Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/19/2001 03:45 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
April 19, 2001
3:45 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gene Therriault, Chair
Senator Randy Phillips, Vice Chair
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Drue Pearce
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 187
"An Act relating to absentee voting stations."
MOVED CSSB 187(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 177(STA)
"An Act placing certain special interest organizations within the
definition of 'group' for purposes of Alaska's campaign finance
statutes; and requiring disclosure of the true source of campaign
contributions."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 193
"An Act relating to a study of the economic and social effects of
the permanent fund dividend on the state."
MOVED SB 193 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 187 - No previous action recorded.
HB 177 - No previous action recorded.
SB 193 - No previous action recorded.
WITNESS REGISTER
Loretta Brown
Staff for Senator Ward
Alaska State Capitol, Room 423
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 187
Gail Fenumiai
Election Program Specialist
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Division of Elections
P.O. Box 110017
Juneau, AK 99811-0017
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 187
Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Capitol, Room 204
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-sponsor of HB 177
Brooke Miles
Assistant Director
Department of Administration
Public Offices Commission
2221 E. Northern Lights, Room 128
Anchorage, AK 99508-4149
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 177
Steve Cleary
Alaska Public Interest Research Group
No address provided
Anchorage LIO
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 177
Kathryn Kurtz
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 177
Senator Pete Kelly
Alaska State Capitol, Room 518
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-sponsor of SB 193
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-19, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN GENE THERRIAULT called the Senate State Affairs Committee
meeting to order at 3:45 p.m. Present were Senators Davis, Phillips
and Chairman Therriault.
The first order of business was SB 187.
SB 187-ABSENTEE AND SPECIAL NEEDS VOTING
LORETTA BROWN, staff to Senator Ward, introduced SB 187 for the
sponsor. She read the following sponsor statement.
This legislation will require the director of elections
to notify the voting public of all absentee in person
voting locations at least 60 days prior to an election.
It will also provide a uniform statewide opening date for
absentee in person voting. Currently the location and
opening periods for absentee voting stations is at the
discretion of the director of the division of elections
and requires no public notice. This has lead to some
inconsistencies in opening dates and voting locations.
SB 187 requires that the director of the division of
elections provide full public notice of the location of
all absentee voting stations at least 60 days prior to
each election. No new absentee voting station sights may
be added or opened after the 60-day notification period.
Absentee voting stations will be operated on or after the
15th day before a primary, general, or special election.
Qualified voters may apply in person for an absentee
ballot at the absentee voting station on or after the
15th day before an election up to and including the date
of the election. Absentee voting stations cannot be
opened early.
Having a uniform state wide opening date and prior
notification of all absentee voting in person locations
will make for less confusion for the voters and a more
even playing field for all concerned.
Basically, the bill removes the discretionary powers of opening and
closing voting stations from the director of elections and sets
those times in statute. In addition, voting stations are identified
60 days prior to elections and new stations may not be opened after
that 60 day period passes.
On page 2, line 9, AS15.20.048(b) is referred to and gives the
director the discretionary power to open the absentee stations more
than 15 days before an election. The committee substitute (CS) for
SB 187 removes this option altogether.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether there were any questions on the J
version of the bill. There were none.
SENATOR DAVIS moved the J version (Kurtz 4/19/01) as the working
document. There was no objection.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether he was correct in stating the
director still has some latitude on when the absentee stations open
so long as there is the required public notification and they all
open up at the same time.
MS. BROWN said that the bill says stations may not be opened more
than 15 days prior to an election. It also requires prior notice so
all voters know where the voting station will be.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist from the Division of
Elections, wanted to clarify a number of issues. The division has
historically published absentee voting locations from one to three
weeks prior to Election Day. For general elections, locations are
published in the official election pamphlet and mailed to the
households of all registered voters about three weeks prior to the
election.
There are two types of absentee in person voting. The first type is
through an absentee voting station, which SB 187 specifically
addresses. There were just 14 of those during the primary and 15
for the general election. Stations have all 40 House district
ballots and in the last primary there were the four regional
election offices in Juneau, Anchorage, Fairbanks and Nome that
served as absentee voting stations. There was also a Kenai
Peninsula office located in Soldotna that operated as a station.
Access Alaska operated as an absentee voting station in Anchorage
and there was a station in Prudhoe Bay that was operational four
days prior to and through Election Day. The University of Alaska,
Anchorage, was open the Monday before the election and on Election
Day for the primary. During the general election the University of
Alaska, Fairbanks was also open for voting during that same period
of time. The airports at Juneau, Sitka, Ketchikan, Kodiak,
Anchorage and Fairbanks are all open on Election Day to serve as
absentee voting stations.
Other locations are single district locations in small communities
that have absentee voting officials but generally the only ballots
available are for that particular district.
The reason for starting absentee voting early in the general
election is because they had statutory authority to do so and the
ballots were delivered early. People called with unforeseen
circumstances and asked whether they could vote early. Since they
had the ballots and the statutory authority to allow individuals to
vote early they decided it was their duty to do so.
The division feels that a newspaper notice of 60 days is too long
for people to remember where the voting locations will be. For the
August 22nd primary the division advertised August 3rd through the
10th and then the following week.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether there is a problem with setting a
certain date so everyone knows the date the stations would open.
Individuals going out of town could vote by mail.
MS. FENUMIAI said that's correct but sometimes people are not
terribly cooperative. Historically, they have had no difficulty
with all absentee in person voting starting the 15th day before the
election. The November election was a rare occurrence in which the
ballots arrived eight days early.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked her preference on advance notice for
advertising an election.
MS. FENUMIAI thought 30 days would be a good starting point with
additional notices run 21 days prior to the election and final
advertising run between the 15th and 8th day before the election.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he realizes the division does not get
additional funding if they advertise over a longer period of time
but the first advertisement could start earlier and subsequent
advertisements could run closer to the election day.
MS. FENUMIAI said that would be possible. Voting information is
also posted on the elections home page and it is the same
information that appears in printed advertisements. They are
already required by statute to give location and time notice for
absentee in person voting. Setting the statutory date for when this
must be started is acceptable but 60 days is too far out to be
beneficial to the voters.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked Ms. Brown to explain why 60 days was
selected.
MS. BROWN said voters and campaigners need to have notice of where
the locations will be and when they will open so they may depend on
those as they go through their campaign process. She did not
believe shortening the time frame a bit would be a problem.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT responded that candidates certainly could call
the division of elections for that information. He asked whether
the reluctance comes from the possibility that a candidate might
prepare printed material advertising a certain polling station and
then the division of elections could switch the location.
MS. BROWN said yes.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said that can be a problem. Candidates print
campaign materials giving polling location information and then
learn the division of elections has made a change making all the
printed material inaccurate. He thought it only fair to ask the
division of elections to have that information set far enough in
advance so the candidate does not spend time and money
disseminating voter information that is ultimately inaccurate.
MS. FENUMIAI said the division tries its best to have polling
places secured by June 1 but there are unforeseen circumstances
that require changes. They do try to notify voters of the changes
made to accommodate emergency situations but it is a frustration
that is borne by everyone.
Absentee voting stations and absentee voting officials are
generally set on a June 1 time line because the division needs to
know the number of locations there will be so that supplies may be
ordered. To the best of her knowledge, an additional absentee
voting station has never been added several days before absentee
voting started if, for no other reason, there would not be enough
supplies, workers or ballots available to accommodate an additional
station. Occasionally an absentee voting official is added in small
communities where an election board cannot be found.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT thought 60 days was too long.
SENATOR DAVIS moved amendment 1 on page 2, line 1, which changes
"60" to "30".
SENATOR PHILLIPS wanted to ask the sponsor whether 30 days was
acceptable.
MS. BROWN said she thought Senator Ward would like to see a longer
length of time.
SENATOR PHILLIPS suggested 45 days.
SENATOR DAVIS did not support 45 days.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said Senator Ward is a member of the finance
committee so they could pass amendment 1 and he could address the
issue in that committee.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether there was objection to amendment
1 changing "60" to "30" on page 2, line 1. There was none. He noted
the zero fiscal note.
He asked for any other testimony. There was none.
SENATOR PHILLIPS moved CSSB 187 (STA) J version and accompanying
zero fiscal note from committee with individual recommendations.
There was no objection.
HB 177-CAMPAIGN FINANCE: GROUPS & DISCLOSURE
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT, bill co-sponsor, said that members had a copy
of the sponsor statement for this campaign finance reform bill.
This legislation closes a loophole created when the last campaign
finance measure was passed.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT informed members of two changes, both on page
2. First, "contributor" is defined as "the true source of the
funds, property, or services being contributed;" rather than simply
the name of the person in which the money is given. Second, special
interest organizations are dealt with in Section 3, lines 11
through 15. The term "special interest organizations" is now
included in the terminology of group as it is currently in statute.
"That is to meet the conditions that are set apart and these were
extracted from the [American Civil Liberties Union] ACLU case years
ago when that was challenged and they were reluctant to define the
terminology 'group'."
This legislation closes a loophole, levels the playing field and
places the same restrictions and limitations on non-group entities
that fall into this category.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether there were arguments in the House
over language that was modified to deal with legal challenges.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said they have dealt with legal challenges
indirectly. Both counsel and the sponsors are of the opinion that
they are on firm legal ground in spite of arguments to the contrary
because they have extracted components from state and federal legal
cases to make the two changes. Ultimately, the courts will make the
determination.
BROOKE MILES, Assistant Director for the Public Offices Commission
of the Department of Administration, explained that this
legislation addresses non-group entities that were identified by
the Alaska Supreme Court in the Alaska v. Alaska Civil Liberties
Union decision. The court held that there were certain non-group
entities such as non-profits that should be allowed to participate
in the election campaign process even though there is a ban on
corporation business entities and trust participation.
It is her understanding that this bill addresses that by making
these organizations subject to the same disclosure requirements as
other Alaskan groups.
She has received comments expressing concern about "special
interest organization" found on page 2, line 11. The complainant
was concerned that all special interest organizations, whether they
were participating in election campaign activities or not, were now
going to be subject to regulations under the public offices
commission. Although it is not the intent of the bill and the
commission does not interpret it that way, she thought some
clarifying language was in order.
The commission has identified some costs in the first year where
some regulations would need to be promulgated and where the special
interest organizations could qualify to participate by showing they
meet the three part test described by the court and contained in
this legislation.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he did not have the statutes in front of
him and wondered whether subsection (5) AS 15.13.400 deals with
groups participating in the political process.
MS. MILES said it does.
STEVE CLEARY, representative for the Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AkPIRG) spoke in opposition to HB 177 because it
unfairly subjects groups to the disclosure law. In the spring of
1999, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled ideological, non-profit
corporations have a right to participate in the political process
and it interpreted parts of the campaign finance law to allow
participation by non-profit organizations. This legislation would
unfairly constrict that right.
The court ruled in this way to keep the corporate voice from
overruling the voice of individuals and for that reason AkPIRG is
standing in opposition.
He mentioned amendments that were also on the table and was
informed that they were for different legislation in the House.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said since the courts decided that groups
should be required to disclose their source of funding and since
they said groups could participate and express an opinion in the
public process, he did not see where there was a problem.
MR. CLEARY said the disclosure might provide the opportunity to
retaliate. In other court cases, disclosure may not always be
required "whenever identification and fear of reprisal would deter
speech. The First Amendment protects anonymity." For instance, an
employer might retaliate against an employee who chooses to donate
to non-profit corporations and that would unfairly limit their
speech.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked how that is different from an individual
who works for an environmental organization giving a campaign
contribution to a candidate who traditionally supported oil
development.
MR. CLEARY said if an individual chooses to donate to a political
candidate then they are subject to those disclosure laws and that
is of benefit to the state. However, if the individual elects to
donate to a non-profit organization, that should be considered
separately. With HB 177 individuals would be forced to disclose in
a political arena although they may not have been donating for a
political reason.
SENATOR PHILLIPS commented public disclosure should apply to all
groups.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for other teleconferenced or in-person
testimony.
He asked Kathryn Kurtz to address some of the comments that had
been expressed.
KATHRYN KURTZ, bill drafter, said there is case law in Alaska where
the Alaska Supreme Court has talked about the public interest in
knowing where the money that funds politics comes from. Those cases
are the Messerly and Veco decisions.
She thought Mr. Cleary was distinguishing between contributions to
candidates directly and contributions to groups that then make
contributions to candidates. That is a different context than the
Messerly or Veco cases.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said if the entities were considered groups,
disclosure would be required. He asked what limits would be placed
on money flowing through the groups to individual candidates?
MS. KURTZ said this bill would put these entities into the
definition of group, and all restrictions in AS 15.13 that apply to
groups would apply equally to these entities.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for a listing of some of those
restrictions for the record.
MS. KURTZ responded there is a dollar limit on the amount of
contributions that groups may make to particular entities.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if that meant individual candidates and
whether the limit is $1,000.
MS. KURTZ thought it was $1,000 but she did not have her statute
book available. It also subjects them to the same disclosure
requirements. Groups are now required to report the source of
contributions that exceed $100. There are also some organizational
requirements. This type of entity would be treated the same as
other groups as defined in statute.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked about outside funds coming in to go
directly into an individual political campaign or into campaign
efforts in general.
MS. KURTZ responded there are restrictions on how much a candidate
may accept from out-of-state sources. There are dollar limits for
candidates that are scaled according to office and it is a
percentage of total contributions for a calendar year.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked how that would compare if the bill is
written so that these entities are treated as individuals.
MS. KURTZ said the disclosure requirement is different because
groups must disclose the source of contributions over $100 while
individuals do not. The individual contribution limits for an
individual is lower than for groups. She thought it was $500 as
compared to $1,000.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether there would have been any problem
with defining them as individuals as opposed to groups.
MS. KURTZ said what the court was calling non-group entities seemed
to be things that involved more than one person and the term
individual generally is thought of as one person.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for confirmation that the corporation was
treated as an individual in the days when corporate contributions
were allowed.
MS. KURTZ said there is some history there with regulations and it
may be prior to the 1996 campaign finance reform.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether she saw any problem with defining
them as individuals.
MS. KURTZ replied, "That's a good question."
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT then asked whether there would be a problem
with giving them the option of being a group and disclosing or an
individual and not disclosing the source and having separate caps
on what you could do with the money.
MS. KURTZ did not know of any case law that specifically addresses
that scenario.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for questions from other committee
members. There were none.
He asked for any other testimony. There was none.
He asked Susan Schrader whether she would be willing to answer any
questions. She said she was not prepared to do so.
He then closed the hearings on HB 177 and held it in committee. He
announced his intent to move to final action on the bill during the
following week.
SB 193-APPROP:STUDY EFFECTS OF PERM FUND DIVIDEND
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT apologized to committee members for having just
a copy of the bill and the sponsor statement in member's packets.
SENATOR KELLY, bill sponsor, quoted Senator Stevens saying,
"There's nothing that beats a genuine lack of preparedness." He too
apologized for the lack of information and attributed it to the
speed with which bills are scheduled and moved during the last of
the session.
SENATOR KELLY stated there is much discussion revolving around the
permanent fund dividend, much of which centers on anecdotal
evidence that the dividend might be drawing people to the state.
The courts have disallowed longer residency requirements but
language in the 1990 Lindly v. Malone case allows a study to
determine the effects of the permanent fund dividend on the
demographics of the state. Depending on the findings, residency
requirements could possibly be reconsidered. If the dividend
program is drawing individuals that are causing a greater draw on
our services than if we did not have the dividend, then the
residency issue could possibly be revisited.
SENATOR HALFORD joined the meeting.
SENATOR KELLY explained that SB 193 authorizes a study to determine
what the dividend is doing to the demographics of our state and
whether it might be causing a drain on state services.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for the reason for selecting January 15,
2003, as the date the report would be delivered to the legislature.
SENATOR KELLY said there was no reason other than it matched with
another study bill. If it could be done sooner he would readily
agree because the sooner the information is available the better it
is for everyone concerned.
Side B
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said there were no fiscal notes available but
the depth of the study and the length of time would impact the size
of the notes. Since Senator Kelly is chairman of the finance
committee there was no reason to be overly concerned about fiscal
notes in this committee. It is a matter of how specific the study
will be or the amount of detail that is affordable.
SENATOR KELLY added that the Department of Community and Economic
Development as well as the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development are mentioned in the study and he will also be
requesting that the Department of Health and Social Services
participate in the study.
SENATOR HALFORD asked what costs are envisioned.
SENATOR KELLY responded they were discussing $250,000 to $300,000
during the first draft of the gender equity study. [A study
authorized during the 2001 session.]
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for questions from committee members and
then for on-line or in person testimony. There was no response.
He noted the lack of fiscal notes but added that they would be
indeterminate at this time anyway.
Since Senator Kelly indicated he would like to include another
department in the study and the affordability of that would need to
be addressed in finance committee, he was prepared to take final
action on the bill with the understanding that this would be dealt
with in that next committee.
SENATOR PHILLIPS moved SB 193 to the next committee of referral.
There was no objection.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|