Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/20/2000 02:14 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 20, 2000
2:14 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Joe Green
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 40(RLS) am
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
providing that the governor and lieutenant governor be elected by
a majority vote; and changing the term of office of the governor
and lieutenant governor.
- MOVED CSSJR 40(RLS) am OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 40
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM:ELECTION & TERMS OF GOV & LT GOV
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/29/00 2776 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
3/29/00 2776 (S) FIN
4/03/00 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/03/00 (S) Heard & Held
4/04/00 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/04/00 (S) Moved CS(FIN) Out of Committee
4/04/00 2856 (S) FIN RPT CS 7DP 1NR SAME TITLE
4/04/00 2856 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS,
4/04/00 2856 (S) GREEN, PETE KELLY, WILKEN, LEMAN;
4/04/00 2856 (S) NR: ADAMS
4/04/00 2856 (S) FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
4/06/00 (S) RLS AT 11:45 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/06/00 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/14/00 (S) RLS AT 1:00 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/15/00 (S) RLS AT 1:15 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/15/00 (S) RLS AT 3:00 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/16/00 3162 (S) RLS TO CAL W/CS 1DNP 1OR 4/16
NEW TITLE
4/16/00 3162 (S) PREVIOUS FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
4/16/00 3165 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/16/00 3166 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/16/00 3166 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED BY TIM KELLY
4/16/00 3166 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/16/00 3167 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING Y15 N5
4/16/00 3167 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR 40(RLS) AM
4/16/00 3167 (S) PASSED Y14 N6
4/16/00 3167 (S) KELLY TIM NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
4/17/00 3185 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
4/17/00 3185 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 4/18 CAL
4/18/00 3229 (S) MVD TO TOP OF CAL IN 3RD RDG ON RECON
4/18/00 3229 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 2
UNAN CONSENT
4/18/00 3230 (S) AM NO 2 ADOPTED Y15 N5
4/18/00 3230 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
4/18/00 3230 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y14 N6
4/18/00 3256 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/18/00 3274 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
4/18/00 3274 (H) JUD, FIN
4/20/00 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
4/20/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
4/20/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JIM POUND, Staff
to Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced CSSJR 40(RLS) am.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
P.O. Box 110017
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0017
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSJR 40(RLS) am.
SENATOR TIM KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 101
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: As the originator of Section 2, testified on
CSSJR 40(RLS) am.
AVRUM GROSS
424 North Franklin
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 40 on his own
behalf.
TREFON ANGASAN
Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA)
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 40 on behalf
of the BBNA.
ROBERT WILLARD, JR.
Alaska Native Brotherhood (ANB)
(No address provided)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 40 on behalf
of the ANB.
JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on technical aspects and possible
unintended consequences relating to CSSJR 40(RLS) am; urged
members to develop a good record to facilitate preclearance.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-69, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 2:14 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Kott, Green, Rokeberg, James and
Croft. Representatives Kerttula and Murkowski arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
SJR 40 - CONST AM:ELECTION & TERMS OF GOV & LT GOV
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the committee would be taking up CS
For Senate Joint Resolution No. 40(RLS) am, proposing amendments
to the Constitution of the State of Alaska providing that the
governor and lieutenant governor be elected by a majority vote;
and changing the term of office of the governor and lieutenant
governor.
Number 0053
JIM POUND, Staff to Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska State
Legislature, indicated that SJR 40 was brought up because, with
the exception of the 1998 "confusion election," the legislature
has not worked with a governor or lieutenant governor elected by
the majority of the voters since 1970, when Governor Bill Egan
received 51.34 percent of the votes. This lack of majority in
every election tends to create low voter turnout; many people
feel that their votes do not not count if they do not vote for
the right person. He explained that SJR 40 will give the public
the opportunity to vote, should [the legislature] decide to pass
it.
MR. POUND told members that under SJR 40 the races for governor
and lieutenant governor will be determined by a majority vote of
50 percent plus one vote. For simplicity, the resolution will
only address gubernatorial races. The next Alaska State
Legislature will be responsible for the runoff election, which
will be handled in law as opposed to by resolution. Currently
more than half of Alaska's population is already familiar with
the runoff process because it is required in the Anchorage
municipal election. Mr. Pound concluded that SJR 40 means that
the next statewide elected officials will truly be
representatives of the majority of Alaskans.
Number 0181
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that there have been legislative
races where there were only two people, and the vote was so close
that neither received 50 percent of the vote - for example, 49.8
percent against 49.5 percent. He wondered whether, if neither
gubernatorial candidate got 50 percent, they would have to have a
runoff against each other.
MR. POUND explained that there always have been at least five
parties in the gubernatorial race; therefore, the possibility of
that happening would be slim. Presently for the governor's and
lieutenant governor's race, listed are the Alaska Independence
Party, Democratic Party of Alaska, Green Party of Alaska,
Libertarian Party, Republican Moderate Party, Inc., and the
Republican Party of Alaska. There are also two limited political
parties: the Natural Law Party and the Reform Party.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether Arizona had tried this.
MR. POUND said that he is not sure. He explained that one state
had set up something, but it was a different type of situation
where it went back to the legislature to make the final decision.
Number 0332
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether Louisiana has a similar system. He
said that he believes in Louisiana the House and Senate members
all run in the primary election, and if one member gets 50
percent plus one vote, then that person is automatically declared
the winner. If no candidate receives 50 percent plus one vote,
then the two top candidates advance to the general election.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether [candidates] could be of the
same party.
CHAIRMAN KOTT affirmed that.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT requested clarification that [the governor
and lieutenant governor who were elected under this new system]
would be sworn in on the first Monday of December, as usual, but
if there was a runoff the date would be changed to the third of
February. He asked why they would wait so long.
MR. POUND explained that it was a request from the Division of
Elections in order to give them time.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that ballots are sent to the
military worldwide 60 days before the election.
MR. POUND affirmed that.
Number 0503
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist, Division of
Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, advised members
that the Division of Elections has said that a runoff election
could take place within the time frame put forth by CSSJR 40(RLS)
am, but it does not take into account recounts or any litigation
that may take place after the general election. It appears that
the window set forth by CSSJR 40(RLS) am would allow for about a
four-day period where any recounts or litigation could take
place, but a statewide recount would take longer than four days.
With litigation, she added, they have no control over how long
that would take.
Number 0570
SENATOR TIM KELLY, Alaska State Legislature, [who had originated
the amendment to SJR 40 that added Section 2] wondered if the
same thing is true with the general election. He pointed out
that the governor takes office the first Monday in December, and
they do not certify until November 30. He asked if they have the
same problem with the status quo.
MS. FENUMIAI responded that in 1994 a statewide recount was done
in three days; however, no litigation was filed after that.
There is the opportunity for litigation to be filed ten days
after an election is certified. She noted that the time frame
set forth did allow for the 60-day special advanced ballots to be
sent to the military.
Number 0605
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG wondered if the Division of Elections
keeps track of the lateness of the overseas ballots, and if they
would be able to compile typical general election returns.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that in the 1998 general election she was
asked how many special advanced military ballots they had sent
out, and she had indicated they sent 382. She said she does not
know, off the top of her head, how many of those came back. She
indicated that they send the official ballots to those voters,
and they have the opportunity to vote both; their special
advanced ballot is held until the fifteenth day following the
election, and if their official ballot does not come in, the
special advanced ballot is counted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the special advanced ballot
has all of the candidates on it.
MS. FENUMIAI responded that a special advanced ballot for a
general election would be sent with a list of candidates who had
appeared on the primary election ballot, with instructions. She
indicated voters can either write in the name of a candidate or
write in the party affiliation that they choose to vote for.
They are informed that if they write in the name of a candidate
that does not advance to the general election, then it would be
an invalid vote.
Number 0747
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what the sequence of events is for a
normal election. And if there is a runoff, why does it take so
long?
MS. FENUMIAI explained that [the division] had prepared a
tentative calender based on the 2002 gubernatorial election.
Election day is Tuesday, November 5, and a target certification
date would be November 29. They cannot certify any earlier than
the fifteenth day after the election because those overseas
ballots have fifteen days to be received at the Division of
Elections. In response to a question by Representative Green,
Ms. Fenumiai clarified that November 20 would be the last day to
receive military overseas ballots. It takes two to three weeks
to certify a statewide election when there are multiple
candidates. Based on the time line if a runoff were needed and
no recounts or litigation took place, the Division of Elections
would mail special advanced ballots on November 30, and the
runoff election day would be set on the January 28, or 60 days
from the date that the special advanced ballots were sent out.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if that is by statute.
MS. FENUMIAI replied that the special advanced ballots, by
statute, are to be sent out 60 days prior to any statewide
primary, general or special election.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether that is a state law.
MS. FENUMIAI affirmed that it is in state statute. She
continued. The day after the election is certified, if there were
no recounts requested, the sixtieth day past that day would be
January 28, which would be election day. The fifteenth day
following that would be the February 12, and certification could
take place shortly after that. All the precinct work and other
absentee and question ballots would be reviewed following the
election, starting about the tenth day after the election. She
added that with one race the certification process is a bit
easier than with multiple races on a ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN requested clarification about the time line.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that based on the calender for the 2002
gubernatorial election, February 12 would be the fifteenth day
following the election day, and the third Monday or Tuesday would
be February 17, which would be the date that the proposed
amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska [SJR 40]
would have the governor sworn in.
Number 0970
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether the Accu-Vote process
shortens the certification at all.
MS. FENUMIAI said it does somewhat, but not by weeks. For
precincts with Accu-Vote machines, it makes the precinct
materials easier to go through when the state review board goes
through audits and looks through all the precinct results.
However, there still are more than 170 hand-count precincts where
it takes a lot longer.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he is still wondering if other states
are doing this on the gubernatorial level.
Number 1039
MS. FENUMIAI indicated that Arizona did it for one election; it
was a constitutional amendment that passed. However, they had a
gubernatorial race in which no candidate received 50 percent plus
one, so they had a runoff election in January or February, and
[the constitutional amendment] was then repealed, right after
that, because the voters and the candidates did not like it.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT wondered if Ms. Fenumiai knew what the
turnout was in that gubernatorial race.
MS. FENUMIAI indicated she didn't have that information but could
get it from the Arizona Division of Elections.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT requested confirmation that basically the
main constraint in the time line is the 60 days given to the
military.
MS. FENUMIAI clarified that the 60 days is the biggest period of
time that [the Division of Elections] needs to make sure the
voters get their ballots.
Number 1109
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this particular year is the worst
situation as far as when the third Tuesday comes after the
certification; there are only four days, he said, and most times
there will more than a week.
MS. FENUMIAI said she is not sure.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if [the Division of Elections] was
able to do a single ballot in a week before the more streamline
voting capability [Accu-Vote].
MS. FENUMIAI responded no; they had used the Accu-Vote machine in
the September election. The certification process can start
before the last day to receive military and overseas ballots, and
they generally start the tenth day following the election day.
She believes that they had finished on the following Friday, so
it took seven days to certify the election - day 17 following
election day. If they look at the dates presented [in SJR 40],
it would be about February 14, 2003, and the third Monday falls
on February 17, 2003.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it would be well down the line, even in
a close year like this.
Number 1212
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG wondered what would happen if the statute
were changed from 60 days to 45 days, and whether it would cause
any problems or disenfranchise the overseas folks.
MS. FENUMIAI replied that the potential is there for it to
disenfranchise some voters. She said they do not have a way to
record when those people receive their ballots. She noted that
they have had problems getting materials just to Kodiak because
of weather problems.
Number 1264
SENATOR KELLY stated:
In terms of the legislature, as set by the
constitution, we are supposed to meet by the fourth of
January or otherwise prescribed by law, and we've
otherwise prescribed ourselves, that in election years,
the third Tuesday in January, and in non-gubernatorial
years, it is the second Tuesday in January.
The way that the constitutional amendment is framed is
we've also said for that third Monday in February or
otherwise prescribed by law. If the constitutional
amendment passes, it would be very possible for the
legislature to come back and enact changes to election
statutes (indisc.--simult. speech). As I understand
it, we have a federal requirement for some type of
absentee ballot program, but there is a federal
postcard absentee ballot that we could use instead of
the 60-day state requirement we're currently using.
So, I think what you're going to find is if, in fact,
this constitutional amendment passes, you'd probably
rewrite some of the election statutes so that you can
probably reuse that period between the general election
and the third Monday in February quite a bit - this
statutory change. But then, remember, statutory change
has to pass the legislature, has to be either okayed or
overridden on the third floor, has to be approved by
the Department of Justice because of the [Voting]
Rights Act, so it's kind of an involved process, but it
can be done. It probably shouldn't be tried until
after this may or may not pass the public.
Number 1359
AVRUM GROSS came forward to testify. He told members that he has
been a resident of Alaska for 40 years and has served in a number
of positions in government. Most recently, he was Attorney
General for six years, and he indicated that he has some
familiarity with the election process. He said that he was
involved with the Hickel v. Hammond election case, which was one
of the most highly contested litigations over this matter in
history.
MR. GROSS told members he honestly believes this [SJR 40] is not
a good idea, both from a theoretical viewpoint and a practical
viewpoint. Unfortunately, it has a lovely ring to it, as did Mr.
Pound's comment that this will result in a governor who is truly
representative of the majority of Alaskans. Mr. Gross said if
that were truly what [the resolution] did, he would support it,
but it does not.
MR. GROSS explained that first, the purpose of a gubernatorial
election is to find out whom Alaskans want their governor to be
for four years; that is done with a primary election and a
general election. The existing law is that the person who gets
the most votes in the gubernatorial election wins, whether it is
51 percent or 49 percent [of the vote]. It is admittedly a very
imperfect system, because one doesn't really know whether the
person who gets the plurality in a gubernatorial election would
truly represent the majority of Alaskans. Many Alaskans do not
vote, and who knows how that would break out statistically.
Although the current system is imperfect, it is much better than
the system proposed in this constitutional amendment [SJR 40].
MR. GROSS further explained the way it would work. If the vote
were split [three ways] at 48 percent, 42 percent and 10 percent,
this constitutional amendment [SJR 40] proposes to hold another
statewide election solely for the purpose of running off the
gubernatorial candidates as quickly thereafter as the runoff
election could be held. There would have been an election at the
end of August and one in November, so this would be the third
statewide election in four months - during the depths of winter
in Alaska and the middle of the Christmas season. That is a time
absolutely calculated to draw out the minimal turnout possible in
any election. In a general election, at least there are
legislators running and initiatives on the ballot to bring voters
into the voting booth as well. Now, however, this constitutional
amendment [SJR 40] proposes to hold solely a gubernatorial runoff
in the dead of winter.
MR. GROSS further stated that there would now be two candidates
remaining, and one would get 50.1 percent of the vote. He
wondered if that is truly representative among the majority of
Alaskans. Suppose the candidate that gets 50.1 percent of the
votes in the runoff election has less votes than the candidate
that got 48 percent of the votes in the general election, which
is highly likely to occur. There will be a substantially reduced
turnout, and a vastly reduced pot of Alaskans will pick the
governor. The desire should be to have the governor selected at
the largest possible of turnout of statewide voters, not the
smallest - and this would be the smallest.
MR. GROSS told members that practical problems are equally
overwhelming. In addition to having an election decided by the
smallest pool of voters possible, people will be asked to run for
governor essentially three times. Candidates will have to raise
money for three elections. The voters would have to withstand
campaigning for another month or two. And it would cost the
state a great deal of money to run another election. The costs
to public policy would be substantial.
MR. GROSS pointed out that assuming everything goes smoothly,
there is an election in December, and the governor is elected and
takes office in February, the legislature would have been in
session for a month already. There would have been a lame duck
governor whose budget was worthless, and there would be no
commissioners who have any authority to deal with the subject
matter of their legislative agendas. There would be no budget
director. There would be no one but the outgoing administration
for a full month. Mr. Gross said he supposes that they could
change the whole schedule around if they wanted to, but this [SJR
40] does not do that. He thinks it is a waste of public
resources.
MR. GROSS concluded that there is no perfect way to select a
governor. The way that exists currently has worked very well;
there have been some good governors in this state from both
parties. He said that there is no reason to fix something when
it is not broken. The proposed constitutional amendment [SJR 40]
will not result in any better representation of the people than
the current system. He believes that it will result in a far
worse representation.
Number 1739
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that the special election would be
toward the end of January, rather than at Christmas.
MR. GROSS indicated it would be the third election, however, in
the depths of winter.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated his belief that 50 percent plus
one vote of that reduced number of voters would still be better
than 35 or 39 percent of the larger group.
MR. GROSS asked, "But how about 48 percent of 49 percent?"
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "That's true. You indicated that was
a likely. I would certainly submit that that's probably not a
likelihood. If you got 49 percent in a three- or four- or five-
candidate race, the chances of you getting less than that later,
I would think, would be, very, very minimal, but those are
opinions; those aren't facts."
MR. GROSS suggesting comparing the primary election with the
general election turnout. Noting that the gubernatorial runoff
wouldn't include legislative races, congressional races,
initiatives, or other issues, he said he guesses that [the voter
turnout] would be substantially lower than that for the primary
vote.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said these are opinions.
MR. GROSS agreed but said it is borne out by practical
experience.
CHAIRMAN KOTT suggested they will see the results in Anchorage in
a few weeks as to whether the [municipal] runoff election has a
lower or higher turnout, because there will be just one race, and
there will be no propositions or ballot initiatives.
Number 1835
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated about four years ago she sent a
letter to all the people registered in her district who hadn't
voted, asking them to send her a card back saying why they did
not vote. She said she got a huge box of cards back. She
explained that there is a feeling out there that people's votes
don't count; however, the main reason that people didn't vote was
because they were too busy doing something else. In her
lifetime, she has been trying to find a way to get more people
interested in voting. She has found, in talking to people on the
street or at the store or on an airplane, that people are
disappointed that more than half of the people do not select the
governor. She suggested putting this proposed constitutional
amendment to the vote of the people.
MR. GROSS noted that only when the legislature determines that a
proposed constitutional amendment makes good public sense is it
supposed to be put to the people. He agreed that if two-thirds
of the legislators think it is a good idea, then it should be
sent out to the public for a vote. However, if two-thirds do not
think it is a good idea, then it should not be sent out.
Number 2022
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he would be willing to bet that
Arizona, where they tried this once and rejected it, had a
substantially lower turnout in the runoff election. He said he
thought that Mr. Gross did a good job of going over the
theoretical and practical issues, but he wondered about the
details. He referred to page 1, lines 7 and 8 of CSSJR 40(RLS)
am, indicating the [constitution] now says that the candidate
receiving the greatest number of votes shall be governor.
However, [if amended] the constitution is going to read, "The
candidate receiving at least 50 percent plus one of the votes
cast for office shall be governor." He explained that it is not
unheard of to have very close gubernatorial races. He asked Mr.
Gross: If the runoff election resulted in a 49.8 percent vote
for Governor A and 49.9 percent vote for Governor B, with 100
write-ins, who does he think the governor would be?
MR. GROSS said he didn't know. He explained that he was involved
in two statewide elections in which there were two major
candidates: Egan versus Hammond, and Hammond versus Hickel.
Both were decided by a total of 270 votes out of several hundred
votes cast. He noted that there is a history of that, and if
this constitutional amendment [SJR 40] passes, they are basically
saying that there will be three elections for governor every
single time. He said he cannot imagine that. He added that his
political instinct tells him that the turnout in Arizona had
dropped precipitously and do so here, too.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested that there might be four
elections.
MR. GROSS agreed that if a candidate had to get 50 percent plus
one vote, the state would have to keep having elections until
someone got 50 percent plus one.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that there are some very, very
close elections, and there are sitting members of the Alaska
State Legislature who didn't receive 50 percent even though they
were in straight head-to-head races.
MR. GROSS said he assumes that the legislature could deal with
that in statute, but at the same time it will not guarantee that
someone represents the majority of the voters.
Number 2174
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recalled a race that he was involved in
where there was a third-party candidate; he provided details and
said that situation can be devastating. He wondered if a
statutory change restricting the number of parties on a ballot
would be a better fix than a constitutional change that would
essentially do the same thing.
Number 2285
MR. GROSS pointed out that there are constitutional limitations
on the ability to limit parties, as well, to the extent that the
state can prohibit somebody from running for office under any
kind of a party label. He restated that the system is far from
perfect, and there can be situations where people are victimized.
There also has been a gubernatorial race in Alaska where a
governor received less than 40 percent of the vote. However,
this type of a fix [SJR 40] is going to create many, many more
problems than what they have now.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated there are some constitutional
parameters on disallowing or allowing additional parties to
participate.
MR. GROSS said from time to time third parties arise and create
real contortions in the democratic system. However, if they stay
around long enough, the Democrats or Republicans seem to absorb
them. He thinks that, in the long run, the system works very
well. No system is perfect, and third parties cause some
problems, but in the end they inject some energy into the
political process, and the major parties swallow them up and take
some of that energy.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the list in the packet of the
Governor/Lieutenant Governor election results and cited some
figures from it.
TAPE 00-69, SIDE B
Number 0020
TREFON ANGASAN, Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA), testified
via teleconference from Anchorage. He informed the committee
that BBNA is opposed to the passage of SJR 40. The association
is opposed to the process being utilized. Mr. Angasan related
BBNA's belief that the proposed amendment is on the fast track.
Usually when there are constitutional amendments that come before
the electorate, there are discussions in various forums such as
community meetings. However, when there have only been two days
to discuss a proposed amendment, it leaves him to ponder the
impacts to rural Alaska.
MR. ANGASAN expressed concern that [SJR 40] would negatively
impact the voters in rural Alaska. The turnout for second and
third elections will dwindle, resulting in the voice of rural
Alaska dwindling as well. Furthermore, the election costs will
be greater and the campaign season will be longer. Mr. Angasan
emphasized that "we" have a difficult time coming out for the
general election under the current process. He said [BBNA]
believes [SJR 40] will have a tremendous impact on the voice of
the minority voters and will be challenged under the Voting
Rights Act.
Number 0213
ROBERT WILLARD, JR., Alaska Native Brotherhood (ANB), informed
the committee that he is from Angoon, although he resides in
Juneau. He told the committee that the ANB opposes SJR 40. The
statewide elections have served well, and [ANB] sees no reason
for a change such as that called for in SJR 40. This is
particularly true in Southeast Alaska, where cultural and tribal
activity is timed to accommodate the general election in
November. Therefore, a runoff election in December would disrupt
the current system of scheduling, resulting in a lower voter
turnout in the Native community. If tribal/cultural activity
conflicted with a runoff election, tribal members would have to
continue participation in their cultural events, resulting in
less interest in a runoff election. Furthermore, a runoff
election would be costly, and, therefore, why would a candidate
bother with a rural Alaska campaign? Mr. Willard also expressed
concern from the ANB with regard to who would be appointed to
serve on the boards and commissions that are put together in a
hurry [as a result of a governor coming into office late].
Number 0347
JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, came forward
to address some technical aspects of the resolution. He referred
to page 1, Section 2, where there is an internal conflict. The
first sentence in that section is an existing provision of the
state constitution, he noted, which says that the term of office
for the governor is four years. However, the new language has
different start and end dates for the follow-on terms.
MR. BALDWIN explained that if a governor is elected during a
general election, which does not require a runoff election, that
governor would have a different term. However, if the
aforementioned governor is followed by a governor that is elected
at a runoff election, that would conflict with the four-year-term
language. Therefore, it could be a legal problem if the pre-
sitting governor viewed his/her term as being cut off. Mr.
Baldwin specified that he didn't have a solution for this
dilemma. He pointed out that the deleted language reads,
"December four years later," which covered the four-year term.
However, under the new language, there could be a situation in
which the term could be shorter or longer than four years,
depending upon the mixture of general-election-elected governors
and a runoff-elected governors. This is a technical problem that
should be reviewed and solved by the legislative attorneys.
MR. BALDWIN turned to possible unintended results [with SJR 40].
He noted that elections adhere to many time lines and deadlines
by law. He recalled Judge Stewart's advice to this committee
that constitutional amendments are very technical in nature, and
the best thing to do is to let them sit and consider the effect
because there could be unintended consequences. Mr. Baldwin
referred to Article I, Initiatives, in the state constitution,
which includes a provision addressing the referendum. The
referendum is not a process that is used very much; it requires
obtaining many signatures in a short time. However, with groups
becoming more organized it is possible that the referendum
process could come back into vogue.
MR. BALDWIN noted that the constitution says in this section that
there are 90 days after the legislature adjourns for an
organization to obtain signatures for its certification to file
with the governor. Once that occurs, [the referendum] is placed
on the first statewide election held more than 180 days after
adjournment of the legislature. If such a situation existed this
year, for example, it would fall a day after the general election
and thus [the referendum] would perhaps qualify for the runoff
election. Therefore, the unintended consequence of this
resolution would make it easier to have a referendum vote by the
following January, in this case.
MR. BALDWIN said he doesn't believe that is an intended
consequence of [SJR 40]. He pointed out that this was what he
found in the hour he had to read over the constitution, and thus
he wondered if there are other unintended consequences. He
mentioned that he didn't have an opportunity to review the
election code. Mr. Baldwin surmised that Senator Kelly would say
that there is time to fix this because there is an interim
general election, then there would be a gubernatorial election
and there would be an intervening legislative session to fix it.
MR. BALDWIN said although that may be a solution, he isn't sure.
He suggested that a solution would be to look at every reference
to a statewide election in the constitution and determine whether
that language is desired or not, because the language [in SJR 40]
has introduced a strong distinction between a general election
and a statewide election. Furthermore, the statewide election
term is also used in the initiative section, which refers to the
timing of the initiative election that must be held more than 120
days after the adjournment of the legislature.
MR. BALDWIN pointed out that there is a difference between
referendums and elections. He reiterated that referendums [must
be held] 180 days [after the adjournment of the legislature].
Referendums occur when people are unhappy with a measure enacted
[by the legislature]; they get a chance to vote on it. Under
this resolution, that will occur the January following passage of
the measure, he indicated. The way it is now, however, it would
occur later than that.
Number 0568
MR. BALDWIN informed the committee that one of his
responsibilities at the Department [of Law] is to deal with the
preclearance of election changes, which would be required with
[SJR 40]. He noted that he has always thought that amendments
such as this should include a dependent effective date which
acknowledges that the amendment's provisions cannot be
implemented until they have been precleared by the U.S.
Department of Justice or a court. Therefore, he said, it might
be appropriate to have an effective date that acknowledges that
preclearance is necessary.
Number 0677
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that if there were a referendum,
there could be a large turnout for the runoff election. She said
that she understood Mr. Baldwin's concern.
MR. BALDWIN pointed out that there could be referendum election
with a very small turnout, however, and therefore the legislature
wouldn't necessarily receive the full opinion of the people.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES restated that the number of people who come
out to vote is very distressing to her. She offered her opinion
that a second chance at a gubernatorial election might persuade
more people to vote. She said she is willing to try anything in
order to get people involved in the political process.
Number 0772
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI returned to the preclearance aspect and
asked how that would work procedurally. She posed a situation in
which SJR 40 is passed by this legislature, is before the voters
in November, and passes. She surmised that it would then go
before the U.S. Department of Justice for preclearance. She
inquired as to the chance that the preclearance would be denied.
MR. BALDWIN said it is hard for him to say. That day's testimony
has indicated that the minority voters may claim that there would
be some retrogression in their voice in the process. Mr. Baldwin
explained how preclearance would work. [The state] would
petition the U.S. Department of Justice to preclear, which is an
administrative process. Although the U.S. Department of Justice
has 60 days, the department can request more information, which
starts the clock again. Therefore, the process can be spread
out. However, at some point action must be taken. If the
department decides not to preclear it, the law cannot go into
effective, but there is the option to proceed to a three-judge
panel in the D.C. Circuit Court in order to obtain judicial
preclearance.
Number 0866
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI reiterated that since the amendment
would not be in place, there would not be an opportunity for a
runoff election in which to determine whether any individuals
have been disenfranchised. The preclearance would be based on a
situation that has not yet happened. Whether or not any
individuals had been disenfranchised would be speculative. She
surmised that it would, essentially, entail taking affidavits and
testimony from individuals, and the three-judge panel would rule
based on that.
Number 0913
MR. BALDWIN responded that the Department of Justice could force
[the state] to go that way if the department didn't preclear it.
The only other alternative would be to go to the three-judge
panel. The cases involve the use of statistical theory, sampling
and experts in trying to disprove or prove a case, he explained,
and the state has the burden of preclearing these things.
Furthermore, the Department of Justice Department is very
militant about protecting the rights of minority voters. Mr.
Baldwin pointed out that HJR 44, passed in a prior year to change
the reapportionment process, still hasn't been precleared,
although the state is still working with the Department of
Justice on that.
MR. BALDWIN again suggested having an effective date on these
types of resolutions to reflect the true state of the law,
because they currently take effect after 45 days or when they are
precleared by a court, whichever is later. He said he thinks
maybe this should be placed in the drafting to make it clear,
until "we get out from underneath Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated that might be an argument to get
these [resolutions] done and to the people right away. To his
understanding, both Georgia and Arizona have both been precleared
on the majority voting rights, although he understands that this
is not a guarantee that Alaska would be [precleared]. He stated
that while he is not a Native, he has been in several Native
villages during the wintertime. He finds it difficult to believe
that voting a third time [in one year] would be a hardship,
because it would be at the very time when people will probably be
closest to the voting polls. With the more modern voting
techniques, he said it seems that would help the Natives in the
rural villages because of [word-of-mouth] communication. He
commented:
Those people are not disenfranchised so much as just
maybe their decision not to vote, but that's not a
disenfranchisement, that's just an attitude of whether
they do or don't. But it certainly is going to be
convenient for them. I think the mere fact of what it
is that they're voting for, we're now down to just two
candidates, and this is for the number one job in the
state of number one jobs in the nation. We need to get
out and vote. Our vote does count.
Number 1106
MR. BALDWIN emphasized the good record of comments and evidence
needed to preclear these issues with the U.S. Department of
Justice. A record should be created for changes in voting
procedures, he explained. This helps with preclearance and does
not hurt "us". When it has to be done after the fact, the
legislature feels powerless in the effort to do that. It has
been expressed to him that legislators wish they could
participate more in that process. He said, "Now is the time,
when it's here in committee, to create those records." When a
resolution goes through a committee [rapidly] like it is now, he
noted, there is not an opportunity to create a record that can be
taken to U.S. Department of Justice to show that the interests of
minority voters have been considered.
Number 1187
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that Article 3, Sections 3 and
4, of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, does not include
"as prescribed by law". He referred to Section 2 of CSSJR
40(RLS) am, which read:
Section 4. Term of Office. The term of office of the
governor is four years. If the governor is elected at
the general election, the term begins [, BEGINNING] at
noon on the first Monday in December following the
[HIS] election. If the governor is elected at the
runoff election, the term begins [AND ENDING] at noon
on the third [FIRST] Monday in February following the
election, unless otherwise provided by law. It ends at
noon on the day when the term of office of the
governor's successor begins under this section
[DECEMBER FOUR YEARS LATER].
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said it appears that the term of the
governor can be prescribed by law. Senator Kelly had indicated
that it could be shortened up if changes could be made in the
election; it could be decided that it could be April or May, and
that it could be changed from year to year. The term of the
previous governor could "grow or collapse to shrink that," even
though the first sentence states that the term of office of the
governor is four years. He asked Mr. Baldwin how he reads the
sentence, "If the governor is elected at the runoff election, the
term begins at noon on the third Monday in February following the
election, unless otherwise provided by law."
Number 1269
MR. BALDWIN answered, "In my study of the minutes of the prior
meetings, I think the intention there is to try to do what
Senator Kelly said, to allow kind of a safety valve to adjust for
the changing of the terms like that." He said he would presume
that the legislature will always act in good faith when it enacts
these laws. He also said he understands what Representative
Croft is saying about allowing for a change in the terms. He
indicated the problem he has is still with the first sentence,
which states the term shall be four years. He added, "But later
on, it seems to take away from that, and that's the internal
inconsistency that I'm worried about."
MR. BALDWIN wondered what would happen if a governor had a
truncated term and refused to leave until the four years were up.
He said he hopes there could be a way to resolve this so there is
not that conflict. It is a technical problem that the committee
can take care. He indicated he does not have an answer on how to
take care of it because there are other problems that people
tried to anticipate and fix in earlier committees. He commented,
"That's why this thing is starting to look like it's getting
baling-wired together here."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said it would make him very nervous to
remove the sentence which states that the term of office of the
governor is four years because he thinks some mischief could be
done with that end of the term by letting "them go another two
years cause we don't like the one that was just elected."
MR. BALDWIN indicated there could also be continuing litigation,
where a court would have to allow a governor to be seated.
Number 1448
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that there were two
testifiers earlier who feel they would be disenfranchised. She
asked what was on the record so far that would indicate that
would not happen.
MR. BALDWIN indicated this is the first time that minority voters
have testified on this resolution, to his knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked what kind of data have been
gathered, statistical or otherwise, on that issue. She wondered
how that is actually done.
MR. BALDWIN replied that he does not know yet. Typically, they
keep track of the turnouts. He added, "I'm sitting here, I'm
listening to this testimony for the first time trying to picture
what their case would be." He commented that if there are some
cultural reasons why [minority voters] would not be available in
January, then the U.S. Department of Justice, for example, would
be very interested in that information; problems at that time of
year with the distribution of ballots, such as in rural areas of
Alaska, are issues for the Division of Elections. The U.S.
Department of Justice would also be interested in that type of
information. Ballots in the rural areas are mostly hand-counted;
handling of those ballots is different than dealing with the
Accu-Vote system. Mr. Baldwin restated that he isn't sure of
what the facts are at this point in time.
Number 1560
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked, "If it's the state's burden,
shouldn't that be information that we should know before we make
this vote go?"
MR. BALDWIN answered yes. He said he thinks that is information
that should be developed in the committee as part of the record.
He explained that when HJR 44 was to be precleared, the
Department of Justice had asked for every scrap of paper that
made up the legislative history of HJR 44 and SB 99; the
department had wanted to know whether minority voters had
communicated with the legislature and whether the legislature had
reached out to the minority voters during the consideration of
both measures. The department had said, "It's not just good
enough to have the minutes of your committees. We want you to go
out and transcribe every hearing that was held, every floor
debate that was held on the bill. We want verbatim
transcriptions." Mr. Baldwin said [the state] did that as well.
He pointed out that the Department of Justice is very interested
in the legislative process, which is extremely important in the
preclearance. For this reason, he implored the committee to
consider developing a very good record, but he cautioned that it
was awfully late in the session to do that now.
Number 1651
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that he is not intimately
familiar with the Voting Rights Act. He asked what the U.S.
Department of Justice looks at.
MR. BALDWIN replied that the Department [of Justice] looks at the
effect on the minority voters. If there is no effect on minority
voting, then it is usually outside their area of consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if it is true that the Department
[of Justice] is concerned only with the voting rights of the
minority, not the majority.
MR. BALDWIN responded that those were not his words. He
clarified that if it doesn't have any effect on a minority, then
there will not be a preclearance problem. If it has an
unintended effect on minority voters, however, [the Department of
Justice] will take their action based on that.
Number 1749
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES requested a definition of minority voters.
MR. BALDWIN explained that minority voters in Alaska are those
who have another language.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES wondered if that includes everyone who has a
second language or just Natives.
MR. BALDWIN stated that Natives and African-Americans qualify in
other contexts under the law. Principally, the term "minority
voter" applies to the Native voter in Alaska. This is the main
minority voting classification in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether it matters where they are
located in the state.
MR. BALDWIN said it does not. In some states, there are counties
that are subject to Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act] and not
the whole state. However, the entire state of Alaska is covered
by Section 5.
Number 1842
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether Mr. Baldwin had testified in a
previous committee.
MR. BALDWIN replied that others from the Department of Law had
testified earlier on the resolution. However, this is the first
time he has testified. When asked by Chairman Kott whether the
issues he had testified about had been addressed earlier, Mr.
Baldwin indicated the referendum issue had not been brought up
previously; that was an issue that the Division of Elections had
asked him to look at because he handles most of the work on
voting rights and does a lot of work with initiatives and
referenda. He concluded, "So, I looked at it specifically for
this and I noticed this problem. I think it's a problem. I
mean, if you don't care about it, then it's not a problem, but if
you happen to care about referendums, it might be a problem if
you're adding another election to the mix here and when that
referendum election might occur."
Number 1943
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if anyone else wished to testify, then closed
public testimony on the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there was anyone available from
the sponsor's office.
CHAIRMAN KOTT told members he was hoping to find someone from the
sponsor's office or someone who could speak on behalf of the
sponsor to answer some questions. He called an at-ease at 3:35
p.m.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called the meeting back to order at 3:55 p.m. and
then immediately recessed the House Judiciary Standing Committee
to the call of the chair. [Not on tape.]
TAPE 00-70, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN KOTT brought the meeting back to order at approximately
7:45 p.m. Present at that time were Representatives Kott, Green,
Rokeberg and Croft. Representatives James, Kerttula and
Murkowski arrived shortly thereafter. [Newly provided to the
committee were a memorandum to Senator Kelly from Jack Chenoweth,
Assistant Revisor of Statutes, dated April 20, 2000; and a letter
in opposition to SJR 40 from Julie Kitka, president of the Alaska
Federation of Natives, Inc. (AFN).]
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to concerns addressed by Mr. Baldwin
earlier that day. Alluding to the memorandum from Jack
Chenoweth, he indicated it answers the first question dealing
with the language in Section 4 of CSSJR 40(RLS)am, regarding any
possible confusion over the term of office. He noted that there
also had been discussion about putting in an effective date that
would be tied to preclearance [by the U.S. Department of Justice]
or the courts.
Number 0106
SENATOR KELLY, referring to the second concern, said he had never
seen that done before. He commented, "They either say 'yes' or
they don't." He then asked whether Mr. Baldwin had informed the
committee about whether [the Department of Justice] had
precleared the apportionment constitutional amendment.
CHAIRMAN KOTT answered that they had not.
Number 0138
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN apologized for having missed some of the
earlier portion of the meeting. He asked about the issue
regarding a four-year term.
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated Mr. Chenoweth's letter resolves that. He
added that those were the only two issues, and he thinks that
they have been resolved.
Number 0208
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that he had also stepped out of the
room for a few moments when Mr. Baldwin was testifying. He asked
whether Mr. Baldwin had said there are other references in the
constitution that would need to be conformed.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether that was during the discussion on the
referendum.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES and REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG affirmed that.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said that may have consequences but is a policy
call.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that he wanted to make sure
that there was nothing else that Mr. Baldwin had brought up.
SENATOR KELLY commented that he would be seriously surprised if
somebody brought in a bundle of initiatives right after the
general election so that they could get onto a runoff [ballot].
But if they did, so what? It would just increase the turnout.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether it was for a referendum,
however, not an initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES affirmed that.
SEVERAL UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS said, "Whatever."
Number 0293
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that this resolution had once
included federal candidates as well. She asked why it has been
narrowed down to just the gubernatorial candidates.
SENATOR KELLY answered that the federal candidates were "put into
one of the committees in the Senate, kind of on a whim." He
explained that the federal candidates bring in a whole host of
new questions. For example, a federal law requires voting on
congressional candidates to occur on the second Tuesday of
November. He continued:
We were concerned about the gubernatorial race ... in
particular. You cannot reach the governor's race by
initiative petition in the State of Alaska. You can
reach congressional races, and you can reach
legislative races by the initiative. The only way to
reach the governor and lieutenant governor's race is
through a constitutional amendment. So we decided to
concentrate on the race, frankly, closer to home.
The other problem, if you get involved with
congressional races in a runoff, is that you run into
the Twentieth Amendment problem, where Congress is
supposed to convene every year on January 3rd. And you
could be sitting here, having your person stuck in a
runoff, and they're back there organizing, and
everybody gets sworn in, and they've all got seniority,
and your person's still out here, you know, running
around the East Side of Anchorage. And he, you know,
gets back there a month late. And as we all know,
seniority is everything back there.
So, we didn't really want to put any new - potentially
new - congressional representatives from Alaska ...
behind a potential eight ball on a runoff election. ...
And, of course, we're solid at the current time, but
any new people that go back there should have every
advantage of being there with everybody, being there at
the same time ... everybody is.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there were additional questions of
the sponsor; none were offered.
Number 0480
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to move SJR 40 [CSSJR 40(RLS)
am] out of committee with individual recommendations and the
attached fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected. He explained that judging from
Alaska's history, this will require many governors to run three
times - in the primary, general and runoff elections. That
increases the cost of elections to both the state and to the
individual. It will mean longer election cycles and multiple
election cycles. He doesn't see the people of Alaska saying that
elections are too cheap, too short or too few. Conversely, he
believes that voter turnout in the runoff elections will be low;
they will be in the dead of winter, when people would have
already gone through two elections. He worries that the state
will get the exact opposite result of what they seem to be
shooting for - a governor chosen by more of the people.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT addressed the comment of Senator Kelly that
the state doesn't want to put the congressional delegation
"behind the eight ball by being late." He suggested that this
resolution effectively puts governors behind the eight ball, as
well, in that it is a substantial shift in the balance [of
power]. There will be a governor [taking office] after a runoff,
without having been able to assemble, at least provisionally, a
cabinet or budget, or being able to get ready to work by the time
the legislature goes into session. He thinks that will become
the standard situation. Furthermore, in some cases, the governor
won't even have been elected by the time the legislature
convenes.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT cautioned, on a general level, that the
legislature ought to be more careful with constitutional
amendments. This resolution had been introduced only three weeks
ago, to his knowledge. He agreed with Judge Stewart, who has
often talked about an idea - an internal rule, of sorts - that
constitutional amendments ought to be introduced in the first
[year of a] session and passed in the second, so that there is a
full interim for legislators to evaluate the effect. He said
that from what he can tell, SJR 40 is a bad idea, but at least it
shouldn't be done this quickly.
Number 0679
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA told fellow members that the greatest
problem she has [with SJR 40] is that the only testimony about
impacts on minorities had come from Mr. Angasan and Mr. Willard;
both had said there would be culturally problems that would
affect the voter turnout in the Native community. With that as
the only evidence in this record at this point, she suggested it
would be difficult to get preclearance. She noted that the
letter from Ms. Kitka of the AFN doesn't speak to the cultural
aspects or concerns about turnout; rather, it addresses
constitutional problems. "When Mr. Baldwin talks about holding
things together with baling wire, I'm afraid that that's where
this is headed," she concluded. "So I can't support it."
Number 0734
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that he had briefly read Ms.
Kitka's letter from the AFN. He said he doesn't understand how
this resolution would, in any way, affect Alaskan Natives or
other residents. He added, "As Representative Green mentioned
earlier, ... many villages of Alaska are smaller and self-
contained, and particularly in the wintertime, and I don't see
the difficulties of going to the polls or of voter interest." He
said it would be interesting to see an analysis of voter turnout
there versus other areas of the state.
SENATOR KELLY suggested that if this passes, groups from all over
the state would speak on it, and there would be a huge public
debate that would build the kind of record that Mr. Baldwin says
is necessary to go before the Department of Justice. People will
"talk" at the ballot box, where the decision will be made.
Number 0880
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI told fellow members that she has a
couple of concerns with the resolution. First is the
implementation aspect, although some concerns have been worked
through, and there are things that the legislature can do,
statutorily, down the road regarding the time frame involved.
She suggested it is really important to look at that, including
the lag between when the legislature convenes and when the
governor would be in place with his or her commissioners and so
forth. That is both a concern to the legislature and to the
public. "I would like to think that there's a way that we can
work through that," she added.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that her other concern, looking at
the history, is that the state will have three elections - the
primary, the general and the runoff. The public already is
annoyed by the campaign season, and voter apathy already exists.
She cautioned that lengthening the campaign season may engender
greater apathy among voters.
Number 1005
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that according to statistics
provided by the Division of Elections, only 25 percent of the
last eight [gubernatorial] elections had resulted in a majority
vote [for the winning candidate].
Number 1051
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES brought attention to Ms. Kitka's letter.
She said she is insulted by the line that says this is an attempt
by irresponsible officeholders to entrench themselves and to
upset the balance of powers; she believes it is improper to make
those statements. Furthermore, she isn't so convinced, from
conversations with folks, that this [process] will keep them from
turning out to vote. On the contrary, she believes people may
vote in even higher numbers.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued. She suggested that if people
have the opportunity to "get the second bite at it," they would
be able to vote for someone they prefer over the other candidate.
When people are elected by less than 50 percent of the vote, she
has heard comments that more than half of the people didn't want
that person elected; she expressed concern over having the top
position in the state being elected that way. If it is a little
more trouble, costly and time consuming, she still believes this
will ensure that the [governor] has the support of most of the
people who voted. Although in the second runoff election there
may be fewer voters, there could be more; that is unknown. She
emphasized the need to get people out to vote.
Number 1202
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN told members, "Just in summary, I would just
suggest that while we did hear from Natives themselves saying
that this would be an imposition and unfairness to them, I still
challenge that statement because of having been to Native
villages." He referred to statistics from Arizona, where the
figures had dropped from 58 percent to 50 percent in that state's
try at this system. He noted that Alaska's governor, by
constitutional design, has much more authority than governors in
many other states. Although that is good, he agrees with
Representative James that the governor should be elected by 50 or
more percent of the voters.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there was further discussion, then
requested a roll call vote.
Voting to move SJR 40 [CSSJR 40(RLS) am] out of committee were
Representatives Rokeberg, James, Murkowski, Green and Kott.
Voting against it were Representatives Croft and Kerttula.
Therefore, CSSJR 40(RLS) am was moved from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1324
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|