SB 192-VOTING: ADDRESS CONFIDENTIALITY; FEES  4:17:27 PM CHAIR MEYER called the committee back to order. He announced the consideration of Senate Bill 192 (SB 192). SENATOR GIESSEL moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for SB 192, version 30-LS1354\D as the working document. CHAIR MEYER announced that without objection the CS for SB 192 was before the committee. He asked Ms. Marasigan to explain what the CS does. 4:18:37 PM CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, Staff, Senator Meyer, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that the CS changes the fee for the voter registration list to $100 per Senate district and $1,500 for the state's entire voter registration list. She disclosed that in committee discussion there was concern that $1,000 was too much but as the sponsor pointed out there were other states that charged even more. She noted that the secondary concern addressed the $1,000 fee for an unaffiliated person running for a local office that had to incur the higher fee. She pointed out that the CS effectively addresses both a local nonaffiliated person running for office who would only pay $100 for a Senate district voter registration list, and then the CS effectively ups the cost for a statewide voter registration list for the State of Alaska. CHAIR MEYER asked if the statewide voter registration fee would be $1,500. MS. MARASIGAN answered correct. CHAIR MEYER summarized that the intent is to not prohibit someone running for office to get the voter registration information for their district but at the same time discourage somebody from buying the whole state's voter registration list. 4:20:31 PM CHAIR MEYER objected to the CS for discussion purposes. SENATOR COGHILL asked for an explanation of the thought process on the Senate district fee. CHAIR MEYER replied the discussion went back and forth. MS. MARASIGAN detailed the discussion as follows: One of the interesting points of discussion came up when a campaign is interested in obtaining a voter registration list, a lot of times when running for state House or a legislative seat, they are affiliated with a party and they are able to obtain that information through that affiliation; however, when you have somebody who is running for a school board seat or a borough seat, or a municipality seat, or a city council seat, that sometimes that is larger than a House district and might encompass several House districts, in fact maybe encompass one or two Senate districts, it was felt that by the $100 price point that it still keeps it low enough where a fairly well organized campaign should be able to obtain such a list at that price. SENATOR COGHILL said Ms. Marasigan made a good point. 4:22:15 PM CHAIR MEYER removed his objection. He asked the bill's sponsor, Senator MacKinnon, to comment on the CS. He noted that an amendment was forth coming. 4:22:49 PM SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of SB 192, commented that the dollar amount changes in the CS were certainly the committee's privilege as well as any amendment brought forward. She asked to speak to the bill after the new bill is offered. 4:23:47 PM SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 1, [30-LS1354\D.1]: A M E N D M E N T 1 OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR COGHILL TO: CSSB 192(STA), Draft Version "D" Page 1, line 1: Delete "relating to the confidentiality of  voters' addresses" Insert "establishing the Alaska address  confidentiality program" Page 1, line 5, through page 3, line 4: Delete all material. Page 3, line 5: Delete "Sec. 4" Insert "Section 1" Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 3, lines 16 - 28: Delete all material and insert:  "* Sec. 2. AS 15.07.195(b) is amended to read: (b) In addition to the information in (a) of this section, the address of a voter participating in  the Alaska address confidentiality program established  under AS 44.23.100 - 44.23.104 may not be disclosed. A  voter who is not a participant in the Alaska address  confidentiality program may elect in writing to keep the voter's residential address confidential and not open to public inspection if the voter provides a separate mailing address. However, notwithstanding a  voter's participation in the Alaska address  confidentiality program or [AN] election under this subsection, a voter's residential address may be disclosed to (1) a watcher appointed under AS 15.10.170 and, in the case of a watcher appointed by an organization or group sponsoring or opposing an initiative, referendum, or recall group, authorized by the director; (2) an observer of a recount provided under AS 15.20.440(b) by a candidate, political party, or organized group having a direct interest in the recount; or (3) the subject of a recall election if the voter voted in the recall election." Page 4, following line 8: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Sec. 4. AS 44.23 is amended by adding new sections to read: Article 2. Alaska Address Confidentiality Program.  Sec. 44.23.100. Alaska address confidentiality  program. (a) The Alaska address confidentiality program is established in the Department of Law. Under the program, an individual who is eligible under this section may use an address designated by the department under AS 44.23.102 as the individual's own address, designate the department to receive mail, legal process, and voter registration or absentee ballots on behalf of the individual, and provide that the department forward the mail, legal process, and voter materials to the individual's actual mailing address. The department may not charge a fee to apply for or participate in the program. (b) An individual is eligible for the program if the individual (1) is a resident of the state and (A) a victim, or a parent or guardian of a minor child who is a victim, of stalking, domestic violence, or sexual assault or a crime in another jurisdiction with elements substantially similar to stalking, domestic violence, or sexual assault, that was reported to a criminal justice agency in good faith; or (B) has been granted, or has been granted on behalf of a minor, a protective order issued or filed under AS 18.65.850 - 18.65.870 or AS 18.66.100 - 18.66.180; and (2) files a completed application under (c) of this section. (c) An individual may apply to the department to participate in the program. The department shall approve an application that is filed in the manner and on the form prescribed by the department. The application must contain (1) the applicant's name; (2) the applicant's actual residential and mailing addresses; (3) if applicable, identification of a state or municipal agency that employs the individual against whom an allegation of abuse against the applicant or member of the applicant's household is made; (4) evidence satisfactory to the department of the applicant's eligibility under (b)(1) of this section; and (5) a sworn statement by the applicant that (A) the applicant resides or will reside at a location in this state that is not known to the individual or individuals who are the subject of a report or order described in (b)(1)(A) or (B) of this section; (B) the applicant agrees not to disclose the applicant's actual residential or mailing address to the individual or individuals who are the subject of a report or order described in (b)(1)(A) or (B) of this section; and (C) the applicant understands and consents to the following attributes and requirements of the program: (i) a participant will be enrolled in the program for a period of three years unless the participant submits notice of cancellation under (vii) of this subparagraph or is disenrolled under (ii) of this subparagraph; (ii) a participant is required to notify the department when the participant's actual address or legal name changes; if the participant fails to notify the department under this subparagraph, the department may disenroll the participant from the program; (iii) a participant is required to develop a safety plan in consultation with department personnel; (iv) by participating in the program, a participant authorizes the department to notify state and municipal agencies and units of government that the individual is a program participant; (v) the department will notify a program participant when the participant's three-year period is about to expire under (i) of this subparagraph or if the department is set to disenroll the participant under (ii) of this subparagraph; (vi) a participant who receives a notification under (v) of this paragraph may timely update the participant's information or may re-enroll in the program within six months after the date the department issues the notification; (vii) a participant may discontinue participation in the program at any time by submitting a written notice of cancellation to the department; and (viii) a participant must certify the department as the participant's designated agent for service of process. (d) Upon the filing of a properly completed application by an eligible applicant, the department shall certify the applicant as a program participant. (e) The department shall adopt regulations necessary to implement and administer AS 44.23.100 - 44.23.104. Sec. 44.23.102. Use of designated address;  confidentiality. (a) The department shall provide each participant with a designated address. A participant may request that state and municipal agencies use the address designated by the department as the participant's address. When creating a new public record, state and municipal agencies shall use the address designated by the department as the participant's substitute address, unless the department determines that the (1) agency has a bona fide statutory or administrative requirement for the use of the participant's actual address that would otherwise be confidential under AS 44.23.100 - 44.23.104; and (2) participant's actual address will be used only for the statutory and administrative purposes identified in (1) of this subsection. (b) A participant may use the address designated by the department as the participant's work address. (c) The department shall forward all mail received at a participant's designated address to the participant's actual address and provide the notices described in AS 44.23.100(c)(5)(C). (d) At the request of a participant or a state or municipal agency or unit of government, the department shall provide to another person confirmation of the participant's status as a program participant. (e) A state or municipal agency or unit of government shall use a participant's address designated under this section for official business unless the use of the participant's actual address is specifically required by statute. A state or municipal agency or unit of government may request confirmation from the department of an individual's status as a program participant. (f) A person who has received confirmation of an individual's participation in the program under this section may not (1) refuse to use the address designated by the department for the participant; (2) require a participant to disclose the participant's actual address; or (3) intentionally disclose to another person the actual address of a participant. (g) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, a participant shall provide the participant's actual residential address for voter registration and voter verification purposes under AS 15 and AS 29. However, state and municipal officials and other persons to whom the participant's actual address is disclosed shall keep the address confidential, except upon court order, and the address may not be disclosed under AS 40.25.110 or 40.25.120. Sec. 44.23.104. Definitions. In AS 44.23.100 - 44.23.104, (1) "criminal justice agency" has the meaning given in AS 12.62.900; (2) "department" means the Department of Law; (3) "domestic violence" has the meaning given in AS 18.66.990; (4) "participant" means an individual enrolled in the Alaska address confidentiality program established in AS 44.23.100; (5) "program" means the Alaska address confidentiality program established in AS 44.23.100; (6) "sexual assault" has the meaning given in AS 18.66.990; (7) "stalking" has the meaning given in AS 18.65.870." CHAIR MEYER objected for discussion purposes. 4:26:14 PM SENATOR COGHILL noted that he had spoken with Senator MacKinnon and they did not see eye-to-eye on his amendment; however, he felt it was important to bring the topic up. He explained that the bill "pulls the shade down" by taking addresses off just by signing or checking a block. He conceded that the important issue is about privacy, but the bill strictly changes privacy regarding voter registration lists. He noted that the bill does not address confidentiality more broadly. He explained that the amendment is based on address confidentiality programs in the United States. He disclosed that the new program will be called the Alaska Address Confidentiality Program (ACP) and the "meat" of the program is addressed in section 4 of the amendment. He explained that the program would broadly protect address privacy, even at the municipal level. He specified that a person would be eligible if the individual has been a victim of stalking, domestic violence, sexual assault, or have been granted a protective order for stalking. He detailed that an individual would apply to the Alaska Department of Law. He noted that the program is modeled after Montana law. He disclosed that his thought was to first have confidentiality for those that are most vulnerable, and the amendment starts there by creating the program and defining eligibility. He said an eligible applicant provides their address and makes a sworn statement that their address is confidential. He summarized that the program is a broad approach that addresses eligibility, the application process, and how the Alaska Department of Law could use an individual's address. He revealed that he spoke with the Alaska Department of Law and conceded that the Alaska Address Confidentiality Program will be new to the department, but the program is not new in departments of law. He explained that the Alaska Department of Law was chosen because the department would most likely know who victims of stalking are, domestic violence, sexual assault, and granted protective orders. SENATOR COGHILL summarized that the Alaska Address Confidentiality Program is a new deal in Alaska. He opined that the bill's sponsor believes his proposal is narrower than what she would like, a point of view that he understands; however, he believes that the research he has done, and the resulting program would address the most vulnerable, first. He pointed out that his proposal does not require conviction, just a sworn statement and an application for the Alaska Department of Law. 4:29:38 PM CHAIR MEYER noted that 39 other states have programs like Senator Coghill's proposal. It is not a totally new proposal. SENATOR COGHILL revealed that he talked with the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA) and noted that ANDVSA liked his approach. He conceded that ANDVSA would like his proposal because they are the ones that are focused on protecting the most vulnerable population. He asserted that his proposal would be a real benefit to ANDVSA. He pointed out that he did not propose the Alaska Address Confidentiality Program to be exclusively for ANDVSA, but his proposal was a result of the question that was posed by Senator MacKinnon's bill. He said he was not a fan of doing what the bill's sponsor proposed and that was allowing anybody that wanted to take their name off the registered voters list. He emphasized that his proposal is a good solution without going down the road that the road of allowing anyone to take their name off the voter registration list. CHAIR MEYER asked if his address would be kept confidential if he had a hunting and fishing license. SENATOR COGHILL answered yes and noted his intent for broad protection. CHAIR MEYER asked if an address would be protected in property tax and similar databases. SENATOR GIESSEL stated that she had several questions because the proposed amendment basically creates a new bill for committee members to consider. She addressed page 3, lines 21-24 and asked if the amendment proposes a limited participation period of 3 years. SENATOR COGHILL answered correct. SENATOR GIESSEL noted that on page 4, lines 3-6 that Senator Coghill proposes that confidentiality would have to be renewed and that the department would notify program participants when to renew. SENATOR COGHILL answered right. SENATOR GIESSEL asked what would happen if a notification was mailed to the wrong address where the individual that receives the mail has bad intentions. She inquired why the confidentiality requires renewal every three years. SENATOR COGHILL replied that Senator Giessel posed a good question that his office had considered as broadly as possible. He noted that a protective order does not last forever and commented as follows: The very issues that they would apply for, stalking, sexual assault, it would be the circumstances of life would have to be rethought as we move along, and so it would not preclude them from reapplying, but we didn't want somebody's name on the rolls forever for a protective order, that's all. I'm open to discussion on that, but the way we saw it was that you were doing it based on an affidavit, based on an event, a stalking, a domestic violence, something like that, and a protective order does have a time limit on it. So, we thought we would go across a time frame that was reasonable and for data that could be moved, three years seemed reasonable. If you talk about voting issues, that would go through at least one full voting cycle, it would give databases a chance to get that information, but it also gives somebody the chance to go through the chapter of their life and if they thought that chapter was not going to end, they get to reapply. 4:33:16 PM SENATOR GIESSEL replied as follows: Interestingly I've been contacted by someone whose entire family was murdered, more than three years ago, and this person has great concern about the criminal being released on parole and the ramifications of that person's behavior. There are situations where three years would be a tedious thing to have to keep track of to renew. She addressed page 3, lines 29-30 in the amendment regarding the requirement to develop a safety plan in consultation with department personnel. She asked if the noted department is the Alaska Department of Law. SENATOR COGHILL answered yes. He explained that the Alaska Department of Law would hide an individual's address and significant changes would have to be communicated with the department. SENATOR GIESSEL continued to address coordination with the Alaska Department of Law as follows: Page 5, line 2, "The Department of Law shall forward all mail to the participant's designated address;" then in the next under (d), "Shall provide to another person confirmation of the participant's status as a program participant." I'm not sure I understand what is going on here. Why would you supply, I'm not sure what the rational is? SENATOR COGHILL replied as follows: I think this is when you are reaching out to a municipal that they would have access to that, sending it to that party. 4:35:39 PM JORDAN SHILLING, Staff, Senator Coghill, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, replied to Senator Giessel's query as follows: One thing to note is that Legislative Legal did a fairly comprehensive nationwide look at how other address confidentiality programs are structured. A lot of the language here is the exact language that you will find in those other 39 states and this is one of those provisions. He asked if Senator Giessel was referring to (d) on page 5. SENATOR GIESSEL answered yes. She added that she intended to address section (c) and (g) as well. She noted that the sections reference providing the participants' actual residence address for voter registration and voter verification, something that she thought was the original idea of the bill's original sponsor. MR. SHILLING explained as follows: Subsection (d) does not require that the address be conveyed to a municipal agency; for example, it just requires at their request that the person's participation in the program is conveyed. For example, there may be a municipal agency where a participant in the program wants to interact with government in some way and that requires that individual to give their address and the individual may say, "Well, I'm part of a program called ACP, I've actually got a substitute address to provide in lieu of my actual physical address," and I could have envisioned a scenario where maybe the municipal agency was skeptical or said, "Well, I've never heard of such a program or prove to me that you get to use the substitute address." It seems to me that subsection (d) would allow the Department of Law or will require the Department of Law to convey to that municipal agency that they are in fact a part of the ACP program, you shall in fact accept their substitute address. 4:37:42 PM SENATOR GIESSEL reiterated that if someone is truly trying to disappear, the section seems to be counter to that. SENATOR COGHILL interjected and noted that an individual is going to have electricity and gas bills. He specified that an individual must show that they are in the ACP program to preclude them from having their address published. SENATOR GIESSEL read subsection (g), line 20 as follows: Shall provide the participant's actual residential address for voter registration and voter verification. MR. SHILLING replied as follows: I believe that is for the Division of Elections to be able to determine if that individual is truly eligible to vote, but the Division of Elections cannot have that person's actual physical address on the voter rolls. What you would see on the voter rolls is the substitute address, but I think the Division of Elections does truly need to know your actual address in order to ensure that you are eligible to vote. SENATOR GIESSEL pointed out that the amendment is a whole new program and asked what the fiscal note might be. MR. SHILLING replied that a fiscal note has not been developed and commented as follows: While it is new to Alaska as Senator Coghill said, it's actually pretty common nationwide. We have had some preliminary conversations with the Department of Law and while they haven't developed a fiscal note to my knowledge, they are working on that. I imagine that there is some cost to comprehensively ensure that these specially situated individuals have their address purged from all publicly available databases. CHAIR MEYER noted that the bill goes next to the Senate Finance Committee where the fiscal note can be scrutinized. 4:40:02 PM SENATOR MACKINNON commented as follows: A bill is an idea and an idea is in front of you and I appreciate and respect all of your perspectives on the idea. The amendment before you is actually a bill unto itself and not one that I had intended on carrying. We did research this for over a year and a half and the bar that we chose to place in our bill and for your consideration as an alternate was a sworn statement via a checkbox that would cost no money to the people of Alaska to do that. A sworn statement is what you are getting from the new bill, the amendment that is being offered by Senator Coghill. She asked the chair for some latitude because she has done some research about the "balance of power" and the "need to know." CHAIR MEYER asked if her request pertained to the amendment. 4:41:13 PM SENATOR MACKINNON answered yes but noted that her commentary is broad. She explained the limitations that the amendment will impose on SB 192 as follows: Senator Coghill posed the balance of the need to know someone's address with the need for an individual to determine whether they should be protected in some way from someone. I first went to the Department of Elections to look at what their mission was, and the mission is to ensure every eligible Alaskan has a meaningful opportunity to cast a ballot and have their ballot counted and to conduct sure and accurate elections. To speak to a meaningful opportunity the amendment before you limits the opportunity of the one family or both families and a person that has emailed me to do that, the person would not be able to qualify under the "Coghill amendment," this is a person who has a distressful situation happening with a family member and does not want law enforcement involved, but wants their data protected by the State of Alaska, they want the opportunity to cast a vote in a meaningful way. I went online, and I started searching about voter privacy and who is actually doing studies in universities across the world. The one that I'm going to quote in a moment is by David Maass, dated February 29, 2016 and it is entitled, "Voter Privacy, What You Need to Know About Your Digital Trail During the 2016 Election," and I did look at other resources too, but under their section that says, "Public Information." Many people think voter records are completely private, so we have a constituency that is growing to distrust the government that is elected to represent them. By not allowing individuals the freedom to cast a vote independently we lose trust with the people that we've come to represent, and I understand that campaigns use voter information to gather information on citizenry and determine whether someone is likely a voter, maybe likely to vote, that is why I think this is relevant to this discussion. A study by Colin Bennett from the University of Victoria, Canada, "Surveillance and Society," people are starting to look at whether we are actually in the U.S. driving voters away from participating in the process by what is attributed to the U.S. need-to-know and micro-targeting that is dividing us into to niche markets and avoiding the hard work of building consensus and national vision. It arguably creates parties and candidates that do not convey a general ideological framework for governments but a series of carefully focused groups that analyze key messages to move people one particular direction. We are helping to polarize American voters by these micro-targeted singular messages to people, and in fact, this is exactly what we don't want to do. We expect as those that are out there asking for people's vote to engage them in a process and provide a greater opportunity to debate, but as we continue to compartmentalize people into small boxes, we are discouraging the public discourse, the public dialogue in creating an opportunity to build American democracy. 4:45:25 PM SENATOR MACKINNON continued as follows: Those were the broad statements that I wanted to make. Personal data is increasingly captured and processed, there are decisions where Facebook is right now under fire for data breeches or sharing information with technology companies that are mining and crosschecking with other software platforms, individual idiosyncrasies of everyone in America. The amendment before you could be done simply with a sworn statement. By involving law officers, we are disenfranchising the group of voters that ask me to come before this body and ask for change. We could do it with a lower threshold and it is true that 39 other states have similar concepts to what Senator Coghill's amendment proposes. I wonder how many others have constitutionally ensured victim's rights in their constitution? Victim's rights have been honored by the people of Alaska in a high regard, higher than any other state, and on this issue we should lead. I talked to members of the Network on Domestic Violence and the Council on Domestic Violence because we had one person I believe testify or in the room listening from the network, and what I found was a little bit sad in the sense that from my conversation it felt like they wanted to protect the data too, because they were using that data for campaign or solicitations for support and other access, and why that disappoints me is because I've had to rise above my own personal need for information as a candidate to come to you and ask you to allow individual voters to choose to protect, to put up that "no trespass" sign, to put up, "Please don't contact me about elections or otherwise, but to respect my wishes." The Alaska Department of Law can be a scary place for people that have been stalked or otherwise want to describe to rape crisis agency or domestic violence shelter their personal stories. Speaking specifically to what Senator Giessel said, you will be revictimizing a person of sexual assault and domestic violence every time they have to retell their story to a new individual at the Department of Law to recertify that indeed they can keep their information away from those that they don't want to share it with. Senator Coghill spoke very respectively about serving the vulnerable first. The vulnerable don't always show up for support or access and we are disregarding those in this amendment. The bill is in your hands, I will leave it to your good judgement. I don't agree with the amendment, I believe Alaska should lead on this issue. I understand the balance of the need to know by the general population on a voter base and the need for us as government to reach members that elect us to serve them. 4:48:43 PM CHAIR MEYER remarked that it is never easy when there are two very good and compelling cases. He asked if Senator Coghill had any comments to make after hearing from Senator MacKinnon. SENATOR COGHILL replied as follows: The thing about the senator and I, we have so much in common on focus, but we just are really strongly diverted on one particular point on this and that is the need or the access for the voter's registration list to be available to those who choose to run for office, that is probably one place where I feel very strongly about this. It's like in democracy, you have both a responsibility and you should have some security. In many ways I so agree with the senator on this issue but just for any cause pulling the "no trespassing" sign up is not something at this point I'm willing to do because all it does is put your foot down on one place and it squeezes up in four others. So, if we really wanted to protect people I wanted an honest to goodness way to do that that showed that there were some real issues, and I get if some people are fearful, that they may not go to the Department of Law, and that's sad that we live in a day where people feel like the government is our enemy, I get that. The reason for having the three-year look into this thing is because the life circumstances do change and I've known enough network people and enough advocates to know that the re-victimization happens in very different ways than just going for help, that going for help is usually facilitated by people who want to help people along their journey, so I don't feel that that's a very big problem; but, in order to support this bill I think looking at the confidentiality program is probably the best way I can get behind the bill and support it. I think the barrier of having to buy the list is probably appropriate at that level and that is an instant protection for those who would buy the list probably for more nefarious reasons, but it is true that the voter list is used probably more than ever before, but when I look at what is going on with Facebook or Google or almost any other database that's available, even the grocery stores are, it's pervasive in our society that we do have to be very careful, but I don't know that [inaudible] this system out helps us that much. So, the ability to reach out to people to communicate with them, I know it is worrisome, I get that, and I feel like many times it is manipulative, I get that; but, people have to be wise and discerning when it comes to voting and I think the avenue for getting to a broad range of people, unless there is a compelling reason. So, I tried to find that compelling reason and I just didn't buy the lower threshold, I just think that the higher threshold is more important. So, this is the senator's bill, I'm trying to add what I think is my best value to it. I probably would lose my support on the bill if I can't do something like this because it's just too broad for me, so this is my attempt in trying to help out along the way. 4:52:32 PM CHAIR MEYER remarked that everyone would be surprised about the personal data being used every time someone uses their Fred Meyer card. 4:52:58 PM CHAIR MEYER removed his objection to Amendment 1. 4:53:02 PM SENATOR GIESSEL objected to Amendment 1. CHAIR MEYER asked if Senator Giessel would like to address her objection. SENATOR GIESSEL specified that her objection relates to the complexity of Amendment 1 and its three-year renewal process. CHAIR MEYER agreed with Senator Giessel's early statement that the amendment creates almost a separate bill. SENATOR COGHILL pointed out that the bill does go the Senate Finance Committee where the bill will receive another full vetting. He emphasized that he did not want to stop the bill in committee but tried to be productive and thoughtful for the legislation to work for Alaska. CHAIR MEYER explained that he allowed additional discussion because he expects the same discussion to occur again. He said he was somewhat bothered to pass the bill without a current fiscal note but noted that the bill would go to the Senate Finance Committee where the amendment's costs will be closely analyzed. CHAIR MEYER announced that an objection to Amendment 1 has been maintained and asked for a roll call. A roll call vote was taken. Senators Coghill, Wilson, Egan, and Chair Meyer voted in favor of Amendment 1 and Senator Giessel voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 passed by a 4:1 vote. CHAIR MEYER announced that Amendment 1 has been adopted. 4:55:47 PM SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report [CSSB 192(STA)], version 30- LS1354\D as amended from committee with individual recommendations and forth coming fiscal notes. 4:56:07 PM CHAIR MEYER announced there being no objection, the motion carried.