Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/14/2017 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 | |
| HB200 | |
| HB208 | |
| HB1 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 208 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 200-NONPARTISAN OPEN PRIMARY ELECTIONS
1:02:57 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 200, "An Act establishing a top two nonpartisan
open primary election system for elective state executive and
state and national legislative offices; repealing the special
runoff election for the office of United States senator or
United States representative; changing appointment procedures
relating to precinct watchers and members of precinct election
boards, election district absentee and questioned ballot
counting boards, and the Alaska Public Offices Commission;
requiring certain written notices to appear in election
pamphlets and polling places; relating to declarations of
candidacy and letters of intent; and amending the definition of
'political party.'"
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 200.
1:03:34 PM
WILLIAM HARRINGTON said "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." He
described himself as a private sector retiree as opposed to a
public sector employee which, he stressed, is important while
discussing (audio difficulties). He offered surprise that with
all the crises the legislature faces this year, this bill was
given the time of day. He asked whether this bill fixes a
problem that had been festering for years. (Audio difficulties)
for the last ten years. He referred to Sec. 11 of the bill,
(audio difficulties) that no party affiliations are listed on
the ballot, just named in alphabetical order, and offered that
in that manner, no party can complain of trademark infringement
or a "wolf in sheep's clothing." Drop the labels, drop the
problem, he said. He asked that this bill be passed so he could
watch in amazement as the unintended consequences for both major
political parties unfold going forward, or as people from the
past say, "in the future."
1:06:20 PM
DANIEL LYNCH said he was testifying for himself "and independent
neighbors," and described himself as a non-partisan super-voter,
as are 53 percent of registered voters in the state. He
suggested an amendment or a companion bill simply ending any
government spending on primary elections or state funding for a
"beauty contest" for private political parties. During the last
15 years, he said he has studied this issue and statewide
primaries "cost between $6 and $2.5 million per cycle." The
state is in a financial strain, he described, and the question
is "where to cut." He said, "Here's an easy button for you,"
and referred to the Constitution of the State of Alaska, Article
V, which read as follows:
Section 1. Qualified Voters. Every citizen of the
United States who is at least eighteen years of age,
who meets registration residency requirements which
may be prescribed by law, and who is qualified to vote
under this article, may vote in any state or local
election. A voter shall have been, immediately
preceding the election, a thirty day resident of the
election district in which he seeks to vote, except
that for purposes of voting for President and Vice
President of the United States other residency
requirements may be prescribed by law. Additional
voting qualifications may be prescribed by law for
bond issue elections of political subdivisions.
Section 2. Disqualifications. No person may vote who
has been convicted of a felony involving moral
turpitude unless his civil rights have been restored.
No person may vote who has been judicially determined
to be of unsound mind unless the disability has been
removed.
Section 3. Methods of Voting; Election Contests.
Methods of voting, including absentee voting, shall be
prescribed by law. Secrecy of voting shall be
preserved. The procedure for determining election
contests, with right of appeal to the courts, shall be
prescribed by law.
Section 4. Voting Precincts; Registration. The
legislature may provide a system of permanent
registration of voters, and may establish voting
precincts within election districts.
Section 5. General Elections. General elections shall
be held on the second Tuesday in October of every
even-numbered year, but the month and day may be
changed by law.
1:07:27 PM
MR. LYNCH advised that Section 5 does not say anything about
state funding a primary election, and for the citizens who
choose to belong to any political party or political group can
fund their own "beauty contest." He commented that last year
the republicans organized and funded its "PPP," the democrats
organized and funded its caucus, and the other parties and
groups had conventions and member mail-ins. Those efforts help
the state's economy and doesn't cost state funds which are
better spent elsewhere, perhaps on the Pioneer Homes, education,
or any constitutional requirement. Locally and statewide, all
other groups, such as the "HEA Co-Op," the Veterans of Foreign
Wars (VFW), the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(IBEW), Teamsters, and others, finance their own elections for
leaders, boards, rules, and decisions, and do not come to the
state for funding. He related that in his 20 plus years in the
state, he could offer many examples of primary blunders and
waste, all at state government expense. Recently, in District
40, two democratic candidates results were challenged by
Republican [Tuckerman] Babcock, and the state had to pay for
judges and court expenses in trying to hash it out, and yet it
should have been left up to the Democratic Party to choose their
candidate. For example, District 29, regarding one unopposed
candidate race costing the state dollars, and District 30,
wherein four republican candidates were trying to "be the man"
when the Republican Party could have (coughing) guy and one in
Soldotna to determine by their members their choice for the
general election, with no state funds. In 2014, there was an
August referendum on SB 21 ...
CHAIR CLAMAN advised Mr. Lynch that he needed to conclude his
comments and asked whether he does or does not support the bill.
MR. LYNCH said he does not support the bill.
1:10:15 PM
GEORGE PIERCE said he represents the community of Kasilof, and
noted that legislators have more important things to do than
waste time with this legislation. He stressed that he does not
like the effective date in the explanation of changes and it
needs to be changed from 2020 to 2018. That's a (indisc.)
funding everything that goes on in this state, he said. In the
event people want to do this, they need to step up to the plate
and spend their money instead of the state's money, and it's not
the legislature's responsibility to continue the funding. He
asked that adjustments be made to this bill.
1:11:31 PM
EUGENE CARL HABERMAN, Unincorporated Area of the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough, said he represents himself, noting that he
follows the public process, and the public process (audio
difficulties) decision made by the governing body (audio
difficulties) the public interest. He commented that some
legislators are aware that he has observed local and state
elections, and offered "deep concern" because he was not going
to be appointed by a party, and his ability to observe a state
election was denied. Yet, he related, a member of a given party
can be appointed and observe. He referred to the 2012 election
in Anchorage when he was denied his right to observe the state
election, and commented that the ability to observe an election
is key to ensuring an election is valid. He added that the more
complex and complicated issues should require more notice to the
public with more opportunities for the public to be heard. He
then referenced HB 200, and commented that there had been
changes in the schedules as to when this bill would be before
the committee, and that moving the schedule around ensures the
public would not be heard. He stressed that if any legislator
expects to hear from the public on any legislation, a fair
schedule and opportunity is necessary for the public to speak to
any bill and be heard.
1:15:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD thanked Mr. Haberman for attending
meetings and paying attention, and then explained that many
bills are in play and acknowledged that public testimony did get
switched. She described it as disingenuous to the public to
change their opportunity to speak to a bill around to different
times, and asked that he forward his written testimony to Chair
Claman's office.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised Mr. Haberman that he could email his
testimony to his office and he would distribute it to the
members of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:16:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that Mr. Haberman described this
current proposal as lacking in transparency and that it lacks
the ability to verify what happens after an election. He asked
that Mr. Haberman recommend a good fix because he was trying to
understand Mr. Haberman's exact problem.
MR. HABERMAN reiterated the situation he spoke of initially
regarding not being appointed by a party and being denied his
right.
1:18:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained to Mr. Haberman that Representative
Eastman had requested a specific amendment to change the bill to
the manner in which Mr. Haberman believed would be satisfactory,
but Mr. Haberman had not answered that question, and asked that
Mr. Haberman answer Representative Eastman's question.
MR. HABERMAN said the process should not be limited in the way
the bill is written because it has the appearance of self-
interest by giving [a watcher] to a local party whether democrat
or republican, rather than having a neutral observer such as
himself.
1:18:51 PM
KEN JACOBUS, Attorney, Kenneth P Jacobus Law Office, after being
advised by Chair Claman that his emails were received, said he
would not take time to discuss the content of those two emails.
He then described this as the "jungle primary" similar to a
"demolition derby" because everyone crashes into everyone else
and the last two candidates standing are on the general election
ballot. He then speculated that the minor parties in Alaska
were not available to testify today because they were unaware of
the meeting, and noted that those minor parties will be
destroyed by the "jungle primary." He pointed out there has
never been a top two election for state or federal office in
California or Washington in which a major party was able to
qualify for the general election ballot unless there was only
one candidate of a major party running for that office. The
minor parties, he warned, would never be able to meet the 3
percent requirement to retain qualified party status. In
addition, political science research and experience demonstrates
that the system in California and Washington does not (audio
difficulties) polarization, (audio difficulties) officeholders,
and depresses voter turnout. The article by Richard Winger, he
had submitted demonstrated that the depression of voter turnout
had been taking place in California since the adoption of the
jungle primary. [Mr. Jacobus offered examples fraught with
audio difficulties.] In the event there was a jungle primary
with an extreme left and an extreme right candidate, and two
centrist's candidates, it works. In the event there were many
candidates, the extreme candidates would win the primary, the
centrists wouldn't because they would split the "mish-mash" in
the center. The jungle primary is simply a bad idea, he
described, and then asked that the committee receive input from
the minor parties "because they are the ones that are going to
be killed by this."
1:23:06 PM
ANDREW SINCLAIR, Clinical Assistant Professor, New York
University Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service,
said he works on issues of public policy and quantitative
research methodology in the United States and Great Britain. In
2015, he co-authored "Nonpartisan Primary Election Reform
Mitigating Mischief," published through the Cambridge University
Press, which focused on the nonpartisan "top two primary" in
California. He said he holds a Ph.D., in Social Science from
the California Institute of Technology, and a B.A. in
mathematics.
MR. SINCLAIR advised that California used a nonpartisan primary
election rule during the years 2012, 2014, and 2016, which was
enough information to report something about it, but there was
still considerable disagreement among political scientists as to
what to look at, and what to make of the new rules.
California's version of the top two is fairly simple, and
described that the two candidates with the most votes advance to
the general election, and voters can choose any candidate in the
primary. He explained that this version was also used in
Washington, and a few other places with similar rules, and
approximately 15 percent of the time, two candidates from the
same party face each other in the general election. Although,
he commented, most of the time the general elections are similar
to what would be seen under the old system. From his own
research, he said, it appears the general elections between
candidates of the same party are more competitive, and those
more competitive elections do happen in the very places where
you would typically see uncompetitive elections. People may
take participation and moderation under consideration, except it
is a little less clear how the top two primary works in
California and how that experience would translate to Alaska.
He noted that his team looked for evidence regarding
disadvantaged people, minorities, and other unrepresented
groups, and they did not see any compelling evidence in his 2015
book. Most of what happens, he explained, appears to happen
through pairing candidates in a different manner, rather than
vastly changing the way voters behave in a primary. In general,
he said they found that voters still pick the candidate they
know something about and they like the most, rather than
behaving in some promulgated strategic way. Overall, they found
that some voters like the new rules and other do not, but many
voters echo the uncertainty of political scientists about
exactly what to expect. Any reform comes with some advantages
and disadvantages, and he pointed out that his job is only to
assess how, and not to make recommendations so he wouldn't make
recommendations one way or the other.
1:26:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Mr. Sinclair had
observed any change before and after California adopted the top
two primary system. He pointed out that California, on the
whole, leans left so for districts of either political character
solidly democratic or solidly republican, whether he observed
there was a race to the ideological extremes prior to, and
after, the adoption of the top two primary system.
MR. SINCLAIR responded there is a lot of academic interest in
changes in ideology, and current research suggested that
democrats in the legislature may have moderated slightly without
a huge changes on the republican side. He offered that he
performed a study in a very republican district, California
Assembly District 5, represented by Assemblyman Frank Bigelow
wherein the 2012 election was between two republican candidates
in the general election. During the campaign Assemblyman
Bigelow declined to sign the "No Tax Increase Pledge" and the
other candidate did sign the pledge, and yet, Assemblyman
Bigelow still won the election, "which is likely a different
outcome than would have been obtained under the other rule."
1:27:46 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to prior testimony indicating that the top
two primary system in California actually showed a reduction in
voter participation, and asked Mr. Sinclair's perspective as to
what effect it had on voter participation.
MR. SINCLAIR answered that it is important to keep voter
participation in context such that, California has been
experiencing declining voter participation over time.
MR. SINCLAIR, in response to Chair Claman, agreed that voter
participation is declining in California as it is in other
states in the country. He said he hesitates to make a strong
claim as to how this would translate to Alaska simply because
the scale of politics in California is very different. He
pointed out that statewide office in Alaska is roughly
equivalent to a single California state senate seat by
population, so the campaign technologies are very different. He
related that in the work he has performed, there is preliminary
evidence that Alaska may see a "very, very, small decrease" in
participation when there are two candidates of the same party.
Except, he stated, that is still ongoing research and it is hard
to establish the factual of what would happen if using the old
system given the decline in participation across the country.
1:29:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she assumed that when discussing
voter participation decline it was for the general election, and
she then asked about voter participation regarding primary
elections.
MR. SINCLAIR responded that he was most familiar with the
California patterns in 2012, 2014, which was actually quite
different, and so it worked differently in the 2012 presidential
year. He explained that the way voter choice works in
presidential years might be quite different than in non-
presidential years, but he said he hesitates to make "too big of
claims" as to the voter participation side and especially
translating that into the Alaska experience. Although, he
commented, the differences were not nearly as large as he
expected, one way or the other.
1:30:31 PM
JASON OLSON, Director, National Organizing for Open Primaries,
explained that his organization is a non-profit national
nonpartisan organization with the singular mission of ensuring
that no American citizen was required to join a political party
in order to vote in a primary. While offering background, he
explained that he founded a group of independent voters in
California that partnered with a coalition led by former
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to bring a top two open primary
to California, as well as reform the districting process.
Restoring Alaska's open primary is worth the support of the
Alaska State Legislature because its citizens, together with
those in California, and Washington State, had their open
primary stolen by a "terrible court decision" in 2000. In that
case, he explained, the California Democratic Party sued the
State of California as the State of California had adopted
Alaska's open primary system in 1996, and the plaintiff's sued
in order to close the primary elections. He described that in
one of the "worst Supreme Court decisions" in a generation, the
court sided with the political establishment of both parties
against each citizens' basic freedom to vote for the elected
representative of their choice. This decision, despite the fact
that primary elections are taxpayer funded, run by government
employees, and conducted on publically owned voting machines.
Therefore, Alaska, California, and Washington State, all of
which have the same open primary system, were forced to return
to the semi-closed primary that voters in each state had
previously rejected, which is the system Alaska is using to this
day. This put all of the states in a difficult position, he
described, so the voters in those other states fought back and
passed new open primaries through ballot initiatives, and for
this they looked to Nebraska which has used the top two open
primary system since 1934 for its legislative races.
MR. OLSON explained that under a top two open primary, voters
are free to vote for whoever they want, legislators are free to
do what they think is right for their constituents rather than
having to tow the party line, and most of the voters in these
states absolutely love it. He offered that the impact in
California has been tremendous and its legislature's approval
rating has risen from a low of 14 percent before the change,
back to 45 percent today. Budgets are passed on time, voter
participation and registration has begun to rebound, and he
agrees with Mr. Sinclair that initially it continued to decline
but has rebounded over time. The voter turnout in the 2016
State of California primary election was 48 percent, and HB 200
is Alaska's chance to finally win back its open primary. He
urged the committee to support this legislation.
1:34:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 200.
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Reinbold, advised
the bill would be held in committee today with amendments due by
5:00 p.m. this afternoon, and the bill would be heard and moved
out of committee during tomorrow's hearing.
1:35:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to a 3/18/2008, Legislative
Research Report prepared for former Representative Max Gruenberg
[located in the committee packets] who had requested documents
pertinent to the U.S. Supreme Court's consideration of
consolidated cases wherein representatives of Washington's
republican, democratic, and libertarian parties challenged the
modified blanket primary, claiming that the law, on its face,
violate a party's associated rights. She encouraged the
committee to read the report, and noted that in California and
Washington this has been challenged "and has headed up to the
Supreme Court." Representative Reinbold then paraphrased from
page 7 of the decision attached to the report, as follows:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE ALITO
joins, concurring.
I share JUSTICE SCALIA's concern that permitting
a candidate to identify his political party preference
on an official election ballot -- regardless of
whether the candidate is endorsed by the party or is
even a member -- may effectively force parties to
accept candidates they do not want, amounting to
forced association of the First Amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the issue of a violation of First
Amendment rights of political parties is serious and there is
opposition in the democratic and republican parties. She noted
that Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Anthony Kennedy had
important comments and said that one of their key points was
that this impairs the parties' advocacy of its standard bearer
for their candidate. She paraphrased the decision, page 9, 4th
paragraph, as follows:
Among the First Amendment rights that political
parties possess is the right to associate with the
persons whom they choose and refrain from associating
with the person they reject.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD advised she does not support HB 200.
1:37:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Representative Reinbold to confirm
that she was reading from a "Dissent Opinion" as opposed to the
majority opinion which is actually the law of the land.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Reinbold to cite the decision
she was reading.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD advised that it was a Washington case
and a California case, and paraphrased from the [consolidated]
decision as follows:
WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE, PETITIONER 06-730 v.
WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY, ET AL. WASHINGTON,
ET AL., PETITIONERS 06-730 v. WASHINGTON STATE
REPUBLICAN PARTY, ET AL. (2008 U.S. LEXIS 2707)
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that the second one was the one in
California, and she spoke to the concurrence and the dissent.
1:37:29 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked that Representative Reinbold pass the papers
to him so he could cite the decision for the record. He then
commented that only the [consolidated] Washington State Grange
and Washington State Republican Party cases under 2008 U.S.
LEXIS 2707, were cited.
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Reinbold, advised
that there may be other cases cited within the decision but she
was quoting from only the one case.
1:39:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the document "Explanation of
Changes - Version O to CS Version U" Section 12, Criminalization
of Ballot Marking, and commented that it was a good change as it
is important there are clean applications allowing the voters to
make their choice without having those choices made for them in
advance.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the issue of the top two
primary system, and noted that the City of Anchorage decided to
go away from the 50 percent model to the 45 [percent model], and
asked whether Representative LeDoux had taken that into
consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she could not follow his question,
and noted that Anchorage has a 45 percent model and if a person
receives 45 percent [of the votes] there is not a run-off for
the mayoral position. She questioned whether his suggestion was
that if one candidate received 45 percent in a primary election,
it canceled out the general election.
1:41:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he was looking at the fact that the
bill opens up changing the primary and general elections and how
they are all working, and of the various options out there that
is certainly one option. He opined that Anchorage is the only
place that has tried it, and asked whether Representative LeDoux
had compared that process when drafting this bill.
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that Representative Eastman was getting
some of the details of the Anchorage election system confused
with the state system. Anchorage, many years ago, adopted a
nonpartisan election and; therefore, parties are never listed,
and only the mayoral election allows a run-off, and that is only
if someone doesn't prevail by a certain percentage of the votes.
At the assembly level, he explained, there has never been that
45 percent requirement, and in recent years it has been a
plurality. He described Senator Lisa Murkowski's write-in
campaign as a perfect example on the state level and, including
the gubernatorial election, plurality prevails in all of the
state general elections. He noted that he, too, was a bit
confused by Representative Eastman's question.
1:42:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that she was unclear as to
whether Representative Eastman was referring to a candidate who
received 45 percent of the votes in a primary would then not
move on into the general election, or whether it was the idea
that a person would need to collect 45 percent in the general
election. She expressed that she was hopeful the language was
clear and in the event it was not, she would bring forth an
amendment clarifying there would be only two candidates actually
on the ballot, and the candidate with 50 percent plus one vote
would win the election, except in the case of a write-in
candidate. She pointed out that the intention of this bill in
the general election is whoever wins the plurality of the votes.
1:44:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD acknowledged that Chair Claman had cited
the decision within the 3/18/2008 Legislative Research Report,
and cited three cases within that decision.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that he had submitted a request for
an amendment a while ago and still had not received the
amendment, and was unsure it would be submitted timely.
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Eastman and his
timely efforts with Legislative Legal and Research Services to
draft his amendment, answered that he would certainly consider
the circumstances. He commented that, according to his staff,
Representative LeDoux had already drafted an amendment on the
same topic as Representative Eastman.
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Kopp, advised there
would be an opportunity for committee members to comment on HB
200.
1:46:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD complained about the difficulty in
turning in timely amendments.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted to Representative Reinbold that during the
hearing last night he had advised amendments to this bill would
be due at 5:00 tonight. He stressed that throughout this
session, he has consistently given appropriate deadlines for
amendments in this committee.
1:47:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that things are happening
quickly and, as Chair Claman knows in being a member of the
minority last year, many times the minority's requests are
rolled to the bottom at Legislative Legal and Research Services.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that Legislative Legal and
Research Services is a nonpartisan agency and it does not roll
minority bills, amendments, or questions, to the bottom of the
pile. She said that an attack on Legislative Legal and Research
Services by suggesting it is anything other than nonpartisan was
not appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP agreed that Legislative Legal and Research
Services is nonpartisan, but it only has a finite amount of
human resources, and it had put out a detailed memorandum
advising of its priorities and the minority was at the bottom.
He reiterated that resources are limited and that Legislative
Legal and Research Services is nonpartisan.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX requested a copy of the memorandum.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said "It was a zero attack on leg legal
at all," because she was attacking the process.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB200 Draft Proposed ver U 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Sponsor Statement 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Explanation of Changes ver U 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Sectional Analysis ver U 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Bill Highlights 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 ver O 4.10.17.PDF |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Supporting Document-Washington Supreme Court Ruling 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Supporting Documents-Top 2 Primary FAQs for Candidates - Elections & Voting - WA Secretary of State 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Additional Document-Top Two Primaries Nationally 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Supporting Document-Letters 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Additional Document-Legal Opinion 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Additional Document-Leg Research Report Voter Turnout 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Supporting Document-Additional Letters of Support 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Opposing Document-Letters of Opposition 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| 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 |
| HB001 ver U 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 1 |
| HB001 Sponsor Statement 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 1 |
| HB001 Memo of Changes 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 1 |
| HB001 Supporting Document-PEW Report 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 1 |
| HB001 Supporting Document-Voting Information and Statistics 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 1 |
| HB001 Supporting Document-Letters of Support 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 1 |
| HB001 Supporting Document-Letter Alaska Community Action on Toxics 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/17/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 1 |
| HB001 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 1 |
| HB013 ver O 4.14.17.PDF |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 Sponsor Statement 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 Explanation of Changes 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 Supporting Document-Timeline for Korematsu's Resolution 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 Supporting Document-Korematsu v US 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 Supporting Document-Research Document 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 HJUD PowerPoint Presentation 4.14.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 HJUD PowerPoint Presentation 4.14.17.pptx |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 13 |
| HB013 Fiscal Note OOG-OMB 4.14.17.PDF |
HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 13 |