Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/05/2018 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
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 | |
| SJR4 | |
| HB390 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 390 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 390-RANKED-CHOICE PRIMARY ELECTIONS
8:35:07 AM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 390, "An Act establishing a ranked-
choice primary election system for nomination to state executive
and state and national legislative offices; establishing a
ranked-choice general election system for election to state and
national legislative offices; repealing the special runoff
election for the office of United States senator or United
States representative; and requiring certain written notices to
appear in election pamphlets and polling places."
8:35:32 AM
KARLA HART testified that she had tried to bring forward an
initiative in Juneau in support of ranked choice voting (RCV);
however, she said the idea never gained traction, because people
thought it was too complicated. She said she is glad to see HB
390 and encouraged the committee to "really look at it." Ms.
Hart talked about "the spoiler effect" on the municipal and
sometimes the state level. She explained this is when there are
two candidates with similar political positions, who split
votes, leaving a third candidate with the most votes. For
example, the two candidates may be from the same party, and the
result could be a minority representation of a district. She
said [in terms of the popular vote], people often vote for the
candidate they think has the best chance of winning rather than
the candidate who best reflects their values and beliefs. Ms.
Hart urged the committee to pass HB 390. She said although it
may not have a great chance of making it all the way through the
legislative process, the discussion would be kept alive. She
posited that [ranked choice voting] would make the election
system "more reflective of the people and their votes" and
encourage people to vote for their preferred candidate.
8:37:23 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked why Ms. Hart does not think HB 390 has a
chance to make it through the legislature.
MS. HART responded that it is late in the legislative session,
and the legislature has a lot of business to finish. She added,
"And it's a House bill and we're in the House." She said she
hopes she could be surprised, but "it seems that this is the
ripening period of time for the bill."
8:38:22 AM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY, after ascertaining that there was no one else
who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 309. She
then announced she would begin invited testimony.
8:39:10 AM
BRIAN JACKSON, Elections Program Manager, Division of Elections,
Office of the Lieutenant Governor, advised that the current
tabulation system used by the division does not accommodate a
ranked choice process for counting ballots. He specified that
the current system can count only one round of ballots;
therefore, to meet the requirements under HB 390, the division
would need to replace the system with one that can handle
multiple rounds. Mr. Jackson stated that in 2017, the
division's current vendor, Dominion Voting Systems, provided a
"discussion quote" of $5,755,455 to replace the current system
with newer equipment that would use the same precinct-based
system. The vendor indicated that the (RCV) module would cost
an additional $250,000. He related that the division's current
annual hardware and license fees amount to $152,000, and this
would increase to $489,000 - an increase of $337,000 - with the
new system. Mr. Jackson said that for a period of one full
cycle, the division would be required to educate the public and
inform voters of the changes brought about under HB 390, and the
estimate cost of outreach through an "education mailer" would be
$200,000 the first year and another $50,000 the second year.
MR. JACKSON said while the division has no objection to HB 390,
Section 5 would allow voters to vote using Roman or Arabic
numbers, and the current system does not support character
recognition during ballot scanning. Further, he said it is the
understanding of the division that there are no current systems
that support the type of character recognition as described in
Section 5. He said the division understands the committee would
consider amending Section 5, and the division would support
changes to that section.
8:42:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked how many other states use [ranked
choice voting] equipment.
MR. JACKSON answered he does not know but could [provide an
answer later]. In response to a follow-up question, he
confirmed that under an RCV system, the division would maintain
its current practice of counting ballots multiple times [for
accuracy].
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked if voters would still receive a
paper ballot to fill out under the new system.
MR. JACKSON answered yes.
8:43:30 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH offered his understanding that Mr. Jackson had
said the cost of new voting machines would be $5.7 million.
MR. JACKSON answered yes.
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked how much of that amount would be necessary
in the absence of HB 390. He clarified that even without HB
390, that is a cost that the division anticipates covering.
MR. JACKSON explained that the division currently is looking
into replacing the current voting system because of its age.
8:44:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed that a recent mail-in election
in Anchorage had been successful and the mail-in method of
voting seems to be growing in popularity, which saves the
Municipality of Anchorage money. She talked about the cost of
hiring 500 people for a day and a half and staffing and
equipping 120 polling places. She estimated there are upwards
of 400 precincts in Alaska.
8:45:17 AM
JOSIE BAHNKE, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, in response to Representative Drummond,
stated that Alaska has 441 precincts that the division staffs
for elections, at which time the staffing of the division
increases from 28 full-time employees to approximately 2,500
employees.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed her hope that the division
would consider the savings resulting from mail-in ballots. She
acknowledged that mail-in ballots could create issues in having
to provide interpretive ballots or ballots that can be used by
those with visual impairment; however, she reasserted that mail-
in balloting would save the state money in the long-run. She
said new equipment would be necessary, but she assumed it all
would be housed with the division, in one location where all the
ballots would be counted; therefore, she said she does not think
the division would have to spend "the millions and millions of
dollars you're talking about to replace all that equipment."
She said Anchorage borrowed the equipment from the state for
many years, and the equipment was getting worn out, and
sometimes poll workers would have to go find a counting machine.
8:47:10 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked if a ranked choice system could be
compatible with a mail-in system, and, if so, he asked if that
could help "defray the cost of the mailer and the confusion ...
people might experience."
MR. JACKSON answered that he thinks RCV [would work with] by-
mail ballots.
CO-CHAIR PARISH surmised a cost savings could be realized by
including an extra instructional sheet in an envelope.
MR. JACKSON responded that the proposed legislation, as
currently written, would require the division to begin the
additional voter outreach in an off year leading up to the
election year. He said the division would want to send out the
education piece, but the division could also include instruction
with a by-mail ballot.
CO-CHAIR PARISH recollected that North Carolina had spent $200
statewide for public education, but that was with generous
support of the state's public broadcasting service. He said he
has not stipulated under HB 390 the amount the division would
have to spend, and he would support ways to economize.
8:49:56 AM
MS. BAHNKE noted that for the purpose of the included fiscal
note, the division used the discussion quote for the replacement
of a precinct-based system. Alternatively, the division spoke
with the vendor about replacing [the system] with one that would
be entirely by-mail. She said the difference between the two
was $5.7 million for the precinct-based system and approximately
$1.7 million for the entirely by-mail system. Regarding
outreach, she said the division had calculated the $200,000
based on the average price of a ballot measure pamphlet.
8:51:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered her understanding that the
Municipality of Anchorage took two years to educate its voters,
and "apparently it paid off." She suggested there could be
extra pages in the election pamphlet for educational purposes.
8:51:51 AM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked if the division's cost estimate for
voter education considers rural communities and educating voters
for whom English is a second language.
MS. BAHNKE answered that that is not something the division
discussed relative to RCV; however, it was a large part of the
discussion between the lieutenant governor and the Election
Policy Workgroup. She relayed a mantra that if something
doesn't work for rural Alaska, then it does not work for Alaska.
She said, "... That has been a central focus ... as we explore a
new system."
8:53:18 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH said many ranked choice jurisdictions ultimately
do away with primary elections. He asked what the fiscal impact
would be for Alaska if primaries were eliminated.
MS. BAHNKE answered that the typical cost to run a primary
election is approximately $1.2 million. In response to a
follow-up question, she confirmed that that is a biennial cost.
8:54:55 AM
KAY BROWN related that she is retired and a former state
legislator, but is testifying on behalf of herself. She said
the issue of RCV was voted on in a 2002 primary election in
Alaska, in Ballot Measure 1, which failed overwhelmingly when
63.7 percent voted against it and 36 percent voted in favor of
it. She said at that time she had analyzed the system and
became convinced the RCV system was not the best system for
Alaska. She said it may sound good in theory and may work in
other jurisdictions; however, there are caveats she said the
state should consider in terms of how it would play out in
Alaska.
MS. BROWN said her main objection is that the entire concept
seems to violate the well-established principle of one
person/one vote "that we have coming down from the United States
Supreme Court." Ranked choice voting allows voters to vote more
than once, she maintained. She explained that when people vote
for "a last-place candidate," their votes are redistributed to
their second choices, and that process would continue "until
somebody gets a 50 percent plus one majority." She said this
gives that voter "the extra opportunity to determine the
outcome," whereas other voters would have their votes counted
only once. She opined that this is fundamentally unfair.
MS. BROWN noted that RCV is sometimes referred to as "instant
run-off voting," in order to avoid too many run-offs where it
would be potentially difficult for any candidate to get to 50
percent. She said Alaska does not have a super majority
requirement; therefore, "this is really not a problem that needs
to be fixed in my opinion." She opined that there is no reason
to change Alaska's voting system; it would cost extra money to
do so and potentially cause confusion. She questioned how the
results would be reported. For example, she asked if there
would be a report on round one, and then reports for subsequent
rounds. If not, there may be uncertainty and concern on the
part of voters trying to understand what happened. She asked
the committee to picture a race where there are many candidates
and multiple reports, and she said that would be much more
complex for the division and voters "to sort through that."
8:59:08 AM
MS. BROWN questioned how the proposed system would affect
political party status. She said currently a candidate has to
get a certain percent of votes to qualify to a particular party
to have a spot recognized on the primary ballot. She questioned
whether only the first-choice votes would be counted or those
votes on down the ranking. She said that issue needs to be
addressed under HB 390.
MS. BROWN summarized that she does not see the need for [ranked
choice voting] and is not clear what the problem is that is
being addressed by the proposed legislation. She urged the
committee not to move HB 390 forward.
9:00:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND recalled how disturbed by the process
Ms. Brown was several years ago. She remarked that there had
been several mayoral candidates on the ballot for the
Municipality of Anchorage recently, and she would not vote for
several of them. In that case, she might only mark a ranked
choice ballot four or five times, while another voter might mark
his/her ballot for all ten candidates and thus get more votes.
She stated, "I can see how the math would work, and I absolutely
agree that it's a problem regarding the concept of one
person/one vote."
9:01:45 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked Ms. Brown if she remembers what the voter
turnout was for the last General Election.
MS. BROWN answered no.
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked Ms. Brown if she would support a system
that got more people to vote.
MS. BROWN answered, "Not if it compromised our fundamental
constitutional right to one person/one vote." She said she does
support by-mail voting, which she said she thinks has increased
voter participation in Anchorage. She said she agrees that
there should be concern about voter turnout, but she doesn't
think [RCV] is the best approach to a solution.
CO-CHAIR PARISH said he appreciated Ms. Brown's concern that a
candidate that is unlikely to win would have his/her vote
eliminated and then transferred. He called it "single
transferable vote." He said, "It's not the case that in the
final tally my vote would be counted a dozen times; you'd still
have only the number of votes on the ballot. Well, actually,
you'd probably end up with fewer votes overall, because some
candidates would be eliminated and would have declined to vote
for a second or subsequent rounds. But you don't end up with
extra votes overall." He asked Ms. Brown why a voter should not
be able to vote for a candidate who is unlikely to win and also
vote a second-choice candidate.
MS. BROWN reiterated that a person's vote would be counted
initially and then counted again; therefore, that person, in
essence, is being allowed to vote twice. She said she thinks
that is unfair. She said everyone is allowed his/her opinion
concerning the best candidate and is allowed to vote for that
candidate, and she does not think Alaska needs "to add this
layer of complexity to our system in order to have reasonable
and fair outcomes in our elections, and I don't see that this
is an improvement over the system that we have presently."
CO-CHAIR PARISH said presently if a person votes for one of the
two most popular candidates, then the vote essentially gets
counted, while a person who votes for a marginal candidate is
described as throwing his/her vote away. He asked Ms. Brown if
she had heard that.
MS. BROWN answered yes.
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked Ms. Brown if she thinks someone voting for
a third-party candidate is likely to have his/her vote make a
difference in the final tally.
MS. BROWN replied, "However they voted will certainly make a
difference in the final tally."
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked Ms. Brown if she is aware of "results"
that show that there is less negative campaigning in systems
with RCV.
MS. BROWN said she is not familiar with that. She asked for
confirmation that most RCV systems are used locally rather than
in state elections.
CO-CHAIR PARISH confirmed that is correct.
MS. BROWN interjected, "And do we not generally have less
negative campaigning in local elections than we do the higher up
you go in the electoral process?"
CO-CHAIR PARISH explained that the difference he had cited is
between non-RCV cities and RCV cities.
MS. BROWN replied that looking at the experience in cities may
be instructive; however, the city structure is different. For
example, she said Alaska's [municipal elections] are nonpartisan
and do not hold primary elections. She concluded, "So, I'm not
sure that the things that you're looking at are completely
applicable to our state election system."
9:07:26 AM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that HB 390 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJR 4 HCRA Info Memo- Additional Document 4.5.18.pdf |
HCRA 4/5/2018 8:00:00 AM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR 4 S.1965 115 Congress 040318 Additional Document 4.5.18.pdf |
HCRA 4/5/2018 8:00:00 AM |
SJR 4 |
| CS HB 390 ver J 4.5.18.PDF |
HCRA 4/5/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 390 |
| HB 390 - Summary of Changes from Ver A to J 4.5.18.pdf |
HCRA 4/5/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 390 |