04/15/2017 10:00 AM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB13 | |
| HB200 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE B
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 15, 2017
5:11 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Zach Fansler, Vice Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative David Eastman
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Lora Reinbold
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)
Representative Louise Stutes (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 13
"An Act prohibiting the expenditure of state or municipal assets
to create a registry based on race or religion."
- HEARD & HELD
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.'"
- MOVED CSHB 200(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 13
SHORT TITLE: NO ST. FUNDS FOR FEDERAL REGISTRY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) STA, JUD
02/18/17 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/18/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/18/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/23/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/23/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/28/17 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/28/17 (H) Moved CSHB 13(STA) Out of Committee
03/28/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/03/17 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 4DP 1NR
04/03/17 (H) DP: WOOL, KNOPP, TUCK, KREISS-TOMKINS
04/03/17 (H) NR: BIRCH
04/14/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/14/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/15/17 (H) JUD AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 200
SHORT TITLE: NONPARTISAN OPEN PRIMARY ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LEDOUX
03/29/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/17 (H) JUD, STA
04/10/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/10/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/10/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/12/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/12/17 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/14/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/14/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/14/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/15/17 (H) JUD AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 13 as prime sponsor.
PAUL KELLY, Staff
Representative Andy Josephson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 13, testified and
answered questions.
KAYLA EPSTEIN
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 13, offered
support for the legislation.
COURTNEY ENRIGHT, Staff
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
5:11:44 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 5:11 p.m. Representatives Claman, Fansler,
Eastman, and Kopp were present at the call to order.
Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, and Reinbold arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 13-NO ST. FUNDS FOR FEDERAL REGISTRY
5:2:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 13, "An Act prohibiting the expenditure of state
or municipal assets to create a registry based on race or
religion."
5:12:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, advised
that this bill arose from a series of statements made by the
national administration before the national election, after the
national election, and after the inauguration. Essentially, he
explained, Title 44.99, is called "Miscellaneous Laws" and this
bill adds a prohibition to spending state assets by aiding
federal agency in creating registries based on race, religion,
ethnicity, or national origin. It is noteworthy, he related,
that the section falls under "other prohibitions on uses of
state assets," such as aiding the federal government in any
infringement of Alaskan's Second Amendment rights to keep and
bear arms and due process rights. He suggested that this
legislation be viewed as a civil liberties and anti-federal
overreach provision.
5:14:40 PM
PAUL KELLY, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that HB 13 prevents state and municipal
resources from being spent in order to violate the privacy of
Alaskan residents on issues that should not be of public
interest, including race, religion, ethnicity, and national
origin. This bill is a preventative measure meant to stop an
injustice before it happens and, he commented that it should
save money for the state and its municipalities while securing
liberties that should be protected by state and federal
constitutions. He referred to Korematsu v. United States, [323
U.S. 214 (1944) contained within the committee packet], and
explained that Fred Korematsu was an American citizen of
Japanese ancestry who went into hiding rather than submit to
Japanese internment camps required by the Department of the Army
during World War II. Mr. Korematsu was arrested and he then
took his case all the way up to the United States Supreme Court
which, in the end, ruled against him. He surmised that many
people regard this as one of the worst decisions of the United
States Supreme Court, and it proved that the justice system is
rarely expedient when rights are violated, and that justice is
not always guaranteed in the end. Mr. Korematsu spent more than
three years in custody until he and his family were released at
the end of the war.
MR. KELLY advised that the state stands to save money with this
legislation, there is a zero fiscal note, and this bill prevents
unfunded mandates of the federal government from consuming state
and municipalities resources. Another reason to support the
bill, he related, is to protect the liberty of constituents
because they may arrive from the Philippines, Canada, Mexico,
Europe, Russia, Japan, and Viet Nam, and Alaska's residents hold
privacy and other constitutional rights sacred. In summary, he
said, this bill is about the following: prohibiting the state or
its municipality from using its assets to create a registry
based on race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin; it
spares Alaskans the expense, hassle, and uncertainty, of using
the courts to defend their rights; it saves Alaska's state and
municipalities resources that would be used to support an
unfunded mandate; and it reduces government intrusion.
5:18:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that the school districts must have
some sort of records as to who speaks what language, and while
the records are not necessarily based on race, religion,
ethnicity, or national origin, they may be based simply on
language, which offers a good idea of the student's origin. She
asked how that interplays with this legislation.
MR. KELLEY responded that this legislation addresses federal
mandates, and Legislative Legal and Research Services found that
although this information is sometimes collected within state
and municipal agencies, it is never published other than in its
aggregate form, such as a percentage of different races,
ethnicities, religions, or national origins, in a statistical
sense.
5:20:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to Mr. Kelly's statement that
"it's never published" and asked whether the school district has
the information.
MR. KELLEY replied that he was unsure exactly what information
the school districts keep, but if the issue is the importance of
what language someone speaks, it would not be necessary to know
where they come from, simply the language they speak.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed that the language someone speaks
is probably a pretty good indication of their origin.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON explained that the research request
included advising of the "benign registries" made currently, and
Legislative Legal and Research Services reported that the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) does gather some
of that information, and this bill does not allow Alaska's own
assets to be used when there is a federal imposition for a
registry request based solely on race and religion alone. The
concern, he said, was that the administration wanted a list of
Muslim Americans and Hispanic Americans, and this bill is
actually a response to those race based registries.
5:22:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that it appears from Representative
Josephson's testimony that this only relates to a federal order
and asked why he wouldn't want to craft it so that if someone
had this idea to do it in Alaska, such as the mayor of Anchorage
or governor of Alaska, the bill doesn't prohibit them from
creating those lists as long as it's not related to a federal
mandate. She opined that California Governor Earl Warren,
before he became the darling of the liberals as the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, was "kind of a racist" with
respect to the Japanese citizens.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to an article from The Hill
magazine published two months ago, and the Ambassador to the
United Nations, Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina,
repudiated the idea of a registry. Although, he noted, when
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was asked about it, Mr.
Tillerson said that while he ruled out a blanket ban on Muslim
immigration to America, he would need more information before
deciding whether to support a registry of Muslims.
Representative Josephson said he would have the same concern
about the mayor of Anchorage or the governor of Alaska if they
had made statements in that manner, but they haven't. Given
that section the legislation was applied was about federal
overreach, he said the concern was with the federal government's
request for registry.
5:24:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP related that he certainly agrees with the
spirit of the legislation, yet commented that this is more
difficult than it appears because the state takes federal money
in its education system and justice system, and both the
Department of Corrections (DOC) and Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED) have exhaustive lists on these issues.
He advised that DOC can produce printouts on pretty much
everything this bill tells them not to do, and he would be
interested to know whether that is required as part of the
federal penal system or receiving federal funding. He pointed
out that in the state's education system, when applying for a
student loan or graduate school, a person fills out all these
blanks and some of it is to determine what kind of funding the
person was eligible, and if they fit into a minority status it
can actually open up doors, so they are not all nefarious
reasons. In the legislature's fervor to do good, he said he
wanted to be sure it didn't accidentally cross over into doing
something harmful due to the federal nexus to state funding type
issues.
5:25:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted that although constituents have
said they would not support, for example, the efforts of
immigration and customs to perform a "roundup," he did not want
to get into those issues because there could be circumstances to
support a roundup of someone who was dangerous. He pointed out
that the focus in this legislation was on any federal effort to
say, "This registration is based on this and this alone." He
referred to a report by Tim Spangler, [Legislative Legal and
Research Services, contained within the committee packets], who
found no evidence that anything was done in isolation just
because of one's race or religion, and that no one cared to have
that data in isolation with no other purpose. For example, he
related, it is a known fact that someone of a particular race
may be medically predisposed to a certain disease, which may be
a relevant area of race data. Certainly, he said, there is a
lot of data on race, but not solely on race or religion and that
is what this bill targets.
5:27:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the definition of a registry is "a
place or an office where registers or records are kept," and she
thought this may be the vehicle to get rid of the massive
unconstitutional databases kept on students, families, and
teachers within Alaska's schools, and asked the goal of the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that the goal was partly
preventative, and partly to note that this is a historical
moment, and that the people of Alaska would not tolerate the
registry of individuals for the reasons alone that they are of
that race or religion, and not for benign reasons.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON suggested adding the word "solely" to
the following language as a friendly amendment on CSHB 13(STA),
Version O, [AS 44.99.040(a)((1)(C), page 1, line 14 and page 2,
line 1,] to read as follows:
(C) create a registry [solely] based on
race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin; or
5:29:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that "it's cool" to go back and
look at the contributions of African Americans and the building
of the Alaskan Highway, and offered that she could probably list
a dozen of special days based on a specific race Alaska has
celebrated, such as Black History Month. She asked whether this
bill has anything to do with public safety because this is
probably the biggest repeal of state government of any bill she
had ever seen, and asked whether the ultimate goal was to have
no registries. She then referred to the Pioneer Homes where
staff enters the race and religion of new residents into the
database due to various reasons. She again asked the goal of
the bill.
5:31:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN intervened and advised Representative Reinbold that
Representative Josephson had previously answered her question,
which is that it is not to have a registry, it is only a
registry where the specific order from the president or federal
government is, "Thou shalt create a registry of ethnicity." He
explained that creating that registry is different from keeping
track of ethnicity or different features regarding students in
school because that order is that if Alaska is going to get
federal funds for schools, it must keep this certain amount of
data in exchange for receiving federal funds. This bill, as
Representative Josephson testified, is strictly, if an order
comes down from the federal government saying "Thou shalt create
a registry of these people" this bill addresses that situation
only, and it does not go more broadly. He said that
Representative Josephson was not looking at wiping out every
registry.
5:32:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON remarked that Chair Claman was
precisely correct. Legislative Legal and Research Services
research found that none of the entities it quiered reported
that they desegregate the data in a manner that would identify
people based on race, ethnicity, religion, or country of origin
of individuals. Basically, he explained, that means no one is
gathering this data just to say "Here's a list of people from
Syria that live in Alaska." He referred to the celebration of
Black History Month, and offered that it would be an odd thing
for the federal government to say, that before the nation could
celebrate Black History Month it needed every African American
to enter their names on a registry. He stressed that that is
what he is trying to avoid.
5:33:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered a scenario that the federal
government could decide that a person from Syria or wherever,
may cause a health concern. Also, she said, "ANSWERS" was a
federal mandate so "you can't have a double standard here" where
the federal government wanted ANSWERS to collect a tremendous
amount of data on Alaska's students, which is a registry. She
offered that it appears to be a double standard that if the
federal government is going to ask Alaska for people who may
have originated from a certain place or religion, it probably is
for a public safety, health concern, or potentially a public
threat of some antagonists in another country such as ISIS. She
asked what Representative Josephson thought "if it's a public
safety concern to people, which is a specific group of specific
origin, and possibly even a specific religion where they are
following the laws of their country and trying to impose them
over here." In the event it is a public safety concern, she
asked whether that weighs into the ability to have some sort of
information for public safety and homeland security.
5:35:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that the federal government,
no doubt does that, and he is glad to some degree that the
federal government knows where people are traveling which is
legitimate state and national security interest. Except, he
reiterated, this bill reads that Alaska does not need to
participate when it is solely based on race with no other
putative or obvious reason. Research found that juvenile
justice and public assistance have records on race, but it was
always linked to some other public governmental policy purpose
and it was not just a naked, "We want a list of Muslims and, we,
the federal government, insist on it, and please give us that
list." He pointed out that this bill should not be described as
alarmist because the national administration, although it had
been tamped down a little bit lately, said that, indeed, it does
intend to do these things. He explained that part of the goal
is that when future generations look back on the Thirtieth
Alaska State Legislature and see that the legislature caught a
Korematsu situation, that it made a statement, and that it did
something about the Korematsu situation.
5:36:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said Representative Josephson made a
distinction as to whether it's the sole purpose of anyone of
these individual categories, but it seems like the distinction
is "too easy of being evaded." For example, he could have a
database of religion except not for the sake of religion because
that would be a violation. Rather, he decided that he would
have a category of religion because he wanted to study minority
religions, and find ways to promoting the fact that are not many
minority religions. Thereby, giving distinction to some kind of
recognition, and whether with that type of add on would satisfy
Representative Josephson's sole reason for prohibition.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that these are the kinds of
tests courts engage in frequently and are skilled in knowing
whether something is pretextual or legitimate. Presumably, he
said, a court would apply a test to something like that and
reach a conclusion as to whether the interest was legitimate or
pretextual.
5:38:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he understands that a court would
try to identify the intent, but he was specifically asking the
sponsor how that scenario lines up with his intent for how the
bill would be used. He asked whether he would find it to be
legitimate or a subterfuge.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON commented that it would depend on the
facts and the circumstances, and said he didn't want to muddy
the water too much but that he had spent a fair amount of time
looking at school prayer litigation, and referred to Wallace v.
Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985). For example, he offered, if there
was a moment of silence legislation, [he would consider] what
was said in committee, and whether this was really about a
prayer in public school. Given that the court had previously
said that was a violation of the separation of church and state,
the court would look to see whether there was something
pretextual or whether it was just meant to be meditative and
truly a moment of silence. He explained that the intention of
this bill is to preclude these registries based solely on race,
religion, ethnicity, and national origin, with no obvious other
reason that is apparent in the administrative order, the
executive order, or the law.
5:40:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that basically the committee was
reading into this now, even though no member had offered an
amendment, that it would be based solely on race, religion,
ethnicity, or national origin. She offered a scenario of the
federal government's concern regarding the great deal of
terrorism involving Muslim Americans and, as a matter of
national security, it would keep a registry. Under this bill,
she remarked, that would be something the government could still
order so what was the purpose of the bill.
5:41:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that Alaska obviously cannot
stop the federal government from doing anything, but Alaska
could watch the federal government and someone could intervene
by seeking an injunction stating that the federal government was
painting every Muslim in Alaska with the same brush, and it was
against the law in Alaska [in the event this bill is enacted
into law]. Or perhaps, people would cower in the same manner as
when Japanese Americans were rounded up by not responding. He
pointed to the "very poignant bench" in Pocket Park, next to the
Terry Miller Building, which expresses shame for the fact that
the citizens of Juneau watched this happen, but he acknowledged
that perhaps there was nothing they could do about it. The
bench was designed to mark that sort of concern. He expressed
that the federal government could do something, but it doesn't
mean that Alaskans must follow.
5:42:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that she hates to sound
politically incorrect, but she pointed to "national origin" and
offered a scenario of this country being at war with another
country. Mr. Korimatsu was an American citizen and this doesn't
just apply to American citizens, and she offered her belief that
it might be relevant when at war with another nation to know
where those people live in America.
MR. KELLEY replied that nothing in this bill prevents Alaska
from aiding in keeping track of the nation's citizenship, but
national origin is the issue. For example, Mr. Korimatsu was an
American citizen and probably shouldn't have been considered a
threat, but there would be no record that he was of Japanese
ancestry.
5:43:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether Representative Josephson
has any problem with the federal government using state or local
resources to track groups such as ISIS.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that he does want ISIS
tracked and has no problem with that.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD described the state's most important
mandate as public safety, and the delicate balance in privacy
rights and public safety, and that she understands the
government's need to know the perpetrators and the targets.
World history has shown religions persecuted in the past, such
as the Jewish religion or Christians, and if religions are being
persecuted, possibly by another religion, the important concept
is where the government intervenes to put public protections in
place. Possibly, she said, the government would want to know
who was a Christian if they were receiving immense attacks, such
as in India.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON related that he didn't have a comment.
5:47:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 13.
5:47:32 PM
KAYLA EPSTEIN, advised she was speaking for herself and she
supports the bill. She related that she is Jewish and is "very
sensitive" to the fact that it has never worked out to the
benefit of anyone to keep a list of someone by their religion.
She remarked that she has seen no evidence verifying that the
keeping of lists of persecuted people benefited those people in
any manner. Also, she pointed out that if a person was
Christian and worried about being persecuted, she has not seen
that a list would work to their advantage. At the time the
United States was at war with Italy, Japan, and Germany, the
plight of the Japanese people was clearly a matter of greed and
discrimination. At that time, the federal government had been
extremely careful watching these groups before the war, watching
organizations advocating the destruction of America, and were
well aware of the Italian, German, and the Japanese individuals
who posed a threat, and they were arrested. She explained that
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had been notified by the
military that the Japanese people were of no threat, except he
ignored that information due to the political pressure from, for
example, Governor Earl Warren of California, and proceeded to
allow Japanese people to be rounded up. She stated that she is
"totally in favor" of this bill.
5:49:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 13.
5:49:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised from Representative Josephson's
response to Representative LeDoux that he had decided not to put
the distinction of "citizenship" on the list.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON advised that he had said the national
government is free to do what it will, but that if the federal
government asked this state or its municipalities to use assets,
treasurer and human resources, to make such a list it would
violate this law if it passed. He described this law as a good
thing as a matter of principle.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he thought Representative Josephson
had made a distinction not to put citizenship on this list of
things that are not for the government's knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON replied that the word "citizenship" was
not considered and he was unaware whether it was an absence of
considering the word, or that a legitimate decision that
"citizenship" would not be included in the list. He opined that
it was the former, and he would have to give it some thought.
MR. KELLEY advised that the important aspect of this bill is not
tracking national origins. For example, with someone who is an
American citizen, there is no interest in knowing whether they
might be Muslim or from Syria. Although, he said, perhaps there
is an interest in knowing what citizenship someone holds when
they arrive in America. For example, a current Syrian citizen
in America on a visa, there may be the distinction that perhaps
there was a legitimate government interest in tracking their
citizenship, but not the national origin and especially not of
American citizens.
5:52:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered a situation where citizenship
information may not be available, what would be the procedure in
obtaining that information. He described that it is important
information to have, at least statistically, as there would be a
strong correlation between national origin and citizenship.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that fundamentally it is not
the job of a state to entertain such ideas. In the event the
federal government wanted to go house-by-house to see who should
or shouldn't be here, those actions would be a massive
historical chapter for which the federal government would have
to account. President Franklin D. Roosevelt is regarded broadly
as one of the better presidents, yet it is widely known that he
has a very black mark for his treatment of Japanese Americans.
He said, "And as you've noted in a letter to the floor about
Korimatsu being one of the worst decisions." Fundamentally, he
stated, Alaska does not have to be involved in deputizing in
order to gather that sort of information.
5:54:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that whether deputized or not,
citizenship is important to Alaska because its citizenship is
fundamental to its state election laws in order to identify
citizenship correctly.
5:54:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that people will not be able to
say "African American or Russian American or Greek American, or
whatever," that it's just going to be American if no resources
are allowed at the municipality or state level, and the state
wouldn't have knowledge of that information. She asked whether
that was Representative Josephson's understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said, "No." He explained that those
are terms in the nomenclature and each generation will have to
decide its comfort level with that sort of terminology. Also,
he pointed out that Representative was talking about how things
are spoken in the vernacular and that is not what this bill is
about.
5:55:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she would like to know the bottom
line of this bill, and also an explanation as to the language
"(REAL ID Act of 2005)" on page 2, line 2.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that the importance of the
reference to REAL ID Act is that it speaks to how "wonderfully
appropriate" this bill is placed in Title 44, because it is
about overreach. This legislation is akin to the REAL ID Act in
that it is designed to stop federal overreach.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON advised that the intent of this bill is
about the fact that it flies in the faces of our Founding
Fathers to require a list. For example, he advised, President
George Washington famously spoke at the Providence Rhode Island
Synagogue about the importance of Jewish Americans and how
welcomed they were as citizens of the country. President
Washington did not tell the Jewish American citizens to put
their names on a tracking list. This bill was designed, in
keeping with President Washington, to state there cannot be a
benign registry based solely on race, religion, ethnicity, or
national origin, and he stressed that almost by definition there
must be some ill motive that is an un-American motive.
5:57:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD described concern that the bill stripped
local control by telling municipalities that even if its
taxpayers wanted to spend money keeping track of an organization
such as ISIS, it could not. In addition, she said, she is
concerned that the state collects a tremendous amount of data,
and commented that any data can be used for good or evil. She
then asked whether Representative Josephson would allow a
friendly amendment that in the cases where Alaska's citizens
were at risk, if a list needed to be compiled to protect
Alaska's citizens, whether he would support the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered "No." First of all, he
explained, he is not on the committee and the committee can
amend this bill in any manner it prefers. Secondly, he pointed
out that he would not want local governments or factions to
decide to target a group based on religion because it was
"freaked out" about a certain group and felt it needed to
intervene. He described, that would be a blemish akin to what
President Roosevelt was stuck with for all time.
[HB 13 was held over.]
HB 200-NONPARTISAN OPEN PRIMARY ELECTIONS
5:59:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final 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.'"
6:00:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 1, Version 30-
LS0038\U.1, Bullard, 4/12/17, which read as follows:
Page 2, following line 27:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 15.07.060(b) is amended to read:
(b) Every registration form must include space
for an applicant who is registered in another
jurisdiction to specify that jurisdiction and a notice
that the director will notify the chief elections
officer in that jurisdiction. If the applicant has
been previously registered to vote in another
jurisdiction, the director shall notify the chief
elections officer in that jurisdiction that the
applicant has registered to vote in Alaska and request
that that jurisdiction cancel the applicant's voter
registration there."
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected.
6:00:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX explained that Amendment 1 clarifies the
process in the event candidate two died, was incapacitated,
decided to get out of the race, and so forth, the amendment
advances candidate three to the number two position.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP described Amendment 1 as fairly exhaustive,
involving a number of policy calls and he would like a full
analysis.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX answered that the bottom line is Amendment
1 simply moves the candidate in third place to the second place
position.
6:01:51 PM
COURTNEY ENRIGHT, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska
State Legislature, noted there is a lot of conforming language
within Amendment 1, although, a couple of pieces do create a bit
more intricacy. The amendment provides that in the event of a
tie, for example, if two candidates had advanced that had tied
in the first position, the person who came in second "instead of
strictly third" would advance, and it takes into account that
particular instance of occurrence. The amendment also speaks to
current statute which states that if the state was 64 days out
from the general election, the third candidate would not
advance, which is also in compliance with federal voting laws.
This relates to the requirement to have ballots prepared and
forwarded to overseas troops, and others, 45 days prior to an
election, and that deadline is in existing statute. Those, she
said, are the biggest complications in the amendment.
6:02:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Kopp, advised that
his office received Amendment 1 yesterday, and it was
distributed to the committee last night.
6:03:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that under the state's current
partisan primary system, for example, there is an interested
party to nominate or replace if someone resigns or whatever, and
that is not included in this proposal. He pointed out that he
was concerned that its absence may militate in the direction of
creating a new or greater incentive for coercing someone or
convincing someone to withdraw knowing that another party
candidate might be the replacement.
6:04:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER pointed out that the amendment speaks
only of the third person moving up into second place, and he
could think of several scenarios where possibly that would not
be the appropriate avenue. For instance, he remarked, the third
person had moved on with their life and decided not to be part
of the election, there was not a mechanism to move down to the
fourth candidate. He asked what happens if two people drop off
the ticket with no mechanism to move to lower positions.
6:05:12 PM
MS. ENRIGHT agreed that there is no mechanism to move down
through the other positions because the amendment stays
consistent with other systems. She explained that those other
systems do not allow anyone to advance from the third position
to the second position in the general election, and they have
managed to successfully implement their systems for many years.
Ironically, she explained, the reason the other systems do not
allow candidates to advance from third to second position if
there is an incapacitated instance, are the same reasons
Representative Eastman expressed concern about not having an
individual advancing from second to third. The other systems,
she explained, believe there is a greater incentive for
coercion. For example, when speaking with the group that ran
the California ballot initiative, it advised that it had
specifically not included that caveat because it was believed
that in continuing to move down the line, political pressure
could be provided to get individuals to withdraw their
candidacy. She confirmed that Amendment 1 does not provide a
mechanism to continue moving down the ballot past the third
candidate.
6:06:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked whether the main bill or this
amendment speaks to a situation where there is a tie or second
and third place tie.
MS. ENRIGHT explained that it would be addressed in the same
manner as any other tie vote would be addressed under Alaska
State Statute, "through a lot or a coin toss."
6:07:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER withdrew his objection.
6:07:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected.
6:07:22 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins,
LeDoux, Fansler, Eastman, and Claman voted in favor of the
adoption of Amendment 1. Representatives Kopp and Reinbold
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote
of 5-2.
6:07:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, Version 30-
LS0038\U.2, Bullard, 4/14/17, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 1, following "nonpartisan":
Insert "ranked-choice"
Page 6, line 9, following "nonpartisan":
Insert "ranked-choice"
Page 7, following line 12:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(16) The director shall design the primary
or special primary election ballot to accommodate
ranked-choice voting for candidates for the offices of
governor and lieutenant governor, for candidates for
the legislature, and for candidates for the United
States Congress. The ballot shall direct the voter to
mark candidates in order of preference and to mark as
many choices as the voter wishes, but not to assign a
particular ranking to more than one candidate in the
same race."
Page 7, following line 20:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 12. AS 15.15.350 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(c) When counting primary or special primary
election ranked-choice voting ballots, the election
board shall initially count each ballot as one vote
for the highest-ranked continuing candidate on the
ballot or as an exhausted ballot. The election
threshold shall be calculated. Tabulation shall then
proceed sequentially as follows:
(1) if the number of continuing candidates
whose vote totals exceed the election threshold is
equal to two, those two candidates are nominated, and
the tabulation is complete; if the number of
continuing candidates is equal to or less than two,
then those continuing candidates are nominated, and
the tabulation is complete; otherwise, the tabulation
continues to (2) of this subsection;
(2) if no candidate has a vote total that
exceeds the election threshold, the tabulation
continues to (3) of this subsection; if at least one
continuing candidate has a vote total that exceeds the
election threshold, then the continuing candidate with
the highest vote total is nominated, the number of
surplus votes for the candidate shall be calculated,
and the surplus fraction for the candidate shall be
calculated; the new transfer value of each vote cast
for the candidate shall be calculated; votes for the
candidate shall be added, at their new transfer
values, to the totals of each ballot's highest-ranked
continuing candidates or counted as exhausted ballots,
and a new round begins under (1) of this subsection;
in all subsequent rounds, candidates elected under
this paragraph have vote totals equal to the election
threshold;
(3) the candidate with the fewest votes is
defeated; then, if the number of continuing candidates
is equal to two, all continuing candidates are
elected, and the tabulation is complete; otherwise,
votes for the defeated candidate shall cease to be
counted for the defeated candidate and shall be added,
at their current transfer values, to the total of the
next-ranked continuing candidate on each ballot or
counted as exhausted ballots, and a new round begins
under (1) of this subsection.
(d) When counting primary or special primary
ranked-choice election ballots,
(1) a ballot assigning a particular ranking
to more than one candidate for an office shall be
declared invalid when the double ranking is reached;
(2) if a ballot skips a ranking, then the
election board shall count the next ranking; and
(3) if there is a tie vote between
continuing candidates, the procedures in AS 15.15.460
and AS 15.20.430 - 15.20.530 shall be followed.
(e) In this section,
(1) "continuing candidate" means a
candidate that has not been defeated or nominated;
(2) "election threshold" means the number
of votes sufficient for a candidate to be nominated;
the election threshold is calculated by dividing the
total number of votes for continuing candidates in the
first round by three and rounding up to four decimal
places;
(3) "exhausted ballot" means a ballot that
is not counted for a continuing candidate for one or
more of the following reasons:
(A) it does not rank a continuing
candidate;
(B) its highest continuing ranking contains
an overvote; or
(C) it includes two or more consecutive
skipped rankings before its highest continuing
ranking;
(4) "highest continuing ranking" means the
highest ranking for a continuing candidate;
(5) "overvote" means the assignment by a
voter of the same ranking to more than one candidate;
(6) "ranking" means the number assigned by
a voter to a candidate to express the voter's choice
for that candidate; a ranking of "1" is the highest
ranking, followed by "2," and then "3," and so on;
(7) "round" means an instance of the
sequence of voting tabulation in a primary or special
primary election;
(8) "skipped ranking" means a ranking blank
on a ballot on which a voter has ranked another
candidate at a subsequent ranking;
(9) "surplus" means a positive difference
between a candidate's vote total and the election
threshold;
(10) "surplus fraction" means the number
equal to a candidate's surplus divided by the
candidate's vote total, calculated to four decimal
places and ignoring any remainder;
(11) "transfer value" means the proportion
of a vote that a ballot will contribute to its highest
continuing ranking; each ballot begins with a transfer
value of one; if a ballot transfers from a nominated
candidate with a surplus, the ballot receives a new
transfer value that is calculated by multiplying the
surplus fraction of the nominated candidate by the
current transfer value of the ballot, calculated to
four decimal places and ignoring any remainder.
* Sec. 13. AS 15.15.360(a)(1) is amended to read:
(1) A voter may mark a ballot only by
filling in, making "X" marks, diagonal, horizontal, or
vertical marks, solid marks, stars, circles,
asterisks, checks, or plus signs that are clearly
spaced in the oval opposite the name of the candidate,
proposition, or question that the voter desires to
designate. In addition, a voter may mark a ballot at a
primary or special primary election by the use of
roman or Arabic numerals that are clearly spaced in
one of the squares opposite the name of the candidate
that the voter desires to rank.
* Sec. 14. AS 15.15.360(a)(4) is amended to read:
(4) Except as provided in AS 15.15.350(c)
for primary and special primary election ballots, if
[IF] a voter marks more names than there are persons
to be elected to the office, the votes for candidates
for that office may not be counted.
* Sec. 15. AS 15.15.370 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.15.370. Completion of ballot count;
certificate. When the count of ballots is completed,
and in no event later than the day after the election,
the election board shall make a certificate in
duplicate of the results. The certificate includes the
number of votes cast for each candidate, including the
number of votes at each round of the primary or
special primary ranked-choice voting tabulation
process under AS 15.15.350(c), and the number of votes
for and against each proposition, yes or no on each
question, and any additional information prescribed by
the director. The election board shall, immediately
upon completion of the certificate or as soon
thereafter as the local mail service permits, send in
one sealed package to the director one copy of the
certificate and the register. In addition, all ballots
properly cast shall be mailed to the director in a
separate, sealed package. Both packages, in addition
to an address on the outside, shall clearly indicate
the precinct from which they come. Each board shall,
immediately upon completion of the certification and
as soon thereafter as the local mail service permits,
send the duplicate certificate to the respective
election supervisor. The director may authorize
election boards in precincts in those areas of the
state where distance and weather make mail
communication unreliable to forward their election
results by telephone, telegram, or radio. The director
may authorize the unofficial totaling of votes on a
regional basis by election supervisors, tallying the
votes as indicated on duplicate certificates. To
assure adequate protection, the director shall
prescribe the manner in which the ballots, registers,
and all other election records and materials are
thereafter preserved, transferred, and destroyed.
* Sec. 16. AS 15.15.450 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.15.450. Certification of state ballot
counting review. Upon completion of the state ballot
counting review for a primary or special primary
election, the director shall certify the two persons
receiving the greatest majority and the second
greatest majority of votes for the office for which
those persons were candidates as nominated to the
general election ballot, and, for a general election,
the director shall certify the person receiving the
largest number of votes for the office for which that
person was a candidate as elected to that office and
shall certify the approval of a justice or judge not
rejected by a majority of the voters voting on the
question. The director shall issue to the elected
candidates and approved justices and judges a
certificate of their election or approval. The
director shall also certify the results of a
proposition and other question except that the
lieutenant governor shall certify the results of an
initiative, referendum, or constitutional amendment."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, line 16:
Delete "number of votes and the second greatest
number"
Insert "majority of votes and the second greatest
majority"
Page 13, line 13, following "ballots.":
Insert "(a)"
Page 13, following line 23:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) The director shall include instructions on
primary and special primary election ballots directing
the voter to rank candidates for an office in order of
preference and to rank as many choices as the voter
wishes, but not to assign the same ranking to more
than one candidate."
Page 13, line 28:
Delete "number of votes and the second greatest
number"
Insert "majority of votes and the second greatest
majority"
Page 13, line 31:
Delete "number"
Insert "majority"
Page 14, line 3:
Delete "number"
Insert "majority"
Page 14, line 9:
Delete "number"
Insert "majority"
Page 14, line 10:
Delete "number"
Insert "majority"
Page 14, line 11:
Delete "number"
Insert "majority"
Page 14, line 13:
Delete "number"
Insert "majority"
Page 14, line 14:
Delete "number"
Insert "majority"
Page 14, line 15:
Delete "number"
Insert "majority"
Page 14, line 17:
Delete "number"
Insert "majority"
Page 22, line 28:
Delete "most"
Insert "greatest majority and second greatest
majority of"
Page 23, line 16:
Delete "may vote for any candidate listed"
Insert "must rank the candidates in the numerical
order of your preference, ranking as many candidates
as you wish. Your second, third, and subsequent ranked
choices will be counted only if the candidate you
ranked first does not receive enough votes to continue
on to the next round of counting, so ranking a second,
third, or subsequent choice will not hurt your first-
choice candidate. Your ballot will be counted
regardless of whether you choose to rank one, two, or
more candidates for each office, but it will not be
counted if you assign the same ranking to more than
one candidate for the same office"
Page 23, line 17:
Delete "most"
Insert "greatest majority and second greatest
majority of"
Page 23, line 28:
Delete "may vote for any candidate listed"
Insert "must rank the candidates in the numerical
order of your preference, ranking as many candidates
as you wish. Your second, third, and subsequent ranked
choices will be counted only if the candidate you
ranked first does not receive enough votes to continue
on to the next round of counting, so ranking a second,
third, or subsequent choice will not hurt your first-
choice candidate. Your ballot will be counted
regardless of whether you choose to rank one, two, or
more candidates for each office, but it will not be
counted if you assign the same ranking to more than
one candidate for the same office"
Page 23, line 29:
Delete "most"
Insert "greatest majority and second greatest
majority of"
Page 25, following line 23:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 59. AS 15.80.010 is amended by adding a new
paragraph to read:
(46) "ranked-choice voting" means the
method of casting and tabulating votes at a primary or
special primary election in which voters rank
candidates in order of preference and in which
tabulation proceeds in sequential rounds in which
last-place candidates are defeated and the candidates
with the greatest majority of votes and the second
greatest majority of votes are nominated to appear on
the general election ballot."
Page 26, line 9, following "NONPARTISAN":
Insert "RANKED-CHOICE OPEN"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected.
6:08:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered that Amendment 2 provides an
opportunity to include "ranked-choice voting" in this bill. He
explained that "ranked-choice voting" in multi-winner elections
maximizes the effectiveness of every vote to ensure that as many
voters as possible will help elect a candidate they rank highly.
It minimizes wasted votes and the impact of tactical voting,
allows voters to have more choices, encourages positive
campaigning collation building, upholds both minority
representation, and the principle of majority rule. Due to its
proven history, its emphasis on candidates rather than parties
in its ability to allow voters to express their full honest
preference on the ballots, ranked-choice voting is the form of
fair representative voting best suited for use in the United
States elections. Recently, he advised, the State of Maine
decided to take this route and they are the first state and,
were Alaska to do this it would be the second state.
6:09:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she was unsure whether she really
opposed this amendment as it was fairly complicated, but she
would certainly look into the amendment as the bill moved on to
the next committee of referral, assuming it so moved.
6:10:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS described it as a monster of an
amendment, shared Representative LeDoux's intrigue having
followed ranked-choice voting (RCV) quite a bit, and noted the
State of Maine initiative made Maine the first state, but
several municipalities may have ranked-choice voting. He asked
Representative Eastman to explain how this would interact with
the bill as written, whether it would be an ornament on top or
would effectively replace it.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded that there many way of
performing ranked-choice voting, and in this case the bill
creates a top two results of a primary that go off into a run-
off in the general remains as is, the amendment revamps the
primary portion of the bill completely. For example, it comes
up in a situation where "you have so many candidates who run for
the office based on however many candidates run" and then
calculate those top two and those top two would go on, and from
there the bill would be unchanged. He explained that part of
that is because it's the bill in front of the committee and that
would have been a completely different bill to carry that into
the general, but also, he further explained, research found that
[Alaska's] constitution may have a prohibition, at least in the
gubernatorial race, against ranked-choice voting in the general
election for the governor.
6:12:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that basically the
primary election would be a ranked-choice vote, and then the top
two coming out of that ranked-choice vote primary election would
advance to the general, and it would be the top two.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered in the affirmative.
6:12:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether it would still be an open
primary system under Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded that there is nothing that
would say it would have to change, and that could be another
discussion point if there was a reason to change it. Ranked-
choice voting, he explained, is not mutually exclusive to
nonpartisan in any manner. There could still be the same
opportunity to identify as a particular party candidate but the
party would not be controlling who could file for office, and
who could be part of that first election.
6:13:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the State of Maine has an
open primary, because her office had not identified the State of
Maine as having an open primary.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied that he thought Representative
LeDoux was correct, but he was not an expert on that part of the
process.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that she would be willing to look
into this. It appears Representative Kreiss-Tomkins may also be
fascinated by the idea and he is the chair of the next committee
of referral, she offered.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS concurred with Representative
LeDoux's comments, and described the amendment as a knuckle
ball.
6:14:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said that he does not support this amendment, and
referred to Alpheus Bullard, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, 4/4/17 memorandum directed to Representative Eastman,
page 3, last two sentences of the first paragraph, which read as
follows:
Note that the language required to implement a "multi-
winner" ranked-choice system defines simplification.
Given the time allotted, I used the language of
Fairvote's multi-winner ranked-choice system,
modifying it only as necessary or as appropriate to a
"two-winner" system
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that this is an interesting idea and
there is the notion that ranked-choice voting is also sometimes
called the "instant run-off method." He opined that, at least
with regard to the state's nonpartisan municipal elections, the
instant run-off would be a positive thing particularly in the
mayoral races where 25 percent of the voters show up for the
first go-round which turns out to be a run-off, and about 15
percent of the voters show up for the second round. He
described, with regard to instant run-offs and ranked-choice it
would be a service to the voters to not go through the cost.
6:15:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX maintained her objection.
6:15:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN related that he appreciated the comments
from the committee as this is something that hasn't been tried
before, noting a desire to change something for the better after
carefully considering what would be considered "the better," and
that he offered the amendment as part of that conversation. The
drafter of the amendment noted there had to be a number of
caveats to account for all of the different potential outcomes
of tie-votes, such as incorrectly marking a ballot and so forth,
which required complexity in the language which was unavoidable.
He stressed that there was no slight to the drafter who put in a
huge amount of time drafting the amendment. Representative
Eastman withdrew Amendment 2, with the understanding that
hopefully this amendment could be part of the understanding
moving forward.
6:16:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that he is supportive of
the bill and intrigued by Amendment 2, and was excited to see
the bill and amendment in the next committee of referral.
6:17:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that he does not support the bill
and believes HB 200 intentionally dilutes the validity of having
political parties, the purpose of having primary elections is so
that voters can see which candidate best supports their party
views, and it introduces mischief into the process by having
insincere candidates committing to carrying out the platform of
the party on behalf of many voters.
6:18:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that the policy of the bill had
not been vetted well and that she found it disturbing because
the process in which people are elected, and the people in
power, is of the upmost importance to the people of Alaska. She
said she does not support HB 200.
6:19:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER said he was intrigued by this bill.
6:19:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that like many of his
constituents, he looked at the trend in the state and the
effectiveness of its current primary process and the relatively
new trend of people running in primaries and then resigning or
moving to a different ticket, and said he could not imagine that
this happens often in a lot of other states. Due to that issue,
there is a desire to step away from that trend and this bill
might become a vehicle to do that, except he does not support
the bill's current language.
6:20:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that this is the third
committee hearing on this bill and; therefore, it could not be
said that this bill was being fast tracked.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, in response to comments made in a
previous committee hearing, offered to make available a
memorandum from Legislative Council directed to Legislative
Legal and Research Services advising how it is to prioritize its
work. She expressed there is nothing in that memorandum to
suggest that minority amendments [or requests] be placed at the
bottom of the barrel.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX advised that for the reasons previously
stated, this is a good bill and she would appreciate moving it
to the next committee of referral.
6:22:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to report CSHB 200, Version 30-
LS0038\U out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected.
6:22:23 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins,
LeDoux, Fansler, and Claman voted in favor of moving CSHB 200
out of committee. Representatives Reinbold, Kopp, and Eastman
voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 200(JUD) was reported out of
the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
6:23:43 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 6:23 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB200 Draft Proposed CS ver U 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
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 Sectional Analysis ver O 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
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 Opposing Document-Letter and Articles Kenneth Jacobus April 10th, 2017 4.15.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Opposing Document-Letter and Article Kenneth Jacobus April 11th, 2017 4.15.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Amendments #1-2 4.15.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Amendments #1-2 HJUD Final Votes 4.15.17.pdf |
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 |
| HB013 ver O 4.14.17.PDF |
HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
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 |
| HB13 Supporting Document - Timeline for Korematsu's Resolution 2.17.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM |
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 |