Election Commission Regular Public Session of Canvass

Oh, did you?

All right, all right. I'm going to call this meeting of the Anchorage Election Commission to order. My name is Katie Nolan. It's my pleasure to be the chair in this body. The date is April 23rd and the time is 5:09.

Thank you. Um, clerk, would you please call roll? Chair Nolan. Vice Chair Lehman.

Member Courtney? Yeah, I'm here. Member Duarte? Yes, President. Chair Nolan, you have a quorum.

Thank you. Minutes of the January 15th, 26th meeting, which are in front of us, correct? Yes, there they are. Can we go over them real quickly? I move to adopt them.

Second. Approved. It's been moved and seconded. Any objections? Hearing none.

Okay, disclosures is the next item on our agenda. Disclosures are a Necessary items starting at the end. Any disclosures?

All right, this is Ralph DeWear. I would like to disclose that I am under consulting contract with the municipality's Department of Law. I do not work on election matters or commission matters.

Okay, I don't believe that's going to be a conflict at this point. We'll let— does anybody have a differing feeling?

No. Then we're going to rule that he doesn't have a conflict. Uh, Commissioner Newman?

The only conflict I have is an objection to my tax notice. I pay it. I resist and then pay it. Okay. Um, anything from Commissioner Courtney?

Nothing. Thank you. Thank you. All right, I, I'm going to read this aloud so we can all pay attention to it, please. This is a business meeting and we are here to do the work of the municipality.

At a certain point in this meeting, the commission and staff will be handling documents displaying confidential voter information. Video recording of the public by the public is not allowed during this portion of the meeting. We will make an announcement at that time, and anyone who does do not comply will be asked to leave. I'm asking you please to help create a climate of respect in the selection center. Please refrain from personal attacks, speaking out of turn, clapping, pacing.

Please stop speaking if a point of order is called so that I may rule on the point of order and the record is clear. If the rules are not followed, I may interrupt speakers and call for compliance. If compliance with the rules does not occur, then I may pause the meeting. If there is an actual disruption, I will give a warning, and if the disruption permits or happens again, that person will be asked to leave. Now, old business.

I do not believe we have any old business to discuss. New business. Are there any new business items that needed to be added to the agenda, Madam Clerk? No, thank you.

We are now to the stage of review the pending ballot, rejected ballot envelopes. We have two different options to object and— or accept ballots. Option number one is the consensus, consensus agenda style. We will only pull the reject codes we want to cuts and every other reject code not pulled will be approved in one motion. Option 2 is to discuss each reject code one at a time.

What is the will of the body? I'd be happy with the consent agenda approach, but I'll accept either Consent agenda. Consent agenda.

So I'm about— I will now ask which items we wish to pull and discuss from our Canvas worksheet. Mr. Lehman, Mr.

W and Z1 for purposes of—. Z1. Z1. Primarily for purposes of the statement.

Okay, Commissioner Lehman's polling W and Z1.

Commissioner Jury? Aye. This is Ralph McGuire. Um, I would pull, um, code 3. 3.

Okay, Commissioner, Commissioner Jones, for the pulling 3. Item 3. Commissioner Courtney.

Reject code Z1 and 3. Okay, those have already been pulled by Commissioner Lehman. And one was by Commissioner— I'm sorry, one was by Commissioner DuBois, one was by me. Oh, sorry, but she, she was just duplicating, which is fine. And I'm going to pull item Z just because I want to just Cusset.

It's a Z, zebra. And if I can have a motion to approve the rejection of all the other reject codes in the consent agenda that have not been pulled. That's going to be everything except W, Z, Z1, and Z3.

I move to approve. I move to approve. I think that's, uh, Z3 should be just 3, not Z. Thank you, you're right, it's just 3. So first move by Commissioner Lehman, second by Commissioner Durr.

Yes. All right, any I move to approve the adoption of all except the 5. I think we have 5 now. 4. 1, 2, 3, 4.

4.

Except for the 4. Okay. And I second the, uh, Lauren's motion. Yeah, we have a motion and a second on the floor, and I'm asking for unanimous? Okay.

Yes. Thank you. All right, now we'll start with the codes that we have pulled. The first item is going to be W. Commissioner Lehman, you pulled that. You want to discuss it?

I just wanted to make a statement on, on this. There are 197 in this category, and I, I didn't count.

Them, but I'm going to guess that about 150 of those were postmarked on this— on April 8th, and probably were mailed in time, or at least many of those approximately 150 probably were mailed in time. But the voter did not take and make the special effort to get the postmark hand stamped to make sure that it was postmarked by April 7th. And that's sad because their vote is important. It's important to our process, but they didn't follow, didn't follow the rules. So, you know, that's, that's my statement.

We need, uh, we need to continue to explain that to voters, but even, even when we do They likely are. Some will likely still be there. Uh, Commissioner Lehman, I apologize. It's my fault for doing this once a year. We should have let the clerk discuss that first.

Okay. Oh no, we don't need—. We don't need more practice. Thank you. No, I'm— he can—.

You guys can—. I don't need to talk about it. Okay. All right. Um, that Item W is the ballot was postmarked or voted after Election Day.

So we're all clear.

Any other feelings, thoughts about Item W?

If you're ready for the motion, I'll—. Well, let's see if anybody—. I know coming from me. Okay, so then let's take a motion. I'll move to approve the rejection of, I think it's 197 ballots in category W.

I have a second.

Second. Okay, that's gonna be a— that's gonna be a motion by Commissioner Lehman, second by Commissioner Courtney. Any objections to that?

Hearing none, that motion is unanimous.

Okay, and I pulled Item C. Madam Clerk, would you like to talk about Item C?

Um, nope. This one's voter failed to sign the ballot return envelope. It's used if it's determined that the voter did not sign the ballot return envelope. For the declaration. Okay, and the reason that I pulled this is because— do we have a sample ballot envelope someplace?

Thank you.

Um, I understand printing costs, and we have 3 colors on here basically. We've got blue and gold and black. I'm wondering about the possibility of adding a fourth color on there that would be a red arrow that would draw more attention to the "You must sign here" because even having 32 ballots that we have to kick is discouraging.

Is that a potential solution to this?

Can we investigate that part? Yeah, we can certainly ask the print mail vendor what that would cost. It would add— it would add the cost because you're talking about another ink color, but I think it would be successful. And with that, unless anybody else has anything they want to discuss about it, hearing none, I'll accept a motion to except item Z.

Please. Second. I need a first. Uh, I move to accept the, um, rejections under code section Z— Z1. I'm sorry, Z.

Second. Second.

Yeah, and Courtney. This is why I didn't hear it. All right, so that's going to be a motion by Commissioner Durbin, second by Commissioner Courtney. Sorry. Um, the next item that was pulled is D1, no signature match on ballot return envelope.

Uh, Matt, do you have anything to add on this one? Um, I understand that there were 3 QRs made, um, while we were in our work session, um, and so the total is 450 at this point. 4— 450. Thank you.

Is there any discussion on this item?

I asked to pull this just for the purpose of making a statement, and I will remove any objection to accepting it. This is our largest category. I think it probably is every time when I've been on the commission. I want to say that based on what I see, what I observe, what I've learned, and talked to the staff You do as good a job as you can do with a mail-in election. It's tough, and, you know, comparing signatures to do that is a tough job, and I'm actually quite impressed with your ability to do that and follow the law, and I appreciate that.

I want to have honest elections, and with very few exceptions, not by your staff. I believe we're delivering that. Some of the other changes that I think we ought to make to elections that probably ought to be discussed with the Assembly.

But we need to continue, I think, in our education process and continue to tell voters that signatures must match, and, and if they don't have a current signature on file, it would be a good idea for them to do that. So anyway, that's, uh, those are my comments. I'm going to withdraw any objection to accepting the recommendation there on the rejection of 450 of those Any other commissioner?

I, um, this is Ann Courtney. I concur with Commissioner Lehman that you guys do a great job. It's a very, very difficult job, but in this, and in, and in this day and age, it's getting worse. Because nobody signs their name anymore. They just got, you know, you, it's like you're signing a visa.

You just scratch something and it makes your job incredibly difficult. If, uh, I also agree that if there's any way to educate the public that their signature on this on the ballot envelope will be compared to their signature on the state roll, and that it may invalidate their vote if they don't sign carefully. I don't know how to say it. Y'all know how to say it. Um, it is unfortunate that it continues to be our biggest category.

Thank you. I withdraw any objection to the acceptance of W—. Uh, C1, sorry.

Any other comments? Then I'm going to add that to make sure that everybody understands that what have been done with this 450 ballots, actually a lot more than that when they started, was that each of these voters had an opportunity to cure their ballots. And by curing their ballots, that means correcting the errors that they've made. And they've all had ample opportunity to do that, and for whatever reason didn't. Um, I'm not sure how to change that except more education.

Um, but it is very disheartening to reject 450 ballots after that much effort has gone into contacting these voting voters to make sure that their ballots count. That's the frustrating part of this job. Um, with that, I will accept a motion to reject the 450 ballots that match reject code Z1.

I move to reject code Z1. 450 Ballots. I second. Commissioner— Commissioner Lehman made a motion. Commissioner Duras seconded.

Any objection to that?

Seeing none, we'll go on to the ballot code voted by someone other than the voter. This is going to be pulled by— that's item number 3, pulled by Commissioner Durbin.

Can I speak to it? Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, yes, during our work session, we had a substantial conversation regarding this category.

Um, and thanks to the investigation by the clerk's office, we've learned a little bit about the background as to why signatures did not match. Um, there was discussion about referral to the prosecution, prosecution, and I thought we wanted to carry on that conversation on the record, so that's why I pulled it. Thank you. Could you show us each of those ballots, please, one at a time, and explain the circumstances so that we're all on the same page?

So this was one that, um, we believe that 3 ballots were signed by somebody other than the voters. We called the phone number on the ballot and was told that the voter's wife had signed his ballot. All three live at the same mailing address, and so they said that his wife signed. So that's what these three are. So I'm going to interrupt on each one.

I apologize. This is through 3 ballots signed by 1 person. Yes. Any questions about this ballot? Well, so what's wrong with that?

Um, I think that you recorded, uh, some sections on the code saying that nobody can sign on behalf of different voters. Uh, here there was a wife that was signed on behalf of her husband.

Yes. Um, so that seems to violate the code. Is that an offense that needs to be submitted or referred over to prosecution?

Um, it's our understanding that if the commission wanted to, that, um, unsworn falsification could be further investigated to determine if the voter had— if the signer had intent. Yeah, that's, that's the issue. Should, should we as a body refer that over to prosecution? I suggest that we— it's not a black and white decision, it's very shades of gray. And I think we, although we only have limited information uh, thanks to the clerk's office, um, we could have enough to make an initial decision whether or not to refer it.

Now, the prosecution office will, will make the final determination whether or not to pursue it, but the question is, do we refer it? And I don't know if we want to consider each one of those 14 instances separately? We're doing each one of them separately, yes.

And this is— remember, this is 3 ballots, not just first setting for him.

Other commissioners?

So just for clarification, is our— there are 14 ballots in this category. Um, are we going to consider them all in one block or individually? Individually. And, and my understanding is that anything we ask to be referred, you'll look at first to see if you can get any further information on it before it goes Any further?

Um, yeah, we— well, we have done the— all that we can do here. Okay. So we, um, what you direct us to provide to the prosecutor, we do. It's been our experience that ultimately the prosecutor asks us to refer them over to the police department for further investigation. Okay.

So that maybe more information on intent can be discovered by a police officer, and then And then that information is referred to the prosecutor, who I understand has discretion on whether or not they decide to prosecute. So ultimately, there's going to be prosecutable— whatever— prosecutorial— sorry— discretion on— it's not up to us, it's not up to you, it's up to people that understand the law, not me. And the other thing is that we're sending a message that we can't do this, we can't play this game. And I think that's part of the important thing that we need to be looking at.

I concur, Madam Chair, that this is election law that we need to take very seriously. Elections are— it's very important to have full, fair elections. So I think in the appropriate cases we ought to consider referrals. All right, any other thoughts on this particular one situation?

Then I would entertain a motion to refer this.

To reject and refer.

Reject. To reject this one and refer. Reject 3 ballots and refer to the prosecution.

May I just motion? I'll second the motion, but I need a motion. We need a motion. Oh, oh, well, to proceed, I vote to, um, or I move that we refer that particular ballot to the prosecution office. For further investigation.

And a second. Madam Chair, um, so we haven't rejected it yet, so are we also rejecting the ballots from being counted in the election before? I apologize, I'll have a motion for both things, reject and refer. Can we do that? Reject and refer.

Yes, I apologize. That's great. Okay, is that what the motion is?

Did I get— that's what the motion is. Okay, thanks. Want a second?

No, no, I do not want a second. And any objections to that? I don't think we got a second to the motion. Oh, we didn't get a second. I apologize.

I'll help you out. I'll second it.

Any objections to that? Yes, yes, um, I think it has two parts to it. I do want to object, unfortunately— excuse me, I do want to reject the ballot. I do not want to send it forward. To APE or to the prosecutor's office just because the wife signed for 3 votes, 3 ballots.

I do not. I'm— I kind of feel about the same way. For me, if I see a pattern of obstruction by a political force, and we have seen some of that in Anchorage, Okay, I'm not condoning that type of behavior, but I've seen where a— somebody at home, you know, is signing for students off to college, and I've seen husband and wife maybe aging and forgetting and doing things like that. And I kind of look at that and say we need to correct that behavior But I'm not so sure that we need to do it through the legal system. I think if a police officer shows up at the door to have a conversation, that'd be scary enough for most people.

And so I look at this and say, well, referring it, but I hope that it can be dealt with easier than in court. So that's my opinion. So, so Madam Clerk, I'll be calling for a roll call vote, except it's going to be a tie.

Well, we'll get there. Um, so the roll call vote on the motion to reject these 3 ballots and refer them to the prosecutor, um, it was seconded. And so roll call vote, um, Uh, member Courtney.

I vote not to refer. If you—. If that's no, then that's my vote. Okay, so I hear that maybe you want to reject but not refer. So I think you have two options here.

If you would like, you could divide the question where you, you vote on it two separate ways. You vote on the rejection and you vote on the prosecution. Referring to the prosecutor, or you could move to amend, um, and remove the referring to the prosecutor so that you're only voting on rejection, if somebody wanted to offer that motion. So I think we need to go ahead and divide the questions, you know, and do it that way. So I need the motion maker, the original motion maker, And anybody can move to divide the question.

I move to divide the question to have two separate issues. One is rejection of the ballots and one is referral of the ballots.

A second? I second. Commissioner Leeman. Okay, so it's been moved and seconded to divide the question. So my— the first question is Does the commission wish to refer these 3 ballots to the prosecutor?

Um, Member Courtney?

No.

Member Dwyer? I vote to— I vote no on the referral. Member Lehman, on referring to the prosecutor? No. And Member Nolan.

Yes. Okay, so it's 1 yes, 3 no. So the motion failed. The motion to refer the prosecutor fails. And then now we're moving to reject the 3 ballots.

Member Courtney.

Yes. Member Dwyer. Yes. Chairman Lehman. Yes.

Senator Nolan. Yes.

Yes.

Okay, so second one. Yes, the next one. There are two envelopes that were, um, have X's on signature and were witnessed by the same witness, um, all live in the same house. One of the voters with the X is 23 years old and the other is 20 years old, so they are college age. Both the exit— so the X's, the emails, and the witness print and signature look to all be the same pen pressure and characteristics.

So we'll need two motions on this one. The first one's to reject the ballots.

I think she needs a motion to—. Any motion first. I make a motion that we reject the ballots signed by Whoever it is.

I go to be more specific, um, signed by the— or the ballots that were referred to by Liz Edwards. I had a second. Yeah, so they're all— the last name is Ellis, so all three. So both the voters and the witness have the same last name as Ellis and live in the same household.

Okay, so now we have a motion to reject these two ballots. Don't we still need a second? Yes. Need a second. Second.

Should we do roll call votes on all of these? It's up to you. Let's do it. Okay, um, Member Duerr. No, no.

So you're not rejecting these? Um, yes. Are you here? Are you voting? Yes.

Okay, motion to reject, uh, these two envelopes. Member Lehman? Yes. Member Nolan? Yes.

And Member Cordy? Yes.

Okay, and now a vote to refer. I'm sorry, does somebody want to make a motion to refer this to the prosecutor? I was hoping to jump in. It is also an option to refer for further investigation if you're not committed, if you're not sure that prosecution is warranted. So just wanted to put that out there before somebody makes a motion.

It is also an option to refer for further investigation. Thank you.

We're waiting for a motion. I move to refer those to the prosecutor for further investigation, which might be a nice visit by a police officer. Second.

Okay, um, so moving to the vote. Member Duerr? No.

Member Lehman? Yes.

Member Nolan? Yes.

And Member Courtney? Yeah. Okay, motion is 2 to 2, and so it fails.

So, um, there were 3 ballots that came in the same drop box. And were at the same household, um, and one of those doesn't match and seems to be signed by another person who— and it seems that the person who signed also is the witness.

I move to reject. These 3 ballots.

I'll second. Okay, do you guys want to discuss it or move to the vote? Is there any discussion?

Okay, um, Member Lehman? Yes.

Member Nolan? Yes.

Member Courtney? Yes. And Member Duerr?

Yes. And to refer? Do you—. Is there a motion to refer for further investigation?

We need a motion to refer. Yeah, I'll make that motion to refer this, um, this ballot to the prosecution for further investigation.

Any second?

None? Motion's going to die for lack of a second. Okay, thank you. The next one.

So these, um, the names on the envelopes are scratched out, and so the— there's signatures, but we don't know who they are. But they— the signatures on here definitely do not match. What's on file for these voters. Did everybody understand what happened there?

I apologize. This, this printed signature was completely scratched out, so it's illegible. Yes, so the names on the envelopes were scratched out completely, and so they were— all we have to go off of are these signatures. But these signatures do not match what's on file for these almost for the voters, so we don't know who signed, but it's not these voters.

So motion to reject.

So moved. And a second. Second.

Was that Commissioner—. Commissioner Dwyer moved and Courtney seconded. Yes, that's correct. Is there any discussion on this?

Um, Member Nolan? Yes.

Member Courtney, on the motion to reject? Yes. Member Dwyer? Yes. Member Lehman?

Yes. Motion passes 4-0.

And, and a motion to refer for investigation.

I move to refer this ballot to prosecution for investigation.

And second.

That motion is going to die for lack of a second. So we have two, uh, where we believe that these all came from the same household, and we believe that one of the other people, um, in that household signed for these two voters. It's the same pen pressure, and they do not closely resemble the signatures on file for these two voters.

So a motion to reject?

So moved.

So that's going to be, uh, Commissioner Somebody from the first, it's Commissioner Somebody from the second. Courtney. I have Courtney, um, moved and Joaire seconded. That's fair.

Here's the vote. Member Courtney? Yes. Member Duerr? Yes.

Yes. Member Lehman? Yes. And Member Nolan? Yes.

Motion passes 4-0.

And—. Oh, sorry, do you want— is there a motion to do a prosecution? A motion to refer for further investigation.

Hearing none, go to the next one, please. So this, so this one, um, was a no-sig match. We called the phone number when we were contacting people, and this voter informed us that they were out of state and they did not submit a ballot at all. So this was signed by somebody else.

So voted and signed by someone else. Uh, motion to reject, please. Move to reject. Second. Commissioner Courtney.

Commissioner Dwyer.

Okay, so I have a motion by Courtney, rejected by— just kidding— a motion to reject by Member Courtney and a second by Member Dwyer. Thank you. Are we ready to vote? Yes. Member Duarte?

Uh, yes. Member Niemann? Yes. Member Nolan? Yes.

In the recording? Yes. Yes.

And a motion to refer.

I move to refer for further investigation.

And a second? Second. Commissioner Courtney and Commissioner Dwyer, any discussion?

Call a vote, please. Okay. Member Lehman? Yes. Member Solon?

Yes. Yes. Member Courtney? Yes. Member Dwyer?

Yes.

Motion passes 4-0.

So this was a noted match. We again called the voter, uh, who told us that they have moved out of state and that her mother voted and signed. She wants to be taken off the voter rolls, and the mother lives at the same registered name.

Address. So a motion to reject? I move to reject that ballot. Second. Any discussion?

Any discussion?

I was just going to say that we've seen that before, we'll probably see it again, and before what we did was reject, so let's be consistent.

Call the vote, please. Okay. Member Nolan? Yes. Member Courtney?

Yes. Member Dwyer? Yes. And Member Lehman? Yes.

And a vote to refer for further investigation?

Very good.

Is that the last one? Oh, last one.

Sorry.

So this is one where the witness printed the voter's name. They live in the same household, but it was not a signature. They just printed it. Motion to reject and then do again. Second.

A second.

Commissioner Courtney's motion, Commissioner Lehman seconds. Um, okay, Member Courtney? Yes. Member Dwyer? Yes.

Member Lehman? Yes. Member Nolan? Yes.

And a motion to refer for further investigation?

No motion.

Thank you.

This was originally a no sick match. We called the number that was on the ballot and was told that the voter's wife signed his ballot. The wife lives at the same registered mailing address.

A motion to reject.

A second. Second.

Um, member of the board, on rejection. Yes. Member Niemann? Yes. Member Nolan?

Yes. Member Cordy? Yes. Motion passes 4-0. And a motion to refer.

Hearing none. Next one, please.

This was a originally no signature match, but it looks like the witness, uh, signs for them. The last name appears to be signed the same as the witness signed her last name. They have the same last name, they live in the same residence, and the reference signature for the voter is different.

A motion to reject Second.

Commissioner Courtney has Commissioner Lehman. Okay, um, Member Lehman on rejection? Yes. Nolan? Yes.

Courtney? Yes. And Dwyer? Yes. Motion passes 4-0.

Adam.

Adam motions to reject. I'm sorry, refer for further investigation.

Hearing none, thank you.

So this one's a little lengthy. So we believe it was signed by another person. This voter's ballot may have been signed by another who lives in the same household. There are major differences between the signature on the envelope and what is on file for the reference signature. There are 6 voters who live at that same household, and they were all dropped at the same drop box, and they were all processed in the same disorder batch.

And it looks like the reference image for the one that we believe signed it is very, very close, and it's not the voters. I move to reject. Second.

Are we talking about one ballot or all the ballots? It's just this one.

Oh, okay, apologies. Um, Member Nolan on rejection? Yes. Uh, Member Courtney? Yes.

Member Duarte? Yes. Member Lehman? Yes. Motion passes 4-0.

And a motion to refer for further investigation? Move to refer for further investigation. A second?

I'll second it.

Moved and seconded. Discussion? Liz, can you tell me who— what the relationship is between the voter and the signer? I don't know that we know the relationship. Let me—.

We typically try to include date of birth, so let's see.

They're 2 years apart. One is 29 and the other is 31. So I, I don't know their relationship. Same last name? Yes, same last name, same last name, same residence and mailing address, and they were all dropped in the same Dropbox and processed on the same sort of batch.

Okay, Member Nolan on referring to for further investigation? Yes. Member Courtney on referring for further investigation? No. Member DuBois?

No. And Member Lehman? Yes. Uh, the motion is 2 to 2, it goes away. Thanks.

Was that the last? Yes, I just—. Yes. And how many are rejecting? Oh, we are rejecting all 14 and referring one.

Referring one.

So rejecting all 14 and referring one for further investigation.

And I believe that was the last one we had pulled.

So now we need to adopt the election canvas report for the regular municipal election. Of August 7th, 2006. I need a motion to approve the election canvas report of April 7th, 2006, regular municipal election, as per the numbers that we have here. I move to, um, accept the canvas report. I have a second.

A second.

Is there any discussion on that?

Do we have the campus report? We will once I get somebody from over there to come over here so I can walk away from the ballots. That was me. That's why I was standing in front of the ballots. That's why we were motioning her out.

All 3 of you were so focused.

Alright, so—. They want the Canvas report in.

So the Canvas report is basically just the report that outlines each of the rejected envelopes and the numbers and gives a total. A place for everybody to sign, and that report goes into the memorandum for the assembly for certification.

Okay, best way to do this, to read it aloud and pass it around? Uh, whatever you— the— what it is, is the ones that we rejected and the numbers that we rejected. Um, so if you want to read it aloud, you certainly can, or we Pass it down the row. Okay, I'm going to read it. On April 23rd, 2006, at 5 PM, the Anchorage Election Commission scheduled a deadbeat in public session of campus at the MOA Election Center.

At the meeting, the commission voted on which ballot envelopes would be rejected. The following ballot envelopes were rejected for the following reasons: 5 duplicate 4 empty ballot return envelopes or envelopes containing other materials, 19 ballots returned without the return envelope, which meant we were unable to identify the voter, 3 voters failed to provide identifying information, 3 inactive voters, 0 electronic ballots, 1 unity ballot— I'm sorry, multiple ballots in one envelope, 26 registered outside of the municipality. 2 Voters did not meet certification requirements. 10 Voters registered too late. 14 Voters said their ballots received— I'm sorry, the ballots were received after polls closed.

197 Ballots were returned, envelope postmarked after election date. 7 Had no postmark and were received after election date. 3 Had unclear postmarks with additional information from the USPS that they were received after the election date. 14 Voters not registered. 1 Deceased voter.

32 Voters failed to sign the ballot return envelopes. 450 Voters had no signature match on the ballot return envelope. 3 Had no reference signatures. 14 Had a ballot voted by someone other than the voter, and 1 ballot was voted by a person using a power of attorney, and 1 was an other. That's a total rejected envelopes of 814.

And I'm going to again remind everyone that every one of these voters had pure multiple pure opportunities and did not do it. And that's one of the things that drives us up a wall.

I'm sorry, it was ballots, uh, previous election. Oh, I missed one. Ballots— the previous election ballots envelopes were received. There were 4 of them. Sorry, I don't know, I missed that one.

How do you keep a ballot envelope for a year? Anyways, uh, apologize. Um, just a point of clarification, I may have misheard, but I think you said 2006, right? Rather than 2026. Yeah, probably.

That's a very old ballot. Yeah, well, um, is that the first mistake I've made tonight? Reject code M. How many ballots were rejected? 814. Oh no, so she said code M. Here's our bullets.

And so reject code M, which is Multiple ballots in one envelope. And now she can look at her bullets and see multiple ballots in one envelope. It should be one. Oops, my mic went off. One, one ballot, but how many— I mean, one envelope, how many ballots?

Oh, it was one envelope, it was two ballots in one envelope.

I think it has to be 2 because we're projecting the balance.

So we're going to go update our report. Okay, so thanks for catching that. Break. One sec. Yes, break.

Okay, break.

Should we, um, on the minutes while we're thinking about this? Well, no, we don't have any.

Yeah, I don't have anything to present. At this point, if anything else rolls, they know what they're doing. They don't need us to present them anymore. If they want to, and then I have a motion. So if we don't have the motion first, are we welcome to take a break so that we can go over the bill before it comes back?

Yeah.

This one over to the side.

Yes, that's the one you can see. Red ink. Red ink. Blue ink. Red ink.

Um, blue. I think we need black ink though. Yeah, blue or black. Blue or black. Blue or black, and Amy will get it.

Blue or black pen.

Go.

It'll be on the recording.

Oh, they're all signing right now. He's signing. Oh, thank you.

All right, looks like we all have our copies. Nicely done, thank you staff, amazing. Um, now that we have done that, I want to go down and talk and have a few minutes for commissioner comments, and I'd like to start with at the end, Commissioner Courtney.

Thoughts?

I just am amazed at how professional, well-trained, and knowledgeable our election staff is. Amen. And I give you a huge high five. For this election. You do a marvelous job serving the municipality of Anchorage, and it's not a job that gets a lot of glory, so I send you the glory.

I think you and your staff are just spectacular. Thank you very much for everything you did. On the April 7th, 2026 election. Thank you, Mr. Durkin. Um, I did already say— and Courtney just said— I, I, I agree with Anne Courtney.

She said the evaluation of the staff— I think, as I said before, um, full and fair and full disclosure, uh, elections are so critical to our country. And I really appreciate the efforts and being on the front line. Thank you. Commissioner Lehman.

I'm grateful and maybe somewhat surprised that you were able to snag as many problems as you did with the system. It gives me greater confidence in our election system, just knowing that you can do that, and I appreciate that. My other comments are— most of the comments really should go to the assembly, and I'll do that at an appropriate time, but I believe you're doing a very good job with the hand you've been dealt, and it's I think it's tough to deliver a mail-in election and, and do it honorably, and you're doing that.

All right, well, they all said all the lovely things about staff, which we all know that you're wonderful, but now the audience does too. Um, the, the frustrating part for me, and I will tell you I'm very frustrated at having to throw throw out any ballots. But the no signature match and the not signed, I don't know what we could do about that. We've been searching for answers and we haven't found any. And I would just— anybody that's listening online or in the audience, if you have ideas, please bring them to us, bring them to staff.

Let's look at ways that we can improve these numbers. Um, Having ballots postmarked after Election Day shouldn't be an issue, yet it is. We threw out almost 200 ballots for that, um, and looking through the envelopes, some of these were— most of them were mailed from Anchorage, so there's— there shouldn't be any excuse for that.

A lot of this is voter education. A lot of this is talking to our constituents, talking to our councils, talking to whatever groups that we can to educate the voters. Um, and I think we all need to do a better job of that. Not staff, us, the public, the members of the community have a great responsibility to our community to help this process improve. Um, like Commissioner Lima said, mailing voted— mail-in voting has built-in problems because of ID, ID that's checked in an in-person election that we have to do the hard way here.

And anything we could do, any ideas that you have, any suggestions, any help that you could you can give our community in improving this would be greatly appreciated. And other than that, um, just thank you, staff. You did excellent. And let's see now, I— where am I at in my— oh, member comments. I have an opportunity to have public comments.

There's a public out there that would like to tell us something, something nice hopefully. You've got a microphone up there and 3 minutes. I am going to tell you just right off the top, I've got something up here to say.

Election commissioners do not answer questions during this period. Public comments are the public's time to speak. Questions may be asked or emailed to the staff after the meeting. So who out there would like to come up and address us?

Thank you. Would you please introduce yourself to us? Hello, I'm Theo Ransom. I just wanted to mention two things that I observed. Um, one, I observed 3 people with nerve pain that could not sign the way they signed in years past, so their ballots were rejected because of that.

And the other thing that I witnessed was most first-time voters that signed their state ID when they were 12, and their current signatures no longer look the same. Actually, I ran into a lot of that situation with young people. Just FYI, um, I just had a question, if it's okay to ask, on some of these numbers, just to clarify, you know, and help me understand this. So if 10 voters registered too late, how or why did they get a ballot? And if 14 voters who were not registered, how did they get a ballot?

And you are free to ask questions. Okay, probably not answering it. That's fine, just food for thought. Thank you so much. Other comments?

Audience participation, take the microphone please and tell us your name. Joel Borgquist. Turn your microphone on and do that again. Joe Borgquist, Eagle River. I did have some concerns specifically with those that there was no signature match because that is obviously the majority that were rejected.

It's 450 that were ultimately not cured, and those voters, for all that we know, did nothing wrong. And I think that's where a bulk of my concern is, is there's the signature match But we're not alleging that those voters did anything wrong or that their vote is invalid in any way. And so I think that's, that's a concern. I had some notes also on that, which is that having spoken to a number of different voters, there was a few things that came up. And one of those was that they, they said that they had not heard that their ballot wasn't cured and that, you know, it was rejected.

And so that, that's something that was really concerning because certainly, and I'm not suggesting that the effort wasn't made, but for whatever reason they did not receive or see the letter or the phone call. I believe that was the two methods that were used. And so when they were speaking to me or to others, they were very surprised to hear that their ballot was being challenged in that way, and specifically that there was a signature that didn't match. They were very confused by that. So the information on signatures matching, that information doesn't seem to be very clear to a lot of voters, and specifically where that's being pulled from, and the rules around that seem to be very unclear.

And I would say that the reaction from these voters was that that was very unfair. But also the number, which I can, you know, I can, I'd be very happy to provide which voters in question. There's quite a few of them, and none of them seemed to not be who they said they were. And in fact, you know, some of them wanted help with the, you know, different methods, and so I was happy to explain to them how to do it. And I saw them pull out their ID and do that, and they were in fact exactly who they said they were, and they had wanted their, you know, ballot to be counted.

So to think that, you know, there wasn't a single instance where there was some element of fraud or it wasn't the real person seemed very concerning that there's so many that are being thrown out or that had to go through all these different hoops because obviously the 450 are those that were thrown out but doesn't include all those who did cure and went through all of the methods to, to do that, which is a lot of effort on the voter to do that. So I just have a lot of concerns about that. That's, you know, not partisan in any way. It's just simply there's 450 people who, for all the information that I've been able to see, are probably all valid and were thrown out for no fault of their own. So thank you.

And again, we're not going to answer questions, but I will tell you that the cured ballots got counted. It's people that did not cure their ballots that didn't get counted, right? And they wouldn't know they were cured unless they got through. That they were thrown out unless they got your letter. Okay, thank you.

Any other comments? There's more of you out there. Do we make everybody happy? Okay, here's a no.

Talk to us afterwards. All right, good. Um, then I'm going to ask for a motion to adjourn the meeting. So moved. And a second, please?

Second. A motion and a second. I get others' consent.

Thank you. Thank you, everyone.