CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 64(FIN) am "An Act relating to elections; relating to voters; relating to voting; relating to voter registration; relating to election administration; relating to the Alaska Public Offices Commission; relating to campaign contributions; relating to the crimes of unlawful interference with voting in the first degree, unlawful interference with an election, and election official misconduct; relating to synthetic media in electioneering communications; relating to campaign signs; relating to voter registration on permanent fund dividend applications; relating to the Redistricting Board; relating to the duties of the commissioner of revenue; and providing for an effective date." 1:38:00 PM Co-Chair Schrage MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee substitute for CSSB 64(FIN) am, Work Draft 34-LS0153\R (Dunmire, 3/6/26). Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for explanation purposes. 1:38:28 PM BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, explained that he would walk the committee through the changes made in the committee substitute (CS). He stated that the easiest way for members to follow the changes would be to have two documents in front of them: the redline version showing changes from version U to version R, and the clean version R of the bill (copies on file). He would primarily reference the redline document and identify the corresponding page and line numbers in the bill. Mr. Anderson began with the first change on page 2 of the redline document, specifically lines 16 and 17. He explained that the same change appeared in the bill on page 2, lines 16 and 17. He noted that the language "except for when provided in the statute reference" had been added and that the term "personally identifiable" had been replaced with "confidential." He stated that the change addressed what information could be provided by the Department of Revenue (DOR). Co-Chair Foster asked Mr. Anderson to briefly explain the reason for the change on lines 16 and 17. Mr. Anderson responded that he would defer to Mr. David Dunsmore for the explanation. DAVID DUNSMORE, STAFF, SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, explained that the change clarified that individuals registering to vote through the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) application would still have their names included on the publicly available voter list. He noted that there had been concern that the phrase "personally identifiable" might create ambiguity and could potentially include a voter's name. The language was revised at the request of the Division of Elections (DOE) to ensure that standard voter information would remain publicly available while confidential information would remain protected. Mr. Anderson moved to the next change on page 5 of the redline document, which corresponded to page 5, line 15 of the bill. He stated that on line 16 of the redline, the phrase "to the extent possible" had been added. The language applied to the process of reviewing voter registration records and updating the master voter registry. He explained that the change clarified that DOE should work with other agencies when reviewing voter registration records to the extent possible. The agencies listed included the United States Postal Service (USPS), the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) program, and other agencies. 1:43:14 PM Co-Chair Josephson asked what practical effect the phrase "to the extent possible" would have. He suggested that it might allow DOE to respond to complaints by stating that it had used available systems only as time permitted. Mr. Dunsmore responded that the intent of the language was to add clarity. He relayed that DOE had expressed concern that some of the data sources listed in the bill might not be available in every state or jurisdiction. For example, certain property or sales tax records and jury duty records might not exist or might not be accessible in all areas. The phrase ensured that the division would not be required by law to consult data sources that were unavailable. Co-Chair Josephson asked whether the inclusion of the language also reflected the fact that election administration operated on strict timelines and that the division needed flexibility in order to meet election deadlines. Mr. Dunsmore responded that the timeline could be a consideration as well. He explained that Section 8 addressed the records that would be consulted during the voter roll cleanup process. He relayed that AS 15.07.130(a) related to who would receive voter notices during the cleanup process. He noted that the cleanup process occurred annually in January, and the subsection simply added a list of data sources that could be consulted during the review. Co-Chair Josephson noted that the subsection [AS 15.07.130(a)] appeared to be new. He asked whether the state had ever previously linked voter eligibility screening to a federal database used to verify citizenship. Mr. Dunsmore responded that he believed the answer was no. He clarified that the subsection only identified data sources that could be consulted during the review process. The criteria that would trigger a voter roll cleanup notice was located later in the bill, specifically in Section 4. If a voter did not meet the criteria, the individual would not receive a notice related to voter roll cleanup. Mr. Dunsmore noted that Co-Chair Josephson's question appeared to reference SAVE. He explained that a negative query result from the SAVE database alone would not result in a voter being removed from the voter rolls. He stated that if a query produced information suggesting that a voter might be deceased, DOE could investigate further. In the case of a death, the division might attempt to locate a death certificate or other documentation before removing the individual from the voter rolls. He emphasized that the query result itself would not directly affect a voter's registration status. 1:47:35 PM Co-Chair Josephson stated that he had recently read an article in the Alaska Beacon describing situations in states such as Missouri and Texas where voters had been removed from the rolls following database queries without an initial corrective process. He asked whether Alaska's approach would differ and whether the first administrative action in Alaska would avoid directly removing voters. Mr. Dunsmore responded that Alaska's process would differ. He explained that the bill would not change the existing grounds for removing a voter from the registration rolls or initiating the voter roll cleanup process. The procedures would continue to be governed by state law and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. He stated that voters could only be removed for specific reasons already recognized under law, such as a voter's death, a voter registering or voting in another state, or a felony conviction involving moral turpitude. Other indicators, such as evidence suggesting residency in another state, would trigger a notification process rather than immediate removal. The voter would receive a notification and have the opportunity to confirm that they wished to remain registered in Alaska. He reiterated that the bill would not authorize immediate removal of voters in the manner described in the reports from other states. Representative Bynum remarked that the phrase "to the extent possible" appeared straightforward and he understood it had been added because DOE had requested clarity. He asked whether any legal analysis had been conducted to evaluate the potential legal effect of the phrase beyond its inclusion in statute. Mr. Dunsmore responded that no separate legal evaluation had been requested beyond the drafting process. When the bill was prepared, the policy rationale for the language had been communicated to Legislative Legal Services (LLS), and the language had been drafted accordingly. Representative Bynum asked whether the committee could request LLS to conduct a brief review and provide an opinion regarding the language at a later time. Mr. Dunsmore agreed to submit the request through LLS. 1:50:55 PM Mr. Anderson directed the committee to the next change on page 6, line 1 of the redline document and page 5, line 30 of the bill. The language changed the reporting deadline from February 1 to April 1 for the report related to the recent audit. Representative Bynum asked for a brief explanation of the reason for the change in the reporting deadline. Mr. Dunsmore responded that the report would require DOE to hire an outside subject matter expert to audit the division's voter roll cleanup processes and provide a report to the legislature. He relayed that the division expressed concern that the original February reporting deadline was too soon after the January voter roll cleanup process. He reported that the timeline was adjusted to April to allow adequate time to complete the audit and to ensure that the legislature would have more than a month remaining in the legislative session to consider any recommendations requiring legislative action. Mr. Anderson directed the committee to additional changes on page 6 of the redline document. He explained that beginning on page 6, line 17, the bill included a conforming change that created multiple subsections instead of a single section. The change corresponded with language appearing later on page 6, lines 27 through 30 of the redline, which could be found in the bill on page 6, lines 25 through 28. He reported that the new language allowed DOE to delay the publication of a data breach if law enforcement agencies thought that public disclosure could impede an ongoing investigation. Mr. Anderson directed the committee to page 8 of the redline document. He reported that the bill included several technical conforming changes beginning on lines 21 through 27. He stated that the definition of acceptable proof of identification for voter registration cards was modified on line 21 of the redline, which corresponded to page 8, lines 20 through 24 of the bill. Several items previously accepted as proof of identity would be deleted, including utility bills, bank statements, paychecks, and government checks, thereby narrowing the range of materials that could be used as identification for voter registration. 1:54:38 PM Co-Chair Josephson noted that hunting and fishing licenses were also removed from the list of acceptable identification. He asked Mr. Dunsmore whether the licenses could still be considered valid forms of identification if they were issued after presenting other valid identification. Mr. Dunsmore responded that, to the extent a hunting or fishing license functioned as a state identification card, it could still fall within the category of government- issued identification. He explained that the concern that prompted the change was that hunting and fishing licenses were sometimes issued through private businesses rather than directly by government agencies. He stated that the purpose of the change was to limit acceptable documentation issued directly by government agencies. Mr. Anderson added that a similar change regarding acceptable documentation materials appeared later in the bill in Section 18 on page 10. The reasoning for the change was similar to why the definition of acceptable material had changed. Mr. Anderson directed the committee to page 10 of the redline document, beginning on page 10, lines 3 and 4 of the redline, which corresponded to page 9, line 31 of the bill. The change included deletions and revisions relating to the testing official or witness. He explained that the language was added for clarification to ensure that a witness signature remained on the envelope. The revision addressed a request for additional clarification and served as a conforming change within the bill. Mr. Anderson directed the committee to page 10, lines 19 through 25 of the redline document, which corresponded to Section 18 of the bill. The language addressed the types of identification documents that would be accepted for voter registration. He stated that the section further defined and narrowed the list of acceptable documents used to verify voter identity. Mr. Anderson moved to page 12 of the redline document, lines 16 and 17, which corresponded to page 12, lines 11 and 12 of the bill. He explained that the language added clarification stating that a voter must provide either the voter's signature or the signature of an attesting official or witness. He stated that the purpose of the change was to clarify that ballots could still be cured if a witness signature was missing. He directed attention further down page 12 to lines 26 through 27 of the redline document, which corresponded to page 12, lines 21 through 22 of the bill. He explained that the language clarified that notices sent during the ballot cure process must be mailed to the voter's mailing address rather than any other address that might appear on the voter's record. Co-Chair Josephson asked whether the change related to a previously reported situation in Fairbanks. He relayed that an individual did not receive a ballot because the address associated with a PFD application differed from the individual's current location. He asked if the language was intended to ensure that only the designated mailing address would be used regardless of other addresses on file. Mr. Dunsmore responded that the change was not related to the situation in Fairbanks. He explained that the language applied specifically to the ballot curing process conducted by DOE. When the division reviewed a ballot and identified a curable deficiency, the division was required to send a notice to the voter within 24 hours. He stated that the change clarified that the notice must be sent to the voter's mailing address if it differed from the voter's residence address. For example, a voter might maintain a post office box in addition to a residence address. 2:00:01 PM Mr. Anderson directed the committee to page 13 of the redline document, beginning at line 17 and continuing through page 14, lines 1 and 2. He explained that an entire section related to procedures for counting ballots during a recount was deleted. Co-Chair Foster asked Mr. Dunsmore to explain the reason for removing the section. He noted that the section had been previously added and was now being removed. Mr. Dunsmore responded that the provision had originated in a governor's bill. He explained that DOE had sought to clarify an existing statutory requirement regarding whether ballots received after a deadline should be counted during a recount. The provision was being removed from the CS after a legislator raised concerns that repealing the existing statute could create ambiguity about which ballots should be counted in a recount. He explained that retaining the existing statutory language would preserve clear guidance on recount procedures. Co-Chair Josephson asked for confirmation that the bill had not made any changes to existing ballot timelines, including the 15-day window for absentee ballots submitted from outside Alaska. Mr. Dunsmore confirmed that the current deadlines required ballots mailed domestically to arrive within 10 days after the election, and ballots mailed from outside the U.S. to arrive within 15 days. He explained that the bill included a provision to establish a uniform 10-day deadline for all ballots, which would allow election results to be certified five days sooner. Historically, very few valid ballots arrived during the 10 to 15 day window because ballots still needed to be postmarked by election day. 2:02:40 PM Representative Hannan asked whether ballots arriving within the 10 to 15 day window would still be considered valid or whether the bill would shorten the return deadline for international absentee ballots. Mr. Dunsmore responded that the bill would shorten the deadline and establish a uniform 10-day return period for all absentee ballots, including those from outside the country. Mr. Anderson directed the committee to page 17 of the redline document, beginning at lines 3 through 5, which corresponded to page 16, lines 15 and 16 of the bill. He explained that the change revised the reporting deadline to the legislature from November 1, 2026, to the first day of the regular legislative session. He stated that the revised timing aligned with standard reporting practices and allowed additional time for DOE to compile accurate data following the election. Mr. Anderson continued to page 17, lines 18 through 31 of the redline document, corresponding to page 16, lines 25 through 31 of the bill. He explained that the language addressed applicability provisions and reflected conforming changes resulting from the deletion of a prior section of the bill. The revisions ensured that all remaining sections continued to apply appropriately. He concluded his overview of the changes. 2:05:46 PM Representative Jimmie expressed concern that the SAVE system was operated with involvement from private tech companies such as Palantir. She asked whether any confirmation had been obtained regarding whether the private companies could access Alaskan's voter data. Mr. Dunsmore responded that he had been researching the privacy concerns regarding the database. He explained that SAVE was included in the bill because access to a database that could be queried would be useful to the state. He noted that there had been concerns that using the database might require the state to share sensitive voter information. He offered reassurance that the sponsor wanted to work with the committee to ensure that personal information was not being compromised. Representative Jimmie understood that SAVE kept all records for every query for 10 years. She asked what information was retained by the federal government when Alaska queried SAVE and what were they allowed to do with the data. Mr. Dunsmore responded that querying the database would require certain identifying information, including a voter's name, date of birth, and Social Security number. In many cases, DOE might not have Social Security numbers for a large portion of voters, which could limit the ability to query the system. He stated that it remained unclear what specific data the federal government retained from the queries and how the information was used. He noted that the system was operated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which was responsible for processing citizenship and naturalization matters, and that the agency had taken on an expanded role through management of the database. He reiterated that the scope of retained query data was not fully understood. 2:08:46 PM Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Work Draft 34-LS0153\R was ADOPTED. CSSB 64(FIN) am was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. Co-Chair Foster announced that the amendment deadline for the bill would be Friday, March 13, at 5:00 p.m. 2:10:07 PM AT EASE 2:11:15 PM RECONVENED Co-Chair Josephson began chairing the meeting. He explained that the committee would continue hearing finance subcommittee closeouts.