Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/02/2010 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR21 | |
| SB92 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SJR 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 2, 2010
8:59 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Linda Menard, Chair
Senator Kevin Meyer, Vice Chair
Senator Hollis French
Senator Albert Kookesh
Senator Joe Paskvan
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOULTION NO. 21
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to and increasing the number of members of the house of
representatives to forty-eight and the number of members of the
senate to twenty-four.
MOVED SJR 21 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 92
"An Act ratifying an interstate compact to elect the President
and Vice-President of the United States by national popular
vote; and making related changes to statutes applicable to the
selection by voters of electors for candidates for President and
Vice- President of the United States and to the duties of those
electors."
MOVED SB 92 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SJR 21
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: INCREASE NUMBER OF LEGISLATORS
SPONSOR(s): COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
04/09/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/09/09 (S) STA, JUD, FIN
02/02/10 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 92
SHORT TITLE: U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COMPACT
SPONSOR(s): DAVIS
02/02/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/09 (S) STA, JUD, FIN
02/02/10 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR DONALD OLSON
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SJR 21.
DAVE GRAY
Aide to Senator Hoffman
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SJR 21.
Gordon Harrison
Representing himself
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 21.
PAM VARNI, Executive Director
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SJR 21.
SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 92.
QUINN KENDALL
Aide to Senator Davis
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 92.
TOM OBERMEYER
Aide to Senator Davis
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 92.
PAT ROSENSTIEL
National Popular Vote
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 92.
LARRY SOKOL
National Popular Vote
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 92.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:59:12 AM
CHAIR LINDA MENARD called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:59 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators French, Paskvan and Menard. Senator Kookesh
joined one minute later.
SJR 21-CONST. AM: INCREASE NUMBER OF LEGISLATORS
8:59:47 AM
CHAIR MENARD announced that the first order of business to come
before the committee was SJR 21.
SENATOR OLSON, sponsor of SJR 21, said the resolution would put
a constitutional amendment before the voters in the 2010 general
election to increase the size of the legislature by four
senators and eight representatives. In the last 50 years, the
state population has more than doubled and state revenue has
changed significantly. He referred to Table 2, "Population
Trends for Election Districts in 2010," comparing each
district's current population with a forecast of how each
district's population will change if no action is taken.
9:02:07 AM
SENATOR MEYER joined the meeting.
SENATOR OLSON referred to the far right column labeled
"Difference from Average" on the first page of the table and
pointed out the significant negative numbers for Districts 1
through 5. He referred to the second page and the decrease in
population as it affects Northwest Alaska. Redistricting will be
dramatic after the 2010 census.
SENATOR OLSON said those involved in performing the
redistricting must also satisfy federal guidelines and the Voter
Rights Act of 1965 when dealing with large minority populations.
9:05:18 AM
SENATOR OLSON reiterated that it is not just Alaska's population
that has changed, but also its demography and financial
situation. The 1960 fiscal year had a budget of $104 million;
today the budget is $11 billion and the same number of
legislators decides where the money goes under pressure from a
90-day session. Some people in villages feel their needs are not
being addressed because there are so few legislators compared to
the population. He pointed out that a number of other states
have increased the size of their legislatures.
CHAIR MENARD asked Senator Olson to read the last paragraph of
his sponsor statement.
SENATOR OLSON referred to his sponsor statement, stating that
between 1960 and 2006, 29 states have changed the size of their
legislative body. For the nine states with small populations
similar to Alaska's - between 500,000 and 1,500,000 - the
average size of their legislative bodies is 134.
9:07:29 AM
DAVE GRAY, aide to Senator Hoffman, said that the urban areas
are also affected by population changes taking place in rural
areas. [Mr. Gray referred to large maps on the wall.] He pointed
out the significant districting changes that have taken place
since 1984.
9:10:19 AM
MR. GRAY said changes to large rural districts impact urban area
representation too, such as the MatSu Borough and Kenai.
CHAIR MENARD pointed out that Senator Kookesh's business card is
a good visual illustration for the huge size of his district:
his district is colored in on a map of Alaska and is half the
state.
MR. GRAY said that with the 2010 census underway this is a
timely issue. The approval of this legislation could impact the
reapportionment board's decisions as opposed to making
criticisms after redistricting. SJR 21 tries to be proactive in
divvying up the state equally. He pointed out that under this
legislation, the Bush districts would stay the same. New
representatives would probably be from urban areas.
9:12:46 AM
SENATOR KOOKESH asked if the overall impact of this resolution
would be the decrease from 15,000 to 13,000 people per House
seat.
SENATOR OLSON said some Alaska House districts are already at
13,000 and SJR 21 attempts to ensure equitable distribution
throughout the state related to the population.
SENATOR OLSON said he has the advantage of having only 54
communities in his district. Though it is large, he said he is
centrally located and can fly to his villages. But he noted that
Senator Kookesh's district encompasses 123 villages, and it's
difficult for a representative or senator to get around such a
district. Reducing the size of the districts would make it
easier for representatives to go to villages and talk to people
there face to face.
9:15:02 AM
SENATOR MEYER asked whether or not the objective of SJR 21 is to
decrease each House District to a population of 13,000. If not,
he asked what the objective of SJR 21 is.
SENATOR OLSON replied that state legislators are spread thin and
people in remote communities can easily feel disenfranchised. He
said he is not stuck on the numbers and increasing senators to
24 and representatives to 48 is a starting suggestion.
SENATOR MEYER said he does not know the magic number. His
district of 30,000 concentrated people is very manageable. Rural
areas have unique challenges and even with more senators, some
villages still might not have the opportunity to see theirs.
9:17:53 AM
MR. GRAY advised looking at the "Average Population" numbers at
the bottom of the table "Population Trend for Election Districts
in 2010." The average population for each district in 2000 was
about 15,000. The Department of Labor estimates that the average
population per district was almost 17,000 in 2008 and will be
17,309 in 2010. The population is increasing, but as shown in
column four, labeled "Difference from Average," some districts
will have to give up some population and other districts will
have to pick up some population to reach that average. The 48
House districts proposed by SJR 21 would create an average
district population of about 14,000, which is closer to the
average in 2000; rural districts would not have a big change in
their average population size.
SENATOR MEYER said that Table 5 from the National Council of
State Legislatures (NCSL) shows a lot of variation in district
populations. California has 451,000 people per House district;
New Hampshire has 3,000 and Alaska has 15,000. It is hard to
determine the right district population size and add to that the
facts that Alaska's large geographic area and small population
are unique.
9:20:45 AM
SENATOR KOOKESH commented that if Alaska keeps the same number
of districts, his district would have to go into the Wasilla
area for its population to increase enough and the Wasilla
district population to decrease enough. Such reapportioning
could be challenged by the Department of Justice and minority
voting area rules. Additional seats must be created for
Anchorage and Wasilla due to their growth or the whole state
will have to be changed.
CHAIR MENARD added that Representative Harris from Valdez comes
as far as Sutton in the MatSu Borough.
SENATOR PASKVAN said that 75 percent of the communities in
Alaska have populations of less than 1000. He said it is
important that these communities have a voice in both the Senate
and the House.
9:23:23 AM
CHAIR MENARD asked Senator Olson and Mr. Gray to speak to the
fiscal impact.
SENATOR OLSON said a person down on the Lower Yukon, in the
White Hampton area that has just been declared a federal
disaster area, has far different concerns than a person in
another part of his district that provides 80 to 90 percent of
the revenues for Alaska. The person up on the North Slope has
got his own concerns that are far different from a fishing-based
community or a whaling-based community. He said that Senator
Kookesh is stretched even thinner.
MR. GRAY said the average cost of offices and staff is fairly
straight forward in the fiscal note. He said that Pam Varni,
Executive Director of the Legislative Affairs Agency, could
provide a more detailed explanation of those costs.
SENATOR OLSON said there are two fiscal notes. One puts the
resolution on the general election ballot of 2010. The other
relates to implementing four more elected senators and eight
more elected representatives and starts at roughly $6 million in
fiscal year 2013.
9:26:36 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said SJR 21 is a good big-picture idea and he
supported it. He asked how the capitol building would be
redesigned to accommodate four senators and eight
representatives.
SENATOR OLSON said the new building could provide some
opportunity for space and pointed out that in the past offices
have been around the capitol, not in the capitol proper.
SENATOR FRENCH asked about the chambers.
SENATOR OLSON said things have changed over the years; the House
Speaker receptions are now where the original Senate Chambers
used to be.
CHAIR MENARD said if the committee passed SJR 21 out today, the
next committee could address the question of space with Ms.
Varni.
SENATOR FRENCH said that was satisfactory.
9:28:31 AM
CHAIR MENARD opened testimony for SJR 21.
GORDON HARRISON, former Executive Director of the Alaska
Redistricting Board, said that without this legislation the
ideal district population will become 17,500 and rural districts
would increase geographically because most are 3,000 to 4,000
people below this. The importance of SJR 21 is that it provides
effective representation for rural areas which are getting so
big that legislators do not know their constituents, never have
a chance to talk to them, and do not know what their issues are.
Members of rural communities do not know how to vote for people
who are, in some cases, from another world. Campaigning is
difficult and expensive; so recruiting candidates is difficult.
This is an important public policy issue of fair, reasonable
representation for rural areas. Without an increase in the
number of seats, rural districts will be huge or disappear.
9:31:28 AM
SENATOR KOOKESH said that to get to Lime Village in his
district, he has to fly from Angoon to Juneau, Juneau to
Anchorage, Anchorage to Fairbanks, Fairbanks to Aniak, and Aniak
to Lime Village where he could then visit five villages in that
area by small airplane. The cost, just from Angoon to Juneau one
way is $125.
CHAIR MENARD noted that Margaret Walsh from the Department of
Law was available for questions.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if Mr. Harrison would comment on the
implications of the US Voting Rights Act of 1965 on Alaska's
districts.
MR. HARRISON explained that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
applies to Alaska and everything regarding elections, including
redistricting, is scrutinized by the Justice Department. The
standard violation in Section 5 is retrogression, meaning
redistricting results in fewer minority districts. Without SJR
21, Mr. Harrison said he did not see how retrogression can be
avoided. He said the following three of the nine effective
Native majority districts could be lost: House districts 5 and 6
and Senate district C.
9:34:51 AM
MR. HARRISON suggested that the Justice Department or federal
courts may not prohibit this retrogression because the
demographics are so strong. He said his layman's view is that if
the redistricting plan follows traditional redistricting
principles and retrogression is shown to be unavoidable and
minimal, the Voting Rights Act will not prevent the loss of
these Native districts.
SENATOR MEYER said he understands that SJR 21 is not primarily
concerned about the population of each district, but rather with
keeping districts more compact so legislators do not have to
travel hundreds of miles to see their constituents. To achieve
that, each district population must be reduced and more house
and senate districts would be created in the highly populated
areas.
MR. HARRISON said that the distribution of power between rural
and urban areas is population based and would stay the same. He
agreed that all new districts would go to the Railbelt -
Anchorage, Fairbanks, Matsu and the Kenai Peninsula - not to
rural areas. However, additional districts would allow rural
areas to hold on to what they have.
9:37:11 AM
CHAIR MENARD restated Senator French's earlier question about
accommodating more legislators in the chambers and in the
Capitol building.
PAM VARNI, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA),
said that the House and Senate Chambers could both utilize the
existing extra desk for the presiding officer who always sits at
the front. Without a capital appropriation to build another
building or expand, creativity and the cooperation of existing
legislators would be required. She noted that the size of the
different offices in the capitol has been increased over the
years. She suggested that the Governor and Lieutenant Governor
could be asked if they would consider moving to the State Office
Building, freeing up the third floor. The LAA would look at
floor plans and decide how to accommodate more legislators as
economically as possible. She noted that the fiscal note of $1.5
million for remodeling was a conservative figure.
9:40:37 AM
CHAIR MENARD closed public testimony.
9:41:54 AM
At Ease.
9:42:09 AM
CHAIR MENARD called the meeting back to order at 9:42.
SENATOR MEYER moved to report SJR 21 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). There
being no objection, the motion carried.
9:42:48 AM
At Ease
SB 92-U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COMPACT
9:46:36 AM
CHAIR MENARD called the State Affairs Committee meeting back to
order at 9:46 and said the next order of business to come before
the committee was SB 92.
QUINN KENDALL, aide to Senator Davis, sponsor of SB 92, said
that under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,
electoral votes, which are based on the number of US
representatives and US senators in each state, would be awarded
to the national winner, not the state winner. He said the US
Constitution gives each state exclusive control over awarding
their electoral votes; the winner-take-all rule is not in the
Constitution. He pointed out that the states of Maine and
Nebraska award electoral votes by congressional district. As of
January 2010, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and
Washington joined this interstate compact; their 61 electoral
votes make up 23 percent of the 270 electoral votes needed for
the compact to take effect.
9:49:13 AM
MR. KENDALL said the compact has also passed in the House and/or
Senate in other states and has continued to gain national
support. He explained that the current winner-take-all rule
allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the
most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of 56 US
presidential elections and 1 in 7 of the non-landslide
elections. He pointed out that a shift of fewer than 60,000
votes in Ohio would have defeated President Bush despite his
nationwide lead of 3.5 million votes in 2004. With the winner-
take-all rule, presidential candidates have no reason to poll,
visit, advertise or organize in states where they are far ahead
or behind. He explained that candidates concentrated over 66
percent of their campaign visits and ad money in just 6
battleground states in 2008; 98 percent went to 15 states. He
said voters in two-thirds of the states were essentially
spectators to the election.
MR. KENDALL reported that under the National Popular Vote
Interstate Compact, all electoral votes from participating
states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who
received the most popular votes in all 50 states and Washington
D.C. The Interstate Compact becomes effective when enough states
join that their collective electoral votes add up to a majority,
that is, enough electoral votes to elect a president.
9:51:07 AM
MR. KENDALL said the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
will increase political efficacy and civic engagement.
TOM OBERMEYER, aide to Senator Davis, said that the Electoral
College would remain intact under the proposed interstate
compact, which is a constitutionally authorized method for
states to address problems. With this compact, the Electoral
College would change from an institution reflecting voters'
state-by-state choices or, in the case of Maine and Nebraska,
district-wide choices, into a body reflecting voters' nationwide
choice. He explained that the proposed compact would require
each member state to award its electoral votes to the
presidential candidate who received the largest number of
popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The
interstate compact becomes effective only when it encompasses
states collectively possessing a majority of the electoral
votes. In this manner, the presidential candidate receiving the
most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia
would be guaranteed enough electoral votes to be elected to the
presidency.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if the ideal is that each vote count, why
not just count each vote and dispense with Electoral College
completely.
MR. OBERMEYER replied that changing the Electoral College would
be more difficult than implementing an interstate compact. The
Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College in part because
many people were not informed as to who should represent them
and did not know their legislators. The Founding Fathers
determined that locally-known people could carry a vote forward
for the election of the president.
9:54:26 AM
MR. OBERMEYER suggested that changing the Electoral College
itself might not be possible and this national popular vote bill
requires states to agree to "presumably, 888 words in a
compact."
SENATOR PASKVAN said he is concerned that Alaska would be
"contracting away" an essential right by forming a contract with
other states. Perhaps a system of counting each vote on a
nationwide basis would be better and preserve the Constitution,
as well.
MR. OBERMEYER replied that counting each vote might be a good
solution, but it may not have seemed possible to people who
designed the interstate compact.
SENATOR FRENCH said he supports SB 92 and that the person with
the most votes should win. He recognized concerns about SB 92
but supported the idea as basic democracy.
9:57:02 AM
PAT ROSENSTIEL, National Popular Vote, said SB 92 guarantees
that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states wins
the presidency and that a vote in Ketchikan, Alaska, counts as
much as a vote in Clearwater, Florida. SB 92 solves the problem
of relegating two-thirds of the country to flyover status
because of winner-take-all statutes which are not a
constitutional principal.
MR. ROSENSTIEL offered a different answer to Senator Paskvan's
earlier question about pursuing a constitutional amendment. He
explained that Alaska has the right to allocate its electors in
its best interest and a constitutional amendment would strip
future legislators of their power to do that. However, the
interstate compact preserves the right of future legislatures to
withdraw from it if there is an unintended consequence or a
better choice for Alaska later. States have switched how they
allocate their electors throughout history, he said, and he also
felt that an interstate compact would be the appropriate method
to change Alaska's way of allocating electors.
10:00:30 AM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if the original intent of the Founding
Fathers was or was not a winner-take-all system. He said if the
goal is to establish a winner-take-all system, which is
different from the original intent, why not go to a winner-take-
all national vote.
MR. ROSENSTIEL said he and Senator Paskvan might have a
different understanding of winner-take-all. He explained that
winner-take-all statutes currently dictate that a candidate who
wins the popular vote in Alaska gets all three of Alaska's
electoral votes. He explained that this compact is enacted when
more than 270 electoral votes are in it. Those electoral votes
are all awarded to the candidate who wins the most votes in all
50 states. He said he opposes abolishing the Electoral College
because those electors give Alaska influence in presidential
elections. The Founding Fathers intended for states to provide a
check on the federal magistrate with their electoral votes, and
Alaska can allocate its three electors in any way, including by
joining this compact.
10:03:30 AM
SENATOR PASKVAN questioned whether or not winner-take-all was
the original intent of the US constitution.
MR. ROSENSTIEL replied that no, the original intent of the
Founding Fathers was not a winner-take-all statute by state, but
rather to give each state electoral votes based on their
representation to allocate in any way. He said that in the first
presidential election, three states operated on a winner-take-
all statute of white property owners; the other ten states had
other systems. The Founding Fathers intended for Alaska to
determine how to exercise its influence through its electors in
Presidential elections and this compact is consistent with that
constitutional principle.
SENATOR PASKVAN said he is troubled by the capacity to sell, as
a commodity, our electoral votes, and thereby the election of a
president. He asked about the consequences of breaching the
compact if, for example, the state had a Governor, a House and a
Senate that wanted to breach the compact and oppose the national
vote.
10:06:23 AM
MR. ROSENTIEL replied that the compact has an enforceability
clause.
10:07:12 AM
Short at ease
10:07:21 AM
CHAIR MENARD called the meeting back to order at 10:07.
MR. ROSENSTIEL referred to clause 2 of Article 4 of the National
Popular Vote compact as follows:
Any member state may withdraw from this agreement,
except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less
before the end of a President's term shall not become
effective until a President or Vice President shall
have been qualified to serve the next term.
He said if Alaska wanted to pull out of the compact because the
vote didn't go the way they wanted it to, that withdrawal cannot
become effective between July 20th of a presidential election
cycle and the inauguration on January 20th of the following
year. A state cannot withdraw from a compact without running
counter to the US Constitution's Impairment clause, Safe Harbor
clause and possibly 200 years of case law that supports the
enforceability of interstate compacts. He reported that no
interstate compact in US history has ever been withdrawn from
without adhering to the clauses within that compact.
LARRY SOKOL, The National Popular Vote, said the enforceability
stems from Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution, known as
the Impairments Clause, which says no state shall pass any laws
impairing the obligation of contracts. For over 200 years, the
Supreme Court has upheld interstate compacts as contracts that
are enforceable. He said no state has ever successfully
challenged the ability to withdraw from a compact outside the
stated withdrawal provisions contained in that compact.
10:11:24 AM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if enforcement had ever been applied to
the contractual delegation of authority dealing with Electoral
College votes. He said this is not a matter of commerce but of
the delegation of a constitutional authority to transfer
Electoral College votes, and he is not aware of any case ever
dealing with this subject in the nation's 230-year history.
MR. SOKOL said to his knowledge Senator Paskvan is correct that
there has never been a proposed interstate compact dealing with
allocation of electoral votes; however the Contract and
Impairment clause of the Constitution has successfully governed
all interstate compacts, not just those dealing with commerce.
He noted that one of the country's foremost legal authorities on
interstate compacts, Professor Joseph Zimmerman of New York, was
integral in drafting this compact and wrote a book that contains
all the assorted legal precedents and cases.
10:14:02 AM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked Mr. Sokol if the most efficient way to
make sure each vote counts is to eliminate the Electoral
College.
MR. SOKOL said he viewed the process of states deciding how to
use their electoral votes as the appropriate and historically
consistent method. Past changes, such as extending the right to
vote for president to the people or eliminating property
ownership requirements to be able to vote, have come about
through states acting on their own and not through a
constitutional amendment. He said that National Popular Vote
believes state action, using state rights and the 5th Amendment,
is the historically consistent way that the Founding Fathers
intended these changes be made.
10:16:07 AM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked why he wants to change anything if the
original intent of the US Constitution was the advancement of an
Electoral College system. If the goal is to change the
Constitution so each vote counts, why not just change the
Constitution?
MR. SOKOL replied that the Founding Fathers intended for states
to determine how they can best allocate their electoral votes.
In National Popular Vote's proposal, states agree through an
interstate compact, that the candidate who receives the most
popular votes in all 50 states should receive the electoral
votes of each individual state that signed onto the compact. He
said he could not say that the Founding Fathers' intention was
to have a national popular vote, but their intention clearly was
for each individual state to determine how to allocate its
electoral votes.
10:17:47 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution
says: "each state shall appoint in such manner as the
legislature there of may direct, a number of electors…" It is
complex, but it is clear that it is within the province of the
legislature to determine.
SENATOR MEYER said the Electoral College needs to be abolished
and a national popular vote system is needed if every vote is to
truly count. He mentioned that even if Alaska joined the
compact, it would still be a flyover state; candidates would
still focus on major population centers.
10:19:31 AM
CHAIR MENARD said she would be interested in Professor
Zimmerman's expertise.
MR. ROSENSTIEL clarified that Senator Meyer's question was about
candidates ignoring Alaska during elections due to its location
and small population.
SENATOR MEYER agreed and pointed out another frustration in
Alaska is that a winner is often declared before many Alaskans
have voted. He would like to make sure all votes count and that
Alaskans realize how important each vote is.
MR. ROSENSTIEL said that the compact is intended to make sure
that the candidate who wins the most votes in all 50 states
wins, and that a vote in every state counts equally. When an
Alaskan writes a check to a political party in the presidential
campaign, all the money is spent in 6 or 15 battleground states.
The compact rectifies Alaska's exportation of this political
economy every four years.
10:22:49 AM
MR. ROSENSTIEL said the interstate compact will keep resources
in Alaska because the votes in Alaska will count toward the
national total. He pointed out that the 1960 presidential race
came down to 110,000 votes; with the system proposed in the
interstate compact, all eyes would have been on Alaska and
Hawaii, the last polls to close. He suggested Hawaii entered the
compact because a winner would not be declared hours before
their polls close. Alaskans feel their votes are undervalued and
a poll showed that 70 percent think this proposal is a good
idea.
10:25:03 AM
CHAIR MENARD opened public testimony.
SENATOR FRENCH commented that this is a big-picture bill that
triggers thought about democracy.
SENATOR PASKVAN said he is troubled by not changing to a system
in which each vote counts and the president is elected by a
majority across all 50 states. He was troubled by the
legislative branch of each state being given the ability to
direct the state's Electoral College. He worried that Alaska
under this language would be delegating its electoral votes to
another state's population. He said he can foresee a state being
rewarded by breeching the compact in some circumstances and
creating litigation.
10:27:30 AM
SENATOR Meyer moved to report SB 92 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). There
being no objection, the motion carried.
10:28:16 AM
Finding no further business to come before the committee, Chair
Menard adjourned the meeting at 10:28 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|