HB 131-VOTING MACHINES AND VOTE TALLY SYSTEMS  4:11:07 PM CHAIR SHAW announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 131, "An Act relating to voting machines and vote tally systems; and providing for an effective date." 4:11:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE SARAH VANCE, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 131 on behalf of House Judiciary Standing Committee. She provided the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: HB 131 sets a standard for voting machines and vote tally systems to be certified by the United States Election Assistance Commission and use only open- source software technology. Open-source tabulators utilize software available to the public that is used, modified, or distributed freely, and is fully transparent. These tabulators use commercial off-theshelf hardware that is mass produced with commercially available hardware devices, making it less appealing to hackers. Coupled with hard copy paper ballots, open-source tabulators create the most secure voting system to reconcile the numbers of ballots cast when counting votes. Currently, Alaska utilizes proprietary voting tabulators that are not air-gapped. These tabulators can connect to a modem and are suspected of remote manipulation. Because of the proprietary and secret nature of the voting tabulator, public confidence in the accuracy of the count is at an all-time low. Real or perceived, the current system has a reputation that undermines confidence in our elections. HB 132 seeks to build confidence in our elections with open and transparent vote tally systems that can be easily verified. 4:16:47 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 4:17:15 PM MATT ROE, Head of Product, Voting Works, explained that Voting Works was a non-partisan non-profit organization that built election software. He stated that the goal of his testimony was to briefly describe what open-source software was and how it applied to election administration. He stated he would be speaking from his experience implementing open-source software but would not be speaking to the specifics of Voting Works products. He explained that the "source" in open source referred to source code, which was the set of instructions written by programmers that a computer follows to achieve the desired software's behavior. He used an example of source code, which he described as "a complicated recipe for baking a cake," but qualified that for most software the source code was kept secret and available only to the original programmers. By contrast, open-source software had source code that was always available to anyone who wished to see it. Mr. Roe continued his remarks. He asserted that much of the software used today (including all major web browsers and much of software that powered the internet) was open source. He emphasized that the key benefit of open-source technology was transparency. He cited that open-source software was used in almost every industry, including scientific research, financial services, and cybersecurity. He asserted that in the world of election administration, especially when the country was particularly polarized, open-source transparency provided a common ground of facts that could be trusted and verified. He described malicious code that changed votes as an example of a problem that could be dispelled by a technical review of the open-source code. He emphasized the importance of proper security procedures, which should be transparent. He mentioned the public accountability of election officials. Mr. Roe wanted to discuss how open-source voting systems were used in practice. He asserted that open-source voting systems were used just like any other voting system, with well- established practices for certifying, testing, and operating voting equipment that would not change. He stated that the only change introduced to the election process by open-source software would be increased transparency and public confidence in the election outcome. He opined that overall, SB 131 represented a commitment to increasing the transparency and security of Alaskan elections through requiring open-source software. CHAIR SHAW invited questions from members of the committee. 4:23:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the bill would require the state to replace its [Dominion Voting Systems] machines with open-source technology; alternatively, he questioned whether the bill would require [Dominion Voting Systems] to make its software open source. 4:24:07 PM THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, DOL, surmised that transitioning to open-source technology would be at the discretion of Dominion Voting Systems, adding that the state could not demand that implementation. REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the state would be required to replace its Dominion Voting Systems machines with open-source software should the bill pass. 4:25:08 PM CAROL BEECHER, Director, DOE, answered yes, if enacted, DOE would replace its voting tally system and voting machines. 4:25:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the projected cost of implementation. CHAIR SHAW shared his understanding that a zero fiscal note from DOE accompanied the bill. REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how replacing the voting machines and tally system would impact the zero fiscal note. MS. BEECHER clarified that the fiscal note reported an expense of $4.6 million to implement the bill, which reflected four bids from 2019. REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how Voting Works ensured system security. 4:27:49 PM MR. ROE explained that Voting Works technology had a variety of checks in place to ensure that the system was only running the software approved by both the vendor and the state; additionally, the software implemented "secure boot" technology. He reported that open-source software was shown to increase security, as increased transparency encouraged secure software development. He provided an analogy. 4:30:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether logic and accuracy testing could be performed on an open-source system. MS. BEECHER offered to follow up with the requested information. MR. ROE answered yes, the state could continue to perform the same logic and accuracy testing on open-source software. He reiterated that open-source software would not change any of the processes or experiences associated with voting equipment; rather, it would increase the security and transparency of the system. REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the cost to municipalities. MS. BEECHER believed that there would be no cost to municipalities. She deferred to Ms. Thompson for confirmation. 4:32:49 PM MICHAELA THOMPSON, Administrative Operations Manager, DOE, responded, "We no longer loan out our equipment to municipalities, so this would not impact them." 4:33:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked when the current contract [with Dominion Voting Systems] would expire. MS. BEECHER offered to follow up with the requested information. REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether there was an annual maintenance agreement in the contract. MS. BEECHER answered yes, stating that the original contract awarded in 2019 specified five years of maintenance. 4:34:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether the contract would include the clause "subject to appropriations." MR. FLYNN offered to follow up with the requested information. 4:35:25 PM CHAIR SHAW announced that HB 131 was held over. HB 132-ELECTIONS: BALLOT, VOTING, SECURITY HB 129-VOTER REGISTRATION HB 130-ELECTION INTERFERENCE, FRAUD, MISCONDUCT HB 131-VOTING MACHINES AND VOTE TALLY SYSTEMS 4:37:44 PM CHAIR SHAW announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 132, "An Act relating to election security, voting, and ballots; and providing for an effective date" and HOUSE BILL NO. 129, "An Act relating to voter registration; and providing for an effective date" and HOUSE BILL NO. 130, "An Act relating to the crimes of unlawful interference with an election, election fraud, and election official misconduct; and providing for an effective date" and HOUSE BILL NO. 131 "An Act relating to voting machines and vote tally systems; and providing for an effective date." 4:38:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE SARAH VANCE, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 132 on behalf of the House Judiciary Standing Committee. She provided the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: HB 132 has a voter focused approach that seeks to increase public confidence in our elections with a means to cure a ballot, enhance cybersecurity, and implement an online multifactor authentication for each voter to protect Alaskan's individual information. Protecting the foundation of our representative form of government begins with protecting each ballot. This bill establishes a strict chain of custody protocol for ballots and tabulators from the printer to voter, to disposal, complete with a unique security identifier such as a barcode. To help alleviate concerns of misconduct, this bill enhances administrative procedure that brings integrity to the process of handling ballots and allows recruitment of a technical subject matter expert to conduct a full forensic audit of voting machines, tabulators, storage devices, and vote tally systems. HB 132 prioritizes Alaskan voters and the integrity of their vote so every eligible vote counts! 4:39:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE directed attention to a PowerPoint presentation, titled "HB 132 Elections; Ballot, Voting, Security" [included in the committee packet]. She emphasized the voter-focused aspects of the bill on slide 2, including: ballot security, ballot chain of custody, ballot tracking system, ballot curing, increased cybersecurity, and election offense hotline. 4:40:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE addressed ballot security on slide 3, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: • Security Identifier • Paper Record • Envelope-based Barcode • Signed Ballot Chain-of-Custody Document • Maintain Forensic Integrity of Ballots 4:40:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE continued to slide 4, titled "Ballot Tracking System," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Online multi-factor authentication system like used with your MyAlaska account. • confirm the ballot was sent • track ballot date of delivery • confirm receipt of ballot • determine review of voter's certificate • determine if vote has been counted • provide information to cure the ballot  • verify voter's identity • indicate the process to cure a ballot or reason • the vote was not counted 4:42:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE turned to slide 5, titled "Increased Cybersecurity," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Develop a cybersecurity program to defend voter registration records and provide cybersecurity training for election officials. 4:42:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE detailed the election offense hotline on slide 6, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: The director shall establish a toll free election offense hotline to receive calls reporting election offenses. • Continuously staffed during absentee voting hours, early voting, and 24 hours after polls open. • Election official available to respond to calls • Offense hotline number placed in conspicuous places. 4:43:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE concluded on slide 7, titled "Forensic Audits," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Grants the Legislative Council the power to contract with and appoint technical subject matter experts to conduct full forensic audits of election data, algorithms, software, and equipment, including precinct tabulators, storage devices, voting machines, and vote tally systems. 4:44:13 PM CHAIR SHAW requested a brief explanation of the fiscal note from DOE. 4:44:24 PM CAROL BEECHER, Director, DOE, stated that the fiscal note reflected the estimated costs incurred, such as non-permanent election clerks; ballot printing; professional services for IT consulting; software maintenance; forensic auditing; and ballot tracking software. 4:45:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY requested the definition of a "full forensic audit." REPRESENTATIVE VANCE clarified that that the bill would grant Legislative Council with the authority to find someone to conduct the forensic audits pending further definition from the legislature. She defined a forensic audit as "looking more at any potential fraud and activity that would deal with a criminal nature." REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether DOE could define "forensic audit." MS. BEECHER deferred to Mr. Flynn. 4:46:52 PM THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, DOL, said he was not aware of a statutory definition of "forensic audit." REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the credentials or qualifications for those conducting a "forensic audit." REPRESENTATIVE VANCE indicated that the legislature could determine the subject matter expert for any activity deemed as deserving of more insight. 4:47:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER shared his understanding that the institutional knowledge of a "full forensic audit" was lacking because the state had never conducted on before. He recommended defining the parameters of a full "forensic audit" in statute. 4:49:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON inquired about the cost of ballot printing. MS. BEECHER deferred to Ms. Thompson. MICHAELA THOMPSON, Administrative Operations Manager, DOE, shared her understanding that adding a watermark would require additional types of ballot printing paper. REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether the fiscal note reflected an estimate of costs or whether a request for information (RFI) or request for proposal (RFP) had been issued. MS. THOMPSON believed that the election program manager received an estimate from the current ballot printer. REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON expressed his interest in looking into the accuracy of fiscal notes and how they're derived. 4:51:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how the chain of custody proposed in HB 132 would differ from existing chain of custody protocols. MS. BEECHER deferred to Ms. Thompson. MS. THOMPSON acknowledged that the division followed chain of custody procedures in all aspects of the election process. She further noted that the division had an existing portal that allowed voters to track the receival of their ballot in addition to processes for sending unused ballots back to the division and tracking spoiled ballots used in the precinct. REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how the chain of [custody] worked with the United States Postal Service (USPS). MS. THOMPSON described the chain of custody. 4:54:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER requested an assessment from DOE comparing existing chain of custody procedures to the ones proposed in Section 2 HB 132. He suggested that existing chain of custody procedures could stand to be updated. 4:55:23 PM CHAIR SHAW opened public testimony on HB 132, HB 129, HB 130, and HB 131. 4:55:38 PM KAREN LEWIS, urged the legislature to return to a hand count system, opining that all machines could be manipulated. She read from a prepared statement. 4:59:10 PM PAMELA SAMASH, Concerned Conservatives of Alaska, opined that fair and honest elections were critical for a free society, opining that these bills were an important step towards making that possible. She urged the committee's support for HB 129, HB 130, HB 131, and HB 132. 5:00:26 PM JOHN MILLER expressed his support for the bills presented during the hearing "except for the machines." He offered several suggestions for election security. He opined that the bills were fundamental to ensuring that the people's voice was heard. 5:02:20 PM GERALD VOSS expressed his support for HB 129, HB 130, HB 131, and HB 132 and offered several suggestions for election security. 5:04:13 PM JOHN LETTOW expressed his support for the election bills presented during the hearing, stating his support for transitioning to a hand count. 5:05:43 PM MIKE COONS, President, Concerned Conservatives of Alaska, expressed support for HB 129, HB 130, HB 131, and HB 132 with "one caveat." 5:07:27 PM CHAIR SHAW stated that public testimony would be left open. He announced that HB 132 was held over.