SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 94(STA) "An Act relating to qualifications of voters, requirements and procedures regarding independent candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, voter registration, voter residence, precinct boundary and polling place designation and modification, political parties, voters unaffiliated with a political party, early voting, absentee voting, ballot design, ballot counting, voting by mail, voting machines, vote tally systems, qualifications for elected office, initiative, referendum, recall, and definitions in the Alaska Election Code; and relating to incorporation elections." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, characterized this legislation as being "a major piece of election reform". It is an updated version of a bill that was introduced but not adopted the previous Legislative Session. Ms. Glaiser stated that this bill would clean up and enhance current election provisions, including minor changes such as changing the term "work site" to "construction site"; proposing that the voter record rather than the voter card be the presumptive evidence of a voter's residence; including the definition of non- partisan and undeclared voters; "protecting voter information of domestic violence victims in accordance with confidentially laws approved last year; defining the process for independent candidates for Vice President and President; sharing consistency in the definition of an overseas voter; making clear age requirements for serving once selected; and clarifies recognized political party status and how the Division notifies a party". Changes to Title 29 would include "clearly" defining a qualified voter as one registered to vote within a proposed borough or municipality at least 30 days prior to an election as a hardship is currently incurred by the requirement that a person must live in an area. The bill would "define re-registration and repeal duplicate language" regarding regional supervisors and absentee voting stations. Ms. Glaiser spoke to the "major changes" proposed in the bill regarding such things as allowing a voter through power of attorney to register to vote, and make changes to their registration. Other changes would include reducing the witnessing requirements for absentee by mail or electronic transmission from two witnesses to one. The Division desired that witness be a United States (U.S.) citizen, however that requirement was eliminated in the House State Affairs Committee. Co-Chair Green asked for further information regarding the witness requirements. Ms. Glaiser responded that current law requires two U.S. witnesses for a faxed voted ballot and two witnesses for a by-mail ballot. The Division recommended changing both those voting scenarios to one witness who must be a U.S. citizen; House action eliminated the U.S. citizenship requirement, but incorporated language that would subject a person making false statements on the absentee ballot to the act of perjury. Co-Chair Green understood that, were they to submit an "ineligible witness", the person submitting the absentee ballot would be subject to that punishment. 1:16:57 PM Ms. Glaiser affirmed. Ms. Glaiser continued that the bill would incorporate scanning as another mode of transmitting voter registration or by mail absentee ballot requests to the Division. Current acceptable transmittal means include delivery in person, by mail, or by fax. Ms. Glaiser informed the Committee that, while current law requires the Director of the Division of Elections to determine a random order for all candidates, the House added language requiring the Division to implement a ballot rotation for the names of those candidates running for governor, lieutenant governor, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, and State senator for each district. "The names of the candidates for State House races will appear in random order as determined by the Director as is the current practice." Ms. Glaiser pointed out that the Division advanced language that "would improve ballot security by adding that the ballots would not be mailed to a voter whose address has been identified as being undeliverable". In addition, election boards must notify the Division of the number of ballots that have been destroyed to increase accountability. Voting machine and vote tally machine standards provisions were also included in the bill. Ms. Glaiser stated that a large portion of the bill would be dedicated to improving the process pertaining to petitions, referendums and recalls. The changes would make the process "more user friendly" for citizens and would make the process of "petitioning the government more consistent". One change would be the inclusion of a "printed name and numerical identifier for a petition signer". The numerical identifier language added by the House Judiciary Committee would include such things as date of birth, last four digits of one's social security number, Alaska driver's license number, or State or voter identification number. This information "would improve the Division's ability to qualify a voter's signature". 1:18:22 PM Ms. Glaiser stated that the proposed changes in the qualifications pertaining to a circulator or petitioner would align the State with the Buckley ruling in that, while the circulator must be 18 years of age, an Alaskan resident, and a U.S. citizen, they would not be required to be a registered voter. Ms. Glaiser noted that "language that was the basis for the Division requiring accountability reports from the petition sponsors has been removed", as a Court ruling considered that requirement to be "an undue burden and a barrier for petition carriers". Ms. Glaiser also pointed out that language requiring the circulator's name to be prominently displayed on the petition was eliminated. While the Division had chosen not to enforce that provision following the year 2000 Buckley ruling, the Statutes had not been changed. Ms. Glaiser continued that language regarding the number of signatures required on a recall petition was clarified by the removal of language pertaining to 100 signatures. Going forward, ten percent of the voters in the preceding general election would be required to sign a recall petition. Ms. Glaiser stated that one of the changes advanced by the House Judiciary Committee was to reduce the percent of votes required by party candidates for the party to continue as a recognized political party. "The amounts for recounts were raised" as depicted in the sectional analyses contained in Members' packets. The amounts had not been reset since 1986. 1:19:52 PM Ms. Glaiser specified that the legislation would also require petitions, referendums or recalls to specify in the petition booklet "the minimum cost to the State for the review and certification of those petitions". In addition, the cost to the State, were the act approved by the voters must be provided. Ms. Glaiser stated that language was added on the House Floor that "no one supplying an absentee ballot application may pre-mark the primary ballot choice for a voter before mailing it out". Language was also added that specified that "only a voter or a person with a power of attorney could mark party affiliation on a voter registration or absentee ballot application unless the mark is consistent with the voter's current registration record". Ms. Glaiser noted that the Senate State Affairs Committee changed the word "oath" in Section 6(a) (11) back to "attestation" as is reflected in current law. That word would be consistent with the national voter registration act. The use of the word "oath" was incorrect. Ms. Glaiser informed the Committee that, while the Senate State Affairs Committee added Sections 11, 12, and 13, she could not speak to those sections was they pertained to law that she did not administer. Ms. Glaiser stated that Section 19 changed the date by which the Director must identify locations for early voting sites. The proposed date of June first would replace the existing January first date. This was a Division request as moving the date closer to the election date would provide more time to determine the most appropriate sites for that activity. The June first date would continue to provide the Division the time required for ordering ballots, supplies, and the hiring of election workers. 1:21:14 PM Ms. Glaiser noted that the Senate State Affairs Committee removed language adopted on the House Floor that would have provided a ballot with the greatest range of candidates from the most parties to an unaffiliated voter who failed to mark a primary ballot choice. This language was removed, as no such ballot exists in Alaska because it has "closed primaries in which there are individual ballots for individual parties". Therefore the House language was inconsistent with existing State law. The Senate Judiciary Committee also removed language that would change existing qualifiers for recognized political parties. Co-Chair Green described this as being "a huge bill". Continuing, she asked whether any language in the bill would provide the Division the ability to "clean up" the State's voter registration lists. 1:22:39 PM Ms. Glaiser responded that the bill would not address purging of the voter registration list. The federal Department of Justice (DoJ) and the National Voter Registration Act "heavily monitor the portion of the law regarding that endeavor". The Division has conducted internal discussions in this regard; however, it would require tremendous effort and coordination with DoJ. As a consequence of existing State law, the Division has been notified by DoJ that the State is one of a few with more registered voters than people over the age of 18. The Division has responded to DoJ, and as result, an effort in this regard might be forthcoming. 1:23:34 PM Co-Chair Green asked whether State or federal law would allow for the requirement that a person "at the time of voting" update their address information. This would seem to be the most feasible manner through which to update records. The fact that a high percent of the Division's mailings are returned is a point of frustration. Many addresses are old and past the time allotted by the U.S. Post Office for forwarding. Efforts such as developing an unobtrusive method to update records at the voting poll should be furthered. Ms. Glaiser responded that requesting people to update their address at the time of voting would not be obtrusive. The process of Questioned Ballots currently allows that. While State or federal law would not prohibit asking for address verification, it would slow down the polling process. Co-Chair Green asked whether permission to ask for address verification would be required in State Statute. Ms. Glaiser stated that this would be researched. Co-Chair Green expressed that a determination would be appreciated, as this is an important issue. 1:26:27 PM Co-Chair Wilken asked whether the inclusion of a FY 2007 capital budget request for a dedicated staff position to work with the federal DoJ in regards to the State's Voter Registration list might be appropriate. To that point, he asked whether such an effort could be accomplished in one year. 1:26:57 PM Ms. Glaiser responded that this effort would involve more than "just a body", as the person must be able to speak on behalf of the Division. In addition, she was unsure whether a temporary or contract employee could conduct negotiations on behalf of the State. This suggestion could be further reviewed and could be funded through the Help America Vote Act. Co-Chair Wilken stated that this issue is worthy of discussion, as the voter registration process should be improved. Co-Chair Green remarked that the voter registration list issue must be frustrating for the Division. She estimated that half of Division's mailings are returned. Ms. Glaiser nodded in affirmation. 1:28:26 PM Senator Dyson asked for further information about how the Division could change the voter registration list so that potential victims could be protected from perpetrators. 1:28:48 PM Ms. Glaiser explained that SB 284, which became law the previous Session, would allow any voter who had a separate mailing and residence address to keep their residence address protected. In addition, law now specified that the Division could not release information such as a social security number or date of birth. Senator Olson inquired as to how people in Rural areas of the State that do not have such things as post office box mail delivery would be able to receive absentee ballots or other mailings. He voiced concern that voter apathy might occur were those individuals to think their ballots would be questioned. Ms. Glaiser understood the question to be how to ensure by-mail voters or absentee voters that their votes would be counted. In other words, the question is whether this bill might provide those people further consideration. She voiced the understanding that there is nothing currently in the bill that would address this concern. The action of a voter "to keep their registration current is the most important thing". Ms. Glaiser expressed that Alaska is "a great State" because people call the regional Election office if they do not receive a ballot or something expected does not arrive. The only section that speaks primarily to Rural communities is the section regarding undeliverable addresses in REAA/CRSA election districts. The Division would no longer send a ballot to an address that is known to be undeliverable. "That is an election integrity question." 1:31:40 PM Co-Chair Green ascertained therefore, that, at some point, it is incumbent upon the voter to be aware. Ms. Glaiser stated that the undeliverable address ballot issue is addressed in Sec. 25 of the bill. She qualified that the decision to not send a ballot to an undeliverable address would only apply to the REAA/CRSA elections, which are exclusively conducted by mail. It would not apply to absentee voting by mail ballots as that process is one in which the voter first sends the Division an application containing a mailing address to which the ballot is then sent. That procedure would maintain the process integrity. 1:32:21 PM JOE SONNEMAN informed the Committee that he holds a PhD in Government and has a Law Degree. This education has attributed to his interest in election procedures. He mentioned that at one time he had filed a lawsuit to assist in restoring the State's long- standing practice of rotating candidate names. He voiced appreciation for the fact that the House State Affairs Committee incorporated rotation provisions into the bill at zero cost. To that point, he asked that the Committee support that language and the other provisions supported by the House in the bill. Mr. Sonneman continued that he had also served as chair of the Alaskans for Fair Elections group that was involved in the 2004 State recount effort. Thus he has reviewed the provisions in this bill that address the recount issue. Again, he voiced support for the work conducted by the House committees in that regard. He "commended the House version of the bill to the Committee for consideration. The differences between the bill that reported from the House and the Senate committee substitute is that the Senate version basically re-instills "soft money. It would allow unlimited spending for political party building with no record of contribution or expenditure". While people who support strong political parties might favor that endeavor, he opined that the "wider Alaskan view" might differ. He noted that an amendment to delete that language could be forthcoming, that and he "would commend that amendment". Mr. Sonneman addressed language in Sec. 57, which was included in the House version of the bill, but not included in the Senate committee substitute. Sec. 57 would redefine political parties and lower the qualifier requirement from three percent to two percent. Currently, the Alaska Independence Party, which more than likely draws votes from the Republican Party, would qualify as a political party under either the two or three percent requirement. The change to two percent would allow the Green Party to continue to qualify as a political party. That would affect the votes for the Democratic Party "almost to the same degree that" the Alaska Independence Party would affect the Republican Party. Therefore, one could say that the House version of the bill "is more balanced on its affect on the major parties and preserves smaller parties in Alaska". Mr. Sonneman shared that he has closely followed this bill through its House processings. The House committees did good work, and he commended the House Version to the Committee. Were the Senate bill to be favored, he urged that Sec. 57 be re-incorporated into it. MYRL THOMPSON, who defined himself as a Susitna Valley resident, past Legislative candidate, and initiative and recall effort participant, voiced that he has followed the movement of this legislation through its House and Senate hearing process. The Senate State Affairs committee substitute, which added Sections 11, 12, and 13, "poisoned" a very good House bill. 1:37:19 PM Mr. Thompson applauded the efforts conducted by the Division of Elections and the House. However, the Senate's inclusion of Sections 11, 12, and 13 would push "backwards" campaign reform efforts intended to reduce "soft money" from out-of-State "5270" special interest groups influencing Alaskan politics. Therefore, he asked that Sections 11, 12, and 13 be omitted from the bill. "Soft money" would also place small political groups at "a distinct disadvantage". He defined "soft money" as money that "there is no trail on". Mr. Thompson noted that 51-percent of voters in the State have no party affiliation. The Senate State Affair's action of eliminating the changes the House proposed in Sec. 57 would result in there being fewer qualified small political parties in the State. This would serve to increase the number of non-party affiliated voters. Mr. Thompson stated that the people of the State have strongly supported campaign reform efforts opposing soft money. The removal of language in Sec. 57 that would decrease the percent of voters required in support of a political party from three percent to two percent of registered voters and the addition of Sections 11, 12, and 13, that would allow for increased "soft money", are contentious issues to him. He shared that during discussions with some employees of the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) it was apparent that they "strongly disagreed" with the inclusion of Sections 11, 12, and 13 in the bill. He voiced disappointment that representatives from APOC have not testified in this regard. Nonetheless, their opposition "is on record". Co-Chair Green assured that APOC was aware of today's hearing. APOC "is set up to administer the law; they do not set policy". Mr. Thompson interjected that it was his understanding that APOC had been unaware of the Senate State Affairs Committee hearing on the bill. After that hearing, the bill was supposed to have been transmitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 1:41:04 PM Co-Chair Green specified that APOC does not, "set policy nor do they write law. They implement the law and the policy". Mr. Thompson acknowledged. Co-Chair Green asked whether State action could impact the action of a "5-27". Mr. Thompson determined that State action would not affect this federal law. Co-Chair Green stated that her question was directed to clarify remarks made by Mr. Thompson in this regard; State action "would not change the status" of that law which would allow for "the complete formation of a group that has a set purpose to receive unlimited" support. The reality is that "we have no impact over that". Furthermore, she questioned the statistical validity of how many people are aligned with a party, as, according to her calculations, approximately 35 to 40 percent of the people on voter mailing lists "don't exist". Were those lists cleaned up, the numbers might reflect there being a greater number of organized party voters. The numbers could "be skewed" were the whole numbers factored in. Mr. Thompson commented that by passing Sections 11, 12, and 13, the State would be "setting up a quasi 5-27. In other words, we're getting money influencing our system that we don't have any idea where its coming from…big money doesn't come from small people, it comes from groups that are certainly interested in influencing our politics and with no record of them, that's the reason that APOC has some problem because that's something that they do". 1:43:46 PM Co-Chair Green reiterated that, "they can have their problem personally, but as a matter of policy, they implement Statute. They implement regulation. They do not establish law or policy. They are welcome to testify personally, but not on Statute being proposed." Mr. Thompson stressed that Sections 11, 12, and 13 would allow "soft money". Co-Chair Green expressed that Alaska is unique in regards "to the ability of the level" of the party's participation with candidates. Alaska's qualifications "are very low" when compared to other states. "Our candidacy and active campaigns does more to party building than the party does" for the candidate "as far as financing our campaigns". The low limit that the party could contribute does not allow otherwise. The bill was HELD in Committee. RECESS TO CALL OF CHAIR: 1:45:02 PM / 6:56:25 PM SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 94(STA) "An Act relating to qualifications of voters, requirements and procedures regarding independent candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, voter registration, voter residence, precinct boundary and polling place designation and modification, political parties, voters unaffiliated with a political party, early voting, absentee voting, ballot design, ballot counting, voting by mail, voting machines, vote tally systems, qualifications for elected office, initiative, referendum, recall, and definitions in the Alaska Election Code; and relating to incorporation elections." The bill was again before the Committee. Co-Chair Green asked whether there were any further questions for the Division of Elections in regards to this bill. None were forthcoming. Amendment #1: This amendment deletes the entirety of Sections 11, 12, and 13 from the bill, beginning on page nine, line 20 and concluding on page 11, line 14. In addition, the amendment replaces Applicability references "34- 57" with "31 - 54" in Sec. 65, on page 35, line two. Senator Hoffman offered Amendment #1, on behalf of Senator Olson. Co-Chair Green objected. Senator Hoffman explained that the removal of these sections would address the concerns relating to "soft money". Co-Chair Green restated her earlier comments in regards to the fact that the State could not influence the federal law pertaining to "5-27s". These sections would simply allow "some money to go to the party for party building". Since this State has much tighter restrictions than other states in regard to the amount of money an individual or an organized party could contribute to a candidate, the levels of concern in this regard would be lower than that experienced in other states. "The roof is low in our State." Senator Dyson voiced appreciation for the issues brought forward in this discussion. He noted that a friend of his from Florida had commented that Alaska's "election process is so unique and so precious, we ought to be very very careful about messing with it." Even though extreme efforts have been exerted in this regard, the opportunity is there for it to be "messed with". While it is "an imperfect system", the language in question "is at least a small attempt to allow some other folks to have access to resources". He voiced being "comfortable with the situation at this time". Senator Hoffman thought, incorrectly, that Senator Dyson's initial remarks about "not messing with the system" were an indication that he was going to support the amendment, as removing the Sections would "not mess with the system". A roll call was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Senator Hoffman OPPOSED: Senator Dyson, Co-Chair Wilken, and Co-Chair Green ABSENT: Senator Stedman, Senator Bunde, and Senator Olson The motion FAILED (1-3-3) Amendment #1 FAILED. Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, SCS HB 94 (STA) was REPORTED from Committee with zero FY 07 fiscal note #3, dated April 21, 2005, from the Division of Elections, Office of he Lieutenant Governor. 7:01:13 PM