Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/15/2001 08:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 15, 2001
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 109
"An Act relating to failure by an election official to execute
the voter's certificate on an absentee ballot or by a person
authorized by law to execute the voter's certificate on a
questioned ballot."
- MOVED HB 109 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 110
"An Act relating to driver's licenses and instructional permits;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 109
SHORT TITLE:VOTING IN PERSON BY ABSENTEE BALLOT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)COGHILL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/05/01 0240 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/05/01 0240 (H) STA
02/15/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 110
SHORT TITLE:SOCIAL SECURITY # & DRIVER'S LICENSES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)COGHILL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/05/01 0241 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/05/01 0241 (H) STA, JUD
02/05/01 0241 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
02/15/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
to Representative Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 109.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist
Central Office
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Post Office Box 110017
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0017
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 109.
CHARLES R. HOSACK, Deputy Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
3300B Fairbanks Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 110.
KEVIN SHORES, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Department of Law
Post Office Box 110300
Juneau, Alasa 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 110.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-13, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Coghill, Fate, Stevens,
Wilson, and Crawford. Representatives James and Hayes joined
the meeting as it was in progress.
HB 109-VOTING IN PERSON BY ABSENTEE BALLOT
Number 0180
CHAIR COGHILL announced the first order of business as HOUSE
BILL NO. 109, "An Act relating to failure by an election
official to execute the voter's certificate on an absentee
ballot or by a person authorized by law to execute the voter's
certificate on a questioned ballot."
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, came forward to present HB 109. She explained that
during the municipal election last year, a constituent who
wanted to vote in the had gone to the city hall in North Pole
and cast a questioned ballot. A couple of weeks later, the
voter received a letter from the borough clerk's office
explaining that his ballot was not counted because it had not
been signed by an election official. House Bill 109 deals with
questioned ballots and absentee ballots. When people vote
questioned or absentee [ballots], they fill out a certification
[on an envelope in which the ballot will be enclosed]. State
law says if an absentee or questioned ballot is not filled out
correctly by the election official, the vote will count. This
does not happen often; this is the first time she has heard of
it and she has been an election worker since 1970. But because
it does happen, the voters should not be punished.
CHAIR COGHILL said that the bill is giving the benefit of the
doubt to the voter.
Number 0431
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what a questioned ballot is.
MS. MOSS explained that a questioned ballot is [cast] when a
voter votes out of his/her precinct. There is a registered
voter list at each precinct, and if the voter is not on that
precinct list, he/she cannot be refused the right to vote, but
he/she has to vote a questioned ballot, by which the voter
certifies that he/she is a registered voter. The ballot goes to
[the Division of] Elections and goes through a canvassing
process where it is checked to be sure the voter is registered
and then the vote is counted.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked where a voter can vote a questioned
ballot.
MS. MOSS replied that a voter can vote at [the polling place
for] any precinct. The constituent who voted at the North Pole
city hall [and whose vote was not counted] lived in another
precinct.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON wondered if there wasn't anyone at city
hall who could have initialed it.
MS. MOSS said the election official is supposed to do so, but
during a general election, especially a presidential election,
things can get hectic and mistakes can happen.
Number 0569
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said the election official didn't do what
he/she was supposed to do. He wondered if passing HB 109 would
make possible any abuse of the system by someone voting when
he/she shouldn't be voting.
MS. MOSS replied that she didn't think so. This [HB 109]
basically says if the error is on the part of the election
worker, then the vote will be counted. The voter also has to
complete the document properly. If an error is the voter's
fault, the ballot doesn't count; if the error is the election
worker's fault, then the ballot does count.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if there was any chance of abuse of
this. For example, if the signature isn't required, is there a
chance of [counting] a counterfeit questioned ballot? Could the
box be stuffed without the election officials' signatures on
[questioned ballots]?
MS. MOSS answered that first of all, the voter has to sign the
document for it to be valid. In order to vote a questioned
ballot, the voter must show identification. She doesn't see any
way to abuse it.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked: If a questioned ballot was found
and it wasn't signed by an election official, and the election
official said he/she didn't remember [the ballot] and didn't
think it had come through his/her precinct, would it still be
allowed even though he/she believed it didn't belong there?
MS. MOSS explained that the questioned ballots are brought
before a canvassing board, and if an election worker felt that
an envelope had been placed in the ballot box improperly, that
would be dealt with by the canvassing board.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said the purpose of the election
official's signature is to show that he/she has looked at the
identification. [Otherwise,] how would the canvassing board
know that that person had the proper identification?
MS. MOSS replied that the canvassing board would have to deal
with [such questions], and if it came to the point of having to
call the election worker to the canvassing board and
interviewing that worker, there is a process for doing that.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said that gets back to Representative
Crawford's question about putting the responsibility on
someone's memory.
MS. MOSS explained that precincts are close-knit. Election
boards are [made up of] very responsible people. Most of the
election board people work 20-25 years; they know everybody in
the precinct; they have very good memories. The purpose of this
bill is to protect an individual's right to vote.
CHAIR COGHILL explained that positive identification and a
signature [are required of] the voter. If, inadvertently, the
date was not properly put on or the signature block wasn't
signed properly by the election official, HB 109 is saying that
the voter still voted properly, in good faith, and "we" messed
up. Chair Coghill added that he is not trying to "lift the lid"
on any fraud opportunity.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON expressed her reluctance on this issue
because it might open.
Number 1009
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist, Central Office,
Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, came
forward to answer questions. She explained the questioned
ballot process. If somebody votes out of precinct and his/her
name is not on the precinct register, at that time he/she would
then be asked to vote a questioned ballot because everybody has
the right to vote. The other reason somebody would vote a
questioned ballot is if he/she did not have identification or
was not personally known by an election worker at that precinct.
The questioned ballot envelope has the same information [on it]
that is required on a voter registration form. If that person
is not registered at the time, he/she ... would then be
registered by completing that envelope. Information the voter
provides includes: Name, residence address, a mailing address,
the city lived in, and optional information such as place of
birth, date of birth, and Social Security number. She said
about 95 percent of the people provide that information plus
his/her signature and also the signature of the election
official. When somebody votes a questioned ballot, he/she also
signs a questioned register at the precinct, which is another
tool precinct workers use in the ballot accountability
[procedure] at the end of the night. The register is used to
verify the number of questioned ballots.
MS. FENUMIAI explained there is a tight ballot accountability
process that [is followed] at the end of the evening. The
election workers must account for every ballot that they had
when the polls opened at 7 a.m., every ballot issued, and every
ballot that has been spoiled, until 8 p.m. The questioned
ballot is contained in an envelope and goes to the regional
election office that has jurisdiction for the House district in
which that ballot was cast, and [the questioned ballot is]
reviewed by a bipartisan board that checks to see if the person
was registered, based on the information provided on that
envelope. Signatures also are examined. If the person is
registered to vote based on the information provided on the
envelope, the eligibility of the right to have voted that ballot
is then determined. If the residence address is still the same
as what appears on the voter registration system, then the voter
just voted "out of precinct" but not "out of district," and it
would be a "full count ballot." If the residence address is
changed and the person is voting out of district, then it is a
"partial count ballot," which means certain portions of the
ballot would count. [Votes on] statewide issues would count for
everybody as long as the voter was registered 30 days before the
election. If the voter moves from House District 12 to House
District 13 and he/she voted in House District 13, the House
District portion would not count unless that change of address
had been made 30 days prior to the election.
MS. FENUMIAI noted there are good checks and balances in place
to see if people are trying to abuse the system, and it just
doesn't happen. Everybody that signs a precinct register on
election day establishes a "voter history" that goes into the
voter registration data base. It is flagged in the system that
the individual voted in person. When the review board reviews
absentee and questioned ballots, if they find somebody who had
already voted in person, a flag goes up ... and further
investigation is done. If it turns out the voter voted twice,
the second ballot is not counted and the voter's name is sent to
the Department of Law.
CHAIR COGHILL asked, "If a person voting a questioned ballot
doesn't sign it or fails to complete the paperwork in the
mandatory area, would the vote still count?"
MS. FENUMIAI said it would be rejected because the voter didn't
provide sufficient information.
CHAIR COGHILL said that if the voter does everything right, but
there is an inadvertent mistake on the election official's part,
the voter's vote still counts; [that] is where this bill is
trying to go.
MS. FENUMIAI agreed. She gave some statistics from the last
general election. There were only two absentee in-person
ballots and one questioned ballot statewide that were rejected
for this reason. If the voter has done everything in his/her
power to do it right, if it was an election official's error,
she does not want to see the voter penalized. It happens very
rarely.
CHAIR COGHILL explained that he introduced the bill not to
highlight a major error, but many things come down to one vote
and he wants to make sure that the voter has the benefit of any
doubt.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS agreed that made sense, but if the
signature is not needed in this case, why is there ever a
reason?
MS. FENUMIAI said they would still like to have it because the
only way to get a questioned ballot or absentee in-person ballot
is to get it from an election official. It is another
safeguard. It helps to protect the validity of that ballot
being cast. She said she doesn't think he would want witnessing
to go away altogether. If no witnessing was required, there
might be more opportunity for potential abuse of the system.
Number 1522
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if there were only two questioned
ballots this [last] time, how many would there have to be before
the Division of Elections would think it was unusual enough to
check.
MS. FENUMIAI replied that if an election official didn't sign
about 15 [of the questioned ballots], the Division of Elections
would be concerned that it had not done a good job in training
those people. She thinks that in past court cases, the Division
of Elections has been advised that if there is an error on the
part of the election official, the division should rule in favor
of the voter.
Number 1582
CHAIR COGHILL noted that Representative James had joined the
committee meeting.
Number 1619
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if [when handling] absentee military
votes, the Division of Elections pays attention to the date
stamp or the date the voter signed the ballot. She said she was
concerned because many military personnel have no control over
when mail is posted and much military mail does not have a
postmark on it.
MS. FENUMIAI said the Division of Elections does look at the
postmark to see that the ballot was postmarked on or before
election day, and the ballot has to be received within so many
days after the election in order to be counted.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if they ever get military ballots
from overseas that do not have a postmark.
MS. FENUMIAI did not know.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said all the mail she had received from her
husband when he was in military service came without a postmark.
That was a long time ago, and she wondered what the situation is
now. She has heard concern from military personnel that they
have no control over when mail is posted when they are at sea or
on a mission.
MS. FENUMIAI said "special advance overseas" ballots are sent 60
days in advance to military personnel who are going to be out of
the state at election time. She does not recall seeing one
[come back] that did not have a postmark, but she remembers
seeing a lot of federal FPO and APO postmarks with the dates on
them.
Number 1774
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if the question [addressed by HB
109] could be approached from the other direction, by making
sure that no ballot gets through without a signature. He asked
how the signing takes place and what the procedure is.
MS. FENUMIAI said when a voter goes to a polling place ... to
vote a questioned ballot, the election official gives the voter
an envelope to fill out, the voter returns it to the election
official, and [the official] signs the envelope. The voter
signs the questioned register, which is supposed to already have
a signature on it from the official at the start of business
that day. The voter then takes the ballot into the voting
booth, returns it to the official, and puts it inside the
envelope. Then [the envelope] is put into a special bin in the
ballot box, which at the end of the night is taken out, counted
to go through the ballot accountability process, then delivered
to the regional office on election night for review.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked, "Then it never goes through the
Accu-Vote System? At the polling place, [the voter] goes back
to the official and that's when the voter signs it, or has the
voter already signed the form by that time?"
MS. FENUMIAI said the voter signs the envelope when completing
the information on the envelope.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked, "So you take it back to the voting
official and that's when they sign it, after the voter has
completed it?"
MS. FENUMIAI replied, "Yes, and the ballot is sealed in that
envelope. It does not go through the precinct tabulator until
it has been reviewed by the [election] board.
Number 1888
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD recalled that in the election in 1996,
before the Accu-Vote System, in one of his precincts, the number
of questioned ballots that were put out and the numbers that
were received didn't match. "We never did find out exactly why
that was, and I lost my first election by 18 votes, and I was
really concerned. Can you give me an idea what might [have
happened] to those questioned ballots?"
MS. FENUMIAI offered her "best guess," saying that a ballot
instead of being returned to the election official to be put in
the envelope may [instead] have been put directly into the
ballot box. She said that happens on rare occasions, and might
have happened in 1996.
Number 1992
CHAIR COGHILL wondered if with the new Accu-Vote System, that
"would put a money wrench in the works" by [the ballot] not
going into the Accu-Vote machine.
MS. FENUMIAI said the ballot could still go into the machine
because [those people voting questioned ballots] vote on the
same kind of ballot as a person who sign the precinct register.
The election officials are sitting there and they try to watch
who takes a questioned ballot and tell the voter to come back to
the table to put the [questioned] ballot inside [the envelope],
and then the envelope is sealed.
Number 2000
CHAIR COGHILL asked how many people voted in the last general
election.
MS. FENUMIAI estimated about 227,000.
CHAIR COGHILL asked, "We had three mishaps?"
MS. FENUMIAI replied, "Yes."
CHAIR COGHILL said he was not trying to change the world, but
just trying to give the benefit [of doubt to the voter on] that
very, very rare occasion [when a volunteer election official
makes a mistake].
MS. FENUMIAI said statewide, there were 61,000 people who voted
[absentee], and two ballots were rejected for that reason.
CHAIR COGHILL said if he'd lost by one vote, and known that his
vote, "was the one that wasn't counted but would have made the
difference ...[laughter] .... That's where we're trying to get."
Number 2068
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report HB 109 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 109 was passed out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 110-SOCIAL SECURITY # & DRIVER'S LICENSES
Number 2089
CHAIR COGHILL announced the next order of business as HOUSE BILL
NO. 110, "An Act relating to driver's licenses and instructional
permits; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR COGHILL explained that HB 110 is simply saying that a
person's Social Security number will not be printed on the face
of that person's driver's license. The person will still have
to give the Social Security number when applying for a license.
Number 2154
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative Coghill, came forward to
testify. She began by noting that the sponsor had considered
including a provision related to people who have rescinded their
Social Security number. However, after being advised by Social
Security officials that no numbers have been rescinded, the
sponsor chose not to address that issue.
MS. MOSS explained that HB 110 conforms to the federal
requirement but goes no further. The federal requirement is
that a person applying for a driver's license must either
provide his/her Social Security number or sign an affidavit that
he/she does not have one. Compliance with the federal
requirement means HB 110 poses no threat of losing federal
funds.
Number 2216
CHAIR COGHILL added that the Social Security number is required
on a commercial driver's license, and HB 110 does not affect
that. He then noted that HB 110 says, "A license may not
display," so that a person who wants the number displayed can
have that option.
MS. MOSS said there had been discussion about the use of a
driver's license as identification when applying for a hunting
or fishing license or when cashing a check. A driver's license
is shown to many people in a lifetime, and [not displaying the
Social Security number on the face of the license] is just a
matter of privacy.
CHAIR COGHILL said privacy is one of the main reasons he
introduced HB 110. The continuing trend toward using the Social
Security number as a main identifier is something that he has
resisted, and he thinks HB 110 is a good move [to protect
privacy in relation to that trend].
Number 2283
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked if a driver's license currently has
the person's Social Security numbers on it.
CHAIR COGHILL replied that the number now is "right on the face
of the license."
Number 2309
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES spoke in support of HB 110, noting that
there is even a larger exposure. She said it is distressing to
her to hear the Social Security number read over the police
scanner when a driver has been stopped. She spoke of the danger
of [identity theft], an unauthorized person's use of another
person's identification, and related a personal anecdote
involving a check for $4,600 that an unknown person cashed using
her account number.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that the threat is probably greater now than
in the past.
Number 2463
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS shared the sponsor's concerns, but asked
if HB 110 would in any way impact police in a negative way or
"hamstring the legal system."
CHAIR COGHILL didn't think so based on contact with Public
Safety officials.
MS. MOSS referred to a discussion with Del Smith, Deputy
Commissioner of Public Safety, related to a complaint about
Social Security numbers being broadcast on the police radios.
Mr. Smith told officers not to do so, and to call the police
dispatcher via telephone if the number was needed to establish
identity.
CHAIR COGHILL added that there is a driver's license number,
which he much prefers to use as an identifier. The driver's
license number gives police access to other information,
including the person's Social Security number. The combination
of the license number and the photograph is sufficient for
identification.
Number 2579
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if there was any reason police
would need a Social Security number if they had a person in
custody.
MS. MOSS said the Social Security number is on file with the
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and that the information is
readily available to police.
Number 2611
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES wondered what would happen if a police
officer needed that information at 2 a.m. and couldn't telephone
DMV. He shared the concern about possibly hindering the legal
system.
MS. MOSS said she didn't think being without a Social Security
number at 2 a.m. would hinder prosecution. "It's not an ID;
your driver's license is an ID."
CHAIR COGHILL again emphasized that the driver's license number
is the key to the other information.
Number 2655
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked how police determine if a person
has outstanding warrants in other states. "Do they use the
Social Security number to track that or do they use the driver's
license number? It seemed to him that the number of a driver's
license issued in Alaska wouldn't lead back to records in other
states.
CHAIR COGHILL said that a valid Alaska driver's license would
serve as the key to the other information, and there are other
ways of identifying a person who does not have a driver's
license.
Number 2709
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON requested clarification that the only
effect of HB 110 would be that the next time she renewed her
driver's license, the new license would not have her Social
Security number on it.
MS. MOSS added that it would remain an option: a person who
requested it could have the Social Security number put on the
license.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if DMV still was going to ask her
for her Social Security number.
MS. MOSS deferred that question to the next witness.
Number 2740
CHARLES R. HOSACK, Deputy Director, Division of Motor Vehicles,
testified by teleconference. He testified that Section 1 of HB
110 mirrors DMV's current policy: the Social Security number is
required to get a driver's license, and a person who does not
have a Social Security number can provide an affidavit to that
effect. Current administrative policy simply is put into
statute by HB 110.
MR. HOSACK noted that Section 2 of HB 110 would change current
practice because it says the license "may not" display a Social
Security number. Those words mean that DMV does not have
permission to put the number on the license. Currently, the DMV
retains that option. "If the person doesn't object, we print it
on there. If they do object, we just suppress the printing. So
what we'll do with Section 2 is we'll just suppress the printing
of all Social Security numbers on noncommercial licenses."
Number 2803
MR. HOSACK volunteered some information in response to
Representative Hayes' questiom about whether HB 110 will affect
law enforcement. Mr. Hosack explained that the information in
DMV files is available to all state troopers and, all city
police. Whenever an officer calls the police dispatcher, the
dispatcher can use the computer to access the DMV information 24
hours a day, seven days a week. If a person has an out-of-state
license, law enforcement also has access to a national
telecommunications network that allows them to check licenses or
information from other states. They can either go to a
particular state or they can do a 50-state broadcast. This
would bring back any information on wants or warrants.
Number 2855
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if HB 110 would create any type of
problem for an officer stopping somebody who had a record or an
outstanding warrant.
MR. HOSACK said it would not. The Social Security number is
down in about fourth or fifth place among identifiers that
officers use. It is an additional piece of information, but
they already have that information accessible on the computer
system. He thought there might be a problem with using the
driver's license for commercial transactions, such as cashing a
check.
Number 2922
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES related an experience her husband had had
when he lost his billfold with both his driver's license and his
Social Security card in it. She cautioned that people should
not carry both of them because those two pieces of
identification can be used for identity fraud.
CHAIR COGHILL said that is one of the reasons he does not think
people should use the Social Security number for identification
purposes.
Number 2979
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked ...
TAPE 01-13, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if the Social Security would play an
important role in tracking a forgery.
MR. HOSACK replied that although DMV requires that license
applicants provide a Social Security number, in most cases, DMV
does not verify that number. Only recently has the Social
Security Administration allowed states to verify that
information, and it is a "cumbersome hookup."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE then surmised that not having a Social
Security number on the face of the driver's license really
wouldn't make much difference in an investigation of a forgery.
MR. HOSACK confirmed that [having the number on the license]
would not make much difference because it is "very difficult to
get an accurate verification from [the] Social Security
Administration."
Number 2873
KEVIN SHORES, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services
Section, Department of Law, explained that he works in the Child
Support Enforcement Division.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if not having a Social Security number on
the face of the driver's license would have any major effect on
Mr. Shores' area of purview.
MR. SHORES testified that the Child Support Enforcement Division
(CSED) does not have any problem with HB 110. The requirement
in federal law is very clear that every state child support
agency must have access to that Social Security number. It is
important to be able to track people in other states because
Social Security numbers would appear in divorce, domestic
relations documents, death certificates. But federal law also
is clear that the number just has to be on the application
material. He said CSED would access the information in much the
same way as would a police dispatcher, through DMV records that
include the Social Security number.
Number 2832
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if it is true that people are
required to carry their Social Security card at all times.
CHAIR COGHILL thought that was a federal question that would
need to be answered by someone from the Social Security
Administration.
Number 2698
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned that she recently found the old,
hand-typed Social Security card she was issued when she changed
her name by marriage. At the bottom, it says, "Not to be used
for identification purposes."
Number 2778
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES offered a conceptual amendment: "On page 2,
Line 16, I would like to change the 'may' to 'shall'" so that
DMV could put the Social Security number on a driver's license
or not do so, according to the licensee's request.
CHAIR COGHILL objected for purposes of discussion.
MR. HOSACK commented that the way the bill is written, the "may
not" has the effect of "shall not," and means DMV cannot display
the Social Security number. Current practice is that it is at
the licensee's option, and if the licensee objects, DMV
suppresses the printing of the number.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked how to go about maintaining the
option that is currently in place. He was concerned that HB 110
would take away the licensee's option.
CHAIR COGHILL said the "shall not" would assure that option.
Number 2698
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected, "only because ... if you're not
consistent in what you do, you open the door for error." She
noted that applicants for a vehicle license have the option to
keep their license information from being given out other than
for official use. She wondered how many people have signed and
said they don't want to do that. Because the licensee has to
object, that licensee may not even be aware that the option
exists.
Number 2652
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD noted that in his job as an ironworker,
he is employed by many different contractors in the course of a
year, sometimes for only two or three days at a time. Each time
he has to sign the paperwork to get a new job, he has to present
two forms of identification to show that he is not an illegal
alien. One of those is his driver's license with the Social
Security number on it and the other is his Social Security card.
He wondered if not having the Social Security number on the
driver's license would make it insufficient identification for
that purpose.
CHAIR COGHILL said a person will not get a driver's license
without providing a Social Security number on the application,
so anyone seeing the driver's license will be assured that the
holder has citizenship and can be identified positively.
MR. HOSACK said that is correct. He noted that Social Security
will not allow DMV to issue a driver's license number to a
foreign alien who is in the country and does not have work
status, but there is nothing on the face of the driver's license
to indicate that is the case.
CHAIR COGHILL surmised that if the [applicant for a job] is
required to have two pieces if identification, then the person's
not having work status would become apparent.
MR. HOSACK said aliens who have work status usually produce
other identification, such as a passport and a [work] status
card issued by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
CHAIR COGHILL said that further makes his point that he doesn't
want the Social Security number to be the main identifier. The
fact that the person who holds a driver's license has his/her
picture on it and makes a sworn affidavit when making
application for the license would be sufficient for him.
Number 2505
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS observed that the discussion had been
very interesting and he appreciates that. However, he was
"still looking for some definitive comment from either ... [the
Department of] Public Safety or from the attorney general's
office saying that this in no way causes them any difficulty in
finding convicted felons ... or causes them any problems."
CHAIR COGHILL said he didn't think to get the Department of
Safety to testify because the driver's license number provides
access to a complete ID check, the DMV records.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS appreciated what Chair Coghill was saying
but said he wanted to hear someone in an official position
"absolutely say, 'This does not cause us any trouble.'"
CHAIR COGHILL volunteered to delay action on HB 110 in order to
get that assurance.
Number 2422
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES didn't understand why the applicant for a
driver's license couldn't just check whether he/she did or
didn't want the Social Security number to appear on the driver's
license. He didn't understand "why we are taking that option
away from everybody for the sake of some people who
understandably might not want their Social Security number on
their license."
CHAIR COGHILL noted that there was backup material with his
sponsor statement, "using the Social Security number as more
important than the picture-positive ID, and the fact that Social
Security numbers have been used in identity theft so much in our
society, I think it would be wise for us not to have that on the
face of the driver's license .... That is the whole purpose for
this. If the Social Security number becomes the main issue on
having a driver's license, then I think we have gone 'way too
far in the wrong direction."
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES understood what Chair Coghill was saying,
but, "You're taking the option away from me, Joe Citizen.
That's why I'm curious why not just have one application...."
CHAIR COGHILL wasn't sure he wanted to debate it at this time,
but acknowledged that a person was free to give his/her Social
Security number to anyone he or she wants. "I'm just asking
let's not put it on the driver's license."
Number 2320
REPRESENTATIVE FATE thought the main question was whether or not
there is an impediment to a quick identification of criminals.
If there is an option, then that option has not been exercised
in the past. I didn't seem to him that the driver's license
itself as shown to the officer "would have that much of a play
in determining criminality until such time as they was called in
and his application and his other records are looked at in the
computer."
Number 2216
MR. HOSACK was reluctant to speak for the Department of Public
Safety, but he knew the information on the DMV computers is
available to Public Safety. The officer who actually makes the
stop will be looking at the person's license and the picture of
the person on it. "He will have the driver's license numbe,.
even if [the license] doesn't have the Social Security number.
In most cases, they will call that in to a dispatcher if they
have radio access, and the dispatcher will confirm that yes,
this information is correct, just in case a person has a
completely phony license.... That dispatcher will also have the
Social Security number that's recorded on the computer file,
even if it isn't printed on ... [the face of the license]."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that partially answered his question.
The other part of the question was the immediate identification
of the criminal through the driver's license relative to having
or not having a Social Security number on it.
Number 2120
MS. MOSS explained that the Social Security number is accessible
to a state trooper through the computer. Regarding the option
portion of the issue, "The problem today is that a person
applying for a driver's license doesn't know that [not having
the Social Security number on the face of the license] an
option. They think it's required."
Number 2103
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES rescinded his amendment, but reaffirmed
that he thinks there should be a place on the application where
the applicant can check off whether or not he/she wants the
Social Security number on the license, or a that a notice about
that option should be posted in the DMV office.
CHAIR COGHILL agreed with Representative Hayes except for the
fact that he does not want to see the Social Security number on
the face of the driver's license. "The ... reason is not just
the choice of the individual, but ... putting it in a position
where it could be misused."
Number 2060
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES wished Deputy Commissioner Del Smith of the
Department of Public Safety could testify. She also said she was
convinced that HB 110 "wasn't going to do a thing to change the
[impressive systems for] identification of the person" that are
now available to the Department of Public Safety. "I'm
perfectly comfortable that with the driver's license number,
they have all they need to know."
Number 1963
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES observed, "I believe we're making a
statement here that the government of Alaska doesn't have a
right to right to utilize your Social Security number for this
purpose.... this is not a good government policy." She said she
thinks it is true that a lot of people do not know what their
options are.
Number 1915
CHAIR COGHILL requested an amendment to correct a drafting error
in HB 110 on Page 2, Line 24. Chair Coghill wished to delete
the July effective date and to make the act effective
immediately.
Number 1883
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she did not have an objection, but
thought DMV probably needed some time to make the change.
CHAIR COGHILL said any time an immediate change is made, the
[agency involved] just begins the process of making the change.
MS. MOSS reminded the committee that the policy already is in
effect and would require no change.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES withdrew his objection.
Number 1830
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he appreciated the discussion so
far, and "if everything that has been said is true, then I have
no problem with this [HB 110]. But I just think it's an error
not to have direct contact with either the attorney general's
office or [the Department of] Public Safety. I'd like to hear
absolute confirmation from them that this causes them no
difficulty." He asked if there was any reason why action could
not be delayed until that could be obtained.
CHAIR COGHILL said, "We are in no big hurry."
MS. MOSS pointed out that the State Affairs Standing Committee
is primarily a policy committee and that HB 110 next will go to
the House Judiciary Standing Committee. She volunteered to make
sure that Deputy Commissioner Smith was present to answer
questions in the Judiciary Committee meeting.
CHAIR COGHILL asked the preference of the committee.
Number 1759
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said if there was no reason to hurry, he
would really like to be assured before voting.
CHAIR COGHILL replied, "That's what we'll do." He volunteered
to ask the Department of Public Safety to answer the question
that had been raised about quick and effective criminal
identification.
CHAIR COGHILL stated that action on HB 110, as amended, would be
deferred to a later meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS expressed appreciation for the chair's
holding HB 110 until all concerns could be answered.
CHAIR COGHILL said he would try to arrange for the Department of
Public safety to testify on HB 110 on February 20.
[HB 110 was HEARD AND HELD.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1655
CHAIR COGHILL adjourned the meeting of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee at 9:15 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|