Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/26/2018 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation on Vote by Mail Municipal Election | |
| Presentation by the Division of Elections: 2017 Fiscal & Policy Challenges | |
| HB408 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 408 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 26, 2018
3:18 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Chris Birch
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Andy Josephson (alternate)
Representative Chuck Kopp (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION ON VOTE BY MAIL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
- HEARD
PRESENTATION BY THE DIVISION OF ELECTIONS: 2017 FISCAL & POLICY
CHALLENGES
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 408
"An Act relating to revocation of a driver's license."
- HEARD & HELD
Approval of introduction of potential committee legislation
- REMOVED FROM AGENDA
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 408
SHORT TITLE: REVOCATION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE
SPONSOR(s): JUDICIARY
04/04/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/04/18 (H) STA, JUD
04/26/18 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
BARBARA JONES, Municipal Clerk;
Election Administrator
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented results of Anchorage's first vote
by mail municipal election.
JOSIE BAHNKE, Director
Central Office
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint on 2017 Fiscal &
Policy Challenges titled, "Decide Alaska's Future".
BRIAN JACKSON, Elections Program Manager
Central Office
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the PowerPoint on
2017 Fiscal & Policy Challenges titled, "Decide Alaska's
Future".
GREG SMITH, Staff
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 409.
SEAN HOOPER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 408.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
408.
MARLA THOMSON, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
408.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:18:45 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:18 p.m.
Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Birch, and Tuck were
present at the call to order. Representative Wool arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION ON VOTE BY MAIL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
PRESENTATION ON VOTE BY MAIL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
3:18:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be a presentation on Vote by Mail.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to a document titled
"Certification of the April 3, 2018 Regular Municipal Election"
in members' packets.
3:20:01 PM
BARBARA JONES, Municipal Clerk; Election Administrator,
Municipality of Anchorage, stated that the Municipality of
Anchorage (MOA) just finished its first official "Vote by Mail"
election for a regular municipal election.
MS. JONES explained that the MOA mailed 194,000 packets to
registered municipal voters with the final count of 79,295
ballots cast. She applauded the MOA Municipal Clerk's office
for doing a great job with its outreach and education efforts.
As a result, she did not receive any calls from people who were
unaware the election was a "vote by mail" process, although some
people called to express disappointment that the election was a
"vote by mail" process.
MS. JONES explained the election process, such that the MOA had
12 drop boxes placed throughout the municipality for voters who
did not wish to use the United States Postal Service (USPS).
The MOA also had five accessible "vote centers" for people who
chose not to vote by mail ballot or did not receive a ballot in
the mail.
3:21:36 PM
MS. JONES provided voting statistics; that MOA voters cast
12,000 ballots from the accessible vote centers; however, the
majority of the ballots cast were via the USPS. The MOA had
anticipated that people's preference would be to use the drop
boxes rather than the USPS, so it was surprising to find the
majority of people voted by mail.
MS. JONES thanked the State of Alaska [Division of Elections]
for its assistance, including providing voter data and the
processes to ensure the MOA obtained voter signatures. The
division rejected only one ballot for lack of a reference
signature, she said. She related that the Municipal Clerk's
office met with the election workers, the stakeholders, and the
Anchorage Municipal Assembly's Ethics and Election Committee
about what comes next. The Municipal Clerk's Office will also
meet with the Anchorage Municipal Assembly in a work session
tomorrow and with the State of Alaska in May, she said. The MOA
has lots of plans going forward and has recognized that some
things worked, but other things did not, so the process of
figuring out how to do things differently has begun.
3:23:00 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether she could elaborate on what
worked, what did not work and what the Anchorage Municipal
Clerk's Office would do differently.
MS. JONES identified the number one thing that worked was the
MOA's outreach and education campaign. She acknowledged some
misunderstandings occurred; however, most voters understood the
instructions for voting; how to mark their ballot, to place the
ballot in a security envelope, and put the security envelope
containing the ballot into the return envelope. That seemed to
work very well, she said. She attributed that success to the
PSAs [public service announcements], the media, including social
media, as well as conducting presentations at the community
councils and for other groups. She characterized the outreach
as being very effective.
3:24:04 PM
MS. JONES praised the election center and offered to take
members on a tour if they have not already done so. The
election center building was a big, open warehouse, which helped
to provide a transparent process for the public.
MS. JONES highlighted issues that people raised, such as the
drop boxes were hard to see in winter since they were painted
white and snow was on the ground. Election workers requested
more computers to supplement the current 47 computers the
election center had, which recognizes elections have moved from
clerical to technological in nature.
3:25:38 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked what the MOA would do differently in
the future.
MS. JONES pointed out that the recent MOA election was a mayoral
election which historically has a better voter turnout. She
hoped to keep the voter momentum going for the assembly
elections over the next two years. Since elections are now
technology-based elections, it is important to ensure that the
MOA has the appropriate skill sets to manage the technology, she
said.
3:26:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, referring to her report, related his
understanding that 194,507 ballot packages were sent out. He
acknowledged there were a number of duplicates and wondered if
her report reflected the duplicates.
MS. JONES answered that the figures do not include the duplicate
ballot packages; however, the number of duplicates was a bit
misleading. She explained that 1,400 replacement ballots were
sent to voters who changed their names or addresses using the
State of Alaska's voter registration from March 1 to March 10.
In addition, approximately 3,000 replacement and absentee ballot
packages were mailed to voters, however, she did not believe
those figures were included in her figures [of 194,507).
3:28:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification that more than
194,507 ballot packages were mailed out.
MS. JONES answered that was correct; the 194,507 figures
reflected the ballots mailed out on March 13, 2018, by the
printer.
3:28:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether he understood correctly that
more ballots were cast by mail. He questioned that since by
adding 31,000 ballots retrieved from ballot boxes with 12,000
cast at the accessible voting centers totaled 43,000 ballots,
which would be less than 50 percent of the votes cast by mail,
he said.
MS. JONES responded said the figures reflected in her report do
not include ballots from drop boxes since those ballots were
considered separately. She referred to pages 3-4 of her report
(in members' packets), which identified 46 percent of the
ballots had been returned by the USPS, that 38 percent were
returned via the secure drop boxes, and 14 percent were cast via
the accessible vote centers.
3:29:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification on the number of
ballots that were undeliverable.
MS. JONES responded that she did not provide a percentage. She
stated that two figures relate to the undeliverable ballots.
First, approximately 218,000 voters were registered in
Anchorage, but 22,000 voters had a condition code of
undeliverable, so the MOA only mailed out [194,507] ballot
packages. Second, after the MOA mailed out the [194,507]
ballots, an additional 20,000-21,000 ballots were returned as
undeliverable. Therefore, the undeliverable ballots totaled
over 40,000 ballots, she said.
3:30:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she was trying to extrapolate the
percentage of undeliverable ballots based on the population in
Anchorage.
MS. JONES answered that the MOA used the number of registered
voters rather than the overall population. She clarified that
about 19.6 percent or basically 20 percent of the ballots were
undeliverable.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that was a pretty significant
percentage.
MS. JONES acknowledged that that the number of undeliverable
ballots in voter registration database and was one of the
aspects the MOA did not expect to find. The MOA mailed out
208,000 postcards on January 3, 2018 to notify Anchorage voters
of their current address of record on file and some voters
responded [with updates]; however, her office expected to
receive more responses than it did. She advised members that
the MOA worked with the Alaska Division of Elections (DOE) on
ways to educate voters and others about the importance of
maintaining their correct address in the state's database and to
update their addresses when they move. She offered her belief
that currently Anchorage has good data going forward.
3:33:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX assumed that the MOA had advertised via
television, radio, and social media, such as Facebook about the
vote by mail election to give the registered voters an
opportunity to contact the MOA if they did not receive a ballot.
She asked whether the MOA did a lot of advertising.
MS. JONES answered yes.
^PRESENTATION BY THE DIVISION OF ELECTIONS: 2017 FISCAL &
POLICY CHALLENGES
PRESENTATION BY THE DIVISION OF ELECTIONS: 2017 FISCAL & POLICY
CHALLENGES
3:34:18 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be a presentation by the Division of Elections: 2017
Fiscal & Policy Challenges titled "Decide Alaska's Future".
3:34:38 PM
JOSIE BAHNKE, Director, Central Office, Division of Elections
(DOE), Office of the Lieutenant Governor, introduced herself.
BRIAN JACKSON, Elections Program Manager, Central Office,
Division of Elections (DOE), Office of the Lieutenant Governor,
introduced himself.
3:35:05 PM
MS. BAHNKE began a PowerPoint, paraphrased from prepared
comments, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Thank you for the opportunity to bring awareness to
the committee regarding activities of the Election
Policy Work Group. I will be happy to take questions
following my presentation.
In 2015, Lt. Governor Mallott convened a small working
group to discuss election policy issues and expanded
the Election Policy Work Group to continue a dialogue
on making Alaska's election system a effective, cost
efficient and responsive to Alaska voter needs. In
January 2017, the DOE published the "2017 Fiscal &
Policy Challenges" report for the group which outlines
the issues facing the division and includes
technology, elections administration and potential
cost savings measures.
3:36:21 PM
MS. BAHNKE continued a PowerPoint [slides 1-2] and paraphrased
from prepared comments, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
In its effort to address the issues outlined in the
report and to advance policy discussions and
recommendations, the EPWG has held five meetings from
May 2017- January 2018. These discussions have been
facilitated by David Becker from the Center for
Election Innovation and Research.
MS. BAHNKE read the Election Policy Work Group (EPWG) members,
which included the Lieutenant Governor Mallott, former
Lieutenant Governors Fran Ulmer, Mead Treadwell, and Craig
Campbell, and two legislators, one from the House,
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, and one from the Senate, Senator
Gary Stevens; several city or borough clerks from Ketchikan,
Juneau, Kenai-Peninsula Borough, and the Municipality of
Anchorage, Fairbanks and Bethel. She stated the group who
participated has grown over time and currently consists of about
30 members.
3:37:47 PM
MS. BAHNKE continued with slide 3, titled "EPWG - Guiding
Principles." She paraphrased from prepared comments, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
During it's first meeting, the EPWG agreed that the
replacement of our 20 year old voting system was the
top priority for the group and they established some
principles to guide its work and recommendations.
These principles include:
Maximized Accessibility: elections should be
accessible to all Alaskans regardless of their
circumstances. If it doesn't work for rural Alaska, it
doesn't work at all.
Cost Effectiveness: costs must be contained in order
to abide by state budgetary constraints.
Voter Satisfaction & Confidence: participating in an
election should be a satisfying experience for voters.
Their satisfaction with and confidence in the process
is key.
Longevity in the Solution: any new system or solution
adopted must endure the test of time.
Coordination & Buy-in: the DOE, local governments,
tribes, and other stakeholders need to agree on
changes to Alaska's elections. No one should be left
out of the consensus oriented decision-making process.
Security & Integrity: Alaska's elections and election
systems must be designed with security and integrity
in mind. Election officials and voters alike must
trust in the systems that are used.
Voter Outreach: voters need to know how to interact
with Alaska's elections. Outreach must be tailored to
get them the information they need, effectively and
efficiently.
3:40:26 PM
MS. BAHNKE continued with slide 5, titled "How Do Alaskans
Vote?" She paraphrased from prepared comments, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
In addition to establishing guiding principles, the
group also looked at voting trends. Just to give you
an idea, in the 2016 General Election, there were
321,271 ballots cast for a final turnout of 60.77
percent. This election generated a record number of
voters who voted early, absentee or questioned
ballots; over 123,000 compared to about 90,000 in
2014.
Approximately 32 percent of Alaskans voted via an
alternative method in 2016. A record number of voters,
39,242 voted early at the regional office voting
stations and the division expects that voting trend to
continue to increase in future elections. In response,
for 2018, we've expanded early voting sites from 5 to
10 locations.
Another factor at play and something that the EPWG
acknowledged is that the MOA conducted their municipal
election entirely by mail and invested in the
infrastructure specific to vote by mail. With the
largest municipality in Alaska going to vote by mail,
approximately 40 percent of the registered voters are
now included in vote by mail elections.
3:42:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether the 12 percent early voting
included in-person absentee voters.
MS. BAHNKE answered that was included in the figures. In
further response, she clarified "early voting" figures applied
to people who voted two weeks prior to the election, whether
they voted at the university or at the absentee voting center
[Bethel area] in Tuntutuliak.
3:43:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for clarification on the 1 percent
touch screen.
MS. BAHNKE answered that under the federal Help America Vote Act
(HAVA) [2002], the state was required to use the direct
recording devices in each polling place for those with language
assistance needs, audio, or those with disabilities. These
devices produce a paper record, she said.
3:44:01 PM
MS. BAHNKE proceeded with slides 5-7, titled "Exploring Ballot
Delivery Systems." She paraphrased from prepared comments,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
There are three scenarios the EPWG has discussed.
In scenario one, Alaskans would keep voting the way it
is now. (Slide included bullets) Paper ballot precinct
based. 441 precinct polling places statewide. No
statutory or procedural changes to consider. Absentee
and Early Voting are also available. Outright
purchase - $6.77M plush $489k Annual License/Warranty.
3:45:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification on the DOE's
process for voters who live in an area without a polling place
and if the division mails ballots to them or if these voters
must request the ballots.
MS. BAHNKE answered that the division has a designation of
"permanent absentee voter" for those living in remote areas such
as in Skwentna, which is an area consisting of all permanent
absentee voters. These residents automatically are sent their
ballots by mail. She added that in even numbered years
absentee-in-person voters can sign up to receive their ballots
on January 1 of the election year, but they must apply.
3:46:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether anyone can become a
permanent absentee voter.
MS. BAHNKE was unsure. She offered to research it.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered no; which was the reason HB 1 was
introduced. The proposed bill would allow a person to register
to vote by mail and check off a box to automatically continue to
receive their vote by mail ballots; however, currently that
process is not available.
3:46:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX wondered if the division had criteria in
place for permanent absentee status.
MS. BAHNKE briefly described the process, that someone would
apply for the status and the division subsequently evaluate it.
3:47:23 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS mentioned one of his precincts on Prince of
Wales Island consists of small communities, including Whale
Pass, Edna Bay, Port Protection, and Coffman Cove. He was not
aware of any [polling places] in that vicinity on election day.
He wondered if that was the type of precinct which is comprised
entirely of permanent absentee voters.
MS. BAHNKE answered that was correct.
3:48:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that the MOA had great voter
turnout with its recent municipal vote by mail election. She
wondered if the voting turnout in areas with permanent absentee
voters was typically higher than similarly situated places with
a polling place.
MS. BAHNKE stated that the DOE contacts some of its rural
education attendance areas by mail. She recalled that when
Whale Pass incorporated in 2017, the process was conducted all
by mail. She said the division would need to research the voter
turnout comparison, although her next slide may help address the
question.
3:49:20 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS added to Representative LeDoux's question.
He was specifically interested in the comparison of the overall
turnout rates for permanent absentee ballot precincts to the
overall in person precincts for both primary and general
elections in Alaska.
3:50:42 PM
MS. BAHNKE turned to slide 6, titled "Exploring Ballot Delivery
Systems." She paraphrased from prepared comments, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
In scenario two, Ballots are mailed to all Alaskan
voters and you have 2-3 weeks to complete and mail
back. Outright purchase - $2.1M plus $181k Annual
License/Warranty.
Currently three states (Oregon, Washington and
Colorado) use vote by mail exclusively for all
elections. Another 22 states allow certain, but not
all, elections to be conducted entirely by mail,
including Alaska. Here, the division conducts some of
the Rural Educational Attendance Area elections by
mail as well as special elections such as
incorporation and liquor option elections.
Although the division has not conducted a full cost
analysis, the division anticipates that conducting
elections by mail would result in a cost savings. For
instance, mailing a ballot package to every registered
voter is less expensive than paying for election
workers, election worker training, and polling place
rental. Vote by mail would also eliminate the type of
human error inherent in polling place voting and could
mean increased voter convenience, like we see in ANC.
The Division also anticipates a potential cost savings
related to polling place supplies and equipment-
although unique considerations of mail service in
rural Alaska would need to be carefully considered.
An entirely vote by mail may be unacceptable due to
the challenges rural communities might experience with
both receiving and returning ballots. Also, language
assistance must continue to be provided in order to
comply with Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act and
to ensure that voting is accessible for all Alaskans.
3:53:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested some communities vote largely by
absentee voting because they lack a polling place. Most polling
places have someone to assist voters who need assistance. He
further recalled that touchscreens are required to be available
in polling places, too. He asked whether voting by mail
violated the requirement of having someone to assist voters. He
pointed out that touchscreens allow people to vote entirely
independently without the need for someone to read the ballot to
them or provide other assistance. He asked for clarification on
how the assistance currently works in villages.
MS. BAHNKE answered that in specific communities falling under
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, election workers are
trained to assist voters with disabilities and language needs.
She reported that the state has settled two lawsuits in the past
ten years that designated those communities. She reiterated
that the division does have bilingual outreach workers on
election day in the polling place of those communities.
3:55:12 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how many communities were on the list
designated by those lawsuits or order of magnitude.
MS. BAHNKE answered that under the Koyukuk settlement about 40
communities were designated; the DOE translates all election
materials in six dialects of Yup'ik and Gwich'in. In addition,
the DOE also translates the official election pamphlet in
Spanish and Tagalog for those areas of the state that require
the division to do so. She commented that the DOE also had a
new requirement which added Alutiiq and Aleut for some
communities.
3:56:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked what types of errors happen at the
polling place.
MS. BAHNKE offered an example of human error, such as a House
District 40 lawsuit, in which an election worker provided 2
ballots to voters.
3:55:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recalled that voting by mail would eliminate
a lot of precinct polling errors. He suggested that she made it
sound like there might be other errors.
MS. BAHNKE said she mentioned the District 40 issue as just one
example that came to mind. She stated that the process of
sending out ballots and voters returning them eliminated the
possibility of human error.
3:57:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK highlighted that people are concerned about
integrity of the voting system with voting by mail. He
understood the DOE would like to eliminate precinct errors, but
the process of signing in, showing voter identification, voting
in a booth, and dropping the ballot in a ballot box seemed
pretty secure. He recalled earlier testimony in which
signatures in the recent MOA election could not be validated.
He recalled these ballots represented 100 of 79,000 votes cast.
He questioned the overall number of precinct polling errors if
precinct polling errors were being reduced. He asked for the
number of polling errors outside the House District 40 issue and
if it was safe to say there were not a lot of polling errors.
MS. BAHNKE agreed. She stated that the election workers work
very hard to protect the integrity and security of the election.
The results are verified and audited; that the DOE has never
been more than 1 percent off in any audit. In further response,
she clarified that she previously spoke to human errors, not
polling errors.
3:59:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification that the DOE has
never be more than 1 percent off in polling error.
MS. BAHNKE stated that following an election, the state review
board audits the election results. She asked her staff, Mr.
Jackson, to explain the process.
3:59:39 PM
MR. JACKSON explained that following the election all the
election materials are sent to Juneau and stored until the State
Review Board (SRB) can review them. Two different boards review
the election materials, she said. The hand-count verification
team randomly selects one precinct from each House district to
be hand counted. The team would match its results with the
electronically-generated results in the system. The DOE has not
been more than 1 percent off between the hand count and the
electronically-generated results, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that 1 percent seemed high,
especially in close elections, such as the ones won or lost by a
coin toss.
4:01:16 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said his initial election was subject to a
recount. He offered that the tabulation always changes. In his
case, the change was ultimately two votes, he said. He noted
that 1 percent was not much if the sample size was large.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said it was not meant to be a criticism of
the division; however, candidates sometimes win or lose their
elections by a 5 or 10 vote difference, and on occasion an
election is won by 1 vote. She asked what could be done about
the discrepancies since the 1 percent error rate seemed
significant to her.
4:02:39 PM
MS. BAHNKE suggested she would not get stuck on 1 percent. She
explained that the difference was between the paper and
electronic ballots. She offered one explanation, that in close
races the difference in the numbers could mean that the division
had not received the election materials from a community. It
might also mean there were under-voted or over-voted ballots and
the optical scan did not read the ballot. During a recount, if
the machine does not read the ballot, the director would make a
call on whether there is voter intent and the ballots are
tallied in that way.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that he heard her say never more
than 1 percent. He asked if she knew offhand what the median
variance would be. He clarified he was interested in, for
example, what the variance amount for 9 times out of 10 would be
.1 percent or .01 percent. It might be helpful for the
committee to know that number if it was easy to track down.
MS. BAHNKE attested that the current election system is very
accurate.
4:04:31 PM
MS. BAHNKE turned to slide 7, titled "Exploring Ballot Delivery
Systems." She paraphrased from prepared comments, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Under the third scenario, the Modern Hybrid system,
all voters would receive a ballot by mail but you have
options for returning it. You can mail it in or drop
it off at a local vote center that is open 1-2 weeks
before Election Day. You can also vote in person at
the Vote Center, which offers help to voters who need
it. And if a voter fails to receive a ballot, or loses
it, they can obtain a new one, and cast it, at any
vote center before or on Election Day. Outright
Purchase $2.1M plus $181k Annual PLUS cost of vote
centers.
Jurisdictions like the State of Colorado and Denver
County have experienced many benefits since switching
to this new hybrid system like cost savings, increased
voter satisfaction, and decreased labor requirements
and training. As a result of a fact finding trip to
Colorado, the EPWG determined that once tailored to
Alaska's unique voting challenges, a hybrid system
could be a viable option to deliver better results for
Alaskan voters at a reduced cost. The EPWG determined
that further research must be conducted to gauge the
viability of an alternative ballot delivery system for
Alaska, including rural areas.
Discussion with group on funding of a new system, what
will it look like (including options that expand upon
precinct based voting, alternative ballot delivery
mechanisms like vote by mail, and other options), what
are the trends going that might work for Alaska, the
need for a long term solution that will serve the 21st
century voter for many years.
MS. BAHNKE recalled that the MOA had five vote centers during
its first vote by mail election.
4:07:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented on the hybrid system; that the
United States has moved towards being a paperless society; that
bills are paid on-line so now it is easy for paper mail [or
snail mail] to be misplaced. He said he has relatives in Oregon
who miss the activity of going to a ballot booth. He liked the
idea of the hybrid system since the person could still vote with
proper identification.
MS. BAHNKE agreed. She added that the statutory and procedural
changes would need to be considered and Alaska Statutes (AS) 15
would require a major overhaul or reform in order to implement
the proposed changes. She reiterated the cost would be the same
for the vote by mail plus the additional cost to implement the
vote centers.
4:08:56 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said that having a paper trail of ballots
is vital to any approach. He highlighted that the gold standard
for elections would be to have a paper trail for every ballot.
MS. BAHNKE agreed that was correct. She stated that several
states who moved away from the paper trail are moving back to
it.
4:10:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether Colorado was all by mail
voting and if the state had changed to a hybrid election model.
He said his notes said Oregon, Washington, and Colorado do all
vote by mail elections.
MS. BAHNKE answered yes; that Colorado has a "hybrid" piece to
it. She related that Colorado's elections are exclusively by
mail, similar to Alaska's REAA [Regional Educational Attendance
Area] elections and special elections by mail.
4:11:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification on Colorado's
election system; that it was exclusively an all vote by mail,
but how voters return their ballots makes it a hybrid.
MS. BAHNKE agreed.
4:11:17 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the MOA's system would be
considered a hybrid election system given that it has accessible
vote centers in which ballots can be returned in person.
MS. BAHNKE answered yes.
4:11:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if voters who received their ballots
in the mail and misplaced them can vote in person at the vote
center with proper identification.
MS. BAHNKE answered that a vote center provides three things;
first, it provides a means for someone to receive a ballot and
vote in person; second, it provides a place to drop off a voted
mail ballot that the person received in the mail; and third,
centers provide language assistance or special assistance voters
might need. She envisioned, for example, that a vote center
might be placed at a tribal center [in the Western Alaska]
village of Chevak, rather than the division placing a big
concrete box in the village.
4:12:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to online ballot delivery services,
which seemed as though a person could fill out a ballot online
and print it out; however, it allowed for electronic or e-mail
delivery for return. At that point, the ballot would be printed
out and entered as a paper ballot. He acknowledged that it
would provide a paper trail, but the person voting would not see
it. He assumed the DOE does not find that system very secure.
MS. BAHNKE answered that he is correct. She said this was
discussed with the Election Policy Work Group, who has had a lot
of concerns due to the international cyber threats. She stated
that the DOE has suspended the online return. In 2018, the DOE
will provide voters who request online ballots, but they must
print it off return it by mail or fax.
4:14:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL related that he has multiple USPO boxes,
receives mail at his home, so he understood how mail could get
tossed in a person's vehicle. He offered his belief that the
mail trail could present challenges. He liked online printing
since a person could print it out and return it by mail as part
of the hybrid method.
4:14:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS was not aware the division had suspended
the e-mail option. He recalled reading a report in which Alaska
was given a "B," as one of the best grades in the nation, but
one of the complaints on Alaska's system was the e-mail delivery
option. He characterized it as heartening and commendable to
hear DOE acted on this.
4:15:20 PM
MS. BAHNKE turned to slide 8, title "EPWG Steps Forward." She
related that the EPWG's next meeting is on May 9, 2018, in
Anchorage. The group will report on its projects. First, the
division partnered with UAA's Institute of Social and Economic
Research (ISER), who is conducting a survey on behalf of DOE of
registered voters in the Kusilvak, Bethel, and Dillingham census
areas. The survey asks voters to weigh in on alternative voting
methods and their perceptions of the mail service and any
barriers they perceive in voting. The division's target for the
survey is 400 completed surveys. As of this week the division
had received 385 completed surveys. The work is ongoing, and
the findings will be released by the end of May, she said.
4:16:24 PM
MS. BAHNKE said that to complement the survey, the division
hosted focus groups in Bethel last week with elders and youth.
The division's Yu'pik interpreter held group-style meetings with
questions aimed at facilitating discussion among elders and
youth. She remarked that the youth all wanted to vote online.
She explained the purpose was to consider the pros, cons, and
concerns around current voting methods and the three proposals
discussed today, including the hybrid system being considered.
MS. BAHNKE offered that the DOE has invited all four federally
certified vendors - Clear Vote, Dominion, ES&S [Election Systems
and Software], and Hart [InterCivic], to Anchorage to conduct
demonstrations on three types of voting systems: a paper ballot
precinct-based system, a paper ballot vote by mail system, and a
vote by mail system. She invited members to attend the
demonstrations. She said the DOE was exploring whether there
was a good alternative for the state to replace its 20-year old
system.
4:18:33 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that the Senate capital budget line
item was added to replace election equipment. He asked whether
the line item was inserted in consultation with the division and
if there was any vision for how the funds would be spent.
MS. BAHNKE agreed the division was aware of the proposed
funding.
4:19:01 PM
MS. BAHNKE referred to slide 9, titled "EPWG Recommendation."
She said that in recognition of Alaska's need to replace its
aging statewide voting equipment and modernize and improve the
integrity of the state's elections, the division anticipates the
EPWG will make an advisory recommendation to the Lt. Governor in
the upcoming months. Once a decision is made or the DOE gets
direction, it would need to conduct a full cost analysis of the
recommended voting system, identify the necessary changes to AS
15, and draft legislation for the legislature's consideration.
MS. BAHNKE anticipated that the division would need to hire a
project manager to see it through the process, but the division
will also need to continue to work with the legislature,
municipalities, community and tribal leaders, and other key
stakeholders to ensure that these groups agree. She recalled
Ms. Jones mentioned the MOA's success with its outreach program.
She hoped to use the MOA's model as an example. She
acknowledged that community outreach was important, so voters
are knowledgeable and understand the changes to Alaska's voting
system.
4:20:37 PM
MS. BAHNKE said that lastly, the division will need to go
through a formal procurement process. Presently, the DOE has
secured approximately $5 million to put toward a replacement
system. In March 2018, the DOE received $3 million in Help
America Vote Act (HAVA) funding and the remaining $2 million in
funding will come from a combination of existing HAVA funds and
the previously mentioned capital budget line item. That line
item was a reappropriation of lapsing funds from the Governor's
office. In addition, the division will have a five-percent
match to the HAVA funding, or $150,000, with the total funding
of $5 million for the new election system.
MS. BAHNKE indicated that the division was ramping up for the
2018 election cycle and it does not wish to lose momentum. As
evidenced with the MOA, any change in an election system
requires significant discussion and time to execute. In
closing, she quoted one of the members at the first EPWG meeting
who said, This is about making government work and voting is a
fundamental right. Cost effectiveness and other related
concerns are critical, but well-run elections are of paramount
importance."
4:22:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that he was glad to see DOE moving
in this direction. He hoped that the division would also give
this presentation to the Senate. He recalled the pie chart that
illustrated early voting versus absentee voting. He said people
sometimes are confused about early voting, which may happen in
rural Alaska. Many people who tried to vote early were denied
because they were told they needed to be absent to vote since it
consisted of an in-person absentee application. He offered his
belief that calling it "early voting" was an easy way to handle
it. In that way, poll watchers and poll workers also understand
the function. He acknowledged that some processes are handled
differently but the public just needs to know they can "early
vote" and do not need to go to a vote center to do so.
4:24:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that the report and the EPWG can
be found on the website.
HB 408-REVOCATION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE
4:24:45 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 408, "An Act relating to revocation of a
driver's license."
4:25:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE LEDOUX, on behalf of the House
Judiciary Committee, presented HB 408. She said that the
impetus for HB 408 was brought forth by a constituent who will
testify on his experience; however, this bill also would affect
many other people. She paraphrased from a sponsor statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
In Alaska, a person who has had their license
permanently revoked due to alcohol related offenses
can apply to have their driver's license restored if
10 years have passed since the revocation and they
have not been convicted of a driving-related criminal
offense in that time. However, if someone was
convicted of any driving-related crime (such as
driving without a license) any time after the date of
revocation, their license may never be restored under
current law.
4:26:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX explained the limited exception. She
related that if a person was convicted after three strikes and
had his/her driver's license [permanently] revoked, but the
person subsequently was arrested for another DUI [driving under
the influence] offense, the person would be eligible to apply
for a limited license. She then highlighted the inconsistency
in current law pertaining to DUIs. She said that a person who
stayed totally clean for 10-15 years and has not been charged
with a DUI has no pathway to obtain a driver's license; however,
a person who had a fourth DUI who adhered to the therapeutic
court process would be eligible to get his/her driver's license
back.
4:29:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for clarification on how current law
would affect someone who lost their license but did not drive
for ten years.
4:30:16 PM
GREG SMITH, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that HB 408 would address someone whose
license was permanently revoked due to 3 felony DUIs within a
10-year period. If that person committed any driving-related
offense, there would not be any remedy to reinstate driving
privileges. He was not sure about the insurance requirements.
4:31:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL reiterated the purpose of the bill, to
create a pathway for reinstating a limited driver's license for
those who are "clean" for ten years, including not driving
without a license.
MR. SMITH answered yes; that was his understanding. He
described the situation was being encountered by someone who had
multiple DUI convictions as a young person, had his/her license
permanently revoked, but who has since reformed and cannot
obtain a driver's license.
4:33:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification for someone who was
conviction of a felony DUI, but in Year 9 was subsequently cited
for driving without a license, that the person would need to
wait 10 years before he/she was eligible for a limited driver's
license under the bill.
MR. SMITH answered yes; that the intent of the bill is that the
person must have 10 years of no driving-related criminal
offenses before they could petition for restoration of his/her
driver's license.
4:34:11 PM
SEAN HOOPER described his experience with losing his driver's
license. In 2002, he received a felony DUI, went through
treatment, and in 2003 was cited for driving a motorcycle
without a license. It has been nearly 15 years since he
straightened out his life. He has tried several times to have
his license reinstated; however, since he had an offense after
his license was revoked due to a felony DUI, he is not eligible
for a limited license or license reinstatement of any type.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX thanked him for testifying since it
identifies an issue that affects not only him, but many others.
4:36:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether his license was revoked for a
third felony DUI.
MR. HOOPER answered that it was his third offense right after
the law was changed to reflect three DUI offenses within five
years. He said he had three DUIs in his early 20s.
4:36:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether he was driving the motorcycle
without a valid license and if it triggered something else.
MR. HOOPER said his license was permanently revoked for a
[third] felony DUI. The law was written that after 10 years
from supervised probation a person would be eligible to apply
for termination of revocation unless the person had any criminal
offense. His criminal offense was driving with a revoked
license in 2003, he said.
4:37:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said it sounded as though he could have
applied for the termination of driver's license revocation if he
had not had a moving violation on the motorcycle. He was unsure
if Mr. Hooper could have applied for his license under current
law.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that Mr. Hooper could have
applied after ten years if he had not had a driving-related
criminal offense. Mr. Hooper did have one since his criminal
offense was driving without license. She said he has been
"clean" now for 15 years; however, he can never obtain a
license.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS remarked it was a bit like the SR-22 issue.
4:39:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL recapped that essentially the bill would
allow a person to apply for termination of driver's license
revocation after ten years with a clean record. This bill would
reset the ten-year clock, he said.
4:39:59 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recalled that part of the concept, as he
understood it from the House Judiciary Standing Committee
hearing was that under current law with justice reform that SB
91 has a pathway to reinstate his/her license. He asked for
clarification on the pathway.
4:41:02 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS),
responded that prior to passage of SB 91, there was not any
pathway for a person with a felony DUI law, which required
permanent revocation to get a limited driver's license. She
explained that misdemeanants could obtain a limited license to
allow the person to drive to work under certain circumstances.
She stated that SB 91 added a provision that would allow a
person with a third felony DUI conviction within 10 years, whose
license has been permanently revoked, to obtain a limited
license if the person had gone through a therapeutic court
program and met other requirements such as proof of financial
responsibility [SR-22], use of the ignition interlock device,
and a few other things.
MS. MEADE explained that if an individual lived in a community
without a therapeutic court, the person must demonstrate to a
judge that the person had completed a treatment program with
conditions similar to a therapeutic court, including that it
spanned 18 months, had intensive oversight, and had some
residential component. If the person could do that it was an
alternative to the therapeutic court, she said. She related
that a person who had driven under the limited felony license
for three years could apply under the same provision, AS
28.35.030(o) under proposed Section 2, to obtain a full
restoration. She stated that the provision was retroactive. For
example, if someone went through therapeutic court in 2004, the
person meeting the requirements could have his/her driver's
license reinstated.
4:42:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification whether a person who
used the therapeutic court exception and obtained a limited
license would need to use the ignition interlock system or not.
MS. MEADE explained that the ignition interlock device is a
requirement for anyone conviction of a DUI. The law states that
the person would permanently lose his/her driver's license;
however, the law also says when and if the person ever drives
again, the person must use the ignition interlock device for a
set period of time. She related that language was included in
every judgment. She acknowledged that after three years of a
limited license the person can have his/her driver's license
restored. She referred to language on page 1, starting at line
13. She explained that proposed AS 28.35.030(o) provides a
different method for those who do not go through the therapeutic
court process to obtain a full driver's license restoration
after 10 years of a clean driving record despite the fact that
the revocation was permanent.
4:44:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK related a scenario in which a friend got
three DUIs early on and only recently after 15 years or longer,
with passage of SB 91 was able to obtain a driver's license but
uses an ignition interlock device. He also went through
therapeutic court, he said. He asked for clarification that
with passage of HB 408, if his friend had no prior violations in
10 years that he could apply for a full driver's license, which
would remove the requirement for the ignition interlock device
and he would have the same privileges as any other driver.
MS. MEADE answered yes; but there would be a better avenue to
get the full driver's license, which would be after driving
under a limited license for three years without any driving
related problems could get his license restored. She said it
would be more advantageous to use that route.
4:45:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he liked [the bill] and believed in
redemption. He expressed an interest in statistics on drivers
whose license was reinstated after ten years who subsequently
reoffended.
MS. MEADE stated that [AS 28.35.030(o)(1)&(2) went into effect
in 2002, which relates to restoration of a revoked driver's
license after 10 years with no convictions of any driving-
related criminal offenses. Thus, the first people eligible to
apply under this statute would have been in 2012. She deferred
to the DMV to provide figures on the number of people who
applied and how many were granted. She agreed with
Representative Wool's assessment that many drivers whose
licenses were revoked continued to drive with suspended licenses
and therefore disqualified themselves.
4:47:35 PM
MARLA THOMSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department
of Administration (DOA), was unsure but offered to provide
information to the committee.
4:47:59 PM
MR. SMITH said he found information showing that revocation of a
license was a mechanism to reduce recidivism, but what was less
conclusive was the optimal length of a revocation. In some
cases, long revocation periods taught people that it was okay to
drive without a license when they discovered they could drive
and not be caught.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said that ultimately it is about public
safety, so he was interested in the recidivism rates.
4:48:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether someone like Mr. Hooper,
whose DUIs were 15 years ago, would be eligible to attend
therapeutic court.
MS. THOMSON answered no; that therapeutic court was an
alternative option to deal with a DUI charge; therefore, the
case must be active. The courts do not provide social services
to people who do not have an active case. If a person was
arrested and came before the court, the therapeutic court
provides an alternative route to the traditional court.
4:49:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding that if Mr.
Hooper got an additional DUI and was referred to therapeutic
court, he could then apply for a limited license. Obviously,
Mr. Hooper would not want to get a DUI, but in keeping on "the
straight and narrow path" places him in a worse position than if
he got a subsequent DUI.
MS. MEADE answered that was literally true; however, therapeutic
court is an intensive 18-month program with social workers,
probation officers, and seeing the judge every few days at the
beginning and tapering off to a weekly visit. Everyone must
agree that the person is an appropriate candidate for the
therapeutic court route; for example, they must agree that the
person was capable of rehabilitation, she said. She said she
did not wish to indicate that anyone could go through the
therapeutic court because it is a difficult process.
4:51:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she understood this; however, it
seemed unfair that someone could go through the therapeutic
court route to get his/her driver's license back. However,
someone without a DUI after 15 years could never get his/her
license privileges restored.
MS. MEADE answered that this is what the law currently provides.
She offered her view of what happened in SB 91; that there was
not a way to provide a limited license. The ten-year period
without any DUIs does not help anyone who drives with a
suspended license, which many people in that situation choose to
do at some point. She further stated that under SB 91, the view
was taken to make it available to some people, but still have
some assurance that this person will not recidivate and show
some signs of rehabilitation. She acknowledged that therapeutic
court was one concrete indicator.
4:52:20 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Meade to describe the therapeutic
retroactivity associated with the therapeutic court pathway to
restore a person's driver's license.
MS. MEADE responded that SB 91 offered a route for those with
offenses before the effective date of SB 91; for example, if a
person had a felony DUI in 2009, had not been driving since that
date and went through therapeutic court, the person could still
apply to DMV for a limited driver's license. It was intended to
address parties who needed some avenue to restore their
licenses. Therapeutic court was one way to show the person was
somewhat rehabilitated, she said.
4:53:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL related his understanding that prior to the
passage of SB 91 someone with a felony DUI who lost his/her
license permanently and had no violations within 10 years could
apply to get their driver's license restored.
MS. MEADE answered yes.
4:54:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that having some option to obtain
a legal driver's license was good since the penalty for someone
whose license was suspended and continued to drive would not be
a deterrent. He asked whether 10 years would be the appropriate
amount of time. He was unsure of the penalty for driving with
license suspended [DWLS] and whether people would get jail time
for the offense.
MS. MEADE responded that the DWLS was a common charge and
conviction. She reported that approximately 1,800 per year are
convicted of DWLS. She stated that SB 91 separated the crime.
If a person whose license was suspended was caught driving for a
reason other than DUI or refusal, the penalty is an infraction
with a $300 fine. However, if the driver's license was
suspended due to a DUI, the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor
under SB 91. The statute spells out the penalty as 10 days in
jail with 10 days suspended and the second offense would result
in 10 days in jail.
4:56:29 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the DMV has taken a position
on HB 408.
MS. THOMSON stated that the DMV has not yet taken a position on
the bill.
4:57:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK remarked that he was glad to reform some
things, including the SR-22 remedy. He viewed HB 408 as an
amendment rather than a bill and it is a necessary fix that
needs to happen.
4:58:02 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 408 would be held over.
[HB 408 was held over.]
4:58:46 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:58
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB408 Sponsor Statement 4.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/26/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 5/1/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| HB408 Sectional Analysis 4.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/26/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 5/1/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| HB408 ver A 4.13.18.PDF |
HSTA 4/26/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 5/1/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| HB408 Fiscal Note DOA 4.25.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/26/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 5/1/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| Division of Election Report 4.25.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/26/2018 3:15:00 PM |