04/19/2022 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB251 | |
| HB271 | |
| HB66 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 271 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 251 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 396 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 19, 2022
3:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Matt Claman, Vice Chair
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Andi Story
Representative James Kaufman
Representative David Eastman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sarah Vance
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 251
"An Act relating to the Board of Trustees of the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED HB 251 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 271
"An Act relating to the Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 66
"An Act relating to voting, voter qualifications, and voter
registration; relating to poll watchers; relating to absentee
ballots and questioned ballots; relating to election worker
compensation; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 396
"An Act restricting certain investments of state funds in
certain Russian entities; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 251
SHORT TITLE: BD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AK PERM. FUND CORP.
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
01/18/22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/22
01/18/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/22 (H) STA, FIN
02/03/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/03/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/03/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/10/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/10/22 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/29/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/29/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/14/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/14/22 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/19/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 271
SHORT TITLE: AIDEA: MEMBERSHIP; RESPONSIBILITIES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
01/18/22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/14/22
01/18/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/22 (H) STA, FIN
03/17/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/17/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/17/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/29/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/29/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/19/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 66
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TUCK
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, JUD
04/09/21 (H) STA REFERRAL MOVED TO AFTER JUD
04/09/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/12/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/12/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/14/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/14/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/14/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/19/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/19/21 (H) Moved CSHB 66(JUD) Out of Committee
04/19/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/21/21 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 4DP 3DNP
04/21/21 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS, DRUMMOND, SNYDER,
CLAMAN
04/21/21 (H) DNP: EASTMAN, VANCE, KURKA
04/21/21 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER STA
04/21/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/29/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/29/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/06/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/06/21 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
01/25/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/25/22 (H) Heard & Held
01/25/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/12/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/12/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/22 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/19/22 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided introductory remarks during the
hearing on HB 251, as the prime sponsor.
XANNIE BORSETH, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a summary of changes in the
proposed CS for HB 271, Version I, one behalf of Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins.
ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff
Representative Andy Josephson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
271, on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
271, as the prime sponsor.
ALAN WEITZNER, Executive Director
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
271.
MICHAELA THOMPSON, Administrative Operations Manager
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the CS for HB 66, Version O.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the CS for HB 66, Version O, as the prime sponsor.
MICHAEL MASON, Staff
Representative Chris Tuck
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the CS for HB 66, Version O, on behalf of Representative Tuck,
prime sponsor.
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the CS for HB 66, Version O.
HILLARY HALL, Director
Government Affairs
National Vote at Home Institute
Boulder, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the CS for HB 66, Version O.
NOAH KLEIN, Attorney
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the CS for HB 66, Version O.
JENNIFER MORRELL, Partner
The Elections Group
Salt Lake City, Utah
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on risk-limiting audits
and answered questions during the hearing on the CS for HB 66,
Version O.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:31:02 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:31 p.m.
Representatives Tarr, Story, Eastman, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins
were present at the call to order. Representative Kaufman
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 251-BD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AK PERM. FUND CORP.
3:33:20 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 251, "An Act relating to the Board of
Trustees of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation; and providing
for an effective date."
3:33:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 251, said he would appreciate the committee's
support of the bill. He characterized the memorandum, titled
"APFC Board of Trustees Consideration of HB 251" [included in
the committee packet], from the Board of Trustees of the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC) as "not unreceptive" of the
legislation. The board believed that the bill would potentially
politicize the appointment process; however, Representative
Josephson contended that HB 251 would add a layer of protection
between political influence and board member selection.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from committee members.
3:34:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the rationale behind the
six-year term for the socially responsible investor (SRI) seat.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON clarified that all members would have
six-year terms. He explained that the SRI member would be
selected so that he/she would start a six-year term immediately,
rather than being "rotated faster."
3:35:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report HB 251 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 251 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 271-AIDEA: MEMBERSHIP; RESPONSIBILITIES
3:36:03 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 271, "An Act relating to the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority; and providing for
an effective date."
3:36:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 271, labeled 32-LS1364\I, Klein, 4/15/22,
as the working document.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
3:37:00 PM
XANNIE BORSETH, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, provided a summary of changes in the
proposed CS for HB 271 ("Version I"), which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Deletes Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13.
Section 4 Page 2, line 10 adds "by publishing the
notice on the authority's Internet website" to AS
44.88.085(d) which requires public notice before
adoption, amendment, or repeal of an AIDEA proposed
action.
Sections renumbered accordingly
3:38:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY wondered whether a two-minute minimum for
public testimony would be too prescriptive.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that the two-minute
minimum was unchanged from the original version of the bill.
MS. BORSETH answered yes, noting that the language, "not less
than two minutes", was on page 2, line 19.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed concern that the chair would not
have discretion.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS advised the committee to table this
discussion until final comment, as the provision in question was
not new to Version I.
3:40:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that under the proposed
legislation, Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
(AIDEA) membership would be staggard five-year terms that, once
confirmed by the legislature, could not be removed by the
governor.
MS. BORSETH deferred to the bill sponsor.
3:41:40 PM
ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska
State Legislature, confirmed that Representative Claman's
understanding was accurate.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he liked the provision because the
AIDEA board members would serve independently from the executive
branch.
3:42:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN reiterated his previous concern about the
language on page 2, line 22, such that the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority ("the authority") may be
required to publish written responses to a large number of
public comments.
MS. SORUM-BIRK said she did not have a response to that concern
at this time.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that similar to Representative
Story's inquiry, the language in question was unchanged relative
to the original version of the bill.
3:43:33 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version I was adopted as the working
document.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY redirected her original line of questioning
regarding the two-minute minimum for public testimony.
3:45:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 271, opined that a minimum of two minutes for
public testimony was a vast improvement compared to current
practices.
3:45:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR commented on the history of abrupt time or
agenda changes in AIDEA's scheduled meetings. She asked whether
the current language adequately addressed the expectations of
transparency. She suggested adding language that prohibited
last minute meeting changes, which had shattered public trust in
the past.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON pointed out that the goal was not to
tie the board's hands completely. He indicated that it was a
policy call.
3:48:24 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited general comments from Mr. Weitzner
on Version I.
3:48:49 PM
ALAN WEITZNER, Executive Director, AIDEA, directed attention to
the meeting agendas, which were published on the authority's
website and available for public review. He contended that the
public was consistently allotted two minutes per person for one
hour, as defined on the agenda. He stated that AIDEA took
public comment extremely seriously, adding that the authority
would be receptive to suggestions for improvement. Regarding
Version I, he directed attention to Section 5, which repealed
AIDEA's confidentiality statutes, arguing that the language in
AS 44.88.215 was necessary for AIDEA's operation. He cautioned
the committee that repealing the confidentiality statutes would
publicize all the information submitted by parties with business
operations or loans with AIDEA, both current and historically.
He urged the committee to take a closer look at Section 5.
3:53:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Mr. Weitzner was suggesting
that Section 5 should be excluded.
MR. WEITZNER answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN directed attention to the language "shall
publish written responses to public comments" on page 2, lines
21-22 of Version I and asked how AIDEA would treat that
provision in practice. Specifically, he questioned whether
AIDEA would respond to similar comments with a general response,
as opposed to responding to each individual comment separately.
MR. WEITZNER explained that under current practice, AIDEA
provided a written response to written public comment. He
maintained that AIDEA had the capacity to meet the requirement
in question. He asked the committee how the provision would be
put into practice, questioning whether AIDEA would be required
to address each individual public comment before taking action.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN remarked, "I understand the current
practice is that, internally, you have some memo that says,
'here's how we respond to these 100 comments,' but those
comments don't go anywhere other than internally?"
MR. WEITZNER responded that internal staff reviewed and
responded to the parties that send public comment.
3:57:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled that last minute changes had been
made to the agenda of a specific AIDEA meeting regarding the
purchase of leases for drilling in the Arctic refuge, which
impacted people's ability to provide public testimony on the
issue. She asked Mr. Weitzner to comment on that circumstance.
MR. WEITZNER said the meeting in question was declared as a
"special meeting of the board." He explained that the meeting
was on short notice because of the need to make a decision in a
short period of time due to a limited opportunity to act on the
leases. He reiterated that under current practice, two minutes
of public testimony was allotted per person for one hour. He
shared his understanding that only the public testimony that
would have exceeded the one-hour time period was cut off.
3:59:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR opined that prior actions had led the public
to call for a reform of the enabling statutes. She opined that
it would be in the public's best interest to extend the time for
public testimony past one hour, as cutting people off planted
the seeds of mistrust. She expressed her hope that absent the
passage of the proposed legislation, AIDEA would consider the
impact of its actions relative to the public's trust.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that the existing statutory
language on public comment pertaining to AIDEA stated, "a total
period of at least on hour". He asked why public testimony had
been cut off after completing the bare minimum and who made that
decision.
MR. WEITZNER stated that it was common practice of the chair to
extend that time period. He emphasized that, ultimately, it was
the chair's decision. He shared his understanding that any
party who did not get a chance to testify was encouraged to
email their testimony to AIDEA.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS redirected his question back to the
incident described by Representative Tarr. He asked why the
chair had decided to stop public testimony after one hour
despite there being additional members of the public in the que
to testify.
MR. WEITZNER said it was the chair's decision to stop the agenda
item.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged the interest in efficiency;
however, he pointed out that a legislative committee would never
cut public testimony short if there were people in the queue.
4:05:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about special meetings of the board
and asked how the process for public notice differed from
regular meetings.
MR. WEITZNER reported that public testimony for the meeting in
question was noticed for 1.5 hours. He explained that AIDEA
followed the Open Meetings Act, per AS 44.62.310, which required
"reasonable public notice" for open meetings. In practice, he
stated that AIDEA made agendas available to the public one week
prior to the scheduled board meetings. For special meetings,
AIDEA was required to provide notice at least 48 hours in
advance. In regard to the specific meeting in question, he
recalled that the agenda was provided three days in advance.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON addressed Mr. Weitzner's comments on
Section 5, indicating that his intent was for the effect to be
prospective, as opposed to retroactive.
4:08:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN associated himself with Representative
Tarr's comments regarding public testimony. He shared his
understanding that the intent of the proposed legislation was to
require AIDEA to listen to public testimony in its entirety.
4:10:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked Mr. Weitzner to elaborate on his
concerns about Section 5.
MR. WEITZNER reiterated his belief that Section 5 would have the
broadest impact on ADIEA's operations. He maintained that the
existing language under AS 44.88.215 specifically limited the
amount of information that AIDEA was allowed to hold and define
as confidential. He pointed out that Section 5 would directly
impact AIDEA's loan programs and the way the authority engaged
with the financial service industry within Alaska. He argued
that eliminating the confidentiality statutes would
significantly impact AIDEA's capacity to continue with its
current operations and the issuance of dividends.
4:13:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN drew a comparison between limited public
testimony and campaign finance limits, arguing that it could
discourage people from participating in the public process.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked the bill sponsor to speak to the
intent of [Section 5].
4:14:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON conveyed that it was a "core principle
of AIDEA's critics." He explained that his intent was to herald
and champion the public's ability to meaningfully interact with
the board. He recalled that transparency was afforded to the
public for decades, as AIDEA was founded in 1967; however, now,
transparency appeared to be lacking. He indicated that enabling
more transparency was an important feature of Version I.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged that a blanket confidentiality
proviso could be overkill; however, businesses may not want
their intimate details and financial information to be public
record. He expressed his interest in finding a middle ground.
4:16:20 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK said a more detailed legal analysis could be
obtained and distributed to the committee. Nonetheless, she
recalled that numerous federal laws protected the
confidentiality of sensitive financial records. She explained
that the bill sponsor's intent was for records to be subject to
the Alaska Public Records Act.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS confirmed that a legal analysis would
provide him some comfort and better understanding. He suggested
looking at an analogue of how public records laws interacted
with the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development's (DCCED's) Division of Economic Development's
revolving loan fund programs, given that much of the financing
went through that entity.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 271 was held over.
HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
4:18:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 66, "An Act relating to voting, voter
qualifications, and voter registration; relating to poll
watchers; relating to absentee ballots and questioned ballots;
relating to election worker compensation; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee was the proposed CS for
HB 66, Version O, labeled 32-LS0322\O, Klein, 3/30/22, adopted
as the working document on 4/12/22.]
4:19:39 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:19:56 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from committee members.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the current verification
process for the U.S. citizenship status of voters.
4:21:08 PM
MICHAELA THOMPSON, Administrative Operations Manager, Division
of Elections (DOE), Office of the Lieutenant Governor, explained
that an individual must certify that he/she was a U.S. citizen
during the voter registration process.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that the "honor system"
was used.
MS. THOMPSON clarified that the individual's signed affidavit
was utilized.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 1,
subsection (4), of Version O and asked how to verify whether a
person was not registered to vote in another jurisdiction.
MS. THOMPSON relayed that on the registration form, a voter
could declare whether he/she was registered in another
jurisdiction. If such a declaration was made, DOE would notify
said jurisdiction. Additionally, Alaska was a member of the
Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), a cross-state
voter registration database.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about enforcement methods for
individuals who maintained voter registration in multiple
states.
MS. THOMPSON said DOE was unable to check records in other
states. She reiterated that if an individual declared that
he/she was registered to vote in another jurisdiction, DOE would
send a notification to that state; however, the division could
not see whether said jurisdiction followed through with the
cancellation.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there was a benefit to
keeping these requirements in statute if they were based on the
honor system.
4:24:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 66, reiterated that during the voter registration
process, an individual was certifying his/her U.S. citizenship
and voter registration status via a signed affidavit under
penalty of perjury for which a misdemeanor offense could be
brought. He opined that the system held people accountable.
4:25:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether any person had been
convicted of that misdemeanor offense.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to the Department of Law (DOL).
4:25:35 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, DOL,
said he was aware of several charges that existed; however, he
was unsure of the details. He offered to follow up with the
requested information.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS redirected the question to Ms. Thompson.
4:26:07 PM
MS. THOMPSON was unsure of the answer.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the extent to which voter
registrations were perjured. He shared his understanding that
it was exceedingly rare, which explained the low or unknown
number of prosecutions. He welcomed the follow-up information
from Mr. Flynn regarding criminal referrals or concerning
instances of perjury.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced former Representative
Gabrielle LeDoux and the charges brought against her. He
surmised that Alaska did not prosecute people for violating the
law in these circumstances.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Thompson to restate the answer to
Representative Eastman's question regarding citizenship.
MS. THOMPSON sought to confirm that Chair Kreiss-Tomkins was
asking what would happen if a non-citizen tried to vote.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS answered yes.
MS. THOMPSON explained that if a non-citizen declared his/her
alien status on a question ballot on election day, the ballot
would be rejected by the question review board.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there were instances of
perjury pertaining to the declaration of U.S. citizenship on
voter registration forms.
MS. THOMPSON offered to follow up with the requested
information.
4:31:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared a personal anecdote about an
individual in the Mat-Su who attempted vote with false
identification.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the scenario in question was
referred to law enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN did not believe so.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS remarked, "It strikes me as an omission
with people who have knowledge of this incident." He asked how
DOE would react to such a scenario.
MS. THOMPSON stated that the election workers who witnessed the
fraudulent incident would submit a report to the regional
supervisor who would investigate the matter further. She noted
that workers were not encouraged to make any attempts at
physically stopping an individual in these scenarios for the
purpose of safety; nonetheless, they were trained to document
the incident and contact the regional supervisor.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the operating procedure for
a concerned citizen who witnessed such an incident.
MS. THOMPSON said, from a procedural standpoint, the division
would refer the information to the director for investigation if
needed.
4:34:05 PM
MICHAEL MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, noted that, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime
sponsor, Version O required DOE to establish a toll-free hotline
to receive reports of election offenses or voter misconduct.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN expressed his appreciation for this line
of questioning.
4:35:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked how many times election offenses had
occurred in recent years.
MS. THOMPSON offered to follow up with the requested
information.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled that the number was very small.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS welcomed invited testimony.
4:37:35 PM
HILLARY HALL, Director, Government Affairs, National Vote at
Home Institute (NVAHI), stated that the goal of NVAHI was to
make mail ballots more accessible, equitable, and secure. She
noted that the proposed legislation included many of the
nation's best practices to ensure effective and efficient voting
by mail. She stated that by-mail voting was easy, accessible,
and good for democracy, as it allowed full participation and
offered an equitable solution for voters. In addition to the
permanent mail provision, she highlighted the signature
verification and ballot curing process as outstanding sections
of the legislation. Additionally, she touted the ballot
tracking provision and the pre-processing provision to allow for
timely election results and proper voter notification. She
identified several items in the bill that needed improvement.
She expressed concern that applications could only be sent if a
voter requested one from the division, which put the onus on the
voter to initiate the permanent mail process. She pointed out
that elections were complicated, adding that many voters did not
understand the process. She conveyed that if the bill were to
pass with the provision intact, Get Out the Vote (GOTV) groups
would likely sue the division, as they had in other states.
Finally, she recommended allowing people to pick up and drop off
the mail-in ballots in person from an early voting center during
the 10-day period before an election.
4:43:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that if an individual
had failed to request a mail ballot before the 10-day cutoff,
he/she could pick up a mail ballot from a voting center. He
questioned whether that ballot could be mailed in.
MS. HALL answered yes, in other states; however, that method
would not be recommended. The point, she said, was to clarify
that an absentee ballot could be picked up in person and filled
out at home.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed confusion as to whether the
absentee ballot in question, once picked up in person and filled
out at home, could be mailed.
MS. HALL clarified her belief that people should be allowed to
pick up an absentee ballot in person within the 10-day period
before the election and return it by mail or in person.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK directed attention to Section 34, which
provided that an absentee ballot must be postmarked on or before
the day of the election; therefore, a voter could be allowed to
pick up an absentee ballot in person, fill it out at home, and
return it within that time period.
4:45:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN sought to confirm that Ms. Hall's
preference was for all registered voters to receive a mail
ballot whether they had requested one or not.
MS. HALL clarified her belief that an application should be
available to all voters, and that the process should not be
predicated on the voter's initiation. In other words, she
opined that applications should be proactively sent out to
voters to allow them to sign up for permanent mail voting.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that in past elections, voters
were barraged with absentee by-mail ballot applications by
different groups in an attempt to bank a vote from likely
supporters. He surmised that such actions created confusion
amongst voters or a perception that DOE had sent multiple
applications.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN shared his understanding that unsolicited
ballots often ended up in the garbage, as an affirmative request
had not been made to receive them.
4:48:45 PM
MR. MASON said the scenario shared by Representative Kaufman
highlighted the point of the bill, as there was confusion
amongst voters regarding absentee ballots versus absentee ballot
applications. He relayed that people mistook trash cans full of
absentee ballot applications for ballots that had been thrown
out, which caused alarm and confusion.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN contended that he was aware of the
difference between absentee ballots and absentee ballot
applications. He maintained that unsolicited ballots were
indeed mailed out.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that the scenario described by
Representative Kaufman pertained to municipal elections. He
asked Ms. Hall to comment on that situation.
MS. HALL highlighted the importance of signature verification to
by-mail ballot elections. She explained that the signature
verification process was used to verify the identity of the
voter and ensured that that the mail ballot was sent in from the
correct person.
4:51:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked:
I would just to beg to differ based on the information
presented to the committee, because we at the state
have never had signature verification for any of our
thousands of mail-in ballots, and I'm told we have an
excellent system with very little problems, so I don't
know why they would need signature verification in
other states if we never needed it here.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted that Section 30 placed a limit on the
ability for organizations to send out mail ballot applications
to reduce the bombardment of applications in mailboxes.
Additionally, limitations were placed on pre-filled
applications, which had created much confusion.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that the language in Version O
placed a prohibition on that kind of activity.
4:53:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK further noted that under Version O, ballot
applications must prominently display the language "Application
only/Not a ballot" on the exterior address side of the envelope.
4:54:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about the statement made during Ms.
Hall's invited testimony regarding the likelihood of GOTV groups
suing the state.
MS. HALL confirmed that she had seen this kind of policy met
with litigation in other states, specifically regarding the
right for GOTV groups to reach out to voters. To avoid the
possibility of litigation, she suggested that the state could
proactively send out the applications for permanent mail voting.
She believed that many groups would welcome that idea.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether other states proactively
communicated with residents about election changes or related
information.
MS. HALL indicated that by providing funding for outreach
programs, the legislature could make that a possibility for DOE.
REPRESENTATIVE TAR questioned whether Ms. Hall was familiar with
the Center for Civic Design and asked how to clearly communicate
with voters to reduce confusion.
MS. HALL answered yes, she was familiar with the Center for
Civic Design. She stated that NVAHI was continuing to identify
systemic barriers to the vote at home process, which included
design and messaging on mailers. She added that the behavioral
group, Ideas42, considered how to make the user interface of a
form easier for diverse populations to participate in ways that
made sense to them.
MR. MASON directed attention to Section 3, which provided that
applicants were allowed to designate their preferred language in
which the division was required to provide ballots and other
election materials.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR wondered whether the bill should be more
prescriptive about ballot design.
MS. HALL said she understood the temptation to be more
prescriptive; however, "getting it right" was an evolving
process that required flexibility and adaptation.
5:01:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 2 and asked
how the affidavit signed under penalty of perjury worked. He
wondered whether the applicant's signature effectually acted as
an "oath".
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered yes, that was the intent.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the definition of a "voter
registration agency".
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Mr. Klein.
5:03:51 PM
NOAH KLEIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency (LAA), defined "voter registration agency" as an
agency designated under AS 15.07.055, which listed voter
registration agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether someone at the voter
registration agency was putting the voter under oath or whether
signing the form realized the signed affidavit.
MR. MASON said the details would need to be worked out through
the regulation process, as this was new language; however, he
shared his understanding that attesting on the affidavit would
suffice and that no one would be raising their right hand at the
voter registration agency.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that AS 15.07.055 listed the DMV,
DHSS, DCCED, and recruitment offices for the armed forces.
5:06:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, in response to Representative Eastman's
line of questioning, shared his understanding that PFD
applications similarly involved declaration under penalty of
perjury. He directed attention to Section 43, speculating that
the provision would make it difficult to hold a special election
by mail. He asked Ms. Hall whether Section 43 should be amended
to allow a vote-by-mail special election, such as the special
election held to fill Congressman Don Young's seat.
MS. HALL recommended allowing special elections to be run by
mail to increase participation.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified that currently, the director was
allowed to hold a special election by mail. He pointed out that
Section 43 pertained to small communities where it would not be
feasible to set up a polling place.
5:08:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he raised the issue because during a
previous hearing, the director had testified that Section 43
would prohibit the current special election to fill Congressman
Young's seat the U.S. House of Representatives from being held
by mail. He shared his belief that the section in question
needed to be amended.
MR. MASON noted that an amendment was offered for the companion
bill in the Senate, which made significant changes to this
provision.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN requested aa copy of the amendment in
question.
5:09:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK reiterated that AS 15.20.800(a) provided
that the director may conduct an election by mail if held at a
time other than when a general, party primary, or municipal
election was held. He stressed that the aforementioned language
was unchanged by the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN explained that the issue could be found on
page 20, lines 20-21, which stated that the director may conduct
an election, other than a general, statewide, or federal
election, by mail. He pointed out that the special election to
replace Congressman Don Young's seat was both a statewide and
federal election; therefore, under the language in Version O,
the special election could not be held by mail.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK believed the language in question was a
drafting error. He suggested removing the words "other than a
general, statewide, or federal election," on page 20, lines 20-
21.
5:11:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the language "under penalty
of perjury" fulfilled the intent to implement a liability of
prosecution.
MR. FLYNN explained that falsely signing something under oath
could result in prosecution for perjury or other potential
crimes.
5:13:52 PM
JENNIFER MORRELL, Partner, The Elections Group, and a Risk-
Limiting Audits (RLA) expert, shared her background and work
experience, which included consulting for states that were
implementing RLAs as their official method of auditing. She
invited questions from committee members.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Morrell to define RLA.
MS. MORRELL defined RLA as a post-election tabulation audit that
examined a random sample of coded ballots to provide a
statistical level of confidence that the election outcome was
correct. She noted that a number of organizations had
recognized RLAs as a reliable method to validate the integrity
of voting equipment, verify the accuracy of results, and detect
and correct outcome-changing errors in vote tabulation. She
explained that RLAs, by design, were made to escalate if
discrepancies were detected during a traditional audit.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how RLAs worked methodologically and
how they differed from traditional audits.
MS. MORRELL explained that various methods were used to perform
an RLA. The three particular methods that had been implemented
in other states included: ballot comparison, ballot polling, and
batch comparison. She noted that several states had
experimented with hybrid methods. Additionally, she stated that
the ballot comparison method worked well in states with a
centralized count or by-mail voting system.
5:21:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which a
community of 25 registered voters produced 26 ballots. He asked
how an RLA would manage that situation.
MS. MORRELL emphasized that reconciliation was an important part
of the audit process. She explained that if the number of
ballots was incorrect, the audit would treat that as a
discrepancy in favor of the losing candidate.
5:22:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about risk criticality. He
asked whether risk assessments were calibrated for specific
precincts.
MS. MORREL stated that setting a risk limit was a primary
principle of RLAs. She added that the risk limit was the
maximum possible chance that the audit would fail to detect an
error in the election outcomes. She noted that different states
used different methods to set a risk limit.
5:25:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether a standard formula was used to
set the risk limit at 5 percent, for example.
MS. MORRELL indicated that the formula was complicated. She
conveyed that the concept of an RLA was developed by an
academic, adding that software had been created to aid in the
calculation. She reiterated that the risk limit percentage had
been treated as a variable by different states.
MR. MASON pointed out that the section in question had been
written broadly to give discretion to DOE and allow the director
to adopt the necessary regulations to administer the procedures.
He highlighted Section 20, subsection (b), which advised that
the director shall consult with recognized experts, equipment
vendors, and municipal clerks, and shall consider best practices
for conducting RLAs.
5:28:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recounted a scenario in which 15
different voters attempted to vote from a single mobile home,
which did not appear to be large enough to house 15 individuals.
He asked how an RLA dealt with such a scenario.
MS. MORRELL clarified that RLAs were not used to verify voter
eligibility. Instead, she reiterated that RLAs were designed to
evaluate the operation of the voting equipment.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his understanding that the scenario
posed by Representative Eastman would be delegated to DOE or the
Criminal Division of DOL for further investigation. He asked
Mr. Flynn whether he had any working knowledge of the scenario
in question.
MR. FLYNN offered to follow up on the requested information. He
suggested that Ms. Thompson may be more familiar with the
scenario.
MS. THOMPSON said she was not working in the [Absentee &
Petition Office], DOE, during the period of time when that
situation surfaced.
5:31:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that an RLA would
verify whether the voting equipment counted the ballots
accurately; however, it would not distinguish between "ballots
that were filled in with a pen versus ballots that were printed
on a printer and then brought to the election place."
MS. HALL pointed out that other barriers were in place to
prevent that. For example, most voting equipment was programmed
to only accept ballots that were programmed on the system or
ballots of the correct weight or timestamp, for example. She
indicated that the system would reject the scheme suggested by
Representative Eastman.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR reiterated that the scenarios posed by
Representative Eastman were situations that should have been
flagged before a vote would ever be counted or audited. She
shared her understanding that the goal of an RLA was to limit
the burden of conducting a hand count for every vote cast in
every precinct across the state.
5:36:29 PM
MR. MASON directed attention to a document [included in the
committee packet], titled "Knowing It's Right, Part One," which
detailed a practical guide to RLAs.
5:37:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether RLAs had been used
successfully with regard to ranked choice voting.
MS. MORRELL confirmed that RLAs had been successfully utilized
for rank choice voting. She noted that in 2020, the democratic
party conducted a presidential preference primary in Alaska
using ranked choice voting for which she had been asked to
perform an RLA. She offered to follow up with the full report.
5:39:43 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 66 was held over.
5:41:04 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:41
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 271 Work Draft for CS Version I.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 Explanation of Changes from Version B to Version I.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 Written Testimony - Margi Dashevsky 03.29.22.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 Emails of Support to HSTA as of 04.18.22.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 66 Written Testimony - Secure Democracy 04.13.22.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Information - A Practical Guide to RLAs by Democracy Fund.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Information - Secure Democracy Fact Sheet v.O 4.19.22.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Documents NCSL LegisBrief re RLAs July 2019 04.18.2022.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |