Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/28/2022 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
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 | |
| SB39 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| SB 39 | |||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 39
"An Act relating to elections; relating to voter
registration; relating to ballots and a system of
tracking and accounting for ballots; establishing an
election offense hotline; designating as a class A
misdemeanor the collection of ballots from other
voters; designating as a class C felony the
intentional opening or tampering with a sealed ballot,
certificate, or package of ballots without
authorization from the director of the division of
elections; and providing for an effective date."
9:04:38 AM
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that it was the first hearing for
SB 39. The committee's intention was to hear a bill
introduction, consider a sectional analysis, and set the
bill aside.
9:05:10 AM
SENATOR MIKE SHOWER, SPONSOR, stated that the genesis of SB
39 came from the 2016 election. He recounted that over the
course of two years there were so many articles about the
vulnerability of the election system, he decided to
investigate the matter to see if there were areas for
improvement. He thought different sides of the political
spectrum were upset at various times. He read from a
Sponsor Statement (copy on file):
If a society does not have confidence in how its
public officials are elected, then the very foundation
of our Republic is compromised.? SB 39 is the product
of four years of work attempting to regain the
public's confidence in the sacred and unique right to
choose our leadership without a shot being fired,
unlike what we witness in other parts of the world.
Such as when Iraqi's proudly displayed their thumbs
covered in ink when they had a chance to freely vote
for their leaders.
SB 39 has gone through several changes from its
original inception.? The latest version has been a
collaborative effort built around the concept of
"making it easy to vote and hard to cheat". One of the
greatest challenges to election reform is the
significantly opposing viewpoints across the political
spectrum.? One view is making it very easy to vote,
which may make it easier to cheat.? On the opposite
spectrum if it's hard to cheat, this can pose the
challenge of making it harder to vote.? Polarized
partisans have co-opted the issue with accusations
from both sides. We believe it's time to move past
this narrative and take a positive step forward.
Our office has taken the approach of looking for ways
to strike a balance with people on both side of the
equation.? For example, this bill addresses same day
voter registration,?on the easier to vote wish list.
Our operating principle was to ensure the voter
provides sufficient proof they have been an actual
resident of the district for 30 days, signs an
affidavit affirming so under penalty of perjury, and
votes on a question ballot.? Both sides were able to
reach a consensus.? This metric makes it easier to
vote, and still hard to cheat.? We respectfully ask our
colleagues to apply this policy metric when
considering amendments to this measure as well as
their support for the bill.
SB 39 strives to make the process open and transparent
by being a national leader in embracing open source
voting, a digital concept which eliminates proprietary
hardware and software, allowing open access to the
public to mitigate real or imagined concerns over
digitally tainted results.? Open-source systems are
never hooked up online, cell tower or wireless
network, and all equipment utilizes off the shelf
hardware.? Let's put the ballot machine arguments to
rest.
Over registration on our voter rolls have been a
consistent problem for Alaska with an average of
40,000 people moving into, and 40,000 people moving
out of the state, each year.? Several measures in SB39
help?clean up the rolls.? One is requiring the state to
use more data bases with better up to date information
and requiring the state to educate and inform people
who have moved - to unregister.? Requiring a yearly
report to the legislature will help us?improve the
accuracy of our voter rolls.
Ballot chain of custody protocols are strengthened. As
well as bar code tracking for ballots to maintain a
more robust chain of custody when a ballot is out of
the control of the Division of Elections and provides
a quick "curing" if a voter makes a technical mistake
that would have previously disqualified their vote.
9:09:32 AM
Senator Shower continued to address the Sponsor Statement:
Digital ballot tracking through a phone or online
application will increase ballot chain of custody
providing a forensic digital trail.??Many measures in
the bill allow easier voting opportunities but
incur?stiff penalties for violating those voting laws,
thus making it easier to vote and harder to cheat.
Our voting laws are complex as this bill demonstrates.
These are just a few?examples of the effort, thought
and compromise put into the bill, but the principles
remain.? Reasonable people can disagree, but the bi-
partisan sponsors in each body carefully crafted a
collaborative effort, in an attempt to show
Alaskans?and perhaps the country that pragmatic working
solutions can be achieved.? Our office has
preconferenced the issues where?possible to mitigate
confusion and expedite the end of session hope?to get
election reform across the finish line.? We welcome the
public's and policy maker's discussion on the latest
version of SB39 and its "companion" legislation in the
House.
Thank you for hearing the bill and I look forward to
answering your questions and, with your help, moving
bi-partisan common sense election reform by the end of
the 32nd legislative session.
Senator Shower emphasized the bi-partisan sponsorship of
the bill. He thought the bill integrated the important core
concepts of election reform that everyone could agree on.
He discussed risks to elections and the potential for
cyber-attacks. He referenced 113,000 Alaskans whose data
was compromised. He wanted the Division of Elections to
have the resources to address problems. He emphasized that
the problem concerned all state agencies. He summarized
that from 2016 to 2020 there were many articles and reports
in the media that discussed the vulnerabilities in the
states election system, and he thought the problems were
acknowledged by the federal government. He commented that
there used to be a day when election results were trusted.
He thought the bill would restore trust in the election
system.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if Senator Shower was referring to
elections at the national level and lack of confidence in
the last presidential election, or if he was referring to
state elections.
Senator Shower stated both. He referenced automatic voter
registration, state agencies, and federal election media
coverage as factors in wanting to sponsor the legislation.
Co-Chair Stedman thought it would be nice to have the
Division of Elections and the lieutenant governor to come
speak on the matter of state elections. He understood that
there was not a problem with state elections. He thought
care was warranted when discussing the issue unless +the
lieutenant governor indicated there was a problem.
Co-Chair Bishop mentioned there were multiple individuals
available for questions.
9:14:38 AM
Senator Olson asked if there were any other states that had
the same system proposed in the bill.
Senator Shower asked what system Senator Olson was
referencing, as there were multiple things proposed in the
bill.
Senator Olson wondered if the proposed systems were in use
in the other states.
Senator Shower reported that not every state did all of the
measures proposed in the bill, but there was a smattering
across the nation as more states moved towards adopting
the systems. He discussed a data breach, and reports from
the Division of Elections about data on the dark web. He
cited that other states such as California had enacted the
ballot chain of custody, in which voters could track online
and absentee ballots.
Senator Olson considered places where there was no tracking
capability, such as in rural Alaska. He asked about what
kind of inhibitions might make it more difficult to vote
for elders and people without internet access.
Senator Shower stated that the lieutenant governor had many
discussions about the issue raised by Senator Olson. He
noted there was a bill provision that allowed mail-out
balloting in locations with less than 750 people. He
mentioned ballot harvesting. He thought the lieutenant
governor had been clear that many of the villages he had
communicated with did not trust the postal service and were
concerned about the ability to vote. He thought the state
had flexibility in the options for rural places to vote.
9:17:54 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked the sponsor to explain the open-
source software concept and whether there were other states
that used the method.
Senator Shower explained that the machines currently used
in the state used proprietary software. With an open-source
method, everything would be available to see without
proprietary information. He discussed "off the self"
hardware, such as printers and scanners used in the
election system. He noted that there were three major
companies that had voting machines and mentioned conspiracy
theories about Dominion machines. The goal of the bill was
to get to a point where all information was open and
transparent, and to provide people with more trust in the
election system.
9:19:57 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked why there needed to be
algorithms in election software.
Senator Shower explained that each tabulating machine had
its own software, which determined how the machine
communicated, tabulated, and collected information. He used
the analogy of a plane to describe software running
operations. He thought there had been allegations that the
voting tabulation machines had been hacked and the
information had been connected to the internet. He asserted
that any machine connected to the internet was vulnerable.
He mentioned that some of the provisions in the bill
related to open-source software, and machines without a
connection to the internet.
Senator Shower mentioned a documentary named "Kill Chain,
which showed individuals real-time hacking voting machines
through a Wi-Fi connection. He asserted it was possible to
hack voting machines. He emphasized that the bill sought to
protect data and nullify conspiracy theories. He discussed
a forensic check of machines before and after elections.
Senator Shower continued to address Senator Wielechowski's
question. He suggested that many things were left for
regulation as per each administration. One of the goals in
the bill was to codify elements of the election reform in
order to leave nothing to chance.
9:23:58 AM
Senator Wilson had a question for the director of the
Division of Elections. He recalled that on July 13, 2020,
the oversight and review unit of the Department of
Administration (DOA) had done a report on the review and
effectiveness of security of the Division of Elections. He
asked if the director was familiar with the report.
GAIL FENUMIAI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS (via
teleconference), was familiar with providing the agency
with information for the report.
Senator Wilson asked if Ms. Fenumiai if she had seen the
recommendations in the report.
Ms. Fenumiai was not certain she had seen the most recent
version of the report and recommendations, and commented
that the report had been through many different iterations.
She offered to examine the report and get back to the
committee.
Senator Wilson asked if SB 39 addressed any recommendations
or findings that Ms. Fenumiai had seen in the report.
Ms. Fenumiai relayed that she needed to examine the final
report to determine if any of the items were addressed in
the bill.
Senator Wilson relayed that the report was embargoed and
much of it was redacted. He thought a non-disclosure
agreement (NDA) was required to access the report, because
it listed many of the states vulnerabilities. He wanted to
verify that the bill remedied problems identified in the
report.
9:26:06 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked if Ms. Fenumiai had any evidence
indicating that any of the states elections had ever been
hacked.
Ms. Fenumiai had not seen evidence that hacking of any of
the states elections had occurred. She detailed that there
were hand recounts for the 2020 election, which had not
changed the outcome of the election. She thought the most
prevalent was a hand recount of the statewide ballot
measure 2, and there was no evidence that any results were
changed or that results were not reported accurately.
Senator Wielechowski asked if Ms. Fenumiai thought the
state could benefit from having a more secure election
system, such as the use of open-source software as proposed
in the bill.
Ms. Fenumiai did not have sufficient knowledge of open-
source software in order to comment. She thought there were
many factors to take into consideration when putting out a
request for proposal (RFP) for a ballot tabulation system
other than being open-sourced. There were other
requirements to meet in order to handle the states
processes. She believed there was always room for
improvement of security measures, and that the division was
looking for and amenable to any measures to provide more
secure elections.
Senator Wielechowski thought there had been a great deal of
concern in the media and press regarding the security of
the Dominion election system, which he thought the state
used. He asked if Ms. Fenumiai had any concerns with the
system. He asked if she believed the system was safe and
not subject to hacking or changing of results.
Ms. Fenumiai had not seen evidence of what Senator
Wielechowski described. She continued that the division
performed thorough logic and accuracy testing of the
systems and functionality tests before and after each
election. She noted that the division had multiple levels
of checks and balances in place, and the state had been
using equipment from Dominion (or its predecessor) since
1998. She detailed that the division did a hand-count
verification of a randomly drawn precinct that equated to 5
percent of votes cast in a district that used a scanner,
and there had never been an issue with the hand counts. She
had a high level of confidence in the system and the people
that managed the system at the Division of Elections, as
well as in the election workers.
9:29:17 AM
Senator Shower referenced the DOA report and noted that it
had been offered to him with the condition of signing an
NDA. Legal counsel had informed that the agreement would
put him at risk if he spoke about information in the wrong
place, so he had not signed the NDA. He found it
problematic that the report was specifically generated for
public consumption and recounted that he had learned the
information from the former commissioner of DOA. He
referenced three and a half pages and 18 recommendations in
the report, much of which had been redacted.
Senator Shower continued that he did now know if the bill
addressed some or all of the issues referenced in the
report, although he had been informed that he was working
on issues that had been identified. He noted that the lack
of access to the report had been a point of contention. He
stated that the audit level that was done by the state was
done on a small percentage of a district to check the vote
tabulation. He pointed out that the audit did not validate
the eligibility of voters. He reiterated that the state did
not cross check information and reminded that there was
voter data floating around that could be used for anyone
to vote.
Senator Shower continued his remarks. He asserted that one
of the provisions in the bill was an audit that did a
slightly deeper dive. He described it as a best practice
from the federal government, from the Election Assistance
Commission. He qualified that he was not saying that the
division was not working hard or was not executing current
policy. He asserted that his bill attempted to point out
areas of vulnerabilities and things that could be done
better. He emphasized that he was not using the word
fraud.
Co-Chair Bishop thought everyone had agreed that there was
no fraud in the Alaska state elections in 2020.
Senator Shower stated that there had been allegations of
fraud and that he had turned all the information he had
received from private citizens over to law enforcement. He
had not received information in return. He had been told by
law enforcement by that there were maybe a dozen cases of
smaller fraud. He thought the fraud was minimal.
9:32:57 AM
Senator Shower asserted that there had been malicious
activity, and thought it was important to acknowledge that
the state had been hacked. He mentioned the state not
checking signature verification. He thought the state could
not legitimately claim that all the vulnerabilities had
been addressed, or that the election was secure. He thought
the bill was designed to be able to say that
vulnerabilities were addressed and there was a forensic
trail.
Senator Olson asked if Ms. Fenumiai if the Division of
Elections was in favor of the bill.
Ms. Fenumiai stated that the division would take the
direction of the legislature. She thought the bill was a
pretty major overhaul of the current election process and
system.
9:35:30 AM
Senator Wilson understood that SB 39 had been amended to
add a piece of legislation from the lieutenant governors
office. He asked if Ms. Fenumiai was in support of the
change.
Co-Chair Bishop asked Senator Wilson to remind the
committee what section of the bill he was referencing.
Senator Wilson did not have the information at hand. He
understood that new version of the bill was a compromise
from other pieces of legislation.
Co-Chair Bishop asked if Senator Wilson could wait for the
sectional analysis to address the bill section in question.
Senator Wilson agreed.
Senator Wielechowski referenced his question to Ms.
Fenumiai as to whether the election had been hacked, to
which she answered no. He mentioned that there were
hackers that had stolen voter information. He asked if the
state knew the identity of the hackers and what happened to
the information that was stolen from 100,000 Alaskan
voters.
Ms. Fenumiai acknowledged that there had been data exposure
in which someone had accessed data for about 103,000
Alaskan voters. She did not know what happened to the data
and had seen no instances within the voter registration
system that led the division to believe anything malicious
had been done with the information. She reiterated that the
division had not seen how the information was taken and
maliciously used. There had been no information imported
back into the system, and the loophole in the code was
fixed immediately. She believed there was a federal press
release about who the actors were, but she did not have the
information at hand.
Co-Chair Bishop asked if Ms. Fenumiai could forward the
information to the committee if it was public information.
Ms. Fenumiai agreed.
Senator Wielechowski asked if Ms. Fenumiai knew if there
was an attempt to impact the results of the election
through the hacking being discussed or via other hackings.
Ms. Fenumiai stated that based on the information that was
provided by the federal government, there was no proof that
there was any type of influence on the election based on
the involvement of any foreign actors. She thought the
federal government had put out a report in March 2022.
9:39:13 AM
Senator Wilson asked if there had been data hacked from
another department that could impact voter registration. He
asked if there could be future vulnerabilities in a data
dump. He referenced testimony on the subject.
Ms. Fenumiai did not have first-had knowledge of what
Senator Wilson was referencing. She was not aware of the
issue as Senator Wilson described.
Senator Wilson relayed that he had gone to the lieutenant
governors office regarding the concern, which was
verified. He thought the lieutenant governors office had
contacted Ms. Fenumiai regarding the matter.
Ms. Fenumiai stated she had spoken to an agency and had
been informed that no such activity had taken place and
there was nothing that the division should be alarmed
about.
Senator Shower emphasized that he was not making any
accusations toward the Division of Elections. He noted that
the bill contained a cyber section of tools. He alleged
that the division director had indicated that previously
hacked information could be used. He continued that the
state did not know if the information had been used in a
manner to obtain ballots. He emphasized that there were
many vulnerabilities that the bill could fix. He stated he
could reference dozens of articles and press releases from
2016 to 2020 indicating how vulnerable the system was, and
how influenced we were by foreign operatives such as Russia
or China.
Co-Chair Bishop stated that it was not known who had hacked
the data. He mentioned a 14-year old that had hacked into
the Pentagon.
9:42:45 AM
Co-Chair Bishop considered the open-source software
provision. He pondered making algorithms public. He
acknowledged his lack of expertise in technology. He
thought it seemed like open-source information public; it
was similar to having a key to Fort Knox.
Senator Shower acknowledged he was not an expert. He used a
military facility analogy to describe technology that could
not be hacked because it was air-gapped, which had no
connection or port to log in to. He asserted that it was
possible to make voting machines un-hackable. He offered to
bring expert testimony to provide further information on
open source. He described the open-source concept as having
the codes, the algorithms, and the software would be
available for inspection while the tested and controlled
the voting machines. He mentioned de-identifying voter
data.
Co-Chair Bishop had more questions about the integrity of
open-source software and security. He discussed further
examination of the topic at a later time.
Senator Shower relayed that he had asked his staff to
summarize the lengthy Sectional Analysis at a high level.
9:47:00 AM
SCOTT OGAN, STAFF FOR SENATOR SHOWER, spoke to a Sectional
Analysis (copy on file). He detailed that Section 1 removed
language and allowed voters to register to vote within 30
days of an election. Section 2 pertained to same-day voter
registration, allowed an electronic image of a signature to
be taken and used, and required an affidavit verifying
residency under the penalty of perjury. He noted that the
penalty of perjury was added into the Committee Substitute
in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Section 3 pertained to a
designated language preference for ballots.
Mr. Ogan continued that Section 4 stipulated a qualified
voter registering on the day of or within 30 days of an
election may vote only an absentee in-person, special
needs, or questioned ballot. Qualified voters that register
to vote within 30 days of an election shall not vote on a
regular ballot. Section 5 related to the voter certificate
envelope and giving voters a choice to register partisan or
undeclared or as affiliated. The Senate Judiciary Committee
had deleted, "a voter's choice to register as a non-
partisan, as undeclared, or as affiliated with a political
party or political group.
Mr. Ogan explained that Section 6 stipulated a person who
has re-registered under this subsection may vote only an
absentee in-person, special needs, or questioned ballot
until the next election that occurs at least 30 days after
the date of re-registration. Section 7 would require that a
person who has moved to a new precinct to vote only an
absentee in-person, special, needs, or questioned ballot.
He explained that Section 8 stipulated a person for whom no
evidence of registration in the precinct could be found may
only vote an absentee in-person, special needs, or
questioned ballot.
Mr. Ogan continued to address the Sectional Analysis and
explained that Sections 9 through 13 were about voter
rolls. The Senate Judiciary Committee CS made some
additional database suggestions in Section 12. The CS also
changed language in Section 10 to include contracting those
that did not live in the state. Section 14 pertained to
poll watchers, which had to be citizens of the United
States. He mentioned proof showing appointment by party
committee, party district committee, organization or
organized group, or candidate the watcher represents. The
Senate Judiciary CS renamed ballot proposition in place of
an initiative or referendum. He explained that Section 15
added a new paragraph that required all official ballots
contain a watermark, seal, or other security identifier.
Co-Chair Bishop asked Mr. Ogan for further discussion on
Section 15 after he was done presenting the Sectional
Analysis.
Mr. Ogan agreed. He added that the Judiciary CS added an
election official's signature as an identifier to Section
15.
9:50:31 AM
Co-Chair Bishop referenced an earlier conversation with the
sponsor regarding duplicate absentee ballots. He thought
the section might need more work and thought the sponsor
had agreed.
Senator Shower asked for more detail.
Co-Chair Bishop referenced a recent occurrence of a United
States Mail trailer destroyed by fire. He pondered that the
division did not have enough watermarked ballots to replace
any that were destroyed.
Senator Shower discussed the Division of Elections carrying
out work at the direction of the legislature, as stated by
Ms. Fenumiai. He stated that the bill tried to give
guidance and direction. He mentioned an electronic ballot,
watermark seals and other identifiers, or an election
officials signature. He believed the bill created enough
leeway to create a workable system. He mentioned ballots
from Nagiak and verifiable ballot tracking. He mentioned a
Quick Response (QR) code, and other ways to authenticate
and identify ballots. He relayed that the QR code had been
taken out of the bill for being contentious.
Mr. Ogan relayed that there had been stories over the years
of various people finding ballots. He thought making it
difficult to counterfeit ballots would provide public
confidence. He discussed managing public perception. He
noted that the Division of Elections was not political but
had a responsibility to provide confidence.
9:55:45 AM
Mr. Ogan continued to address the Sectional Analysis, and
informed that Section 16 was all about ballot security and
incorporated new chain of custody protocols. The section
also addressed a toll-free election offense hotline. The CS
stipulated that a ballot chain of custody document must
accompany a ballot or group of ballots. Section 17 added a
new subsection to provide language assistance at polling
places. The CS stipulated that the director shall provide
each election board with notices about where to find the
election office hotline.
Mr. Ogan provided that Section 18, Section 19, and Section
20 pertained to questioned ballot procedures. Section 21
pertained to risk-limiting audits. Section 22 provided for
an online system tracking absentee ballots, and Section 23
required a return envelope to be postage-paid. The CS added
that the envelope may not identify the voters party
affiliation.
Mr. Ogan relayed that Section 24 through 28 concerned
absentee and early voting stations. The bill proposed to
change absentee voting stations to early voting stations.
Senator Shower noted that change to the voting stations was
a negotiated position from working with other members. He
thought the Division of Elections director would say there
was a difference between how early voting and absentee
voting worked. He stated he was not opposed to the change
although did not think it was required. He thought absentee
voting was used more in the Bush, and early voting was used
primarily on the road system. He did not feel strongly
about the change.
Mr. Ogan addressed Section 29, which allowed officials to
verify if a voters address was correct. Section 30 dealt
with voter eligibility, and if it could not be immediately
verified, required that the voter cast an absentee ballot.
He noted that there was a star next to items listed as
potential amendments. He continued that Section 31 allowed
for absentee voting by mail only and limited who could send
the ballot. He referenced reports of individuals that
thought they got multiple ballots from unknown sources and
that he suspected there were multiple applications.
10:00:00 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked about the reference to individuals
receiving several ballots. He wondered if people could have
been confused by a sample ballot sent by the Division of
Elections.
Senator Shower stated that under testimony, many people had
reported having multiple ballots, and after discussion it
seemed like what they thought were ballots were instead
applications. He discussed poll workers that reported
receiving multiple ballots. He mentioned people from Hoonah
testifying to seeing a person with a briefcase asking
people if they wanted a ballot, which he thought was
illegal. He had turned the information over to law
enforcement. He discussed multiple applications sent by
different parties, which he thought continued after people
left the state. He wanted the state to educate individuals
about un-registering at the time they left the state. He
mentioned a former legislator that received ballots after
leaving the state. He thought multiple ballot applications
were confusing to people.
10:02:13 AM
Mr. Ogan continued to address the Sectional Analysis. He
explained that Section 32 renamed absentee voting stations
as "early voting" stations, Section 33 required absentee
ballot applications to permit the person to declare an
official affiliation (if any). Section 34 eliminated the
witness requirement for absentee ballots, which would be
replaced with signature verification. Section 35 required a
U.S. Postal Service barcode for a ballot received after
election day, and Section 36 created a permanent absentee
provision that allowed a person to receive absentee ballots
in perpetuity. He detailed that the Senate Judiciary CS had
amended the provision to allow absentee voting for a four-
year period. Section 37 allowed further review of
certificates and envelopes. He explained that the original
bill allowed for early counting of absentee ballots, which
was amended out of the bill due to security concerns. He
clarified that individuals would still be permitted to
handle the envelopes.
Mr. Ogan addressed Section 38, pertaining to signature
verification and proposed a major change that dropped the
second signature. Section 39 allowed that an absentee
ballot may be rejected if it was not signed, postmarked, or
the ballot is delivered by mail after election day and is
not postmarked on or before election day or does not have a
U.S. Postal Service tracking barcode that verifies mailing
on or before election day. An absentee ballot may also be
rejected if the signature on the certificate is not
consistent with the signature in the voter's registration
record. This section also removes the basis for rejecting
an absentee ballot due to a lack of a witness or the
attesting official's signature. He thought it should be
noted that the Senate Judiciary Committee had approved the
no-second-signature policy because it would be replaced
with signature verification technology.
Mr. Ogan continued that Section 40 dealt with the
transition for signature verification. Section 41 allowed
properly cured ballots to be counted. Section 42
established an online ballot tracking system, and there
were some private sector apps that did so. Additionally,
Section 42 also established secure procedures for voters
whose ballots were rejected due to defects. He noted that
the Senate Judiciary CS gave express authorization for the
division to contract for the services.
10:06:37 AM
Senator Wilson asked about signature verification. He asked
Mr. Ogan to discuss the process and address digital
signatures.
Mr. Ogan deferred to Ms. Fenumiai.
Senator Wilson repeated his question about how signature
verification would work for digital signatures. He wondered
if signatures would be collected in a database.
Ms. Fenumiai stated that the procedure would be new for the
division, which was currently capturing voter signatures
digitally in the registration database. She envisioned that
the process would look similar to that used by the
Municipality of Anchorage elections. The signature was
clipped from the envelope as it went through the recording
machine, and the batch would perhaps be sent to the review
board to be reviewed against stored signatures. She
qualified that she was speaking off the cuff.
Senator Wilson asked what would happen in an individual
used a different variation of their own signature.
Ms. Fenumiai thought that a notification would be sent to
the voter asking the individual to supply a new signature.
Co-Chair Bishop handed the gavel to Co-Chair Stedman.
10:09:29 AM
Mr. Ogan continued to give a high-level overview of the
Sectional Analysis. He shared that Section 40 had to do
with the signature verification transition, and Section 41
allowed properly cured ballots to be counted. Section 42
established an online ballot tracking system that the voter
may cure.
Co-Chair Stedman handed the gavel to Co-Chair Bishop.
Mr. Ogan wanted to address a previous question from Senator
Wilson. He stated that the CS had amended the bill to give
the division the ability to procure a private contractor.
He continued that Section 43 was about a change of voting
venue and granted grounds for an election contest. Section
44 allowed the division to do all-mail elections for
certain smaller communities. The previous committee's CS
reduced the size of the communities to less than 750
people.
Mr. Ogan continued that Section 45 required the division to
adopt a forensic examination of each precinct tabulator
before and after each election and specified that the
tabulators may not be connected to internet or cellular
network 24 hours before the polls or 14 days after the
polls were closed. The Senate Judiciary CS allowed for
legislative council-appointed subject matter expert full
access to all election data machines and systems.
Co-Chair Bishop asked if the division had the capability to
conduct a forensic audit.
Ms. Fenumiai stated that the division did not have the
capability to conduct a forensic audit and would need to
get a succinct definition of what was included. She
considered forensic audit was an open-ended term. She
stated that the division was not familiar with the process.
10:12:32 AM
Senator Shower referenced subsection (f) of Section 45 and
acknowledged that there were many new provisions proposed
in the bill. He noted that the bill directed the division
to hire a technical subject matter expert, which would be a
part of the cost on the fiscal note.
Mr. Ogan continued to address the Sectional Analysis.
Section 46 stipulated that the division could only use
open-source software technology. He commented that open-
source technology would make a forensic audit easy. He
noted that the Senate Judiciary Committee had made
conforming changes that the election machines must conform
with voluntary voting guidelines and would have to be
federally certified. Section 47 also related to open-source
software. Section 48 would ensure that postage paid return
envelopes were not considered an incentive to vote, which
was a crime. He thought a free mobile phone application
should be offered if the ballot tracking utilized an app.
Mr. Ogan detailed that Sections 49, 51, 52, and 53 were all
proposed to change the criminal code associated with
election violations. He addressed Section 50, which dealt
with ballot harvesting. The bill did not ban ballot
harvesting, but the proposed to disallow people from being
hired for the task. Section 55 dealt with cyber-security.
10:15:31 AM
Senator Wielechowski had seen many times that individuals
with disabilities had needed assistance with ballot pick-up
and delivery. He asked if a candidate or campaign staffer
could assist an individual with disabilities with a ballot
pick-up and delivery under the proposed bill.
Co-Chair Bishop asked to include the topic of unpaid
volunteers to Senator Wielechowski's question.
Senator Shower stated that the goal of the bill was to
primarily stop from bringing people to the state and paying
them to canvas neighborhoods and do ballot harvesting. He
mentioned a former staffer that had been part of a group of
over 200 people that were paid and trained to collect
ballots during the governor's race. He stated that
initially the bill made ballot harvesting illegal, but the
provision was amended. He noted that one amendment would
exclude mail carriers. He thought individuals were not
affected unless being paid to collect ballots.
Senator Wielechowski asked about the philosophy behind the
provision if there were other security measures in place to
ensure ballot integrity. He asked what harm was being done
to society for people to go collect ballots.
Mr. Ogan thought the potential abuse of ballot harvesting
was that individuals were targeted. He asked what would
prevent a person with nefarious intent from harvesting
ballots and then failing to mail them. He thought ballot
harvesting was a contentious issue. He thought there was
recent case law on the subject. He thought some case law
found it was not a violation of First Amendment rights to
ban ballot harvesting, while other jurisdictions found it
was. He summarized that the bill strove to make it harder
to cheat and easier to vote, and that included putting
sidebars on ballot harvesting.
10:19:33 AM
Senator Wielechowski thought political parties collecting
their ballots had the effect of getting more people to
vote. He commented that it would be a serious crime if
people were collecting ballots to shred, and thought it was
already addressed in the bill.
Co-Chair Bishop thought there was ballot tracking so it
would be known if the ballots were shredded.
Mr. Ogan thought the proposed ballot tracking would
mitigate much of the concern, which was one of the reasons
he was more comfortable allowing ballot harvesting. He
personally wanted to see ballot harvesting banned, but the
bill sponsor wanted to be reasonable.
Senator Shower understood Senator Wielechowski's point and
thought if the bill was enacted the provision could be
stripped away. He thought there had never been indictments
or law enforcement activity around ballot harvesting. He
added that in consultation with other members that wanted
to ban ballot harvesting, the current provision was a
compromise. He cited that there were exemptions, which he
thought included volunteers.
Mr. Ogan continued to address the Sectional Analysis.
Section 56 increased the minimum compensation for all
election workers to at least $15.00 an hour. Section 57
pertained to Legislative Council power to contract with
technical subject matter experts to do full forensic
audits. He noted that there had some debate over whether
Legislative Council or the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee was the right body for the audit, and the sponsor
had chosen Legislative Council because it had the authority
to litigate against the administration if necessary.
Senator Shower wanted to comment that there had been a
healthy debate on the subject. It was agreed that the
legislature needed to have the authority to fund and direct
some type of audit if there were allegations. He mentioned
that he had been asking for the report mentioned by Senator
Wilson for over a year. He emphasized that it was important
to have the authority.
10:24:30 AM
Mr. Ogan continued to address the Sectional Analysis.
Section 58 authorized the municipal clerk to act as an
absentee voting official at an early voting station.
Section 59 allowed for late registration in municipal
elections. Section 60 repealed provisions requiring notice
of rejected absentee ballots to be provided to voters
within 10 days of certification of a primary election and
30 days of certification of a general election. This
section also repeals a provision requiring that
registration for municipal elections be made 30 days prior
to an election. He commented that Section 60 was a
compromise that was not in the original bill. He continued
that Section 61 through 65 were all effective dates.
Senator Wielechowski had seen a couple of scenarios that
had occurred many times. He had brought the matter up with
the bill sponsor. He described people who had a house in
his district yet were registered to vote in another
district. He asked about the law on the matter.
Ms. Fenumiai stated that the voters residence address was
what was given to the division on the voter registration
application until the person told the division otherwise.
She stated that people should change the residence address
with the division when they moved. She knew some people
owned multiple homes. She noted that the Department of Law
was available for comment.
Senator Wielechowski was curious about the Department of
Law's perspective on the matter. He asked if individuals
were committing a crime by living in one district and was
registered to vote in another.
10:27:38 AM
THOMAS FLYNN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
(via teleconference), thought Ms. Fenumiai had stated the
matter accurately in saying that a voters address for
voter registration was presumed accurate until the voter
said otherwise in writing. He mentioned that there were
several ways in which updated voter addresses could be
captured, such as on the Permanent Fund Dividend
application.
Senator Wielechowski asked if the action was a crime.
Mr. Flynn answered in the negative. There was also a
situation where a voter's residence address was where the
individual intended to return while they were temporarily
at another address.
Senator Wielechowski asked if a crime was committed if a
candidate encouraged a person to vote in a district in
which they were registered to but did not live.
Mr. Flynn wanted to go through the crimes in statute before
answering the question. He commented that if a person was
intentionally directing a person to vote in a way that was
not accurate, some statutes might come in to play.
Senator Wielechowski described a scenario where people had
moved out of state but were still voting. He asked if the
behavior was a crime and if the bill provided a remedy.
Mr. Flynn cited a section of the bill that dealt with
maintenance notices sent to people living out of state. He
mentioned people with the intent to return. He did not
think there was necessarily a crime but wanted to review
the statutes.
10:30:32 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked about the applicable law and
guessed there were tens of thousands of people that were
registered to vote at an address at which they did not
live. He thought it was an enormous problem. He asked if
the division thought it was a problem and whether it was
taking steps to fix the problem.
Ms. Fenumiai thought that Senator Wielechowski posed a
legal question to be addressed by the Department of Law.
She cited that the statutes were clear about if a voter had
an intent to return, and the statute had been on the books
for a long time.
Mr. Flynn directed attention to AS 15.05.020 which
pertained to the rules of determining a residence of a
voter.
Senator Wielechowski thought there had been concerns in
recent elections over whether people had sent an absentee
ballot and had then voted in person. He asked about what
would happen and which ballot would be counted.
Ms. Fenumiai stated that in the situation Senator
Wielechowski described, the division would have the
absentee ballot in possession and the outcome would be
dependent upon when the individual went to vote at the
polls. If the division had logged the voters ballot prior
to the date the precinct registers were printed, the
voters record would say already voted. If a person
returned a by-mail ballot that was logged after the
precinct registers were printed, the divisions system
could not capture the ballot put into the ballot box. She
continued that when voter history was done, the division
ran duplicate ballot checks and would find that the person
had voted a by-mail ballot and it would not be counted.
10:34:26 AM
Senator Wilson discussed FN 4, from the Office of the
Governor (OMB Component 21). He asked about the estimated
cost in outgoing years. He thought the $7 million cost was
broken down but wanted to have more detail.
Ms. Fenumiai explained that the $7 million incorporated
signature verification and reprinting all of the division's
envelopes, and it was not yet determined what other
materials would need to be reprinted. There was an estimate
for prepaid postage. Additional costs such as staff for
monitoring the cure process and hotline were given a
ballpark figure. She was not able to come up with the
ongoing costs. The $5 million was associated with the
procurement of a new voting system, which was put out for a
future year because a prior bill had an effective date in
later years while the current bill had an effective date of
2024.
Co-Chair Bishop thought it was safe to say that the fiscal
notes were a moving target the bill was finalized.
Ms. Fenumiai stated that the division had done its best to
provide accurate numbers on the fiscal note based on cost
estimations for what was included in the bill. She
discussed the importance of a thorough analysis of the new
elements proposed in the bill for determining costs. She
emphasized that until there was a request for proposals
(RFP) issued, the cost of a new system was not known. She
had used current costs to aid in estimations of new
systems. She had heard in previous committees that a new
open-source system would be about half the cost of the
current system.
Senator Wilson understood that most fiscal notes were
educated guesses as to expected costs. He thought there
seemed to be a minimum of $7 million, and he wanted a
further detail on a cost analysis for first-year costs. He
thought it seemed that departments were getting lazy with
fiscal notes and emphasized the importance of fiscal notes
in the committee process.
10:39:05 AM
Senator Shower did not argue with the director's position
on the matter. He affirmed the accuracy of the statement
regarding the cost of a new open-source system. He thought
the Dominion system had cost $4 million. He added that it
was important that the sponsor was not suggesting a
direction to a specific vendor. He acknowledged that there
were other less costly options.
Co-Chair Bishop asked Ms. Fenumiai what year the last
update to the states voting machines was completed.
Ms. Fenumiai relayed that the division had procured new
voting equipment in 2019 and used the new tabulators and
voting tablets in the 2020 election cycle.
Senator Shower thanked the testifiers. He thanked the
members. He mentioned Co-Chair Stedman's earlier remarks.
He hoped he had highlighted some of the reasons for the
changes proposed in the bill, as well as some of the
states vulnerabilities. He wanted to add that the
lieutenant governor supported the bill. He mentioned
discussions with the lieutenant governor, who agreed that
there were problems and vulnerabilities such as with the
automatic voter registration.
SB 39 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Bishop discussed the agenda for the afternoon.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 39 Sec Analysis Final.pdf |
SFIN 4/28/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |
| SB 39 Sponsor Statement (JUD).pdf |
SFIN 4/28/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 39 |