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." 9:08:48 AM Co-Chair Schrage MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee substitute for CSSB 64(FIN) am, Work Draft 34-LS0153\B (Dunmire, 3/14/26). Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion. 9:09:21 AM BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, introduced himself. DAVID DUNSMORE, STAFF, SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, introduced himself. Mr. Anderson thanked the committee for accommodating the timeline of the bill. He explained that he would be referring mostly to the redline document (copy on file) and suggested that members also refer to the document to follow along. He would also reference the proposed committee substitute (CS), version B, the summary of changes (copy on file), and the redline version that had been distributed earlier that morning. He added that Mr. Dunsmore would be available to address technical questions regarding the changes. Mr. Anderson directed members to page 3 of the redline document. He explained that there were two changes on the page, which could be found in the bill on page 3, line 23. He noted that the word "or" had been added. He explained that the addition of "or" was sometimes a technical or conforming change when clauses were involved, but in this instance, it had been added to address a concern raised by Representative Allard and to clarify that one condition or another would apply rather than requiring all conditions. He further explained that subsection H, which required maintaining a physical address outside the state for the full duration of 28 months, had been deleted because it related to criteria for triggering voter roll cleanup. 9:12:00 AM Representative Bynum asked whether the addition of the word "or" at the end of section 3 meant that items A through G would each function independently, such that any one of those items would operate as an "or" condition. Mr. Dunsmore responded that the "or" operation had already existed in the bill. He explained that the change corrected a drafting issue that Representative Allard had identified. He stated that the prior language had been unclear as to whether multiple criteria had to be met. The addition of "or" made it clear that meeting any one of the listed criteria would trigger notice. Co-Chair Foster noted that Ms. Carol Beecher, the director of the Division of Elections (DOE), was available online for questions. Mr. Anderson moved to page 5 of the redline version. He explained that several changes appeared at the top of the page, which could be found in the bill on page 5, lines 3 through 5. He stated that the phrase "registering to vote" had been deleted and replaced with "applying for a Permanent Fund Dividend," unless the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) application constituted the voter's initial registration. He indicated that the change clarified the intent of the provision. Mr. Anderson directed members to another change on page 5, line 14 of the bill. He explained that the reference to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program had been removed and replaced with the phrase "one or more systems for verifying citizenship." He stated that the change resulted from discussions regarding database queries used during the review process. Mr. Dunsmore clarified that the change related to databases consulted during the review process under regulations adopted by DOE. Representative Stapp asked what specific systems were being referenced if not SAVE. He stated that he was not aware of other systems that verified citizenship. Mr. Dunsmore responded that the change was intended to provide flexibility for DOE as additional systems might be developed. He explained that his understanding was that the expansion of the SAVE database to include broader data beyond noncitizen records was currently subject to litigation. He stated that a court decision could potentially limit the use of the database for citizenship verification purposes. The revised language allowed the division to identify alternative tools if necessary. He added that subsequent changes would include additional parameters governing the use of similar databases. 9:16:07 AM Representative Hannan noted that in the proposed CS, the new changes on page 5 were not underlined. She asked whether those changes, including the language "one or more systems for verifying citizenship" on line 15 and the new subsection extending onto page 6, should be underlined prior to final printing. Mr. Anderson responded that the subsection had been added as a new section. He explained that line 6 the bill reflected that it was amended by adding new subsections, and underlining was not required. Mr. Anderson directed members to additional changes in the redline beginning on page 5, line 26, through page 6, line 8. He explained that the new subsection established the safeguards referenced by Mr. Dunsmore. He stated that the provision addressed how data submitted to outside entities needed to be handled, including requirements for encryption and restrictions on data retention. Mr. Dunsmore elaborated that the provision required any data shared with an external entity to be encrypted, whether the entity was a government agency or non- governmental organization. He explained that the receiving entity was required to use the data solely for assisting the division with reviewing voter rolls and it could not retain the data after use. He stated that the language was developed in consultation with DOE, which indicated that large-scale data queries would require uploading bulk voter data rather than conducting individual manual searches. He emphasized that the provision established safeguards to protect confidential voter information. Representative Jimmie asked if, under current law, a voter whose ballot was rejected might not be aware of the rejection and therefore have their vote excluded without an opportunity to correct it. Mr. Dunsmore responded that he understood the question to refer to ballot curing provisions. He explained that under current law, when a ballot was rejected, DOE was required to send a notice to the voter. However, the voter did not currently have an opportunity to correct the issue or have the ballot counted after it was rejected. 9:20:01 AM Mr. Anderson moved to page 7 of the redline. He explained that a change found on page 7, lines 6 through 8 of the bill added language requiring that there be notification within 30 days after a data breach if the breach occurred or was discovered 14 or more days before an election, or after certification of election results. He stated that the language clarified the timing requirements for data breach notifications. Mr. Anderson continued to an additional change on page 7, lines 16 through 17 of the bill. He explained that the phrase "early and absentee voting" had been revised to "absentee voting and, where available, early voting." He stated that the change related to the responsibilities of the rural liaison in conducting outreach in communities. Mr. Anderson directed attention to the top of page 13 of the redline. He explained that the change could be found in the bill on page 12, line 29. He noted that it was a minor technical adjustment, but important because it referenced a section of law. He stated that the word "how" had been removed and replaced with "that," followed by language indicating that the issue may be cured under the subsection. He explained that the language added clarity. Mr. Anderson moved to page 16 of the redline. He explained that the change could be found in the bill on page 16, lines 12 through 13. He stated that language had been deleted relating to the applicant's affirmation of residency, including names and contact information of individuals listed to verify residency, as well as the applicant's voter registration status if known. He deferred to Mr. Dunsmore for further explanation of the deletion. Mr. Dunsmore explained that the deletions were made following discussions with DOE. He stated that the original intent had been to provide additional data to assist in verifying voter roll accuracy. However, DOE Director Carol Beecher indicated that the data would not be useful for verification purposes. He noted that one of the deleted paragraphs would have required the PFD Division to transmit voter registration status information, which was data that DOE already had in its possession. Mr. Anderson continued down page 16 of the bill to line 20. He explained that a prior version of the bill repealed AS 15.07.064(g), but that repeal had been removed. He stated that the statute related to updating a voter's mailing address based on PFD applications and would remain in effect. Mr. Anderson continued to page 17 of the redline, which included several conforming changes. He explained that new uncodified law had been added, which could be found on page 17, lines 9 through 10 of the bill. The addition created one new provision addressing regulations and one addressing procurement. He explained that the provisions appeared on page 17, lines 11 through 14, and lines 17 through 21 of the bill. He stated that the language directed the development of regulations necessary to implement the bill and required compliance with procurement code provisions for implementation. 9:25:11 AM Mr. Anderson continued to page 18 of the redline. He explained that the corresponding provision could be found on page 17, line 26 of the bill. He stated that an effective date had been added for sections 32 and 33, which addressed the regulation and procurement provisions. He explained that the effective date was immediate, allowing the division to begin work upon enactment of the bill. He stated that the updated effective date would enable the department to begin developing regulations and conducting procurement activities necessary for implementation. Representative Galvin asked if the overall cost might be reduced considering the number of changes made to the bill and the delayed implementation timeline. She inquired whether the fiscal notes remained accurate under the revised version of the bill. Mr. Anderson suggested that DOE respond to the question. 9:26:41 AM CAROL BEECHER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS (via teleconference), responded that DOE did not anticipate that the cost would be reduced and she understood that the fiscal notes remained accurate. Representative Hannan noted that most provisions would take effect on August 31, 2026, while certain sections would take effect in January of 2027. She asked whether the ballot curing process would be in effect for the 2026 general election. Mr. Dunsmore responded that the effective date in the bill would occur after the primary election but before the general election. Representative Hannan asked for confirmation that the curing process would apply to the 2026 general election but not the primary election. Mr. Dunsmore responded in the affirmative. He added that the only provision not in effect at the time of the general election would be the clarification of the definition of "true source" related to ballot questions and measures, which would take effect on January 1, 2027, to avoid altering disclosure requirements during an active election cycle. Representative Bynum asked whether an updated sectional analysis of the bill would be provided. Mr. Anderson responded that an updated sectional analysis for version B had not yet been prepared. He requested that the sponsor's office [Senator Bill Wielechowski] provide an updated version. Mr. Dunsmore responded that he would prepare and provide an updated sectional analysis by the end of the day. Representative Bynum noted that there had been prior discussions with DOE about which provisions could be implemented immediately and which required delayed implementation. He asked whether the sponsor's office had considered the same question. He thought that several provisions in the bill should be implemented immediately upon enactment. He asked why implementation would be delayed, especially for provisions related to voter IDs. He did not see any problems with implementing the provisions prior to the next election. He understood that none of the voter roll elements would take effect until the August 31, 2026, effective date. He asked if his understanding was correct. 9:30:49 AM Mr. Dunsmore responded that the changes to the effective dates resulted from a meeting between Senator Wielechowski and DOE to address concerns about timing. He stated that the bill included transitional provisions to allow the division to begin procurement and regulatory work immediately. The remaining provisions were structured to take effect in time for the general election. He suggested that Ms. Beecher could provide further detail on potential timing constraints. He added that DOE had indicated in its fiscal note that it would need to update informational posters at polling places as part of implementation, which would require administrative action and incur a modest cost. The provisions related to voter roll review would not take effect immediately. He noted that the voter roll cleanup process occurred every January and the delayed effective date would not interfere with the division's ability to implement the new requirements. He suggested that Ms. Beecher could provide additional information. Representative Bynum noted that the statutory language allowed the DOE director discretion to conduct voter roll review at a time of the director's choosing, but not later than January. He understood that if the provision were effective immediately, the division could choose whether to act sooner or wait until January. However, he understood that the provision would not be implementable until after August of 2026 if the effective date were to be delayed. He asked whether his interpretation was correct. Mr. Dunsmore confirmed that Representative Bynum's understanding was correct. He added that while the division could potentially choose to initiate voter roll cleanup earlier, there were constraints under the National Voter Registration Act, including restrictions on conducting voter roll maintenance within 45 days of an election. He explained that the constraints created timing limitations as the primary election approached. Representative Bynum asked Co-Chair Foster whether Ms. Beecher would be available in person for a future committee meeting about the bill. Co-Chair Foster responded that the current plan was to set an amendment deadline for the coming Thursday and to take up amendments on Friday. He stated that if the committee desired to have Ms. Beecher present before that time, arrangements could be made. 9:34:36 AM Representative Jimmie asked whether it would be preferable to pass the bill now rather than waiting. She noted that without an effective date, nothing would change. She asked Mr. Dunsmore if he agreed. Mr. Dunsmore responded that he agreed. He thought that the bill included several provisions aimed at improving election integrity protections. For example, the bill would allow ballot curing, enabling voters whose ballots were otherwise valid but rejected to have an opportunity to correct issues and have their votes counted. He added that the bill would also expand criteria for voter roll cleanup beginning in the next January cycle. He noted that similar concerns regarding discrepancies between the number of registered voters and the voting-age population had been raised at a national level. He explained that without the expanded criteria created in the bill, DOE would not have authority to expand voter roll maintenance beyond its current practices. Representative Galvin stated that she wanted to better understand implementation timing given the complexity of the bill and the number of sections it contained. She noted that the primary election was approximately five months away and asked whether any portions of the bill could be implemented prior to the primary election if different effective dates were established. Ms. Beecher responded that the division believed it could implement most provisions in the bill. She explained that the most challenging elements would be the ballot curing system and the ballot tracking system, which would require implementation by the general election rather than the primary. Representative Galvin stated that her understanding was that at least two components could not be implemented until the general election, while other provisions could be implemented earlier. She asked if it would be feasible to establish additional effective dates to allow earlier implementation of certain provisions. For example, a potential approach could be implementing multiple phased effective dates. Mr. Dunsmore responded that the sponsor's office could work with Representative Galvin's office if she wished to pursue an amendment. He noted that the bill represented a carefully negotiated bipartisan agreement and he could not commit to supporting specific amendments without further consultation with legislators involved in the negotiations. Representative Galvin appreciated Ms. Beecher's help and hoped discussions would continue. 9:39:42 AM Representative Bynum asked if DOE intended to provide a breakdown of each section of the bill with corresponding implementation timelines. He relayed that he had requested the breakdown at a prior meeting and asked if it would still be provided. Ms. Beecher asked Representative Bynum if the question was whether the division would provide a list identifying which provisions could be implemented immediately and which would require additional time. Representative Bynum responded in the affirmative. He stated that his understanding based on discussion in a prior committee meeting was that the division would provide the committee with a section-by-section timeline indicating when each provision could be implemented. He asked whether the information would still be provided. Ms. Beecher responded that the division planned to provide the requested information. She stated that the division would likely provide the section-by-section implementation timeline later that afternoon. Co-Chair Foster thanked Ms. Beecher. He suggested that he could schedule an additional committee meeting before the committee heard amendments to the bill to review the updated information. He noted that members might have additional questions and he wanted to ensure that questions were answered. 9:41:53 AM Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION. Representative Bynum OBJECTED. He thought that many questions remained and that further information was needed before proceeding. He stated that he did not believe it was prudent to move forward with the CS. 9:42:28 AM AT EASE 9:43:54 AM RECONVENED Representative Bynum WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Work Draft 34-LS0153\B was ADOPTED. CSSB 64(FIN) am was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. Co-Chair Foster reiterated that he intended to schedule another meeting to discuss additional questions and information. He announced that the amendment deadline was Thursday, March 19, at 12:00 p.m. He reviewed the agenda for the afternoon's meeting.