HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS  3:15:56 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS 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." [Before the committee was the proposed CS, "Version O," labeled 32-LS0322\O, Klein, 3/30/22, adopted as the working document on 4/12/22.] 3:16:22 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 66. 3:16:38 PM ROBERT WELTON opined that the goal of the system should be to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat. He added his belief that barriers to voting should only be erected if a verified need arose. Although he expressed his support for the bill's expansion of early registration, he highlighted two major concerns. Firstly, he argued that requiring absentee voters to reapply if they hadn't voted absentee in over four years was problematic. He recalled testimony provided by Director Fenumiai, Division of Elections (DOE), during a Senate State Affairs Standing Committee that confirmed the absence of fraud amongst absentee voting in the 2020 election. For that reason, he believed there was no need to increase restrictions. Additionally, he suggested that the absentee voting provision in question likely violated federal election law, which did not allow states to strike voters from the roll for failing to vote. He took issue with the provision requiring mandatory signature verification on all absentee ballots for similar reasons. Furthermore, he suggested that tighter restrictions on absentee voting could open the process to partisan abuse. 3:19:59 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 3:20:31 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony on HB 66. 3:21:30 PM MIKE MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor, pointed out that the change to the absentee voting system referenced by Mr. Welton corresponded to the Senate version of the bill that aligned with Governor Dunleavy's election bill. The provision in the Senate bill would allow voters to request absentee ballots for four years, after which they would be required to resubmit an application. He clarified that Version O would give Alaskans the option to receive absentee ballots by mail for all future state elections without having to fill out an application each year. Currently, he noted, Alaska maintained a permanent absentee voting list that was authorized by regulation, as opposed to statute. 3:22:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the rationale for the four- year requirement in the governor's bill. MR. MASON said that question would be better addressed to Senator Shower [prime sponsor of SB 39]. He maintained that under Version O, absentee voters would always be able to receive an absentee ballot without making a formal request each year. REPRESENTATIVE STORY, in response to Mr. Welton's testimony, was unsure which section of Version O would violate federal law. MR. MASON reiterated that Mr. Welton was mistakenly referring to the Senate bill [SB 39]. REPRESENTATIVE STORY remarked, "So that does not violate federal law?" MR. MASON shared his understanding that arbitrarily removing a voter from a registered list would violate federal law. He stressed that Version O did not include such a provision. 3:24:46 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions for Ms. Schroeder, Department of Law (DOL). REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked Ms. Schroeder to delineate between fraud that may occur prior to voting versus fraudulent election results. 3:26:27 PM KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, DOL, explained that there were different criminal offenses relating to voter registration fraud, which occurred before election day, and fraudulent voting with the intent of affecting the election outcome, such as intentionally voting more than once. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the elements of perjury. MS. SCHROEDER indicated that perjury occurred when a person knowingly falsifies a sworn statement under penalty of perjury. She added that in a perjury case, it must be proven that the defendant believed the sworn statement to be true. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that a sworn statement did not require the raising of one's right hand. MS. SCHROEDER confirmed that raising one's right hand was not required. She defined a sworn statement as, "a statement knowingly given under oath or affirmation attesting to the truth of what is stated, including a notarized statement, or a statement knowingly given under penalty of perjury under AS 09.63.020." 3:29:07 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS considered a scenario posed during a prior hearing in which suspiciously fraudulent behavior was observed on election day, such as the use of falsified identification. He asked how the Criminal Division would process the reported incident. MS. SCHROEDER stated that DOL encouraged citizens to report suspicious activity to DOE. The division would investigate the incident and, if it rose to the level of criminal offense, the evidence would be compiled and forwarded to the Criminal Division. She said the case would be treated and screened by DOL as any other criminal case. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how many referrals the Criminal Division received for suspicious instances regarding voter fraud in recent decades. MS. SCHROEDER reported that there were only 10 instances in the entire history of the Criminal Division that were accepted, of which 5 were still open and 5 were closed. 3:31:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how many of the 10 cases came through DOE. MS. SCHROEDER suspected that the division was involved in all 10. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether anything was lacking from statute to allow effective prosecution of election-related offenses. MS. SCHROEDER was unaware of any requested changes to the current criminal code in that regard. She opined that the current election law was robust. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what statute of limitations applied to election related offenses. MS. SCHROEDER answered five years. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked when the five-year clock "starts ticking." MS. SCHROEDER said when DOL became aware of the offense. 3:34:58 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 66 was held over.