Senate committee hears elections bill that would add ballot tracking, signature checks and a narrower cure process

The Senate State Affairs Committee held a first hearing on Senate Bill 289, elections legislation requested by the governor that would change list maintenance, absentee handling and require ballot tracking, signature verification and a limited cure process.

Director Del Beecher, appearing remotely as director of the Division of Elections, summarized the bill and identified what she described as the major differences from a prior proposal (SB64): SB289 would require signature verification and limit the cure process to missing signatures or signatures that do not match the voter registration record. Beecher said the bill also delays the effective date for implementing ballot tracking and the cure process to June 1, 2027.

Committee members pressed the division on implementation details, vendor outreach and costs. Senator Wilikowski questioned a fiscal estimate mentioned in committee (about $750,000) versus prior estimates in the millions; Beecher said the division contacted multiple vendors and found more recent, lower-cost information and that market changes (including new entrants and tools) may have reduced prices. Beecher also said the division has not procured quotes and emphasized that implementation timing during an election year is constrained by limited staff availability.

Members asked whether the cure process could disenfranchise rural or military voters who rely on mail, and whether the president’s recent executive order on ballot tracking would change implementation. Beecher said the division examined rural implementation timeframes and would review the executive order and provide written responses, but she could not answer immediately about litigation or legal strategy.

Public witnesses raised concerns. Mike Garvey, policy director for the ACLU of Alaska, argued SB289 narrows the cure window compared with SB64 and said that past changes and 2024 regulations led to higher absentee-ballot rejections; he urged the legislature to ensure that identification- and witness-signature errors can be cured. Randy Rudrick of Anchorage urged rejection of the bill, citing concerns about cost and exemptions for ballot-measure spending in section 42.

Disposition: The committee held SB289 for further questions and asked the division to supply written follow-ups on vendor lists, fiscal estimates and other technical items; no committee vote on the bill was taken on May 12.