.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK did not have an answer to that question.
MR. KLEIN asked Representative Eastman to clarify the question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to page 14, lines 2-3.
He considered the example of an out-of-date application being
sent out and asked whether that would invalidate the application
for an absentee ballot.
MR. KLEIN clarified that the requirement in question was current
law. He was unsure what the division would do with an
application that excluded a required portion, as no statutory
provision explicitly outlined this scenario.
4:53:03 PM
MR. FENUMIAI asserted that declaring a party affiliation was not
a requirement of registering to vote.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK attempted to clarify Representative
Eastman's question. He asked what would happen if a third-party
organization sent out an absentee ballot application that did
not include the section for declaring or changing a party
affiliation on the form.
MS. FENUMIAI stated that the requirements for a by-mail ballot
application existed in regulation, listed under 6 AAC 25.05.
She reported that the application must include a spot for the
applicant to designate a political group or political
affiliation; however, that was no longer required to receive a
ballot. She offered to follow up with a more eloquent
explanation.
4:56:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN directed attention to page 16 and asked
whether postal tracking could be confirmed in the field.
MS. FENUMIAI said currently, DOE did not have that capability.
She shared her belief that it would require working in
partnership with the United States Postal Service (USPS).
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to Ms. Hall.
MS. HALL answered yes, the technology existed. She suggested
working with BallotTrax to accomplish that within the tracking
and notification system.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN requested additional information to
confirm the efficacy.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK reported that Amber McReynolds, the Governor
of USPS, had provided testimony that confirmed the
practicability of this provision. He reiterated that the
technology existed; however, it was a matter of delivering it to
rural Alaska.
4:59:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the tracking barcode would
originate from BallotTrax's tracking system or the division.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that an intelligent mail barcode would
track the ballot as it left the mail station, notifying the
voter when the ballot was mailed and when it was received and
logged by DOE.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the BallotTrax software had
the capability of tracking a ballot through the entire process.
MS. FENUMIAI did not know the answer. She reiterated that this
was the first time using BallotTrax at the "bare minimum level."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK reiterated that Ms. McReynolds had confirmed
that USPS could track ballots as if they were a FedEx package.
He pointed out that it could entail a two-step process, as the
ballot was sent out and then returned.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to Ms. Hall.
MS. HALL answered yes, a ballot could be tracked through the
system using the intelligent mail barcode. She assured the
committee that BallotTrax had the ability to add those barcodes
both on the outgoing ballot and the return envelope.
5:03:21 PM
REPRESENTAIVE EASTMAN returned his attention to Section 32,
specifically page 14, lines 3-5. He asked why "may not" was
changed to "shall."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK conveyed that currently, Alaska did not have
a method for registering to vote electronically. The provision
in question, he said, would allow a person to register
electronically via the absentee ballot application process.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN turned his attention to Section 34 and
asked whether the language on page 15, lines 4-7, was
contradictory, as it suggested that a ballot may be rejected if
it was submitted in a method other than postmarked mail.
MR. MASON clarified that not all mail was postmarked. He
explained that the provision would allow a ballot that was not
postmarked to be counted if the intelligent barcode proved that
it was mailed on or before election day.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned whether a ballot delivered by
courier or a ballot that was dropped off by a spouse would be
rejected based on the added language in Section 34 [page 15,
lines 4-7].
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK emphasized that after poll closure, no
ballots would be accepted other than those postmarked in a
timely manner.
5:10:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked how a field observer would be able
to tell if a ballot was postmarked on or before election day.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK sought to clarify whether Representative
Kaufman was referring to a poll watcher or an observer.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN clarified that he was referring to the
workers who process the ballots, in addition to the observers.
5:12:32 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
5:12:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Ms. Hall.
MS. HALL asked Representative Kaufman to restate the question.
5:13:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether the tracking barcodes could
be recognized by observers. He expressed his interest in
ensuring that late ballots were not processed.
MS. HALL highlighted a tactical method for addressing the issue.
She explained that USPS could be instructed to hold off on
delivering ballots for several days after the cutoff, thereby
holding any late ballots at the post office. Further, the chain
of custody would help track the ballots. She recognized that
observers may not be able to verify the tracking barcodes;
nonetheless, it could become part of the canvassing process, she
suggested.
5:15:56 PM
MR. MASON noted that all absentee ballots were reviewed by the
absentee ballot counting board. He deferred to Ms. Fenumiai for
confirmation.
MS. FENUMIAI reiterated that the absentee review process was
available to observers.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the proposed CS for HB 66,
Version O, was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 66 Amendment A.A.6 -- Kreiss-Tomkins.pdf |
HSTA 4/28/2022 3:00:00 PM |
SB 66 |
| SB 66 Amendment A.A.7 -- Claman.pdf |
HSTA 4/28/2022 3:00:00 PM |
SB 66 |
| SB 66 Amendment A.A.10 -- Eastman.pdf |
HSTA 4/28/2022 3:00:00 PM |
SB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Info - DOE Response to HSTA 04.27.2022.pdf |
HSTA 4/28/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Info - DOE List Maintenance 04.27.22.pdf |
HSTA 4/28/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| SB 66 Amendment A.A.4 -- Kreiss-Tomkins.pdf |
HSTA 4/28/2022 3:00:00 PM |
SB 66 |