CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 459(STA) "An Act relating to optically scanned and electronically generated ballots; and providing for an effective date." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. Co-Chair Wilken stated this bill, sponsored by Representative Harris, "requires an electronic voting machine to produce a paper record of the votes that are cast." CINDY SMITH, Staff to Representative Les Gara, presented the bill on behalf of Representative Gara and Representative Harris. She testified that this bill would require a voter-verified "paper trail" for touch screen voting machines. There have been significant problems with the touch screen voting machines in a number of states. Presently, if the machines malfunction or if a vote recount is required there is not a paper ballot or an equivalent paper record available for reference. This bill would require, as soon as the technology is available, that touch screen voting machines provide a paper printout to be verified by the voter. Senator Bunde understood that electronic voting would be more time efficient and less expensive than the current paper ballot system. He asserted that it is "counterintuitive" to institute a modern electronic voting system and then require the use of old methods to support it. Ms. Smith responded by telling of various instances in which the new voting machines have failed to record votes. A paper trail would serve as an audit device to provide a record of the voter's intent in the event that a malfunction occurs or a recount is required. Senator Bunde understood the concerns, and asked if the current paper ballot voting method provided ballots in the event of a recount. LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, confirmed that the current system allows the paper ballots to be used in a recount. The paper trail proposed in this legislation would serve as a form of audit for the electronic voting machines in the event of a recount. Senator Bunde asked why it is necessary to use electronic voting machines if a paper equivalent of the votes would still be required. Ms. Glaiser replied that the federal Help America Vote Act requires the State to have touch screen voting machines in every voting precinct by 2006. Alaska State law also provides for the use of touch screen voting machines. She clarified that efficiency is not the only benefit of electronic voting machines; they also enable the blind and disabled to vote unassisted. Senator Bunde asked how the blind would be able to fill out a touch screen ballot if they are unable to use the current paper ballot. Ms. Glaiser explained that the touch screen voting machines contain an audio device and a keypad the blind can use to record their vote. Senator Bunde asked if the State would lose federal funds if it refused to utilize the touch screen voting machines. He also asked the amount of funding the federal government was supplying for the purchase and implementation of the electronic machines. Ms. Glaiser answered, yes, that $5 million has been received, and another $11 million is expected from the federal government. Senator Bunde asked the difference between the federal funding and the cost of implementing a paper audit system. Ms. Glaiser answered that she does not know that dollar amount; however the federal funding is "no year" funding, which could be expended any time. The State would not replace all the voting machines at once so the optical scan and paper ballot methods would continue to be used. Co-Chair Wilken noted the fiscal note cost of this bill would be almost $443,000 in FY 05, and $1.8 million each subsequent election year. Senator Olson asked how the State could avoid a "convoluted situation" such as that which occurred in the State of Florida during the presidential election of 2000. Ms. Glaiser replied that the State of Alaska has always had a good record regarding the voting process. The Division of Elections would do nothing to jeopardize the integrity of the election process. The touch screen voting machines would be implemented on a limited basis. Today the Election Assistance Commission met and took testimony on the touch screen voting equipment, demonstrating that the State is not alone in questioning the accuracy of these voting machines. The State's voting process is reviewed by such entities as the bipartisan State Review Board and independent AccuVote review boards in each of the election regions. The Division is confident that the State would catch any anomalies in the electronic voting machines, because of the State's thorough review and testing processes. However, because the new voting system relies on technology and an inaccessible source code, the possibility exists that an unforeseen error could occur. Senator Olson asked if a credible recount is possible under the touch screen voting method. Ms. Glaiser responded that the voter verified paper trail proposed by this legislation is an attempt to ensure a credible recount. The touch screen voting machines have been certified by the Federal Election Commission, and are considered to have a sufficient audit trail; however, there are examples, such as that cited by Ms. Smith, that the audit trail is not adequate. Senator Olson asked how many State voting precincts would have touch screen voting machines in the next election. Ms. Glaiser estimated that the State currently has 439 voter precincts. Every precinct would be required to have at least one touch screen voting machine for the 2006 election. Senator Hoffman inquired about the size and the storage location for the touch screen voting machines. He was specifically concerned with the storage location in outlying rural communities. Ms. Glaiser responded that the touch screen voting machines weigh approximately 30 pounds. The machines would be mailed to the precincts and subsequently returned to regional Division of Elections offices for storage. Occasionally municipalities or boroughs would store voting machines for the precincts in their communities. Senator Bunde assumed the State would not receive the paper voter verification if produced, but rather the voter would assume possession of the verification. Therefore, if a recount occurred the Division of Elections would have to rely on voters to submit their paper verifications. He did not understand how this process could be trusted to accurately recapture votes. Ms. Smith corrected that the paper verification would be submitted to the election officials in the manner paper ballots are currently submitted. Voters would review the paper verifications, but would not take possession of them. Ms. Glaiser further detailed that the touch screen voting machines would print a paper confirmation of the votes electronically placed by the voter. The voter would verify the accuracy of the printout using a command on the touch screen. After being confirmed, the print out would finish printing. Two records of the votes cast would then exist: the record on the machine's memory card, and the paper printout. Senator Bunde questioned the ability of a blind voter to confirm the paper verification unassisted. He stated his opposition to the implementation of the touch screen voting machine in its current design. DANIEL LYNCH testified via teleconference from Kenai that he would recommend an amendment allowing only the blind to use the touch screen voting machines. The U.S. is founded on the idea that one man equals one vote. Citizens' ability to vote must be "cherished and protected" because it is one of the few original freedoms that could still be exercised. For over 200 years a voting method using paper and writing utensils was sufficient, and it remains sufficient. He concluded by urging the Committee: "Please protect our democracy; don't add to the apathy." Senator B. Stevens offered a motion to report the bill from Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note. Senator Bunde objected. A roll call was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Senator B. Stevens, Senator Dyson, Senator Hoffman, Senator Olson, and Co-Chair Wilken OPPOSED: Senator Bunde ABSENT: Co-Chair Green The motion PASSED (5-1-1) CS HB 459 (STA) MOVED from Committee with fiscal note #1 for $442,800 from the Office of the Governor.