Legislature(2015 - 2016)ANCH LIO AUDITORIUM
08/29/2016 10:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Election Performance and Procedures Review: Statewide Primary Election of August 16, 2016 | |
| Adjourn |
* 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 STANDING COMMITTEE
Anchorage LIO - Auditorium
August 29, 2016
10:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bill Stoltze, Chair
Senator John Coghill, Vice Chair (via teleconference)
Senator Charlie Huggins
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Liz Vazquez
Senator Anna MacKinnon (via teleconference)
Senator Kevin Meyer
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PERFORMANCE AND PROCEDURES REVIEW: STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION OF
AUGUST 16, 2016.
- HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
BRANDON BREFCZYNSKI, Staff
Senator Bill Stoltze
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview on issues regarding the
2016 Primary Election.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney
Legislative Legal Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed legal remedies regarding electoral
issues for the 2016 Primary Election.
JOSIE BAHNKE, Director
Division of Elections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed issues regarding the 2016 Primary
Election.
LUKE WELLES, representing himself
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Detailed his voting experience in District
40 during the 2016 Primary Election.
PAUL KENDALL, representing himself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on voting in the 2016 Primary
Election in Anchorage.
MICHAEL CHAMBERS, representing himself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on voting in the 2016 Primary
Election.
EUGENE HABERMAN, representing himself
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the electoral process and the
Division of Elections.
DAVID EASTMAN, representing himself
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed his challenges in attempting to
observe the vote count after the 2016 Primary Election.
DEBORAH BROLLINI, representing herself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed her son's issue regarding voter
registration for the 2016 Primary Election.
MIKE COONS, representing himself
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the Division of Elections and
provided suggestions regarding the 2016 Primary Election.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:03:41 AM
CHAIR BILL STOLTZE called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Wielechowski, Huggins, Coghill (via
teleconference), and Chair Stoltze. He announced that non-
committee legislators in attendance were Representative Lynn,
Senator Meyer, and Senator MacKinnon (via teleconference).
^ELECTION PERFORMANCE AND PROCEDURES REVIEW: STATEWIDE PRIMARY
ELECTION OF AUGUST 16, 2016
ELECTION PERFORMANCE AND PROCEDURES REVIEW:
STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION OF AUGUST 16, 2016
10:04:21 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE announced that the committee was meeting to review
issues related to the 2016 Primary Election. He noted that the
recent primary election was still in the process of counting
votes. He stated that he appreciated Director Bahnke for making
herself available to listen and respond in order to serve the
public's interest both through the attending press, questions
from the committee, and to hear concerns as the Division of
Elections goes through their process prior to finalizing on
September 2.
He explained that due to the Labor Day holiday, the committee
was having the hearing because the next possible date would have
been after certification. He asserted that the purpose of the
hearing was about the issues and not about a specific candidate
or to influence the election.
He set forth that the committee's intent would be to go through
a brief presentation on the issues that had been raised,
including those brought up in the media. He detailed that the
meeting's interactive portion would entail responses and
clarifications. He remarked that there may be things that the
Division of Elections may easily explain and those that require
contemplation. He added that he intended to include public
testimony in order to hear any comments that people have about
any issues encountered with the 2016 election. He stated that
instead of having anecdotal calls that many legislators have
received, the committee intends to give the public an
opportunity to put their experiences on the record for the
Division of Elections to hear.
SENATOR HUGGINS pointed out that no one from the administration
was in the committee room.
10:08:55 AM
BRANDON BREFCZYNSKI, Staff, Senator Stoltze, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, stated that the hearing's intent
was to discuss potential concerns with the 2016 Primary Election
and not to influence any outcome of an election or any other
purpose prohibited by AS 24.60.030. He revealed that the
Legislature does have the constitutional authority for review
and oversite of elections. He specified that the election data
used in his presentation was based upon unofficial election
results, recent media reports, statements made by the
administration, and did not include anecdotal accounts from
members of the public. He added that official results were
scheduled for certification on September 2. He revealed that
voter turnout for the primary election was lower than prior
years.
10:10:18 AM
He set forth that the committee would cover areas of potential
concern that focused on Shungnak in House District 40, Chefornak
in House District 38, Newtok in House District 38, and Copper
Center in House District 6.
He referenced a slide on District 40, Shungnak. He said the
slide showed historical primary data for 2016, 2014, and 2012.
He detailed that the primary was broken down by types of ballots
cast and specified as follows:
For reference right now you will see that there were
100 cards that were cast, but as we see in this slide
here, following the primary, media reports started to
claim that voters were given both the Republican and
Democratic combined ballot and that there were only
100 cards cast; but, in the event they were given
both, you would have 50 voters voting on both ballots.
CHAIR STOLTZE stated that the question regarding two ballots
would be posed to Director Bahnke to directly respond to rather
than a filtered response through the media.
10:12:23 AM
MR. BREFCZYNSKI referenced a slide showing two media reports
that noted that the administration was aware.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked that Mr. Brefczynski read the quotes from
the Alaska Dispatch News regarding State Division of Elections
Director Josie Bahnke and a statement by Lieutenant Governor
Byron Mallott.
MR. BREFCZYNSKI referenced an article from the Alaska Dispatch
News that quoted Director Bahnke as follows:
State Division of Elections Director Josie Bahnke said
there's no need to redo the election because voters
didn't vote twice in any race, including the Alaska
House District 40 contest, covering the Northwest
Arctic and North Slope boroughs. "It's not like
there's double votes," she said.
He referenced a statement submitted to the Alaska Dispatch News
from Lieutenant Governor Byron Mallott on "Primary Election
Unofficial Results" as follows:
With respect to the Shungnak precinct, the Division
[of Elections] is aware of reports that the precinct
workers gave voters both Republican and the [Democrat]
ballot. The Democratic Primary allows any qualified
voter to vote in their primary, so anyone who voted in
their primary was legally entitled to do so under
party rules. Moreover, a candidate's name appears on
only one ballot, not multiple ballots, so no voter was
able to cast more than one vote for any individual
candidate.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked Mr. Brefczynski to confirm that the
statement was a direct statement from Lieutenant Governor
Mallott's office.
MR. BREFCZYNSKI answered correct and added as follows:
Aside from condensing the Democratic ballot and it
listed all of the parties. So why would this be a
potential concern? Alaska statute speaks directly to
how many ballots a voter can request, you are only
allowed to choose one particular ballot to go into the
box.
10:14:19 AM
He detailed that following the report that both ballots were
given to voters, there were additional reports of further
potential concern coming out of Shungnak. He referenced a
Shungnak election worker who was interviewed by a television
reporter as follows:
She said she had not received training in a few years,
her quote is, "I did receive training a few years ago
in the last election they had for senators and stuff,
but I haven't had an election for a few years." Why
would this be a potential concern? Again, Alaska
statute requires that the Division of Elections
director provide training for election officials prior
to the primary election.
MR. BREFCZYNSKI referenced a slide that showed the poll worker
application from the Division of Election website as well as the
training requirements for fulltime and temporary staff for the
Division of Elections
CHAIR STOLZE asked Mr. Brefczynski to verify that another issue
in Shungnak pertained to the time of the open poll hours.
MR. BREFCZYNSKI replied that how long the poll was left open
remained unclear. He revealed that a worker was quoted to have
said, "I tried getting ahold of them," meaning the Division of
Elections, "Right after I closed the polls at 9:00." He
explained that the actual poll closing was unclear because the
worker may have meant when the doors were locked or when she
stopped taking voters.
10:16:33 AM
He announced that he would next address Chefornak, District 38.
He referenced a slide and explained as follows:
This slide shows again the breakdown for the Chefornak
race by party and title ballot. You'll notice that the
parties that the numbers all align, for every
Democratic type primary, there were 86 voters, for
every Republican primary, there were 16 voters. The
state House race did not have a Republican candidate.
If you add up the U.S. Senate and the U.S.
Representative race, you get 102 total ballots or
total voters, but if you look at the Division of
Election reports for the amount of cards that were
cast you have 204 cards cast, exactly double of what
voted in the races for U.S. Senate or U.S.
Representative.
He addressed Newtok, District 38 as follows:
The issues coming out of Newtok, the main issue is I
would say self-explanatory or easier of the issues to
understand. You'll see on the left under the 2016
primary, you will notice the voter turnout which is
being reported by the Division of Elections is: 105.58
percent. Again, there's a breakdown of the race by
type of primary ballot, on the left the cards cast:
227. The race with the largest amounts of votes was
the U.S. House of Representative race which received
93 votes combined for Republican and Democratic
ballots. There are 215 registered voters in the
precinct of Newtok, yet the precinct is reporting 227
cards that were casted; again, for 105.5 percent voter
turnout.
CHAIR STOLTZE remarked that Newtok exhibited spirited
patriotism.
10:18:46 AM
MR. BREFCZYNSKI announced that the last precinct issue that
would be covered pertained to Copper Center, District 6. He
detailed that Copper Center encompassed Chitina, Copper Center,
and Tazlina. He added that the precinct started outside of the
juncture for the Glennallen and Richardson highways.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked Mr. Brefczynski to confirm that Copper
Center's issue pertained to not reporting their precinct
numbers.
MR. BREFCZYNSKI revealed that Copper Center's unofficial numbers
have been reported, but no numbers were reported for 10 days.
CHAIR STOLTZE remarked that the Division of Elections may have
an easy and logical explanation, but added that not reporting
votes was always a source of concern. He stated that a nefarious
motive was not being assumed, but the public was always
comforted with more information to explain circumstances.
MR. BREFCZYNSKI reviewed the areas of concern for the four
precincts as follows:
1. House District 40-Shungnak: allegedly the voters were
allowed to vote on both Republican and Democratic ballots
and the election workers did not receive proper training.
2. House District 38-Chefornak: the amount of voters was half
of that reported for ballots casted.
3. House District 38-Newtok: 105 percent turnout.
4. House District 6-Copper Center: 10-day delay before
reporting an unofficial election result.
10:21:36 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE revealed that his office had received a lot of
phone calls from people throughout the state regarding problems
or irregularities. He detailed that he invited people to submit
their issues in writing for the Division of Elections and the
committee to review. He remarked that the committee's meeting
was not an overly inclusive review, but the more glaring issues
that caused questions were addressed. He said the committee's
intent was not to get into anecdotal information unless folks
were willing to come forward. He asserted that the committee
deferred only to things that were fairly clinical and easily
examinable.
MR. BREFCZYNSKI concurred with Chair Stoltze and noted that the
data was from the Division of Elections as well.
10:23:57 AM
SENATOR MEYER asked if images from the 2016 Primary Election
would be presented to the committee as well. He recalled that he
saw people who were voting in the open. He asserted that voting
was supposed to be very private, but remarked that there may be
an explanation for the voting in the open and added that the
situation may have involved a special-needs person. He asked
that the director address his query.
CHAIR STOLTZE commented that Senator Meyer's concern would
specifically be posed to Director Bahnke. He remarked that he
did not want to jump to a conclusion absent other backup
information.
SENATOR MEYER stated that he was not aware of any problems in
District 6, Copper Center. He asked if the electoral race was
particularly close.
CHAIR STOLTZE explained that District 6 jumped out because
results were reported over a week after the election. He noted
that Copper Center was a large precinct in the district.
MR. BREFCZYNSKI concurred and noted that Copper Center was the
fifth largest precinct within District 6.
CHAIR STOLTZE reiterated that Director Bahnke would hopefully
provide a simple explanation.
10:25:53 AM
SENATOR MCGUIRE joined the committee meeting.
SENATOR MEYER commented that knowing if the race was close or
not was irrelevant because every vote matters and every vote was
important. He asserted that voting was the only power people had
over its government.
CHAIR STOLTZE opined that Alaska's elections were a lot cleaner
than the famous Lyndon Johnson races.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked Mr. Brefczynski to address the language
used on ballots and inquired if there was some federal oversite.
MR. BREFCZYNSKI replied that the committee was provided with a
packet of media articles and noted that two articles addressed
the Lieutenant Governor saying that there didn't appear to be
any issues regarding native languages on the ballot. He added
that he met with Department of Justice officials as well.
CHAIR STOLTZE noted that the committee received a memo from
Legal Services, Work Order No. 29-LS1729, which addressed
questions the committee had, specifically on legal remedies
should an election have problems. He asked Mr. Bullard if he had
any general comments on the memo.
10:28:08 AM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Juneau,
Alaska, addressed general remedies for election issues as
follows:
Start with a recount that can be requested by the
losing candidate within five days of a primary
election. If there's a recount, all ballots, including
absentee ballots that have come in before the recount,
will be tabulated again by the Division of Elections.
Beyond a recount there is a procedure for contesting
the results of an election under AS 15.20.540 and
there are also provisions for appeal to the courts and
provisions for appeal to the, in the case of a state
election for the legislature, appeal to the body that
the losing candidate would have been in. Those are the
most immediate and first step remedies for a losing
candidate or in some cases, ten voters, affected
voters who are aggrieved by the results.
10:30:59 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE asked Mr. Bullard to confirm that a recount could
be initiated by any ten voters. He inquired if the ten voters
had to reside within the election district or just voters of
Alaska.
MR. BULLARD replied as follows:
The statute provides that they have to be qualified
voters and I would interpret that to be voters who are
affected because their ballots are at issue, so they
would have to be from, well, in the case of the
primary for the state legislature, they would have to
be from the appropriate House district.
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked if there was a catchall-provision for the
state to decide beyond the percentage threshold to initiate a
recount based on a state interest in abnormal reports from
precincts, suspicion of voter fraud, or suspicion of
misinformation given to voters.
MR. BULLARD answered as follows:
The only case in which a recount will occur if it is
not requested is if the director finds that there's
been a tie-vote between the candidates, other than
that, to catch up the majority of these incidences we
have a division-zone process of reviewing votes and
the final certification of votes and that is normally
the review which all of our elections go through.
SENATOR MCGUIRE suggested that future legislators consider other
reasons for a recount and a review.
10:33:36 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE recognized that Representative Vazquez had joined
the committee meeting.
MR. BULLARD announced that he would answer specific questions
regarding the recount procedure, contesting an election, or
appealing to the Legislature or the Congress.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked if Mr. Bullard was familiar with the
circumstances regarding the Finkelstein v. Stout and the McGill
v. Thomas cases.
MR. BULLARD described the cases as follows:
In the McGill v. Thomas case, I'm not sure that I
would describe what happened as a necessary remedy.
Some sort of steps are missing, in my research it was
a superior court case so of course it has no
precedential value; that election was set aside by the
superior court, a result that was not appealed and I
believe from looking at the minutes of the House
journal that the then governor found a third person to
appoint to the seat, finding a vacancy in the case
that neither candidate had been elected, then I
believe there was a subsequent special election to
fill the seat.
10:35:53 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE asked Mr. Bullard to verify that the election was
essentially rerun.
MR. BULLARD replied that was his imperfect understanding.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked Mr. Bullard to clarify that there was a
special election and there was an outcome which may or may not
have been different in the primary, but it was rerun.
MR. BULLARD replied that was his understanding.
CHAIR STOLTZE added that McGill v. Thomas was a case where there
was a primary loss, then one candidate ran as a write-in and
there was a contested election that went to the court system. He
asked that Mr. Bullard address the general facts and remedies
for the Finkelstein v. Stout case.
MR. BULLARD answered as follows:
A close election, the candidate that was initially
found to have lost was found to have won following the
recount; again, a close number of votes. The division
certified that recount against the initial victor and
then there was another election recount and the Alaska
Supreme Court upheld the outcome of that election
finding that the errors of voting officials would not
be held against the voters casting the ballots which
were not as the law required them to. But the court
found that the errors in the ballot were due to on the
part of election officials and that election and its
results were upheld. The court found, I should say
that the official mistakes had not effected the
integrity of the electoral process, therefore they
were upheld.
10:38:05 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE pointed out that the Division of Elections during
the voting process that Mr. Bullard described determined some
formulas on how votes would be casted and noted that there was
terminology about "3.96 votes." He noted that his only reference
on fractional votes had since been repealed and that had to do
with "three fifths." He asked if Mr. Bullard could explain the
division's remedies or did he have a deep enough understanding
of fractional votes.
MR. BULLARD replied as follows:
I think that the case that you are referring to is
Hammond v. Hickel, which is another case in the same
line of cases and that was where the formula came in
for the counting of votes and that was a case where
there was a series of what the court found to be
isolated incidences of irregularity that the court
found did not cumulatively considered change the
election enough to render the electoral outcome in
doubt. The court held in that instance that if a bias
cannot be shown that even significant deviations from
the norm would not amount to malconduct unless there
was a knowing non-compliance with the law or whether
the electoral officials had displayed a reckless
indifference to the norms established by statute, that
it wasn't enough to show malconduct that it was
necessary for the plaintiffs to show that the
malconduct changed the election results.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked Mr. Bullard to define "malconduct."
10:40:06 AM
MR. BULLARD detailed as follows:
The court defined malconduct in that case, they define
malconduct on the part of an election official to
require evidence of bias resulting from significant
deviation from statutorily or constitutionally
prescribed norms and held that plaintiffs had the
burden of proving that malconduct on the part of
election officials and proving that that malconduct
would have changed the results of the election.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI reiterated that District 6 did not report
their results until 10 days after the primary. He noted that
District 6 had 20 voters and stated that he believed the race
was decided by more than 20 votes. He asked if Mr. Bullard
believed that a court would intervene in a situation that
occurred in District 6 and overturn the results or require a new
election.
CHAIR STOLTZE clarified that the committee's intent was for the
Director Bahnke to talk about the process issue. He said he did
not think the committee or staff thought what occurred in
District 6 was relevant to the outcome of the election.
10:42:10 AM
MR. BREFCZYNSKI clarified that the slide showing Copper Center's
precinct results arbitrarily showed the U.S. Senator race and
was not meant to single out Democrats.
CHAIR STOLTZE disclosed that the margin in the District 6 race
was almost 20 percentage points and the reporting delay was not
relevant in the process, but not reporting for a week and a half
required an explanation. He opined that a reporting delay in
another precinct might have been a bigger issue.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that the mistakes made in District 38
did not appear to be enough to change the election's result. He
asked if the mistakes made would be something that the court
would require a new election or overturn the results.
MR. BULLARD answered as follows:
I cannot speak to any of these ongoing elections or
how significant some ballots may be. The end analysis
if a court examines this issue will be the cumulative
effect of those ballots amongst all of the ballots
casted in those elections and whether they would
affect the results.
CHAIR STOLTZE clarified that the percentages were fairly wide in
District 38, but the issue was a fairly illustrative example of
potential delivery of more than one ballot. He remarked that
explaining the multiple ballot dynamic irrespective of the
outcome was in the public's best interest. He specified that the
committee intended to clarify the issue of following the
statutes.
10:44:34 AM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that District 40 was a very close
race were the candidates were separated by 3 or 4 votes. He
reiterated that two ballots were reportedly given to people. He
said his guess was the people wanted to vote for the House
members as well as vote in the Senate and congressional races on
the Republican ballots. He asked Mr. Bullard if there was enough
of an error to cause the court to overturn the election.
MR. BULLARD answered as follows:
Once again, I really don't want to speculate about any
of the ongoing elections. I don't know what the vote
totals are, I don't know what the number of ballots
are, what the proportional values of any question
votes may be.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked hypothetically if a race was
separated by a few votes and people received ballots in both the
Democratic and Republican primary, was receiving two ballots the
sort of thing that a court would require a new election.
MR. BULLARD answered as follows:
It's a violation of our statutes on what ballots need
to be provided. I don't know whether the necessary
bias is there or what a court would find. This is not
a situation the specifics of which have been addressed
by an Alaska court before.
10:46:31 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE pointed out that the overseer of the state's
elections, the lieutenant governor, was acutely aware of the
dynamics of primary voting. He revealed that the lieutenant
governor commented on primary voting following the 2010 primary
election about the need for rural Alaskans to make themselves
available to vote in the primary so that they could influence
important federal elections. He said others have established the
important dynamic and he surmised that the need to choose was
obviated if a person receives both ballots. He opined that
whether a change would have occurred was open to speculation.
SENATOR MEYER asked when the federal government or the
Department of Justice would get involved, especially in the case
where the process was flawed or compromised in three districts
that have a lot of minority folks as well as folks that do not
speak English as their first language.
MR. BULLARD answered as follows:
I don't know at what point the federal government
might involve itself. I will say historically that
we've had elections with greater voting
irregularities. I think the Hickel v. Hammond case
that was mentioned earlier in which the federal
government did not involve itself.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if communities had the autonomy to
invalidate a local election.
10:49:58 AM
MR. BULLARD answered as follows:
I think that in this case all of these elections are
run by the state and so I don't know what basis the
local official would have for overturning if you are
talking about a local option election, that's an
election conducted by the Division of Elections.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the test Mr. Bullard was talking about
with the courts is the actual statutory language plus how they
view their integrity decision, for example, the motive. He
pointed out that the plain statutory language that Mr. Bullard
said was violated, but training looked like it was not put forth
statutorily. He asked if the irregularity he noted would rise to
a level of malfeasance.
10:51:30 AM
MR. BULLARD replied as follows:
Again, I'm not going to speculate on the actions of
this election or any electoral official. I will tell
you that there's sort of a consolation of factors that
a court considers and one of the first things is to
make sure that every vote and every ballot that is
casted that they try to honor the voter's intent first
and foremost, until the point at which say ballots are
wrongly distributed or something, at the point that
the court determines that would affect the election,
then the desire to make sure that every ballot count
has to be balanced against the integrity of the
election as a whole. In deciding at which point this
malfeasance has become an issue after the election has
taken place, the courts will frequently look at a
mandatory statute. I don't remember the exact language
of our training statutes or election officials, but
they become sort of a directory if the departure from
that mandatory statute is not so great, that they
can't honor the will of the voter, then they will not
enforce it. In other cases, it was Finkelstein v.
Stout, if we have a statute that prevents an
unregistered voter from voting, that's one they are
going to enforce in a mandatory way because that's a
provision that is designed to ensure the integrity of
the electoral process in the same way that a statute
that relates to election official training will not.
10:53:50 AM
SENATOR COGHILL remarked that determining the emphatic nature of
the statute for enforcing a single ballot for a single person
under a primary election would have to be addressed.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked that Mr. Bullard recap the statutes that
were potentially violated and briefly describe them.
MR. BULLARD replied that he did not want to speculate as to
which statutes may have been violated.
CHAIR STOLTZE stated that he would speculate regarding the one-
person-one-ballot issue. He asked if the circumstance described
by individual voters and election officials regarding more than
one ballot given to one voter would potentially violate the
statute.
10:55:29 AM
MR. BULLARD answered as follows:
It is most definitely a violation of the statute.
CHAIR STOLTZE commented that Mr. Bullard went further than he
did and had taken "potential" out of his reply, a statement that
he considered to be good.
MR. BULLARD continued as follows:
It is a violation of the statute. How that violation
would be construed when it comes time or if there is
an election contest, whether the courts would find
that the right to vote is a superseding mandate, I
don't know, this is a novel situation in Alaska and I
haven't found another example of voters being supplied
with two primary ballots in a very close election. So
I do not know how a court would come down in this
instance.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked if Mr. Bullard would have the same comments
with the training statute as well.
MR. BULLARD replied as follows:
Same comments, but I think that the rule of reason is
that the, I don't know that the training statute is
one that is going to be held to have the same cache
and importance as a citizen's right to vote.
CHAIR STOLTZE remarked that the state has statutes which have
pretty clear intent, but the legislative counsel's opinion that
it may not matter because the other lawmaking body, the court
system, says it is not important. He asked why the state has
election statutes in the first place and noted that he did not
expect an answer to his a question.
10:58:08 AM
JOSIE BAHNKE, Director, Division of Elections, Juneau, Alaska,
said she has served in her position since October 2015. She
noted that the division is really fortunate to have experienced
managers who have served in various capacities throughout the
years. She said she had a lengthy prepared statement, and it
should be pretty clear that there are concerns surrounding
election worker training and of polling irregularities in
Alaska's rural precincts. She said she reviewed the committee's
presentation this morning, and she will respond to the four
concerns outlined. She added that she would like to summarize
plans for the primary election and speak to what is happening in
Juneau this week. The election is active right now and will not
be certified until later this week, she explained, when the
state review board has completed its audit of the election
materials.
CHAIR STOLTZE stated that Ms. Bahnke's delivery of her testimony
is right on target, and he would like to give her some
uninterrupted time. He expressed that the intent is to address
the process without interrupting the conduct of the election
itself. "There should only be voting once, and that's on or
before the 16th of August," he added.
11:00:15 AM
MS. BAHNKE noted that the lieutenant governor is traveling and
sends his regrets, but he looks forward to being fully
transparent and cooperative in working with the committee and to
be responsive to any matters the committee may wish to pursue
with the division of elections or with his office. She said that
the core mandate at the division is to ensure that every
qualified voter has the opportunity to cast a ballot and to have
their vote count. To meet that mandate and in preparation for
the 2016 election cycle, the division held a two-day election-
prep kickoff meeting here in Juneau in February. It included
regional supervisors and election management staff, she
explained. The purpose was to start discussing election priority
issues, new or potential changes in the upcoming year-which
there were many, and an implementation strategy. Among all of
the election administration topics that were covered, a great
deal of emphasis was placed on election worker recruitment and
training. She said that the overview of staff training is
required, and she submitted a training plan to the lieutenant
governor on March 1. She added that she is happy to provide that
to the committee.
MS. BAHNKE said that at the February meeting staff was really
excited about the ability to incorporate technology and employ
some fresh ideas into the statewide training plan. She noted
that the division had offered some tutorials, but this year "we
went all in" in order to be more cost effective and to provide a
more interactive experience for the election workers. There was
a presentation by KTOO at the 360 North studio during the
meeting, and the division contracted with KTOO to conduct five
live election worker training meetings using streaming at its
studio in Juneau, he stated. The training is on the division's
website and on over 300 DVDs that were provided to regional
offices and rural precincts. She said she is proud to be the
first state agency to deliver training this way in an effort to
save on travel costs. The training was provided at a minimal
cost, saving the state about $225,000 while still being
innovative and responsive to all Alaskan voters. The division
also provided in-person training, she noted, which is required
for language assistance precincts and were done in St. Mary's,
Bethel, Dillingham, Fairbanks, Anchorage, and the Mat-Su area.
11:04:12 AM
She said there was a total of 1,571 election workers who
received the four-hour training course. She noted that there
were questions about the training plan that is required by law.
Other states have election training certificate programs, but
Alaska does not, and certainly this is a huge area of focus for
the division. On Election Day, "It's our election officials who
really help us meet our core mandate in ensuring that Alaskans
have a meaningful opportunity to vote, and so we put a lot of
faith and trust in them." Obviously, there were a few instances
where the training was not provided, she stated, and once the
dust settles with the primary, the election management team will
regroup to address those training gaps going into the general
election.
CHAIR STOLTZE noted there was a comment in the press attributed
to Ms. Bahnke that characterized the election process as part of
an ongoing training exercise. He asked for clarification.
MS. BAHNKE responded that she was not aware of having said that.
Training is an activity that happens before an election-not on
Election Day, she clarified.
CHAIR STOLTZE said he will let the press "mess with that,
because they are the ones that reported it."
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the training requires a "sign-off" or
some accountability for staff who have received training.
11:07:56 AM
MS. BAHNKE answered that detailed training and work records are
kept for precinct workers. With respect to the Shungnak
precinct, the division learned that the precinct chair gave
voters both ballots when the results were reported to the Nome
office on Wednesday morning. She said that the polls closed at 8
o'clock, and the precinct attempted to call the Nome office to
report results. On election night the Nome office has 11 phone
lines and receives reports from about 95 precincts through the
hand-count process, so the [Shungnak] chair called in the next
morning. She noted that the election boards are trained to
provide only one ballot during the primary, and it wasn't until
last Friday when they received the precinct materials back from
Shungnak that they could really verify that the election board
did, in fact, issue both ballots. She said the state review
board will be reviewing that today, and her goal is to certify
all of House District 40 this afternoon. It is one of the first
things that the state review board is working on here in Juneau,
she added.
She said the training for that precinct was provided in Kotzebue
in June 2014, and "They did not participate in any kind of
training that we had offered-six teleconference trainings, and
all our election workers were advised to do that. We also send
out our polling place procedures for the hand-count communities
and also, our new training DVD. So, while we try in earnest to
ensure that our election workers are prepared, sometimes they
don't attend, and there's really no ramifications for them not
to attend," she added. For example, they are not asked not to
work on Election Day if they have not received training.
11:10:00 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE said, regarding providing two ballots, the media
quoted [someone who said] that it was not a big deal because
nobody voted twice in the Democratic primary. "Having been
involved in the political process, is it a possibility that the
dynamics are changed if people have decided to vote just in the
national elections, which there were contested primaries on the
Republican ballot if they had opted to take that ballot instead
and actually may have been illegally given that ballot if they
weren't eligible under the statute. Did that change the dynamics
of the election in validating it, sometime, and on the election
ballot, if you vote for two candidates in a-you don't get to
vote for both of those." Such a ballot will be invalidated by a
combination of state law and election procedures, he noted. He
said that, in fairness, he has dealt with the media and the
public process and sometimes when his quotes are verbatim, he is
really embarrassed, but he offered to give Ms. Bahnke a chance
to "maybe clarify on the dynamics of the importance of two
ballots for one voter."
MS. BAHNKE said, absolutely, this is a very serious issue that
the division has been looking at. Going into the general
election, voters will only have one ballot, but the fact that
the primary has two ballots obliges her division to do a better
job educating voters about the two-ballot system. "I think it's
definitely something that we will evaluate, again after this
election is certified," she stated, but if voting irregularities
in Shungnak appear to have changed the outcome of the race, "we
are absolutely considering options of what to do." She added
that she is working closely with the Department of Law (DOL) in
evaluating those options.
11:12:58 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS noted that Ms. Bahnke said she gave the
lieutenant governor a training plan in March, so that is about
five and a half months leading up to the primary election. He
asked for the chronology and milestones of the training plan to
accomplish all of the tasks.
MS. BAHNKE replied that the division is divided into four
regions for the purposes of administering elections, and
regional offices are conducting training. The months of March
through June are spent recruiting election workers, doing
polling place agreements with the various polling places, and
delivering training.
11:14:42 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS noted Ms. Bahnke was very specific in saying she
had trained 1,571 people, "so you had a pretty good count of
individuals." He then asked how she knows that figure.
MS. BAHNKE said, in advance of the primary election, she
produced a briefing for the lieutenant governor, and to compile
that, the regional supervisors provided their exact numbers. The
briefing is available to the committee, she noted.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked how many people were not trained.
MS. BAHNKE said she would have to get back on that.
SENATOR HUGGINS noted that there is a primary coming up, and he
assumes that there is a remedial training portion of the March
training plan. He asked Ms. Bahnke to describe it.
MS. BAHNKE said that she is planning to reconvene the regional
supervisors in the next few weeks or months to do a post-
election briefing, and this is definitely an area they will
focus on. She is required to provide in-person training to many
of the language-assistance communities, and "we've also talked
about conducting our four-hour training at AFN [Alaska
Federation of Natives convention] in Fairbanks this year in
advance of the general election." She said that is a
conversation that she will have with regional supervisors, and
she will be happy to provide a revised plan.
11:17:05 AM
SENATOR MEYER noted that Ms. Bahnke will review the process and
training for District 40. He asked about the 105 percent turnout
in District 38.
MS. BAHNKE said that some smaller precincts throughout the state
hand count the ballots after the polls close on Election Day
using tally books. The results of those counts are called into
the appropriate regional offices, and data are entered into the
regional [Global Election Management] (GEMS) computers, the
ballot tabulation system, and then the data is uploaded to the
host GEMS server in Juneau, she explained. She added that on
election night, with regard to Chefornak, the election workers
taking precinct phone calls in Nome had a data entry error.
Chefornak was entered with the wrong number of voted ballots,
but she brought that to the attention of the state review board
this morning, and they will review it and make adjustments.
11:19:03 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE asked how adjustments are made to undo a double
vote.
MS. BAHNKE gave the example of Newtok where it appears that the
number of ballots cast was entered as 151 instead of 51. The
totals are now correct. The results that are posted on the
website are unofficial, she explained, and the data entry
mistakes were fixed and disclosed to the state review board. The
board also verifies the results prior to certification of an
election. She said the review board members are the ones who
actually adjust the mistakes on the GEMS server. Similar issues
happened in Chefornak and Newtok, she added.
SENATOR MEYER stated that some statutes were broken and asked
how one certifies an election that was not legal.
MS. BAHNKE referred to the Department of Law.
SENATOR MEYER asked:
If you were a candidate in District 38 or District 40,
and there may be other districts we don't even know
about whose election was determined or finalized based
on the results of the primary, would you feel good
about this election?
MS. BAHNKE answered that she is in the process of convening the
state review board, a 10-member bipartisan group, to review all
of the ballots cast. She explained that the bipartisan group
goes through a very stringent auditing process, and not until
they are complete with their work, can she answer that question.
11:22:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if training is mandatory for
election workers.
MS. BAHNKE said statute calls for comprehensive training, but
she does not believe the word "mandatory" is used.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if the answer is yes, it is
required by statute.
MS. BAHNKE answered that AS 15.01.107 requires the division to
have a comprehensive training program.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked about consequences for an
individual who does not participate in training.
MS. BAHNKE said there are no sanctions for election workers who
do not attend training.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked how many workers who participated
in the primary election were not trained.
MS. BAHNKE said those numbers will be provided later. Due to the
close House race in District 40 and the potential for a recount
request, the state review board is working to certify those
results later today. She noted her prepared written statement,
and said, "I don't know that I can really respond much more
until the results have been certified," but stated that she is
happy to listen and take notes regarding the committee's
concerns and follow up as soon as more information and analysis
is available. She said she may need to return to the process,
and there are staff here taking notes, but she would like to
make herself available to appear at future committee hearings in
person once the results are certified and she can provide more
information.
11:25:32 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE said he understood the constraints going into this
process, but he wanted the meeting to be timely as well.
SENATOR MCGUIRE thanked the director for attending, saying that
the first test in a career like this is the willingness to come
forward during difficult situations and answer questions from
elected leaders, "so you passed the first test, and I compliment
you for it." She added that this is not one person's fault, but
there is an issue here that is very serious, which is a series
of systemic breakdowns. "But we all need to work through it
together," and being here in person helps. She then asked if Ms.
Bahnke believes that she or the governor has the authority in
regulation or in her executive powers to hold off on the regular
certification of the election in "this" district until there can
be a conversation with the Department of Justice regarding the
federal Voting Rights Act and with the Alaska Department of Law
to be sure that "you have crossed every 'T' and dotted every
'I'." She said she is concerned that if this is certified and
the winner does not prevail in a future special election or
audit, the impact on voter morale and confidence will be
devastating and possibly unrecoverable for generations. She
noted that Ms. Bahnke is constrained in how she can answer some
questions and stated:
But do you believe you have the authority-do you
believe the governor has the authority-to go ahead
and, in this case because of the special
consideration, hold off on this march toward
certification?
11:28:19 AM
MS. BAHNKE said she is committed "to getting this right." It is
really important. She agreed that she wants to be open and
honest in communications with the Legislature. She will take any
measure under the advisement of DOL and take those steps to get
it right. "I don't know if the authority is there, but I can
certainly examine that along with folks in the administration.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said Ms. Bahnke is in uncharted territory. There
are basic standards. If it makes it to the court, she stated,
courts are reluctant to permit what they call "wholesale
disenfranchisement" of qualified electors through no fault of
their own, and 98 percent of the time courts will be reluctant
to overturn a result. That said, on the other side is the issue
of malfeasance and if it has a meaningful impact on results. She
said her main concern is in Noatak, Shungnak, and Chefornak,
with the issue of two ballots given to individual voters, where
there is 105 percent of a community voting, and where there is
the perception of 100 ballots missing. "Those are the kinds of
thing that, I think, raise serious concerns." Some of these
other things, like reporting 10 days later as the statutes
allows, can be dealt with through training. The issue of closing
the polling station in Point Hope and not coming back until noon
the next day can be addressed with training, she added:
I don't mean to suggest that they're not also
important, but to me these three rise up to the level
of serious concerns, because you're talking about an
election that will be decided by a mere, potentially,
two handfuls of votes.
She encouraged Ms. Bahnke to consider her choices and options
and to reach out to the lifelines that she has with the DOL, the
Department of Justice, and the attorney general, because there
will be challenges and she hates to see Ms. Bahnke go through a
process that does not leave every stone unturned.
11:31:34 AM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that it seems that every election
encounters problems, and this time around there is a very close
election. There are thousands of people to train, and he is
wondering, from a big-picture perspective, if Alaska has looked
into voting by mail. It seems that would solve a lot of the
problems. "You don't have to train 2,000 workers all across the
state-a massive state; you don't have to worry about who's
getting the right ballot or not-it's done internally; it just
seems like that solves a lot of the problems," and he asked if
the division is considering that.
MS. BAHNKE said the division is always contemplating Alaska's
future elections. The lieutenant governor has expressed interest
in evaluating some options like vote by mail. She said she would
like to reassure the committee that the integrity and security
of Alaska's election system is well-noted and has been
documented in many places, so she takes this very seriously. For
the future, she said, the division is working closely with the
Municipality of Anchorage in evaluating its proposals to vote by
mail by April of next year. She said:
We're working closely with them to coordinate things
like the voter's signature verification and looking at
the different systems.
She revealed that out of our 516,000 voters in this state,
210,000 are located right there within the municipality, she
said:
When the useful life of Alaska's equipment that we've
been successfully patching together and has worked
very, very well for us, when we start looking at
replacing that system, certainly, vote-by-mail is
definitely something of interest to the lieutenant
governor and the division.
11:34:30 AM
SENATOR COGHILL asked that a follow-up meeting occur after
certification, and he opined that the accountability for
training will need to be addressed in statute.
CHAIR STOLTZE said his idea of a meeting in Wasilla being the
last one is long gone now.
REPRSENTATIVE LYNN asked if the election worker in District 40
received the training.
MS. BAHNKE answered that the last time that election worker
attended training was in 2014.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if training is provided every
election, since 2014 was the previous election.
MS. BAHNKE said, "We try to provide this." The division focuses
a lot of its training efforts on producing an interactive DVD
because of the travel freeze and budget cuts, so not everybody
received in-person training. Regional training was not held in
Kotzebue or Barrow. She added:
We are re-evaluating that at this time, and it appears
that we need to focus our efforts up north going into
the general election.
11:36:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if the same person worked in 2014.
MS. BAHNKE answered that the precinct chair has worked for the
division since the 2012 primary and general elections.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked what evidence Ms. Bahnke has that a
worker has received training for the 2016 election.
MS. BAHNKE answered that the division pays election workers to
attend training, so their timesheets as well as sign-in sheets
are sent in to the regional offices.
REPERSENATIVE LYNN asked if this election worker was paid.
MS. BAHNKE replied that the worker was paid for work on Election
Day.
11:38:03 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE commented that this large cadre of election
workers who just work local and state elections are active
community people, and he expressed concern over casting
aspersions by using the terms "malfeasance" and "misconduct,"
because a bad result can be due to an honest mistake. The
election worker mistake is not from malice, he said, and "the
act, nonetheless, has a deleterious result." He asserted that
there are incredible people, including in his own precinct, who
are active and involved citizens. He said if there were
violations in law, he does not believe they were intentional by
election workers but from lack of training and communication. He
added that he wants to compliment those hundreds of people who
come out for not the greatest pay and perhaps without overtime
compensation. "Just like I'd hate to criticize the unpaid or
undercompensated jurors in a court system for bad results," he
explained. The last thing he wants to do is focus on the
election workers, he said, but clearly there were mistakes made.
11:40:00 AM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that the governor's budget is going
to get rolled out in a couple of months, and he asked if Ms.
Bahnke has plans to ask for additional resources for training to
deal with the problems that occurred during this election.
MS. BAHNKE answered, "We're set for this election cycle for this
year." She said the division received a multiple-year
appropriation to conduct elections. She detailed that when the
division starts to look at the primary for 2018, that
conversation will begin, but for now the division will do
whatever it takes, going into the general elections, to ensure
that the election workers are supported and have what they need.
She stated:
We want them to have a successful experience for
voters in their communities, and, so, we'll be looking
at that again.
11:41:14 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE asked how much time she will need to respond to
the questions today; there are about five people from the public
who have signed up to speak, and one is from the affected
region. He said to take the time she needs to respond to the
slideshow presentation.
MS. BAHNKE said she is done. She added that she was going to
just take notes and follow up later.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked Ms. Bahnke to describe her schedule.
MS. BAHNKE answered that the hand-count verification process is
occurring today. She specified that 40-temporary election
workers were at Centennial Hall. She detailed:
Those 40 precincts, one randomly selected out of each
house district to do a hand-count verification. They
will be down there for the next few days.
MS. BAHNKE said the state review board is scheduled to certify
the primary election on Friday, September 02, 2016, and added:
Although, per state law, the requirement is the day of
Labor Day, maybe September 6th, but we'll be then next
certifying the ballot for the general elections, so
those deadlines come back to back.
She said she will be regrouping with regional supervisors. She
revealed that following Election Day, there is all the
preparations and work that goes on in the regional offices. She
noted that the division concluded its final 10-day upload last
Friday around midnight, and all election materials are now here
in the director's office in addition to all the ballots and
precinct registers. She believes that there are still five
precincts left; for now, she is focusing on that this week and
answering questions for the state review board, perhaps take a
breather and then gear right back up for the general election.
11:45:01 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE asked Ms. Bahnke to describe the membership of the
review board.
MS. BAHNKE replied that all members are from Juneau: two
Republicans, two Democrats, the remaining six are nonpartisan or
undeclared.
CHAIR STOLTZE expressed appreciation for Ms. Bahnke's
attendance. He asserted that Ms. Bahnke's responses cleared up
some things and maybe raised questions on others; however, that
is an important part of the Legislature's process.
CHAIR STOLTZE opened public testimony.
11:46:40 AM
LUKE WELLES, representing himself, Barrow, Alaska, revealed that
he voted in District 40, the Browerville Precinct. He said he
and his wife were frustrated that there were challenges with
voting. He disclosed that he was a registered Republican and his
intent was to vote the open ballot. He detailed that he was
informed that he would need to vote a question-ballot instead.
After reviewing the Division of Election website that said, "Any
registered voter can vote the open ballot," the precinct
relented and allowed him to vote the open ballot.
He detailed that he contacted local and state officials to alert
them that electoral workers informed him that they were trained
on ballot submission. He revealed that a regional director from
the Division of Elections contacted him to let him know that the
division had difficulty recruiting in Barrow and the workers
were not trained as described. He noted that he had sent a
messages to Representative Nageak and the Republican Party. He
opined that the focus was on letting Republicans vote the open
ballot.
MR. WELLES summarized that an effectiveness of training was
definitely at stake and he questioned whether the primary
election in District 40 should be certified. He pointed out that
the decision whether or not to allow the double-counted votes in
House District 40-Shungnak would have an impact on the closely
contested race.
11:52:53 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE remarked that Mr. Welles' commentary was the
reason why the committee wanted to have the discussion. He
reiterated that the committee did not want to influence the
election, but to have the process-issues before the public prior
to certification. He suggested that Mr. Welles' remedy would
probably be in the courts afterwards. He restated that the
committee's intention was to restrict the discussion to the 2016
primary process and election issues.
11:54:03 AM
PAUL D. KENDALL, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
revealed that he was a U.S. Senate candidate in the Republican
primary for the current year. He disclosed that he was confused
when he was presented with two ballots when he voted in the
primary election. He noted that he had intended to vote in
protest against Representative Millett by either leaving his
selection blank or writing in a candidate. He pointed out that
he did not have a write-in option and suggested that a write-in
opportunity be presented in future primary ballots. He added
that counting no-votes should also be tracked as well. He
summarized that all candidates should uniformly answer 100
questions for voters to review, the ballot process should be
under 24-hour video review, and certification should be moved to
Anchorage.
11:59:33 AM
MICHAEL CHAMBERS, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
revealed that he had posted a narrative on the internet and
noted receiving a comment on his website from an Eagle River
voter. He detailed that the Eagle River voter questioned
receiving two ballots and noted his belief that a person has a
constitutional right to vote for a candidate that was best
suited and qualified to represent his views. He added that he
was concerned with Lieutenant Governor Mallott overseeing the
election in November and was against mail-in ballots.
12:01:40 PM
EUGENE CARL HABERMAN, representing himself, Wasilla, Alaska,
stated that the most important decisions a governing body has is
dealing with elections, certifying elections, and overseeing the
budget. He asserted that without an election being correct and
transparent, the decisions made afterward were invalid.
He questioned that an inexperienced director was appointed to
the Division of Elections. He added that not knowing the number
of people that were trained puts a serious question of
legitimacy for the director. He asserted that training electoral
workers was key.
He summarized that allowing a properly notified public to
observe elections and ballot certification would ensure that
elections were going to be "kosher."
12:07:44 PM
DAVID EASTMAN, representing himself, Wasilla, Alaska, noted that
he was a candidate in the most recent primary election. He
detailed that he asked to be allowed to observe the vote
counting process after the election but was told that he had to
obtain permission from the director of the Division of
Elections. He revealed that he attempted to contact the
director, but was told that she was unavailable. He said
ultimately he was not able to observe the vote counting process.
He added that a number of other candidates had to work through
the challenge of observing the vote counting process as well.
He asked the committee if a candidate has the right to observe
the vote counting process. He remarked that if the candidate has
the right to observe the vote counting process, then the
Division of Elections does not take the candidate's right very
seriously. He stated that his hope was for greater transparency
going forward with statutory enforcement.
12:11:28 PM
DEBORAH BROLLINI, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska,
detailed that her son registered to vote for the first time as a
Republican, but the Division of Elections had no record of his
registration. She asserted that Division of Elections was not
communicating with the Republican Party and her son now believes
that the process was corrupt.
12:13:44 PM
MIKE COONS, representing himself, Palmer, Alaska, suggested that
training for election staff should be mandatory, online video
conference calls be used for training rather than DVDs, review
the constant issue of voting districts with more than 100
percent voter turnout, get rid of early voting, and not
certifying the election in District 40 until the issue was
resolved. He noted that he did not have a problem with voting
for the 2016 Primary Election at the Lazy Mountain precinct.
12:16:33 PM
CHAIR STOLTZE closed public testimony.
SENATOR MCGUIRE expressed her gratitude towards Chair Stoltze in
holding the hearing. She opined that the hearing was
informative, conversational, and aspersions were not cast. She
suggested that a letter be crafted to the governor to ask for a
delay in the election certification until greater scrutiny had
been afforded to the situation. She remarked that additional
information should be provided by the Division of Elections on
future plans for electronic systems in rural parts of the state.
She opined that the integrity of the state's electoral system
should be addressed by upgrading the voting systems in rural
communities. She asserted that what was good for Anchorage and
the Mat-Su should be good for Chefornak and Newtok.
12:19:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ pointed out that elections in other parts
of the world were rigged. She said in light of the
irregularities, maintaining the integrity of the state's voting
system was important. She encouraged the director for the
Division of Elections to consider reaching out to the Department
of Justice regarding elections monitoring in order to ensure
electoral integrity.
REPRESENTIVE LYNN opined that Alaskans live in a wonderful place
where elections can occur, even when there are difficulties in
conducting the election. He remarked that he was shocked to hear
what had occurred in District 40 and other districts during the
2016 Primary Election. He stated that what appeared to have
happened was grossly unfair to the candidates and should never
have happened. He set forth that the whole electoral system
needed to be tied up and he hoped that the apparent impropriety
does not occur again.
12:21:13 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS pointed out that Legislative Affairs has an
opinion on contested elections. He detailed that contested
elections must be brought before the superior court within 10
days. He shared 7 items that are potential solutions by the
superior court as follows:
1. Validate results of the election despite the findings of
malconduct when irregularities are curable.
2. Invalidate specified ballots for error and uphold the
certification.
3. Invalidate election results, overturn the certificate of
election, and order a new election be conducted.
4. Calculate the proportion of the affected ballots, assign
the same proportion to each candidate's results depending
on the results either uphold the certification or
invalidate it.
5. Remand the case back to the director of elections, order a
recount in a manner consistent with its opinion, and order
either certification of results or a new election depending
on results.
6. Order the lieutenant governor to take measures in order to
ensure the integrity of the next election.
7. Validate parts of the ballot that are not effected by error
and validate the election results.
He summarized that the list was not exhaustive, but the seven
items were held in the legal opinion as potential remedies in
the cases of superior court in contested elections.
12:23:07 PM
CHAIR STOLTZE noted that committee and non-committee members had
a combined experience of 50 primary and general elections. He
admitted that elections were challenging, but opined that
elections came down to core principals of conduct and that was
what the committee was trying to focus on at the hearing for the
public. He admitted that he had never been in a close election,
but expressed empathy for candidates that were in close
elections. He asserted that when there were election conduct
issues, whether intentional or just a lack of training, the net
result was the same.
He set forth that the committee hearing allowed the public to be
involved, presented an open and candid discussion with the
director of elections, and acted as a conduit for the press that
probably answered some questions. He reiterated that the outcome
of the election was not the purview or concern of the committee.
He asserted that the committee was focused on the conduct of the
election and noted that the legal division had laid out some
potential remedies. He stated that whether or not the review
process was effected by the committee hearing or not, the review
probably should be a little more introspective. He opined that
maybe District 40 should be the last district that should be
certified as the Division of Elections continues to look at some
of the issues. He said he hoped that the Division of Elections
would take note of the issues raised by the public, Legislative
Legal, and other others had raised during the hearing.
CHAIR STOLTZE set forth that the committee had met its
constitutional requirement as a legislative branch of the
government and its uniform rules of jurisdiction for both the
House and Senate having jurisdiction on election issues. He
thanked Director Bahnke for making herself available for the
hearing and asserted that her involvement was good for the
public process. He opined that the public and the process both
benefitted from the committee hearing.
12:26:21 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Stoltze adjourned the Senate State Affairs Committee at
12:26 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| State Affairs Schedule for August 29 2016.pdf |
SSTA 8/29/2016 10:00:00 AM |
Agenda |
| LAA Legal Services Memo - Contested Elections 8.26.2016.pdf |
SSTA 8/29/2016 10:00:00 AM |
Elections |
| Appendix A to Presentation by SSTA 8.29.2016.pdf |
SSTA 8/29/2016 10:00:00 AM |
Elections |
| 1976 Tundra Times Editorial circa 1977 (Historical Item) - Anderson vs McGill.pdf |
SSTA 8/29/2016 10:00:00 AM |
Elections |
| SSTA Presentation - Election Performance & Procedure Review - 8.29.2016.pdf |
SSTA 8/29/2016 10:00:00 AM |
Elections |