Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/10/2020 09:00 AM House LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
March 10, 2020
9:00 AM
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens, Chair
Representative Louise Stutes, Vice Chair
Senator Tom Begich
Senator John Coghill
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Neal Foster
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Jennifer Johnston
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Steve Thompson
MEMBERS ABSENT
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Drummond
AGENDA
Call to Order
Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative Hearing per AS 24.05.186
Adjourn
SPEAKER REGISTER
Cori Mills, Attorney, Department of Law
Megan Wallace, Director, Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency
Noah Klein, Counsel, Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency
Gail Fenumiai, Director, Division of Elections
9:01:01 AM
I. CALL TO ORDER
CHAIR STEVENS: called the Legislative Council meeting
to order at 9:01am in the State Capitol's Senate Finance
Committee Room and requested a roll call vote. Present at
the call were: Senators Begich, Coghill, Giessel, Hoffman,
Stedman, Stevens, von Imhof; Representatives Edgmon,
Foster, Johnson, Johnston, Thompson, Stutes. Representative
Kopp joined the meeting at 9:24am. 13 members present.
II. Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative Hearing
CHAIR STEVENS: Today we're going to comply with
Statute 24.05.186 in the course of the Legislature to hold
a hearing on any proposal, any initiative proposed, and the
purpose of this meeting is to comply and satisfy that
requirement.
Several individuals have been called to testify to us,
to speak to us, present at the meeting from the Department
of Law, Division of Elections, and Legislative Legal. Cori
Mills from the Department of Law is here with us. We also
have Megan Wallace, Noah Klein from the Legislative Legal,
and then Gail Fenumiai.
Just before we begin, if you'd look at your packet, on
the fourth page from the end there's this chart from the
very end, and it's to show the cost of this issue, but this
is the wrong chart. So ignore that one, and Ms. Fenumiai
and I will give us the right figure. So let's begin with
the Department of Law. Cori Mills, if you would come
forward. Thank you for being with us. State your name for
the record, please.
MS. MILLS: Good morning. Cori Mills, Assistant
Attorney General, Department of Law. Glad to be with you
again this morning. So I was going to start by just,
again, going briefly over the process.
I know we covered it last time, but for anyone that's
listening that may have not heard last time and how it
applies to this initiative, otherwise known as the Better
Elections Initiative or identified by the Division of
Elections as 19AKBE, so, again, talking about petition
certification, the lieutenant governor, with the Division
of Elections, has 60 days to review signatures.
In this case, the signatures I believe were put in on
January 9th. Yesterday the lieutenant governor sent
notification that the signatures were properly filed, so
they did meet the 10 percent requirement, as well as the
7 percent among three-quarters of the districts.
So at this point, the Division of Elections has been
directed to put this on the, most likely, general election
ballot, but it's whatever election -- statewide election
occurs 120 days after adjournment of the Legislature. So
it doesn't have to do with when certification of the
petition happened or when it was filed, it has everything
to do with when the Legislature adjourns this current
session. And if you adjourn by April 19th, it would be on
the primary. Anything after that would be on the general
unless there is an intervening statewide election between
the primary and the general. So that's kind of how the
process goes.
The only other piece that I covered last time that
I'll mention is if the Legislature and then the governor
signs or lets it become law without signature, enacts a law
that is substantially the same as the initiative, then the
initiative is considered void, and it would not go on the
ballot.
And just briefly, again, that test is really a scope,
purpose, means test that the Alaska Supreme Court has
applied to determine whether something is substantially
similar. And that means you look at the scope of the
subject matter, and the Legislature is afforded greater
authority or lesser latitude, depending on whether the
subject matter is broad or narrow.
And then you look at the purpose. The court must
consider whether the general purpose of the legislation is
the same as the general purpose of the initiative.
And then the means, whether the means by which that
purpose is effectuated are the same in both the legislation
and initiative, but the means only need to be fairly
comparable. Again, they don't have to be exact.
And so then if the measure goes on the primary or the
general election ballot and if a majority of the voters say
they want this initiative enacted, then it would be
effective. The effective date would be 90 days after
enactment, and enactment for a ballot measure occurs upon
certification of the election results.
So you're looking -- just for an example -- and I gave
this last time -- the marijuana initiative in 2014 went on
the general election ballot. Results were certified near
the end of November, and it was effective near the end of
February 2015. So that's kind of the time frame you'd be
looking at. So unless there are other questions on
process, I will move on to the sectional.
CHAIR STEVENS: Well, before you do that, I think what
most folks have spoken to me about their concerns about is
the ranked-choice issue. And if we're considering the
"substantially the same," to be substantially the same,
would it have to include a ranked-choice?
MS. MILLS: So, Chair Stevens, I can't predetermine
what a result would be in terms --
CHAIR STEVENS: Oh, sure you can. Go ahead.
MS. MILLS: -- of what the Department of Law would
look at, because we would be very much involved in that.
The attorney general actually has to concur in the decision
that it's substantially similar. But I would say that you
need to look at the major elements of the policy that's
encompassed within the initiative.
In this initiative there are really three major
policies. And the first is an open primary, an open
nonpartisan primary; the second is ranked-choice voting in
the general election; and the third is additional
disclosure and disclaimer requirements in our campaign
finance laws.
And so you would need to look at does whatever, you
know, we're looking to pass, as a Legislature, adhere to or
encompass those major policy goals in at least fairly
comparable means to what is occurring in the initiative?
Now, the example we have on substantially similar, we
have two examples: One where the court upheld it and said
it was substantially similar and the other where they did
not. And in Warren vs. Boucher, it was actually kind of
the initial passage or enactment of our campaign finance
laws as a state, and there was an initiative, and there
were quite a few differences.
There were differences in the numbers, the amount that
could be donated, contributed to a candidate, there were
differences in how media was addressed and whether media
certain disclosures were necessary, and yet the court still
found that the scope was broad, so the Legislature had more
latitude, that the general purpose was to create these
limits on campaign finance and have disclosures so that the
public knew who was contributing to campaigns, and then
that the means were fairly comparable. So you have an
example of a broader law.
Whereas in the case of -- I think it's State vs. Trust
the People, you had an initiative that was very narrow and
dealt with just the subject basically wanting to eliminate
the governor's power to appoint a Senate vacancy at the
congressional level.
And the Legislature passed a bill that still allowed a
temporary appointment in between a special election, and
the court found that that went too far, that the means were
not comparable, that this was narrow legislation,
therefore, the Legislature had lesser latitude. So I just
give that as all of the considerations that would need to
be taken into account if you're looking at passing
something substantially similar.
The only other note I do want to make, and I think you
may all be aware of this, but we are in litigation over
19AKBE. So when I say it's going to go on the ballot, it
will go on the ballot unless the Alaska Supreme Court tells
us it's not supposed to go on the ballot. We're still
waiting for that decision. It was argued February 19th
before the Alaska Supreme Court.
The issue was the attorney general recommended that
the lieutenant governor not certify the initiative
application because it violated the single subject rule.
The attorney general, you'll see in our opinion, determined
that there were really three subjects involved in the bill:
again, open primary, ranked-choice voting, and campaign
finance disclosures and that, therefore, under the Croft
vs. Parnell case -- that was decided I think back in
2014 -- that this should not be certified. The superior
court disagreed. That's why the signatures were gathered.
That's -- then the state appealed. That appeal is now
pending.
We have told the Supreme Court that if this were to go
on the primary ballot, we would need a decision I think by
June in order to make sure the Division of Elections had
enough time to prepare the ballot and not waste resources
putting something on the ballot that the court determines
should not go on the ballot.
So we expect the court to rule within that time frame
to make sure that the Division of Elections can adequately
do their job. But I did just want to put that out there
that that is still a pending issue. Aside from what I've
told you, I'm not going to talk a whole lot about it. It's
before the Supreme Court, and we'll find out what they say.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Ms. Mills. Senator Begich.
SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cori, you
mentioned three issues here as the three major policies:
nonpartisan primary, ranked-choice, and campaign finance
law. But isn't there a fourth relating to federal
elections in here, a substantial fourth that changes
existing law, and could you comment on that?
MS. MILLS: So through the Chair, Senator Begich, we
have viewed that as part of the changes to an open primary
and part of the changes to ranked-choice voting, because
basically what it's doing is applying the open primary,
both a special open primary to fill a vacancy, as well as
just the normal open primary to all federal offices that
the state, the Senate, and Representatives, as well as the
ranked-choice voting to the general election for the
presidential election. So those are the ones I'm aware of.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Begich.
SENATOR BEGICH: Just to follow up, doesn't it also
address the issue of special elections in terms of a
vacancy? And what -- for the rest of the members to know
exactly what it says, would you mind talking about that?
MS. MILLS: Oh, yes, through the Chair, Senator
Begich. So, and I'll go through this in the sectional as
well. But effectively right now in certain circumstances
we have what's called a special runoff election, but
parties are able to petition and put forward names of
their -- the candidate that they would like in that
election.
And now what it's doing is basically making all
elections the same so that you'd have a special primary
election, where, just like the open primary, anyone could
get in. The party petition process would be repealed and
anyone could get in on a special primary to fill a vacancy.
And then you'd have a special election after that.
SENATOR BEGICH: If I may interrupt, just fill a
vacancy for a United States Senate seat? I just want to be
clear about that for the folks to know that that's a very
specific thing that this does.
MS. MILLS: Yes, Senator Begich. So basically it's
for any vacancy that would have otherwise had any sort of
special election. It reverts to this process. So it's the
federal Senate seat, it's the governor. If for some reason
the lieutenant governor that succeeds is then no longer
able to hold office and you have the successor to the
lieutenant governor, it's that circumstance, and then it's
a special election for a state Senate seat as well under
the specific parameters where you have a special election
for a state Senate seat.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Representative Drummond is
in the audience with us. Thank you for being here. Any
further questions? If not, would you please go on to the
sectional, Ms. Mills?
MS. MILLS: Yes. And for the sectional, we actually
did one in our attorney general opinion. You should find
that in your packet. I believe it's after the initiative
bill, and then you have one other document, and then you'll
have a letter dated August 29th.
Starting on page 2 is our general overview summary,
and then I think around page 3 or the bottom of page 2 it
starts on the sectional, if you want to follow along.
So as I said, there's three major changes here. And
so you'll find that pretty much every section of this bill
relates to one of those three changes or a combination of
two of those changes. So open nonpartisan primary,
ranked-choice voting in the general, and disclaimer and
disclosure requirements.
So starting with section -- so Sections 1 through 3
really have to do with the open primary -- I mean, Sections
2 and 3. Section 1 is just a findings and intent,
basically repeats what the major policies are, as well as
includes a statement that Alaska supports a constitutional
amendment allowing citizens to regulate the raising and
spending of money in elections, basically a statement that
we would like to see Citizens United overturned. That's in
the intent and findings section.
Then you go to Sections 2 and 3, which, again, mostly
have to do with the open primary. Section 2, you end up
having election boards. And right now you base it on the
political party that receives the most votes or the largest
number of registered voters at the time of the preceding
gubernatorial election, and now it's adding political
groups.
So basically it's saying maybe we'll have more
political groups in the scheme of things, and so we want to
allow, whether it's a political party or a political group,
whoever has the most number of registered voters, that's
who's going to be able to get a seat. And then the second
largest number of registered voters' political party or
political group, they also get to be appointed to this
election board. And there's a few other spots where they
do that. They basically add in political groups on the
same level as political party. You'll find that in a few
places.
Section 3, again, you can appoint one or more poll
watchers regardless of party affiliation or party
nomination. So right now the political parties have an
ability to have a poll watcher. This would allow basically
any candidate to appoint one or more poll watchers.
Then we move on to the changes to the campaign finance
laws, but I do want to note that some of these changes are
actually because of the change to the open primary and not
the disclosure and disclaimer requirements, and I'll note
those as I go along.
So Section 4, for example, is another one that
changes -- is a change because of the open primary. And,
again, it's allowing on APOC, as you may know. Right now
you -- the governor's appointments partly ensue because of
the political party and who retained the most number of
votes, who won the gubernatorial election. And then the
second largest number -- well, again, it's adding political
groups now, not just political parties. And political
parties have kind of a higher threshold to reach, and now
it's kind of putting them on the same plane as political
groups.
Section 5 is a conforming change. Section 6 would add
disclosure requirements relating to -- and I quote this --
the true source of contributions. There's a definition for
what a "true source" is. You know, and if this was
enacted, then the Alaska Public Office's Commission would
use that definition and determine what that is.
SENATOR COGHILL: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Please, Senator Coghill.
SENATOR COGHILL: That's a new concept in law, if I
understand correctly?
MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, correct.
SENATOR COGHILL: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes. Senator von Imhof.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: When you say "new concept," is
that defined statewide, or is that defined nationally, true
source? What is true -- where is true source defined?
MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,
there's a definitions -- a new definition section put into
this bill. So it would be in state law, true source dark
money, and I think it's like out-of-state or outside
groups, something like that. Those are the three new terms
that would added to the law and defined in this bill.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator von Imhof.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: In your research, do you know of
any other state that has recently defined "true source,
dark money," et cetera?
MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof, I'm
not aware of any. I do have to say I did not do a whole
lot of looking at other states. I was really just
concerned with this initiative bill and what it's got.
CHAIR STEVENS: And maybe definition of "dark money"
would be helpful for the public.
MS. MILLS: Yeah. So it's Section 17 through 19 are
those definitions. And I'll go over those really quick
because I think it will help as I go through.
So Section 17, it would amend AS 15.13.400. That's
where the general definitions in the campaign finance laws
are located. Dark money means a contribution whose source
or sources, whether from wages, investment income,
inheritance, or revenue generated from selling goods or
services, is not disclosed to the public, notwithstanding
the foregoing to the extent a membership, organization
receives dues or contributions of less than $2,000 per
person per year, the organization itself shall be
considered the true source. So, then, again, dark money
refers to true source.
So true source, which is Section 18, means the person
or legal entity whose contribution is funded from wages,
investment income, inheritance, or revenue generated from
selling goods or services. A person or legal entity who
derived funds via contributions, donations, dues, or gifts
is not the true source but rather an intermediary for the
true source. And, again, there's a notwithstanding the
foregoing membership organization kind of exception.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator von Imhof has a question.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Thank you. So this means that
anybody who's donated more than 2,000 annually would be
listed on the APOC, Alaska Public Office Commission report,
but we still have the top three donors on any advertising.
Does this bill affect those -- the top three donors listed
on any advertising materials?
MS. MILLS: Senator von Imhof, through the Chair, that
law is not impacted by this initiative bill.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Please, continue,
Ms. Mills.
MS. MILLS: So I'll just go over Section 19, because
that's the other new term, "outside funded entity." And
that means an entity that makes one or more independent
expenditures. So you're only talking about independent
expenditure groups in one or more candidate elections and
that during the previous 12-month period received more than
50 percent of its aggregate contributions from true
sources -- again, using that term -- who, at the time of
contribution, resided or had their principal place of
business outside of Alaska. So you're looking at
50 percent or more of the contributors -- of the
contributions resided or had their principal place of
business outside of Alaska.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Coghill.
SENATOR COGHILL: Since you looked at this, do you
think -- is it clear to you that the people who put this
initiative out complied with those definitions?
CHAIR STEVENS: I'm sorry. I could not hear your
question. Could you try it again, Senator Coghill?
SENATOR COGHILL: My question is, do the people who
put this initiative forward comply with the spending
reporting requirements that they're putting in here, just
as a point?
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.
MS. MILLS: So through the Chair, Senator Coghill, I
have to say I didn't look at any of their advertising or
where their sources came from. You know, that would be a
question for the Alaska Public Offices Commission.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Representative Kopp, thank
you for being here. Please continue, Ms. Mills.
MS. MILLS: Yeah. So I think then I will go back to
Section 7. So Section 6, again, was adding the true source
in excess of 2,000, and that's the theme you will see, that
it's an excess of 2,000 is really where a lot of these
disclosure and disclaimer requirements start kicking in.
And so if -- you know, it requires disclosures from every
individual person, non-group entity, or group that
contributes more than $2,000 annually to an independent
expenditure group.
And then Section 8 goes back to really a change
because of the open primary. So under the open primary
system, you would actually have a governor and lieutenant
governor run jointly from the very beginning, because the
primary would be more about narrowing down the field for
the general, not about political party nominations.
And so it would change the joint campaign limit to
$1,000 for governor and lieutenant governor. Instead of
each of them having their own campaigns, it would be a
joint campaign, and they doubled the limit basically to
account for that. So that's more an open primary change.
And then we go to Section 9, and you're back to kind
of the new disclosure requirements. And this is about the
dark money and basically that the disclosure requirements
for contributions, again, to independent expenditure groups
may not annually total 2,000 or more of the dark money
where the true source isn't identified.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator von Imhof.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Just going back to Section 8, I
just find it interesting that trying to be more of an open
primary, yet it seems kind of counterintuitive that prior
to the primary, that a ticket would be combined, that a
lieutenant governor and governor would be combined, forcing
this pairing for voters versus one -- each election on its
own. How is that giving voters more choices? How is that
giving voters more flexibility when you're forcing a
pairing? Just curious.
MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof, I
don't have any comment on the policy, but, you know,
that's -- in order to encompass the open primary system
with a lieutenant governor and governor pair, that's how
the sponsors chose to put it together.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Further comments? Please
continue, Ms. Mills.
MS. MILLS: Okay. And then Section 10 is just
conforming changes.
Section 11, this would require that certain existing
disclaimers on paid political advertisements be shown
throughout the entirety of the communication if in a
broadcast cable, satellite, Internet, or other digital
format. So it's taking existing disclaimers but just
requiring that they're there for a longer duration.
Section 12, additional disclaimer on political
advertisements funded by the outside entities. So that
goes back to that definition. So this only has to do with
independent expenditure groups that receive
contributions -- more than 50 percent of their
contributions from these outside-funded entities, and it
would require an additional disclaimer on any paid
political advertisements.
So Section 13, again, conforming changes.
Section 14, this is, again, the $2,000. So disclosure
by individual contributors whose contributions to
independent expenditure groups exceed $2,000 annually. So
you're basically covering the gamut on everyone who gives
over $2,000 annually to an independent expenditure group,
or an independent expenditure group that receives more than
$2,000 from an individual contributor would have to
disclose that.
Section 15 would create new fines for failure to
disclose certain contributions to independent expenditure
groups as required by Section 7 and Section 9. And those,
again, are the dark money and the -- just the contributions
of more than $2,000 annually to an independent expenditure
group.
Section 16, conforming changes.
And then we already went through 17 through 19, which
defines those new terms. So those would all be statutes
added to --
CHAIR STEVENS: One moment, please. Senator von Imhof
has a question.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: I just think -- as you go through
17 and 19, just to reiterate what Senator Coghill stated, I
think it is very important that are the initiative
supporters themselves following the true source, dark
money, outside-funded entity over-reporting at this time
leading by example? That I think that this committee, as
we move forward on this, should absolutely check with APOC
on a regular basis and make sure that this dark money, true
source, et cetera, et cetera is properly being vetted,
because if the initiative supporters themselves are being
cagey, well, isn't that interesting?
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator von Imhof. Senator
Coghill.
SENATOR COGHILL: Probably the question at this point
would be, candidates will be subject to this, but will
initiatives be subject to this?
MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator Coghill, I'd
have to go back and look at exactly how it's worded. The
main thrust is that it's independent expenditure groups,
but I'd have to go back and see exactly what that applies
to.
SENATOR COGHILL: Mr. Chairman, I think that's
something we need to consider as we move forward.
CHAIR STEVENS: A very important question. And you'll
research that and get back to us?
MS. MILLS: I'm happy to do that, yeah.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.
MS. MILLS: So now we're going to move back into kind
of the regular how elections are run instead of the
campaign finance with Section 20. And Section 20 is --
basically would establish the open primary system.
And then Section 21 would allow each candidate to have
his or her party affiliation designated after the
candidate's name on the ballot or choose the designation of
nonpartisan or undeclared. So, again, you're talking about
an open nonpartisan primary. Anybody gets to be a part of
it. There's one primary ballot, and each candidate gets to
choose what designation they have after their name.
Sections 22 through 23 would then require additional
notices on the ballot and at each polling place, letting
voters know that a candidate's designated party affiliation
on the ballot does not signify the political party or
political group's approval or endorsement of that
candidate. And you'll see later that it's also required in
the election pamphlet itself.
Section 24, this is really the crux of your
ranked-choice voting. This is where it's laid out and
required. So it would establish ranked-choice voting,
again, only for the general election, whereby each voter
may rank all of the candidates. You don't have to, but you
could rank all of the candidates.
This section would provide how the ranked-choice votes
should be counted. So you start with the number-one
ranking on all ballots. If there are more than two
candidates and none of the candidates gets a majority of
the total votes after a first round of counting, the
candidate with the least amount of votes would be removed
from the count. Okay?
And ballots that ranked that candidate as one on their
ballot would then be counted for the second-ranked
candidate on those ballots. So you'd move to number two
for those where their first candidate got removed from
counting.
This would continue until a candidate obtains a
majority or there are only two candidates remaining, at
which point the candidate with the highest number of votes
wins. So you're either looking for a majority over
50 percent, or you're down to two candidates and whoever
gets the most votes. So that's ranked-choice voting.
SENATOR COGHILL: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Coghill.
SENATOR COGHILL: So if there is a clear majority on
the first round, I get that. But at this point, you're now
starting to change the dynamic from the majority vote to
the highest vote count. That is a different set of
circumstances I think. So it's something to ponder as we
go forward in this particular issue. I could see some
circumstances where a vote count may be lower than the
majority votes cast for an individual. So I think I'll
have to look and see how that works, but it does create a
question in my mind. That's all. Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Important to think that through
because there is a -- essentially a disadvantage for the
voter who only chooses to vote for one, and that changes
the dynamics of it. Senator von Imhof.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Thank you. So in theory then, all
the electronic votes or the voting pieces of paper run
through the machine the first time and there's not a
majority winner. So they take all those pieces of paper
and run them through again. There's still not a majority
winner. They take all those pieces of paper and run them
through again. So basically what we're having is a bunch
of secret runoffs, because there's a calculation in the
back that's happening as we're running through all these
ballots again and again if we're running them off and
running them off and it's all secret. Does the initiative
say that there's going to be an announcement? So Candidate
A is no longer -- we're giving you an update. Candidate A
got only ten votes, and so that person is no longer there.
So we're going to run them off again. And we have these
whole bunch of people that are watching this or not
watching it. They're running off again, thousands of
ballots, tens of thousands. So then do they give us an
update again? Candidate B is now no longer there. Or is
this all done just -- and at the very, very end this is who
wins?
MS. MILLS: So through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,
there is no requirement of that sort of announcement in the
initiative bill.
CHAIR STEVENS: Just so I understand, I think it will
lead to talks at the Division of Elections about how that's
interpreted. And, you know, the big advantage I think in
the Alaska election system is that we have paper ballots,
and we can always go back and recount them. This adds a
pretty confusing issue when you keep running them through
the machine. Anyway, maybe we can ask our commissioner or
our elections folks about that. Senator Begich.
SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just
without either supporting or opposing this initiative, I
would just clarify that similar to a system that -- it
sounds like it's similar to a system, though, with limits
that's used in Australia.
I mean, and so that's probably what I'd ask our
division director, how that works, because this looks like
it's limited so that it wouldn't be every single election
but that there is -- Minneapolis uses a system like this,
where they're constantly reporting the data, who's being
taken off, and it's reported on a daily basis, but it takes
a lot of time.
My question, and maybe it's for the lieutenant -- I
mean, for the director of the Division of Elections but
maybe for you. Do we even have machine that can -- we just
bought new software. Do you know if that -- is that really
a question for the Division of Elections? It is. So I'll
withhold that question until later. We just purchased new
machines, so --
CHAIR STEVENS: We did.
SENATOR BEGICH: -- I don't even know if they can
accommodate this.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Begich. Further
questions or comments? Ms. Mills.
MS. MILLS: So then Sections 25 through basically 29
are different conforming changes for either ranked-choice
voting or the open primary system. So I'm not going to
spend a lot of time on those.
Moving to Section 30, this is similar to the change in
the APOC commission membership. Again, you have four
district absentee ballot counting boards and questioned
ballot counting boards, and there's a certain way those
numbers are appointed. This would add in that basically a
political group could be viewed the same as political party
when you're looking at how many registered voters and so
who gets representation on those boards.
Sections 31 through 36, again, conforming changes.
Section 37 is kind of your crux for the open primary.
The primary would no longer serve to determine the nominee
of a political party or political group. Instead, the
primary would narrow the number of candidates whose name
would appear on the general election ballot to four. So
everybody runs, and then it's the top four that move on to
the general election.
And so Section 38, this goes back to the governor and
lieutenant governor. It would amend the candidate
declaration to require that candidates for governor and
lieutenant governor include the name of the candidate's
running partner. So you basically choose ahead of time
before heading into the primary who your running partner
is.
Section 39 relates to the open primary. It
establishes the process for preparation and distribution of
ballots to account for the open primary system where there
would only be one primary ballot. So this current statute
deals with having the separate ballots, depending on which
political party. This would turn it into a one primary
ballot system.
Section 40, again, relating to the open primary, would
repeal and reenact the statute that establishes which
candidates will be placed on the general election ballot.
Again, you have the top four move on, and it would also
include a process for filling a vacancy that occurs after
the primary election. There's statutes for dealing with
that now, but, again, you'd get rid of the party petition
process, and there would be another process by which you
could fill a vacancy if it occurs after the primary but
before the general.
Section 41 would allow a write-in candidate at the
general election to designate his or her political party or
political group affiliation or be designated as undeclared
or nonpartisan, similar to what you're allowed in the open
primary.
Section 42 would eliminate the requirement for
write-in candidates, that a candidate for governor run
jointly with a candidate for lieutenant governor from the
same political party or group. Again, you could choose who
your running mate is and political party affiliation
wouldn't matter.
Section 43 would provide that the ranked-choice method
of voting in the general election also applies to the
election of electors of president and vice president.
Again, you wouldn't -- the primary wouldn't fit in there.
You'd have the same nomination process for getting onto the
general election ballot for a presidential election, but
the way you choose them, you choose the ranked-choice
voting method in the general election.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Senator Begich.
SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Going back,
just very briefly, to Section 38 and then moving into these
other sections. If it's a primary campaign with no party
affiliation, then there would be no requirement for
governor and lieutenant gubernatorial candidate to be of
the same party if they were running as a team. Would there
be under this initiative?
MS. MILLS: So through the Chair, Senator Begich,
there would not be a requirement that they be of the same
party.
SENATOR BEGICH: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Senator von Imhof.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: So is there anything in this
initiative that talks about changing your party, as in "I'm
going to change my party in June. The primary is in
August" or anything about changing your party year after
year? One year you're Republican, the next year you're
Democrat, and then all of a sudden you're a political party
group the third year? I mean, is there anything on that?
MS. MILLS: So through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,
there -- this initiative bill does not address that at all.
I will say that, thinking about our current laws, I don't
think there's anything on that either except that, you
know, you have to be a Republican -- the parties get to
choose what their qualifications are for their candidates
in their primary. That's the requirement. But a party, as
we've seen because we had a recent court case on it, can
choose to open up their primary to more than just members
of their party as it stands right now.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Begich.
SENATOR BEGICH: And just to clarify, thank you,
Mr. Chairman. But a party could also choose to pick its --
select its candidate by caucus. There's no prohibition on
that either. They don't have to go to a primary process,
do they? Other states don't. Is there a requirement that
a party here use a primary?
MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, in
order to have your candidate on the general election ballot
as a nominee of your party --
SENATOR BEGICH: Let me clarify.
MS. MILLS: Okay.
SENATOR BEGICH: So under this initiative, you
wouldn't have a party affiliation. So if a party wanted to
make its choice for who it was going to signal whom they
supported, which candidate or candidates they supported,
they would still have a process. They could run it through
their own primary. In fact, I think this year my party is
running its own primary for president. They're actually
running a primary election, which they're paying for. I
don't believe the state's paying for it. Or you could have
a caucus process. Again, parties pay for their caucus
processes now for the presidential elections.
And they could do what Minnesota, for example, does
when they select who they prefer, or the state of Utah,
where they select who they prefer, or the state of
Colorado, where a certain percentage is required as a
threshold or you don't get the official endorsement of the
party. All those might be -- all those would be -- under
even current law we could be doing those kinds of things.
And then, of course, under current law you'd have the
primary process, and then under this law you would have a
primary process without partisanship indicated. Would that
be basically correct?
MS. MILLS: So through the Chair, Senator Begich, that
is correct. The parties have authority to determine how
they decide who they're going to endorse. The real change
is here is in the state-funded primary process.
SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you for the questions. Please
continue.
MS. MILLS: Okay. So we were on -- so that was 38,
39 --
CHAIR STEVENS: 43 I think we did.
MS. MILLS: Yeah, ranked-choice. So, yeah, we did the
ranked-choice voting. Okay. And then Sections 44 through
49 -- and really if you go down to 50 through 54, this is
where you take the filling of vacancies that would normally
go through either a special runoff process or some sort of
party petition process, would become a special primary
conducted as an open primary to fill a vacancy, followed by
a special election. And this would apply to the office of
United States Senator or United States Representative.
And then 50 through 54 would amend the special
election process for filling a vacancy in the Office of the
Governor. And, again, that's only if you have a lieutenant
governor who succeeds and then has to step down and you're
really stuck with the successor of the lieutenant governor
as governor. That's when this circumstance applies. And,
again, you'd have a special primary conducted as an open
primary, followed by a special election instead of a party
petition process.
SENATOR COGHILL: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Coghill.
SENATOR COGHILL: Probably Section 43 changes one
significant fact. At this point, we have done a
winner-takes-all on electors, for the most part, and that
is whatever party gets the general election gets to pick
the electors, and that is three votes that could tip the
balance of United States power.
In this particular case, what we've done is
surrendered that to a ranked-choice voting selection style.
And I think that's a significant change. So I don't think
that that falls into one of the major policy calls. I
think that is a policy call to itself, just to let you
know.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.
MS. MILLS: So Section 55, this would amend the
statute providing for the qualifications and the
confirmation process for an appointee to a vacant
legislative office, to include political group along with
political party. This is, again, taking political group to
be on the same level as a political party. So if you have
a member of a specific political group, then being part of
that political group would then become part of the
qualifications in order to fill a legislative vacancy that
doesn't require the special election.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Begich.
SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you. Cori, what do we do now
when independent -- for example, if they were to resign,
how would we deal with that now under the law? I'm just
curious.
MS. MILLS: So through the Chair, Senator Begich, and
I'd have to look back again specifically at the statute,
but it does account for that.
And basically, first of all, if you have an
independent who's essentially caucusing with one party,
they would take that into account. If you had -- and that
group would be the ones to vote on whoever is appointed,
but otherwise the governor has to appoint someone who is
also an independent. And if it comes down to them not
having any sort of caucus or affiliation, as I recall, then
they -- that appointment would just stand. I don't think
you have any vote that occurs because that person is not
part of any particular group within the Legislature.
CHAIR STEVENS: So if an independent were to resign or
be replaced, replaced by an independent, if that first
independent was in a caucus, the caucus would have to
decide whether to accept them; is that correct?
MS. MILLS: Yes, if that particular independent was
really part of and caucusing with a specific affiliated
caucus group, that caucus group would have a say.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.
MS. MILLS: As I recall.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Begich, further question on
that?
SENATOR BEGICH: I think what I'd like is,
Mr. Chairman, if perhaps with a little more thought and a
little more time, the Department of Law would provide a
more detailed or nuance description -- that would be
helpful -- as opposed to just here at the table, because,
of course, this Legislature has, for the bulk of its
history in either the Senate or the House, had bipartisan
caucuses where at least one member of another party has
been in those caucuses, including, quite frankly, now both
majority caucuses and currently. So I'd be very careful
about that. I would want to have a more clear idea of what
that is. I think we should have a more clear idea of what
that is.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Begich. So,
Ms. Mills, if you could clarify that. Send us your
comments to my office, and we'll make sure we distribute it
to everybody.
MS. MILLS: Happy to do that. So we have gone through
55. We're now on 56 through 60. This is, again, filling a
vacancy in the state Senate and would provide for a special
primary conducted as an open primary followed by a special
election, as we discussed before.
Section 61 through 63, just conforming changes.
Section 64 through 66 would specify what the election
pamphlets have to include, or they do now. And this would
add requirements. So for the general election and the
primary to include a notice to voters that any political
party or political group affiliation listed next to a
candidate does not represent the political party or group's
endorsement or nomination. That's similar to what has to
go on the ballot, as well as the polling place.
And then election pamphlets would also include an
explanation of the open primary system and how that works.
And, lastly, the general election pamphlet would
explain the ranked-choice voting method. So those would be
new requirements for the division to include in their
pamphlet.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.
MS. MILLS: Again, 67, 68, conforming changes.
69 would amend the definition of political party by
deleting language referring to the nomination of a
candidate by the group seeking to be recognized as a
political party. So right now how you determine whether
you've reached political party status has to do with how
many votes your nominated candidate received in the general
election. And because you would no longer have a party
nomination process, a party -- political party primary,
that would no longer apply.
So that language is deleted, which leaves you with
political party status would only be determined by the
number of registered voters the group has, not the number
of votes a prior nominated candidate received. So you'd
look at the number of registered voters that are registered
to that party.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator von Imhof.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Does this mean that like a
political group is sort of like a subset of a political
party? I mean, I could be Republican, and I could be Tea
Party, or I could be XYZ, you know, Big Hats or whatever it
is. I mean, does it mean that you're -- is it a subset, or
is it now we have Republicans, Democrats, and then any
number of things?
MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof, I
think the latter is an apt description. I would say
Director Fenumiai has been dealing with this for years.
They have a number of political groups at any one time that
are sitting on the edge, and they always have to do a check
as to whether they have become a political party. And then
you can also fall out of political party status.
The Libertarian Party is a really good example of one
that, you know, in a presidential election you might reach
above the threshold, and so all of a sudden they have an
opportunity to be part of the primary process. And then
they'll fall out of it when it's not a presidential
election because you don't have as many voters voting for
the Libertarian candidate. That's just one example. But
you could be any number of political groups that are
sitting, waiting to reach the threshold in any given
election so that they can then be a political party for the
next election.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: I have one more question.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please, Senator von Imhof.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Okay. So just kind of the
political group, political party, then you said caucus. So
we had a situation that when Governor Dunleavy was a
senator, he left the caucus. He was Republican, but he
left the caucus. Then he quit, and we filled him with
Senator Mike Shower. It was the Republicans at that
point -- because Mike was Republican -- both Mikes were
Republicans, that's who chose him. But if Dunleavy was not
part of the caucus, he was not part of any group under
this, who would have chosen him?
MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof, are
you speaking specifically to if there was an open primary,
or what are the current --
SENATOR VON IMHOF: To fill a vacant legislative seat,
a vacant -- I mean, does this deal with a vacated
legislative seat after a primary or within 30 days, 60
days, or are we talking just an election? Are we talking
about like how this body -- or like an election?
MS. MILLS: So on Section 55, through the Chair,
Senator von Imhof, specifically is relating to filling a
vacancy by gubernatorial appointment and then who has to
vote within the Legislature on that appointment.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Right.
MS. MILLS: And so this would -- if you are not part
of a political group or a political party, if the person
who was in the office who vacated it wasn't within either
of those groups, then there is -- which I just can't
remember right now -- there's existing language on what you
do with those types of individuals, and that would not
change.
CHAIR STEVENS: I think probably -- I'm going to add,
what if you are a party one and are replaced and there's
nobody to confirm your replacement? Interesting conundrum.
Thank you for bringing that up. Further comments? Yes,
Representative Kopp.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It
occurs to me there's a very significant educational process
for the public to understand all the nuances of this
initiative that may take a considerable amount of time
just, you know, going through the sectional, the
highlights. It's a significant change to how they run
today.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Representative. It's well
worthwhile to go through these details. Senator Begich.
SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just two
points of clarification: We have actually had a situation
where we had one party represented. We had one and then
two Libertarians in the early '80s in the Legislature. So
I'd be curious to know, you know, how we would have done
that.
And then, secondarily, to Representative Kopp's
comment, I think you're about to get to Section 74, which
acknowledges the complexity by providing a two-year time
period for the Director of Elections to educate the public
before the initiative takes --
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. And, Ms. Mills, any
clarification you give us at a later date would be
appreciated. Thank you.
MS. MILLS: Yes, I am happy to do that. I would refer
you -- I did find the statute. It's -- 15.40.330 is the
statute that talks about qualification and confirmation of
appointees when filling a vacancy. And I'll get back to
you in writing, but if anyone wants to look it up
themselves, that's the statute, 15.40.330.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. We are on 70; is that
right?
MS. MILLS: Yes. So, and this would just add a
definition of ranked-choice voting basically along the
lines of what we already discussed earlier about having --
being able to rank all of the candidates. If your
candidate has the least amount of votes and there's no
majority, you would then -- your vote would then be counted
for your second ranked-choice.
71, conforming changes.
72 is repealers. This is a fairly long list of
repealers. And effectively what it does is it repeals
statutes relating to party petitions. So when political
parties put in a petition to fill a vacancy in a special
election, it would get rid of that because, again, now
you're moving to an open special primary. It would get rid
of --
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Coghill has a question on that
point.
SENATOR COGHILL: So one of the things that we get to
do as legislators, when a bill is a presented to us, we get
to look at the repealers, because those are pretty
significant policy calls in themselves because the -- not
only does it change the structure, but it is undoing a lot
of things that have some historical and actually court
context to it. Is there any reason that in an election
pamphlet we would put a description of those repealers?
MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator Coghill, are
you specifically speaking I assume about the ballot
summary --
SENATOR COGHILL: Yes.
MS. MILLS: -- that's included?
SENATOR COGHILL: I mean, we have 70 sections of the
bill, and 72 is a section of 22 repealers that all are
pretty significant policy calls, notwithstanding the policy
calls that are replacing them.
And I think for me, in full disclosure people should
see what is compared to what they're going to put in place.
I know that requires a lot of printing, but I think this
can be disingenuous to the people of Alaska if we just put
in repeal these languages. And just a point, so --
MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator Coghill, I
appreciate that. And I'll -- you know, I think the
division director is sitting here, and we can take that
back to the lieutenant governor.
They are -- we are pretty prescribed on what we put
in, you know, and the entire initiative bill I think gets
put in the election pamphlet, and then there's a ballot
summary, and the ballot summary has been written. It was
provided with the notifications yesterday, and it may
already be on the division's website.
The ballot summary does make it clear that you're
eliminating political party primaries. And most of these
repealers are basically getting rid of any ability, from a
state perspective, for the political parties to make a
nomination that then gets on any sort of general election
or special election ballot. And that's why I said it
repeals any statutes relating to party petitions, any
statutes relating to no-party candidates because now you no
longer have the petition process for no-party candidates.
They just have to participate in the primary or be a
write-in candidate. Those are now your two options.
And then it also repeals all of the special runoff
elections because, again, you're moving to an open primary.
So, Senator Coghill, through the Chair, I'd be happy to
share that ballot summary also with the Legislative
Council.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Coghill.
SENATOR COGHILL: Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
probably they're going to have to summarize, but the
summarization quite often glosses over some of the
fundamentals, for example, the money coming in and out of
the state, the money changing from one person to another,
again, at a campaign, the way we elect our electors, the
way we do runoffs. I mean, you start going down the list
of what has changed and what's being pulled out of law that
already has some court precedence to them is something that
I think the public is not getting the full story on. So
it's just something to think about.
And I don't know if we can summarize those, but
probably that's the best we can do. But I think the
summary could as long as the 74 sections of this law, just
for what it's worth. But I think -- just for me,
Mr. Chairman, I think we're being disingenuous to the
people of the Alaska if we don't tell them what those
repealers are.
CHAIR STEVENS: Very good point. Thank you.
MS. MILLS: So that's the repealers. And, like I
said, it is a substantial list, but that's what it's doing
is getting -- really getting rid of those three categories
of statutes.
Section 73 is a severability clause. You'll find
these in most initiative petitions these days.
And then Section 74, as Senator Begich pointed out
earlier, would require -- it's a temporary uncodified law
to require the Director of Elections for two years to make
efforts to inform voters of the changes made to the state
selection process under this initiative bill. And --
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator von Imhof.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Thank you. So you talked a lot
about political group, and I did find that it is, in fact,
defined in statute, but it's not very clear. And
essentially it says, "Political group means a group of
organized voters which represents a political program and
which is not qualified as a political party." "Represents
a political program," what's that?
MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,
again, I think the director could talk about their process
for taking applications for political groups and the
process they go through on reviewing those for what they do
currently.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Begich.
SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to
clarify, the ranked-choice process -- just going back
through -- I've been thinking about your sectional -- does
that apply to the primary, or is the primary just a
straight primary, open primary, top four go then to a
ranked-choice process to the general?
MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, your
latter is correct. So it only applies to the general
election. So you get your top four from the primary.
Those go on the general election, and then you get to do
your ranked-choice. In the primary it would be a one vote
for each position.
CHAIR STEVENS: Any further questions? Thank you very
much. Senator Giessel.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Cori, could you clarify with what
you just said? So in the primary, a plurality would be a
winner. In the general, ranked-choice voting would apply,
and, again, in that ranked-choice voting, again, a
plurality declares the winner. It doesn't have to be
50 percent plus one; am I correct?
MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator Giessel,
correct. And you would have your top four within that
plurality go on to the general election ballot.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator. Further questions
or comments? Ms. Mills, thank you for your knowledge and
your expertise and your ability to answer questions on the
fly here. I appreciate it. We are expecting some more
responses from you, which we'll share with the members.
Thank you very much.
MS. MILLS: Happy to do that.
CHAIR STEVENS: We'll move on to comments from
Legislative Legal. And I'd ask Megan Wallace and Noah
Klein to come forward, if you would, please. Thank you for
being with us. And if you'd put yourselves on the record,
please.
MS. WALLACE: Good morning. For the record, Megan
Wallace, Director of Legal Services, and I have with me
today, Noah Klein, legislative counsel, also with Legal
Services.
MR. KLEIN: Good morning. Noah Klein, legislative
counsel with Legal Services.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.
MS. WALLACE: Before I get into our prepared outline
to address issues, there's a couple -- just hearing some of
the questions that have been asked, there are just a few
minor points of clarification or to answer a few questions
that have come up this morning that I might make a brief
comment on.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please.
MS. WALLACE: With respect to I believe it was Senator
von Imhof and Senator Coghill's question regarding the
Section 17 through 19, which defined the new terms "dark
money, true source, and outside-funded entity," there was a
question about whether those -- the contribution
limitations that are -- that were put on, whether they
apply to initiatives. And the definition for
"contribution" -- which is already defined in statute --
does, in fact, mean -- also means influencing a ballot
proposition or question. So those new requirements would
also apply to initiatives.
Moving on, just briefly, there was some questions
about certification or disclosure of the ranked-choice
results. And in Section 26 of the initiative, while I
can't speak as to how the division would make those
announcements, Section 26 of the initiative does
specifically state that the number of votes for each round
of the ranked-choice tabulation process would be certified,
and so, therefore, it implies that it will be made public,
each round of the counting.
And there was just a large discussion about political
groups. And as Senator von Imhof pointed out, that is
already a term that we use in statute. And Ms. Fenumiai
can speak more about the process, but there is already an
application process in -- that exists now. And on the
Division of Elections website, they keep a list of -- or
there's a public list of political groups who have filed
applications currently on the website.
Just some examples to educate the committee and maybe
the public that is watching, some of the political groups
that have filed applications include the Alaska
Constitution Party, the Green Party of Alaska, OWL Party,
Moderate Party of Alaska, and there's others. So those are
examples of political groups as they exist in the state
today, which would then be included in part of the vacancy
process for the legislative offices that we were just
discussing.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Ms. Wallace. I appreciate
those clarifications.
MS. WALLACE: Just a reminder to the public,
Legislative Legal Services is a nonpartisan agency that
provides legal advice and drafting services to the
Legislature. So our comments here today are politically
neutral and issues that we have independently identified
with respect to the Better Elections Initiative.
I wanted to start by discussing the legal standard if
there were to be challenges post-enactment to the
initiative, what a court would look at if there were
questions about what a provision means. Is it vague?
Those kinds of questions would be presented to a court.
When a court construes an initiative, it does so in a
manner that differs from the manner in which a court would
maybe construe a statute that is enacted by the
Legislature.
So the Alaska Supreme Court has noted that, when they
are construing the meaning of ambiguous statutes, they
often will look at the plain meaning and maybe the
legislative history whenever possible, but that process is
different when they are reviewing a ballot initiative.
So when the Supreme Court -- the Alaska Supreme Court
is reviewing the language of a ballot initiative, it will
look to the published arguments made in support or
opposition to determine what meaning the voters may have
attached to the initiative.
And the court made a point to say that it will not
accord special weight to the stated intentions of an
individual sponsor. So, to me, that's an important
distinction, too, to keep in mind with respect to the
manner in which a court construes these initiative
petitions. And that standard would apply to not only this
initiative but the initiative we discussed last time, the
oil tax initiative.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Begich.
SENATOR BEGICH: So I'm curious about that. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. You're saying it's not the stated
intention of the sponsor but the public statements that are
made. But aren't the public statements that are made often
made by the sponsor of an initiative petition? And what is
the distinction there, and where do they come together?
We've -- for example, in both of these initiatives, we
haven't actually heard from the sponsors. We've only heard
from Leg. Legal, Department of Law, et cetera. So where's
that distinction drawn? Because it sounds to me then that
any testimony that a sponsor might make would not be
relevant, but what would be relevant would be their public
statements that they're making when they're not before a
committee. Am I understanding that? Is that what you just
said?
MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, I
could clarify a little bit. They won't give special accord
to the statements of the initiative sponsor, but they will
look at -- and I think it's those statements after the
ballot has been placed on the initiative. So maybe the
statements of intent that are argued before the court that
are post-election or post the initiative being placed on
the ballot will be not given special accord. But the court
will if those -- if the sponsor statements are part of the
public record of what a voter would have had access to
before the election, then those statements might be
considered by the court.
SENATOR BEGICH: To clarify, Mr. Chairman --
CHAIR STEVENS: Please, Senator Begich.
SENATOR BEGICH: The sponsors often write initiatives
for the election pamphlet statements. That's a sponsor
statement. That would not have the power of the public
statements made? That pamphlet goes to everybody in the
state. I'm confused by what you're describing as the
standard. I don't understand I think fully what you're
describing as the standard.
MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, the
court will look at statements that were made in favor of or
against the initiative at the time up to the time that the
initiative is placed on the ballot.
What I'm clarifying is more of a scenario where if a
certain provision is challenged and it's argued or
litigated in court, the court would maybe not give -- will
not give strong accord or weight to an argument
post-election that is made by the initiative sponsor.
SENATOR BEGICH: I understand.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Please continue.
MS. WALLACE: So before preparing for today, Mr. Klein
and I kind of divvied up the workload. And I'm going to
run through just some general legal issues that our office
spotted with respect to our review of the initiative. And
if you have specific questions related to the language of
the initiative or some more of the details, Mr. Klein is
equipped to try to answer those questions.
The first legal issue that I wanted to discuss is that
there -- with respect to the ranked-choice voting for
general elections, it's our opinion that the ranked-choice
initiative does raise an issue under Article III, Section 3
of the Alaska Constitution with respect to the election of
the governor.
Article III, Section 3 states that "The governor shall
be chosen by the qualified voters of the state at the
general election. The candidate receiving the greatest
number of votes shall be governor."
There is a question in terms of whether the
ranked-choice voting process, which requires a majority of
the votes, is in conflict with the Alaska constitutional
provision that uses the language "the greatest number of
votes."
It has been our longstanding opinion of our office
that that language means a plurality. It's a question that
the Alaska Supreme Court has not addressed, and so it is an
open question.
But with respect to a scenario where a general
election were to occur and the first rounds of votes were
tallied and there was a plurality but not a majority, there
is a question as to whether using ranked-choice to get to a
majority of the votes cast is in conflict with the Alaska
constitutional provision.
Maine had -- which is the first state in the nation to
have ranked-choice voting -- passed an initiative I believe
in 2016 and established ranked-choice voting for all of its
general election positions. And the Maine Senate certified
a question to the Maine Supreme Court asking about the
constitutionality of some of the provisions in that
initiative.
And the decision that was rendered by the Maine
Supreme Court with respect to that question that was
certified to the Maine Senate was that Maine's
Constitution -- which does specifically use the word
"plurality" in their Constitution -- held that the
ranked-choice voting system with respect to the governor
and legislative races was in contradiction with the Maine
Constitution.
So it's my understanding, from the research that I've
done, that Maine has moved forward with ranked-choice
voting but with the exception of the race of the governor
and state legislative offices.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Begich, you understand this
thoroughly. I know.
SENATOR BEGICH: I do. I'm sorry about this,
Mr. Chairman. In Maine, though, they challenged -- they
did take the ranked-choice challenge to the Supreme Court.
And, in fact, in the U.S. House race they contested that,
and, in fact, a member of -- a person who actually won
based on ranked-choice by getting a majority of the vote
was declared the winner after being challenged by the
person who initially led. That's actually what happened in
the U.S. House race there.
You're drawing the distinction between the governor's
race and the U.S. House race there. But the governor's
race wasn't contested that way. I mean, I have to -- it
was the U.S., meaning that the governor's race there wasn't
a dispute, but there was in the U.S. House race. And the
court in Maine ruled in favor of the candidate that
eventually triumphed through ranked-choice voting. Isn't
that right?
MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, I
don't have any reason to doubt -- I didn't really
specifically look at the U.S. House race in Maine, but I
did read the opinion of the justices, which was I think
before the challenge that you're speaking about.
And so it was, I think, a pre -- I don't know if it
was pre-enactment, but it was, I think, the Maine Senate or
the Maine Legislature was considering a repeal of certain
provisions of the ranked-choice and had a question about
constitutionality. And the opinion was specific to the
governor's race and the state legislative race.
And the issue that I'm raising here at this table with
respect to this initiative only applies to the governor's
race and the lieutenant governor's race, and there is not
similar language about state legislative races, unlike the
Constitution in Maine. So there are several distinctions.
SENATOR BEGICH: So, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Begich.
SENATOR BEGICH: I'm not trying to be either
supportive or in opposition to this initiative. I'm just
trying to make sure that we have the right information on
the table. So it was a 2016 -- 2017 decision that you're
talking about, and then a 2018 election was held. There
were more recent court decisions. And I would be -- it
would be useful I think for us to know -- maybe a short
memo just describing what the current state of the law in
Maine is, if we're going to use that as an example.
And then, secondarily, to be clear, you were pointing
out that we don't say the word "plurality" in our
Constitution. And, in fact, we have had a number of
governors elected with less than 40 percent of the vote in
this state or one at least elected with less than
40 percent and at least three elected with less than
50 percent of the vote in the state of Alaska. So we have
a tradition of not taking a majority vote as the standard
in the state of Alaska, as well. That would be correct,
right?
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator. Then we'll get to
Senator von Imhof and then Senator Giessel.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: So I don't know if you're the
person, Megan, to ask or if it's Cori, but I understand
that there is a lawsuit. It was taken to the superior
court. And I was curious if there's an appeal, is what I
understand, to the Alaska Supreme Court. Was part of the
original court case, including contradiction of Article
III, Section 3, on the candidate with the greatest number
of votes for governor? Was that part of the case?
MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,
no. The issue that is currently pending decision before
the Alaska Supreme Court is with respect to a single
subject argument. That is the sole question that is before
the Alaska Supreme Court now, because it would affect
certification and placement of that initiative on the
ballot.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator von Imhof.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: That's too bad.
CHAIR STEVENS: Comments. All right. Senator
Giessel.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for
clarity, the state of Maine only applies ranked-choice
voting to its federal elections, and that was the
congressional issue that arose. The reelection of a
congressman in that election, he actually won the -- he
won -- there were four candidates. He won the most votes,
but then it automatically reverted to ranked-choice and
another person won or was declared the winner in that case.
Mr. Chairman, there are numerous states between 1912
and 1930 that implemented and then repealed ranked-choice
voting; those states being Florida, Indiana, Maryland,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin. North Carolina also used it
between 2006 and 2013 but repealed it. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator. Senator Coghill.
SENATOR COGHILL: Which brings up an interesting
point: How to tell the public the difference between the
greatest number of votes cast for an individual and the
greatest number of votes counted for an individual. And I
think that -- that's what it really comes down to. And we
used to struggle with how to explain that. That's all.
And so as we move forward in this, hopefully the clouds
will clear on how we do that.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.
SENATOR BEGICH: Can I ask --
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Begich.
SENATOR BEGICH: Just a question of whether an
analysis has been done by Leg. Legal. My party is the
minority party in the state of Alaska at present. It
hasn't always been, but it is at present. And I've been
curious as to whether or not Leg. Legal or anyone that
you're aware of has done any analysis to identify whether a
process that leads to ranked-choice voting, where you have
ranked-choice voting would lead to the permanent assignment
of my party into the minority. Is that -- any kind of
analysis been done, given that the state has generally in
both statewide elections and in -- if you add up the total
of House seats and Senate seats, and, you know, my party is
always in the 43rd or -4th percentile, but the other party
is always in the 48th to 49th percentile overall. Would
this permanently relegate my party to the minority status
in the state? Has that analysis been done, or do you know,
or does anybody know?
MR. KLEIN: I don't know --
CHAIR STEVENS: And identify for the record, please,
just --
MR. KLEIN: Excuse me. Noah Klein --
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.
MR. KLEIN: -- Legislative Legal. Through the Chair,
Senator Begich, I don't know if that analysis has been
done. I have not conducted that analysis. And I'll leave
it at that.
MS. WALLACE: For the record, Megan Wallace. I will
echo Mr. Klein's comments. I'm not aware that we've done
any such analysis, but we're happy to look at the issue
upon request.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. No further questions.
Please continue.
MS. WALLACE: The only other comment that I'll make
with respect to the issue that's raised under Article III,
Section 3 is that the opinion with respect to the language
of the Alaska Constitution equating a plurality requirement
is in part of our analysis of the Constitutional Convention
history, and there were some comments and some debate over
that provision.
And there were specific statements that were made with
respect to requiring a majority of the votes cast to
require election of the governor. And that appears to have
been rejected explicitly by the Convention members.
And so, therefore, it's our opinion that the greatest
number of votes does equate to plurality, but it is an open
question. The Alaska Supreme Court has never considered it
and could be a question that is raised with respect to this
initiative.
Other legal issues that we've identified is the
elimination of party primaries, and the establishment of
open primaries could potentially raise an issue under
freedom of association rights of political parties. There
have been several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have
considered a blanket primary.
Specifically with respect to California, California
Democratic Party vs. Jones, which was a 2000 U.S. Supreme
Court decision, it looked at and invalidated a blanket
primary in California.
About eight years later, the U.S. Supreme Court, in
Washington State Grange, considered an open primary,
similar to the one proposed in this initiative, and held
that it did not severely burden a party's associational
rights. I raise that just as a potential issue.
It's our opinion that because the initiative language
appears to be more comparable to the Washington state
language, that the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court
would find that it severely burdens the associational
rights is unlikely, but the Alaska Supreme Court has held
that the Alaska Constitution is more protective of
political parties' associational interests than the federal
Constitution. So it's difficult to predict how the Alaska
Supreme Court may weigh in on that issue if challenged.
And, finally, the disclosure requirements for the true
source or dark money political contributions have the
potential to raise a free speech issue under the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I,
Section 5 of the Alaska Constitution.
And, again, it's difficult to predict how the Alaska
Supreme Court might rule on this issue. As folks are well
aware, you know, the Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court
case would be, you know, relevant to that discussion. But,
again, it's just an issue that we've identified and take no
opinion as to the likelihood of success of any of those
challenges.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Coghill.
SENATOR COGHILL: Just on that point, would the
sponsor's intent have any weight if the voters put this
into law, the intent in here is to challenge that U.S.
Supreme Court case basically. So does that intent carry
any weight with it when it comes to adjudication of this
particular issue?
MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator Coghill, when
the Alaska Supreme Court is weighing constitutional issues,
the sponsors' intent is not usually a relevant part of that
discussion. They generally look to the meaning -- the
plain meaning of the Constitution and, you know, past
precedent in evaluating whether or not the statute or law
before them presents any constitutional issues.
SENATOR COGHILL: Mr. Chairman, I would just think
that if people reading this are motivated by that
particular issue, that could be unfortunate that they think
what they're doing has weight, and it may very well not
have weight, just for what it's worth.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Please continue.
MS. WALLACE: Those are generally the legal issues
that we flag. There may be other minor issues, or
certainly our testimony isn't to encompass every possible
legal challenge that might exist. But those are our
high-level comments on the initiative, and we're happy to
take any questions.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Senator Begich.
SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This may
also be one for the director, but one of my staff
assistants has pointed out that under this process of the
ranked-choice voting, wouldn't the ranked-choice count have
to wait until the last absentee ballot was received because
you wouldn't know the actual count until then? Have you
given that consideration how that affects the absentee
ballot process? Because we receive ballots from overseas,
et cetera, for up to 15 days. And would that then be when
the clock begins to run for determining when you eliminate
the lowest candidate? I'm just curious if you've analyzed
that at all.
MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, we
have not analyzed that. I suspect that if the initiative
were to pass, that would be a question that the Division of
Elections is going to have to determine, you know, the
manner and way it's going to carry out at the elections and
counting the absentee ballots.
CHAIR STEVENS: Very good. And we're going to talk to
Ms. Fenumiai about that. Senator Coghill, did you have a
comment?
SENATOR COGHILL: Yes. So three new definitions in
here, new concepts in the reporting mechanisms with dark
money, true money, and out-of-state I think. I was just
looking for -- I think it's Section 17. Dark money is
Section 17; true source is Section 18; and outside-funded
entity is Section 19. Those are new concepts in law.
The question that we're going to have to come up with
is if they're new concepts and we are putting them before
people, how do we have a comparison between what is now and
what these new concepts are so they know the context in
which they're voting? Maybe that's not a question for you,
but that's a question that arises from me when we put a new
concept in law.
And so maybe the question would be then, when you're
putting a new concept in and taking old concepts out, is it
reasonable to expect the general population to be able to
read these statutes in that total?
I mean, I look at the repealer section. I'm looking
at these new concepts, and I'm thinking how in the world
are you going to get somebody to read these many sections
of law and get the concepts of these new reporting
mechanisms? You can put a general comment on there.
So with the new concepts, I'm just trying to get my
feet under me on how do I describe them outside of just
what a definition is? But the definition then is shot
through a whole section of law. So do we owe it to the
public to describe these new concepts as new concepts?
Maybe that's the best way of saying it.
MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator Coghill,
that's a difficult question. I'm not sure that they are
necessarily legal issues that arise. The issue that you're
describing is often an issue that comes up. It's similar
to the oil tax initiative. It's very complicated material
to describe to the voters, and I don't have any comment on
the best way to do that.
SENATOR COGHILL: Yes. I'm sorry to ask our legal
team that, but it's a question that plagues me on how do I
describe this to the general population? I'm just looking
for any help I can get on that. Sorry. Very important,
Megan.
CHAIR STEVENS: So I'm going to ask Senator Giessel to
speak in a moment. But we have a time issue because we
have to be on floor, Senate on the floor at 11:00, right?
So I want to make sure we have a chance to speak to the
Director of Division of Elections. Senator Giessel.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman, my question to Megan
has to do with the disenfranchisement of voters. So there
was a 2015 published study by two researchers on elections.
And they found, in examining four elections that used
ranked-choice voting, that anywhere from 9.7 to 27 percent
of the ballots were discarded through the ranked-choice
voting process. So this is very concerning to me. Take a
middle number there between 10 and 27 percent, maybe 15,
20 percent of Alaska ballots discarded, that would be
25,000 ballots discarded.
And my concern is, as I look at this initiative and
the instructions on page 66 -- which the Division of
Elections is supposed to explain to people, put in the
ballot. My concern is that the people that will be most
likely disfranchised will be the elderly -- who've always
voted the normal way and now are confused by this
ranked-choice voting -- and uninformed voters, people who
may have limited reading capabilities, but the fact is,
disenfranchising voters when we have a very low voter
turnout to begin with. Do you have any comments about
that?
MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator Giessel, you
raise another issue that could potentially be a subject of
challenge to the initiative if it were to become law. It
is not anything that this state has looked at or examined
before, and so it would be a case of first impression. I
don't have any specific comment of the way that the Alaska
Supreme Court is likely to come out on that, but it's
certainly another issue that may come up if this were to
become law and it's challenged.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: I understand. Thank you. So we're to
move on shortly here to the Director of Division of
Elections. Any further comments, concluding comments from
our attorneys?
MS. WALLACE: Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you very much. I
appreciate your time, Mr. Klein and Ms. Wallace. Would the
Director of the Division of Elections come forward, please,
Gail Fenumiai. Pleased to have you with us. Pleased to
have you back in the job.
MS. FENUMIAI: Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and members of the committee. Gail Fenumiai, Director of
the Division of Elections.
I was asked to give a brief summary of the statement
of cost for implementing this initiative. And the division
has expressed an estimated statement of cost of $800,593 to
implement this initiative. That includes the cost of --
that we incurred for processing the initiative, reviewing
those signatures that were submitted.
It also includes the cost of a voter education, which
would be required as a result of the initiative, that the
division would be responsible for educating voters. We
estimated that cost to be about $150,000.
There are requirements for this initiative to be
translated into multiple languages that we're required to
do according to the Toyukak settlement, as well as the
languages that are found under Section 203 of the Voting
Rights Act. That estimate is about $57,400.
The biggest chunk of this is, in order to do
ranked-choice voting, ballots have to have a digital image
captured. And in order to capture a digital image, all of
our hand-count precincts -- which total 137 -- would need
to be outfitted with an ImageCast Precinct Scanner, which
is our new equipment that we purchased.
And then following that, the images would then be
returned to the division and uploaded, and then the
ranked-choice voting process would start at the precinct
level. Again, we would have to wait until -- it is my
understanding that we would have to wait until the final
deadline for all ballots that are legally acceptable to be
received, reviewed, and counted before the absentee part of
this whole process could start.
It was not evident to the division, when we did this
estimate of cost, that there is software that is needed to
accommodate this process, and that is approximately
$350,000 in addition to what the division presented. We
were told that, yes, our new system can do this but didn't
dig deep enough to find out that there were additional
costs associated with that. So it's -- that is the
division's estimated cost.
And then the cost statement also has $103,000 in
estimated costs from the Alaska Public Offices Commission,
adding an Associate Attorney I position and some
programming hours that they would need to do for their
filing system.
CHAIR STEVENS: Do you have a total then for us?
MS. FENUMIAI: The total is $906,943 without the
additional $350,000 for the software, because without that
software, you can't do it.
CHAIR STEVENS: And the APOC figure, you're including
that as well?
MS. FENUMIAI: Pardon me?
CHAIR STEVENS: The APOC --
MS. FENUMIAI: APOC is included in that, yes.
CHAIR STEVENS: $960,000 plus $350,000 for software
potentially?
MS. FENUMIAI: Uh-huh.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Senator Coghill.
SENATOR COGHILL: That was my question. It's about a
million two then?
MS. FENUMIAI: Approximately 1.2 million dollars, yes.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you very much for addressing
those issues. Do you have some general comments you care
to make before we go into questions.
MS. FENUMIAI: I don't at this time. It's definitely
a complex procedure, but if it's enacted, the division will
do the best they can to follow the laws of the state.
CHAIR STEVENS: Certainly. Then Senator von Imhof and
then Senator Begich.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Thank you. So building upon
Senator Giessel's comments earlier, if a voter only votes
for one candidate and that candidate does not get the
majority of votes in the general election and then they
have it go through the re-scanning of the ballots to find
the next highest votes, does that particular ballot that
only has one vote, does that get discarded? What happens
to that ballot because they haven't ranked anybody for
whatever reason?
MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,
it's my understanding that if there are no additional
rankings on that ballot and that first-choice candidate did
not receive the majority of votes, then that ballot for
that specific race would no longer be included in any
future tabulations.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: So that voter generally -- follow
up, please?
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: So that voter generally is no
longer represented in that race? That vote just no longer
counts?
MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,
their first vote would be the only vote that would count
for that ballot, yes.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Senator Begich, did you
have your hand up?
SENATOR BEGICH: Yes.
CHAIR STEVENS: And then we'll go to Senator Coghill.
SENATOR BEGICH: So a couple of questions. You
mentioned the 137 precincts that have to be hand-counted --
so just maybe a little more detail. I've got three
questions, Mr. Chairman, if I could.
CHAIR STEVENS: Please.
SENATOR BEGICH: How do you envision that process?
Perhaps a little bit more detail on how you would envision
that with the hand-count precincts. You're taking a
scanner -- which we're going to purchase -- you take a
photograph, and then how would that work?
MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, the
new ImageCast Precinct Scanners we purchased actually
capture a digital image of every ballot that goes through
the scanner. So the ballot image will be captured at the
time the ballot goes through the scanner.
And the proposal by the division would be instead of
those precincts hand-counting the ballots, they would
actually have a scanner where the ballots would be fed
through like they do in most of our urban precincts. And
the tally would be done by the scanner, and then the
digital images would then be sent to the division to be
used to further do the rest of the tabulations that would
be required by ranked-choice voting.
SENATOR BEGICH: Just to follow up on that question.
So we already have purchased these scanners; is that what
you're saying?
MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, we
purchased scanners in all but 137 precincts.
SENATOR BEGICH: Okay. My second question really kind
of looks at the system we use now for auditing our systems
and how we do that. And if this initiative became law, do
you have the capacity to do audits to ensure that the
system would be fair?
MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, we
will have to look at how all of our processes and
procedures are done, and the division has not done that at
this point in time. We do have a very good process in
place with our current system.
The law -- the initiative, as proposed, does require
that through each state of the tabulation process those
results are to be posted. And then those results would
then go through the same kind of certification process by
the state review board I would imagine post-election, post
all of the tabulation required by ranked-choice voting.
SENATOR BEGICH: And I think, Mr. Chairman, you just
answered the question that was asked earlier, which is are
the results posted as you're going through the tabulation
process? And you said the initiative does speak to that,
and it does do that?
MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Section 26 I believe
I did mention that each stage there has to be a certificate
provided for each stage of the tabulation process.
SENATOR BEGICH: And I say that, Mr. Chairman, because
that was a question Senator von Imhof had brought up, and I
did not know the answer to that.
And then my last question is, you know, we still have
provisions in state law. I don't know if it's one of the
ones that was repealed -- that would be repealed under this
initiative for hand-recounts if -- if we have a situation
where the difference or the margin is within .5 percent.
So how would we account for recounts under -- if this
initiative became law?
MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, Are
you referring to the hand-count verification process that
takes place following the election or actual recount?
SENATOR BEGICH: I'm actually referring to both
processes, and I'm trying to jam them into one question so
I can get away with three questions. But it's both the
point -- we have the automatic recount process, but we also
have the hand tabulation to check. So how would we do
those?
MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, it's
my assumption that the hand-count verification process
would continue in the same manner, and it would take a
significantly longer period of time because the initial
count for all first-choice ballots would have to be done,
and then the second-choice ballots would have to be then
sorted and tabulated, and it would take a very long period
of time.
SENATOR BEGICH: Mr. Chairman, this actually brings
one follow-up question, if I may?
CHAIR STEVENS: Please continue, Senator Begich.
SENATOR BEGICH: And that would mean do we have to
then look at -- would we have to, if this initiative
passed, look at changing our date for certifying an
election to ensure that a sufficient amount of time is
available?
MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, the
division would need to look into that in further detail.
The hand-count verification process takes place at the same
time the complete election certification process is taking
place.
As far as a recount -- you also mentioned a regular
recount -- it's my assumption that a recount would take
place in the same manner. All the ballots would be
re-tabulated, and then the ranked-choice voting tabulations
would happen again as part of that recount process.
SENATOR BEGICH: But that process couldn't begin until
after the last absentee ballot was received? You couldn't
even begin that process?
MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, correct. I do not
have an estimation as to how long the whole tabulation
process takes to get through all the ranked-choice votings.
SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Begich. Senator
Coghill and then the Senator von Imhof.
SENATOR COGHILL: He got most of my question. Then
it's just a matter of we have under this law, should it
pass, your chain of custody would be fairly clear? You're
going to have an electronic transmission, but you can
verify that with the actual ballots?
MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator Coghill,
that's correct. We have not changed the use of paper
ballots in the state of Alaska.
SENATOR COGHILL: All right. Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Senator von Imhof.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: So you just made the comment
"significant longer period of time." And I'm very
concerned about that because if there's going to need at
each stage completion of the ballot count, a certificate,
what if there's going to be a challenge? Then there's
going to need to be an audit, and then we have to wait for
each stage. And so if it goes through two or three
processes, this could take weeks, if not months.
MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,
it's my assumptions -- and, again, these are all just
assumptions because we have not dug deep into the weeds on
how this would actually be implemented. But it's my
assumption those pre-calculations of the ranked-choice
voting are all part of the unofficial results, and then the
certification of that results happens when the state review
board convenes approximately 15 days following the
election. They start working on the precinct materials.
So it's my assumption we could start the ranked-choice
voting tabulation at the precinct level and then go into
absentee districts once all the final ballots have been
received.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Yes, further comments?
Senator von Imhof.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: How I read Section 26 is that you
complete the ballot count and there must be a certificate.
Then if there is going to be then information disseminated
to the public after each stage, then I would think that
there needs to be an allowance of a challenge after each
stage, each certificate, each trial run of the ballots
again if there is continually no majority winner. And so
if it's just bam, bam, bam, bam, here's the end, here's the
end, where is there a point that someone can say, "Wait,
wait, wait, I don't like how you did that second or third
count"?
MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,
currently the challenges happen post-election
certification, and then a challenge is requested of the
division to conduct a recount. All results are considered
unofficial until the state review board goes through and
does their certification of the election. So I just don't
have a good answer for you at this point in time.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Director Fenumiai. I
appreciate your knowledge and your experience. Thanks for
being with us. I have an announcement that I need to make
before we adjourn. We're forming an emergency response
preparedness subcommittee appointing the following members:
Myself, Stevens, Chair; Senate President Giessel; Speaker
Edgmon; Senator Coghill; Representative Kopp; Senator
Begich; Representative Pruitt. And the subcommittee will
be meeting in the very near future, and I'll be sure to
keep the council informed of what happens.
III. ADJOURN
CHAIR STEVENS said if there is nothing further to come
before the Council, we are adjourned.
10:50:49 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 3.10.20 Leg. Council Meeting Packet.pdf |
JLEC 3/10/2020 9:00:00 AM |
3.10.20 Leg. Council Meeting Packet |