Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/30/1999 08:07 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 30, 1999
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Harold Smalley
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING
State Commission for Human Rights
Ruth Benson - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
* SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 141
"An Act providing for preferential voting in state and local
elections."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL 153
"An Act relating to leave for certain state employees."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
* HOUSE BILL 157
"An Act relating to absences from the state while serving on
oceangoing vessels of the United States merchant marine for
purposes of eligibility for permanent fund dividends; and providing
for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 141
SHORT TITLE: PREFERENTIAL VOTING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOTT, Porter, Cowdery, Green
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/17/99 492 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/17/99 492 (H) STA, FINANCE
3/24/99 554 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
3/24/99 554 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/24/99 554 (H) STA, FINANCE
3/30/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
RUTH BENSON, Appointee
State Commission for Human Rights
1551 Farmers Loop Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-6912
KELLY SULLIVAN, Secretary
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 141 on behalf of Representative
Kott, sponsor of HB 141.
ROBERT RICHIE, Executive Director
Center for Voting and Democracy
P.O. Box 60037
Washington, District of Columbia 20039
Telephone: (301) 270-4616
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the preferential voting system.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
P.O. Box 110017
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4611
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 141.
STEVE HILL, West Coast Director
Center for Voting and Democracy
P.O. Box 22411
San Francisco, California 94122
Telephone: (415) 665-5044
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 141.
CHIP WAGONER, Republican National Committeeman
Chair, Legislative Committee
Republican National Committee
3294 Pioneer Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1867
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 141.
MARK CHRYSON, Chairman
Alaskan Independence Party
Mat-Su Valley
2140 Wolverine Circle
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Telephone: (907) 376-8285
POSITION STATEMENT: Believed HB 141 would be in Alaska's best
interest.
LARRY ENGSMINGER, Vice President
Operations
Global Election System
1611 Wilmeth Road
McKinney, Texas
Telephone: (415) 542-6000
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the ACCU-Vote system and the changes
required for preferential voting.
JIM SYKES
[address not provided]
Denver, Colorado
Telephone: (303) 278-7524
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 141.
SCOTT KOHLHAAS, Membership Chairman
Executive Committee of the Alaska Libertarian Party
234 East 15th Avenue, Number 604
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 258-2848
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 141.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-18, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Coghill, Ogan, Whitaker,
Hudson and Smalley. Representative Kerttula arrived at 8:10 a.m.
CONFIRMATION HEARING
CHAIR JAMES announced the committee will consider Ruth Benson,
appointee to the State Commission for Human Rights. They would not
vote for the nominee but would pass her out of committee with full
consideration of the House and Senate. [Resume provided].
Number 029
RUTH BENSON, Appointee to the State Commission for Human Rights,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She said she was
appointed in November 1997 and has one year of experience of
working with the commission. She said she has learned a lot in
that one year and has something to offer. She confessed that she
has been kept awake nights with some of the decisions they have to
make, but it certainly has been interesting and rewarding.
CHAIR JAMES remarked the members were impressed with Ms. Benson's
resume.
Number 056
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved to forward the confirmation of Ruth
Benson to the State Commission for Human Rights. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
HB 141-PREFERENTIAL VOTING
Number 087
CHAIR JAMES announced SSHB 141, "An Act providing for preferential
voting in state and local elections," is before the committee.
Number 103
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved to adopt CSSSHB 141, version LS0669\K,
Kurtz, 3/25/99, as the working document before the committee.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 116
KELLY SULLIVAN, Secretary to Representative Pete Kott, read the
following sponsor statement:
Alaska has a history of electing minority candidates who
collected a plurality of votes cast, but not a majority. The
underlined principle of a democratic form of government is
that the majority rules. So, HB 141 - it eliminates the
possibility of having a minority candidate win an election and
it forces a 50 percent plus one of the votes cast.
An example of a minority candidate winning an election would
be a three-way race in which no candidate received over 50
percent of the votes cast. House Bill 141 allows a voter to
prioritize their preferences by ranking each candidate with
their first, second and third choice. If no candidate
received over 50 percent of the votes cast from the first
tally of the votes, then the candidate with the least votes
would be eliminated, and the second choice votes would then be
distributed for remaining candidates. Then the votes would be
retabulated using a ranking system in state. Local and
federal elections would ensure that the winning candidate
received at least 50 percent of the votes cast - and to keep
going until you get a majority of the votes.
The bill goes into some length to explain the procedures
necessary to manage the preferential style of voting. It's
the sponsor's belief that this is going to be a more fair and
more democratic process than our current system of voting.
Number 190
MS. SULLIVAN drew the committee members' attention to a video which
describes the preferential voting system [seven minutes long].
Number 350
ROBERT RICHIE, Executive Director, Center for Voting and Democracy
(the organization that produced the video) testified via
teleconference from Washington, D.C. He stated that the center is
a national organization which is focusing on researching and
disseminating information on how election systems affect voter
turnout, governance and representation. He noted that the
organization focuses in particular on how to reform plurality
elections in ways that will better promote majority rule and higher
participation. Mister Richie mentioned the center is a 501(c)(3)
education organization.
MR. RICHIE said he has been the executive director of the Center
for Voting and Democracy since 1992 and some of the activities that
he has engaged in are listed in his prepared testimony [included in
the packet].
MR. RICHIE read the following testimony:
Regarding HB 141, I'm not going to presume to tell you whether
preferential voting is the ideal system for Alaska. But, I
can discuss the following matters with great confidence: how
preferential voting works; the history of the system; how and
why preferential voting is gathering growing support in other
states and around the world and the specific matters relating
to the bill before you; some matters of statutory language and
also relating to the constitutionality of using preferential
voting for federal elections. And I do want to stress that
our center is prepared to do whatever we can to be helpful and
to answer any questions today, or those that come out of the
hearing.
Number 385
How preferential voting works
Preferential voting is a well-established voting system for
electing a single winner from a field of candidates for a
particular office.
Each of these names suggests how the system works. ...
"Preferential voting" describes what voters do in a case of
expressing their preferences. The "alternative vote" makes
sense because voters have an alternative selection if their
first choice candidate is too weak to win. And then of
course, "instant runoff voting" derives from the fact that the
method of voting simulates a runoff election.
The experience of other nations using preferential voting
shows that the system is quite easy for voters. Voters of
course have the option to vote just as they do now, ranking
only one candidate, but they have additional options that in
many ways make voting easier for them. They don't have to
make some of the calculations that they might have to make
when they only had one vote about candidate viability and the
prospect of wasting their vote. Instead they have every
incentive to simply vote for their favorite candidate first,
next favorite second and so on because they know that their
ballot can still count toward a winner if their first choice
loses.
Number 419
There are strong arguments in favor of the system. Just some
of them that we'd like to stress are that it does create a
mandate for the winner through that candidate's accumulation
of a majority of the vote. It reduces the number of votes
cast for losing candidates maximizing the number of votes that
will count for a winner. It increases the number of choices
available to voters. And the combination of all of that I
think tends to boost voter turnout.
As an additional argument, I think particularly pertinent to
its adoption in primary elections, preferential voting
undercuts the worst abuses of negative campaigning, as
candidates will be aware that they may need to be the
second-choice of supporters of other candidates.
And finally, note that while preferential voting simulates a
runoff, it has definitive advantages over the traditional
two-round runoffs. Two-round runoffs basically require
taxpayers to fund for a second election; they can vary greatly
in voter turnout and enthusiasm between the fist and second
rounds; and it can force candidates and organizations to have
to mobilize their supporters twice rather than get it all done
at one time.
The history of preferential voting
[Available in the committee packet].
Number 460
The recent rise in interest in preferential voting
I think that, as we are able to handle these matters of
election administration and ballot counting better and better,
there seems to be a real dramatic rise in interest in the
United States. ... Vermont is a particularly, I think, a good
case. There are particular reasons why preferential voting
makes sense there [mock elections were held in the schools].
The gist of it is, is they have a majority requirement in the
constitution for statewide offices, and if no candidate wins
a majority then the legislature has to elect that office. And
they've just gone to a campaign finance system that will
probably make it easier for a minor party and independent
candidates to run more strongly and thus join more and more of
the states that are already electing plurality governors. But
in the case of Vermont - that would lead to the legislature
actually having to elect the office - and there was a
commission that was formed last year by the legislature, which
at the end of its work, made a unanimous recommendation to go
to preferential voting for both federal and statewide
elections in Vermont. And the bill is being looked at closely
this year, and I think there is a very decent prospect of its
adoption there.
There also was a very strong interest this year in New Mexico
where the state senate passed a constitutional amendment very
similar to your HB 141. And we also know of legislation that
has been introduced (or will be introduced) in Massachusetts,
North Carolina, Organ, Pennsylvania, and Texas. And I think
there are going to be others as well this year - and this is
all new because this is something that a lot of people hadn't
heard of, just two or three years ago. But I think it's a
system that the more people hear about it, it seems the more
that they think it's a good system worthy of discussion and
perhaps implementation. And I think that our times have
created conditions where that might be particularly true, the
shrinking of voter turnout, a rise in participation of minor
party and independent candidates. And I think perhaps an
excessive degree of negative campaigning that is driving good
people from participation in politics. [Mr. Ritchie referred
to mock elections being held in schools and colleges in
Vermont].
My written testimony does get into the matter of its legality
for federal elections and also a few suggestions for changes
you might want to consider in the actual language of the bill.
[Included in the packet].
Number 520
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if people can be targeted, "vote once,
vote for me."
MR. RITCHIE replied HB 141 really doesn't because you don't get any
edge out of being someone's only choice. He explained that the
ballot will only go onto another choice if you're the weakest
candidate in the filed with the fewest votes. If you urge your
supporters not to rank anyone second that simply means that if you
are dropped during the course of the count, that the ballot cast
for you won't go to help decide the rest of the field. However, it
does help the candidate that has both core support and the capacity
to pick up any transfer votes from a weak candidate.
MR. RITCHIE said, "A key point to make is that quite often the
mechanism of transfers will not kick in. When they used this
system in Australia ... and they've had it for many years, voters
had a lot of opportunity to look at non-major party candidates. It
certainly kicks in sometimes, but the majority of races are won
right on the first count - so the winner just gets more than 50
percent of first choices and that's that. But if we're already
seeing more and more races won by plurality, and certainly Alaska
is one of many states where we've seen a lot of plurality victories
in key races, that's where the system really can do a service to
voters by giving them a chance to get their majority winner."
Number 561
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said preferential voting tends to favor the
candidate that receives the most single votes.
MR. RITCHIE replied that the candidate is in the best position to
win, but if they don't have a majority of the votes they also have
to pick up second and third choices from other voters. He
indicated that it doesn't reward them any more than the current
system. And in some ways it better assures that their candidate
can also reach out and gain the support of voters, voters beyond
their core support.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if preferential voting would increase
a voter turnout.
MR. RITCHIE indicated that it seems to increase turnouts in a
longstanding way, however, it is sometimes hard to do cross-country
comparisons. He said the general perception among political
scientists is that this will draw more voters to the poll.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked if Vermont has had an increased voter
turnout.
MR. RITCHIE pointed out that those were actually mock elections.
He noted that the legislation that was introduced last year to
implement the system in Vermont was not enacted.
Number 637
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY clarified that no states have passed or
adopted a preferential voting system.
MR. RITCHIE confirmed that no state currently uses the system.
It's gone from being a system which is being discussed much in
other countries and used in some, however not really talked about
in the U.S. to a really dramatic rise in interest. It's all been
in the last two or three years that any legislation has been
introduced anywhere in the U.S.
CHAIR JAMES announced that former Representative Fritz Pettyjohn is
observing in Anchorage.
Number 658
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist, Division of Elections,
Office of the Lieutenant Governor, testified that there are
technical problems with HB 141. She said the division believes
that the present version is not workable with current law and
current voting equipment. Furthermore, there also would be a need
to make numerous internal policy calls which need to be discussed
and determined at greater lengths. Therefore, the Division of
Elections doesn't see the voting method being easy on anyone; the
voters, the election board workers (whether you're in a hand-count
precinct or you're in an electronically counted precinct).
MS. FENUMIAI stated, "The first thing I would like to comment on is
that our new ballot tabulation system, that was purchased last year
for the tune of approximately $2 million, cannot accommodate this
type of voting method without some significant modification." She
said Larry Engsminger, Global Election Systems, can testify as to
what modifications might be needed, how long it would take, and to
the cost.
MS. FENUMIAI said she had been in contact with the election office
in Vermont and pointed out that Vermont's legislation on
preferential voting has pretty much been stalled in the House of
Representatives. When she discussed this with them, a week or so
ago, they informed her that they did not foresee it moving. A
similar bill was also introduced in Vermont in the previous session
but did not either. Ms. Fenumiai explained that New Mexico's
version of preferential voting did pass the state Senate, however,
(they have a voting system which is direct recording equipment)
there's no way that voting system could be accommodated at all to
move to this type of system. She was informed the committee that
it would cost $8- to $12 million to purchase new voting equipment
to be able to do that [New Mexico].
Number 687
MS. FENUMIAI noted that Section 2 leads the division to believe
that the redistribution of ballots is to be done at the precinct
level on election night. However, this is not possible due to the
fact that not all of the ballots have even been counted or received
by the division because the question voting process (in which the
review process does not begin until the sixth day following the
election) can take up to 15 days to complete. She emphasized that
absentees by mail ballots and absentee in person ballots have not
all been reviewed and counted on election night, and that can be
taken up the fifteenth day following the election.
MS. FENUMIAI referred the 1996 general election. She said there
were more than 35,000 absentee ballots and more than 16,000
question ballots which still needed to be reviewed and eligibility
of count to be determined. In the 1998 general election there were
more than 27,000 absentee ballots and almost 16,000 question
ballots that still needed to be reviewed. In the general election
of 1998 it took Talkeetna until approximately 5:00 a.m. to tabulate
694 ballots. She explained this system was done by marking one
tally for each race and not having to mark a tally and then go back
to redistribute and recount the ballots.
MS. FENUMIAI emphasized that the Division of Elections believes
asking workers, who have been there since 6:00 a.m., to stay on
election night and hand-count precincts would be detrimental and
perhaps lead to more problems. For instance, the division realized
last year that hand-counting was less reliable than the electronic
method.
Number 715
MS. FENUMIAI indicated that the proponents are saying, "This is an
easy method and would be easily accepted by the voters." She said
that may be true in other states, it also may be true in Australia
where this has been going on for 100 years, but in Alaska voters
are use to doing it the way they've always done it - by making a
mark for one candidate. She said, "We fell that not only would it
be an educational campaign (indisc.) need to be conducted in mass
for the voters, also, it would require an extensive revamping of
the division's training to election boards. And we already train
election boards in 453 precincts in a very compressed time frame
(between June and the end of July) in order to get them ready for
the primary election."
MS. FENUMIAI noted that there may be confusion due to the way HB
141 is written. She said the division also feels that the boards
would have to count ballots in three different methods. They would
be counting ballots in one way for the primary, one way for the
general election, and if the municipalities do not choose to go
forth with this type of voting method they would have to go back to
counting ballots in the normal fashion by tally one mark per race.
She mentioned the same workers are also used for the local
elections.
Number 735
MS. FENUMIAI said the division feels that it would take the voters
longer to vote the ballot and could perhaps increase the number of
spoiled ballots thus require more ballots to be printed. She
informed the committee that many complaints came in during the
general election of 1998 of how long it took voters to vote due to
the fact that the ballot it was such a long ballot. Furthermore,
the more times ballots are handled, the more chances are that marks
can be smudged and could lead to ballots having to be remarked.
She also stressed that this could lead to an increase in ballot
printing costs due to the complexity of the ballot layout.
MS. FENUMIAI referred to Section 7, page 5, which reads:
The director shall include instructions on primary election
ballots directing the voter to mark candidates for an office
within a single political party in order of preference and to
mark as many choices as the voter wishes within a single
political party, but not to assign a particular ranking to
more than one candidate or to rank candidates more than one
party.
Number 745
MS. FENUMIAI explained that Section 7 limits how voters can mark
votes for a candidate in a primary election. She said it is
essentially saying that once you mark a vote for a Green candidate
that you can only rank candidates within that party. This is in a
sense making Alaska's primary a closed primary. She noted that the
division has asked the Department of Law to look into this.
MS. FENUMIAI indicated that HB 141 has many unanswered questions;
how to interpret other sections in Title 15 regarding not much
guidance to ballot layouts; how the ballot would be designed; how
to deal with special advanced ballots that are mailed to overseas
voters (60 days before the election); and how to deal with write-in
candidates. She said, "If write-in candidates have the least
number in a general election, have the least number of first-choice
votes (we don't normally count write-in candidates) would we be
required to count all the write-in candidates; and then
redistribute votes for the candidate who got one vote; and then
move up to the candidate who got three votes; and then move up to
the candidate who got 25 votes? That's an unanswered question."
MS. FENUMIAI stated that there is no standard method of
preferential voting - as mentioned there are many different flavors
out there. So, what works in one state is not necessarily going to
be the same method that has been introduced in Alaska.
Number 770
MS. FENUMIAI referred to Section 3 which reads:
In addition, a voter may mark a ballot by the use of roman and
Arabic numerals that are clearly spaced in one of the squares
opposite the name of the candidate that the voter desires to
designate.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that the ballot scanner tabulates ballots
only based on the amount of light and darkness and the division is
not certain on how this would work because the handwriting of as
individuals is very different.
MS. FENUMIAI concluded that the division also has a question about
how this could reduce the ability to detect fraud. For instance,
if a voter has an option to vote for four candidates, make a
preference of 1-4, and only decides to vote 1-2 (and his first
place candidate did not get enough first place choices) and then he
did not mark a third and fourth place choice, the division is not
exactly sure how that would fit into accountability in being able
to detect total number of ballots - one-person, one-vote type
issue.
Number 795
CHAIR JAMES referred to Section 3(2), which states, "The election
board shall count hand-marked ballots." She said she believes this
is the section for hand-marked ballots and is not necessarily the
ballots that are read through the electronic voting system.
MS. FENUMIAI remarked okay, then how do you want the ballots that
are done in electronically counted precincts to be read.
CHAIR JAMES said she understands that concern. Larry Engsminger
might be able to respond to that.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY referred to the hand-marked, hand-counted
ballots. He asked if there is a potential for more challenged
ballots, or ballots to be thrown out due to confusion as to what
the numbers reflect.
MS. FENUMIAI said that's another concern. If a voter marks a first
place choice for two candidates, his or her ballot would be
eliminated. In the current system, they can have over-votes and
mis-mark a ballot, but he or she is only required to fill in an
oval once, not multiple times. She indicated that perhaps he or
she can lose track.
MS. FENUMIAI noted that it is difficult for the division to recruit
election board workers and that it is also difficult to train them.
She said it's a little frightening for the division on how the new
system would work because there would be more errors in the
hand-count precincts. And if that's the case, it's scary.
Number 822
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to Section 2, line 4, which reads:
If a ballot has no more available preferences, that ballot
shall be declared void.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she wondered where that concern is
coming from - that you would just stop counting that ballot vote.
MS. FENUMIAI replied that the Division of Elections hasn't really
been able to come to a conclusion on that at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if these concerns had been discussed with
the sponsor, Representative Kott.
MS. FENUMIAI replied that the division hasn't had the opportunity
to discuss this with the sponsor because HB 141 was introduced on
March 17, and the sponsor substitute became available on Friday.
CHAIR JAMES added that the committee now has a new CS.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Ms. Fenumiai if there is anything that
she likes about the bill [HB 141].
MS. FENUMIAI replied the division would like to have more time to
be able to review it.
Number 843
MS. FENUMIAI stressed that the Division of Elections does believe
there would be a fiscal impact to the division, however, they have
not had the time to put together numbers on the new CS. She
reiterated that the division would like the opportunity to discuss
this in greater detail with the sponsor.
CHAIR JAMES stated that she cannot understand why a fiscal note
isn't attached to HB 141 because there are proposed changes to the
rules and regulations. She said Larry Engsminger, Global Election
System, will address the issue of software changes. Chair James
said the decision the legislature will have to make is, is this a
good idea, will it make the democracy in this state better, and is
the price worth it.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked, if HB 141 was in place, would Tony
Knowles be Governor?
MS. FENUMIAI replied that they cannot assume how the other voters
would have marked second, third and fourth choices for their
governor because this system was not in place at that time. She
added that, "I don't think that it's fair to assume that candidates
[1994 lowest vote-getters]..."
TAPE 99-18, SIDE B
Number 001
MS. FENUMIAI continued her discussion, "...Those votes would then
probably have to be redistributed. And then 8,727 votes were given
to the Green party, and then those votes would have been
redistributed. And then the Alaska Independence party, with the
next lowest vote-getter, that's if you hadn't received a 50 percent
majority at that time. But I don't think that one can assume how
these votes would have been redistributed."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what was the percentage of the votes for
Governor Knowles when he was elected.
MS. FENUMIAI replied that it looks like 41 percent in 1994. [Mr.
Wagoner had provided her this information].
Number 032
STEVE HILL, West Coast Director, Center for Voting and Democracy,
testified via teleconference from San Francisco, California. He
said his expertise is in the realm of voting machines and election
administration.
MR. HILL said the "ACCU-Vote" [ES 2000] machines in Alaska are the
same machines that are used in Cambridge. Alaska has Gems
software, and Windows NT-based platform. He indicated that Global,
the manufacturer, has not programmed Alaska's software to handle
transferrable ballots to his knowledge.
MR. HILL stated, "It seems to me there's two options here if you
want to use the machines to count all these transferrable ballots.
One would be to find out from Global [Elections System] ... Larry
Engsminger ... may be able to give you some idea of what it would
cost to reprogram that Gems software to handle transferrable
ballots. Since they've already gone through it in Cambridge ...
hopefully it won't be nearly as much of a job as it was when they
did it for Cambridge. The other potential possibility would be to
use the software that Cambridge is using (VTS - Vote Tally
Software) and put that into your ACCU-Vote. That would be
something that Global [Elections System] would have to give an
opinion on, on what they think the feasibility of that might be."
MR. HILL further stated, "After having said that, there is another
option of how to implement this in Alaska that would allow you to
use your machines exactly as they are right now. ... What you would
do is, you would count all the first-choice rankings which is
analogous to what you do right now and you just simply see, 'Okay,
did anyone have a majority of the vote.' If they do, then the
election's over just like it is now. For the election where
someone does not have a majority of the vote, then what you do is
you take a look at all the first-choice rankings, and ... let's say
you have an election where you have the Republican gets 42 percent
of the vote, the Democrat gets 40 percent, and a Libertarian party
gets 18 percent of the vote -- I don't know what Libertarians in
Alaska are like but in most places their votes often transfer to
Republicans more than Democrats [he begins to laugh]. But you can
make a preliminary announcement that it looks like the Republican
is going to win here, in this race, but you'll have to certify that
at a later time. And, this is what they actually do in places like
Australia and the Republic of (indisc.) that use this. They are
able to make the best guess estimate of what the results are
(indisc.) and they're usually correct because they have some idea
of how votes transfer."
Number 145
MR. HILL continued, "So you can make an estimate but, then what you
would do is, is you would take the paper ballots that have been
filled out and you would transport them ... to some centralized
place and there you would transfer the second and third choices by
a hand-count. So you would be doing this after the polls close -
the next day - or however it takes you to get the ballots to the
centralized place."
MR. HILL reiterated that a preliminary result would be announced
which would state the first choice rankings and that the final
results would be announced when received. Only the second and
third choices would have to be done by a hand-count. Mr. Hill
noted that typically there are 250,000 votes in the election for
statewide offices. Therefore, no more than 30,000 to 40,000 of the
votes would have to be counted of the second and third choices in
order to have a majority winner. Mr. Hill suggested that this is
another process that would utilize the card machines to announce
preliminary results that would be finalized upon receipt of the
final count. With regard to the ease of this for voters, there
will be an educational task that would have to be addressed. He
pointed out that voters must be doing something differently now
with the use of the ACCU-Vote machine and implied that voters are
flexible if given the opportunity to adapt.
MR. HILL said "In terms of write-in candidates, one of the things
we recommend with Instant Run-off voting or the preferential
ballot, as you've been calling it, is that you transfer all of the
votes of candidates that get underneath--beneath like say one
percent of the vote, you transfer them all simultaneously. And so,
by doing it that way, you don't have to work through each one of
these one at a time; you just transfer them all at the same time."
He restated that this system is what is used in Ireland where it
works fine.
Number 208
MR. HILL addressed the comment that there is no standard of
preferential voting. The term preferential vote sort of refers to
these transferable ballots whether used in instant run-off voting
or the proportion representation system. Mr. Hill said that the
instant run-off voting has only one standard: the majority
candidate wins. This is the standard at work here because instant
run-off voting is what is really occurring. With regards to
comments about handwriting versus filling in ovals, the ACCU-Vote
system simply requires filling in the ovals. In Cambridge, the
left-hand side of the ballot lists the names of the candidates.
The right top of the ballot has vertical columns which correspond
to a ranking. Therefore, one would fill in the oval corresponding
to the candidate and the desired ranking of that candidate. Mr.
Hill emphasized that this is not required, but is rather an option
for voters. Some voters may not choose to utilize the ranking
option. Mr. Hill believed that if the Irish and the Australians
can handle this, so can Alaskans. In fact, Alaska's machines are
more equipped for this.
CHAIRMAN JAMES noted that the concerns regarding handwritten
ballots emanates from the fact that Alaska does not have ACCU-Vote
machines in every precinct.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that the intent to make all the ballots
identical in all 453 precincts is so that, even in those hand-count
precincts, those ballots can be run through the ACCU-Vote machine
which was the case in 1998. She said there is a necessity to keep
the ballots and the way the ballots are marked uniform across the
state.
MR. HILL understood that approximately 15 percent of Alaska's
voters use a hand-count for their precinct. Those voters would use
the same ballots as the ACCU-Vote ballots use and those ballots can
be hand-counted or transported to a central place to be counted by
the ACCU-Vote. Mr. Hill said that it works exactly the same way.
Number 296
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked, "If the person wins the first time,
that's the computer count. But if you have to go into the
run-offs, that's all hand counting. Is that how you envision it
working?"
MR. HILL explained that if it is determined that it would be too
expensive to reprogram the Global software or install the VTS
software, there is another way to do this. The ACCU-Vote could be
used for the first choices, counting those, determine which races
have a majority and which do not. The races without a majority
would initiate an instant run-off and the other procedure involving
a hand-count of the second and third-rankings.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated, then the question of how a computer
will read handwriting should be addressed to Global.
MR. HILL clarified that it will always be ovals. He believed that
the use of the ACCU-Vote "bubble sheet" in the hand-count precincts
would provide uniformity across the state.
MR. RICHIE reiterated that Cambridge does use the ACCU-Vote system
and have already used this with a preferential balloting system and
that the Cambridge voters handled it very well. Cambridge utilized
this system for the first time in 1997 and did not experience very
many problems.
Number 346
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said that she would like to see exactly
what Cambridge does. The information the committee was provided
shows that Cambridge marks numerals while Alaska's legislation
would allow the writing in of numerals. She said this is extremely
confusing. Representative Kerttula asked if either Mr. Hill of Mr.
Richie had been in Alaska and viewed Alaska's system, specifically
in a village setting.
CHAIRMAN JAMES interjected that some villages are inaccessible by
road.
MR. HILL replied that he has not been in Alaska. He asked if the
suggestion is that small villages inaccessible by road would be
more of a barrier to instant run-offs more than any election Alaska
now holds.
CHAIRMAN JAMES believed that if this voting system works in one
place it can work anywhere, however it is necessary to determine
how to make it work for Alaska if that is the choice.
Number 394
CHIP WAGONER, Republican National Committeeman, State of Alaska and
Chair, Legislative Committee, Republican National Committee,
informed the committee of his experience with elections in Alaska
which ranges from voter registration to serving on Alaska's
certification board. This is an exciting time to be a state
government representative because of the innovative changes at the
state level. Mr. Wagoner pointed out that this was predicted by
author John Naisbett in his book entitled, Megatrends which was
published over a decade ago. Mr. Wagoner discussed his
interpretations of Mr. Naisbett's book. He noted that Mr. Naisbett
says that there is a trend from an either/or society to a multiple
option society. Mr. Naisbett also believes the death of the two
party system is occurring slowly, but surely. Both of these trends
are occurring in Alaska. In the last two presidential elections in
Alaska, there have been at least seven candidates on the ballot.
Alaska has five recognized parties in the state now who have access
to both the primary and general election ballots. Mr. Wagoner
noted that this does not include those candidates who get on the
general election ballot by petition. Presently, Alaska elects
candidates by a plurality. Plurality made sense when the
constitution was written and there was a two-party system. In
recent years, it has been found that many of Alaska's elections
have been won or lost due to the minority vote. Mr. Wagoner stated
that in eight of the last 10 gubernatorial elections in Alaska, it
was a minority of voters who actually chose the winner.
MR. WAGONER stated that the Division of Elections has prepared a
list of 15 statewide elections in which a different result could
have occurred had there been instant run-off voting or preferential
voting as opposed to plurality voting. This legislation, HB 141,
ensures that the candidate on the ballot that is most
representative of the voters is the winner, which is democracy.
Preferential voting accomplishes the same thing as if the state
conducted a series of run-off elections, but without the tremendous
cost of a run-off election or the dramatic loss of voter interest
in a run-off election. Mr. Wagoner understood that a regular
run-off election would cost over $800,000. Further, preferential
voting is politically neutral. Mr. Wagoner explained that
preferential voting ensures that the majority will of the
electorate prevails, which is representative democracy. He
emphasized that this gives voters the greatest opportunity for
self-expression. Therefore, he believed there would be more voter
interest and turn out in elections. He said, "Given this, it
should come as no surprise that voters who have used this system in
other jurisdictions, like it. In fact, not only do they like
voting for their for first choice, but they actually take great
pleasure in voting for who they want to be their last choice."
Number 489
MR. WAGONER informed the committee that he had represented the
Arizona Secretary of State and therefore, has some familiarity with
ballot issues and election law. There are some public policy
considerations for the legislature to consider with HB 141. Mr.
Wagoner stated that there should be a system in which voters have
confidence that their vote is meaningful, which preferential voting
would accomplish. The current plurality voting system does not
always provide that confidence because there are wasted votes.
Elections should also be representative, to truly reflect the will
of the majority of the voters in Alaska which the preferential
voting would accomplish, while the current plurality voting system
has not. There is also the desire to have fair elections in which
no votes are wasted ... and good campaigning which preferential
voting would accomplish, while the current plurality voting system
has not. There is also the need to have accurate results which
preferential voting has been shown to be accurate in other
districts. Finally, there is the need to have official election
results as quickly as possible. Mr. Wagoner acknowledged that the
preferential system may take longer to learn the official results,
but it must be remembered that the Division of Elections would have
to process more information than in the past. The information the
Division of Elections currently processes would be available at the
same time as it is now. The division is being asked to provide
more information in order to provide a more representative
government. Mr. Wagoner stated that in most cases, the winner will
be known on election night because it will be known to which
candidate most of the transferred ballots will go. He indicated
that prior elections could be reviewed to determine the outcome of
those elections if the preferential voting system was utilized.
Therefore, by election night the public will have a fairly good
idea of who the winner is in most elections. Mr. Wagoner pointed
out that this is only the case when the majority is not received by
a candidate the first time. In most of Alaska's elections, a
candidate receives a majority in the initial election. This seems
to be a problem mainly in the statewide races. In closing, Mr.
Wagoner believed it would be great if Alaskan legislators could
lead the nation to a more representative and fair voting system.
Mr. Wagoner urged the committee to support HB 141.
Number 556
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY inquired as to how 15 elections could have
had different results with the preferential voting system when
there was no system in place to reflect second and third choices.
MR. WAGONER explained that he had requested the Division of
Elections to determine which elections could have been different
had the preferential voting system been in place. The division
reviewed all of the statewide elections and those elections in
which a minority vote elected the winner. In such cases, there
could have been a different result had the preferential voting
system been in place.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY referred to Mr. Wagoner's comments regarding
a wasted vote. Although Representative Smalley acknowledged that
he had voted for candidates who did not win, he did not consider
that to be a wasted vote. Representative Smalley did not view
preferential voting as a fairer system, but rather a different
view.
CHAIR JAMES indicated agreement with Representative Smalley's
comments on the issue of a wasted vote. However, Chair James
pointed out that a great number of those who do not vote do so
because these people believe their vote does not make a difference.
Number 595
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY commented that there are those who do not
vote due to the confusion that occurs, for instance, when precincts
are changed. Perhaps, the frustration would occur with a new
voting process and result in even less voter turn out.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL inquired as to how pre-election polling may
affect the run-off type election. Often the media reporting of
polling seems to have a tremendous affect on spoiler votes or a
wasted vote. Is there a study that would illustrate that polling
reporting is different?
MR. WAGONER said that he did not know of any polling to which
Representative Coghill referred. He was aware that in 1994 there
was a poll that reported that a candidate was moving up in the
polls which he believed caused a transfer of quite a few votes,
particularly in the Fairbanks area. The 1994 election was won by
less than 600 votes. Mr. Wagoner stated that polling released
prior to an election can affect this. With regards to his earlier
comments about a wasted vote, Mr. Wagoner explained that under
instant run-off every vote eventually goes toward determining the
winner. However, in the plurality system that is not necessarily
the case. He emphasized that the key to preferential voting is
that voters can rank their preferences and therefore, the vote is
not going to hurt what the voter believes in. Mr. Wagoner
indicated that most of the smaller parties nationally, as well as
in Alaska, like preferential voting. The smaller party can seek
votes to argue the position before the voters without the
possibility of worsening their position or cause by undercutting
another candidate with similar views.
Number 647
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL clarified that he was trying to address the
education process. He said that he was attempting to envision
receiving a call regarding his first three choices and how that
would be reported as a polling fact. Further, he wondered what the
effect of that information would be on the dynamic of election
campaigning.
MR. WAGONER indicated the possibility that those doing polling
would ask that question. Such information will affect elections.
He posed the following situation. If he and Representative
Smalley were running, he would want to know where his second
choices would come from. If the second choices would be from
Representative Smalley's base of support, then Mr. Wagoner did not
believe he would attack Representative Smalley as strenuously.
This would be a benefit with preferential voting because Mr.
Wagoner did not believe there would be as many cheap shots.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA indicated that Mr. Wagoner was describing
a situation in which things would be driven to the middle.
MR. WAGONER agreed that would likely happen because what is being
attempted to elect the candidate that the most closely fits what
the voters want regardless of their political affiliation. The
purpose of preferential voting is to elect the candidates most
representative of what the voters want. Mr. Wagoner noted that
voter preference changes and discussed Alaska's history. The
preferential voting system is politically neutral.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN discussed how he would have voted differently
in the 1994 election if the preferential voting system had been in
place. Representative Ogan said that preferential voting would
have given him the ability to vote for who he philosophically
believed in knowing that there was a backup.
Number 707
MARK CHRYSON, Chairman, Alaskan Independence Party, testified via
teleconference from the Mat-Su Valley. He pointed out that two of
the three major parties are here speaking in favor of HB 141.
Alaska is a unique situation because there are six active political
parties, only five of which are officially state sanctioned
parties. There are minor parties that show up for election. Mr.
Chryson stated that HB 141 would allow for the growth of more
parties which would enable more people to become involved with the
political scene. He commented that writing the numerics on the
ballot is a draw back. He believed that Mr. Hill's suggestion
regarding the use of the grid with the dots for the ACCU-Vote would
be a more feasible option. If HB 141 passes, Mr. Chryson believed
there would be larger voter turn outs. Until the federal
government allows Alaska's Division of Elections to purge its voter
registration rolls, we will have no idea what the actual voter turn
outs are. In many districts, there are more registered voters than
the population of the district. Mr. Chryson noted that he had
served on the election board. He believed that voter fraud does
occur. Mr. Chryson informed the committee that, from first hand
experience, if an election judge questions a ballot, he/she will
never be asked to be an election judge again. This has happened to
a number of folks including himself. Ballots have been questioned
of persons claiming to be citizens, although these people were not
born in the U.S. nor could they speak English. He pointed out that
a requirement of the citizenship test is that the test be taken in
English. He believed that HB 141 would be in the best interest of
Alaska and would bring more involvement from the third, fourth,
fifth, and sixth parties. With regard to local elections, Mr.
Chryson indicated that in the Mat-Su Valley there are often seven
or eight candidates for one political office.
Number 759
LARRY ENGSMINGER, Vice President, Operations, Global Election
System, testified via teleconference from Texas. He stated that
Global Election System is the vendor of the voting system that
Alaska currently utilizes.
CHAIR JAMES noted that there have been questions regarding the
ACCU-Vote system and the fact that the ACCU-Vote system in
Cambridge has different software. She requested that Mr.
Engsminger discuss what would be required if Alaska went to a
multiple choice system. She also asked Mr. Engsminger to discuss
how the current machines could be used with the change in software.
MR. ENGSMINGER explained that the application software that Alaska
utilizes is the Gems software which operates on a NT-based
platform. The system in Cambridge, Massachusetts is on an older
platform ( the Vote Tally System) which has been discontinued. The
new software is gradually replacing the old software in, or all
Global's jurisdictions throughout the U.S. and Canada. Mr.
Engsminger said Alaska's software does not accommodate preferential
voting in the manner that has been described. However, Global can
accommodate preferential voting.
CHAIR JAMES inquired as to what would be involved in order to
adjust the system; would it merely be software changes?
MR. ENGSMINGER replied yes, but it would be fairly far-reaching
because the ballot layout portion of the software would need to be
adjusted to accommodate this voting. In further response to Chair
James, Mr. Engsminger estimated that such changes would be a custom
software project that would require seven to eight man-months of
work costing approximately $175,000.
Number 803
CHAIR JAMES said that there seemed to be a trend and others are
interested in this type of balloting. She wondered if it would be
a good financial decision for Global to adapt to this type of
voting.
MR. ENGSMINGER said that had been discussed internally. He stated
that, "Our issues are that we have to deal with all those types of
versions or try to see where the industry is going to standardize
on some type of preferential voting."
CHAIR JAMES stated that although she has always been interested in
change, "change just for change sake is not necessarily the way to
go." Change should occur if there is a good reason to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that the system utilizes an optical
scanner machine. Suppose there are four gubernatorial candidates;
couldn't there be boxes designated for the first, second, third,
and fourth choices. Then the votes of the first, second, and third
choices would be tallied. Therefore, Representative Ogan indicated
that it would be fairly easy to enter those votes or program the
machine to automatically do so, if there was a run-off in order to
transfer votes to the appropriate person.
MR. ENGSMINGER asked if Representative Ogan meant that the
designated box would be filled in with a number, character, or
shading.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN clarified that he meant shading in the box.
Representative Ogan agreed with Mr. Engsminger that behind each
candidate name there would be four boxes. Representative Ogan
believed that it would be fairly easy for the machine to tally
those votes.
Number 854
MR. ENGSMINGER said that it would require a fairly extensive
programming effort. Global's work research and development team
has reviewed this. The amount of effort is extensive due to the
ramifications throughout the entire application. The program in
Cambridge, Massachusetts took the better part of a year to
accomplish.
CHAIR JAMES inquired as to whether the platform being utilized for
Alaska's system would have to be changed.
TAPE 99-19, SIDE A
Number 001
MR. ENGSMINGER continued, "... phasing that out. The other side,
if you're heading toward a question like this; could we put the VTS
system in Alaska? The down-side of that, is that we made extensive
changes in our program on the Gems-side, for Alaska, to accommodate
certain other counting conventions that you all use there that we
don't experience in other places. So, we would have to go back to
the VTS side and redo all of that as well, so it really doesn't, in
my opinion, doesn't make sense to do that given the fact that down
the road, two to three years from now, we will have everybody
phased out of the VTS system, so that we're only supporting one
application software piece."
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY referred to Mr. Engsminger's comments that
it may take seven to eight months and approximately $135,000
dollars to create the software. He asked whether that was the
total cost or the cost of bringing forward the preferential system.
Number 040
MR. ENGSMINGER clarified that the cost would be 175,000 dollars and
that would be for changing the application software. He said that
he wasn't sure what that would do to the ballot layout. For
example, if there is a lengthy ballot, meaning a fair number of
candidates, for each candidate there would have to be a designated
column of voting targets to accommodate this type of voting.
Depending on how large the election is, there could end up being
multiple ballot cards for each voter. Mr. Engsminger indicated
that this hasn't really been looked at because it is dependent on
the election environment, although, in some states the voter has
ended up with more than one ballot. This would add to the ongoing
operational costs, but it is still dependent on the election
environment.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA wondered how well computers are able to
read hand written numbers.
MR. ENGSMINGER replied that the type of technology that reads hand
written numbers, optical character recognition, was pioneered by
the post office for reading zip codes. He said this type of
technology is different from what is presently used and it would
require a substantive change.
Number 125
JIM SYKES testified via teleconference from Denver, Colorado. He
said:
Thank you for bringing this bill forward and for hearing it.
I've run for governor twice, as many of you know, and I wish
that we had the preferential ballot in place during that time.
I first want to say that (indisc.) people asking me choices,
well I'd like to vote for you, but, you know, I feel like I
need to vote for somebody else just because I'm afraid
somebody else might run. ... I think that's a totally bogus
way to approach democracy. I think we should encourage people
to vote for whom they believe. We should encourage candidates
to speak the ideas that they believe in most strongly. So
that we actually do have the best choice of who is going to
lead us, who is going to govern us, who is going to help us
get through our most serious problems.
I would like to address a couple of things since we've covered
a lot of ground. You don't need to feel locked into the
ACCU-Voting system. ... I took computer programing back in
the late 60's and early 70's and you could have easily have
operated this with a punch card with the technology that we
had 30 years ago. It's not rocket science. You can also
print paper ballots. You will find that a lot of places who
do have preferential ballots in Australia and New Zealand,
still have paper ballots, and they hand count these ballots
and they total them up nearly as fast as we can total up a
ballot where we don't have more than on choice.
The other thing that you may wish to consider is, ... you
could also have the potential to take advisory votes on
several options. For example, a non-controversial issue like
subsistence, you take that, put it on four or five choices and
ask people to mark what they thought was closest to what they
believe and then really get a pretty good idea of where you
might want to go to solve that problem.
So, I do support the bill. I don't have the committee
substitute in front of me. I do have some serious questions
about the sticker portion of it for write-in candidates. I
don't know how that part of it goes, but as far as ranking a
preferential ballot, as far as people wanting to vote, I think
it is -- somebody asked if it's more fair, yes, I do think it
is more fair, because the voter has the power to decide where
their vote goes. If they choose to only vote for one
candidate and no other candidate, and that candidate is thrown
out, it's no more of a loss than a candidate that you vote for
that doesn't prevail in the present election. However, if you
choose (indisc.) to make more choices, then your ballot will
go as far, if you want to make choices. I think that that's
where we want to be, is giving voters more power, so I'll
support the bill. If you have any questions, I've studied a
lot of systems across the world and I think this is a
basically fair one, and I urge you to support it. I think, as
somebody stated earlier, if neutral, it doesn't help anybody
[and] it doesn't hurt anybody, and it's a good system for
making our democracy better.
Number 201
CHAIR JAMES referred to Mr. Sykes comment on a minority candidate.
She said, if people could have had their first choice, knowing that
chances of you winning on the first vote would not be good, but the
second vote would count, what do you think the effect would have
been on the votes you received.
MR. SYKES indicated that he probably would have received a lot more
first-place ballots, and if he did not win, people would have at
least had the chance to express their true desire. Furthermore,
the public would see that he had received a certain percentage of
the votes on the first ballot ... maybe the public would consider,
to a greater extent, what he had been saying.
CHAIR JAMES said that was her point. She indicated that she is not
necessarily in favor or opposed to the minority parties, however,
they feel they are not being treated the same as other parties.
Number 243
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if Mr. Sykes would be in favor of
people voting across party lines. She noted that HB 141 won't
allow for that.
MR. SYKES replied yes, people should be allowed to vote for any
candidate in the primary or the general election. In fact, the
primary election could be eliminated all together and rolled into
the general election.
MR. WAGONER stated that it is his understanding that the intent of
HB 141 is not to change Alaska's blanket primary system which has
been upheld by the state supreme court. Presently a voter can only
vote for one person. He said, if a person decides to vote for the
Democratic for governor in the primary, he or she cannot also vote
for the Republican candidate for governor. The primary election is
a series of elections for each recognized party (because only
recognized parties are on a primary). The preferential voting
system would not change that, you could still cross party lines and
vote for a Democrat for governor, a Republican for Senator, and a
Green party for Representative. But the difference is, in the
primary election, once you decide which column you want to vote
for, for that office, then you would get to rank. Mr. Wagoner
stated, "And for the exact same reason you get to rank in the
general election, and this you want your vote to count and you want
the most representative candidate of that party to be the nominee
of that party. So if you had three or four people running as a
Republican and you decided you wanted to vote for that Republican
candidate, you could, and you would rank them in that column. To
allow a voter to rank all of them would allow them to essentially
vote more times than they are allowed to currently vote."
CHAIR JAMES commented that the committee needs to look closely at
HB 141, word by word, and determine what it does means. She said,
"The intent is not to change the voting. And if that's the case,
then we can go from there."
Number 316
SCOTT KOHLHAAS, Membership Chairman, Executive Committee of the
Alaska Libertarian Party, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. He stated:
I'm here to speak in favor of HB 141 today. And even though
I'm not totally sure when I hear things like HB 141 eliminates
the possibility of having a minority candidate win an
election, I don't think we should eliminate possibilities. I
worry about the 3 percent threshold for governor that it takes
to stay on a party. Will that be determined by the first vote
count or the last vote count? And I want to say that I'm not
here to make a partisan pitch. I really believed, before I
came in here, that HB 141 would benefit everyone, and then I
heard Gail's testimony. ... But I'm troubled by her testimony.
She may be frightened and scared, and they may have to stay up
late, and they may be confused. ... Some of the comments that
the chair made, made me feel a lot better, because she
understood the state of mind of the average eligible voter.
We know from the numbers that most people don't vote anymore;
they are disillusioned; they don't believe they can make a
difference - it's true, and so they don't vote. And of the
people who are left, they're on this crusade to stop evil, to
save the country. I can't tell you how many thousands of
times I've heard, "Gee we'd love to vote for you, but I've
gotta vote for this guy to keep this greater evil out." And
the point is, is that there's this angst: Greens who want to
vote for the Democrats, but they can't, Republicans who want
to vote for the Libertarians, but they can't, and again, most
people don't vote.
So, we've got a pressure cooker, folks. It might make it a
little tougher on the Division of Elections, just like motor
voter [National Voter Registration Act of 1993] did; I've
heard complaints about motor voter. But, the point is that
we're trying to pull in more people and relieve this pressure
cooker. Now, we have a real need, because of that pressure,
for a system that gives us release. We have the technology,
so we should take the chance we have to be the first in the
nation. And so I ask you, let people vote their hopes, not
just their fears. Vote for HB 141.
Number 370
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA told Mr. Kohlhaas that Ms. Fenumiai, who
she has known for some time, is not scared. That part of his
testimony sounded condescending, even though it may not have been
meant that way.
[HB 141 was held in committee].
ADJOURNMENT
Number 377
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee at
10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|