HB 211 VOTER REGISTRATION & ELECTIONS CHAIRMAN SHARP brought up HB 211 as the next order of business before the Senate State Affairs Committee. He called the sponsor's representative to testify. PATTI SWENSEN, Aide to Representative Con Bunde, prime sponsor of HB 211, stated HB 211 would do five things: 1) Require the names of inactive voters to be maintained on the official voter registration list; 2) Authorizes the preparation and distribution of the voter registration list; 3) Requires the Division of Elections to purge deceased voters monthly, and convicted felons promptly; 4) Increase communications from the Division of Elections to absentee voters and to questioned ballot voters after the primary regarding the status of their vote; 5) Prohibits the appointment of any state employees to the data processing review board. Number 445 SENATOR LEMAN asked what type of information people who purchase voter lists will receive. MS. SWENSEN responded they can receive active and inactive under HB 211. SENATOR DONLEY thinks one of the biggest problems relating to elections right now is allowing ballots that come in after the election date to be counted. He does not think that other states allow ballots that arrive after the date of an election to be counted. MS. SWENSEN stated she hasn't heard of a problem with that. Number 480 DIANE SHRINER, Division of Elections, stated the division supports HB 211, with the exception of two sections. She stated a letter was submitted to the committee outlining the concerns of the Division of Elections. The division has no problem with expanding the voter registration lists available to candidates. But in some precincts, adding inactive voters to the official register available at the precincts could add as many as 2,000 voters. Until we bring the state law into compliance with the National Voter Registration Act, we are not presently purging or clearing any voters from the roles, and haven't done so in several years. It's been approximately four years since any voters have been removed from the roles. The division thinks it would be confusing to never remove voters from the roles. The Division of Elections has just processed over 26,000 registrations through the permanent fund dividend applications. Approximately 13,000 of those did contain address changes. Number 515 MS. SHRINER stated the other section the division is concerned with is Section 9. If we were to send a written summary of the reason for the challenge of all partially counted ballots, which occurs when someone votes outside their precinct or district, that could be very discouraging. The division does take Representative Bunde's concerns seriously. SENATOR LEMAN thinks that at any given time, the information on the voter list for his district has a 20% inaccuracy rate. SENATOR DONLEY suggested limiting sending permanent fund dividends to addresses where people were registered to vote; you would probably get really accurate information. MS. SHRINER noted the Division of Elections thinks that it probably has attracted a lot of people who think they aren't going to get their permanent fund dividend if they don't update voter registration information. CHAIRMAN SHARP stated one of the most frustrating things for people is having to vote a challenged ballot because they're not on the voter registration lists. He thinks it would be beneficial to have an inactive list to accommodate a voter in that situation. Number 562 SENATOR DONLEY asked if the division has a position on modifying the absentee voting process, as far as a cutoff date for counting ballots. MS. SHRINER responded the history of that is that Alaska is remote and we have a great number of overseas voters and the mail is not very reliable. Part of the reason for extending the deadline for receiving absentee ballots is to ensure that ballots mailed by the deadline are actually received. Ballots must be mailed by the date of the election, but are counted if they are received within fifteen days after the election. SENATOR DONLEY asked if the division has a position on whether they like those rules or not. MS. SHRINER replied that has not been addressed this year. Number 585 SENATOR LEMAN asked if voters would be purged after two election cycles or two years. MS. SHRINER responded that SB 182 and HB 349 would change that from two years. But two years is not in compliance with federal law, and we are moving to comply by making it four calendar years, or two general election cycles. TAPE 96-28, SIDE B MS. SHRINER stated people's names are not purged from voter registration lists after four years if they simply haven't voted, but only if the division has had no contact at all with them in four years. Number 580 JED WHITTAKER stated he has a problem with Section 1 of HB 211. He thinks that most citizens like to complain about politicians, but they don't accept responsibility for informing themselves. He doesn't think it's too much to ask that a citizen register to vote and occasionally vote. He thinks having inactivated voters on the list could create the potential for fraud. Mr. Whittaker also has a problem with Section 10. He thinks the language is broad. The Data Processing Review Board should have a representative from every political party, not just two political parties. He commended Representative Bunde for addressing the inadequacies in Title 15. He also suggested conducting elections by mail. Mr. Whittaker thinks ballots should be counted at the precinct and at the computer tabulation level. Number 530 MIKE O'CALLAGHAN stated there is a fundamental problem with elections in the State of Alaska. The court recently declared that the 1992 and 1994 primaries and subsequent elections were conducted illegally. According to information from Bob Motznik, Joe Swanson allowed 1,543 people to vote illegally in the last election. Those names were purged from the voters roles as inactive. State law specifies that the Division of Elections purge inactive voters after two years, and the division has no authority to do anything other than what the law dictates. The law also specifies that if a person's name has been purged, they must re-register 30 days prior to the next election in order to be eligible. The director allowed these votes to be cast as contested ballots, and they were counted. As we all know, Knowles won by 500 votes. He has a problem with that. MR. O'CALLAGHAN stated it is important that with the National Voter Registration Act there is no purging. Under that law, no names can be purged from any voter list. He thinks that is a fundamental violation of state's rights in conducting elections. He encouraged a more restrictive application, which is allowable under law. He thinks names should be purged from voter registration lists. Certainly they could be kept on a separate list. Regarding Section 10, there were significant problems with the Data Processing Review Board during the last election. Three days prior to the election, the top three people on the state-wide board were Division of Elections employees. He sees a conflict of interest in having division employees overseeing the data processing. So he is glad to see that a state employee may not serve on the board. But he was discouraged to see that none of the Data Processing Review Boards across the state were constructed according to law. The boards don't have any information; the test decks that they run through the systems are designed by the contractor. He stated there were significant problems with voter elections in the valley [Matsu Valley]. When the test deck was run through the system seven days before the election, they found an error: that error would have allowed votes cast for one candidate to be counted for another candidate. Another problem in the valley was the computer program was checked 24 hours before the election, and they said there wasn't a problem. However, during the counting of votes, a problem was found. He stated he knows of other problems, but they pertain mostly to SB 182, so he will hold that testimony. He thinks it's extremely important that the purging law be followed. Number 465 SENATOR DONLEY asked if there is a court case or some other basis for counting the votes of people who aren't properly registered to vote. KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, replied she doesn't know to which incident Mr. O'Callaghan is referring. She assumes he was referring to challenged ballots that were counted with which he disagreed. The doctrine is that the voter receives the benefit of the doubt, and the law is interpreted to allow a voter to cast their ballot. SENATOR DONLEY asked what the current policy of the division is regarding purging. MS. STRASBAUGH responded there is a difference between "inactive" and "purged". If they're on the inactive list, they would be permitted to vote. The inactive list is growing increasingly larger because of a problem with enforcing the current purge law. It is not true that you cannot purge at all. The federal act is euphemistic in its' reference to purging, but there is a purging process, it's just much more involved. SENATOR DONLEY asked if a person is purged, then their vote isn't counted, but if they're on the inactive list, then their vote is counted. MS. STRASBAUGH stated if they are in the right place and can show their residency; it isn't just carte blanche. Number 430 SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked how people registered to vote in his district could have residence addresses in Palmer, Wasilla, Nome, and other areas outside his district. He stated that about 10% of the people registered to vote in his district actually reside outside the district. MS. SHRINER replied that the division is not even inactivating anyone anymore. They are not doing anything until they get some clarification on the federal law. The division supports having the voter lists as clean and true as possible. Number 390 BOB MOTZNIK, testifying from Anchorage, stated that the election in 1994 turned into a royal mess. He repeated some of the problems related to the committee in writing. The Division of Elections failed to change the voter registration of many voters who filed changes long before the deadline for doing so. The Data Processing Review Board is an oversight board; it's purpose is to determine whether the Division of Elections did their job correctly. There should not be any elections staff on that board. It is his understanding that the test decks that were run were made by the vendor. In his experience, it is the Data Processing Review Board's job to test the program, which would mean they would make the test decks to verify the accuracy, not the vendor. A lot of these problems were brought out in the court case against the governor's race. The Attorney General just said, "Oh, everything's okay." Of course, he was defending the state, so he has to say that everything is okay. Mr. Motznik thinks that people who took the time to vote should know if their ballots aren't counted. Number 330 SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS made a motion to discharge HB 211 from the Senate State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations. CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated HB 211 was discharged from the Senate State Affairs Committee.