HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS  3:10:07 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first 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." [Before the committee was CSHB 66(JUD).] 3:10:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 66, labeled 32-LS0322\O, Klein, 3/30/22, as the working document. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion. 3:11:06 PM JEFF STEPP, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss- Tomkins, provided an explanation of changes in the proposed CS for HB 66 ("Version O"). He paraphrased a 16-page document, titled "HB 66 Explanation of Changes Version I to Version O" [hard copy included in the committee packet]. 3:20:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether "risk-limiting audit" (RLA) was defined in the bill. Additionally, she asked how it differed from a forensic audit. 3:22:47 PM MIKE MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State Legislature, explained that the RLA was a new form of post- election audit that cut down on the number of ballots that needed to be audited, as it was statistically based. He added that a RLA would provide statistical confidence that an incorrect election result was not made official. He said as part of adopting the regulations, the Division of Elections (DOE) would be required to consult with recognized statistical experts, equipment vendors, and municipal clerks that were familiar with these audits. 3:24:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE noted that DOE already conducted a precinct audit. She asked whether the RLA would be in addition to that and how it would change from the current practice. MR. MASON shared his understanding that it would be in addition to the existing practice. He explained that the RLA was a statistical model that considered a sample size of ballots as opposed to reviewing each individual ballot. He noted that the sample size would be larger if the margin for the election results was narrow, and vice versa. He offered to follow up with more detailed information. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE shared her understanding that open-source software created less need for forensic audits. She asked for further information on open-source technology. MR. MASON deferred to Ms. Fenumiai. 3:26:55 PM GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, said she was not a qualified expert on open-source software and declined to speak on the subject. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested consulting with Senator Shower's office. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE believed that open-source software would allow for a more transparent process. She sought to confirm that once the ballots were counted, open-source technology would allow that information to be viewed. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his understanding that the description provided by Representative Vance reflected the intent shared by Senator Shower. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE directed attention to the signature verification in Section 39. She asked whether signature verification would be the only identifier used to verify a ballot. MR. MASON recalled earlier conversations among lawmakers about this topic. He explained that signature verification was added in place of the witness signature. MS. FENUMIAI believed that the proposed legislation did not remove the additional identifier requirements. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Ms. Fenumiai to speak to the signature verification. She asked what would be required of the division. MS. FENUMIAI acknowledged that it was an entirely new process that would require the purchase of signature verification equipment, software, and training. 3:32:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether people would be able to submit an electronic signature for the division to have on hand for verification. MS. FENUMIAI said signatures were currently captured via the voter registration system. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the verification would be completed manually or via automation. MS. FENUMIAI was unsure. She referenced the signature verification process used by the Municipality of Anchorage, which relied on a "human element." She said best practices in other states would be considered. MR. MASON confirmed that the bill would require DOE to provide training on signature comparison and associated software to election officials. 3:35:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor of CSHB 66(JUD), shared his understanding that 3 or 4 machines would be needed to verify signatures for the entire state. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited broader comments on Version O from the bill sponsor. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK emphasized the collaborative effort that was put forth to produce Version O. 3:36:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Section 43 would allow for a vote-by-mail election to be held in Alaska. MS. FENUMIAI shared her understanding that according to the language in Section 43, any federal election could not be conducted by mail. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that under Section 43, the current special election for the U.S. House seat could not be conducted by mail. MS. FENUMIAI pointed out that under current law, the director could conduct an election by mail if held at a time other than the general party primary or municipal election. She said that provision gave her statutory authority to conduct the special primary election by mail. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he was not opposed to by-mail elections; however, the language in the bill reflected "the nexus of offices and thinking." He said it could be worth another conversation, as the option to conduct a by-mail election in unusual or extenuating circumstances was useful. 3:40:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN returned the discussion to the RLA and asked whether it would restrict the types of audits that could be performed. MR. MASON shared his understanding that it would not preclude any of the current auditing methods for election results. Instead, he said, it would add one more tool to the toolbox for DOE. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recounted an experience in 2017 when he chaired STA and held a hearing on election reform. He explained that RLAs came up in that meeting as a recommended best practice from a variety of authorities. He offered to bring in some election security experts to provide testimony on RLAs. 3:42:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to page 10, line 13 of Version O. He sought to confirm that the RLA could only be used if a recount would change the outcome of the election. MR. MASON answered no. He understood the language to mean that after each election but before certification, the director [of DOE] shall conduct an RLA of selected election results. He added that further regulations would be developed to identify which results would be audited. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a drafter was available to comment on the language in question. 3:43:57 PM NOAH KLEIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, asked Representative Eastman to repeat the question. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN interpreted the language on page 10, line 13, to suggest that the RLA could only be used if a recount would change the outcome of the election. MR. KLEIN clarified that the occurrence of the RLA would not be dependent on risk; instead, the RLA would be conducted to limit risk. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that the purpose of the RLA was to avoid recount efforts if it would change the result of the election. He expressed concern that the RLA "[would] have nothing to do with whether or not the ballots themselves are correct, or legal, or lawful, or fraudulent because we're tying it to the recount." CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said that was not the intent of the RLA. 3:47:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how passage of the proposed legislation would impact ballot retention. MR. MASON said the only significant change was that all ballots would be retained for 22 months. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the current record retention requirements. MS. FENUMIAI conveyed that the current DOE records retention schedule required all ballots to be retained for 22 months and other election materials to be retained for 4 years post certification. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the motivation for changing the 4-year requirement for "other election materials" to 22 months. MR. MASON pointed out that the language in question was taken directly from SB 39, sponsored by Senator Shower. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS confirmed. 3:50:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN noticed that "absentee voting stations" would be renamed "early voting stations" and asked for the reasoning. MR. MASON shared his understanding that there had been confusion across much of Alaska between the meaning of early voting and absentee in-person voting; thus, the intent of Version O was to clarify that misunderstanding by calling all stations "early voting stations" despite the fact that an in-person absentee ballot would be cast from those locations. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed with Mr. Mason's interpretation. He recalled that people had been accidentally turned away from early voting in rural Alaska during the 2016 election due to poll workers' misunderstanding of absentee in-person voting. He reiterated that in an attempt to eliminate the confusion, all stations would be renamed "early voting stations." REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said he was still confused. He inquired about the different types of ballots. MR. MASON shared his understanding that the type of ballot would not be changed. For example, an individual who showed up to an early voting station would still be casting and absentee in- person ballot. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Fenumiai whether that was correct. 3:55:14 PM MS. FENUMIAI clarified that early voting and absentee in-person voting were two distinct processes. She explained the procedural differences, stating that early voting locations were stationed at the five regional elections offices and did not require the completion of an absentee in-person affidavit envelope. She added that an individual would sign the voter certificate and vote the ballot with no further review of eligibility required. Alternatively, absentee in-person voting occurred outside the regional election offices at single site voting locations. The voter was required to provide identification and complete a ballot envelope with appropriate identifiers and an election official's signature, she said. Those ballots were retuned to the division and logged by staff, at which point the voters' eligibility was determined. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about the "structural" differences between the early voting ballots and the absentee in-person ballots. MS. FENUMIAI reiterated that the voters' eligibility for early voting was determined on location while eligibility for absentee in-person voters was determined later by the absentee review board after staff had processed the ballots at the regional offices. 3:58:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN surmised that for the absentee in-person process, there was not enough staff to verify registration on location. MS. FENUMIAI confirmed that only early voting centers had access to the statewide voter registration database. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether anyone would be "left behind" by renaming the voting stations to "early voting stations." MS. FENUMIAI said no one would be left behind. She shared that she was not aware of the aforementioned confusion regarding absentee in-person ballots and early voting. She said the differentiation was purely for the division to identify which processes were performed at which locations. She reiterated that the name change would have no impact on methods of voting. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS emphasized that it was purely a semantic change. He explained that he typically cast an absentee in- person ballot at Sitka City Hall before election day, which per Version O, would be renamed an early voting station; nonetheless, an absentee in-person ballot would still be cast from that location. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN suggested renaming the voting centers "voting stations." 4:01:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about the ballot tracking system and whether the system would only be available for individuals who chose to vote absentee. MR. MASON answered yes, it would only apply to the absentee voting system. REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to page 19, line 17, which provided that the "the director shall immediately make a reasonable effort to contact the voter" regarding a ballot deficiency. She suspected that the language "reasonable effort" could be challenged and suggested adding further clarification, such as a "within 48 hours", for example. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that ballot curing was a policy area with overlapping legislation. 4:05:17 PM MR. STEPP acknowledged that there were different ballot curing provisions in different bills. Ultimately, he said, the intent was to assign the director the responsibility of determining an appropriate timeframe in which to respond. MR. MASON noted that the bill would allow the director to contact the voter through additional methods, such as electronic mail, telephone call, or text message, instead of just sending a deficiency notice. REPRESENTATIVE TARR reiterated that "reasonable effort" was the concerning language, as it could be ambiguous. MS. FENUMIAI agreed that "reasonable effort" seemed unclear. REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked how the division would track the director's "reasonable effort." MS. FENUMIAI speculated that the division would need to develop some kind of system for tracking the attempts made to contact voters. 4:09:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY directed attention to page 1, line 10, and inquired about the 30-day registration requirement. MR. MASON stated that Representative Story was referring to what was known as "same-day voter registration." He shared his understanding that anyone who took advantage of the same day voter registration, or the 30-day timeframe, could vote a special needs ballot, absentee in-person ballot, or question ballot, as those ballots were reviewed by the division; however, they could not vote a regular ballot. REPRESENTATIVE STORY observed that Version O would create a lot of additional work for DOE. She inquired about the fiscal note. MR. MASON said the current fiscal note was no longer representative of the bill, as it has greatly expanded by Version O. He summarized associated costs according to Version I of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE STORY wondered whether the division had concerns about any specific provisions in Version O. MS. FENUMIAI said the division had not had the opportunity to review it in detail. She pointed out that there were some sections that outlined current practices, such as the question ballot process that Mr. Mason had referenced. She suggested that there were duplicative items in the proposed legislation. 4:16:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned why people's ballots had been thrown out in past elections and asked how that could be corrected. MS. FENUMIAI said the lack of a witness signature was a big factor, as well as a missing signature or being postmarked after election day. 4:17:47 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to the adoption of the proposed CS for HB 66, labeled 32-LS0322\O, Klein, 3/30/22, as the working document. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his objection. 4:18:35 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman, Vance, Kaufman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of the proposed CS. Representative Eastman voted against it. Therefore, Version O was adopted as the working document by a vote of 6-1.