Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205

04/26/2021 01:30 PM JUDICIARY

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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= SB 122 VICTIM DEFINITION TELECONFERENCED
Moved SB 122 Out of Committee
-- Invited & Public Testimony --
+= SB 82 ELECTIONS; ELECTION INVESTIGATIONS TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSSB 82(JUD) Out of Committee
-- Invited & Public Testimony --
+= SJR 6 CONST. AM: PERM FUND & PFDS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Invited & Public Testimony --
+= SB 53 PERM FUND; ADVISORY VOTE TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Invited & Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
**Streamed live on AKL.tv**
            SB 82-ELECTIONS; ELECTION INVESTIGATIONS                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:04:00 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration  of SENATE BILL NO. 82,                                                               
"An Act relating to elections and election investigations."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:04:21 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:05:17 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:05:37 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR SHOWER  moved to adopt the  proposed committee substitute                                                               
(CS)  for SB  82, [work  order  32-GS1645\B, Version  B], as  the                                                               
working document.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, Version B was before the committee.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:06:20 PM                                                                                                                    
At ease                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:06:24 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HOLLAND opened public testimony on SB 82.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:06:56 PM                                                                                                                    
GHERT ABBOTT,  representing self, Ketchikan, Alaska,  offered his                                                               
belief that  SB 82  is necessary  because former  President Trump                                                               
was unwilling to accept his 2020  election loss. In an attempt to                                                               
overturn the  election result, he and  his supporters constructed                                                               
a vast  conspiracy theory about  how the voting  machine software                                                               
was programmed by  the government of Venezuela  and various other                                                               
actors.  When repeated  hand count  returns confirmed  the voting                                                               
machine  accuracy,  Mr.  Trump and  his  supporters  shifted  the                                                               
accusations to  ones about ballot  stuffing. No courts  or audits                                                               
found any  evidence to  support these  allegations. Subsequently,                                                               
many  state  legislatures introduced  bills  with  the intent  of                                                               
reinforcing doubt and distrust in the election system.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
He  offered his  belief  that SB  82  is one  of  the bills  that                                                               
pretend to  solve a  pretend problem,  giving credibility  to the                                                               
accusations that the  2020 election was fraudulent. SB  82 is not                                                               
necessary. He urged members to reject SB 82.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:08:47 PM                                                                                                                    
BERT HOUGHTALING,  representing self,  Big Lake, Alaska,  said he                                                               
will  speak in  support  of  any bill  that  will strengthen  the                                                               
integrity of  Alaska's elections.  He offered  his view  that the                                                               
November  2020 election  was full  of fraud.  However, it  lacked                                                               
sufficient  fraud to  overturn the  election  results. The  state                                                               
needs  to  clean  up  Alaska's election  rolls  and  ensure  that                                                               
Alaska's legal votes are counted.  He offered his support for any                                                               
bill that will help ensure fair and free elections.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:10:01 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HOLLAND closed public testimony on SB 82.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:10:30 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL moved  to adopt Conceptual Amendment  1 [work order                                                               
32-GS1645\B, Version  B]. Conceptual Amendment 1  was prepared by                                                               
his office and is labeled Conceptual Amendment 7]. It read:                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Offered to: CSSB 82(JUD), Draft Version "B"                                                                                
     Offered by: Sen. Kiehl                                                                                                     
     Pg. 4, following ln. 12:                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Insert new subsection to read:                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     "(k) Any  court action brought by  the attorney general                                                                    
     to enforce this section  against a candidate or elected                                                                    
     official  must  be  brought within  two  years  of  the                                                                    
     filing of the complaint."                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Reletter the following subsections accordingly.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:10:51 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL explained  Conceptual  Amendment 1  to Version  B,                                                               
would  replace [Amendment  2] which  was  offered, discussed  and                                                               
withdrawn at  the 4/23/21 hearing  on SB 82.  He said he  has had                                                               
ongoing discussions  with the Department  of Law (DOL).  He noted                                                               
DOL  would prefer  the  original language  in  SB 82.  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1  would provide the  attorney general a  two-year time                                                               
limit to  bring action against  a candidate or  elected official.                                                               
He  clarified  that  Conceptual  Amendment  1  would  not  affect                                                               
complaints   filed  against   the   Division   of  Elections,   a                                                               
municipality, political party or group.  DOL would need to file a                                                               
complaint  or drop  the  issue  within two  years  of filing  the                                                               
complaint.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:12:28 PM                                                                                                                    
CORI  MILLS, Senior  Assistant Attorney  General,  Labor &  State                                                               
Affairs  Section,  Civil  Division, Department  of  Law,  Juneau,                                                               
Alaska, agreed DOL prefers the  original language in SB 82. While                                                               
she could  not say the  department supports  Conceptual Amendment                                                               
1, providing  a two-year statute  of limitations would  force DOL                                                               
to prioritize complaints. It would  also clarify the status of an                                                               
investigation. Once the statute of  limitations is over, it would                                                               
bring the  finality that the  committee desires. She  offered her                                                               
belief that this  language is at least workable  if the committee                                                               
decides to take this route.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:13:47 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  SHOWER  related  his understanding  that  a  statute  of                                                               
limitations sets up  a time limit within which an  action must be                                                               
brought.  He  asked  if  this means  the  investigation  must  be                                                               
completed within two years or  if an investigation could continue                                                               
if  the accusation  is  filed within  the  statute of  limitation                                                               
timeframe.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:14:29 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MILLS  responded that DOL would  need to file an  action with                                                               
the  two-year limit  but the  investigation does  not need  to be                                                               
completed within  the statute of  limitations timeframe.  At that                                                               
point, DOL would  make it public that it was  trying to enforce a                                                               
violation.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:15:19 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR HUGHES  stated that this  would place some  constraint on                                                               
DOL  but  she believes  Conceptual  Amendment  1 raises  a  valid                                                               
point. Many  of the complaints  made on candidates  or incumbents                                                               
pertain to financial matters that  would be handled by the Alaska                                                               
Public  Offices   Commission  (APOC),   such  as   residency,  or                                                               
qualifications  that  would be  determined  within  30 days.  She                                                               
offered her view  that Conceptual Amendment 1 would  pertain to a                                                               
limited  number  of incidents  related  to  candidates. It  would                                                               
require DOL  to prioritize cases,  which she does not  object to.                                                               
Alaska  is one  of the  few  states without  an elected  attorney                                                               
general. She acknowledged that partisan  actions could occur. She                                                               
said that the  time limit is reasonable. She  offered her support                                                               
for Conceptual Amendment 1.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:17:06 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HOLLAND maintained his objection.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was taken.  Senators  Hughes,  Myers,  Kiehl                                                               
Shower, and Holland voted in  favor of Conceptual Amendment 1 and                                                               
no senators  voted against it. Therefore,  Conceptual Amendment 1                                                               
was adopted by a 5:0 vote.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:17:44 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL moved  to adopt  Conceptual  Amendment 2,  labeled                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 8, prepared by his office, which read:                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Offered to: CSSB 82(JUD), Draft Version                                                                                    
     Offered by: Sen. Kiehl                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Pg. 3, lns. 29-31:                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
       Delete: "Intelligence information of the attorney                                                                        
      general is not a public record and is not subject to                                                                      
     disclosure under AS 40.25.100  40.25.295."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HOLLAND objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:18:03 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  explained that Conceptual  Amendment 2  arose from                                                               
the  committee   discussion  on   the  meaning   of  intelligence                                                               
information.   He  said   he  held   discussions  with   DOL  and                                                               
subsequently  reviewed the  Public  Records  Act. Ultimately,  he                                                               
concluded  that  DOL's  exemption  for  intelligence  information                                                               
should be  removed from the  bill. This exemption would  create a                                                               
special, secret category that is  not even provided to the Alaska                                                               
State Troopers or other law  enforcement agencies. Some things do                                                               
not require disclosure. The underlying  bill says the information                                                               
from  these investigations  would  have the  same exceptions  and                                                               
protections. By removing intelligence  information from SB 82, it                                                               
would not  compromise law enforcement  or disclose  anything that                                                               
will become a hot issue in  a court fight. The Public Records Act                                                               
allows the  public to view  government actions just as  for other                                                               
agencies  in  state  government.  Although  he  tried  to  define                                                               
"intelligence information,"  he ultimately concluded  "a special,                                                               
secret  category" for  DOL  was  not needed.  Alaska  has a  good                                                               
Public  Records  Act  that allows  any  confidential  information                                                               
necessary to conduct an investigation be held confidential.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:20:17 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR SHOWER expressed concern  that some information during an                                                               
investigation  should not  be shared  since  it could  jeopardize                                                               
cases or cause problems for  law enforcement. He agreed that most                                                               
information should  be released  but it  is also  appropriate for                                                               
the department  to provide transparency  and be open.  He offered                                                               
to research  the pertinent statutes. He  asked the administration                                                               
to comment.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:21:47 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MILLS responded  that there may have  been a misunderstanding                                                               
about what the department previously  stated about the meaning of                                                               
intelligence.  As   a  policy  matter,   DOL  does   not  support                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 2, she said.  Exempting information from the                                                               
Public Records  Act allows the  department to  obtain information                                                               
from parties  since the parties understand  that this information                                                               
will  be   held  in  confidence.   She  expressed   concern  that                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 2  could affect the fiscal  impact since the                                                               
department  receives a  substantial number  of public  records it                                                               
would need  to review. She  said most  DOL records should  not be                                                               
disclosed due  to privacy concerns, law  enforcement referrals or                                                               
ongoing investigations. In fact,  when people file public records                                                               
requests  related to  criminal cases,  DOL must  advise them  the                                                               
department cannot  even disclose whether an  investigation exists                                                               
since  that disclosure  could hinder  an investigation.  She said                                                               
she was  unsure if their requests  would even lead to  the public                                                               
obtaining additional information. Yet,  it would be burdensome to                                                               
the department to  redact the documents. It  is vitally important                                                               
in civil investigations to receive  candid information. While the                                                               
public is  inclined to expect confidentiality  in law enforcement                                                               
matters, the  public tends  to be  less certain  that information                                                               
will be  held confidential  in civil  matters. When  drafting the                                                               
bill, the  department was intentional in  considering what should                                                               
be considered public information and what should be protected.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. MILLS  pointed out DOL  agreed to  the notice of  findings in                                                               
Conceptual  Amendment 4  to Version  A  that was  adopted at  the                                                               
hearing  on  4/23/21. DOL  agreed  the  amendment would  help  to                                                               
ensure information will not hinder  DOL investigations or lead to                                                               
overly burdensome  redactions of information. She  said she spoke                                                               
to  Deputy   General  Skidmore  to  better   understand  the  law                                                               
enforcement   aspect.  She   reported   it   is  important   that                                                               
information DOL  shares remains confidential to  further criminal                                                               
investigations  and   to  ensure  open  relationships   with  the                                                               
department's counterparts.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:25:26 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  SHOWER referred  to page  3, lines  29-31 of  Version B,                                                               
which read:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Intelligence  information of  the  attorney general  is                                                                    
     not a  public record and  is not subject  to disclosure                                                                    
     under AS 40.25.100 - 40.25.295.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR SHOWER  clarified it  was not his  intention to  give the                                                               
executive  branch   the  ability  to  avoid   giving  the  public                                                               
information. However,  Intelligence information is  important. He                                                               
referred to  AS 40.25.120 related to  public records, exceptions,                                                               
certified copies, the exceptions fall under paragraph:                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     (6)   records   or   information   compiled   for   law                                                                    
     enforcement purposes,  but only to the  extent that the                                                                    
     production   of   the   law  enforcement   records   or                                                                    
     information                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     (A)  could reasonably  be  expected  to interfere  with                                                                    
     enforcement proceedings;                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     (B) would deprive  a person of a right to  a fair trial                                                                    
     or an impartial adjudication;                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     (C)  could  reasonably  be expected  to  constitute  an                                                                    
     unwarranted  invasion  of  the personal  privacy  of  a                                                                    
     suspect, defendant, victim, or witness;                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     (D)  could  reasonably  be  expected  to  disclose  the                                                                    
     identity of a confidential source;                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     (E)   would   disclose  confidential   techniques   and                                                                    
     procedures  for   law  enforcement   investigations  or                                                                    
     prosecutions;                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     (F)  would  disclose  guidelines  for  law  enforcement                                                                    
     investigations or prosecutions  if the disclosure could                                                                    
     reasonably  be expected  to risk  circumvention of  the                                                                    
     law; or                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     (G) could  reasonably be expected to  endanger the life                                                                    
     or physical safety of an individual;                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR   SHOWER  asked   DOL   to   clarify  what   intelligence                                                               
information means.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:27:43 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MILLS  restated her  description of  intelligence information                                                               
provided at the last hearing.  DOL views intelligence information                                                               
as  information that  is gathered  actively in  an investigation.                                                               
She  explained that  the investigators  may be  gathering witness                                                               
testimony or  obtaining documents that are  not otherwise public.                                                               
All information gathered in an  investigation is information that                                                               
could be used for law enforcement purposes, she said.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  SHOWER  related  his understanding  that  a  substantial                                                               
amount of  information relates to  criminal proceedings,  such as                                                               
for drug cases, in which  lives could be jeopardized. However, he                                                               
related his understanding that this  realm pertains more to civil                                                               
proceedings relating to election law.  He surmised it wouldn't be                                                               
necessary to  have undercover agents.  He asked  for confirmation                                                               
that that's not what is being discussed here.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILLS agreed.  However,  she  said it  is  amazing how  much                                                               
criminal conduct can be uncovered  in civil investigations. It is                                                               
possible  to  find  criminal  conduct  which  would  be  referred                                                               
appropriately.  She agreed  election investigation  activity does                                                               
not  pertain to  discussions related  to criminal  investigation,                                                               
such as search and seizure.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:30:07 PM                                                                                                                    
JOHN HALEY,  Assistant Attorney  General, Special  Litigation and                                                               
Consumer   Protection,  Civil   Division,   Department  of   Law,                                                               
Anchorage,   Alaska,   stated   that  generally   speaking,   the                                                               
department  views  intelligence  information  quite  broadly.  He                                                               
characterized  intelligence  information   as  information  about                                                               
potential  violations  of law  including  tips  from the  public,                                                               
documents,  or anything  else gathered  in the  investigation. It                                                               
may  include  photographs, stakeout  videos,  or  other types  of                                                               
information that  could occur  within the  context of  a criminal                                                               
investigation  or  a  civil investigation.  He  agreed  with  Ms.                                                               
Mill's  comments  that  civil investigations  can  often  uncover                                                               
criminal activity.  Sometimes a violation  of law could  be civil                                                               
or  criminal  at  the  same  time.  For  example,  tax  fraud  or                                                               
securities fraud often relates to civil and criminal conduct.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
He stated that one purpose of SB  82 was to create the ability to                                                               
get to  court earlier  through a civil  process to  allow certain                                                               
violations to  be uncovered and  remedied before it  could affect                                                               
the  outcome  of  an  election.  He  offered  his  view  that  an                                                               
investigation  could involve  parallel  investigations, in  which                                                               
the civil section is investigating a  matter at the same time the                                                               
criminal  section  may  be investigating  the  same  conduct.  He                                                               
expressed  concern  that  the   potential  to  publicly  disclose                                                               
information  related  to a  civil  investigation  may cause  some                                                               
consternation  for criminal  investigators. It  could potentially                                                               
hinder an investigation, he said.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:32:09 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  HUGHES referred  to page  3,  subsection (h)  of SB  82,                                                               
Version B,  that once  the attorney general  submits a  notice of                                                               
findings  to  the  division  the record  and  notice  are  public                                                               
records.  DOL   expressed  concerns  about  tipoffs   during  the                                                               
investigation. She  asked whether this  issue could be  solved by                                                               
adding language that  keeps intelligence information confidential                                                               
until  the  civil  or  criminal  investigation  is  completed  to                                                               
prevent hindering  the investigation.  She asked whether  once an                                                               
investigation is completed if  the intelligence information could                                                               
be  released or  if  DOL  is more  concerned  about the  workload                                                               
envisioned due to the volume of investigations.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:33:32 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. MILLS responded  that this raises two issues.  Once the civil                                                               
case is concluded,  it might not mean  the criminal investigation                                                               
is  finished.   The  minute  DOL   reveals  the  name   of  those                                                               
interviewed or which photos were taken  in a civil case, it could                                                               
adversely   affect  an   ongoing   criminal  investigation.   She                                                               
suggested  that  DOL  would  need  to  consider  the  statute  of                                                               
limitations  on  the  criminal   conduct.  Second,  as  mentioned                                                               
earlier, it raises the issue  of the sheer volume of intelligence                                                               
information that  would need to  be reviewed and redacted  as per                                                               
the  exceptions in  statutes Senator  Shower  read. Further,  DOL                                                               
would not  be reimbursed for  any costs to  do so. She  said that                                                               
while  she   understands  the  concern  about   transparency  and                                                               
accountability,  perhaps it could be  done in an aggregate way to                                                               
ensure  accountability   to  the  legislature,  yet   not  hamper                                                               
investigations.  DOL does  not want  to lose  investigative tools                                                               
because  witnesses  are afraid  that  their  participation in  an                                                               
investigation will become public.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:36:42 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  HUGHES  asked  whether  part  of  the  problem  is  that                                                               
intelligence  information   is  broad.  She   suggested  defining                                                               
intelligence information  or to  make it clear  which information                                                               
cannot  be  released  until  any   criminal  and  civil  case  is                                                               
completed.  She asked  whether adding  another  exemption in  the                                                               
Public Records Act might solve the problem.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MILLS responded  that these  are big  policy questions.  She                                                               
agreed it  could be addressed in  the Public Records Act  but the                                                               
fiscal note  would still need to  be increased due to  the review                                                               
process. DOL  would prefer not  to make  any changes to  the bill                                                               
related   to  this.   She  cautioned   that  since   intelligence                                                               
information is  a term  used in other  statutes, trying  to solve                                                               
this issue could create another one.  She pointed out SB 82 still                                                               
has two committee  referrals. She suggested trying  to figure out                                                               
how to carve that out. DOL  has not previously needed to describe                                                               
categories   of    investigative   tools   or    documents.   She                                                               
characterized it  as a  policy conundrum that  make take  time to                                                               
think  through to  resolve any  issues  that might  be caused  by                                                               
opening this up.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:39:41 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL said  Senator Hughes's questions get  to the reason                                                               
for Conceptual  Amendment 2,  which is  that the  amendment would                                                               
not open  everything up. Further,  it would not  subject anything                                                               
to the public records act  until after the civil investigation is                                                               
completed. He acknowledged  that intelligence information appears                                                               
in another statute and it is  not defined. Senator Shower read an                                                               
extensive list  of exceptions of disclosures,  including that any                                                               
information  related to  an active  criminal investigation  would                                                               
not  be disclosed.  Anything made  confidential  by federal  law,                                                               
such  as  information  shared  by   the  Department  of  Homeland                                                               
Security,  or  trade secrets  would  not  need to  be  disclosed.                                                               
Ultimately,  this amendment  would pertain  to post-investigative                                                               
actions. It's hard for him to  see how it would create challenges                                                               
for  DOL's civil  division  to work  with  the criminal  division                                                               
since  these  are the  rules  that  the criminal  division  works                                                               
under,  he   said.  He   said  he   was  unsure   what  aggregate                                                               
accountability means. Ultimately, it appears  that it would be "a                                                               
pain in  the neck"  for government  to sift  through intelligence                                                               
information. However, it should also be  "a pain in the neck" for                                                               
government  to   keep  things  secret  from   the  citizens  once                                                               
investigations are  completed. He acknowledged this  comes with a                                                               
price but Alaska  has a good Public Records Act,  which should be                                                               
followed.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:42:33 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HOLLAND  related his understanding that  this would address                                                               
civil    investigations    and     not    necessarily    criminal                                                               
investigations.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:42:39 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR SHOWER  expressed a willingness  to work with DOL  on the                                                               
definition for intelligence information.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:43:08 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR HUGHES,  speaking generally  about the bill,  stated that                                                               
the National Council of State  Legislatures (NCSL) pointed out in                                                               
early  2000, an  Act required  states to  establish a  system for                                                               
complaints.  Thus, SB  82 does  not relate  to the  last election                                                               
cycle  but  rather that  Alaska  lags  behind other  states.  She                                                               
stated her preference is to avoid a  big fiscal note. SB 82 has a                                                               
referral to the Senate State  Affairs Committee, where the issues                                                               
can  potentially  be  addressed  and still  avoid  a  big  fiscal                                                               
impact. She said  she does not support Conceptual  Amendment 2 to                                                               
Version B.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:45:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR HOLLAND maintained his objection.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:45:12 PM                                                                                                                    
A  roll call  vote was  taken. Senator  Kiehl voted  in favor  of                                                               
Conceptual Amendment  2 and Senators  Myers, Shower,  Hughes, and                                                               
Holland  voted  against  it. Therefore,  Conceptual  Amendment  2                                                               
failed by a 1:4 vote.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:45:42 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL stated  that two  of his  amendments were  held in                                                               
abeyance from the 4/23/21 hearing on SB 82, Version A.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  KIEHL withdrew  Amendment 1  [work order  32-GS1645\A.1]                                                               
and Amendment  2 [work order 32-GS1645\A.7]  that were previously                                                               
tabled.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  HOLLAND  stated  that  Amendment 1  and  Amendment  2  are                                                               
withdrawn.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:46:25 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR HUGHES asked  the record to reflect that the  state has a                                                               
duty  to  have  a  system  in place  to  handle  complaints.  She                                                               
acknowledged that  partisan politics exist. She  offered her view                                                               
that  an  attorney  general  could   potentially  cover  for  the                                                               
Division  of Elections.  That is  more  apt to  happen in  Alaska                                                               
because Alaska does  not have an elected attorney  general who is                                                               
directly responsible  to the  people. She  said she  considered a                                                               
model  with  citizen oversight  for  the  complaint process.  For                                                               
example,  if  a complaint  is  filed  with  the division  but  is                                                               
dismissed,  the complainant  could request  the attorney  general                                                               
consider the  matter. If  the attorney  general takes  a partisan                                                               
position  and declines  the case,  the complainant's  next option                                                               
would be to file a case  in superior court, which is an expensive                                                               
option. She  could not find  a model  but she suggested  that the                                                               
need exists. She  said she appreciates that SB  82 addresses some                                                               
issues  but  the  issue related  to  releasing  information  will                                                               
trigger  a fiscal  note.  She maintained  her  view that  citizen                                                               
oversight is  a necessary component  unless the state  elects its                                                               
attorney general. SB 82 provides  some important steps to provide                                                               
a system  for complaints and  investigations, she  said. However,                                                               
one area of concern still needs to be addressed.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:49:18 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MYERS offered  his view that this bill is  not a response                                                               
to  the 2020  election as  one testifier  indicated. He  recalled                                                               
issues that arose  in Alaska's 2018 election resulting  in a case                                                               
with former  Representative LeDoux that  is not yet  resolved. He                                                               
recalled that  the investigation became public  in 2020. Although                                                               
COVID-19 contributed  to some of the  delays in that case,  SB 82                                                               
will provide tools  to give the administration  an opportunity to                                                               
resolve issues earlier and better serve the public.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:50:55 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR SHOWER offered  his view that election issues  go back to                                                               
the 2012, 2014,  and the 2016 elections and not  just to the 2020                                                               
election.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:51:51 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR SHOWER moved  to report SB 82, work  order 32-GS1645\B as                                                               
amended,  from  committee  with  individual  recommendations  and                                                               
attached fiscal  note(s). There being no  objection, CSSB 82(JUD)                                                               
was reported from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                      

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
CSSB82 version B.pdf SJUD 4/26/2021 1:30:00 PM
SB 82
SB53 and SJR6 Written Testimony.pdf SJUD 4/26/2021 1:30:00 PM
SB 53
SJR 6
Kroll_SB53_SJUD_042621.pdf SJUD 4/26/2021 1:30:00 PM
SB 53