Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

04/14/2017 01:00 PM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ HB 1 ELECTION REGISTRATION AND VOTING TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ HB 13 NO ST/MUNI FUNDS: FED IMMIGRAT REGISTRY TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled but Not Heard
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 200 NONPARTISAN OPEN PRIMARY ELECTIONS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+= HB 208 TRUSTS; COMM PROP TRUSTS; POWERS OF APPT TELECONFERENCED
Moved HB 208 Out of Committee
           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