SENATE BILL NO. 39 "An Act relating to elections; relating to voter registration; relating to ballots and a system of tracking and accounting for ballots; establishing an election offense hotline; designating as a class A misdemeanor the collection of ballots from other voters; designating as a class C felony the intentional opening or tampering with a sealed ballot, certificate, or package of ballots without authorization from the director of the division of elections; and providing for an effective date." 1:19:59 PM Co-Chair Bishop invited the sponsor to make an introduction of his invited testifiers. 1:20:09 PM SENATOR MIKE SHOWER, SPONSOR, noted that there were two experts available to speak to national best practices and the open-source concept. 1:20:58 PM MATT ROE, VOTING WORKS, CALIFORNIA (via teleconference), 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 cyber- security. 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. 1:25:00 PM 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 SB 39 represented a non-partisan commitment to increasing the transparency and security of Alaskan elections throughout the entire cycle of the election. He asserted that voter registration and signature verification improvements ensured that only legitimate ballots were cast. He continued that open-source software would provide transparency to ballot counting, while post-election auditing would confirm the election outcomes. Senator Wielechowski guessed that open-source election software would be meaningless to over 90 percent of people. He asked if the open-source software made it easier for hackers to exploit security flaws in the system. Mr. Roe thought it was well understood that open-source software increased security, as transparency encouraged secure software development. He used the example that everyone drove the speed limit when driving by a state trooper, yet many sped up when the trooper exited the highway. He suggested that lack of transparency led to sloppy shortcuts and insecure coding practices. He asserted that when software was designed in the open, it provided a strong incentive to properly design the software. Mr. Roe continued designing in the view of the public strongly encouraged separation between the public source code and the secret bit used to operate the software. He used the example of the secret keys used to digitally sign files. He cited that recent United States Department of Defense (DOD) memos on open-source software supported his perspective. He relayed that according to the DOD, releasing source code did not give attackers an edge, because attackers found pathways that did not involve looking at source code. He quoted the DOD in saying that making source code available to the public significantly aids defenders continuous and broad peer review to improve software reliability and security. He opined that there was no downside to releasing source code to the public, while there was plenty of upsides. 1:29:45 PM LOGAN CHURCHWELL, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION, OKLAHOMA (via teleconference), explained that the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) was a non- partisan, non-profit law firm dedicated to election integrity. He told a story from 2011 about an individual named John that registered to vote in Alaska despite being a foreign national. He had used a standard paper application and indicated he was a citizen of the United States. He described the ballot, which contained qualifying information such as an address and demographic information such as a date of birth. He had a copy of the document that was redacted. The application had been approved. Mr. Churchwell continued his remarks. He relayed that in 2014 a comparison was performed between Alaska's voter rolls against the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) recipients. At the time, the applicant he described had applied for the PFD and indicated he was not a U.S. Citizen, and the discrepancy was caught. The Division of Elections had sent the individual a letter informing that it was illegal for non-citizens to be registered to vote. The division had included a form indicating that he was not a citizen, which he sent back and was then removed from the rolls. He thought that the case was proof of concept that when Alaska engaged in in best practices to maintain its voter rolls on a permanent and comprehensive basis, the roll could become more accurate. Mr. Churchwell thought the heart of SB 39 required the development of annual practices to assess faulty or outdated voter registration records such as those that were deceased, convicted of felonies, were out of state, are foreign nationals, or other cases with questionable eligibility. The bill would require the Division of Elections to provide disclosures involving data breaches and voter registration totals relative to eligible population. He mentioned bloated voter rolls. He thought the bill proposed common-sense measures that were regularly seen in other states. Mr. Churchwell asserted that Alaska had held more registered voters than eligible adults of voting age per the U.S. Census. He thought SB 39 followed a clear plan for voter roll maintenance updates while also envisioning necessary guardrails to make sure errors and bad data complicated the process. He discussed best practices which took Alaska's voter data and compared it with data from other government sources. 1:34:59 PM Mr. Churchwell continued his testimony. He referenced different federal data sources, such as the national change of address system. He emphasized that Alaska was expending taxpayer funds to subscribe to the data sources. The bill required that additional data (such as social security numbers) would be matched. He discussed concerns with false positives. He discussed best practices and used the example of Kentucky, which he thought had similar problems to Alaska. He questioned how the state would tell the difference between negligence and sabotage and emphasized the need for best practices. 1:37:21 PM Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony. COLLEEN EVANS, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in support of SB 39. She thanked the committee members for their work. She shared that she was a parent, volunteer, and business owner in the community. She shared her desire for transparency. She thought SB 39 would provide transparency. She urged the committee to support the bill. 1:39:44 PM RICH ANDERSON, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in favor of the bill. He thought the system needed to be fixed. He referenced troubles with the federal elections. He thought transparency was important from the beginning to the end of the election process. He mentioned upcoming elections. He mentioned ranked choice voting. 1:42:13 PM CINDY FULLER, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in support of the bill. She had registered to vote at age eighteen. She had worked as a volunteer at a voting station. She thought things had changed in the last two elections. She recounted that her ballot had not counted in the first mail-in election because of an unmatched signature, and she had no recourse. She had stood in line for 45 minutes during a previous election and had her ballot counted. She preferred to vote in person. She did not think mail-in voting was not realistic. She did not think the bill went far enough. She thought ballots should not be counted by machines. 1:44:52 PM STEVE FULLER, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in support of the bill. He was a long time Juneau resident. He thanked the co-chairs. He wanted more trust and transparency in voting. 1:45:37 PM REBECCA DUNDORE, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in support of the bill. She thanked the committee. She thought the current voting situation was scary. She did not think the bill went far enough. 1:46:29 PM DARRELL HARMON, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in support of the bill. He had lived in Juneau for most of his life. He wanted change in order to have less question about election results. He thought if the state was susceptible to being hacked by Russia to sway viewpoints for the effects of chaos, that the same was possible to affect the voting system. He thought both political parties should be equally interested in fixing the problem. 1:48:11 PM BARBARA TYNDALL, SELF, NORTH POLE (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She thanked the sponsor. She had been active in her district, by going door to door. She had gleaned that there was great distrust in the voting system. She thought electronic elections equipment was vulnerable and should be banned. She was a precinct worker and thought the ballots could be easily counted. She mentioned ballot harvesting. She thought the state needed to reestablish voting integrity and fix the voter rolls. 1:50:11 PM JEAN HOLT, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She thanked the committee members. She thought that the present-day election process was questioned by many voters. She mentioned scare tactics used by opponents of SB 39. She thought SB 39 addressed all aspects of the voting system, and restored confidence in the election process. 1:52:02 PM SHELLY SHOUPE, SELF, MOOSE CREEK (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She thought much had been stripped from the bill, but thought the bill was a good start in fixing the problems in the state's election systems. She thought the bill should be a non-partisan issue. She mentioned cleaning up voter rolls and ballot harvesting. She emphasized that the state must move away from mail-in ballots. 1:53:06 PM MURRAY WALSH, CHAIR, ALASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY, DISTRICT 4, JUNEAU (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. He had sent a message to the committee regarding what he considered problems with the Senate Judiciary Committee CS. He cited that the provision for same-day registration would burden election workers and favored requiring voters to register 30 days before an election. He mentioned transparency. He asked the committee to reconsider the CS, perhaps for a more comprehensive fix. 1:55:11 PM RANDY RUEDRICH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He asserted that the current CS for SB 39 had several issues. He cited that the bill was completely silent on the topic of the modifying the PFD automatic voter registration. He thought the Division of Elections had requested an opt-in provision be adopted for the method of registration. He urged that the bill be amended. He opposed same-day voter registration, and thought it was related to low integrity elections. He had a specific concern relating to four-year absentee applications. He cited that 89 percent of all the ballots mailed out were not returned. He thought the CS would prohibit any infilling of an absentee ballot application. He discussed tabulators, which had been used in four recounts. He stressed the need for trustworthy equipment. 1:58:38 PM CHARLES PERRETT, SELF, GLENNALLEN (via teleconference), testified in support of SB 39. He lauded transparency and honesty in elections. He thought the bill did not go far enough. He expressed a concern with election integrity. He relayed that he and his circle of friends had very little confidence in the system. He thought the system had been rigged and abused. He wanted to make the act of ballot harvesting a crime greater than a misdemeanor. He thought that democracy was at stake if measures were not taken. He thanked the bill sponsor. 2:01:04 PM ANNA MACKINNON, DIRECTOR, PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND DIVISION, JUNEAU (via teleconference), stated she was available to answer questions. 2:01:37 PM CHARLIE FRANZ, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), spoke in support of SB 39. He was not satisfied that the bill had all the needed components, but he thought it was a major step forward. He thought the legislature needed to act in order to reinstate public confidence in elections. 2:02:19 PM GARY TYNDALL, SELF, NORTH POLE (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. He was convinced that the integrity of Alaska's election process had been compromised and needed reform. He supported in-person voting. He supported elimination of mail-in voting, electronic machines, ballot harvesting, automatic voter registration, and early voting. He thought absentee voting should be restricted to specific categories such as active military personnel and people with disabilities. He thought voter registration rolls needed to be rebuilt. He did not support ranked choice voting. 2:04:06 PM HERMAN MORGAN, SELF, ANIAK (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He emphasized that elections had consequences. He mentioned gerrymandering, voter fraud, and election tampering. He did not support voting by mail. He was concerned about foreign nationals voting. He quoted the Bible. 2:06:55 PM BONNIE LUCAS, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), explained that she was president of the National Federation of the Blind of Alaska and was a person with blindness. She emphasized that it was imperative for legislators to consider absentee digital voting options for people with disabilities when considering election reform. She also had a blind adult child. She explained that casting a private and secure ballot had been very challenging, and a digital option would solve the difficulties she had experienced. She mentioned examples such as unrecognized signatures and long wait times for voting machines. She emphasized the need for accommodations. 2:08:56 PM LISA WARD, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in support of the bill. She had several children of voting age. She thought there was a deep mistrust of the system and thought open clear elections should be a bipartisan issue. She thought it was important to have a ballot chain of custody. She was incredulous that PFD rolls were used for voter registration when one did not need to be a United States Citizen to receive the PFD. She supported in person voting and open polling stations. She did not support ranked choice voting. She thought votes should be hand counted in each district without machines being used. 2:11:20 PM ROBERT WELTON, SELF, DOUGLAS (via teleconference), supported the bill. He did not agree with two of the provisions. He mentioned Section 36, which required absentee voters to reapply for absentee ballots every four years. He did not think the state should restrict the right of voting by mail unless there was compelling evidence of fraud. He cited that the Division of Elections had testified on the record that there was no significant fraud in the 2020 election. He referenced Department of Law testimony, which he thought had proved that there was no significant fraud in absentee voting. He did not agree with the signature verification requirement for absentee ballots. He referenced Section 38 and Section 39 of the bill. Mr. Welton continued his testimony. He thought the bill would open the door to selectively reject absentee ballots. He referenced a similar law in Texas, which had resulted in up to 12 percent of ballots being rejected statewide, while before the law less than 1 percent of absentee ballots were rejected. He supported the other provisions of the bill. 2:13:49 PM ANN BROWN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She did not support the proposed prohibition of pre-filled information on absentee ballots. She thought the pre-filled information on an absentee ballot application increased the likelihood the voter would complete and submit the application in a timely manner. She suggested deletion of the witness signature requirement on an absentee by mail ballot envelope was not a good idea. She thought the witness signature requirement greatly aided in the cause of election integrity. 2:15:22 PM CHENG SAECHAO, SELF, MAT-SU (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. He supported election integrity. He felt like his vote did not count in the 2020 election. He wanted to be able to trust in the voting system. 2:16:23 PM RAY KREIG, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in opposition to the CS for SB 39(JUD) Version E. He was part of an informal group looking at election integrity reforms Anchorage. He had spoken to the sponsor's staff and understood the bill was still a work in progress. He was opposed to same-day registration, elimination of the required witness signature, and four-year absentee ballots. He questioned if there was a definition of routine forensic exams. He did not support PFD automatic voter registration. 2:18:22 PM CAROL COOPER, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She had been very concerned about election integrity in the 2020 election. She thought the bill was a good start towards correcting the problems. She encouraged the committee to pass the bill. 2:19:14 PM KATHY SWANSON, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She referenced mail-in ballots that were rejected with no adjudicated process. She was strongly against mail-in elections, which she thought were rife with fraud. She recounted getting extra ballots in the mail. She did not support same-day voter registration. She did not have a problem with absentee voting. She did not support automatic voter registration. 2:21:28 PM LINDA NEWMAN, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), shared that she was a person with low vision and could not drive to a polling station nor could she read a standard ballot. She used digital-access large print to access information. She emphasized that digital access be considered for people with low or no vision, who also had a right to vote. 2:22:14 PM BRENT TURNER, SELF, CALIFORNIA (via teleconference), thanked the committee for consideration of the bill. He stated that some considered him an expert in the field of election systems security and technology. He thanked the committee for considering the bill. He praised the heightening of security and the reduction of costs by the consideration of open-source software. He discussed use of open-source software in California and Mississippi. 2:23:55 PM MIKE SWAIN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified that he believed in less government. He thought people were farming personal information. He was against replicating data. He considered that the signatures on the outside of ballots were a violation of privacy. He mentioned felons. He emphasized the need for standardized procedures. He the referenced separation of powers. 2:26:47 PM MARLENE MOTO KARL, SELF, DEERING (via teleconference), testified that she had concerns about the last state election. She discussed a lack of election workers. She discussed ballot counting. She described working as a poll worker. She pondered whether it was legal for city elections and state elections to be held at the same time. 2:30:11 PM KELLY NASH, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She was the founder of Interior Patriots. She was appalled at the amount of fraud that had happened in the previous two days with absentee ballots. She did not support ranked choice voting. She thought some elected officials did not want fair elections. She did not think the 2020 election had been safe and secure. 2:32:00 PM Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED public testimony. Senator Shower thanked the committee. Co-Chair Bishop handed the gavel to Co-Chair Stedman. 2:32:24 PM AT EASE 2:42:00 PM RECONVENED Co-Chair Stedman relayed that the committee would consider the SB 164.