Senate State Affairs, 5/12/26, 3:15pm

Okay, I'd like to call the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting to order. Let the record reflect we are Tuesday, May 12th, 3:30 PM in the afternoon. We're in the Belz Committee Room in the State Capitol of Juneau, Alaska. Members present today: Senator Wilkowski, Senator Gray Jackson, Senator Tilton, myself, Chair Kawasaki. I would like to thank Carrie Thippo from Senate Records and Kyla Thippo as moderator with the Legislative Information Office for joining us.

We have 3 items on today's agenda. We have a second hearing on Senate Bill 204, Sub-Teaching School Board Eligibility, sponsored by Senator Mike Cronk, who is here. We have a first hearing on Senate Bill 289, Elections. It is sponsored rules at the request of the governor. It's our first hearing, and we do have folks who are joining us online for that hearing.

We have a first hearing on Senate Bill 287, Alaska Native Languages Academic Task Force. That is sponsored by the Senate Education Committee. First, we will hear Senate Bill 204, Subteaching School Board Eligibility. Senator Mike Cronk and his staff, Paul Menke, are here. To summarize the bill before we open it up for testimony.

Thank you, Chair Kawasaki, members of the— oh, which committee are we in today? Senate State Affairs. Senate State Affairs. We appreciate you guys taking the time to hear this second reading of this bill. Again, I'll just summarize.

This bill is pretty simple. It allows allows you, if you were a member of a school board, to substitute teach in your district. It allows your school district to have the, the, the, the leeway to decide for emergency how long it is and stuff. And then it doesn't allow anybody with a felon to serve on your school board. So that sums up the bill.

Great. Thank you, Senator Cronk. Are there any questions for the sponsor of the legislation? Hearing and seeing none, we will go ahead and open up public testimony. We have two folks who are online who are located in Tok.

We have first up Jeffrey Alsop. If you would state your name and your affiliation for the record. Welcome to the Senate State Affairs Committee. [Speaker:JEFFREY_ALSOP] Hi, this is Jeffrey Alsop. Hello, Chair, members of the committee.

My name is Jeffrey Alsop. I am from Tok, Alaska. And I'm calling to support my voice for SB 204. I'm representing myself as a former school board student representative. In 2022, my first year serving as a student representative to my district school board, a community member with multiple felonies was voted into a position on the school board.

Without going into too many details, this person was problematic while serving on the board, resulting into our district getting sued and his early removal from the position. As I researched this issue, there was something that I realized. Someone with a criminal history like this former school board member would never be allowed to be employed within a school. So why would we let someone who cannot work inside of a school run and make critical decisions regarding multiple schools within a district? As of now, the only qualification on a school board member is that they have— is that they maintain their municipal voting status.

In Alaska, after you serve time or pay bail, you can regain your voting status. As the language currently stands, a sex offender with crimes against children could be elected to a school board. That is why my friend and I created a resolution to bring this needed change to our state. It was presented to the General Assembly of a statewide student council conference and was passed with unanimous support from students representing schools across Alaska. There is also currently a statewide issue regarding teacher retention and staffing.

This bill would allow school board members to substitute teach in our schools. This bill is important because it not only helps with the statewide staffing shortage, but also gets our school board members involved and into our schools. That is why I call today to voice my support for this bill. It is time that the Alaskans prioritize our students' and children's safety, as well as providing for the best educational experience that we can offer. Thank you for your time.

I look forward to seeing how this bill moves forward. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Alsup, for your testimony. Is there any question? I don't see any.

We have next up to testify is Holly Beeman, also in Tok. If you'd state your name and your affiliation, welcome to the Senate State Affairs Committee.

Hello, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Holly Beeman. I am from Tok, Alaska, and I am representing myself as a student and a concerned lifelong Alaska resident. I'll be speaking as a recently graduated student who has a personal connection to this topic and full support on this Senate bill.

As a recently graduated high school student, I care a lot about the safety and comfort of students in our schools. In 2022, a person with a permanent barrier crime was elected to the school board in my district. This person was legally barred from working inside of a school but not from holding a position on the school board. Their actions while on the board led to legal action and community damage before they were eventually removed. As a young high schooler at the time, it was genuinely confusing to me to hear that there were no laws or regulations preventing someone with a violent history from being allowed to hold a school board position, which was even more shocking to me considering school board members directly make decisions about student safety in our in our schools.

As a 16-year-old high schooler at the time, it felt like Alaska's state laws and regulations didn't have student safety and comfort as a priority. In April 2025, my friend and I presented a resolution at a statewide student government conference to advocate for this exact change, and it passed with full unanimous support from schools all across Alaska. Every time I've mentioned this to friends who graduated from larger school districts where school board elections are much more competitive, they are shocked and.

I can't believe that people with violent criminal histories, including crimes against children, can run for a school board position and hold power in our schools, even if they are barred from stepping on school grounds or holding a position as an after-hours maintenance worker inside a school. It means a lot to me seeing this issue being taken seriously at the legislative level. And seeing members of the state Senate working together to ensure the safety of students across all schools in the state. I also want to briefly talk about how allowing school board members to act as substitute teachers in our schools can be beneficial to our students. I graduated from a small K-12 school where finding substitute teachers was a challenge for our school district.

Having it be an available option would encourage our school board members to get directly involved with their students and can also open up more opportunities for students to feel comfortable reaching out to their school board members for any issues that student may be experiencing. To any House or Senate members who might be unsure about how to vote on this, Please take a moment to remember that if we want the best chance of success for students in our schools, we have to show them that their legislators have their safety and well-being as a student as a top priority. Thank you, and I look forward to seeing how Senate Bill 204 moves forward. Thank you very much for your testimony, Miss Beeman. Are there any questions for the testifier?

Hearing and seeing none, we are going to go ahead and— is there anybody else who would like to testify for or against Senate Bill 204 in the room or online? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, we will go ahead and close public testimony. And I will say for the two who are still online, thank you. We did receive the resolution from OSOG from Mr. Alsop and Ms. Beeman.

It is dated April 22, 2025. And again, thank you. Both of you were very well spoken. Let's bring it back to the committee now to see if there's any discussion. I just start by thanking Senator Cronk for bringing the bill forward.

Are there any questions for the senator? Any last statements? Chair Kawasaki, I just want to say thank you guys for hearing the bill. And like I said, it was interesting that a couple students could bring part of a bill to us that actually is really meaningful and I think is a really important thing to have in place, especially for serving on our school boards and being in our schools. So just wanted to say thank you guys for hearing the bill.

Thank you. May I have a motion, Senator Tilton? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, I move CS SB 20434-LS1187/G, as in Galena, be reported out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.

Any objection? Hearing and seeing none, CS for SB 204, that is 34LS1187/G, is reported from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. We will take a brief at ease to spin up the next bill.

Okay, I'd like to call the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting back to order. We now have before us Senate Bill 289. Senate Bill 289 is entitled Elections. It's sponsored by Rules at the request of the Governor. With us today online, we have Carol Beecher.

Carol is the Director of the Division of Elections to present the legislation.

Do we have you online?

Yes, you do. Thank you, Chair Kawasaki and committee. Members, for the record, my name is Carol Beecher, Director of the Division of Elections, and I appreciate the opportunity to present Senate Bill 289 Elections to you today. This bill makes numerous changes to election laws, including list maintenance, handling of absentee ballots, reports to the legislature, and will require ballot tracking, signature verification, and a CURE process. Chair Kawasaki, I can go through the sectional analysis if you would like or provide just a summary of the items covered or whatever you prefer.

Director Beecher, this bill looks fairly similar to a bill that we have had before us, oh, I don't know, a couple times anyways. I think the rest of the committee would just like to hear potentially the differences of this bill compared to the bill that just was not adopted by— was vetoed by the governor and then sustained. So it was a Senate Bill 64, and I don't know the version, but maybe we could start with that. Certainly. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Kawasaki. So the major differences in this bill are that it will— it changes the Section 26 is where it talks about the, uh, the CURE process and, um, that, uh, and the signature verification that's required. It, uh, it only will allow curing. It does its curing process, but only for lack of a signature or a signature that doesn't match what is in the voter's registration record. And it also changes the effective date of implementing the ballot tracking and cure process to June 1st, 2027.

So that is a big change from Senate Bill 64. Those are the major major change and difference between this bill and Senate Bill 54.

Thank you, Director Beecher. I just wanted to say for the record that Vice Chair Senator Bjorkman has joined us and his 6th grade social studies teacher is in the back. Mr. Chairman, if I could just take a point of personal privilege. Vice Chair Senator Bjorkman. Thank you very much.

That's why you're tardy. I'd like to introduce, uh, to the room and, and to, uh, the thousands watching us online right now, um, my 6th grade social studies, uh, teacher Teresa Charlevoix and her husband, former Dickinson County Sheriff for many years, Don Charlevoix. Um, these two public servants have, uh, donated many, many years and decades of their life to the service of people of the Southern Central Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and so it's pretty great to have them visiting here in Juneau with us today. And I learned a lot from Mrs. Charlevoix, and she was a great teacher. So thanks for being here.

Thanks. Yeah, thanks for being here. It's such a beautiful day out in Juneau. I hope this meeting doesn't derail your adventures while you're here. We thank you for being here.

Thank you, Senator Bjorkman.

I had a question regarding the comments about the comparison. How are those signatures to be decided upon being inconsistent with one another?

Through the chair— or sorry, Chair Kawasaki, um, the, the bill would require a signature verification system and would require that the boards would— the district board had to examine the absence or the absentee ballots and determine whether the signature was consistent. To do that, it would require an actual system that would speak with our system to look at the signatures that we have on file, and if it didn't match, then the voter would be notified and would have to provide a signature and ID to correct— to cure that ballot. So it would require training, signature verification training, of the board members as well as election officials.

Great, thank you. And I see that in Section 24 where it talks about the signature verification and whether the certificate is consistent with voter's signature. So, I just have not seen— in a later section, does it allow for a person to be able to be verified that that signature was, in fact, their signature?

If it doesn't match.

Um, Chair Kawasaki, if I'm understanding you correctly, yes, the secure process would allow the voter to— and that's in Section 31 on page 20— that if it doesn't match, that the, um, they would have a certain amount of time. And this would be— we have to notify them within 48 hours and then they would need to provide a form to us with the information that we require, which would be a signature and a copy of the form of ID. Otherwise, the ballot could be rejected.

Okay, okay. Thank you. Senator Wilkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Beecher.

I'm glad you're on the line with us. I'm just curious, is anyone in the room with you where you are right now? In the room with me? Sorry, through the chair, Senator Wilkowski, did you say is anyone in the room with me? Yes.

Senator Wilkowski, no, no one is in the room with me. Okay, thank you. A couple questions. Senator Wilkowski. The signature verification fiscal note, I believe, is only around $750,000, and in the past it's been significantly higher for that, and I'm just curious about that.

Thank you. Through the chair, Senator Wielekowski, when we received this bill, we immediately reached out and tried to find what a signature verification system would cost. I know in the past that we had provided a— I believe it was in 2024— a fiscal note that was— we had estimated around $5 million for signature verification system. That was based previously on the signature verification system that was procured by the municipality. In this case, we actually went to— I had various, various individuals reached out, and the information that was provided back to us showed that it's significantly cheaper.

I don't know if it's because of the advent of, of AI now that has reduced the cost or just time of other entities stepping into this market, but it was significantly cheaper. And so the estimate that we provided is based on the most current information that we could find. Follow-up, Senator Lukowski. Thank you. And just, just to reiterate, is it accurate to say that except for the ballot tracking and envelope curing sections the addition of the signature verification and the effective dates, the bill you're proposing or the governor is proposing is identical to the version of Senate Bill 64 that the governor vetoed?

Through the chair, Senator Wilkowski, yes, that's my understanding. Follow-up, Senator Wilkowski. And I assume the governor— is it fair to say the governor supports the provisions of the bill that he introduced?

Through the chair, Senator Wilkowski, yes, the changes from 64 were a policy call made by the governor and his team.

Go ahead. Yeah, if I could just— without serious questions, thank you. There was some concern expressed during the Senate Bill 64 debate that the voter roll cleanup provisions would disenfranchise military voters. Do you believe that those statements were accurate?

Through the Chair, could you repeat that? I'm sorry. Yes, there were some statements made during the Senate Bill 64 debate that the voter roll cleanup provisions would disenfranchise military voters. Do you believe those statements are accurate or were accurate?

Through the chair, Senator Wielechowski, I'm not recalling any statements that I made that the cure process would disenfranchise the military voters. I do recall that the timeframes for the curing process for rural voters were— if they didn't have access online things with the— and depended totally on the mail, could be very difficult for them to actually be able to have a cure implemented just due to the timeframes of the mailing. I'm not recalling anything about the disenfranchising of the military voters. Okay. Senator Lekowski.

Thank you. The Trump administration, I'm sure you're aware of the executive order that's been issued regarding ballot tracking, and I'm curious if the division intends to comply with that provision.

Through the Chair, Senator Velikovsky, at this time, we are looking at the President's executive orders, and we have not made any calls on that.

Follow-up. Does the President's executive order that was issued just a few weeks ago require ballot tracking in the upcoming election cycle?

Through the Chair, Senator Wilkowski, I am not sure. I would need to go and review the executive order. Senator Wilkowski. Does the division, if it does require ballot tracking, does the administration intend to comply with President Trump's executive order or to file a lawsuit, seek a declaratory injunction saying that that executive order is invalid. Through the Chair, Senator Wielechowski, I don't have an answer for you on that.

I would need to refer to, to the Lieutenant Governor-in-Law, and we could get back to you on that with a written response. Great, thank you. Which vendors did you contact under Senate Bill 64 to— because you've changed the effective date, and I think that's still a valid discussion that we need to have. And I'm curious what vendors you've reached out to in the last 6 months to discuss implementation of ballot tracking.

Through the Chair, Senator Bullockowski, I don't know if it was in the last 6 months, but in the past we've reached out to ballot tracks is one, and I'm not even going to remember, but I've met with other vendors who have ballot tracking. We also have been looking at potentially building something. We're in the middle of working on our voter registration system as we speak and may be able to implement a provision that would do the ballot tracking in-house along with the implementation of our system, which is also scheduled to go live in 2027. Follow-up? Did, uh, and, and Ballot Tracks is the organization that did the ballot tracking for the statewide election after Representative Don Young died several years ago?

Madam Chair, Senator Bullockowski, yes, but Yes, that is the— I believe it was only used by the division for the special election. And did, did Ballot Tracks tell you that they could not implement ballot tracking in, uh, within 6 months for this upcoming general election despite making it happen within 6 weeks just a few years ago?

Through the chair, Senator Wilkowski, I wasn't when they did ballot fax prior, but that was an all by mail election, so that the parameters are different from, from doing it in the way that the bill outlined. But so I really can't speak to that. I don't know that we had conversations with them about how quickly they could implement. Follow-up. Did you have— which ballot tracking organizations did you have conversations with in the last 6 months about whether or not ballot tracking could be implemented for this upcoming election cycle?

Through the Chair, Senator Boylakowski, I don't have a list in front of me, but I can provide that to you.

Yes, if you could provide that. Were you told that, by those ballot tracking organizations, that they could not implement ballot tracking for this upcoming general election?

Through the Chair, Senator Lekowski, I don't know that that specific question was asked. When we are speaking with vendors, we are not necessarily talking about implementation timeframes, more on what they are able to provide. Okay. And if I could, my office contacted Ballot Scout, which is used by statewide in Georgia, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, and a number of other areas, and they informed my office that they've implemented ballot tracking within 30 days, and they also said that 3 months is a good average implementation timeline for ballot curing. Do you have any reason to disagree with that statement?

Through the chair, Senator Wilkowski.

You see, the speed at which an entity or a vendor can implement is something that is dependent on multiple factors, including what the people who are within the divisions, what they're in the middle of. And so for us, it wasn't necessarily a matter of if a vendor could implement, if all the stars were aligned. It was that we are in the middle of a— for this year, we're in the middle of an election season. And so the availability of staff to do things like the testing, the background work that has to happen when you're integrating systems, we don't have the staff available to do that to the degree where we felt confident that it could be something we could implement in an election year. I don't know when those other states implemented there, but that would certainly be a factor in, in how quickly something could be done.

And Senator Lekowski, do you have any reason to— I mean, could you— did you have any reason to, to disbelieve that BallotTrax, which implemented the ballot tracking system within 6 weeks after Representative Don Young died, for, for a full-blown statewide mail-in election, could not do the same thing within 6 months. Do you have any reason to just disbelieve that? Through the Chair, Senator Wieleckiowski, yes. In conversations with the staff who were here when ballot tracks was used, there were— it was, from the reports back to me, it was extremely time-consuming. There were a lot of manual processes that were involved that made it rather onerous process for them.

And so those were factors that were considered into whether or not this could be something that we would, would want to implement or could implement within an election year.

Follow-up. Do you have any reason to disbelieve that another ballot tracking organization called Enhanced Voting, which provided my office a letter in writing saying that they could implement statewide ballot tracking in 30 days but that 90 days is more ideal, do you have any reason to disbelieve that statement? Through the Chair, Senator Wilkowski. I don't have any reason to disbelieve any of the vendor's statements. I just am saying that for this division in an election year, we have limited staff, and the IT staff that I have are currently maintaining the system we have, which the reason that we're implementing a new system is because it is what I would call fragile.

That needs to be monitored and cared for. And we don't advocate making any changes to it during an election year because we have floods of voter registrations. We're in the middle of doing the PFD/AVR work, and then we're right into elections. And so, as a general rule, we try not to do any kind of implementation of something that would change our system during an election year.

Except, uh, I know you may say that as a general, but except you did it back in 2022 in, in a statewide election within 6 weeks. Uh, were you— did anyone in the governor's office or elsewhere encourage you to say that you could not implement SB 64 this election cycle?

Through the chair, that's not something that I would share in this committee. Those would be conversations that would be something that I wouldn't be sharing in committee.

Senator Wielekowski. It's a simple question. Were you encouraged by the governor's office to change your testimony and say that you could not implement Senate Bill 64 this election cycle?

Simple yes or no question. Through the chair, Senator Wielechowski, I, I'm going to not answer that question. I realize it's a simple answer for you, but I don't disclose the conversations I may or may not have had with the governor's office. Follow-up, Senator Lekowski.

Was there any analysis by your department or by anyone that you're aware of about how the passage of Senate Bill 64 would impact any statewide or legislative races this upcoming election cycle?

I'm sorry, could you rephrase? Repeat that, Senator Lilletalski. Was there any analysis by you or anyone you know of regarding how, how Senate Bill 64 could impact any statewide or legislative races this upcoming election cycle?

Through the Chair, Senator Lilletalski, when, when there's legislation, the division focuses on the provisions and how we will implement them and how they interplay with the statutes that we have. We don't, we don't make the policy. We don't, uh, we're not, we're not a policy-making entity. We look at it from the perspective of how, how can we make this work if it passes, um, from, from an implementation process point of view.

So I take it the answer to that is no, you, you are unaware of any analysis of how Senate Bill 64 would impact any statewide or legislative races this year? Through the Chair, Senator Wielekowski, those are not the kinds of issues and conversations that we focus on in the division. Okay. Are you aware of any analysis that was done by anyone regarding how Senate Bill 64 would impact Native or military voters?

That— I'm sorry, Senator. Did you say with the Native and military voters? Yes.

We— I can say that we looked at the implementation of the CURE process to see how it would impact the rural areas based on those timeframes, if that's what you're referring to. We certainly looked at any of the things having to deal with our regional areas and how we implement that and what the timeframes would do to our rural voters and to our urban voters. So, from that perspective, we examined the bill for those kinds of issues.

Did you reach any conclusions about whether or not more Native voters or rural voters would have their votes counted if Senate Bill 64 passed?

Through the chair, Senator Bullockowski, that's not the kind of analysis that we do. We're looking at— we were concerned about cure process and whether or not if there were ballots that were rejected that needed to be cured, and under this, this bill or Senate Bill 54 in particular, whether or not that would— oh, that there would be a time frame that would allow them to cure their ballots. So it's, it's from that perspective of would the time frames allowed, would the processes that are being implemented, would they have a negative impact on those entities? And I testified to that point in committee. Is it your understanding that more Native votes would be counted had Senate Bill 64 passed?

Through the Chair, Senator Wiltowski, we didn't do that kind of analysis. So, that is not something that we look at from that perspective. We're, as I said, we're looking at implementing the provisions. That's what we focus on. Is it possible within the constraints of the statutes that we have and the timeframes that we have and the staff that we have to implement these things?

We are not looking at whether or not one side or another would benefit from something.

Did you do any analysis about how many military voters would be— would have their votes counted or discounted if Senate Bill 64 passed?

Through the Chair, Senator Wielekowski again. We looked at how the division would implement the provisions. We are not doing that kind of analysis.

Did— how many vendors did you meet with to discuss ballot tracking for this upcoming election, if you— under Senate Bill 64?

Through the Chair, Senator Wielechowski, as I said, that I need to go back and look at that, and we'll provide you the list of ones that I talked to in writing. And how many quotes did you receive from ballot tracking organizations?

Through the Chair, Senator Wielekowski, we did not receive any quotes. We did not ask for quotes. I don't know if there's other questions, Mr. Chairman. I do have some more. Just a really quick one.

Section— starting with Section 2, Ms. Beecher, this is the Chair. It had to do with the identification cards issued by federally recognized tribes. It's something that was—.

It's been bantering its way through different bills over the last decade. Will you still be— if this bill were not to pass, if this bill weren't to pass, the amended version would be hunting or fishing licenses. And so would those still be the acceptable ways for a person to prove identification?

Through the chair— sorry, Chair Kawasaki, yes. We have in the Division accepted tribal IDs since the law that is currently on the books came into play in 1980. Those have been accepted and they were accepted under the— as a government document. And we would also continue then to accept hunting and fishing licenses as IDs whether or not— well, if Doesn't pass. And so, just again for the record, you would be able to utilize an identification card of a federally recognized tribe through policy or through administrative code?

Through the— Chair Kawasaki, the division has accepted the tribal IDs as a form of government document. For the purposes of registration, for voting, for absentee, all of those things for, um, since 1980 when the law came into, into place. Okay. And we continue to do so whether or not the tribal ID is specifically called out and codified. We would still continue to accept tribal IDs as a form of ID for voting purposes.

Great, thank you. Thank you very much. Senator Wilkowski. Thank you. Does, um, the changes that you've made to the ballot curing section or the signature verification section, does the bill require signature verification for in-person absentee voting?

Through the Chair, Senator Wilkowski, um, we, we believe that the bill does not explicitly apply the signature matching and CURE to the absentee in-person voting. So it's something that the division would have to consider and, and they need to clarify in regulation.

Follow-up. And you had mentioned that the division is not making any IT changes in this election year, is that correct?

Uh, through the Chair, Senator Wielechowski, we're trying not to make any changes to our system during an election year, particularly to the voter registration system. Follow-up? I'm just curious why the division, on the day the Senate was voting on the operating budget, or the day before, submitted a request for $4.75 million, including for IT changes?

Through the Chair, Senator Wieleckowski, we submitted a request as a— it was really for a contingency. And we're able to add in then security things that needed to be upgraded, such as servers. We need to get— we want to get a server that is not connected to the cloud so that we have a backup that keeps it completely isolated. We also know that we need upgrades to laptop computers and to the servers that are in the regional offices. These are not changes to our system.

This is hardware. This would be to hardware upgrades. Follow-up. Unlike previous proposals for signature verification, rather than using signature verification to replace the witness signature requirement, this bill would still require a witness signature. And that seems to me like it would actually lead to more ballots being rejected than fewer.

Do you share that belief?

Through the Chair, Senator Wilkowski, uh, it— what it would do is it would not allow for a cure for those things. So if they were going to be rejected for that, then, then they— yes. The, um, they would still be rejected for lack of witness signature or incorrect ID or lack of ID as well.

So it's highly likely that it would lead to more ballots being rejected than fewer.

Through the chair, Senator Wilkowski, that, um, with the signature verification requirement, yes, uh, if they, if the individuals contacted did not respond, then yes, it could lead to more rejections.

You had expressed concerns about the effective date for ballot curing, and my understanding is that there were 413 curable ballots in the last midterm election. Is that your understanding?

Through the Chair, Senator Wilkowski, I'm sorry, I don't have that document in front of me. I want to say it were a few more than that. I'm speaking 600, but you could, um, within that range. And, and if there— you think it was 600? Most of these numbers, 600.

And under Senate Bill 64, you received, uh, 5 new temporary employees specifically for ballot curing. That was your fiscal note request, is that correct? Through the Chair, Senator Bullockowski, that is correct. And so each individual would have been responsible for handling— well, if it were 6, then a little over 100, 110 or so. Does that sound about right, ballots?

Through the Chair, Senator Bullockowski, if they were evenly split among the regions, then that would be the case. But there is no guarantee that they are evenly split. And in fact, as we know from the documents that we do have, the majority fall into the Region 2 area, which is the Anchorage Bowl. So it's likely that they would get the bulk of the— of that work that would be assigned to those individuals. [Speaker:DAVID YANOSKI] And— And just for clarity, so I understand the ballot curing process, the way it would work is a ballot would come in, and Senate Bill 64 also increased the amount of time the division had to process ballots and find out whether ballots had errors in them.

Is that correct?

Through the chair, Senator Wilkowski, I'm not sure I understood that question. Are you asking if Senate Bill 64 extended the time?

Yes. Through the Chair, Senator Wilkowski, this 289 does as well. If you're talking about the sections where we would begin to review the ballots 12 days before the election instead of 7, that provision still is in this bill, in this version of the bill. And for the ballots that come in early, we were able to look at them earlier, if that's I'm sorry if I'm not answering your question there. Okay.

And just so we understand the, the ballot curing process, the division would receive a ballot, they would begin to be able to process those ballots 12 days beforehand, and they would note, note that there might be a mistake on a ballot, somebody forgot a witness signature. And if that were the case, then one of the 5 additional people that you hired would then have to go ahead and open up the voter file and find out if the person's phone number, address, email, and text were in the system, and then attempt to contact them. Is that correct?

Uh, through the chair, if you're referring to Senate Bill 64, that was the process in that. In, in this current version, the procedure only requires the verification— or only allows, I should say— the curing of a ballot that does not have a signature that matches what is stored in the voter registration record or is missing a signature. Okay, so just so I understand, I wonder, because if this committee were to change this to make it identical to what was done in Senate Bill 64, uh, the, the, the process of opening a file, sending somebody a text, sending somebody an email, and sending somebody a letter, which was— would be required under the statute, would probably take about 5 or 10 minutes for each each voter. Does that sound about right? Through the chair, Senator Wilkowski, we haven't done any kind of a timeframe study to see how long all of this would take.

We also don't have any kind of an automated phone process in place, so I can't answer that with any accuracy for you. Just, just so we're clear, so, uh, it— the, the amount of time— so a ballot would come and it would show somebody forgot a signature, and then the process would be that the one of the additional people that was requested would then go ahead and attempt to, to either call the person— well, all of them— call the person, text the person, email the person, and send a letter. And that— do you think that would take more than 10 minutes of time?

Through the chair, Senator Wielekowski, um, it, it could.

It depends on other factors. I don't want to speak to that specifically because I haven't done this process. I don't know what the timeframe takes for them to go into the verification or the voter registration system to look for these— this information or if it's in the absentee body. I just don't know enough. I'm sorry to— accurately answer that question for you.

It doesn't seem like a complicated process, but correct me if I'm wrong. What's the maximum amount of time you think it would take somebody in the Division of Elections to open up a voter file that— on a computer that was right in front of them, look up a voter, and then send them an email, text, phone call, and letter, form letter?

Through the chair, Senator Velikovsky, I know that in Senate Bill 64 they needed to do it within 24 hours, so I would estimate that they would be able to do that with the automated system that it requires within that time frame.

And Mr. Chair, even if it wasn't an automated system, even if you had to set up an Excel spreadsheet to comply with the law The poll worker, do you think, could do it in 10 minutes?

Um, through the chair, Senator Velikovsky, that if you're referring to the, the cure process in Senate Bill 64, it requires that it be an online system and would have an online form. It does not have an option for doing a manual process.

And you could set up an online system with Excel, I would presume. But I want to ask you a question about— there's been— there was some discussion that this bill would impact ranked choice voting. Does this bill, or did Senate Bill 64, impact ranked choice voting in any way, or the repeal of ranked choice voting, I should say? Through the Chair, Senator Lilletalski, not that I'm aware of. We never had discussions about anything having to do with ranked choice voting in the context of Senate Bill 54 or Senate Bill 289.

I've got a question. Senator Bjorkman. Thank you very much. Director Beecher, thank you for being here today. I'm wondering— I need to circle back for my own review.

We talked about the additional budgetary request. How are we fixed for poll workers this coming fall? Do we have enough people in place to cover all the polling locations? We have people identified in rural areas, so make sure that all of those in-person polling locations are open and they have staff to operate them. How are we doing on, on those items?

Through the Chair, Senator Bergman, thank you for that question. My staff are in the process now of of getting the written agreements with poll workers. And as was reported to me today, we are doing very well on that, have most of them identified. We're still working to get some of the signed agreements back from them. So at this juncture, we look like we are doing quite well in ensuring that all of our precincts will be manned appropriately.

Follow-up. That's excellent news. I appreciate that. Recently, at the borough level, we increased pay for our election workers. What is the status of compensation for state election workers?

Has it been increased lately? Do you feel it's just about right, or should it go up? Through the Chair, Senator Bjorkman again. Thank you for that question. Currently, We do feel it needs to be raised.

It has to be done through regulation. If this bill was to pass, then we would be able to not have to use regulation, and we feel that that would be an excellent provision for the division, because we are somewhat— as boroughs are moving their elections to the same date as state elections, we are in a bit of a competition to make sure that we are compensating appropriately. So, we are— we feel like we need to raise the amount that we're paying board members and election officials.

Senator Bjorkman. One final one. Is there any impairments or inability from anyone to prohibit the Division of Elections from engaging in the regulation process that would allow you to raise compensation for state election workers?

Through the Chair, Senator Bjorkman, it just requires going through the regulatory process.

Roger. Thank you. Director Beecher, just really quickly, one of the positions of the legislature was to make sure that these ballots, no matter what size they are, had the qualifying postage-paid return Does the department anticipate being able to do postage returned even though not directed to in statute? And if it were a budget item, which I know it is on at least one of the budgets, does the department— does the division think that they will use postage-paid return envelopes?

Chair Kowalski, we do believe that we can. To the postage-paid envelopes. We, uh, the time right now is very short, so we're not 100% that we would be able to have these ordered and in place in time for the primary election, but could put something in place by the general election for sure.

Okay, thank you. Um, Senator Wilkowski. Thank you. If a voter provides a Social Security number as their identifier for their absentee ballot, but the Division of Elections does not have their Social Security number in their records, would the voter's ballot be rejected for not having a matching identifier under your bill? Through the Chair, Senator Wilkowski, the— if the person provided the last 4, or they can provide their entire Social Security number, then that ballot would be accepted.

We can verify the Social Security numbers. We have the ability to do that. Follow-up? On an important bill such as this, it would have been nice to have you here in person. Did you request to come down in person?

To the Chair, it was discussed and determination was made to call in. Were you instructed not to come in person or denied your request to come in person?

Through the Chair, it was an option that— and it was determined to call in for the bill.

So I take that as a no, you were not denied your request to come in person?

Through the Chair, I was not denied.

Thank you, Senator. Director Beecher, there's a handful of other things in this bill, particularly that dealt with civil law and the crime of unlawful interference with an election. Two or three of those things have to do with tampering with signed ballots, intentional breaches, hacks. How will the Division work with that based on the fact that it's not in the statute now? Chair Kawasaki, I'm not sure I understand your question.

This would be— it's criminal law, and so anything having to do with with something in that section of law in 1556, we would confer with the criminal division in the Department of Law.

Yeah, I, I think it's, it's not criminal, but it's, um, it has to do with breaches and hacks and tampering with equipment. Again, it's something that some of the folks on the State Affairs Committee wanted to make sure was, uh, obvious and also punishable. And so that's Section 34 and 35 of the bill. But if, um, if this bill fails to get out of this committee or the next committee or the committee after that before the end of next week, which is only a week away, um, I'm just curious how the department will try to ensure that there's no knowing disclosures, that these are not shared, the reports to persons who are not supposed to have them will remain confidential?

Chair Kawasaki, I would need to refer to law, and we could get back to you with a written response for that. Okay.

Okay, um, let's see if there's any other questions of members. Chairman, I have to get to Resources Committee. Okay, so thank you, Senator Willekowski. I'm going to have to leave.

I do have a lot more questions, though. I hope we can get Ms. Beecher back. We're going to be holding this bill over. We're going to hold the next bill over as well. Thank you for being here, Senator Wielechowski.

We— let's see, are there any other questions for Director Beecher at this time? We have several questions that have come up over the language of some of the A version of the bill. And so we'll send questions directly to you, Director, so that you have time to follow up and answer them. And we'll make sure to share the answers with the rest of the committee members.

Thank you, Chair Kawasaki. Did you— anybody on the committee have any final questions? And did you have any final statement you'd like to make before we open this up to public testimony, Director? Thank you, Chair Kawasaki. I just say how much we appreciate the opportunity to present this bill and look forward to the questions.

Thank you. Great. Thank you, Director Beecher. We are now going to open up public testimony on Senate Bill 289. Public testimony— if we could try to limit public testimony to 2 or 3 minutes per, that would be great, but we will try to take everybody that we can.

We are opening up public testimony. The first person to testify on Senate Bill 289 is Michael Garvey in Anchorage. If Michael would state his name and affiliation, and welcome to the Senate State Affairs Committee.

Thank you, Chair Kawasaki. For the record, I am Mike Garvey, Policy Director for the ACLU of Alaska. While the legislation before you is largely similar to Senate Bill 64, there are key differences in the ballot curing section, Section 31, that we want to comment on. Unlike Senate Bill 64, this legislation would not allow voters to cure ballots when their voter identifier, like driver's license number or date of birth, does not exactly match Division of Elections records. It's critical that any ballot curing system allow voters to address this type of error, which is easy to make by, for example, transposing two numbers.

In the last general election, more than 100 absentee ballots were not counted because the voter identifier didn't match, including 24 votes in districts represented by members of this committee. For years, the Division of Elections actually accepted some ballots with errors like these, but in 2024 adopted regulations to formally end that practice and require exact identifier matches. Because of this policy change, it's reasonable to expect that ballot rejection rates will go up if the legislature does not ensure these errors can be cured. The second notable change is that unlike SB 64, this legislation would not allow voters to secure an improperly witnessed ballot. It is imperative that any elections bill addresses how often the witness signature requirement leads to ballot rejections.

In the 2024 general, more than 500 ballots were rejected because of missing or improper witness signatures, including 133 ballots in committee member districts. The witness signature requirement is consistently a leading reason why absentee ballots are rejected. Yet the Division of Elections does not verify the signatures in any way. Additionally, in litigation over this requirement during the 2020 election, the state could not identify one instance in which it helped detect voter fraud. And Director Beecher has stated that the division administered the 2020 election when the requirement was suspended with trust and integrity.

Maintaining trust and integrity in elections is vital, but the disenfranchising effect of the witness signature vastly outweighs the supposed security it provides. Our preference would be to remove the requirement entirely, especially if the state deploys new tools to verify absentee votes, like ballot tracking and signature verification. No elections bill should move forward without addressing how frequently voters are disenfranchised because of the witness signature requirement. Finally, despite concerns about the 2026 timeline, there is still a need for legislation that establishes essential and long-overdue safeguards against the disenfranchisement of Alaska voters. True election integrity is found in the system that proactively assists every eligible voter, and we urge the legislature to implement reforms as soon as possible.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Great, thank you very much, um, Mr. Garvey. I don't see any questions here today. Thank you. We will now move on to Anchorage, where we have Randy Rudrich.

If you'd state your name and your affiliation, and if you could keep it under 3 minutes.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm Randy Rieckrich, and I live in District 17, downtown Anchorage.

I have testified to elections legislation in past years as well as earlier this year. I find this revisited bill to be quite challenging. One of my major concerns is that 64 and this bill did a good job of adopting the limitations on dark money in the Alaska Ballot Measure Progress.

Unfortunately, Section 42 exempts the current legislation that will be on the ballot, the current ballot measure, from this regulation. Therefore, dark money can again continue to protect and defend ranked choice voting on the November ballot. Furthermore, 289 drills around the witness signature issue on the absentee ballot quite well. It creates a new version of signature verification for state ballots.

That creates more ballots being rejected because of things that were discussed by the director earlier. The CURE process for improperly completed ballots is not needed. There were a high degree of errors in a '22 special election with all mail-in voting.

That was a unique circumstance that should not drive policy. In the '24 general election, I looked at Western Alaska districts to see how they performed. District 37 had 1 unsigned absentee ballot submitted. 38, 39, And 40 had none. I was quite proud of our voters in Western Alaska for this operation.

They far exceeded what we see in Anchorage City voters on our mail-in voting. In addition, we only had 1 one witness signature issue in District 38 and two in District 39.

So we're not looking at a huge problem to fix. The voters are doing a quite excellent job of making sure they present ballots that are— as a matter of fact, the worst district in the state had a 1.6% reject rate. Which even if 100% of those ballots would have gone to a candidate, there were no races that could have been affected by the rejection of those ballots. Therefore, I view these changes as unnecessary and very costly to create tools which another simple amendment in the future can convert to a mail-in voting system for the state. So I just view this as a stalking horse to drag us to that objective.

Loading 600,000 outbound ballots into the United States mail destroys election integrity. And until we solve many of our problems with the voter roll, that is totally unacceptable mission. Furthermore, Alaska Natives have never selected a mail-in voting process, and we need to protect their rights to have polling places. Thank you for your time, and I encourage a no vote on SB 289. Thank you, uh, Mr. Rudrich, for your time, and thank you for your attention to the bill.

We'll see if there's anybody in the room who would like to testify on Senate Bill 289. Hearing and seeing none, is there anybody— is there anybody online who would like to testify further? All right. Hearing and seeing none, before we set Senate Bill 289 aside for a future hearing, Director Beecher, did you have any final words?

Thank you, Chair Kawasaki. I, I do not, other than to say thank you for hearing this bill and look forward to receiving your questions. Great, thank you so much, and our office will be sending those questions over to you very soon. We will go ahead and set Senate Bill 289 aside.

And we'll take a brief at ease for the next bill hearing.

Okay, I'd like to call the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting back to order. We have one final bill before us, and we have a number of testifiers who I wanted to speak on this bill. This bill is Senate Bill 287, Alaska Native Languages Academic Task Force. It's sponsored by Lukie Gail Tobin. Her staff, Louie Flora, is here, and I welcome you to the Senate State Affairs Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Lukie Gail Tobin, and I represent Senate District I. Well, thank you to the committee for hearing this piece of legislation. I know it comes a bit late in our session. And I will be honest in that I had taken the place of President Stevens on the Alaska Native Languages Council and was unable to make a recent council meeting where this concern from stakeholders was brought to the attention of members.

The bill before you seeks to help us clarify legislative intent of a piece of policy that was enacted back in the 1970s and then ensure that we as the appropriating body are producing providing the right supports, providing the right resources, helping to foster along this particular endeavor that began so long ago. The piece I want to start with is the, the core and the heart of SB 287, which is Alaska Native languages are an irreplaceable part of our state's identity and heritage, and we do know that many are endangered and at risk of being lost. There is research from the— from international agencies that indicates that there is a potential that we'll lose 90% of world's languages in the next 100 years. And with that loss comes a disbursement of the knowledge, the information that's contained in those languages, the unique ways of knowing. And in my personal belief, this makes it where we are less safe.

We lose information when we don't preserve language. Back in the 1970s, the legislature established the Alaska Native Language Center at the university. At the time, there was only one campus, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and that original establishment really focused in on kind of 5 core goals. They were focused in on ensuring that there was preservation, there was cataloging of these languages, there was study and research of these languages, and of Of course, there was intent to teach language, to ensure that there were teacher trainers who could go into our school districts, into our communities, and help folks become proficient in one of the 23 languages spoken here in the state of Alaska. Like many things that happen when there is legislative intent put on the record and there is excitement in those first few years, focus did wane.

And that meant resources and attention from the legislature did not persist. Unfortunately, this year it was brought to the attention of myself and the other member of the Alaska Native Languages Council, Representative Storey, that there was deep concerns about the, the shifting of the location of the Alaska Native Languages Center and some of the resources that were being dispersed to other departments. And we know much of this is being driven by federal decisions and some federal loss of grant funds in in addition to the changing dynamic happening within our education system. There's a lot more appetite for folks to learn language and not necessarily work on preserving language or cataloging language, which is the focus, uh, the legislative intent of the Alaska Native Language Center. So the bill before you asks us to do something very important, which is check back in with stakeholders, talk to the universities, talk with the different Indigenous corporations across the state, talk with the folks who want to learn languages, the school systems, work with the different resources that are available to us to really understand how we as a legislature may amend the existing authorizing statutes and how we might better resource that work to ensure that it's not just happening at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, but system-wide.

One of the things we've heard in testimony on this legislation previously in Senate Education is that Alaska Native languages are not just being taught at University of Alaska Fairbanks. They're also be taught— being taught at the University of Alaska Anchorage. They're being taught right here at the University of Alaska Southeast. There's a lot of collaboration happening between the researchers and the professors and different stakeholders. Recognizing that this work is happening without significant legislative support and without our ability to ensure that it's adequately resourced, uh, has brought this bill before us.

So what we are asking the legislature to do is establish a Joint Legislative Alaska Native Languages Academic Task Force. It is a mouthful, I know. I don't get to name all the things. Leg— legal often has a hand in that. To evaluate that legislation that was established in 1972 by then State House member Don Young and to really evaluate and to conduct a comprehensive review of Alaska's academic efforts in language preservation and just provide that 54-year look back.

To see how we can better support this work happening not only in our public university system but across the state of Alaska through our public university— or through our public school system and also with our Native corporations. It is important to note that the bill talks about legislative findings and of course talks about what the purpose and the focus of the task force will be. That is on page 3. The intent is to help give us a better insight and understanding of where there might be gaps, where we may need to amend the existing authorizing statutes or provide additional supports to the university to do this work and to ensure that this work continues in perpetuity and is not dependent on the tumultuousness of federal grant funding. Finally, one of the things we do want to note is that this particular legislation does not come with a fiscal note because it is a legislative task force and we are focused in on just having the legislature talk about the authorizing statutes and their purview and what we should be doing to better support this legislation.

Our intent is to model this task force similar to the Task Force on Education Funding and the Task Force on Dyslexia, which is where we bring stakeholders into the room. We listen and hear their feedback. We have public hearings. We ensure that there is a public record so that legislative intent is clear. And if additional legislation is needed to be introduced, we will do that in the 35th Legislature so it can be thoroughly vetted again with ample public input.

So that is why you see the structure of the bill the way it is. It simply has legislators from both the House and the Senate engaging with stakeholders to get that comprehensive analysis.

Great. Thank you so much for the presentation. Mr. Chairman, I do— and I forgot to say this again— Luki Tobin for the record, Center for District I. Although I've been told it is not a conflict of interest, I do think it is very important for me to put on the public record that I am currently a PhD student at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The college that I am enrolled in is the Indigenous Studies Program, which the Alaska Native Language Center does sit in the Indigenous Studies Program.

Thank you, and thank you for that— placing that on the record. We did want to open up testimony, and there are some folks invited and otherwise here to testify now. So before we go potentially to— to a— what you might call it— before— do we have a sectional? Yeah, okay. Before going to the sectional, we're going to go ahead and take the.

These folks who are here to testify. We have online for invited testimony on Teams Mackenzie Englishoo. Mackenzie is the youth advisor for the Tanana Chiefs Conference. She joined some time ago.

And I think she's— there she is. If you would state your name and your affiliation, welcome to the Senate State Affairs Committee. Hello, my name is Mackenzie English Shoe. I am a student at the Alaska Native Language Center. Masi Cho for having me here to speak today.

Should I go into my testimony? Yes, yes, please do so. Okay. So good afternoon, Chair and members of the Senate. Finance Committee— Shogreet McKenzie Inglishew Ojii Gwich'in/ ax e Guatsáng Ix yaagaa Dinjinjuukiaa K'gwaal'eey Aikehaan Juxaat Tanaangwiiitch'i University of Alaska Fairbanks Alaska Native Language Center Tráthíidaa Guatsáng Ix yaagaa Gwich'in ishlii My name is Mackenzie Inglishew.

I come from Fort Yukon or I come from Gwich'in known formerly as Fort Yukon. And I'm learning my language. Because of that, I'm now living in Fairbanks. I go to the University of Alaska Fairbanks for the Alaska Native Language Center. I am Gwich'in.

Last fall, I moved away from my elders, my grandpa, and people on a mission to learn my language. Again, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak today in support of Senate Bill 287, establishing a joint legislative Alaska Native Languages Academic Task Force. I come before you not only as a young leader, but as a young person still learning who I am through my language, my elders, and my people. In Fort Yukon, I am surrounded by the strength of our culture, but I also grew up witnessing how fragile our languages have become. There are moments where I sit with my elders and I realize that what they carry in their minds, in their voices, their stories, their humor, songs, and way of seeing the world may not fully exist in the next generation unless we act now and provide the support that they need.

Language is not just words. Language is our identity, is humor, prayer, relationship to the land, kinship, memory, and instruction and direction on how to live. In our tribal communities, language carries teachings that cannot always be translated directly into English because they come from an entire different way of understanding the world. When we lose an Indigenous language, we lose entire ways of life, traditional knowledge, and connection that took thousands of years to build through Indigenous experience and history. As a young person, I really want to emphasize that our youth really do care.

Each of us want to learn. We want opportunities to study our languages, hear and understand our elders, and hold those conversations that are sacred with them. And build relationships with the teachers and scholars who have dedicated their lives to this work of language revitalization. Currently, many of us are facing barriers in accessing language education and materials, experienced language teachers, and long-term support systems for both the students and the teachers. This bill is deeply important to me and my peers, and I ask each of you to push this forward.

Senate Bill 287 recognizes that the The Alaska Native language— languages deserve more than temporary conversations or symbolic support that doesn't really help the students or teachers. This recognizes the urgent need for the long-term vision, institutional support, academic research, legislative support, teacher training, preservation commitments, and true meaningful partnerships with tribes and communities. There needs to be space for accountability and collaboration at the same time. When many of our languages are critically endangered already. I want, want to mention that the United Nations recorded data highlighting that roughly every 14 days one of the indigenous languages of the world dies.

I want to bring up a petition done by the student movement called the Defend Alaska Native Languages at UAF, where students currently have over 727 signed with commentation on— in support of the Alaska Native Language Center and the classes that it holds. This data is taken by the student movement. This data taken by the student movement in this petition, um, recorded that 361 people would take Dinjinjukia, one of the classes that were cut by the administration of the College of Indigenous Studies. I want to acknowledge the people who came before me, the elders, teachers like Sam Alexander, linguistics researchers, community citizens who carried these languages through times where there were— where we were once punished for speaking them. That fact that we are able, or even able, to gather in these conversations is because of their resilience and their love for future generations.

And which is me and my siblings' generation today. We owe it to them to continue this work in a good way. As someone currently learning Dinjinjukia through the guidance of my teacher Sam Alexander and my elders like my shitsi, my grandfather, I can say my language learning has become one of the most meaningful decisions I have ever made to myself and to my people.

And it really has changed my life. It has helped me become closer to my ancestors, my community, and to myself. It also reminded me that revitalization is not only about preserving the past, but it's creating a future where Alaska Native youth can fully know who they are. I ask you all to support Senate Bill 287, not just in legislation, but as an investment into the future of Alaska, a future where Alaska Native languages are still spoken along the rivers. In our homes and classrooms at fish camp and by the children not yet born.

So with that, merci, Cho, for your time and for listening today. Nkwidive gozu. I wish you all luck. Thank you so much, Miss English Shoe. Are there any questions for her?

Hearing and seeing none, we will thank you once again for being online. It's great to hear your voice once again. We do have another person online, Ty E. Peter, also in Fairbanks.

If you would state your name and your affiliation.

Hello, can you hear me? We sure can. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] My name is Paa'ay Ivan Peter from Fairbanks, also Arctic Village, and I really appreciate the chair, Kawasaki, for the opportunity to provide a bit of testimony in support of Senate Bill 287. Since January of 2021, I've been working intensively on Kootenai language revitalization, having had experiences in full immersion language nest where we were speaking to babies between 1.5 and 2.5 years old fully in the language. No English was allowed once you walked into the door of the space, and then made a transition into doing intensive language documentation work with over 14 of our elders with And through these experiences of being both in a full language nest, which is a daycare, I was immersed and also through this type of work realized how serious the moment we're in where we have very few speakers among many of our Alaska Native languages.

And it's really a critical moment where our action or inaction will have really significant impacts on the future vitality of our Alaska Native languages. And so I think it's a critical moment for our state legislature to be taking this deep dive and analyzing really the situation and the lay of the land within our institutions across the state, um, in both in higher education at the University of Alaska system but also K-12 system and also within our communities to really take a close look at what we need to do in order to meet the magnitude of the need that's there at this moment in time. There are very few of us, I think, that are on the ground at a community level being active, doing work within our communities and within our languages, and it's very challenging for us to secure the support and resources for us to sustain the efforts that we've undertaken. Many of us have relied heavily on the Alaska Native Language Center and the expertise and the research that has been nothing there in the past and really need the Alaska Native Language Center as well as all the capacities within the state system, different entities, moving at full speed ahead with efforts and support to do the work with both research documentation, instruction, training, and second language acquisition, and so on and so forth, to support the efforts.

That, that's coming in that's needed. Um, ultimately what we really need is well-structured pathways to produce a new generation of proficient speakers for lesser languages who can then fill the classrooms as teachers. And we need stable funding in order for us to develop those pathways and have them be sustained so that we can produce a wave of teachers. And then we also need the jobs created for those young people, like the young lady that we just heard prior to me, when she comes out of this education so there's a place for her to have a job in the future to be able to continue to support the revitalization of Alaska Native languages. There's a world of knowledge within our languages.

There's so much that there is that there to contribute within our state's languages, and so I just highly encourage you all to move forward with SB 287 so that we can bring this really important focus to our Alaska Native communities. So thank you very much. Masiikchow for listening to my presentation. Super. Thank you so much for being online with us today.

I will say that we do have some folks who've been online the entire time from the university. We have Brian Ewer, the interim vice chancellor, from Rural Community and Native Education at the University of Alaska. We also have Tisha Simmons, Dean of the College of Indigenous Studies, University of Alaska Fairbanks, and Charlene Stern, Interim Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. They're posted as question only, and I'm not sure if anybody does want to speak to the bill before we, before we bring the sponsor back. Back up.

I'll try and open it up one more time. If any of the three, Mr. Ewer, Ms. Simmons, or Ms. Stern, want to speak on the bill, you're welcome to just chime in and state your name. Otherwise, we'll go back to the sponsor of the bill.

Yeah, this is Brian Ewer, the interim Vice Chancellor for Rural, Community, and Native Education. The chair, as you mentioned, we're here for questions. Questions, but I did want to say that from the university, if the bill is passed, we will be fully supportive of the process, and we would like to continue the conversation and be involved with the bill as it goes through. So thank you, and we're here to answer any questions that you might have. Great, thank you very much, Vice Chancellor.

Any questions for him? I don't see any questions for you. I'd like to bring back the sponsor of Senate Bill 287, Senator Lukey Gail Tobin, would you have any final closing comments before we set Senate Bill 287 aside? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Lukey Gail Tobin, Senator for District I. I just want to thank the committee members again for hearing this particular piece of legislation.

As I mentioned before, because it is a legislative task force, the membership of the task force will be made up of 3 lawmakers from the House and the Senate. There were amendments that were made in House Education that I hope this committee will consider adopting into a committee substitute, and that includes some language changes, but also to ensure that there is minority representation on the legislative task force. It is our intent to begin our task force tour at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, meeting with stakeholders, the dean of the university there, and also talking with the different students and also the faculty that have worked in this particular entity, really stewarding it even when there wasn't adequate resources. We then hope to move to the University of Alaska Anchorage to talk about the work that they are doing so that we can do better integration and better alignment, as much of their early education work is really about training trainers to teach Indigenous languages. And then, of course, coming back here to the University, University of Southeast, where there is incredible work happening within the Tlingit language programs and ensuring that we are also adequately supporting those faculty and staff staff who are doing the yeoman's work of ensuring that that language is preserved.

We're really excited about this opportunity to really highlight and elevate the work that the University of Alaska Fairbanks has been doing and to essentially turbocharge it to ensure that it has all the resources it needs.

Thank you, Senator Tobin. Any questions for the sponsor?

All right, hearing and seeing none, we'll set Senate Bill 287 aside for a further hearing. I'd like to make an amendment deadline for Senate Bill 287, and that should be close of business tomorrow, which is Wednesday. Close of business on Wednesday, May 13th. That concludes the meeting for today. We have one more meeting scheduled, but possibly another.

The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 14th, where we'll have this second hearing on Senate Bill 287, Alaska Native Language Academic Task Force. Again sponsored by the Senate Education Committee and Senator Tobin. We'll have a first hearing on House Bill 217, autonomous vehicles commercial driver's license. It's sponsored by the House Transportation Committee, and I think it's pending referral. We will also have room for bills previously heard or scheduled.

If there's nothing else to come before the Senate State Affairs Committee, we stand adjourned. Let the record reflect that it's 5:00 3 PM.