Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
01/25/2022 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Ranked Choice Voting | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 25, 2022
3:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Mike Shower, Chair
Senator Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Senator Mia Costello
Senator Roger Holland
Senator Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Christopher Kurka
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): RANKED CHOICE VOTING
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a presentation on ranked choice
voting.
NICK MURRAY, Policy Analyst
Maine Policy Institute
Portland, Maine
POSITION STATEMENT: Invited to participate in the discussion on
ranked choice voting.
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Labor and State Affairs Section
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and provided information
during the discussion on ranked choice voting.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:35:55 PM
CHAIR MIKE SHOWER called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kawasaki, Costello, Reinbold, Holland, and
Chair Shower.
^PRESENTATION(S): Ranked Choice Voting
PRESENTATION(S): RANKED CHOICE VOTING
3:36:29 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced a presentation and discussion about
ranked choice voting. He relayed that there would be additional
hearings on this to ensure the public is educated. Both sides of
the debate on this topic would be heard and his intention was to
keep this at the forefront for this session.
SENATOR KAWASAKI pointed out that ranked choice voting is the
law in Alaska so it does not need to be debated. He suggested
that the path forward should be to educate the public about the
new system that will be used in the upcoming election cycle to
ensure voters are not disenfranchised.
CHAIR SHOWER said his goal is to hear from both the proponents
and those who see pitfalls in the new system because he views
that as part of educating the public.
3:40:33 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if the group that advocated for the
initiative had been invited to talk about how the system works.
CHAIR SHOWER answered yes.
SENATOR COSTELLO pointed out that while other states do use
ranked choice voting, Alaska will be just the second state in
the country to use it in a statewide election. She said she
appreciates the opportunity to learn more about this new system;
it is the first opportunity for the Senate Majority to hear a
presentation.
CHAIR SHOWER highlighted that the committee will also hear from
the Princeton professor who reported on the data from close to
100 elections across the country that used ranked choice voting.
He offered his belief that it is complicated.
SENATOR REINBOLD maintained that when the democrats are in
charge, they do not allow the opportunity for debate on all
sides of an issue. She said she has dozens of examples, and
specifically mentioned the mask mandate on the capitol campus.
CHAIR SHOWER welcomed an example if it was germane to the topic
of ranked choice voting.
3:44:08 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI clarified that he said that the committee does
not need to debate the merits or lack of merit of ranked choice
voting because it is the law in Alaska. Rather, the committee
and the legislature should try to educate the public about how
it works.
CHAIR SHOWER opined that part of the education process is to
hear from the experts. He listed the individuals who were
invited to participate in the hearing.
3:47:06 PM
GAIL FENUMIAI, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, Juneau, Alaska, stated that she was before
the committee to talk about how Ballot Measure 2 will be
administered. The Division of Elections is a nonpartisan agency
that is tasked with implementing the ballot initiative that
passed by a margin of about 3,700 votes in the 2020 general
election and took effect February 1, 2021. She clarified that
she had no opinions to offer on the merits of this new system.
CHAIR SHOWER confirmed that that was the intent. Mr. Murray was
not invited to counter her briefing but to talk about lessons
learned in Maine.
MS. FENUMIAI responded that her comment was for the public.
CHAIR SHOWER said he understands that the division is executing
the law.
3:49:11 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if she agreed that the measure passed by
a small margin
MS. FENUMIAI replied that is correct.
SENATOR REINBOLD offered her belief that the people did not
understand what they were voting for and that is why the
initiative process needs clarification. She asked if Ballot
Measure 2 underwent a forensic audit.
MS. FENUMIAI replied there was no forensic audit related to
Ballot Measure 2, but a statewide a hand count of Ballot Measure
2 was conducted in Juneau. Public observers watched; the results
of the hand count are on the division's website; and it did not
overturn the outcome that was certified by the state review
board.
CHAIR SHOWER said he looks forward to the briefing.
3:50:47 PM
MS. FENUMIAI began the presentation with the reminder that in
addition to the new ranked choice voting system, there is also a
new primary election system. She displayed the sample primary
ballot on slide 2 and made the following points:
• There is one ballot that has all candidates. All voters,
regardless of political affiliation, will receive this
ballot.
• Voters will vote for one candidate in each race.
[The sample ballot depicts four races: U.S. Senator; U.S.
Representative; State Senator District A; and State
Representative District 1.]
• The four candidates who receive the most votes [in each
race] will advance to the general election.
CHAIR SHOWER asked how many candidates are allowed in the
primary and whether write-ins are allowed.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that there is no statutory limitation on
how many candidates can file to run for office and write-ins are
not allowed in primary races.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if 20 candidates could be in the U.S. Senate
race and that the four who receive the most votes would advance
to the general election.
MS. FENUMIAI restated that as many candidates as like can file
for the primary election by June 1. Voters select one candidate
per race and the top four candidates in each race advance to the
general election. At that time there will be a space for a
write-in candidate.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked why the state would go to the cost of
holding a primary when there is ranked choice voting. The
candidates who are eliminated in the primary could just as
easily be narrowed to just four in the first phase of the ranked
choice voting system.
3:53:19 PM
MS. FENUMIAI said primaries are in state law and it would be a
policy call by the legislature to change that. She deferred
further questions about the need for a primary to Tom Flynn from
the Department of Law.
SENATOR COSTELLO offered her understanding that while the
legislature cannot reverse a citizen's initiative, it can tweak
it. She asked for a legal opinion as to whether eliminating the
primary would uphold the spirit of the initiative.
3:54:46 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Labor
and State Affairs Section, Department of Law, Anchorage, Alaska,
confirmed that under the Constitution of the State of Alaska,
the legislature cannot repeal a citizen's initiative for two
years but it can amend the initiative. He said he could not
immediately answer whether or not doing away with the primary
would constitute an amendment or a repeal because it is a
factual question, but he could follow up with an answer.
CHAIR SHOWER asked him to follow up with an answer.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if the one other state that uses ranked
choice voting in the general election has a primary.
MR. FLYNN deferred the question to Mr. Murray.
3:56:17 PM
NICK MURRAY Policy Analyst, Maine Policy Institute, Portland,
Maine, stated that Maine has ranked choice voting (RCV) for
primaries and the general election for federal races but not
state races.
SENATOR COSTELLO pointed out for the public that Alaska will
have one race and one vote for the primary and ranked choice
voting for the general election. She offered her belief that
eliminating the primary would be in line with what the voters
wanted when they opted for RCV.
SENATOR HOLLAND asked if it matters to have a primary if there
are four or fewer candidates because they will all go on to the
general election.
MS. FENUMIAI replied it is state law to have a primary and if
four or fewer candidates run, they will all advance to the
general election.
SENATOR KAWASAKI reported that 900,000 people in the Bay area
and 8.8 million people in New York City use RCV and also have a
primary. He questioned whether it was going down a rabbit hole
to talk about the need for a primary.
3:59:31 PM
CHAIR SHOWER shared that he is bothered by RCV. He asked Ms.
Fenumiai if candidates are required to designate party
affiliation in the primary and RCV.
MS. FENUMIAI said she would talk about that later in the
presentation.
She directed attention to the pink arrow at the top right of
slide 3 that is pointing to a box that contains a statement that
is required by Ballot Measure 2. It reads as follows:
PLEASE NOTE: A candidate's designated affiliation does
not imply that the candidate is nominated or endorsed
by the political party or group or that the party or
group approves of or associates with that candidate,
but only that the candidate is registered as
affiliated with the party or group.
CHAIR SHOWER asked what that means in plain English.
MS. FENUMIAI summarized that the primary election system is no
longer a method for parties to nominate candidates to move
forward to the general election.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if a candidate could identify as belonging to
a party even though the party does not support or nominate that
candidate.
4:01:26 PM
MS. FENUMIAI said a person who fills out their declaration of
candidacy must indicate their party affiliation, including
nonpartisan or undeclared, as it appears on their voter
registration.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if that means the candidate does not need to
be endorsed by their party.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that is correct; there is no longer a
political party nomination process for candidates to advance to
the general election.
CHAIR SHOWER said an issue he heard about this is that it takes
away the right to associate.
MS. FENUMIAI added that for a candidate to be listed with a
party affiliation, they must be registered as a member of that
party with the Division of Elections.
CHAIR SHOWER reported hearing that some people were upset that a
candidate could be registered with a particular party and that
affiliation will show on the ballot even though the party may
not support that candidate.
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed that a candidate's affiliation will be
the same as on their declaration of candidacy.
4:04:16 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI observed that it has always been the case that
a candidate could register with the Division of Elections as one
affiliation and later make the decision to change.
MS. FENUMIAI agreed that people have always been able to change
party affiliation at any time. The Division of Elections accepts
at face value whatever affiliation the person indicates.
4:05:15 PM
MS. FENUMIAI said slide 3 intends to show that in the primary,
everybody who is running in the same race shows up on the same
ballot. For example, the race for United States Senator has
candidates who are running as a Registered Libertarian,
Registered Republican, Nonpartisan, Registered Democrat, and
Registered Alaska Independent. If a race has fewer than four
candidates, they all advance to the general election.
4:06:18 PM
MS. FENUMIAI stated that the biggest change on the primary
ballot is that the governor and lieutenant governor do not run
separately. They must file by June 1 and run as a team.
SENATOR HOLLAND asked if the candidates would appear on the
ballot based on a random draw.
MS. FENUMIAI answered yes, placement on the ballot is based on a
random draw of the 26 letters in the alphabet.
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he understood that the names rotated.
MS. FENUMIAI replied it is a random drawing of the alphabet that
rotates within the House district.
4:08:28 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO offered her experience that the last name is
first, followed by a comma and the candidate's first name. She
asked if that would change because that is not how candidates
are listed on the sample ballot.
MS. FENUMIAI acknowledged that the sample was not accurately
depicted. The last name will appear first, followed by the first
name, middle initial, and Jr./Sr. designation if there is one.
SENATOR HOLLAND asked if she said that voters will get different
randomized lists.
MS. FENUMIAI answered no. She restated that an alphabetized
drawing establishes the first ballot for a House district. On
the next ballot, the candidate listed first rotates to the
bottom. She said that rotation continues on the ballots on that
pad throughout that House district.
MS. FENUMIAI displayed slide 4 that outlines the Changes for
Candidates in the ranked choice voting system.
• No nominating petition process
She explained that candidates previously were able to
bypass the primary by filing a nominating petition and
gathering sufficient signatures to appear on the ballot.
• All general election candidates must participate in
the primary (unless a qualified write-in)
She noted that write-in candidates are qualified at least
by the fifth day before the general election.
• No (prior) party or group registration needed
• Candidate chooses their affiliation that appears on
the ballot (voter registration may be updated)
• Governor/Lieutenant Governor file together
4:10:41 PM
MS. FENUMIAI turned to the demonstration ballot for the general
election on slide 5 and pointed out that the same notation she
described on the sample primary ballot appears on the general
election ballot. It alerts voters that the affiliation that
appears next to a candidate's name does not mean that that party
either nominated or endorsed that candidate.
CHAIR SHOWER commented that he was asking about that earlier.
MS. FENUMIAI continued to explain that the ballot is a grid
style with the names of the candidates in rows [on the left of
the grid] with a space for one write-in. Five columns appear to
the right of each name so the voter is able to rank the
candidates according to their order of preference and how many
they want to rank. Judicial retention candidates and ballot
measures remain either a "yes" or "no" vote. Responding to a
question from the Chair, she confirmed that the fifth column
allows for five choices to rank in the event the voter writes in
candidate of their choice.
CHAIR SHOWER said his point was that a voter who did not write
in a candidate would only rank their choices first through
fourth.
MS. FENUMIAI agreed and added that the initiative did not alter
the law that allows a voter to write in only one name for each
race on the general election ballot. The voter then ranks the
write-in first through fifth, according to their preference.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if a candidate who was not in the top
four in the primary could file as a write-in for the general
election, but voters could only write in one name.
MS. FENUMIAI restated that somebody could file as a qualified
write-in no later than the fifth day before the general
election.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if anybody could file as a write-in and the
voter could write that name in and rank them as their first
choice.
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed that anybody can file as a write-in
candidate.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked what constitutes a qualified write-in
candidate.
MS. FENUMIAI replied it means they filed a letter of intent to
be a write-in candidate with the Division of Elections no later
than the fifth day prior to the general election.
4:13:41 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked if RCV requires a candidate to get 50 percent
of the vote to win.
MS. FENUMIAI clarified that the law stipulates 50 percent plus
one vote to win.
CHAIR SHOWER offered his belief that that applies to the first
round. He asked what happens if nobody wins in the first round.
MS. FENUMIAI replied the counting continues until a candidate
reaches the 50 percent plus one threshold or just two candidates
are left in the race.
CHAIR SHOWER observed that it is possible, for example, for a
candidate to win the election with just 40 percent of the
overall vote.
MS. FENUMIAI suggested Mr. Flynn answer the question because she
was not certain.
CHAIR SHOWER offered his understanding that in many RCV races,
the winning candidate does not have to receive a plurality of
the vote. Rather, they could be declared the winner with less
than 50 percent plus one vote after the computer algorithm is
applied. He asked if that was a true or false statement.
4:15:31 PM
MR. FLYNN explained the two types of counting in ranked choice
voting. The first count is of the first choice votes. If a
candidate has a majority of the first choice rankings, they win.
If no candidate wins in the first round, the process continues
until two candidates remain in the race. The candidate with the
most votes wins. As was discussed last week, he said the
denominator can change over time because voters may have ranked
fewer than four candidates [or five candidates if the voter
writes in a candidate.] Once just two candidates are left in the
race, he said it is numerically possible that the winner will
not receive a majority of all the votes cast in that race. The
winner will have received a majority of the votes counted in the
final round for the two candidates.
CHAIR SHOWER said he pointed this out because people may not be
aware that the winner may not receive a plurality of the vote.
He recalled some data indicated that most of the time the
winning candidate did not win a majority of the vote.
Additionally, this is without consideration of exhausted
ballots. He asked Mr. Murray to offer his thoughts.
MR. MURRAY agreed with Mr. Flynn that the winner is the
candidate who receives a plurality of the votes in the final
round. He also confirmed that research from the Maine Policy
Institute shows that in over 60 percent of RCV elections the
winner does not receive more than 50 percent of the total votes
cast because of the exhausted ballot phenomenon. He noted that
exhausted ballots are those that are not counted through the
last round, so the winner is the candidate who has a plurality
of votes counted in the last round.
CHAIR SHOWER commented that the discussion is not entirely
germane since winners in the past may not have received 50
percent plus one vote either.
SENATOR REINBOLD summarized the demonstration ballot on slide 5
and posed the following hypothetical example:
Let's just say there was 10 people that originally ran
and you said that they all could end up becoming
write-ins. My question then is could a whole bunch
more people as well and then just everyone is forced
to pick their top five of say 15 candidates?
MS. FENUMIAI asked if she was asking if only one space is
allowed for write-ins in the general election.
SENATOR REINBOLD replied she wondered whether there could be 15
spots for a write-in even though voters are only able to rank
five candidates.
MS. FENUMIAI replied there could be multiple candidates who file
as write-ins, but only one spot is available for a write-in on
the general election ballot.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked, "Can you explain how that's chosen?"
MS. FENUMIAI deferred the question to Mr. Flynn.
4:19:35 PM
MR. FLYNN explained that the write-in statutes were unchanged by
Ballot Measure 2, but in combining the two the division decided
to limit the opportunity for a write-in to just one name. He
agreed with Ms. Fenumiai that there could be multiple qualified
write-in candidates, but the voters could only write in one name
and rank that candidate however they chose to do so.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked where the voters would get the list of
qualified write-in candidates and if they would have to hand
write the name on the ballot.
MS. FENUMIAI replied the list of certified write-in candidates
is on the division's website and it is available at the polling
places.
4:20:55 PM
MS. FENUMIAI displayed slide 6 to show how to correctly mark an
RCV ballot. She clarified that it is up to the voter to decide
how many of the candidates on the ballot they want to rank. They
could choose to rank just one candidate or up to five if they
write in a candidate. In the example, she said the ballot for
United States Senator illustrates a ballot that the precinct
scanner would accept. The three examples below with the red X's
illustrate rankings that the scanner would not accept. If the
scanner does not accept a ballot, the voter can decide whether
they want to correct their ballot or let it go through as
marked.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if opting for a new ballot would count as one
of the three ballots a voter is allowed.
MS. FENUMIAI answered yes.
MS. FENUMIAI directed attention to the box in the lower left of
the slide that shows that the voter ranked all four candidates
in the 1st Choice column. She described this as a straight over
vote that the scanner would return to the voter. If the voter
opts not to cure their ballot, none of the votes would count for
any candidate in that race because it is not clear what the
voter intended.
CHAIR SHOWER asked, "They could have every other one filled out
correctly in the other races and just one over vote or under
vote and that one will be returned, correct?"
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed that it would identify what race was over
or under voted.
CHAIR SHOWER asked how a voter would correct their mistake
without turning the spoiled ballot in and starting over.
MS. FENUMIAI answered that the voter would have to turn their
spoiled ballot in and ask for a fresh ballot.
4:23:21 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO suggested that the center example on the bottom
of the slide is not clear. It intends to communicate that the
voter must rank candidates consecutively but it might give the
impression that a voter may only rank two candidates or that
they must rank all four candidates. If the voter wants to rank
just two candidates, it has to be consecutive. One candidate
would be ranked 1st Choice and the other would be ranked 2nd
Choice. She suggested the division add an example that shows a
1st Choice, 2nd Choice, and 3rd Choice, but no 4th or 5th
Choice. That ballot would have a green check indicating it was
marked correctly.
MS. FENUMIAI said the point is well taken. She added that when
the division makes a presentation about ranked choice voting
they explain the different circumstances even though they are
not on the slides.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if the examples in the presentation were on
the website.
MS. FENUMIAI said she believes so but she would take Senator
Costello's suggestion into consideration and add more examples.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Mr. Murray to respond to Senator Costello's
point.
4:27:11 PM
MR. MURRAY asked Senator Costello to restate the point.
SENATOR COSTELLO said her concern is that the bottom center
example does not make it clear that the voter must make
consecutive choices. It is okay to make just a 1st Choice or a
1st Choice and 2nd Choice but it is not okay to make a 1st
Choice and then skip to a 4th Choice. She said she also had a
comment on an earlier conversation.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Mr. Murray to respond and include information
about what he had seen in Maine elections that might highlight
any issues.
MR. MURRAY said he did not have data regarding how many votes
were declared undervotes. Responding to Senator Costello's
point, he said that in Maine the Secretary of State delineated
rules in such circumstances. A voter who ranks their 1st Choice,
skips two columns, and ranks their 4th Choice, will have their
ballot counted as though they only marked the 1st Choice. If the
voter only skipped one column, the later rankings would move up
to fill the gap. He asked Ms. Fenumiai to comment.
4:30:38 PM
MS. FENUMIAI explained that the law states that a voter may not
skip two or more sequential rankings, so the ballot becomes
inactive at the point that this happens. In the center bottom
example, Candidate A would get one 1st Choice vote and the
ballot would become inactive for that particular race. Marking
the ballot with just the 1st and 4th Choices would trigger a
message to the voter that there was a problem with the ballot
and that they could opt to fix it.
She said the division will add the example that Senator Costello
suggested, which is that the voter selected a 1st Choice and
skipped the second column and selected a 3rd Choice and 4th
Choice. In that circumstance if the voter's 1st Choice is
eliminated, their 3rd Choice becomes their 2nd Choice in the
tabulation rounds.
CHAIR SHOWER questioned whether that would be tantamount to
changing a person's vote.
4:32:00 PM
MR. FLYNN said language in Ballot Measure 2 talks about highest
ranked candidate, but it does not talk about candidates ranked
first, second, and third. For example, if a voter fills in the
bubble for just one candidate and it is in the 4th Choice column
that would be counted as the voter's first choice. He agreed
with Ms. Fenumiai that voters can skip one column and the
subsequent selections are counted in numerical order, but if two
columns are skipped, nothing after the second skipped column is
counted.
CHAIR SHOWER commented that it seems as though that is moving
the voter's choices. He asked if the voter has the option to
leave the ballot as is.
MR. FLYNN said he didn't know that a 3rd Choice ranking makes
sense if there isn't a 2nd Choice before it.
CHAIR SHOWER asked, 1) Is it right to count a 3rd Choice vote as
2nd Choice when the voter did not fill out the second column;
and 2) What happens for absentee ballots in that circumstance?
MS. FENUMIAI said that same situation can happen now if a voter
overvotes a candidate. The division will also send information
on how the voter can correct their ballot if they do not have
time to receive and vote a replacement ballot.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if she agrees that somebody's vote would not
count if their absentee ballot was incorrectly filled out and it
arrived on day 10 after the election.
MS. FENUMIAI replied that situation exists now.
CHAIR SHOWER said his point is that the RCV system is
complicated. He asked if the part of the absentee ballot that is
filled out incorrectly will be exhausted.
4:36:27 PM
MS. FENUMIAI answered that if there is an over vote or two
sequentially skipped rankings, that ballot for that race would
be inactive.
MR. FLYNN advised that AS 15.15.350 talks about "highest ranked
continuing candidate."
CHAIR SHOWER asked Mr. Murray if there have been any challenges
to that.
MR. MURRAY replied he was not aware of any specific challenge to
that. He said to think about it as though each ballot ranks
candidates in a particular order and not that they are dedicated
to a particular round of counting.
He directed attention to the example on the bottom right of
slide 6. He asked in that example if the 3rd Choice and 4th
Choice would move up to 2nd and 3rd Choice.
MS. FENUMIAI replied in that example, if Candidate A is
eliminated in Round 1, the next choice vote would go to
Candidate B.
SENATOR REINBOLD opined that there should be three or four
examples of correct ways to fill out a ballot as well as an
explanation of why the three examples at the bottom of slide six
are wrong.
SENATOR COSTELLO commented that this discussion highlights the
importance of passing measures in election bills regarding
ballot curing. She explained for the public that ballot curing
is the process of correcting a ballot that is incomplete or
filled out incorrectly. She said ballot curing brings integrity
to elections. She voiced support for both ballot tracking and
ballot curing. She said her concern is that it seems that voters
who vote in person have an advantage because they have the
option to correct their ballot whereas people who vote by mail
do not have that opportunity.
She commented on the need for ballot curing with ranked choice
voting and suggested that the legislature should pull out pieces
that are must haves for ranked choice voting.
4:42:28 PM
CHAIR SHOWER referenced the bottom center example on slide 6 and
asked if [Candidate A] would count as a 1st Choice 1st in the
first round but in the second round that ballot would be
exhausted.
MS. FENUMIAI replied that ballot is determined inactive after
the first round because the voter skipped two sequential
rankings.
CHAIR SHOWER agreed with previous comments that extra examples
would be helpful. He asked what happens to a ballot when a voter
selects Candidate A as their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Choice.
MS. FENUMIAI replied their ballot becomes inactive after the
first round of counting.
CHAIR SHOWER observed that the terms inactive and exhausted both
mean that the ballot does not count.
MS. FENUMIAI clarified that the ballot is inactive for that
race.
CHAIR SHOWER shared that he is highlighting this because he has
heard on social media and the radio that a voter "fill it all
the way across and it's going to count." But it will only count
for Round 1 unless that candidate wins a majority in the first
round.
He suggested that the examples on the division's website should
be updated as soon as possible.
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed that the PowerPoint would be updated to
include more examples, starting tomorrow.
4:45:20 PM
MR. FLYNN added that a ballot that is marked for Candidate A for
the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Choice would count for that
candidate, even if the candidate were to lose. It is the same as
casting a losing vote for a candidate in a single choice
election.
CHAIR SHOWER commented that he was trying to use plain English
because he found it confusing.
SENATOR REINBOLD commented that she sees Alaskans with an
attitude, and that Mr. Flynn's point was important. She
summarized her understanding of what he said.
MS. FENUMIAI restated that all voters' 1st Choice vote will
count and the vote will continue to count as long as the
candidate is in the top four.
CHAIR SHOWER reiterated the importance of educating the public
about voting an RCV ballot.
4:49:11 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO agreed with Senator Kawasaki that it is
legislators' job to help educate Alaskans about how RCV ballots
work. She said she had never heard the term "overvote" before
and she would suggest that it makes more sense to tell voters to
vote consecutively.
SENATOR HOLLAND observed that if a voter selects Candidate A for
their 1st through 4th Choice, their vote will count in all
rounds as long as that candidate is among the top two. He asked
for confirmation that there will be no hand counts in an RCV
election.
MS. FENUMIAI confirmed that it is extremely complicated to do a
hand count in an RCV election.
CHAIR SHOWER noted that the lieutenant governor said the same
thing during a meeting last year.
MS. FENUMIAI said it looks like that now, but the division is
still working on procedures.
CHAIR SHOWER related that administration officials informed him
that a forensic audit would not be possible in an RVC election.
He asked if that is true.
MS. FENUMIAI replied she did not know about a forensic audit but
there are ways to put the date into an open source code
tabulation system to verify the accuracy of the votes.
CHAIR SHOWER relayed a recent conversation with a professor who
said he found it very complicated to look at Maine's second
district election based on the deidentified voter data he was
able to get. He asked if the data would even be available for a
forensic audit.
MS. FENUMIAI replied she is not an expert on forensic audits,
but open sourced software modules are available to validate RCV
software.
CHAIR SHOWER said there should be a conversation about that so
the entire process is transparent.
SENATOR REINBOLD stated support for talking about the software
and voting machines, voter security, safety, and cybersecurity.
It is a critical part of gaining the support and trust of the
people.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Ms. Fenumiai to continue with the final two
slides.
4:54:18 PM
MS. FENUMIAI advised that slides 7 and 8 are about tabulation.
The example in slide 7 shows four candidates and 20 total votes.
In ranked choice voting, 11 votes are needed to win. In Round 1,
no candidate received 50 percent plus one vote so tabulation
moves to Round 2. Candidate C received the least votes in Round
1 and was eliminated and the candidate's 3 votes were
distributed to the remaining three candidates.
CHAIR SHOWER asked why the remaining candidates A, B, and D each
received just one of Candidate C's votes. He observed that it
would not always be an equal redistribution of the losing
candidate's votes.
MS. FENUMIAI replied they received the 2nd Choice votes for the
ballots where Candidate C was marked as the 1st Choice.
4:55:33 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO suggested it would be helpful to explain in
more detail what happens in Round 2, not just that the candidate
with the fewest votes is eliminated. In fact, for people who
voted for Candidate C as their 1st Choice, their 2nd choices are
redistributed as 1st Choices in Round 2. She observed that the
example appears to show that there is not a winner until Round 3
when there could actually be a winner in Round 1 or Round 2.
MS. FENUMIAI said the slide shows that and she just spoke too
quickly.
CHAIR SHOWER commented:
But it would be possible in her case there if let's
say the third person that's eliminated. All of the 1st
Choice votes for them went to the first person. They
could actually end up with 10 votes. And they could
win.
MS. FENUMIAI agreed. She restated that the example is intended
to be simple and to show more than two rounds.
SENATOR COSTELLO added that the example also shows 11 votes to
win.
MS. FENUMIAI said the example shows that no candidate received
50 percent plus one vote in Round 2, so Round 3 is required.
Candidate D received 5 votes [in Round 2] so [in Round 3] the
3rd Choice votes on the ballot for Candidate D will be added to
the total for Candidate A and Candidate B. In the example, four
3rd Choice votes went to Candidate B and one 3rd Choice vote
went to Candidate A. Candidate B therefore became the winner
with 11 votes.
4:57:51 PM
MS. FENUMIAI stated that slide 8 is intended to illustrate what
to expect on election night and over the next two weeks.
• On election night, only 1st Choice votes are counted and
reported. This will include some early votes, precinct
votes, and absentee by mail votes that have been reviewed
and the board has deemed appropriate for counting.
• Eligible absentee and question ballots will continue to be
counted through day 15 and the division will continue to
release new rounds of unofficial votes for 1st Choice votes
only. The division made a collective decision not to do
tabulations during the middle period because it would be
difficult to explain what appear to be conflicting
candidate eliminations to the public during intermediate
counting.
• November 23, once all eligible absentee and questioned
ballots have been counted, the division will look at the
unofficial results and determine the races where no
candidate has received 50 percent plus one vote and ranked
choice voting tabulation is required. The tabulation will
take place and the results for each round will be posted on
the division's website. This will show what happened with
each race, what candidates were eliminated, and how their
votes were redistributed to the remaining candidates.
• The numbers will be unofficial until the State Review Board
certifies the election. That typically takes about one
week.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if it would create less confusion to wait
until all the ballots have been collected before the tabulation
is run. "Why do we want to put out a result knowing it may
change?"
MS. FENUMIAI replied that happens now and the division thinks it
is best to continue the practice to release that information.
That way people will know where their candidates stands on
election night. On November 23 the division will post the
results of each tabulation round. It will go quickly.
CHAIR SHOWER continued to press the point, acknowledging it was
his opinion.
SENATOR HOLLAND said he imagines the reason to count the first
round is that it gives people an initial idea of how the
election is going.
5:02:37 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked how many days Maine voters wait until the
election results are final.
MR. MURRAY recalled that it has taken about a week or up to 10
days to get the result of the final tabulation.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked how Alaska could get closer to 10 days
rather than two weeks.
MR. MURRAY said it comes down to how quickly and securely the
election data can be transferred to a central location. In Maine
the voter data, which is on something like an Excel spreadsheet,
is transferred to a flash drive and moved by private couriers to
the state capital where under the Secretary of State's purview
the tabulation for ranked choice voting can occur. He
acknowledged that this may present a problem for remote
communities in Alaska and cautioned against electronic transfer
of ballot data. He said for large states he could imagine it
taking two weeks. To Senator Shower and Senator Holland's point,
he suggested that the tabulation should take place with
everything in one place because the results could change as more
ballot data comes in.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if Maine checks USPS change of address
requests and verifies voter signatures during the 10-day window.
MR. MURRAY replied voter signatures are only verified for mail
in ballots and his belief is that Maine uses the USPS change of
address requests. He added that in Maine, ballots are accepted
up until the end of the day on Election Day.
5:06:15 PM
MS. FENUMIAI advised that Alaska law allows the receipt of by-
mail ballots up to 15 days after the election. The final
tabulation cannot be done until all the ballots have been
received (including those from the more than 130 hand-count
precincts) and scanned to capture the cast vote record (CVR).
5:07:25 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if there were remaining funds from the
money that was set aside for the Division of Elections to
educate the public on RCV.
MS. FENUMIAI agreed to follow up with the information.
SENATOR HOLLAND thanked Ms. Fenumiai for giving concrete
answers.
SENATOR COSTELLO said her response to the last question
clarified that it is not possible to go beyond Round 1 until all
the ballots are in. She stressed the importance of educating
voters and improving integrity.
CHAIR SHOWER asked what the provision in the law about dark
money affects. He offered his understanding that it is more for
candidates but not ballot initiatives.
MS. FENUMIAI said that is outside the division's purview.
MR. FLYNN said that was outside his purview and he would need to
ask the attorney who advises the Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC).
CHAIR SHOWER requested he get an answer so it can be part of the
record since the discussion is about Ballot Measure 2.
MR. FLYNN agreed to follow up with the information.
5:11:56 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Shower adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting at 5:11 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Senate State Affairs agenda 1-25-22.pdf |
SSTA 1/25/2022 3:30:00 PM |
|
| 19AKBE public presentation for distribution 11.10.2021 DOE.pdf |
SSTA 1/25/2022 3:30:00 PM |