HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS  1:51:15 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be 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." CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the committee would hear invited testimony. 1:52:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked what process exists to verify citizenship of an individual registering to vote. 1:54:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor of HB 66, answered that the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) is used to verify voter information via data matching involving voter records and eligible, but unregistered, citizens. He added that, should an individual's information not be able to be confirmed, then that individual would not be eligible to vote. 1:55:05 PM GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, answered Representative Kurka's question by adding that voters sign registration documents under penalty of perjury to certify that the information that they provide is true and correct. She said that there does not exist a verification of an individual's United States citizenship but that, through the permanent fund dividend (PFD) automatic voter registration process, the Division of Elections obtains a list on an annual basis of applicants who have indicated that they are not a U. S. citizen that is matched with the data in the voter information system. Should such a non-citizen appear on voter registration rolls, his/her registration is cancelled, and he/she is notified of the requirement to provide proof of citizenship to reactivate the record. She further stated that the division periodically receives information from federal courts of Alaska on jurors who have indicated to the courts that they are not a U. S. citizen and are subject to the same cancellation and notification process. 1:56:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to page 2 of HB 66 that retains existing statutory language that requires information that a voter shall supply to request voter registration. He further added that in Section 2, on page 2, line 7, requires a declaration that the applicant is a citizen of the United States. He deferred to the division to elaborate on the subsequent verification process. 1:57:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what verification process exists within the Permanent Fund Dividend Division to ensure citizenship when it is claimed on a PFD application. MS. FENUMIAI advised that the Department of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Division should answer Representative Eastman's question. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether citizenship information that the division receives from the courts has been verified. MS. FENUMIAI recommended that the court system should answer Representative Eastman's question. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled prior testimony discussing signature verification in other states, and asked what procedures exist in Alaska to verify signatures on ballots. MS. FENUMIAI answered that no statutory authority exists to conduct signature verification. She added that, to the best of her knowledge, the only signature verification procedure exists in the Municipality of Anchorage's vote by mail system. 1:59:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked, regarding electronic signatures, what would be different when compared to how signatures are currently used. She asked whether the division has a way to accept electronic signatures currently. MS. FENUMIAI answered that the Division of Elections does not have a way to accept electronic signatures and would be required to investigate the implementation of electronic signatures as a new process. 2:00:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, in response to the line of questioning, said that 34 states plus the District of Columbia offer online [voter] registration, and the usual initial verification procedures involve signatures of prospective voters already on record, such as those at divisions of motor vehicles. Should a signature not match the one on file, further review or action is taken. He added that the State of Arizona innovated online voter registration in 2002. He offered to follow up with information regarding additional signature verification reviews or actions that exist in other states after the initial matching verification. 2:01:46 PM MS. FENUMIAI offered that there exists an online voter registration process in Alaska in which a prospective voter is required to have a state issued identification. The signature on file with the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is used for initial verification. 2:02:13 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether MyAlaska online would provide a means for voters to register online. MS. FENUMIAI answered that MyAlaska is a separate system, and the two systems would be required to be merged. CHAIR CLAMAN asked to confirm that a voter would not be able to register through MyAlaska but could register through the PFD application process. MS. FENUMIAI confirmed this as correct. 2:02:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the signature on file with the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) could be used to verify online voter registration. MS. FENUMIAI answered by clarifying that the signature on file at DMV is not an electronic signature but is rather a "wet" signature of which the Division of Elections receives a copy. She added her understanding that an electronic signature could be similar to the online signature process for the PFD application. 2:03:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked the bill sponsor what the fiscal impact of implementation of electronic signatures [for voter registration in Alaska] would be based on his research of other states' implementations of electronic signatures. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked Representative Vance to clarify whether she was asking what the cost would be to the State to implement electronic signatures. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE answered yes, and she requested a ballpark estimate for hardware and software that may be required. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested that MyAlaska exists as an electronic signature platform to allow the Division of Elections to make online voter registration, including electronic signatures, available and he suggested that the agency that controls MyAlaska be consulted. 2:05:52 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether additional fiscal notes existed for HB 66; he opined that additional costs would likely be required. 2:06:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE added that the fiscal note [HB66-OOG-DOE-4- 9-21, included in the committee packet] was indeterminate. She asked what the anticipated fiscal impact would be of 84,000 postage paid return envelopes. MS. FENUMIAI answered that ballots are oversized and are estimated to cost 70 cents to return, with the caveat that costs could increase. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the post office provides a date of mailing for postage paid return envelopes. MS. FENUMIAI answered that she is uncertain of the postal process but did offer her understanding that, if a ballot is brought to a postal window and an individual requests it to be "hand cancelled" then a date would be stamped on the envelope. 2:09:11 PM Paddy McGuire, Mason County Auditor, answered questions during the hearing on HB 66. He stated that the State of Washington has offered prepaid postage on return envelopes since 2018. He stated that, normally, business reply mail is not postmarked; however, his office works closely with the postmaster, and it receives an approximate 98 percent postmark rate on ballots. 2:10:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there was a contract or informal request to the postmaster to obtain postmarks on ballots. MR. MCGUIRE stated that his office works very closely with postal officials during election season, often daily. He added that demand for postal mail has been declining and opined that the post office officials welcome the business. 2:11:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered that she had requested an absentee ballot and had been offered the option to select absentee ballot for the primary only, or the primary and General, Elections. She further added that the Division of Elections website offered the option for her to grant permission to the division to compare her signature with that on file with the DMV. She explained that the website provided information such as when the ballot had been mailed to her and when the division had received her ballot. She suggested this was evidence that many of the systems are in place to allow for signature verification. 2:13:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to page 5, [Section 10] regarding the appointment and privilege of watchers and asked why the language, as follows, had been deleted: [A WATCHER MUST BE A UNITED STATES CITIZEN. THE WATCHER MAY BE PRESENT AT A POSITION INSIDE THE PLACE OF VOTING OR COUNTING THAT AFFORDS A FULL VIEW OF ALL ACTION OF THE ELECTION OFFICIALS TAKEN FROM THE TIME THE POLLS ARE OPENED UNTIL THE BALLOTS ARE FINALLY COUNTED AND THE RESULTS CERTIFIED BY THE ELECTION BOARD OR THE DATA PROCESSING REVIEW BOARD. THE ELECTION BOARD OR THE DATA PROCESSING REVIEW BOARD MAY REQUIRE EACH WATCHER TO PRESENT WRITTEN PROOF SHOWING APPOINTMENT BY THE PRECINCT PARTY COMMITTEE, THE PARTY DISTRICT COMMITTEE, THE ORGANIZATION OR ORGANIZED GROUP, OR THE CANDIDATE THE WATCHER REPRESENTS.] 2:14:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to language in Section 11, on page 6, line 16, which he described as "cleaner" and still inclusive of the citizenship requirement. 2:15:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to page 6, line 1 which would provide for one or "more" watchers and asked the intent of the sponsor to include this language and what complexities it may present. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that the language would allow for "more eyes" and the potential for alternates to participate in watching, and the intent was not to crowd the area. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what discretion the division would have to limit watchers due to space concerns or social distancing concerns as occurred during the 2020 election [under COVID-19]. 2:17:31 PM MS. FENUMIAI answered that it was her interpretation of the proposed language to mean that the division would have discretion to allow one or more watchers based on space and how many watchers requested to be present. 2:17:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether candidates or parties had expressed any consternation regarding the division's discretion made necessary [during the 2020 election] and asked if there could be a potential for lawsuit. MS. FENUMIAI stated that, due to COVID-19, the division had made significant changes to the numbers [of watchers] unlike previous years. She referred to Mr. Flynn to speak to the potential for legal issues. 2:18:50 PM THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State Affairs Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),Department of Law, stated that he was not aware of any legal issues regarding the number of watchers [during the 2020 election]. 2:19:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether a party or candidate might request more watchers that the division could deny at its discretion could lead to legal repercussions. MR. FLYNN answered that his interpretation of the language being discussed is that the number of watchers would be open-ended and that he would need to conduct further research within Title 15 to confirm any limits that may exist or any division discretion which may exist in the proposed legislation. 2:19:58 PM CHAIR CLAMAN offered a scenario in which a candidate would appoint five poll watchers and the discretion of the division could be to allow only one of those five appointees at any given time to watch. He stated his opinion that the proposed language did not require the division to allow all appointed watchers present at any given time. He asked whether Mr. Flynn's interpretation of the proposed language would require the division to allow all watchers present at any given time. 2:20:45 PM MR. FLYNN opined that Chair Claman's scenario is likely a correct interpretation of how the proposed language would be enacted. 2:21:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE recalled that there had been national media attention on poll watchers related to the 2020 election and that the proposed language would allow for in excess of five topics in any given election, and that each topic could allow for an unlimited number of watchers. She questioned the prudence of the proposed language regarding what the division could allow when balancing the public interest for transparency. MR. FLYNN opined that the question of prudence is one of policy rather than a legal one. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered that the intent of the proposed language is that of fairness for all topics or candidates involved in an election. 2:23:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that the Municipality of Anchorage offers livestreams of ballot counting. CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether there existed anything that would prevent a video [stream] of ballot counting. 2:24:35 PM MS. FENUMIAI offered her understanding that there does not exist any legal barriers to livestreaming ballot counting, only that there might exist financial considerations. 2:24:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA expressed his support for increased transparency of elections by including poll watchers and allowing video coverage of ballot counting. He asked whether parties could have observers at any election or only one in which they have an interest in an item appearing on the ballot. 2:26:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that only people associated with a specific ballot item would be permitted to observe, and stated that the language in Section 10, on page 6, lines 2 and 3 codify this, reading: "An organization or organized group that sponsors or opposes a ballot proposition or recall may have one or more watchers at the polls." 2:27:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked whether the sponsor would welcome an amendment that would codify existing policy in statute to allow observers at each counting table. 2:29:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK welcomed a discussion to arrive at prudent language that reflects current practices. He added that the intent of the language was to allow for individuals to become pre-authorized to observe at the polls. 2:29:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER stated that she had direct experience during her own race recount and complimented the division's handling of the process and observers. She asked whether Ms. Fenumiai had any additional information regarding poll watchers and the use of space that she wished to bring to the attention of the committee. MS. FENUMIAI stated that, in a non-pandemic year, the division is liberal in the number of observers allowed and recalled occasions in which 20 or more people were in the room. She stated that it was the intent of the division to allow for transparency. She stated that, under COVID-19, the division had worked with parties to arrive at a solution to allow for the most transparent observation to occur. 2:31:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK shared with the committee that the State of Arizona's costs to transition from paper registration to online registration had decreased from 83 cents to 3 cents per registration. HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS  2:37:22 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be to resume discussion of HB 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." 2:38:31 PM The committee took an at-ease from 2:38 p.m. to 2:40 p.m. 2:40:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked Ms. Fenumiai to describe the ballot counting observation process for the 2020 election under COVID-19. MS. FENUMIAI explained that the division worked with parties and candidates to provide names of the observers and allowed one person at a time due to social distancing requirements, and that all involved worked cooperatively. 2:41:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what requirements exist for observers and asked what "meaningful observation" means to the department. MS. FENUMIAI explained that observers would be present in a room to observe the review of absentee and question ballots and are able to make challenges and ask questions as appropriate to such ballots. She further explained that observers are also in a room to witness the counting of ballots. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked to what information an observer may demand access. MS. FENUMIAI answered that observers have a list of voters for the district being reviewed at a certain table and may compare the information on the envelope to the information that exists on record, and they may challenge any discrepancy. 2:44:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to page 4 of HB 66 and asked how the division would handle a special needs, in-person absentee, or question ballot if the individual had registered on election day or within the 30-day registration window prior to the election. MS. FENUMIAI replied that all those ballots would be handled in the same manner as question ballots and the process would not change [based on when a voter registered]. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether a voter is notified if his/her ballot is disqualified and not counted. MS. FENUMIAI answered that, under state law, the division is required to notify a voter via letter if all or part of his/her ballot is not counted. 2:46:44 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether a voter is notified in the case that a ballot is challenged, or whether a voter is notified only if his/her ballot is not counted. MS. FENUMIAI answered that voters are not notified if their ballots are challenged at the review board level, only if their ballots are not counted. 2:47:28 PM MIKE MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Chris Tuck, prime sponsor of HB 66, added that the notification process occurs after the election is certified, and the proposed bill would allow for curing of errors. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked where the provisions for ballot curing appear under HB 66. MR. MASON stated that the language appears in Section 30, on page 14. He suggested that Mr. McGuire may be able to explain how other jurisdictions handle ballot curing. 2:48:25 PM MR. MCGUIRE explained the State of Washington's ballot curing process is initiated when an issue arises such as an unsigned ballot or signature verifiers find that a signature does not match, at which point a letter is sent with a prepaid postcard that a voter may return to cure the issue with his/her signature. He added that signatures do change over time and that the voter record is updated with the new signature obtained in the curing process. He explained that information regarding missing or unmatched signatures may be shared with political campaigns, which campaigners may use to follow up directly with voters. 2:50:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that her district constituents had expressed their desire to address voting in Alaska. She referred to Section 30, on page 14, regarding the curing a rejected absentee ballot, and she asked in reference to paragraph (a), "Not later than the completion of the state ballot counting review", and (c), "Cured absentee ballots shall be forwarded immediately to the director by the most expeditious service", whether there would be a date certain by which those should be postmarked in order to be counted. MS. FENUMIAI answered that there does not exist a date certain by which the review board shall complete its work. She added that there exist other legal deadlines such as the board being required to complete its work prior to the swearing in of the governor elect. 2:51:29 PM MR. MASON added that, during the drafting of HB 66, dates certain had been sought and it had been determined that each election varied, and no deadline for the curing process had been set, and it would occur when the review board meets. 2:51:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed her concern that in a very close race the absence of a date certain for ballot curing could leave the state open to lawsuit. 2:53:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to Section 31, "The state review board shall review and count absentee ballots under AS 15.20.081(e) and (h), absentee ballots properly cured under AS 15.20.204," that compels the state review board to count ballots; however, the review board is not subject to a deadline specific to counting ballots. He suggested that the division would require ballots to be postmarked by a certain date and further research would be necessary to determine when a postmarked ballot must be received. 2:55:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER stated her concern would be to ensure that outstanding ballots are not left outstanding indefinitely. 2:55:21 PM MR. MCGUIRE stated that, in the State of Washington, cured ballots must be received the day before certification of the election. He further stated that the deadline is associated with a postmark; however, it is necessary to require a received- by date. 2:55:48 PM CHAIR CLAMAN postulated that the ballot curing process to correct a mistake on a ballot should not be subject to slow or tardy response by the voter, and that an amendment could be brought to provide for a deadline by which cured ballots shall be received. 2:56:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA recalled earlier testimony by Ms. Fenumiai that there would be no change to the process for counting absentee and question ballots under Section 4 and questioned the validity that no change would occur to the process considering that there would be a change to the voter registration process, should HB 66 pass. MS FENUMIAI explained that the current process allows for voters to attempt to vote on question ballots and that no change to the process would be necessary. 2:58:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked whether the process applies to federal elections or all state elections. MS. FENUMIAI explained that, in all elections, should a voter who is already registered and voted in a different district, and the voter put another address on the question ballot affidavit envelope, that information is entered into the voter registration system, and a determination as to whether the ballot should be counted is made. 2:58:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked whether the state voter registration system is updated on a daily basis. MS. FENUMIAI answered that the system is updated on a real time basis and, in some cases, minute by minute. [HB66 was held over.]