HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS  4:18:50 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final 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 the proposed CS for HB 66, Version O, labeled 32-LS0322\O, Klein, 3/30/22, adopted as the working document on 4/12/22.] 4:19:39 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 4:19:56 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from committee members. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the current verification process for the U.S. citizenship status of voters. 4:21:08 PM MICHAELA THOMPSON, Administrative Operations Manager, Division of Elections (DOE), Office of the Lieutenant Governor, explained that an individual must certify that he/she was a U.S. citizen during the voter registration process. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that the "honor system" was used. MS. THOMPSON clarified that the individual's signed affidavit was utilized. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 1, subsection (4), of Version O and asked how to verify whether a person was not registered to vote in another jurisdiction. MS. THOMPSON relayed that on the registration form, a voter could declare whether he/she was registered in another jurisdiction. If such a declaration was made, DOE would notify said jurisdiction. Additionally, Alaska was a member of the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), a cross-state voter registration database. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about enforcement methods for individuals who maintained voter registration in multiple states. MS. THOMPSON said DOE was unable to check records in other states. She reiterated that if an individual declared that he/she was registered to vote in another jurisdiction, DOE would send a notification to that state; however, the division could not see whether said jurisdiction followed through with the cancellation. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there was a benefit to keeping these requirements in statute if they were based on the honor system. 4:24:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor of HB 66, reiterated that during the voter registration process, an individual was certifying his/her U.S. citizenship and voter registration status via a signed affidavit under penalty of perjury for which a misdemeanor offense could be brought. He opined that the system held people accountable. 4:25:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether any person had been convicted of that misdemeanor offense. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to the Department of Law (DOL). 4:25:35 PM THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, DOL, said he was aware of several charges that existed; however, he was unsure of the details. He offered to follow up with the requested information. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS redirected the question to Ms. Thompson. 4:26:07 PM MS. THOMPSON was unsure of the answer. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the extent to which voter registrations were perjured. He shared his understanding that it was exceedingly rare, which explained the low or unknown number of prosecutions. He welcomed the follow-up information from Mr. Flynn regarding criminal referrals or concerning instances of perjury. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced former Representative Gabrielle LeDoux and the charges brought against her. He surmised that Alaska did not prosecute people for violating the law in these circumstances. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Thompson to restate the answer to Representative Eastman's question regarding citizenship. MS. THOMPSON sought to confirm that Chair Kreiss-Tomkins was asking what would happen if a non-citizen tried to vote. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS answered yes. MS. THOMPSON explained that if a non-citizen declared his/her alien status on a question ballot on election day, the ballot would be rejected by the question review board. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there were instances of perjury pertaining to the declaration of U.S. citizenship on voter registration forms. MS. THOMPSON offered to follow up with the requested information. 4:31:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared a personal anecdote about an individual in the Mat-Su who attempted vote with false identification. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the scenario in question was referred to law enforcement. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN did not believe so. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS remarked, "It strikes me as an omission with people who have knowledge of this incident." He asked how DOE would react to such a scenario. MS. THOMPSON stated that the election workers who witnessed the fraudulent incident would submit a report to the regional supervisor who would investigate the matter further. She noted that workers were not encouraged to make any attempts at physically stopping an individual in these scenarios for the purpose of safety; nonetheless, they were trained to document the incident and contact the regional supervisor. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the operating procedure for a concerned citizen who witnessed such an incident. MS. THOMPSON said, from a procedural standpoint, the division would refer the information to the director for investigation if needed. 4:34:05 PM MICHAEL MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State Legislature, noted that, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor, Version O required DOE to establish a toll-free hotline to receive reports of election offenses or voter misconduct. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN expressed his appreciation for this line of questioning. 4:35:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked how many times election offenses had occurred in recent years. MS. THOMPSON offered to follow up with the requested information. REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled that the number was very small. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS welcomed invited testimony. 4:37:35 PM HILLARY HALL, Director, Government Affairs, National Vote at Home Institute (NVAHI), stated that the goal of NVAHI was to make mail ballots more accessible, equitable, and secure. She noted that the proposed legislation included many of the nation's best practices to ensure effective and efficient voting by mail. She stated that by-mail voting was easy, accessible, and good for democracy, as it allowed full participation and offered an equitable solution for voters. In addition to the permanent mail provision, she highlighted the signature verification and ballot curing process as outstanding sections of the legislation. Additionally, she touted the ballot tracking provision and the pre-processing provision to allow for timely election results and proper voter notification. She identified several items in the bill that needed improvement. She expressed concern that applications could only be sent if a voter requested one from the division, which put the onus on the voter to initiate the permanent mail process. She pointed out that elections were complicated, adding that many voters did not understand the process. She conveyed that if the bill were to pass with the provision intact, Get Out the Vote (GOTV) groups would likely sue the division, as they had in other states. Finally, she recommended allowing people to pick up and drop off the mail-in ballots in person from an early voting center during the 10-day period before an election. 4:43:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that if an individual had failed to request a mail ballot before the 10-day cutoff, he/she could pick up a mail ballot from a voting center. He questioned whether that ballot could be mailed in. MS. HALL answered yes, in other states; however, that method would not be recommended. The point, she said, was to clarify that an absentee ballot could be picked up in person and filled out at home. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed confusion as to whether the absentee ballot in question, once picked up in person and filled out at home, could be mailed. MS. HALL clarified her belief that people should be allowed to pick up an absentee ballot in person within the 10-day period before the election and return it by mail or in person. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK directed attention to Section 34, which provided that an absentee ballot must be postmarked on or before the day of the election; therefore, a voter could be allowed to pick up an absentee ballot in person, fill it out at home, and return it within that time period. 4:45:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN sought to confirm that Ms. Hall's preference was for all registered voters to receive a mail ballot whether they had requested one or not. MS. HALL clarified her belief that an application should be available to all voters, and that the process should not be predicated on the voter's initiation. In other words, she opined that applications should be proactively sent out to voters to allow them to sign up for permanent mail voting. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that in past elections, voters were barraged with absentee by-mail ballot applications by different groups in an attempt to bank a vote from likely supporters. He surmised that such actions created confusion amongst voters or a perception that DOE had sent multiple applications. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN shared his understanding that unsolicited ballots often ended up in the garbage, as an affirmative request had not been made to receive them. 4:48:45 PM MR. MASON said the scenario shared by Representative Kaufman highlighted the point of the bill, as there was confusion amongst voters regarding absentee ballots versus absentee ballot applications. He relayed that people mistook trash cans full of absentee ballot applications for ballots that had been thrown out, which caused alarm and confusion. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN contended that he was aware of the difference between absentee ballots and absentee ballot applications. He maintained that unsolicited ballots were indeed mailed out. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that the scenario described by Representative Kaufman pertained to municipal elections. He asked Ms. Hall to comment on that situation. MS. HALL highlighted the importance of signature verification to by-mail ballot elections. She explained that the signature verification process was used to verify the identity of the voter and ensured that that the mail ballot was sent in from the correct person. 4:51:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked: I would just to beg to differ based on the information presented to the committee, because we at the state have never had signature verification for any of our thousands of mail-in ballots, and I'm told we have an excellent system with very little problems, so I don't know why they would need signature verification in other states if we never needed it here. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted that Section 30 placed a limit on the ability for organizations to send out mail ballot applications to reduce the bombardment of applications in mailboxes. Additionally, limitations were placed on pre-filled applications, which had created much confusion. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that the language in Version O placed a prohibition on that kind of activity. 4:53:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK further noted that under Version O, ballot applications must prominently display the language "Application only/Not a ballot" on the exterior address side of the envelope. 4:54:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about the statement made during Ms. Hall's invited testimony regarding the likelihood of GOTV groups suing the state. MS. HALL confirmed that she had seen this kind of policy met with litigation in other states, specifically regarding the right for GOTV groups to reach out to voters. To avoid the possibility of litigation, she suggested that the state could proactively send out the applications for permanent mail voting. She believed that many groups would welcome that idea. REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether other states proactively communicated with residents about election changes or related information. MS. HALL indicated that by providing funding for outreach programs, the legislature could make that a possibility for DOE. REPRESENTATIVE TAR questioned whether Ms. Hall was familiar with the Center for Civic Design and asked how to clearly communicate with voters to reduce confusion. MS. HALL answered yes, she was familiar with the Center for Civic Design. She stated that NVAHI was continuing to identify systemic barriers to the vote at home process, which included design and messaging on mailers. She added that the behavioral group, Ideas42, considered how to make the user interface of a form easier for diverse populations to participate in ways that made sense to them. MR. MASON directed attention to Section 3, which provided that applicants were allowed to designate their preferred language in which the division was required to provide ballots and other election materials. REPRESENTATIVE TARR wondered whether the bill should be more prescriptive about ballot design. MS. HALL said she understood the temptation to be more prescriptive; however, "getting it right" was an evolving process that required flexibility and adaptation. 5:01:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 2 and asked how the affidavit signed under penalty of perjury worked. He wondered whether the applicant's signature effectually acted as an "oath". REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered yes, that was the intent. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the definition of a "voter registration agency". REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Mr. Klein. 5:03:51 PM NOAH KLEIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), defined "voter registration agency" as an agency designated under AS 15.07.055, which listed voter registration agencies. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether someone at the voter registration agency was putting the voter under oath or whether signing the form realized the signed affidavit. MR. MASON said the details would need to be worked out through the regulation process, as this was new language; however, he shared his understanding that attesting on the affidavit would suffice and that no one would be raising their right hand at the voter registration agency. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that AS 15.07.055 listed the DMV, DHSS, DCCED, and recruitment offices for the armed forces. 5:06:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, in response to Representative Eastman's line of questioning, shared his understanding that PFD applications similarly involved declaration under penalty of perjury. He directed attention to Section 43, speculating that the provision would make it difficult to hold a special election by mail. He asked Ms. Hall whether Section 43 should be amended to allow a vote-by-mail special election, such as the special election held to fill Congressman Don Young's seat. MS. HALL recommended allowing special elections to be run by mail to increase participation. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified that currently, the director was allowed to hold a special election by mail. He pointed out that Section 43 pertained to small communities where it would not be feasible to set up a polling place. 5:08:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he raised the issue because during a previous hearing, the director had testified that Section 43 would prohibit the current special election to fill Congressman Young's seat the U.S. House of Representatives from being held by mail. He shared his belief that the section in question needed to be amended. MR. MASON noted that an amendment was offered for the companion bill in the Senate, which made significant changes to this provision. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN requested aa copy of the amendment in question. 5:09:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK reiterated that AS 15.20.800(a) provided that the director may conduct an election by mail if held at a time other than when a general, party primary, or municipal election was held. He stressed that the aforementioned language was unchanged by the proposed legislation. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN explained that the issue could be found on page 20, lines 20-21, which stated that the director may conduct an election, other than a general, statewide, or federal election, by mail. He pointed out that the special election to replace Congressman Don Young's seat was both a statewide and federal election; therefore, under the language in Version O, the special election could not be held by mail. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK believed the language in question was a drafting error. He suggested removing the words "other than a general, statewide, or federal election," on page 20, lines 20- 21. 5:11:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the language "under penalty of perjury" fulfilled the intent to implement a liability of prosecution. MR. FLYNN explained that falsely signing something under oath could result in prosecution for perjury or other potential crimes. 5:13:52 PM JENNIFER MORRELL, Partner, The Elections Group, and a Risk- Limiting Audits (RLA) expert, shared her background and work experience, which included consulting for states that were implementing RLAs as their official method of auditing. She invited questions from committee members. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Morrell to define RLA. MS. MORRELL defined RLA as a post-election tabulation audit that examined a random sample of coded ballots to provide a statistical level of confidence that the election outcome was correct. She noted that a number of organizations had recognized RLAs as a reliable method to validate the integrity of voting equipment, verify the accuracy of results, and detect and correct outcome-changing errors in vote tabulation. She explained that RLAs, by design, were made to escalate if discrepancies were detected during a traditional audit. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how RLAs worked methodologically and how they differed from traditional audits. MS. MORRELL explained that various methods were used to perform an RLA. The three particular methods that had been implemented in other states included: ballot comparison, ballot polling, and batch comparison. She noted that several states had experimented with hybrid methods. Additionally, she stated that the ballot comparison method worked well in states with a centralized count or by-mail voting system. 5:21:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which a community of 25 registered voters produced 26 ballots. He asked how an RLA would manage that situation. MS. MORRELL emphasized that reconciliation was an important part of the audit process. She explained that if the number of ballots was incorrect, the audit would treat that as a discrepancy in favor of the losing candidate. 5:22:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about risk criticality. He asked whether risk assessments were calibrated for specific precincts. MS. MORREL stated that setting a risk limit was a primary principle of RLAs. She added that the risk limit was the maximum possible chance that the audit would fail to detect an error in the election outcomes. She noted that different states used different methods to set a risk limit. 5:25:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether a standard formula was used to set the risk limit at 5 percent, for example. MS. MORRELL indicated that the formula was complicated. She conveyed that the concept of an RLA was developed by an academic, adding that software had been created to aid in the calculation. She reiterated that the risk limit percentage had been treated as a variable by different states. MR. MASON pointed out that the section in question had been written broadly to give discretion to DOE and allow the director to adopt the necessary regulations to administer the procedures. He highlighted Section 20, subsection (b), which advised that the director shall consult with recognized experts, equipment vendors, and municipal clerks, and shall consider best practices for conducting RLAs. 5:28:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recounted a scenario in which 15 different voters attempted to vote from a single mobile home, which did not appear to be large enough to house 15 individuals. He asked how an RLA dealt with such a scenario. MS. MORRELL clarified that RLAs were not used to verify voter eligibility. Instead, she reiterated that RLAs were designed to evaluate the operation of the voting equipment. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his understanding that the scenario posed by Representative Eastman would be delegated to DOE or the Criminal Division of DOL for further investigation. He asked Mr. Flynn whether he had any working knowledge of the scenario in question. MR. FLYNN offered to follow up on the requested information. He suggested that Ms. Thompson may be more familiar with the scenario. MS. THOMPSON said she was not working in the [Absentee & Petition Office], DOE, during the period of time when that situation surfaced. 5:31:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that an RLA would verify whether the voting equipment counted the ballots accurately; however, it would not distinguish between "ballots that were filled in with a pen versus ballots that were printed on a printer and then brought to the election place." MS. HALL pointed out that other barriers were in place to prevent that. For example, most voting equipment was programmed to only accept ballots that were programmed on the system or ballots of the correct weight or timestamp, for example. She indicated that the system would reject the scheme suggested by Representative Eastman. REPRESENTATIVE TARR reiterated that the scenarios posed by Representative Eastman were situations that should have been flagged before a vote would ever be counted or audited. She shared her understanding that the goal of an RLA was to limit the burden of conducting a hand count for every vote cast in every precinct across the state. 5:36:29 PM MR. MASON directed attention to a document [included in the committee packet], titled "Knowing It's Right, Part One," which detailed a practical guide to RLAs. 5:37:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether RLAs had been used successfully with regard to ranked choice voting. MS. MORRELL confirmed that RLAs had been successfully utilized for rank choice voting. She noted that in 2020, the democratic party conducted a presidential preference primary in Alaska using ranked choice voting for which she had been asked to perform an RLA. She offered to follow up with the full report. 5:39:43 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 66 was held over.