Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/12/2017 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB208 | |
| HB175 | |
| HB170 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 208 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 175 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 223 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 175-US PRESIDENT ELECT. COMPACT: POPULAR VOTE
3:11:24 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 175, "An Act ratifying an interstate compact to
elect the President and Vice-President of the United States by
national popular vote; and making related changes to statutes
applicable to the selection by voters of electors for candidates
for President and Vice-President of the United States and to the
duties of those electors."
3:12:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER introduced himself as prime sponsor of HB
175, the U.S. Presidential Election Compact, commonly referred
to as the "National Popular Vote."
3:12:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER advised that the purpose of the bill is
to get to the core value of "What does a vote mean?" He
described voting as a sacred right that many women and men
struggled to gain and fought hard and gave their lives to defend
this right, of which is held in the highest regard in this
country. With that highest regard, he said, most important is
that every vote is equal. Although, he noted, that right has
not always been held in that regard, but the nation is moving
more and more to the point where it wants that to be the case.
He reminded the committee that laws had been modified to allow
minorities and women the right to vote and, he described this as
just another step on that journey to make certain every person's
vote counts exactly the same.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER pointed out that the current electoral
college system favors swing states that are, essentially, 12
states that determine who is elected as the President of the
United States. Within that system, he commented, predominant
attention for the race for president is given to those 12
states, involving not only money, but attention to each state's
desires and issues. This bill, he pointed out, is "very, very,
much" meant to start a discussion as to that system, and related
that it is the belief of the compact organizers that every vote
should count equally toward determining who would be the
President of the United States, whether in Ohio or Alaska. This
bill ratifies a compact intended to grant the presidency to the
candidate who receives the most popular votes, rather than
counting vote's state-by-state. It is important to note, he
said, that currently it takes 270 electoral votes to win the
presidency, and this [compact takes effect when enough states
pass this compact with their electoral votes totaling 270.] He
explained that the states that sign on at that time will then,
rather than voting necessarily for how just the people in their
state vote, will vote how the national popular vote goes.
Currently, 10 states and the District of Columbia have ratified
this compact representing a total of 165 electoral votes, 15
states have passed the compact through one legislative body and,
he stressed that it is time for Alaska to start thinking about
this compact, which is why it was brought forward.
3:16:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER offered that a key issue important to
this vote is that Alaska, currently, holds a large seat at the
table when it comes to the nation. By far, he described, Alaska
is the greatest resource development state in the nation, it is
the reason the United States is considered an Arctic Nation, it
has 36 percent of all federal lands, and 40 percent of all
federally recognized tribes. Yet, rarely are those facts
brought up in a presidential election because to win the
presidency, the candidates need to cater to the 12 swing states.
By ratifying the National Popular Vote, Alaska can get on the
record with Alaskan values as part of that national picture. He
advised he believes in this compact because it increases
Alaska's count around the nation and, hopefully during the next
presidential election, candidates will speak to Alaska's issues,
such as, resource development, drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), climate change affecting its villages,
and stressing the importance of Alaska's federally recognized
tribes moving forward. This compact stresses the importance to
each candidate to speak to Alaskan issues in order to win every
vote cast in this state, he pointed out.
3:18:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she is not thrilled with the
electoral college system, but she has real problems with this
bill. She surmised that a significant portion of Alaska's
population could vote for one candidate, and because the states
of California and New York vote for another candidate, the votes
of Alaska would be for the candidate of New York and California
who received the most votes. She ask Representative Fansler,
why he doesn't change the system according to what the framers
anticipated and offer an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States to abolish the current system.
3:20:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER, in response to Representative LeDoux's
point regarding Alaska voting one way and the electoral votes
another way, countered that Alaska has statewide elections for
governor and federal senators and representatives. Alaska law
reads that every vote in Alaska counts and it does not partition
off votes district-by-district wherein a gubernatorial candidate
must win 21 out of the 40 house districts in order to be elected
governor. The office the country elects as a nation is the
Office of the President of the United States, and this bill is
saying to take the same idea Alaska uses to elect its governor
and spread that out to the entire nation, he explained.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER responded to Representative LeDoux's
point regarding an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, and countered that to change and amend the constitution
is an "extremely monumental task." Quite honestly, he stated,
the nation has not had an amendment for quite some time, let
alone an attempt to amend the constitution since the 1970s.
This bill, he pointed out, allows a mechanism in which to obtain
the desired goal of a national popular vote, and at the same
time offers security because Alaska could "pull out if we wanted
to," he related. Representative Fansler offered a hypothetical
situation in which Alaska decided to enact this compact and move
forward, Alaska could then drop out before, or after, the
compact was ever initiated if the people of Alaska decided this
was not what they wanted, "or if we put in together a place
where we say the electoral college is something that, in the old
form, was much more beneficial to us." This compact provides an
additional safety net in which to make decisions, he expressed.
Furthermore, in the event the Constitution of the United States
was amended and abolished the electoral college system, it would
be just as difficult to turn around and re-amend it to add the
system back in, such as prohibition, he explained.
3:23:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that Representative Fansler was an
eloquent speaker, but she still wasn't convinced. As to
prohibition, she remarked, at one point people were fed up
enough with what they perceived as alcohol abuse to abolish the
use of liquor in this country and passed the amendment. Except,
she offered, prohibition turned out to not exactly work in the
manner people desired, so the amendment was repealed. She noted
her belief that the constitution is a document that should not
be easy to amend, and asked whether there had been a real
movement to amend the constitution to abolish the current
system.
3:24:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER commented that the electoral college had
been in dispute and debated since its inception, and its history
was brought up regarding the powers of large states versus small
states, and with regard to the Founding Fathers possibly not
trusting the wellbeing of the general populous to directly
elect, and the electoral college came about as a means of
compromise between the states as they were coming together.
Since that time, there have been constant debates as to whether
it should or should not be there, with movements to change the
constitution, and the prevailing thought appears to be whether
to maintain the status quo, or to try the National Popular Vote
and the flexibility of this compact, he offered.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the bill would not move today.
3:26:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to the statement that the 12
battleground states often determine the outcome of the election
with all of the focus on those states, and commented that by
going to a popular vote, the battlegrounds would be reduced to
11 states to get to the 270 electoral votes. The population
centers would then become the real focus and Alaska would be
even further left out. He offered that Representative Fansler
made a good argument against National Popular Vote when he
pointed out some of the unique features of Alaska that only the
people living here can appreciate with its diversity of
interests and, he commented, which is probably why direct peer
democracy up to the governor level is ideal. He stated that
Alaskans would never trust someone outside of Alaska to see
things in the same manner as Alaskans, and noted there are
issues many democrats, republicans, and independents in Alaska
agree on simply by virtue of living here and overreaching
policies are rarely fought. He commented that in getting away
from the current representative republic to a direct peer
democracy, this state would lose because, while it never comes
down to the state's two electoral votes, it probably would never
come down to the last Alaskan vote. He expressed fear that the
population centers, being 11 states, would become the focus of
all of the money garnered in Alaska's campaign funding, and
Alaska would be further irrelevant and more left out.
3:28:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER briefly answered that to be quite honest,
no one knows how this would change elections, but elections
would change because suddenly, every vote was in play, and which
ever candidate cobbled together 50.00001 percent of the votes
would win the presidency. Possibly, he said, a candidate would
go straight to these major cities, but possibly they would
actually start to speak directly to the issues of the states,
realizing that in order to win the 700,000 votes in Alaska, they
must speak to Alaska's issues and set up campaign headquarters
throughout the state, not just in Anchorage. Alaska typically
trends red, and California typically trends blue, and by
typically, he offered, he meant massively. Therefore, a red
voter in California may think it doesn't matter whether they
vote because the democrat will win, whereas under the National
Popular Vote, suddenly the typical color of a state doesn't
matter because every vote is important. Hopefully, he
commented, one of the nice byproducts of this [compact] is that
it will also drive up voter turnout, which everyone wants.
3:31:19 PM
BARRY FADEM, President, National Popular Vote, advised that he
has been the president of National Popular Vote since its
inception in 2005. He said he would quickly run through the
five benefits that accrue to Alaska if the National Popular Vote
passes. Under the National Popular Vote, the most dramatic
change for Alaskans is that every vote cast in Alaska counts
just as much as a vote cast around the country. An Alaskan
voter will know on election night when the news shows are
running the totals, their vote was including in the totals.
There will be a presidential campaign in all 50 states and under
the National Popular Vote, every vote in every state is equal.
He related that the organization could not guarantee that
presidential candidates or their surrogates would come to
Alaska, but there would be specific television and radio ads on
issues important to that state. In 2016, 94 percent of the
campaign visits were in 12 states. For the first time in
Alaska's history, he stressed, the state would actually be
participating in the presidential election and discussing issues
important to Alaska.
3:33:25 PM
MR. FADEM remarked that currently both national parties pump
millions of dollars into the 12 battleground states for
grassroots activities. Under the National Popular Vote in a 50
state campaign, it is expected that the national parties will
spread that money out and build a grassroots structure in all 50
states because every four years all 50 states would be
battleground states under the National Popular Vote. In 2012,
$2.1 million was raised by both parties in the State of Alaska,
and every cent of that money exported out to the 12 battleground
states. Under the National Popular Vote the money raised in
Alaska by both parties could actually stay in Alaska. As to an
emotional benefit, he said he guaranteed that no voter in Alaska
would ever go to the voting booth with the presidential election
already being decided. During the last 20 years, most of the
elections have been called by the media long before the polls
closed in California or Alaska, and under the National Popular
Vote, no winner would be declared until all of the votes in all
50 states had been counted. Thereby, allowing Alaskans to go to
the voting booth and the President of the United States had not
yet been determined.
3:34:52 PM
MR. FADEM noted that last year, two books were published and
documented that battleground states do better [during the term
of the president] than non-battleground states because [they
receive] 7 percent more in presidential controlled grants, and
twice as much in disaster relief. He pointed out that it is
difficult to attract the attention of the White House when
standing in line behind the 12 battleground states that will
receive the primary attention of the president, for the next
four years. The only reason for this bill today is that the
Founding Fathers gave citizens the exclusive right to make this
decision, and referred to the Constitution of the United States,
Article II, Section 1, and he paraphrased that it gave citizens
the exclusive right to make that decision. He reminded the
committee that the decision to make is, what system of awarding
Alaska's electoral votes is in the best interests of Alaska.
Now, he commented, contrast the current system wherein Alaska
has zero influence in the presidential election versus the
attributes he had described under the National Popular Vote.
3:36:12 PM
MR. FADUM, in response to Representative Kopp's previous
question, answered that Representative Kopp's point about the 11
states was interesting because that point would be true
currently, as opposed to the National Popular Vote. When
looking at the 11 largest states in the country, if everyone in
those 11 states voted for the same candidate, the big states
would control today, just as Representative Kopp argued
regarding the National Popular Vote, except, he pointed out,
that's not the real world. For instance, with regard to the 12
biggest states, he related that in 2004, six were red and six
were blue; and in 2016, seven were red and six were blue.
Therefore, the 12 biggest states do not guarantee a significant
margin for either political party. In 2004, when looking at the
12 largest states, the difference turned out to be 244,657
between Mr. Kerry and President Bush in the 12 biggest states,
although, a corollary to that was the big cities. He pointed
out that big cities, such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
don't control elections today and they would not control it
under the National Popular Vote. The total population of the 50
largest cities in the country is 15 percent of the population of
America, and the 50th largest city is Arlington, Texas with a
population of 365,000. He suggested looking at the money in
terms of campaigning, the average cost per vote was as follows:
New York-$5.02; Los Angeles-$5.06; but the 25th largest median
market being Indianapolis-$0.04; and the 101th market being Fort
Smith, Arkansas-$0.03. Television ads and radio ads cost less
in rural areas of the country and in Alaska, and when
presidential campaigns calculate the fact that every vote counts
in all 50 states, candidates will campaign everywhere.
3:39:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether he understood correctly that
the interstate compact that the National Popular Vote requires,
would be that each state would pledge its electoral votes to the
overall winner regardless of who its citizens voted. Therefore,
he related, the candidate running in Alaska is always
subservient to whoever wins nationally because the bottom line
is that if a state signs on to this, that state's vote is
subservient to the national will, and that where the electors
are going.
MR. FADUM offered that this is an issue of state identity and he
would not quite characterize it in the same manner as
Representative Kopp. He said, in a national election voters
care whether their candidate became the president, and state
identity, whether a state voted for their person as President of
the United States, is a footnote because voters care whether
their person won the presidency.
3:41:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that Mr. Fadum hit on the 20 mile
philosophical divide between them because the role of a state is
not a footnote. He argued that the states are the entities in
the constitution that elect the president, it is not a peer
democracy and "we do care" who we vote for as a state. He
remarked that possibly in California it is a footnote, but not
in Alaska.
3:42:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that in speaking for the
residents of his district, he did not know whether the promise
to bring more political ads to television was a winning point,
and possibly should not be considered one of the top five
points.
3:42:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, in response to Representative
Kopp's comments, noted that there are two predominantly rural
states that already do exactly what "you are" describing. In
2016, he pointed out, Bruce Poliquin's Maine Congressional
District has a system of allocating electoral votes by
congressional district and the overall popular vote winner of
that state receives the two "electoral votes that are
represented by the senators cast its vote for Donald Trump,
whereas the other three electoral votes went for Hillary
Clinton." He explained that if someone voted for Hillary
Clinton in Maine, that voter saw one of their electors go the
other way, allegedly contrary to the will of that state. In
2008, the exact inverse occurred in Lee Terry's Nebraska
Congressional District regarding President Obama and Senator
McCain, so this system is already happening, he pointed out.
There is a logical jump that has to be made, and while he
appreciates how it appears, the overall point is that people
want a system that will vest and franchise the state in a
national political conversation. He remarked that it appears
blindingly clear that currently a political conversation is
directed to a dozen elite states, which is not in any state's
best interests, red or blue.
[HB 175 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB208 ver A 4.10.17.PDF |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Sponsor Statement 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Sectional Analysis ver A 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 PowerPoint Sectional 4.10.17.pptx |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Decanting Matrix 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Decanting Rankings 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Trust Estate Glossary 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Letter Peak Trust Company 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Letter Manley & Brautigam 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Letter ABA 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Letter Northern Law Group 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Fiscal Note LAW-CIV 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB175 ver A 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB175 Sponsor Statement 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB175 Sectional Analysis ver A 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB175 Additional Document-Legal Memo 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB175 Supporting Document-Supplemental Information 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB 175 Supporting Document-Letters of Support 4.11.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB 175 Opposing Document-Letters of Opposition 4.11.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB175 Additional Document-Letter on Congressional Consent 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB175 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB170 ver J 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Sponsor Statement 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Sectional Analysis 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Repealers List 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 DCCED Whitepaper 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Supporting Document-Letter ANCSA Regional Association 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Supporting Document-Letter NASAA 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 HJUD Slide Presentation 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Additional Document-Enforcement Comparison Chart 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Additional Document-Sponsor's Reply to House Judiciary Committee Questions 4.11.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Additional Document-Violations in Statute 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Amendments #1-3 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Amendments #1-3 HJUD Final Votes 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Fiscal Note DCCED-DBS 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Fiscal Note DHSS-SDSA 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |