HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS  [Contains discussion of SB 39.] 3:11:29 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, adopted as the working draft on 4/12/22, was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 66, Version 32-LS0322\O, Klein, 3/30/22, ("Version O").] 3:12:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 66, Version 32-LS0322\N, Klein, 4/30/22, as the working document. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion. 3:12:42 PM JEFF STEPP, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss- Tomkins, reviewed the changes in the proposed CS for HB 66, ("Version N"), which would replace Version O. The summary of changes [hard copy included in the committee packet] read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 1, Line 1: Change in the title to list a new crime: Adds "unlawful interference with voting." --- Sections of Version N and Version O are the same - -- Page 2, Line 25: Section 2 after "if applying within 30 days before" adds "or on the day of the election". Legal advised in a memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee (4/25/22): "... the committee substitute uses the phrase 'within 30 days before.' Because the committee substitute permits registration before and including election day, these phrases should be changed to 'within 30 days before and on the day of' to make clear that the additional requirements apply when a voter registers on election day as well as in the 30 days before election day." Page 3, Lines 6-9: Section 2: Paragraph 13 (B)(ii) rearranges "government check" and "paycheck" for better clarity, so that "government check, or other government document" are together; deletes "that is" (O:3:7) and changes "displays" (O:3:8) to "displaying" (N:3:9) for better grammar. Page 3, Line 11: Section 2: Paragraph 14 changes past tense to present (i.e. "had previously been" in O:3:11 to "is" at N:3:11. Page 3, Lines 16-26: Section 3 (g) No policy change but rewritten for clarity/grammar. Page 3, Lines 23 and 26: Section 3 (g) changes from "requested language" to "designated language" for consistency. Page 4, Line 2: Section 4 (d) deletes "preceding an election" (O:4:5) and added "before" (N:4:2) for clarity. Page 4, Line 12: Section 5 (h) change derived from Amendment #1 (D.34), which deletes the phrase "a voter's choice to register as nonpartisan, as undeclared, or as affiliated with a political party or political group and" from O:4:15-16. Simply stated, this change eliminates the explicit opportunity to indicate a partisan affiliation when registering at the polls. Page 4, Line 21: Section 6 (b) changes "who has reregistered" to "reregistering" Page 4, Lines 28-29: Section 7 (c) replaces "a person who has moved" (O:5:1-2) with "or on election day, a person transferring registration" (N:4:28-29), so the language now reads "If a request is made within 30 days before election day or on election day, a  person transferring registration to a new precinct " Section 8 is unchanged. --- Section numbers of Version N and Version O are no  longer the same --- Page 5, Line 16: Section 9 adds a new section to 15.07 titled, Voter fraud mitigation policy. This change is derived from Amendment #34 (D.44) and declares that it's the policy of the state to reduce voting fraud by using reasonable and affordable tools and technology to mitigate the potential for voting fraud, including for the review of voter registration applications and the master register for the names of the deceased, felons ineligible to vote, non-citizens, and individuals voting unlawfully. There is also a grammatical change from "for the reviews of", which was in Amendment #34 to "reviewing", which is now in the bill (N:5:19). Page 5, Line 22: Section 10 of Version N is unchanged from Section 9 of Version O. Page 5, Line 30: Section 11 has new language under (g) of the Voter registration list maintenance which was added by Amendment #35 (D.45). This allows DOE regulations on list maintenance to also use, at their discretion, municipal assessor databases, the US Social Security Administration death index and the US Department of Homeland Security's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database on non- citizens. Page 6, Lines 14 - 23: Section 11 (formerly Section 10 of Version O) has a new subsection (h) and (i) also modified by Amendment #35 (D.45), aimed at improving Voter registration list maintenance. These changes require the director to adopt a best practice voter registration system to improve identity matching when comparing registration lists with databases for list maintenance. The change says the director must develop a written maintenance schedule and guideline manual and provide a report to the senate secretary and chief clerk of the house for each legislative session. Finally, confirmation notice must include voter qualifications and penalties for voter fraud and voter misconduct. Plus grammatical changes. Page 6, Lines 27-28: Section N rearranged the phrase, "at each polling place", for clarity. From (Version O), "The director shall prominently display instructions for a voter to cancel the voter's registration at each polling place." To (Version N), "The director shall prominently display instructions at each polling place for a voter to cancel the voter's registration." Page 6, Line 29: Section 13 of Version N replaces Sections 12 and Section 13 of Version O by Amendment #4 (D.13). This section is related to the Appointment  and privileges of watchers and essentially says that the same poll watcher rules apply for all elections. --- Sections of Version N and Version O are the same  again --- Page 7, Line 21: Section 14 is replaced by Amendment #5 (D.1). This revises the rules on ballot identifiers, saying ballot identifiers are required for electronic ballots, too (as well as "official ballots"). This deletes the option for the director to provide an exception for ballots without identifiers. It also specifies that the ballot identifier can be an election official signature. Plus, grammatical change at 7:22, to "The director shall adopt a regulation requiring ?"(from "The director shall by regulation require ?"). Page 8, Lines 10-12: In Section 15 at the end of (a), amendment #38 (D.52) is added re: ballot chain of custody requirements. This change asserts that a signed ballot chain of custody document must accompany groups of ballots in DOE's possession; and an election official shall sign the ballot chain of custody document immediately upon receiving or releasing a ballot or group of ballots. Section 16 is unchanged. Page 8, Lines 30-31: Section 17: Changes "questioned ballot procedures" to "questioned ballot declaration." Page 9, Line 21: Section 18 is modified by Amendment #39 (D.53), which says the questioned ballot declaration must make clear that prosecution under AS 11 is for perjury. Section 19 is unchanged. Section 20 is unchanged. Section 21 is unchanged. Page 11, Line 1: Section 22 is changed by Amendment #1 (D.34), by adding language that says, "An envelope may not identify a voter's party affiliation." Section 23 is unchanged. Section 24 is unchanged. Section 25 is unchanged. Section 26 is unchanged. Section 27 is unchanged. Section 28 is unchanged. Section 29 is unchanged. Page 12, Line 30: Section 30 is rewritten by amendment #13 (D.38) related to Application for absentee ballot. Legal added a reference to "except as permitted under 15.20.081(a)" (absentee voting statute), which allows party affiliation on the application only if the voter is already registered with that party or group. The other option would have been to change 15.20.081. Section 31 is unchanged. Section 32 is unchanged. Section 33 is unchanged. Section 34 is unchanged. Section 35 is unchanged. Section 36 is unchanged. Section 37 of Version O was removed by Amendment #6 (D.39), which eliminates the section allowing counting of absentee ballots before election day. --- Section numbers of Version N and Version O are no  longer the same --- Section 38 of Version O was redundant with language in Section 39 of Version N and was removed. Section 37 (formerly O39): Clarification that "The board shall reject an absentee ballot if ?" (15.20.203 Procedure for district absentee ballot counting  review) but then may be cured and counted (see 15.20.222 Procedure for curing uncounted ballot). Section 38 (formerly O40): Technical change deleting "under (a) of this section" from O:18:5 due to removal of Section O38. Section 39 (formerly O41) is unchanged. Page 17, Line 26: Section 40 (formerly O42) is changed by Amendment #40 (D.54) related to the ballot tracking system. This says that a ballot tracking system must be established "or procured," allowing for a third- party vendor. Also added "or procured" in (b) for consistency. Section 40 (formerly O42) Section (c) of Version O is removed by Amendment #16 (D.22). This amendment deleted language in Section 42 of Version O providing that online ballot tracking system must allow an election official access to names and political affiliations of all people on the voter registration list. Section 40 (formerly O42) Sec. 15.20.222 Procedure for  curing uncounted ballot added Amendment #17 (D.23), which says cure notices can be sent via mail up to 5 days after the election, instead of up to 2 days after the election. Page 19, Line 23: Section 41 (formerly O43) is changed by Amendments #19 (D.24) and #21 (D.11). First, Amendment #19 allowed DOE to conduct an all-mail election if the conditions in Section 43 are met, even for general, statewide, and federal elections. Second, Amendment #21, deleted provisions allowing for all- mail elections (a) in second class cities with population of 1,000 or less, upon the city's request, and (b) in second class boroughs with populations of 3,000 or less, upon borough's request. For consistency, Legal changed "unorganized community" to "unincorporated community" to be consistent with existing statutes. Also removed "party" from "party primary" on 20:5 (per Ballot Measure 2). Section 42 (formerly O44) is unchanged. Page 20, Line 17: Section 43 (formerly O45) is modified by Amendment #41 (D.59), which requires that a voting machine or vote tally system must meet the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) voluntary voting system guidelines (VVSG) and be certified by the EAC, in addition to having open-source software technology. This also changed the deadline for the use of federally certified open-source software from January 1, 2028, to January 1, 2024. Page 20, Line 31: Section 44 is new language from Amendment #41 (D.59). The amendment also added definitions for "commercial off-the-shelf" and "open- source software technology." Section 45 (formerly O46) is unchanged. Page 22, Line 6: Section 46 is language from Amendment #43 (D.61), which makes it unlawful interference with voting in the second degree to "knowingly pay, offer to pay, or cause to be paid money or other valuable thing to a person who is not an election official, mail carrier, or representative under AS 15.20.072 to collect a voter's ballot." Section 47 is a new section of definitions for "collect" and "other valuable thing," also per Amendment #43. Section 47 of Version O was deleted by amendment #15 (D.42). This section, which has been removed from Version N, had provided that voting or attempting to vote in the name of a person who is cognitively unable to express their vote was voter misconduct in the first degree. --- Sections of Version N and Version O are the same  again --- Section 48 is unchanged. Section 49 is unchanged. Section 50 is unchanged. Section 51 is unchanged. Page 25, Line 8: Section 52 is changed by Amendment #28 (D.6) + Conceptual Amendment 1 to #28. The amendment requires DOE to compile lists of registered voters whose data has been breached. The conceptual amendment asserts that the list is "nonpublic" and that "if the division identifies a cyber attack or data breach, the director shall exercise caution to protect election integrity." Clarifying language added. Section 53 is changed by Amendment #31 (D.46). This cleans up references to "absentee" that should be "early." No substantive changes. Section 54 is unchanged. Section 55 is unchanged. Section 56, the repealer section, is changed by poll watcher amendment #4 (D.13 2:6-7). Section 57 APPLICABILITY has significant changes to conform with addition and removal of crimes. Section 58 is unchanged. Section 59 has changes re: open-source voting effective dates from 2028 to 2024. Section 60 is unchanged. Section 61 is unchanged. Note: Amendment #35 (D.45) passed in S JUD unanimously. In addition to other changes that are incorporated in Version N, the amendment would have added a requirement for DOE to mail a notice requesting address confirmation or correction to people "who do not live in the state." This requirement is not included in Version N. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from committee members. 3:19:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY applauded Section 40 of Version N, which allowed cure notices to be sent via mail up to 5 days after the election instead of within 48 hours post-election. Nonetheless, she wondered whether 5 days was sufficient. She asked when the bulk of the "last day" ballots arrived and whether the new timeline for curing ballots in Version N was adequate. 3:21:11 PM MR. STEPP acknowledged that the statutory vote count was constrained. He pointed out that the 5-day timeline pertained to mail notifications specifically, adding that the director could provide notifications via phone, for example, as well. He shared his understanding that 5 days would provide enough time to receive the ballots and send a notice of deficiency by mail. REPRESENTATIVE STORY redirected the question to Director Gail Fenumiai. 3:22:07 PM GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections (DOE), Office of the Lieutenant Governor, estimated that in a general election, the division received the bulk of the ballots between two weeks pre-election and two days post-election. She reiterated that the 5-day deadline only applied to mail notifications. REPRESENTATIVE STORY sought to confirm that the timeline outlined in Version N would provide sufficient time for a voter to receive an electronic notification of a deficiency and an opportunity to cure the deficient ballot. MS. FENUMIAI confirmed. She noted that there were other opportunities to provide cure notices, as long as the form was received within 14 days after the election. MR. STEPP agreed. 3:24:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN directed attention to page 5, line 17 [voter fraud mitigation policy]. He observed that the section was predominantly intent language and wondered why it lacked assertive language to make the reduction of fraud through the use of reasonable and affordable tools mandatory. He opined that a "shall" statement was more appropriate. MR. STEPP shared his understanding that the intent was to assert and make a strong statement of that very intent. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that Version N was ultimately a mechanical update that included unanimously adopted amendments from the Senate. Therefore, he recommended directing questions regarding intent to [Senator Shower, prime sponsor of SB 39]. He went on to remind the committee that there was "precious little evidence" supporting the existence of voter fraud "of any critical mass proportion;" however, to the extent that people did perceive it as a problem, he argued that the intent language added "symbolic polish" that spoke to the broad base of consensus. 3:26:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN contended that his question was not framed around any assertion of fraud; rather, his intention was to examine the passive language in Section 9. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to the motion to adopt the proposed CS for HB 66, Version 32-LS0322\N, Klein, 4/30/22, as the working document. There being no further objection, Version N was before the committee. 3:27:52 PM The committee took an at-ease from 3:27 p.m. to 3:31 p.m. 3:31:53 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 66, Version N, labeled 32-LS0322\N.1, Klein, 5/2/22, which read: Page 8, following line 28: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Sec. 17. AS 15.15.170 is amended to read: Sec. 15.15.170. Prohibition of political  persuasion near election polls. (a) During the hours the polls are open, a person who is in the polling place or within 200 feet of any entrance to the polling place may not (1) attempt to persuade a person to vote for or against a candidate, proposition, or question;  or  (2) physically display a photo, video, or  other image of the person's or another person's marked  ballot in an attempt to persuade a person to vote for  or against a candidate, proposition, or question.  (b) The election officials shall post warning notices at the required distance in the form and manner prescribed by the director." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 10, following line 2: Insert new bill sections to read: "* Sec. 21. AS 15.15.280 is amended to read: Sec. 15.15.280. Prohibiting the exhibition of  marked ballots. A [SUBJECT TO AS 15.15.240 A] voter may not exhibit the voter's ballot to an election official or any other person so as to enable any person to ascertain how the voter marked the ballot.  * Sec. 22. AS 15.15.280 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (b) This section does not apply to a voter who (1) requests assistance under AS 15.15.240; or (2) subject to the prohibition on political persuasion in, or within 200 feet of an entrance to, a polling place under AS 15.15.170, shares a photo, video, or other image of the voter's marked ballot with another person or with the public." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 26, line 22: Delete "sec. 45" Insert "sec. 48" Page 26, line 23: Delete "sec. 46" Insert "sec. 49" Delete "sec. 48" Insert "sec. 51" Page 26, line 24: Delete "sec. 49" Insert "sec. 52" Page 26, line 25: Delete "sec. 50" Insert "sec. 53" Page 26, lines 25 - 26: Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50" Insert "secs. 48, 49, and 51 - 53" Page 27, line 2: Delete "Sections 43 and 44" Insert "Sections 46 and 47" Page 27, line 3: Delete "Section 58" Insert "Section 61" Page 27, line 4: Delete "secs. 59 and 60" Insert "secs. 62 and 63" REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected for the purpose of discussion. 3:32:03 PM MR. STEPP explained that Amendment 1 would officially allow Alaska voters to take and share ballot "selfies." He expounded that under current law, it was technically illegal to share a photo of oneself in the voting booth although the law went unenforced in practice. He explained that the sharing of ballot photos was traditionally prohibited to prevent voter intimidation and vote buying; however, technology and the Internet had changed the reason people take and share pictures. 3:33:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the interpretation and practical application of Amendment 1. He asked how an attempt to persuade a person to vote with the use of photo or video, which was still illegal under Amendment 1, would be measured and enforced. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his understanding that the proposed amendment exemplified "perfect being the enemy of good." He indicated that the intent was to rectify the blatant violation of current statute, which created confusion. He suggested that many members of the legislature had broken the existing law, arguing that it needed to be resolved. He believed that the language prefacing prohibition in Version N spoke to the original intent of laws aimed at preventing electoral coercion that were passed in the 1930s. That being said, he was unsure how Amendment 1 would be enforced. He reiterated that there were few, if any, examples of electoral coercion in this regard. 3:35:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that a person could take a selfie holding a ballot; however, the ballot must not be marked. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that the intent was to quell the concern that a person may share a photo of his/her marked ballot for the purpose of political persuasion. He opined that it was an unlikely scenario; nonetheless, the prefatory language in question was drafted to clarify that the aforementioned behavior was prohibited within 200 feet of an entrance to a polling place. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether "within 200 feet of an entrance" was the qualifying language. In other words, a person could share a photo of his/her marked ballot outside the 200- foot radius, he asked. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that the operative language was "physically displaying". He confirmed that sharing a photo of one's ballot via social media or text would not be prohibited. MR. STEPP directed attention to AS 15.15.280 [Sections 21 and 22 of Amendment 1], indicating that the language did not apply to a voter who takes a ballot selfie. 3:39:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there were consequences for breaking this prohibition. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS was unsure. He asked Mr. Flynn whether there were any sanctions, fines, or penalties, associated with what was colloquially known as a "ballot selfie." 3:39:47 PM THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Law (DOL), could not think of the consequences at this time. He deferred to Ms. Fenumiai. MS. FENUMIAI offered to follow up with the requested information. 3:40:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked why Amendment 1 was necessary if there was no element of enforcement. She suggested repealing the criminality of ballot selfies without the additional prohibition language. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that the language on page 1, lines 9-11, pertained to a different infraction that was, in fact, enforceable. He explained that Amendment 1 merely clarified that the act of waiving around a marked ballot [within 200 feet of any entrance to the polling place] constituted a form of campaigning. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE requested further insight regarding the infraction being described in AS 15.15.070. 3:43:24 PM MR. FLYNN cited AS 15.15.300 [prohibition on the counting of unexhibited ballots], which provided that an exhibited ballot should not be allowed to be placed in the ballot box. He asked Representative Vance to reframe her question. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered to rephrase the question. He inquired about the penalty or sanction for attempting to persuade a person to vote for or against a candidate, proposition, or question, within 200 feet of a polling place. MR. FLYNN understood that DOE would pursue the removal of campaign signs or campaign material within 200 feet. He shared his belief that law enforcement would be involved if necessary; further, that people committing the infractions would be prevented from voting. 3:44:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered Section 17 in the proposed amendment from a grammatical perspective. He suggested that paragraph (2) was already captured between subsection (a) and paragraph (1). CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he would be thrilled to eliminate the language in question, characterizing it as extraneous. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE agreed with Representative Eastman. She requested the chair's perspective, as the sponsor of Amendment 1, before proposing a conceptual amendment. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his support for conceptually amending Amendment 1. 3:47:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, which would delete lines 9-11 on page 1 [of the amendment]. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion. 3:47:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that deleting lines 9- 11 would have the same effect as eliminating lines 1-16. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed. REPRESENATIVE EASTMAN suggested that as long as the drafter from Legislative Legal Services understood the committee's intent, he/she could make conforming changes. 3:48:07 PM MR. STEPP pointed out that Section 21 [in Amendment 1], which amended Section 15.15.280, contained the central policy change. He explained that Section 21 would exempt ballot selfies from the statutory prohibition on exhibiting marked ballots. The new subsection (b) [Section 22 of Amendment 21], would allow a voter to share a photo, video, or other image of the voter's marked ballot with another person or the public, subject to the restriction established on page 1, lines 9-11. Therefore, he indicated that contrary to Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, lines 9-11 were necessary to make the prohibition explicit. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN contended that the proposed conceptual amendment simply eliminated repetitive language; therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 neither added nor subtracted from AS 15.15.170. He opined that because nothing was changing in AS 15.15.170, "Section 17 could go away." REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his reluctance to making changes "on the fly," as there could be unintended consequences. Although he appreciated the goal of reducing statutory language, he suggested punting the request to Legislative Legal Services. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed with Representative Claman. However, he welcomed a "meeting of minds offline" to introduce favorable language. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN suggested working on the proposed amendment "offline." CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that the bill almost passed the legislature in recent years; consequently, the language had undergone quite a bit of vetting already. 3:52:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recounted the substance of his objection in past years. He discussed hypothetical scenarios involving the potential exertion of influence via ballot photos. He expressed his desire to deprive people of that option. 3:55:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. 3:55:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN withdrew his objection to the motion to adopt Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. 3:56:38 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and Eastman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4-3. 3:57:13 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 66, Version N, labeled 32-LS0322\N.2, Klein, 5/2/22, which read: Page 12, following line 29: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Sec. 30. AS 15.20.066(a) is amended to read: (a) The director shall adopt regulations applicable to the delivery of absentee ballots by electronic transmission in a state election and to the use of electronic transmission absentee voting in a state election by qualified voters. The regulations must (1) require the voter to comply with the same time deadlines as for voting in person on or before the closing hour of the polls; (2) ensure the accuracy and, to the greatest degree possible, the integrity and secrecy of the ballot process;  (3) prohibit absentee voting by facsimile in  a state election." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 26, line 22: Delete "sec. 45" Insert "sec. 46" Page 26, line 23: Delete "sec. 46" Insert "sec. 47" Delete "sec. 48" Insert "sec. 49" Page 26, line 24: Delete "sec. 49" Insert "sec. 50" Page 26, line 25: Delete "sec. 50" Insert "sec. 51" Page 26, lines 25 - 26: Delete "secs. 45, 46, and 48 - 50" Insert "secs. 46, 47, and 49 - 51" Page 27, line 2: Delete "Sections 43 and 44" Insert "Sections 44 and 45" Page 27, line 3: Delete "Section 58" Insert "Section 59" Page 27, line 4: Delete "secs. 59 and 60" Insert "secs. 60 and 61" REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion. 3:57:18 PM MR. STEPP stated that Amendment 2 prohibited the return of absentee ballots by facsimile ("fax"). Currently, fax was an allowable means for a voter to return a completed absentee ballot to the division; however, most election security experts cautioned that the electronic transmission of ballots, such as by fax, presented a cyber security risk. Amendment 2, he said, sought to strengthen election security in Alaska. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that he had introduced legislation on the subject a number of years ago. For that reason, in consultation with the bill sponsor, he expressed his support for the proposed amendment. 3:58:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the intent was to prohibit voting by fax or all electronic voting. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS answered, "Just fax." REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that e-mail was not included. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS confirmed that e-mail was not captured in Amendment 2. 3:59:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled a time when ballots were allowed to be submitted by fax. He remarked, "But we decided that those days are over?" CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged that it was still legally permissible under current law. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that in effect, Amendment 2 would remove that option. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS confirmed that ballots would no longer be accepted by fax should Amendment 2 be adopted. MR. STEPP agreed with that summation. 4:00:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about the options for overseas military members to return their ballots in a timely manner. MS. FENUMIAI conveyed that uniformed and overseas citizens could receive a ballot in various ways, including mail, online delivery, or fax. Returning ballots, she said, was limited to mail or fax. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how many ballots were returned by fax. MS. FENUMIAI reported that in the 2020 general election, 88 ballots were issued by fax, of which 77 were returned to the division. Additionally, 16,466 ballots were delivered via the online delivery system, of which 12,026 were returned to the division by either mail or fax. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the people submitting ballots by fax were "frequent flyers" - or consistent in their chosen method of return. MS. FENUMIAI did not know the answer. 4:03:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the division had experienced any problems with voting by fax. MS. FENUMIAI answered no, not to her knowledge. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled that historically, fax was considered one of the most secure ways to send communication. He asked whether fax communication had become less secure. MS. FENUMIAI was unsure of the answer. She reported that the number of fax voters dropped between 2018 and 2020. She offered to follow up with additional information. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN declined the offer. He stated that he was satisfied with her indication that the division had not experienced any problems with faxed ballots. 4:04:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN supposed that voting by fax was more cumbersome and inconvenient, as opposed to more traditional methods of voting. He considered the example in which an astronaut needed to vote and wondered how people in similar scenarios could submit a ballot in confidence if not by fax. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS characterized Representative Eastman's statement as a comment and invited additional questions on Amendment 2. 4:07:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked for the statutory definition of facsimile. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to Mr. Flynn. MR. FLYNN defined it as, "fax," as opposed to other types of electronic delivery, such as e-mail. He offered to follow up with the specific statutory definition. 4:08:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the reason for eliminating the fax option. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS reiterated that testimony from election security experts on best practices excluded fax returns, as they were less secure. He shared his understanding that it was possible to intercept fax returns or, in theory, alter a fax return. 4:10:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2, such that members of the uniformed services would be excluded from the prohibition on voting by facsimile. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS emphasized that the number of people voting by fax was small. He remarked: I find a certain irony in that there is a lot of concern about secure elections and anti-fraud, and this is the type of policy that speaks to that, and all of the sudden the polarity flips 180 degrees and there's lots of concern about access. So, which of the two is it and how do you balance it? CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his preference for the committee to vote down Amendment 2 rather than move forward on the conceptual amendment. 4:11:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN expressed his general support for Amendment 2. He explained that his intention was to avoid an internal conflict by clarifying the meaning of "electronic transmission." 4:12:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his opposition to the conceptual amendment and highlighted the procedural customs. 4:12:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2. 4:13:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN suspected that the majority of faxed ballots came from rural areas. Absent real world evidence that there was a true security issue concerning voting by facsimile in Alaska, he opposed the prohibition in Amendment 2, as it could alienate voters. 4:15:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE discussed the task of weighing risk against reward. She asked the sponsor of Amendment 2 to provide his last "pitch" before voting on the motion, as she remained undecided. 4:16:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN argued that potential alienation of voters was qualitatively different from the Alaskan on the International Space Station who would have no means of voting if voting by facsimile was prohibited. He opined that the law should be written in such a way that ensured the availability of at least one method for every person. For that reason, he expressed his opposition to Amendment 2. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he was pleased to hear such enthusiasm for voter access, adding that he was curious to see how that would manifest further on in the amendment process. He withdrew Amendment 2. 4:17:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether Mr. Flynn found a statutory definition of facsimile. MR. FLYNN conveyed that there was no definition in statute. He pointed out that there were cellphone applications that claimed to "fax" documents; therefore, he recommended including in the definition something "that is sent to a fax number," as opposed to an e-mail. 4:18:39 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that Amber McReynolds was available online for questioning. He invited additional questions on HB 66, Version N, as amended. 4:19:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor of HB 66, introduced Amber McReynolds. 4:20:03 PM AMBER MCREYNOLDS shared her extensive background in election administration, including her membership on the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service (USPS). She recounted her experience as an election official in Denver, Colorado, where the first ballot tracking system was created in 2009. She explained that the goal was to improve security and reduce the volume of calls related to ballot tracking, or people wanting to know whether their ballots had arrived. She recalled the invention of the intelligent mail barcode and described its evolution over the years. Ultimately, upon opting-in, the barcode allowed for proactive communication and visible confirmation of ballot status. Notifications included confirmation of the ballot being printed, mailed [to the voter], scanned for delivery [to the voter], as well as the final scan upon arriving at the election office. Additionally, the system provided immediate notification of a ballot deficiency to allow an opportunity for voters to cure any mistakes. She concluded by highlighting the benefits of a permanent absentee ballot list. She explained that multiple states had utilized it to create operational efficiencies and cost savings, to avoid the processing of multiple absentee ballot applications each election cycle. Furthermore, she touched on the convenience of by-mail voting, noting that it was often used by rural constituents. 4:26:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about the capacity for processing ballots at the federal level. She asked whether the federal legislation aimed at stabilizing USPS had resolved the existing issues regarding capacity. MS. MCREYNOLDS conveyed that the executive leadership team at USPS made a commitment to improving election mail, the results of which were seen in the 2020 election with top rates in delivery time. She noted that the election mail team at USPS handled vote-by-mail ballots in addition to all the other election material sent by election officials [voter registration, voter information cards, information booklets, etcetera]. She explained that the handling of Alaska mail required special provisions due to the state's geography and unique situations. Furthermore, she reported that President Biden's budget for 2023 included an allocation for additional improvements to election mail and support for paid postage. 4:31:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN has how USPS interfaced with the tracking barcode proposed in Version N. MS. MCREYNOLDS reiterated that the intelligent mail barcode was scanned at different points within the postal stream, similar to the delivery of a package. She clarified that the intended purpose of a hand postmark was to cancel the stamp so it could not be reused. In contrast, she explained, the barcode provided both the date and a timestamp, which was more than what the traditional postmark offered. She recommended accepting ballots that were postmarked [on or before election day] in addition to ballots scanned with an intelligent barcode in the proposed legislation to avoid alienating voters. 4:35:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the intelligent mail barcode was preferred over the BallotTrax software. MS. MCERYNOLDS clarified that BallotTrax consisted of software that consumed and processed the intelligent mail barcode data. She characterized BallotTrax as the engine for utilizing the intelligent mail barcode information while also consuming data from the ballot production printer, for example. 4:36:58 PM MS. MCREYNOLDS, in response to a question from Representative Tarr, suggested covering the cost of postage to reduce confusion and make it easier for all voters. She acknowledged that the line item for election improvements in President Biden's budget for 2023 would not impact the 2022 election. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 66 was held over.