04/27/2023 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB138 | |
| SB17 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 17 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 27, 2023
3:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Scott Kawasaki, Chair
Senator Matt Claman, Vice Chair
Senator Jesse Bjorkman
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Kelly Merrick
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 138
"An Act relating to elections; relating to voters; relating to
voting; relating to the crime of unlawful interference with
voting in the first degree; relating to campaign signs; relating
to the reporting of financial and business interests by certain
municipal officers and former officers and candidates for
municipal office; relating to the Redistricting Board; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 17
"An Act relating to political contributions; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 19
"An Act relating to elections; and providing for an effective
date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 138
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS; VOTER REG.; CAMPAIGNS
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
04/25/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/25/23 (S) STA, FIN
04/26/23 (S) STA WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE,RULE
23
04/27/23 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 17
SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) KAWASAKI
01/18/23 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/23
01/18/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/23 (S) STA, JUD
04/27/23 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
MATT LONGABAUGH, Staff
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented SB 138 on behalf of the
committee.
DAVID DUNSMORE, Staff
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a PowerPoint titled SB 138 Omnibus
Elections Bill.
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SB 138.
CAROL THOMPSON, Operations Manager
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
138.
MATT LONGABAUGH, Staff
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 17 on behalf of the sponsor.
TOM LUCAS, Campaign Disclosure Coordinator
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
17.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:33:39 PM
CHAIR SCOTT KAWASAKI called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Bjorkman, Merrick, Claman, Wielechowski, and
Chair Kawasaki.
SB 138-ELECTIONS; VOTER REG.; CAMPAIGNS
3:34:47 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO.
138 "An Act relating to elections; relating to voters; relating
to voting; relating to the crime of unlawful interference with
voting in the first degree; relating to campaign signs; relating
to the reporting of financial and business interests by certain
municipal officers and former officers and candidates for
municipal office; relating to the Redistricting Board; and
providing for an effective date."
He noted that the committee heard a similar bill earlier in the
session. He listed the individuals who were available to answer
questions.
3:35:32 PM
MATT LONGABAUGH, Staff, Senator Scott Kawasaki, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced SB 138 by reading the
sponsor statement:
Over 360,000 Alaskans voted in the 2020 election
making it the election with the greatest participation
in Alaska history. Yet 173,000 Alaskans were eligible
to vote or registered to vote but did not. Senate Bill
138 seeks to build upon the participatory success of
the 2020 election by strengthening the voter
registration system, tightening residency
requirements, paying postage for by-mail absentee
ballots, and requiring the Alaska Division of
Elections to offer absentee voters the option to fix
errors in their ballots. This bill facilitates
participation for those legally eligible to vote and
ensures the integrity of elections by updating
absentee ballot verification and curing.
Currently, voters are not notified of errors in their
absentee ballots until after the election is
certified. Over 7,500 ballots were rejected in the
2022 special primary election, a 4.55% rejection rate.
That's about 1/20 ballots. On average, if we all in
this room had voted by mail, the Division of Elections
would have rejected at least one of our ballots
without notifying us until it was too late.
Therefore, SB 138 establishes a ballot tracking system
and a ballot curing process. The ballot curing process
requires the Division to notify voters if the
signature on their ballot does not match the one on
their registration. Other updates to the election
system include:
• requiring the Division of Elections to count
absentee ballots starting at least seven days
before election day and beginning to release vote
tallies at 8pm on election day,
• tightening and clarifying residency requirements
for voting in order to clean Alaska's voter
rolls,
• replacing the witness signature requirement with
a signature verification system and requiring the
Division of Elections to ballot cure for
signature discrepancies,
• pre-paying vote by mail postage and allowing a
verifiable date sent (such as a USPS bar code),
rather than the postmarked date, to serve as the
date on which the voter voted,
• making explicit what happens when someone votes
twice and maintaining that it is a crime to
intentionally vote more than once.
Voting rights are fundamental to American democracy,
which works best when eligible voters can participate
and have the freedom to choose our elected leaders.
Optimizing and strengthening our voting system ensures
that these freedoms and rights prevail.
3:38:35 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked Mr. Dunsmore to begin the presentation.
3:38:46 PM
DAVID DUNSMORE, Staff, Senator Bill Wielechowski, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, delivered the presentation titled
SB 138 Omnibus Elections Bill. He stated that he would briefly
walk through the individual policies in SB 138, the first of
which is to require signature verification for absentee by-mail
ballots. He reviewed the signature requirements listed on slide
4.
• Signatures on absentee ballot envelopes would be
compared to the voter's signature on file with
the division of elections.
• Signatures can be verified electronically, and
reviewers will be trained to identify handwriting
patterns to manually verify signatures.
• The Municipality of Anchorage has successfully
employed signature verification since 2018.
• Voters would have the opportunity to cure their
ballots if their signature cannot be verified.
MR. DUNSMORE stated that SB 138 repeals the witness Signature
requirement. He reviewed the specifics of that policy outlined
on slide 6, "The requirement for a witness signature for by-mail
ballots disenfranchises Alaskans."
• In the 2022 special primary election, 2,724
ballots were rejected because of a missing
witness signature- 1.7% of all ballots cast.
• Witness signature rejections disproportionately
affected rural Alaska.
• In District 38, 10.9% of all ballots cast were
rejected for missing witness signatures.
• There is no indication of any misconduct with
these rejected ballots.
3:40:35 PM
MR. DUNSMORE advanced to slide 7, "The witness signature
requirement provides no meaningful election integrity
protection." He spoke to the following points.
• The Division of Elections has testified that they
do not have any way to verify that witness
signatures meet the statutory requirement that
they be from a person at least 18.
• The Division accepts as valid any mark made in
the witness signature portion of the envelope.
• The absentee by-mail envelope does not even
provide space for the witness to print their name
or provide their date of birth.
MR. DUNSMORE described the ballot curing policy and process
outlined on slides 8-10.
A voter will be able to cure their ballot and have it
counted if it would be rejected because:
• The voter did not sign the ballot envelope.
• The voter's signature cannot be verified.
• The voter did not provide an identifier that can
be verified.
The Ballot Curing Process
• Within 24 hours of receiving the ballot, the
Division mails a deficiency notice with curing
instructions.
• It the voter has a phone number on file, the
Division will call and text them as well.
• The voter returns the cure form confirming they
voted the ballot with a copy of their ID and a
signature.
• The cure process may be done electronically.
• A properly cured ballot will be counted if it is
otherwise valid.
• If the voter responds that they did not vote the
ballot, it will be referred to the Attorney
General.
MR. DUNSMORE described the policy about voter registration
within 30 days of an election outlined on slides 11-12.
Allows voters who register within 30 days of an
election to vote
• Currently a voter must register in the state and
district in which they are voting 30 days before
the election.
• This means an Alaska resident who moves within 30
of the election might not be able to validly vote
in any district.
• The Division already conducts same day
registration for presidential elections, but
these votes are only counted for president.
• Voters registering within 30 days will only be
able to vote absentee, early, or questioned
ballots which will be reviewed to ensure the
voter is eligible.
3:42:50 PM
MR. DUNSMORE described the policy relating to the voter
registration cancellation process outlined on slides 13-14.
Creates a statutory procedure for voters to cancel
their registration
• Currently the Division of Elections will cancel a
voter's registration if they request, but it is
not required by statute.
• Voters would be allowed to cancel their
registration in person or electronically.
• The process for cancelling a registration would
be posted at polling places.
MR. DUNSMORE described the policy relating to poll watchers and
ballot review observers for candidates and question campaigns on
slides 15-16.
Poll Watchers and Ballot Review Observers for
Candidates and Question Campaigns
• Currently statutes only provide for observers for
political parties, initiatives, referenda, and
recalls.
• This provision clarifies that candidates and
ballot question campaigns may have observers.
• Ballot questions include constitutional
amendments, judicial retention, bond
propositions, and advisory votes.
3:43:19 PM
MR. DUNSMORE advanced to slides 17 and 18.
Allow Ballot Review Observers at All Review Tables
• This provision ensures that campaigns may have
observers at all locations where ballots are
reviewed in the same counting center.
MR. DUNSMORE advanced to slides 19 and 20 to discuss allowing
international election observers.
Allow international election observers at polling
places and counting centers
• Only international organizations that the United
States belong to may have observers.
• Observation missions must be invited by the U.S.
State Department.
• International observers will not be allowed to
make challenges.
• The Organization for Security and Cooperation is
the only organization the State Department
regularly invites to observe elections.
MR. DUNSMORE advanced to slides 21-22 relating to repealing the
requirement for APOCV to have offices in every senate district.
Current law requires the Alaska Public Offices
Commission to have offices in every Senate district.
They have never been given the funding necessary to
comply with this requirement.
• This bill replaces the requirement for Senate
district offices with a requirement that reports
filed with APOC be available online.
3:43:58 PM
MR. DUNSMORE advanced to slides 23-24 relating to clarifying how
to handle when a voter votes more than once.
Creates a consistent standard for when a voter votes
more than once
• Currently, depending on how a voter votes
multiple times, they will have either one or
counted or all their votes will be rejected.
• This bill clarifies that if a voter votes in
person and by another means, the in-person vote
shall count. Otherwise, the first ballot to be
reviewed shall be the one that is counted.
• Under no circumstances will a voter have more
than one vote counted.
• General multiple voting is the result of honest
mistakes by voters with memory issues, but all
cases of multiple voting must be referred to the
Attorney General.
MR. DUNSMORE advanced to slides 25-26 to discuss risk-limiting
audits.
Risk-limiting audits are designed to reduce the risk
of certifying an incorrect result
• These audits take place after counting is
completed and before the election is certified.
• Risk-limiting audits are used in at least 16
states.
• The Division shall develop statistical methods to
determine what results to audit.
• Campaigns will be able to observe the audit
process.
MR. DUNSMORE advanced to slides 27-28.
Postage Paid Return Envelopes for Absentee Ballots
• Requires return postage to be paid for absentee
ballot envelopes to facilitate voting.
3:44:40 PM
MR. DUNSMORE continued to slides 29 and 30 relating to
preventing special needs ballots from being rejected because of
mistakes by poll workers or the representatives of special needs
voters.
Currently special needs ballots can be rejected
because of mistakes by poll workers or voter
representatives.
• In the 2022 general election 8% of special needs
ballots were rejected, compared with only 1.3% of
by-mail ballots.
• This bill would prevent special needs ballots
from being rejected if they meet the requirements
for an absentee ballot to be counted.
MR. DUNSMORE advanced to slides 31-32 relating to tracking
barcodes for absentee ballot envelopes.
Requires the Division to provide a ballot tracking
system for voters
• The Division already offers ballot tracking and
this bill places it into statute.
• Voters can check the status of their ballot
online and see whether it has been counted or
rejected.
• This bill requires a multi-factor authentication
system to protect voters' privacy
MR. DUNSMORE advanced to slides 33-34 to discuss the rules for
challenging ballots.
The Division must adopt regulations establishing
procedures for challenging ballot review decisions
• Currently it is unclear how long campaigns have
to file a challenge and campaigns often have to
negotiate this with the regional counting
centers.
• This bill requires regulations to explicitly
address the challenge process.
• These regulations must allow at least 24 hours to
submit a challenge.
3:45:22 PM
MR. DUNSMORE continued to slides 35-36 to discuss codifying the
ACLU of Alaska v. State of Alaska settlement terms.
In 2018, Alaska Settled a Lawsuit over the Ban on
Political Signs Along State Roads
• Alaska's billboard law bans advertising along
state roads. In this settlement the state agreed
not to enforce this ban against political signs
32 square feet or smaller on private property if
the sign is not in a highway right of way or
displayed for compensation.
• This provision updates the statutes to codify
these settlement terms.
MR. DUNSMORE turned to slides 37-38 to discuss financial
disclosure for redistricting board members.
Currently there are no financial disclosure
requirements for Redistricting Board members
• Redistricting Board members would be added to the
list of officials who must file public official
financial disclosures with APOC.
• Financial disclosures allow the public to know of
any potential conflicts of interest.
• Dozens of boards already require financial
disclosures.
3:46:01 PM
MR. DUNSMORE continued to slides 39-40 relating to the
redistricting board being subject to the Open Meetings Act.
Clarifies the Open Meetings Act applies to the
Redistricting Board
• The OMA requires public notice for meetings and
that decisions be made in public.
• In two different redistricting cycles, courts
have ruled against the board's argument that it
was not subject to the OMA.
• This will make it crystal clear in statute that
the board must follow the OMA
MR. DUNSMORE advanced to slides 41-42 to discuss ballot drop
boxes requirements.
Requires secure drop boxes be provided for elections
conducted by mail
• The division has the authority to conduct certain
elections by mail, like the [2022] special
primary election.
• Drop boxes would be required, if practicable, at
Division of Elections offices and within
municipalities of at least 20,000 people.
• There would be at least one drop box for every
20,000 residents.
• The division shall establish criteria for
choosing drop box locations by regulation.
3:46:29 PM
MR. DUNSMORE continued to slides 43-44 to review residency
clarifications.
Clarifies the definition of residency and process to
challenge a voter's residency
• This bill clarifies that a voter's residence is a
place where they have a definite, articulable,
and reasonable plan to return to whenever they
are absent.
• It also establishes that the presumption a
voter's registered address is accurate can be
rebutted by evidence that they reside at another
location.
3:46:55 PM
MR. DUNSMORE advanced to slides 45-46 to discuss clarifying the
timing for counting absentee ballots.
Beginning Scanning Absentee Ballots 7 Days Before
Election Day
• This bill will allow election results to be
available earlier by having the scanning of
absentee ballots begin seven days before Election
Day.
• Tabulated results will not be released until the
polls close at 8pm on Election Day.
MR. DUNSMORE continued to slides 47-48 to discuss continuing
absentee by-mail voting.
Allows voters to request to continue to receive
absentee by-mail for future elections
• The Division currently allows this for military
and overseas voters.
• This bill would allow voters to continue to
receive by-mail if they vote at least once every
four years.
• Every absentee ballot returned will continue to
be reviewed to ensure it is valid.
3:47:26 PM
MR. DUNSMORE displayed slides 49-50 and discussed the
requirements for language assistance.
Codifies language assistance requirements
• Federal law requires the state to provide
language assistance for voting in certain
languages.
• Currently Alaska provides assistance in 10
indigenous languages and dialects as well as
Spanish and Tagalog.
• This bill requires that voters be able to request
that election materials be mailed to them in any
language for which the state is required to
provide assistance.
• Information about the availability of language at
polling where language assistance is available.
MR. DUNSMORE offered to answer questions.
3:48:11 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked what was in SB 138 that was not in the
elections bill last year and what was in the bill last year that
isn't in SB 138.
MR. DUNSMORE answered that SB 138 started with the negotiated
compromise that didn't make it through the process last year.
Changes were made to that bill. Some provisions that appear in
SB 138 but were not in the bill from last year include the
special needs ballot and the international election observer.
Some provisions that were in the compromise bill but weren't
included in SB 138 related to crimes. The thought was that they
were redundant.
3:49:54 PM
SENATOR MERRICK referenced the provision in Section 30 on page
17 that says that drop boxes will be required if practicable.
She asked how that should be interpreted.
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked Mr. Flynn to respond.
3:50:19 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, Anchorage,
Alaska, said he assumes that it would be up to the division to
determine what's practical under the circumstances.
SENATOR MERRICK opined that the language was ambiguous.
CHAIR KAWASAKI noted the point.
3:51:08 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked Mr. Flynn to describe a scenario
under which it would not be practical to provide a ballot drop
box.
MR. FLYNN responded that cost, availability, weather conditions,
special elections, and the timeline to conduct an election could
all be relevant considerations.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI suggested that the language in that section
might need to be tightened.
3:51:54 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI polled the committee and ascertained that it
wasn't necessary for Mr. Longabaugh read the sectional analysis.
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked Carol Thompson to comment on how the
process could work to get absentee ballots counted more quickly
or if that provision would be difficult to implement.
3:53:19 PM
CAROL THOMPSON, Operations Manager, Division of Elections,
Office of the Lieutenant Governor, Wasilla, Alaska, explained
that there was a broad range of when ballots are counted.
Absentee and early vote ballots start coming in prior to the
election are scanned and tabulated after 8:00 p.m. election
night. Those are published in the first vote round. All the 130
plus hand count locations count absentee and first choice
ranked-choice voting (RCV) ballots on election night. Those
results are called in and the results are entered into the
system. Early vote ballots that are received up to a certain
date are also scanned and tabulated election night and put on
the results.
DOE continues to receive absentee ballots after Election Day.
The division records the receipt of those ballots and then they
go before a ballot review board. Once they've been reviewed, the
envelopes are opened and the ballots are tabulated. DOE tries to
accomplish a 7 day count after Election Day followed by a 10 day
count and a 15 day count.
Question ballots that are received on Election Day are returned
to the regional offices. In urban areas they're delivered
election night, but others have to be mailed. The regional
offices have to record the receipt of those ballots and then
they go before a review board that has to determine the count of
those ballots. After that the ballots are opened and counted.
This process also starts the seventh day following the election
and continues on the 10th and 15th days following the election.
In presidential year elections there are significantly more
question ballots because there is same-day registration on
Election Day.
She recapped that DOE typically counts and tabulates ballots
starting on Election Day and for 15 days after for general
elections and 10 days after for primary elections.
CHAIR KAWASAKI said he appreciates the explanation.
3:58:04 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether SB 138 addressed the concern
that the preliminary ranking results for the ranked-choice
voting were not available on election night.
MR. DUNSMORE said that is not addressed in the current draft of
the bill. He deferred to DOE to speak to the technical
feasibility of providing the results on election night.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI repeated the question for DOE and offered
his understanding that the statute requires the first round
results to be available on election night. He asked whether the
administration intends to provide that information in the
future.
MS. THOMPSON agreed that the law speaks to that and DOE had
clarified that the precinct scanners that are used at the polls
on election night don't perform ranked-choice voting. The data
has to be sent to the ballot tabulation system in Juneau. Once
all the ballot images are gathered, ranked-choice voting can be
performed. Those results are not all available on election
night. Ballots from the hand count precincts, absentee ballots,
and question ballots still have to be scanned and sent to the
main scanner in Juneau where ranked-choice voting can be
performed. At that point DOE doesn't know which races will go to
ranked-choice voting. Races where one candidate receives 50
percent plus one vote don't go through RCV tabulation.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if this was something that can be
fixed legislatively.
MR. DUNSMORE offered his understanding that it was technically
feasible for the raw data from the polling machines to be
released.
4:01:46 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI found no questions. He remarked that the bill
appears complex with 43 sections, but many of the elements have
been discussed previously. He recounted the course of the bill
that passed the House and nearly passed the Senate last year. He
noted who his office had worked with in drafting SB 138 and
relayed his hope to have good legislation that could be adopted
through DOE regulations prior to the 2024 election. Public
testimony will be heard next week and can be submitted to
senate.state.affairs@akleg.gov.
4:04:01 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN expressed appreciation for the bill. He opined
that it was important to have election results released to
voters as the raw data comes in on election night and
thereafter. DOE wasn't expected to declare a winner at that
point.
4:05:16 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there was a reason that DOE can't
post the raw data that comes out on election night.
MS. THOMPSON replied that she didn't recall how it was done in
2022, but she thought that a certain amount of the raw data was
posted. She was unclear on the timeline. She offered to follow
up with more definitive information.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked her to follow up on what DOE did in
2022 and whether it has the capacity to release raw data as it
comes in. He asked Ms. Thompson if it was her recollection that
the raw data was posted and if there was a requirement to
provide that information on election night.
4:06:49 PM
MR. DUNSMORE said his recollection was that DOE released the raw
data files after they were certified. That information was
posted to the website but it was not released prior to having
the complete results that were tabulated. To the second
question, he said his understanding was that the current statute
requires precinct results tapes to display the results after
each ranking. That was not done in the last election but it was
a requirement in Ballot Measure II.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said that was his recollection; the ballot
measure specifically required the raw data to be released but it
wasn't until after it was certified, which was weeks after the
election.
4:08:00 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI agreed that should be examined further.
He set an amendment deadline on May 1 close of business.
4:09:30 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI held SB 138 in committee.
SB 17-CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
4:09:37 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 17
"An Act relating to political contributions; and providing for
an effective date."
4:10:17 PM
MATT LONGABAUGH, Staff, Senator Scott Kawasaki, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced SB 17 by paraphrasing
the sponsor statement.
Alaska has long regulated campaign contributions and
limited the amount that can be donated to political
campaigns. Following the VECO scandal in 2006, the
people of Alaska approved a ballot initiative that
established strict contribution limits. Part of the
argument behind that initiative was that limiting the
amount of money candidates can raise would curb the
type of corruption seen during VECO.
In 2019 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned
some of Alaska's political contribution limits in the
case Thompson v. Hebdon. The Thompson decision struck
down the limits, including the limits on contributions
from individuals, nongroup entities, nonpolitical
party entities, and joint campaigns for Governor and
Lieutenant Governor.
This bill establishes new campaign contribution limits
compliant with the Thompson decision. It increases
these limits such that they are nearly indexed for the
rate of inflation between 2006 and 2023. The limits
are rounded to the nearest hundred. Here are the new
limits:
• Individual contribution limits from $500 to $700
• Nonpolitical party group limits from $1,000 to
$1,400
• Nongroup entity limits from $1,000 to $1,400
• Individual limits to a joint candidacy for
Governor and Lieutenant Gov. from $1,000 to
$1,400
• Group limits to a joint candidacy for Governor
and Lieutenant Gov. from $2,000 to $2,800
The Thompson decision also stipulated that
contribution limits must be indexed for inflation. SB
17 requires APOC to index contribution limits for
inflation by regulation starting in 2024 and after
subsequent terms of four years.
4:11:58 PM
MR. LONGABAUGH presented the sectional analysis for SB 17.
Section 1. AS 15.13.070(b)
This amends the statute by increasing the individual
contribution limit from $500 to $700. This applies to
individuals donating to nongroup entities, candidates,
write-in candidates, or nonpolitical party groups.
Section 2. AS 15.13.070(c)
Amends the statute by increasing the contribution
limit for groups that are not political parties from
$1,000 to $1,400. This applies to nonpolitical party
groups donating to a candidate, a write-in candidate,
another group, a non-group entity, or a political
party.
Section 3. AS 15.13.070(f)
This section amends the statute by increasing the
amount nongroup entities can donate from $1,000 to
$1,400. This applies to nongroup entities donating to
another nongroup entity, to candidates, to write-in
candidates, to groups, or to political parties.
Section 4. AS 15.13.070(g)
This amends the statute by increasing the amount
individuals and groups can donate to joint
Gubernatorial and Lieutenant Gubernatorial campaigns.
It increases the amount individuals can donate from
$1,000 to $1,400, and groups from $2,000 to $2,800.
Section 5. AS 15.13.070(h)
This section adds a new subsection that indexes these
campaign limits to inflation. Starting in 2024, and
every term of four years thereafter, the commission
shall by regulation adjust these contribution limits
to account for inflation.
Section 6. Provides this bill with an immediate
effective date.
4:14:13 PM
MR. LONGABAUGH continued the introduction of SB 17 with a
PowerPoint, starting on slides 4-5.
A Brief History
• In 1995, citizens filed an initiative that
included lowering the limits on individual
campaign contributions from $1000 to $500.
• The legislature heard the call of the people
and enacted a new law before the initiative
came to fruition. The stated purpose of the new
law was "to restore the public's trust in the
electoral process and to foster good
government."
• Years later, the legislature raised the limit
back to $1,000.
• In 2006, the people once again filed an
initiative, and this time it came to be, lowering
the limits again to $500 with 73% support.
• In 2021, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled the limit unconstitutional.
• The Court argued that because $500 was
unusually low, applied to all state races, and
was not indexed with inflation to grow over
time, that it infringed on donors' freedom of
speech and gave an unfair advantage to
incumbents.
• In the aftermath of the decision, Alaska's
Public Office Commission set the individual-to-
candidate limit at $1,500.
SB 17's ceilings would roughly track inflation for
what Alaskans approved in 2006, though are a bit
higher.
4:16:16 PM
MR. LONGABAUGH advanced to slide 6.
How it Could Survive Legal Challenge
To review, The Ninth Circuit Court argued that, since
$500 was unusually low, applied to all state races,
and was not indexed with inflation to grow over time,
it infringed on donors' freedom of speech and gave an
unfair advantage to incumbents.
SB 17's limits are not unusually low and are indexed
with inflation to grow over time. Thus, it follows
from that ruling that these would survive a challenge
made on the same grounds as the last one.
In the 40 states that do have limits on contributions
to legislative candidates, the average is $2,848 per
election, ranging from $180 in Montana to $13,704 [in
Ohio]. Ours would be slightly higher or lower
depending on the source of the contributionnot
unusual.
4:17:36 PM
MR. LONGABAUGH continued to slide 7.
Reviewing the Increases
Section 1:
• Individuals: $500 >> $700 per year
Section 2:
• A non-political party group: $1000 >> $1,400 per
year
Section 3:
• Nongroup entity (such as XXX) : $1000 >> $1,400 per
year
Section 4 concerning Governor and Lt. Governor
campaigns:
• Individuals $1,000 >> $1,400; groups $2,000 >>
$2,800 per year
MR. LONGABAUGH advanced to slide 8.
You may be familiar with some related cases
In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014),
the court held that states cannot place limits on
aggregate contributions (the total of all
contributions to all candidates) by individuals or
groups. Existing limits on per-candidate contributions
were not addressed and thus not changed. (NCSL)
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
(2010), independent expenditures were at hand. SB 17
would not limit those.
4:19:09 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked why the individual contribution limits from
$500-$700 weren't higher.
MR. LONGABAUGH replied that the increase tracks the consumer
price index (CPI) and is the limit that was approved by ballot
initiative.
SENATOR CLAMAN summarized that the $500 limit is adjusted for
inflation.
MR. LONGABAUGH replied that it's at least tracked to inflation.
SENATOR CLAMAN questioned the reason that the presentation
didn't include the full explanation of the $1,500 individual-to-
candidate limit that APOC set and then withdrew under pressure.
It was noteworthy because that left basically no finance limits
in the last election.
MR. LONGABAUGH acknowledged that was omitted from the
presentation.
SENATOR CLAMAN pressed the point asking how the $1,500 was
relevant when APOC added it and then realized it was a bad idea
and withdrew it.
4:21:17 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked Mr. Lucas to discuss how APOC happened to
set the $1,500 limit, temporary though it was.
4:21:40 PM
TOM LUCAS, Campaign Disclosure Coordinator, Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC), Anchorage, Alaska, explained that the
$1,500 limit was APOC staff's attempt to accommodate the
Thompson decision. The commission withdrew the $1,500 limit
after it ultimately decided that any caps on the contribution
limits should be set by the legislature.
SENATOR CLAMAN recounted that the court criticized that
incumbents were advantaged by the structure of Alaska's
contribution limits. The limit was set as an annual limit as
opposed to a per campaign limit which favors incumbents because
they oftentimes start running the year before and challengers
often don't get involved until later so they're not fundraising
the first year. He asked the reason for not shifting to campaign
limits.
MR. LONGABAUGH responded that incumbents always have an
advantage and it doesn't seem to be tied to annual versus
campaign limits, but he would follow up after doing some
research on that point.
SENATOR CLAMAN observed that Alaska was told that its campaign
finance limits were unconstitutional and his perspective was
that the Ninth Circuit wasn't likely to find SB 17 very
different because it simply adjusts the limit to match
inflation.
CHAIR KAWASAKI reviewed the variety of what other states do with
campaign limits and posited that the legislature could decide
what policy to adopt. His perspective was that the general
opinion was that there is too much money in politics.
4:27:59 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI commented that the voters have
overwhelmingly said they want campaign contribution limits and
the court has said the limits are too low. He offered his
perspective that the limits should be as low as possible and
then inflation proofed. He said he appreciated the discussion.
4:29:18 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN asked if SB 17 would limit the amount a
candidate could contribute to their own campaign.
CHAIR KAWASAKI responded that the bill doesn't specifically
address that and he didn't believe the law currently limited the
amount a candidate could contribute to their own campaign. He
asked Mr. Lucas to comment.
4:30:14 PM
MR. LUCAS responded that the one exception is that a candidate
can only contribute an additional $5,000 to their own campaign
during the last 30 days before an election.
SENATOR CLAMAN asked what the laws are on how much a candidate
can loan to their campaign.
MR. LUCAS responded that a candidate's loan to their own
campaign is considered a contribution unless and until the
candidate files a report indicating they would like to be
reimbursed from the surplus funds at the end of the campaign.
The amount that can be reimbursed is limited depending on the
office the person is seeking. He offered to follow up with
information about the specific statute.
SENATOR CLAMAN said he didn't need the information.
4:33:14 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI set an amendment deadline and held SB 17 in
committee for future consideration.
4:33:51 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Kawasaki adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting at 4:33 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 17 Fiscal note.pdf |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 17 |
| SB17.Sponsor.Statement.04.26.24.pdf |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 17 |
| SB17.Sectional.Analysis.04.24.23.pdf |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 17 |
| SB 17 Fiscal note.pdf |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 17 |
| SB0017A.PDF |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 17 |
| SB0138A.PDF |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 138 |
| a. SB138.Omnibus Elections sponsor statement 04-26-23.pdf |
SFIN 5/9/2023 1:30:00 PM SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 138 |
| SB 138 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 138 |
| SB 138 draft powerpoint.pdf |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 138 |
| SB 17 Presentation.1.pdf |
SSTA 4/27/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 17 |