HB 95-ELECTIONS; ELECTION INVESTIGATIONS  3:08:00 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 95, "An Act relating to elections and election investigations." 3:08:59 PM CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL), on behalf of the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by request of the governor, introduced HB 95. She paraphrased the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Dear Speaker Stutes: Under the authority of Article III, Section 18, of the Alaska Constitution, I am transmitting a bill authorizing the Attorney General to investigate potential violations of election laws of regulations. This legislation would permit the Attorney General to investigate alleged election violations identified by the director of the Division of Elections, a member of the public, or by the Attorney General. A member of the public may submit a complaint alleging a violation to the Division of Elections within 30 days of the election or the violation, whichever is later. If the complaint alleges a violation of AS 15.13, the Division will forward the complaint to the Alaska Public Offices Commission for further review. For other election related allegations, the Division of Elections does a preliminary review for completeness, request missing information as necessary, and may also dismiss complaints that are determined to be frivolous. Otherwise, complaints are forwarded to the Attorney General for action. In investigating an allegation, the Attorney General has the authority to compel witness testimony, issue subpoenas, and to produce documents or other evidence. The Attorney General also has the authority to hold hearings, administer oaths, make interrogatories, require written affidavits, and examine documentary evidence. Upon concluding an investigation, the Attorney General will share the results with the Division of Elections. If the Attorney General determines a violation of an election law or regulation has occurred, the Attorney General may bring a civil action to compel compliance with the law. The information collected over the course of the investigation will remain confidential unless it is used as the basis for a decision by the Division of Elections or is used as the civil action. If the Attorney General brings civil action in court, the Attorney General may petition for, and the court may award the state, a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per violation. The court may also award the state reasonable attorney's fees and investigation costs. I urge your prompt and favorable action on this measure. MS. MILLS clarified that HB 95 would only provide investigatory tools, adding that any ultimate determination would still occur in court. As no penalty authority would be given to the attorney general, a court order would still be required to enforce an injunction or to bring fines against a "bad actor." She highlighted quicker reaction times and a lower evidentiary standard as benefits to a civil investigation. 3:14:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY acknowledged that the intent of the legislation was to find bad actors who may be attempting to corrupt the election process; nonetheless, she pointed out that processes were already in place to verify signatures and cure ballots. MS. MILLS agreed. She said she had confidence in the 2020 election; however, she expressed concern that there was a trust and integrity problem that could be addressed by the proposed legislation. She proceeded to provide examples of how the bill would work should it be enacted. 3:18:07 PM THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, DOL, presented a sectional analysis of HB 95 [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Purpose of Bill: Division of Elections does not have a  method of investigating alleged civil violations of  Title 15. This bill authorizes the attorney general to  investigate potential violations and seek compliance  through the courts or report back to the Division of  Elections so the director can pursue corrective  action.  Section 1 This bill has only one section. It adds a section to the Elections Title 15 chapter 56 on Election Offenses, Corrupt Practices, and Penalties, authorizing the attorney general to investigate potential violations of Title 15 (except for violations of AS 15.13 which are addressed by the Alaska Public Officers Commission) alleged in complaints filed with the Division of Elections and referred to the attorney general, or that otherwise come to the attorney general's or Division of Elections Director's attention. The bill authorizes the attorney general to: ? issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum (subpoenas for testimony and documentation); ? administer oaths and hearings in the process of investigation; ? require persons under investigation to make full and fair disclosures regarding the alleged violation, in writing and under oath; and ? examine and make copies of any documents related to the investigation. ? The attorney general may also pursue compliance with the elections code (except for violations of AS 15.13 which are addressed by the Alaska Public Officers Commission) by initiating a civil action in court for an injunction and may petition for up to $25,000 per violation. The attorney general is authorized to advise the Division of Elections Director of investigation outcomes so the Director can seek corrective action. The investigation information itself is not public record, but the attorney general may issue a public statement describing conduct that violates local, regional, state or federal elections law. 3:22:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, referring to Subsections (g) and (h) on page 3 of the bill, asked for further clarification of the language "about to engage" and questioned when the attorney general would have the authority to act on a person who had not yet committed a crime. MS. MILLS recalled suspicious absentee applications that were received [by DOE]. She explained that if those applications had been processed and a person voted an absentee ballot fraudulently, the counting of that vote could be stopped if there was supporting evidence of an ongoing or forthcoming violation. 3:24:50 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there was a substantive difference between fees and civil penalties. MS. MILLS explained that civil fines were imposed by a court whereas civil penalties were typically an administrative action. She noted that initially, the bill borrowed outdated language from the Consumer Protection Act, adding that "civil fines" was the correct term, which was the reason for the requested change. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS considered a scenario in which a person was found in violation of the Consumer Protection Act, which per his understanding, still used the word "fees" instead of "civil fines." He asked whether a penalty could only be administered by the courts due to the outdated language. MS. MILLS clarified that the Consumer Protection Act used the term "civil penalty" when it should say "civil fine." She stated that the court would still enforce the verbiage "civil penalty;" nonetheless, cleaning up the statute would allow for proper use of language. 3:26:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about best practices in other states and whether Alaska was modeling those practices. MS. MILLS reported that similar authority existed in 25 other states. Within those 25 states, the delegation of authority varied between the attorney general, a board of elections, or the secretary of state. She pointed out that in Alaska, the Office of the Attorney General performed similar investigations into consumer protection; therefore, she reasoned that it would be efficient and effective to delegate this authority to that office. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about injunctive relief and what it would look like under this proposal. MS. MILLS said essentially, injunctive relief was the court declaring that a violation had occurred and that the person responsible needed to stop. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked when a "hard stick" [strict enforcement] would come into the process if that person refused to stop. MS. MILLS pointed out that civil fines could be imposed; additionally, a person could be found in contempt of court at which point, severe penalties could be enforced. 3:30:47 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Subsection (b) of the bill, which indicated that campaign violations would be referred to the Alaska Public Offices commission (APOC), as opposed to DOL. He asked whether APOC had been consulted on the construction of that responsibility. MS. MILLS said no specific discussion with APOC had occurred. She reasoned that APOC had specific penalties and laws that DOE was unfamiliar with. She said, "Let's keep campaign finance where it is." 3:32:04 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 95 was held over.