HOUSE BILL NO. 66 "An Act relating to voting, voter qualifications, and voter registration; relating to poll watchers; relating to absentee ballots and questioned ballots; relating to election worker compensation; and providing for an effective date." 3:50:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, SPONSOR, introduced HB 66. He explained the purpose of the bill. He reported that the bill dealt with modernizing the elections, voting, and ballot processes through a series of mechanisms that ensured more access, security, transparency, and faith in the states election systems. He elaborated that the bill originally created an option for permanent absentee voting for individuals that plan to vote by mail in every election. In 2020, due to the COVID pandemic, 365 thousand Alaskans voted by mail, which made it the most successful election in history with the highest number of voters participating. He relayed other provisions from the Sponsor statement: ? Requiring the Division of Elections to offer a voter the option to fix a mailed-in absentee ballot if there are errors. ? Calling for the same early voting locations to be available during every election. ? Clarifying that candidates and groups sponsoring ballot initiatives can have poll watchers. Representative Tuck communicated that HB 66 was heard in the State Affairs Committee in the prior session with the knowledge that there were other election bills in process. He worked comprehensively with other legislators, the Senate, and the Lieutenant Governors office to produce the current version of the bill. He listed all the provisions contained in the bill: absentee ballot curing, permanent absentee voting, updating voters lists, voluntary cancelation of voter registration, ballot security, an election offense hotline, an absentee ballot application process, signature verification program, watermarking ballots, prepaying postage costs for absentee ballots, same day voter registration, increased pay for election workers, election audits, risk limiting audits, forensic audits, and open source software. 3:55:13 PM Representative Josephson acknowledged the great effort put into crafting the bill. He asked what was in the bill that appealed to both progressives that wanted to expand voting opportunities and to conservatives that were concerned with election security. Representative Tuck thought that the question was difficult to answer. He indicated that there was no opposition from outside voter groups to the current version of HB 66. He proposed listing the provisions that were originally in SB 39 [Ballot Custody/Tampering; Voter Reg; Mail] sponsored by Senator Shower. He interjected that some provisions in the bill were also from the various governors election bills. He commented that all the election bills had some sort of ballot curing. The current legislation included the best process. He thought everyone wanted to see a cure in ballots and did not think it was neither conservative nor liberal. He interposed that HB 66 and HB 39 included permanent absentee voting. In addition, the governors voting bills allowed voters to request absentee ballots for up to 4 years and were then required to reapply. His only concern with doing it the governor's way, was that someone might forget they had to reapply after the fourth year. He noted that updating the voter's list came out of SB 39, and the governor's bill. The same applied to cleaning up the voter rolls. The provision concerning voluntary cancelation of voter registration and the election offense hotline was derived from SB 39 as well as chain of custody ballot security. He noted that in the last municipal election the same ballot tracking system was successfully used. Signature verification provisions were taken from HB 66 and SB 39. He detailed that HB 66 eliminated the second signature requirement and SB 39 employed signature verification machines used in the Anchorage Municipal election. He pointed out that absentee ballot applications provisions mostly resulted from HB 66, but a few were from the governors bill. He noted that watermarking ballots was a provision from SB 39 and prepaid postage costs, same day voter registration, and increased pay for election workers statutes were contained in the original version of HB 66. The election audit provisions were from a combination of all bills. He clarified that the proper terminology for election audits was risk limiting audits and typically not forensic audits. He noted that forensic examinations only applied to the routine forensic examinations of each precinct tabulator prior and after an election. Finally, the open source software proposal originated out of the collaborative process. 4:01:22 PM Representative Carpenter cited the concept of ballot harvesting, when ballots were collected on behalf of voters and taken to a drop box or polling place. He wondered if the issue was addressed in the bill. Representative Tuck responded that it was not directly addressed. He furthered that the ballot security and chain of custody provisions closely monitored ballots. It proved difficult to determine how to address it in the bill. He deferred further answer to the Division of Elections. Co-Chair Foster noted Ms. Fenumiai was online. Representative Tuck interjected that the bill placed restrictions on organizations sending voters applications for absentee ballots because voters were inundated with applications during the prior mail in ballot election. Representative Carpenter referred to the upcoming special election for the interim federal House of Representatives seat that would be a vote by mail only election. He expressed concern regarding every voter receiving a ballot and the potential for ballot tampering. He wondered how the bill prevented the situation from occurring. Representative Tuck replied that the bill did not address the issue. He shared that the bill was trying to seek a balance and did not address the more controversial issues. He noted that some wanted all mail in elections. Personally, he liked being able to bring his children to the voting polls with him. The bill attempted to provide a sense of safety in the election cycles by adding the new security measures. Representative Carpenter was aware that the bill was a compromise. He inquired what would prevent ballots from being fraudulently submitted in a mail in ballot election where ballots could be delivered to drop boxes or polling places. 4:05:18 PM GAIL FENUMIAI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR (via teleconference), relayed that currently mail in ballots required an identifier and a witness's signature. The procedures had been in statute for a long time. She believed that they served a special and unique purpose in deterring voter fraud. The bill addressed signature verification for all by mail elections and was an added layer of security. She noted that all mail elections were only carried out under special circumstances. She delineated that the upcoming by mail election to fulfill the remainder of the deceased Representative Don Youngs congressional house seat was done by mail because of time constraints for scheduling an election. She added that an all-mail-in ballot election for a statewide election was a rare occurrence. 4:06:35 PM Representative Carpenter asked if the bill would have to pass regarding signature verification or whether it was already in place. He was worried about signature forging for the upcoming election and wondered if safeguards were in place. Ms. Fenumiai responded that there was no signature verification currently in statute. She reiterated that what was currently needed from the voter was to provide an identifier and the ballot was signed in the witness of another voter. She expounded that it would take an act of collusion to fraudulently vote in the upcoming mail election. The identifier would have to match the identifier on the voter's record when the ballot was returned. Representative Carpenter deduced that someone committing fraud would only need the witness' personal identifier and they could forge the witness' signature. He asked if he was correct. Ms. Fenumiai responded, "That was a correct statement." 4:09:34 PM Representative Josephson asked if the bill would be well received in the other body. Representative Tuck responded in the affirmative. He noted that the current version of the bill was mostly identical to the Senate version. He guessed that concurrence by both bodies was likely. Representative Carpenter asked Representative Tuck to point out the section regarding signature verification. Representative Tuck deferred the answer to the Department of Law. 4:11:27 PM THOMAS FLYNN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference), noted that the provisions were contained in Section 44 and in Section 46. Representative Tuck appreciated the consideration of the bill. He had been involved with election revisions over the years. He noted the good effort among all contributors. Co-Chair Foster indicated he would be recessing the meeting. 4:13:49 PM AT EASE 6:16:56 PM RECONVENED Co-Chair Foster reported there was one item left on the agenda.