02/10/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB94 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | HB 94 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 10, 2005
8:12 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 94
"An Act relating to qualifications of voters, requirements and
procedures regarding independent candidates for President and
Vice-President of the United States, voter registration and
voter registration records, voter registration through a power
of attorney, voter registration using scanned documents, voter
residence, precinct boundary and polling place designation and
modification, recognized political parties, voters unaffiliated
with a political party, early voting, absentee voting,
application for absentee ballots through a power of attorney, or
by scanned documents, ballot design, ballot counting, voting by
mail, voting machines, vote tally systems, initiative,
referendum, recall, and definitions in the Alaska Election Code;
relating to incorporation elections; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
EXECUTIVE ORDER 113
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 94
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/21/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/05 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/03/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/03/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/03/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/08/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/08/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/10/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
LAURA GLASIER, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a sectional analysis for the
committee substitute for HB 94, Version G.
JIM SYKES, Election Specialist
Green Party of Alaska
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered opinion regarding Sections 43-45 of
HB 94.
LINDA MURPHY, Clerk
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated her concerns regarding Sections 2,
4, and 12 of HB 94.
MYRL THOMPSON
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testifying on behalf of himself, asked
questions pertaining to the recall language of HB 94, and
answered questions from the committee.
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, Staff
to Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative
LeDoux in regard to Sections 13 and 20 of HB 94.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:12:45 AM. Present at the call
to order were Representatives Gatto, Lynn, Gardner, Gruenberg,
and Seaton. Representatives Elkins and Ramras arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 94-ELECTIONS
8:14:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 94, "An Act relating to qualifications of voters,
requirements and procedures regarding independent candidates for
President and Vice-President of the United States, voter
registration and voter registration records, voter registration
through a power of attorney, voter registration using scanned
documents, voter residence, precinct boundary and polling place
designation and modification, recognized political parties,
voters unaffiliated with a political party, early voting,
absentee voting, application for absentee ballots through a
power of attorney, or by scanned documents, ballot design,
ballot counting, voting by mail, voting machines, vote tally
systems, initiative, referendum, recall, and definitions in the
Alaska Election Code; relating to incorporation elections; and
providing for an effective date."
8:14:42 AM
LAURA GLASIER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, directed attention to the sectional
analysis. [There are two sectional analyses included in the
committee packet; the one to which Ms. Glasier refers during
this meeting is the one created for the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 94.] Ms. Glasier reviewed the following: Section
41, regarding recall and manner of signing and withdrawing names
from a petition; Section 42, regarding recall and certification
of circulators; and Section 43, regarding recall and display of
grounds for and against recall.
8:18:12 AM
MS. GLASIER, in response to a question from Representative
Gardner regarding Section 42, explained that accountability
reports were done under the old law and corrections were made.
She indicated that a petition can be out for a year and no more
corrections can be made after a petition has been submitted.
8:19:11 AM
MS. GLASIER directed attention to Section 44, regarding
recognized political party status. She said those committee
members who were in the House State Affairs Standing Committee
last year may remember that this section was much bigger, and
she explained that much of it was "swept into House Bill 414."
The issue of fluctuation in status is dealt with here. She
offered further details.
8:22:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if a party could put a candidate
forward in anticipation of meeting [the requirements in Section
44 in time for the election].
8:22:36 AM
MS. GLASIER answered no. She added, "But a candidate ... can
choose to run not from a party; they can choose to run as a
group, and there are statutes that would apply to a candidate
that would want to run in that manner." She said Alaska is open
to allowing candidates to choose with whom they affiliate and
how they want to be shown on a ballot. In response to a
question from Representative Gatto regarding reprinting ballots,
she surmised that if that were necessary, a court would tell the
division how to proceed.
8:23:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the May 31 date in Section 44 would also
apply to a party that has lost recognition and gained it back.
He clarified that the language in Section 44 specifies it is the
"first election year" in which the party seeks recognition, and
a group that had once been a party would not be seeking that
recognition for the first time.
8:24:35 AM
MS. GLASIER said she doesn't know the answer to that question.
8:25:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that, because the party had
reverted to being a group and would have to go through the
process again, [Section 44] would apply.
8:26:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON reiterated that the language specifies "first
election year".
8:26:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER proposed that the group could be
considered a first-time applicant using the same [party] name,
because the group itself would not be comprised of exactly the
same people.
8:26:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON rebutted that even though the Republican Party, for
example, changes its members, it doesn't mean that it is no
longer the Republican Party. He asked Ms. Glaiser to consider
whether the word "first" is necessary.
8:28:29 AM
MS. GLASIER directed attention to the sectional analysis and
reviewed the following: Section 45, regarding the definition of
re-registration; and Sections 46-49, regarding incorporation
elections and repealers, clarifying language in Title 29, and
defining "qualified voter" to have the same meaning as that in
the AS 15.60.110 correction. She read further details from the
corresponding sectional analyses.
8:30:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS recollected that there was a group that
wanted to vote but couldn't during the last primary. He asked
Ms. Glasier for details.
8:31:21 AM
MS. GLASIER responded that the court said a party could choose
not only with whom it affiliated on a ballot, but also which
voters could access its ballots. The division said it needed a
reasonable time in which to set and order the ballots.
8:32:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked if a party could choose to include a
party they had excluded at the last election.
8:32:55 AM
MS. GLASIER answered yes. She offered further details.
8:33:03 AM
MS. GLASIER returned to the sectional analysis and highlighted
the following: Section 50, regarding applicability; Section 51,
regarding transition; and Section 52, regarding an immediate
effective date. In response to a correction pointed out by
Representative Gruenberg, she confirmed that the language in
Section 50 of the sectional analysis erroneously specifies
Sections "19 through 42", but in order to match Version G should
read "20 through 43".
8:34:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opened public testimony.
8:35:31 AM
JIM SYKES, Election Specialist, Green Party of Alaska, said he
would like to suggest an amendment that he said would probably
fit in Section 45 of the bill, relating to the definition of a
political party. Mr. Sykes noted that the Green Party of Alaska
has participated in the election process since it first acquired
ballot status in 1990 and has received at least 3 percent of the
vote in every election. He continued as follows:
But what the law had required prior to 2002 was to get
3 percent in the governor's race, and the governor's
race only. We did get 3 percent in other statewide
races, but we were decertified, and we challenged that
in court. And in ... 2004, a court injunction was
issued allowing our political party status to continue
until the matter was sorted out; and it still hasn't
been sorted out.
MR. SYKES said there are two ways a political party can retain
recognition: one is through getting 3 percent of the vote, and
the other is to get 3 percent of the number of registered
voters. He said out of all the states that offer a ballot or
vote test and a voter registration test, Alaska is the only
state that has such a high requirement. He stated, "It is many
more times difficult to register somebody to a political party
than it is to get them to vote for you."
MR. SYKES said he is asking for a political party recognition
that will stand the test of litigation. He said he believes the
vote test of 3 percent is reasonable; however, it should apply
to any statewide race. He read an excerpt from the injunction
of October 30, 2004, as follows: "The Green Party did have a
modicum of support during the 2002 election, although the
candidate for governor did not receive the requisite 3 percent
of the vote. Two other statewide candidates did receive over 6
percent of the vote." Mr. Sykes surmised that, originally,
people may have perceived that the governor's race may have held
the highest interest, but he indicated that that is not always
the case.
8:41:00 AM
MR. SYKES said he is also asking for the lowering of the
registration requirement from 3 percent to 1 percent. He
offered examples of some other states' registration
requirements. He noted that currently, on a nationwide level,
there is the highest number of "independent registrations" ever.
In Alaska, he reported, 51 percent of registered voters are not
affiliated with any party. Mr. Sykes continued as follows:
Since 1996, the primary election has had different
proposals and has been administered differently in
almost every succeeding election, because of court
challenges of one sort or another. And that has
caused a lot of anger and voter confusion. And so,
when people are considering registering to a political
party, they are afraid that if they ... register to
one of the smaller political parties ... they won't be
able to either have the same rights as they would [in]
a larger political party, or ... they will be forced
to only vote for a tinier slate, as smaller political
parties are not likely to present as large of a slate
of candidates as a well-established one. And so, ...
what may seem like an unrelated change in law over on
the right hand has a very big effect over on the ...
left hand.
MR. SYKES clarified that he would like his previously stated
points incorporated into an amendment.
8:43:50 AM
MR. SYKES, in regard to the issue of re-registering political
parties, said just because a political party has fallen below
some threshold of recognition doesn't mean that the party has
evaporated or that people have changed their party affiliation.
He directed attention to Sections 43 and 44, which he indicated
would put the division in a position of judging whether or not a
political organization qualifies as a "political group" or
"political party." He noted that both phrases are defined
within AS 15.60.010. Mr. Sykes said he thinks there is the
potential for litigation by groups that don't agree with the
division's determination. He indicated that he would like to
see legislation regarding this issue that is "clear and fair"
and will "stand the test of litigation." He offered to answer
questions from the committee.
8:46:03 AM
CHAIR SEATON said the committee would consider Mr. Sykes'
recommendations for an amendment.
8:46:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would put his name on Mr.
Sykes' amendment and would be offering it.
8:47:27 AM
LINDA MURPHY, Clerk, Kenai Peninsula Borough, stated her support
of the bill "in large parts." She clarified that she has
concerns regarding: Sections 2, 4, and 12 of the bill. She
stated that allowing people to vote or apply for an absentee
ballot by power of attorney opens the door to voter fraud. She
expressed her support of the right of citizens to participate in
the election process; however, she said she also believes that
with every right comes some measure of personal responsibility.
She opined that preparing and executing a power of attorney is a
much more onerous task than registering to vote or applying for
an absentee ballot. She stated, "Currently, one may register to
vote or request an absentee ballot in person, by mail, by
[facsimile ("fax")], and - under this bill - via e-mail using a
scanned form. And all forms for those functions are available
on line." She said she supposes she could support the
legislation fully if the provision were limited to a certain
group of already registered voters, such as those residing
outside the country, and the power of attorney was specific and
valid for only a short period of time. However, she stated, "I
do not believe that this should ever apply to a voter's initial
registration."
8:49:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked:
If a person can apply by mail or ... fax, and when
they do send their actual ballot in they have to sign
it and put down their identification ... on the outer
envelope, then how is a power of attorney, which only
allows the person to get the ballot, such a
fraudulent-inducing measure when it allows many people
much easier access to ... getting ballots?
8:50:01 AM
MS. MURPHY said she thinks it opens the door [to abuse] and she
doesn't see any reason for this change in the law.
8:51:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that many people in the military
service give their spouse or parent a general power of attorney.
He said those people with the power of attorney could have been
"terrifically fraudulent," but there is no history of widespread
fraud. He asked Ms. Murphy what evidence she has.
8:52:37 AM
MS. MURPHY responded that she is merely expressing a concern.
8:52:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO agreed that very often when there is an
opportunity for someone to abuse the law, they will, so he
complimented Ms. Murphy for her thoughts.
8:54:24 AM
MYRL THOMPSON, testifying on behalf of himself, noted that he
was the past chair for the Ogan Is So Gone recall and many of
his questions pertain to the recall section of the bill. He
directed attention to Section 35 [paragraph (4)], which read as
follows:
(4) the designation of a recall
committee consisting of three of the qualified voters
[SPONSORS] who subscribed to the application and shall
represent all sponsors and subscribers in matters
relating to the recall; the designation must include
the name, mailing address, and signature of each
committee member
MR. THOMPSON noted that a requirement for date of birth is not
there, and he stated his assumption that that information would
have already been collected on the application.
CHAIR SEATON confirmed that is correct.
MR. THOMPSON mentioned Sections 5 and 6 and stated he is also
assuming that anybody who signs the application itself can, in
the future, collect signatures. He noted that it used to be
there were 100 sponsors and they were the only ones to collect
signatures.
8:56:57 AM
CHAIRS SEATON confirmed that is correct.
8:57:07 AM
MR. THOMPSON asked if people who didn't sign the application but
intend to sign a petition itself would be able to pass
petitions. He clarified that he thinks those people should be
allowed to do so - he just doesn't know if that's currently
allowable.
8:57:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he would ask the [division] when they return
to the witness table.
8:58:03 AM
MR. THOMPSON noted that when [the Ogan Is So Gone petitions were
circulated], the group in charge actually asked for more
identifiers than were required by law at the time, in an effort
to make the division's job easier. He said requiring a date of
birth is a good rule, because it's easy for people to supply.
He indicated that, for various reasons, about 10 percent of the
people who signed the petition were not counted. A lot of those
people were registered voters and were upset that they had been
eliminated. He identified one of the biggest problems was that
many people were moving into the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) area
and did not know that they had to re-register. Another example
of who was not counted was women who had recently gotten
married, but had not re-registered under their new name.
9:00:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if Mr. Thompson is saying that people
shouldn't have to make those changes to sign a petition, or that
somewhere on the petition there should be a written notice that
people need to have current registration.
9:01:00 AM
MR. THOMPSON responded that that really should be "up to the
people collecting the signatures." In response to Chair Seaton,
he said he doesn't see a fix to the problem. He noted that in
regard to petitions, referendums, and recalls on a statewide
level, this issue is not a problem, because everybody resides
within the state. However, the problem occurs then the issues
are broken down into House and Senate districts. Mr. Thompson
concluded, "Other than that I think that the bill is good; it
seems to clean up a lot of stuff, and I support it in most
part."
9:01:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said sometimes signatures and
handwriting are difficult to decipher, and he suggested that
perhaps there could be written on petitions a request to "please
write clearly."
9:03:35 AM
MR. THOMPSON said people don't pay a lot of attention to things
that are written.
9:04:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON said there's been talk about requiring
certification that a person signing a petition has read the
entire initiative.
9:04:35 AM
MR. THOMPSON responded, "It is written on there, and many people
do read it, or ask to read it, or ask where it is. And
sometimes they even ask additional explanations from the people
passing the petition. So, I ... don't think anything in
addition to that needs to be done."
9:05:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO opined that it's incumbent on the person
circulating the petition to consider whether a signature or
other identifier will be passable in the eyes of the division.
He asked if there are instances in which a petition is not
circulated by a human being, but is, for example, left on a
counter in a mom-and-pop store for customers to sign.
9:06:16 AM
MR. THOMPSON replied that, at least in the case of a recall, the
petition has to be circulated by an individual who has to be
present during the signing. Regarding signatures, he said many
are illegible, so the printed name would suffice. In response
to a follow-up question from Representative Gatto, he indicated
that those who carry petitions check the signatures and other
identifiers carefully, because if they don't, there is the
potential for that signature to be discarded.
9:07:58 AM
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, Staff to Representative Gabrielle LeDoux,
Alaska State Legislature, testifying on behalf of Representative
LeDoux, directed attention to [Section 13, line 20], which would
change the number of witnesses required to sign a voter's by-
mail absentee ballot. She stated that requiring that the person
be a U.S. citizen places an undue hardship on those Alaskans who
spend a significant time overseas. She offered three examples:
a college student at university and studying abroad for a year;
a seafood processor who leaves Alaska during the off-season to a
remote location abroad; and an Alaskan who has to go overseas to
care for a family member with a debilitating disease. She
listed the places to which absentee ballots have been sent from
her district alone. She concluded by stating, "Since Alaskans,
by nature, are more adventurous, they go to places in the world
where there might not be another U.S. citizen to sign on their
absentee ballot."
9:10:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked, "Would there be any reason to have anybody
even verify a signature ... if you can't verify that that is at
least somebody?"
9:10:42 AM
MS. MARASIGAN questioned what other sort of verification is
needed if the voter can be verified. In response to a question
from Chair Seaton, she clarified that she is specifically
questioning whether the witness needs to be a U.S. citizen.
9:11:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to AS 09.63, regarding taking
oaths. He recalled that there is a provision allowing foreign
notaries public to notarize. He asked Ms. Marasigan if she
thinks that if the witness is not a U.S. citizen, then he/she
should be an official who's authorized to take oaths.
9:12:55 AM
MS. MARASIGAN said she doesn't know the answer, but is simply
bringing up her comments as a way to address the issue of people
from her hometown who spend a couple of months overseas in
remote locations where it would be difficult to find a U.S.
citizen to witness [a by-mail absentee ballot].
9:13:27 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony. He asked Ms. Glasier if
it is true that those who have signed as applicants can then
become collectors.
9:14:24 AM
MS. GLASIER answered yes. She referred to Section 36, which
read as follows:
*Sec.36. AS 15.45 is amended by adding a new section
to read:
Sec. 15.45.515. Designation of sponsors.
The qualified voters who subscribe to the application
in support of the recall are designated as sponsors.
The recall committee may designate additional sponsors
by giving notice to the lieutenant governor of the
names, addresses, and dates of birth of those so
designated.
MS. GLASIER noted that this is new section in law and was not in
effect when Mr. Thompson and his group were conducting the [Ogan
Is So Gone] recall.
9:17:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO gave an example whereby a voter is in a
remote area with no other U.S. citizen, and he asked if it would
be possible for that voter to send several identifiers to the
division.
9:18:21 AM
MS. GLASIER offered to see what other states do.
9:18:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that if somebody is non-verifiable, then
there's no use having a witness. He said, "So, there's no use
even researching that, ... from my aspect." He asked the
committee members if they would like the other two possibilities
researched: considering using a foreign consulate and whether
or not the change from two U.S. citizens to one is a substantial
relief. He asked the committee to decide the merits of putting
"all your identity papers in the mail" or "some other way of
doing it."
9:20:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said it seems that if a person is a
qualified voter in a remote location, it would be easier to find
another American than to go to a consulate. However, she said
that if that person is truly in a remote location, then she
thinks Representative Gatto's suggestion to send the extra
information would work.
9:21:11 AM
MS. GLASIER, in response to a query by Chair Seaton, stated that
on a voter registration form, a voter can provide either the
full social security number, the last four digits [of the social
security number], the Alaska driver's license, or the voter
identification number. If the division has the last four digits
of the social security number and date of birth of an overseas
voter, and that voter sends passport information, the division
will not already have that information to check it against.
Furthermore, she stated her belief that the idea for having a
witness is to have "that one more check added to our system."
9:23:22 AM
MS. GLASIER, in response to a question from Chair Seaton, said
when she began as director of the division, she received letters
from rural Alaskans serving in construction camps, or work
sites. Those people were with a spouse or another person and
just wanted the reduction to one witness. She added, "Until
today I hadn't heard the other side."
9:24:58 AM
MS. GLASIER, in response to an observation made by Chair Seaton,
confirmed that having witness signatures from ten U.S. citizens
wouldn't matter, because, unless they are Alaskan citizens, the
division would not have the ability to verify those signatures.
9:26:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested a possible way to solve the
problem would be through the Uniform Recognition of
Acknowledgements Act, which is found in AS 09.63.050-130. He
said, "It is how the state government recognizes notarial acts
done outside the state." He highlighted AS 09.63.050(5), which
read as follows:
(5) a person authorized to perform notarial acts
in the place in which the act is performed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he doesn't know if that would
include foreign locations.
9:28:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if that would put a burden on the department
to accept the witness of another person or notary public.
9:28:39 AM
MS. GLASIER said she would "see how the federal laws lay down on
this" before she responds to that question. She clarified that
she doesn't think it would be a burden, but wants to find out
that it would be the right thing to do.
9:29:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed concern that any group that
investigates signatures has a vested interest in how the
initiative fares. He said he wants to ensure that those with
access to the list can't use the list to oppose the initiative
itself. In response to Chair Seaton, he mentioned the Cruise
Ship Initiative and offered his understanding that the [cruise
ship] industry hired CIA personnel to investigate the signatures
on that initiative. He expressed fear that the industry now has
the names of anyone who signed the initiative and can send
"clear and specific correspondence" to those signers, explaining
to them why the initiative is a bad idea and why they should
oppose it.
9:32:00 AM
MS. GLASIER responded that the investigator hired by the cruise
ship industry was formerly with the CIA. She continued as
follows:
They had access to the sheets; they got to look, and
there was a Division of Elections employee present at
all times. They could not do anything with those
signatures or make copies. They have since requested
copies of all the petition books, but everything
that's confidential that's on a petition book has been
redacted from the books. So, what that really means
for us is: we have to copy every single page, white
out everything that shouldn't ... be had, and then
copy it again, and then ... those copies are
available. And there's a copying fee; they have to
pay a fee for this.
The list that Representative Gatto's speaking of is
off of the main frame computer, available to ...
anyone to purchase, [and is] utilized for many
different reasons, and it has the name of the person
who signed the petition, and their address, and
whether they were qualified or not. And I think we
were talking about that here. And there's a code
involved. You can say that ... what Representative
Gatto says is true - that a person could purchase that
list and then write a letter to them. In the same
vein, a voter registration list can be had for a
dollar amount and with each person's party on it, and
that is ... often used for a targeted mailing to get a
voter to respond in one way or another. So, there's
no ill will .... When you choose to sign a petition,
you're ... stating ... either that you believe that
the petition should go forward - that at least it
should be on the ballot. It doesn't necessarily mean
you're in support or against. I mean, I was always
raised that you put a petition forward so that all
people may speak to it; it doesn't necessarily mean
that you would support it.
So, yes, those lists are available, and yet it could
be written into law that they ... are no longer
available. But they are utilized by both sides; often
both sides are requesting that copy, and with Mr.
Thompson, as he knows, it was requested by both sides:
... the person who was being recalled was interested
in the list, as well as the ... people who had
initiated the recall. They needed that list as well.
So, ... it's a policy call, but it's been the policy
of the division [that] no confidential information is
released.
9:35:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he thinks most people signing a petition
realize that their names will be verified and people will be
allowed to see those names.
9:35:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there is anything in law that
requires the division to redact.
9:35:47 AM
MS. GLASIER replied, "If you go to ... Senate Bill 284 and the
protection of confidential information, then the answer is yes."
In response to a question from Representative Gruenberg asking
if there is any provision in law that allows a person to
withdraw his/her name from a petition once he/she has signed it,
she offered her belief that a person can withdraw the signature
prior to the submission of the petition, but not afterwards. In
response to a follow-up question from Representative Gruenberg,
she said she has only been with the division for two years, and
in that time, [no one has requested to have his/her name pulled
from a petition after its submission; therefore, she could not
answer what the division's position would be in response to that
occurrence.
9:36:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that Section 24 describes the
manner of withdrawing a name from a petition.
9:37:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER brought up a concern [expressed at a
prior hearing on HB 94] regarding people accidentally signing
the current date instead of their date of birth, and she
suggested listing the date of birth in the first subject field.
9:37:52 AM
MS. GLASIER noted that another field could be added in between
the current date field and the date of birth field, just to show
them as separate. She said it's the job of the circulator of
the petition to be checking that the correct information is
filled out in the correct field. She confirmed that Mr.
Thompson's Ogan Is So Gone recall group was very thorough in
regard to collecting accurate information.
9:39:14 AM
MS. GLASIER, in response to a question from Chair Seaton,
confirmed that the issue of whether people were registered
before they signed a petition is not addressed in [HB 94]. She
said the lieutenant governor would like to ensure that people
are registered voters on the date they sign [a petition]. In
response to a follow-up question from Chair Seaton, she said an
amendment could be offered in the proposed legislation to
address that issue.
9:40:56 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested Ms. Glasier prepare that amendment.
9:41:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS mentioned a change in the requirement to
get a petition on the ballot in the effort to "choke down the
process a little bit so that a certain geographic region
couldn't have undue influence on the rest of the state." He
directed attention to Section 31, regarding a circulator not
receiving payment that is greater than $1 a signature.
Representative Ramras said he believes in a free market and is
of the opinion that either a financial incentive shouldn't be
allowed, or the restriction should be removed entirely. He said
it's not the business of the state to be participating in
allowing a certain value to be used as an inducement.
9:42:54 AM
MS. GLASIER said she doesn't even know the history of why that
amount was set, but she surmised that it has to do with [the
focus being on] people rising up and petitioning their
government rather than money driving people to get a signature
on a petition. As an administrator, she said it would certainly
be easier if the division did not have to keep watch on how much
somebody was paid.
9:44:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON surmised that there was probably a time when there
was an outside group that wanted to get an initiative on the
ballot and was willing to pay $5 a signature. He indicated that
the system could become a profit-making enterprise rather than a
citizens' initiative.
9:44:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said some young people circulating
initiatives are doing it for the money. He characterized the
language in Section 31 as "grotesque" and "archaic," and he
emphasized how much he is bothered by Section 31.
9:45:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said if "it" were stricken, it would
"materially chill the ability to put initiatives on the ballot."
He noted that in other states people are in business concerning
proposing or opposing referenda, recalls, and initiatives. He
stated, "As a practical matter, it would be very difficult to
get all kinds of petitions on the ballot, without having
something like this there. And the real issue ... is whether
the people should have a right to vote on a measure."
Representative Gruenberg called the initiative process the
"fourth branch of government"; it is the people's right to make
their own law. It serves as a check on the legislative,
judicial, and executive branches of government and is "the last
bastion of a real direct democracy that's left in this state."
Representative Gruenberg said he would not support eliminating
[Section 31], even though it is somewhat distasteful.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that to go the other direction may
result in people paying people not to circulate petitions on the
other side, so that it would "'snarf off' the ability of the ...
relatively little guy or ... gal to get their petitions on the
ballot." He likened it to buying up a patent so that it's not
produced, which he said he doesn't support either.
9:48:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER responded as follows:
I have to say I wouldn't necessarily agree with the
other line of not limiting the amount of money because
... it doesn't matter if somebody's paying $5 for
people not to, somebody will do it for [$1]. They
can't buy up the whole market of potential petition
... signature gatherers.
9:48:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS stated that, in all good faith, he cannot
support [Representative Ramras]. He spoke of the recent
marijuana initiative and the person who got it on the ballot who
had "a ton of money." He said he can remember back in the 80s,
when a "bottle return" bill was attempted in Alaska, and people
were in the halls from all the United States [acting as
proponents of the bill]. He indicated that [the current
language in Section 31] is "a limit factor" on what can be paid,
which keeps the people involved who really feel the desire in
their hearts.
9:50:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated his concern about removing the dollar
amount, because he doesn't think the legislature wants to create
a business in the state of people proposing legislation just to
generate their business. Notwithstanding that, he noted that
the legislature has just added, through constitutional amendment
requirements, that people go out into 3/4 of the 40 districts to
gather signatures, which is a cost to them. He said, "I think
it's a balancing act that we have to look at."
9:51:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS suggested that it should be made
inflation-adjusted or a per-capita amount should be offered. He
noted that the cruise ship initiative collected only 28,000
signatures. He noted that in California, many of the
initiatives originate in the urban centers of Los Angeles and
San Francisco. He said Alaska has chosen to do things
differently than California and has spread out the requirements
across the state. He indicated that that recent change is
contrary to what the State of Alaska should be "messing around
with." Representative Ramras revisited his previously stated
recommendations.
9:53:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that, as a resident of the state, he
is entitled to vote; yet he cannot vote unless he is a
registered voter. He asked if there is some reason why an
Alaskan resident even has to register to vote.
9:54:28 AM
MS. GLASIER responded that she is not qualified to answer.
9:55:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON proffered that it's important to make sure someone
is qualified to vote and votes only once. If nothing was on
file, there would be no way to identify people.
9:55:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he doesn't know any state that
doesn't require citizens to register; it prevents fraud in
voting. He noted that some states have same-day registration,
which materially assists people and increases the number of
people who can vote.
CHAIR SEATON said, "This is a discussion that I want the two of
you to develop a little further in a subcommittee."
9:56:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved Amendment 2, which read as follows:
Page 6, following line 21:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 10. AS 15.15.420 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.15.420. Duty to review the ballot
counting. The director shall review the counting of
the ballots with the assistance of and in the presence
of the state ballot counting review board [APPOINTED
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE POLITICAL PARTIES].
* Sec. 11. AS 15.15.430 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.15.430. Scope of the review of ballot
counting. (a) The review of ballot counting by the
director shall include only [A REVIEW OF]
(1) a review of the precinct registers,
tallies, and ballots cast; [AND]
(2) a review of absentee and questioned
ballots as prescribed by law; and
(3) a hand count of ballots from one
randomly selected precinct in each election district
that accounts for at least five percent of the ballots
cast in that district.
(b) If, following the ballot review set out in
(a) of this section, the director finds an unexplained
discrepancy in the ballot count in any precinct, the
director may count the ballots from that precinct. If
there is a discrepancy of more than one percent
between the results of the hand count under (a)(3) of
this section and the count certified by the election
board, the director shall conduct a hand count of the
ballots from that district. The director shall
certify in writing to the state ballot counting review
board and publish on the division's Internet website
any changes resulting from a [THE] count performed
under this subsection."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 21, line 4:
Delete "secs. 20 - 43"
Insert "secs. 22 - 45"
9:59:04 AM
MS. GLASIER, in response to a question from Representative
Gardner, clarified that the state review board doesn't do a hand
count unless it sees there's been a problem; however, it could
do so.
9:59:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said [Amendment 2] would require the
Division of Elections, with the help of the state review board,
to hand count one precinct in each district and, if the
discrepancy is more than 1 percent, to count the entire district
to confirm that the accounting is accurate and consistent. In
response to a question from Chair Seaton, she confirmed that she
is talking about each House district.
9:59:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the amendment would remove
appointed representatives from the political parties from having
to be present at the review; however, he offered his
understanding that that they could still choose to be present.
10:00:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER responded that appointed representatives
from the political parties are defined as the state ballot
counting review board, thus it is redundant language.
10:00:44 AM
MS. GLASIER stated that it's true that the state ballot counting
review board is a bi-partisan board. She stated her belief that
appointed representatives from the political parties means that,
in addition to a state review board, there are often members of
a party who are present during the state review process; they
are present in addition to the review board. Regarding a hand
count of ballots, she said there still are districts that
conduct hand counts only and do not have machines. By 2006, she
reported, there will be a touch screen voting machine in every
district. Some districts may choose not to use them. The
question, she clarified, is whether the division would be asked
to "hand count verify a hand count precinct," because, she
explained, the hand count precinct accounts for at least 5
percent of the ballots. She said, "What we chose to do, in an
agreement with the recount group, was we pulled out all hand
count precincts first - we didn't verify what had already been
hand counted - and the only things that were randomly selected
were those that were machine count precincts."
10:03:04 AM
MS. GLASIER noted, "If this is required, there will be a fiscal
note, because ... it will take longer for the state review board
to complete its work." She offered further details.
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Glasier to get that estimate to the
committee.
[HB 94 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:03:42 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|