HB 200-NONPARTISAN OPEN PRIMARY ELECTIONS  1:02:57 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 200, "An Act establishing a top two nonpartisan open primary election system for elective state executive and state and national legislative offices; repealing the special runoff election for the office of United States senator or United States representative; changing appointment procedures relating to precinct watchers and members of precinct election boards, election district absentee and questioned ballot counting boards, and the Alaska Public Offices Commission; requiring certain written notices to appear in election pamphlets and polling places; relating to declarations of candidacy and letters of intent; and amending the definition of 'political party.'" CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 200. 1:03:34 PM WILLIAM HARRINGTON said "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." He described himself as a private sector retiree as opposed to a public sector employee which, he stressed, is important while discussing (audio difficulties). He offered surprise that with all the crises the legislature faces this year, this bill was given the time of day. He asked whether this bill fixes a problem that had been festering for years. (Audio difficulties) for the last ten years. He referred to Sec. 11 of the bill, (audio difficulties) that no party affiliations are listed on the ballot, just named in alphabetical order, and offered that in that manner, no party can complain of trademark infringement or a "wolf in sheep's clothing." Drop the labels, drop the problem, he said. He asked that this bill be passed so he could watch in amazement as the unintended consequences for both major political parties unfold going forward, or as people from the past say, "in the future." 1:06:20 PM DANIEL LYNCH said he was testifying for himself "and independent neighbors," and described himself as a non-partisan super-voter, as are 53 percent of registered voters in the state. He suggested an amendment or a companion bill simply ending any government spending on primary elections or state funding for a "beauty contest" for private political parties. During the last 15 years, he said he has studied this issue and statewide primaries "cost between $6 and $2.5 million per cycle." The state is in a financial strain, he described, and the question is "where to cut." He said, "Here's an easy button for you," and referred to the Constitution of the State of Alaska, Article V, which read as follows: Section 1. Qualified Voters. Every citizen of the United States who is at least eighteen years of age, who meets registration residency requirements which may be prescribed by law, and who is qualified to vote under this article, may vote in any state or local election. A voter shall have been, immediately preceding the election, a thirty day resident of the election district in which he seeks to vote, except that for purposes of voting for President and Vice President of the United States other residency requirements may be prescribed by law. Additional voting qualifications may be prescribed by law for bond issue elections of political subdivisions. Section 2. Disqualifications. No person may vote who has been convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude unless his civil rights have been restored. No person may vote who has been judicially determined to be of unsound mind unless the disability has been removed. Section 3. Methods of Voting; Election Contests. Methods of voting, including absentee voting, shall be prescribed by law. Secrecy of voting shall be preserved. The procedure for determining election contests, with right of appeal to the courts, shall be prescribed by law. Section 4. Voting Precincts; Registration. The legislature may provide a system of permanent registration of voters, and may establish voting precincts within election districts. Section 5. General Elections. General elections shall be held on the second Tuesday in October of every even-numbered year, but the month and day may be changed by law. 1:07:27 PM MR. LYNCH advised that Section 5 does not say anything about state funding a primary election, and for the citizens who choose to belong to any political party or political group can fund their own "beauty contest." He commented that last year the republicans organized and funded its "PPP," the democrats organized and funded its caucus, and the other parties and groups had conventions and member mail-ins. Those efforts help the state's economy and doesn't cost state funds which are better spent elsewhere, perhaps on the Pioneer Homes, education, or any constitutional requirement. Locally and statewide, all other groups, such as the "HEA Co-Op," the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Teamsters, and others, finance their own elections for leaders, boards, rules, and decisions, and do not come to the state for funding. He related that in his 20 plus years in the state, he could offer many examples of primary blunders and waste, all at state government expense. Recently, in District 40, two democratic candidates results were challenged by Republican [Tuckerman] Babcock, and the state had to pay for judges and court expenses in trying to hash it out, and yet it should have been left up to the Democratic Party to choose their candidate. For example, District 29, regarding one unopposed candidate race costing the state dollars, and District 30, wherein four republican candidates were trying to "be the man" when the Republican Party could have (coughing) guy and one in Soldotna to determine by their members their choice for the general election, with no state funds. In 2014, there was an August referendum on SB 21 ... CHAIR CLAMAN advised Mr. Lynch that he needed to conclude his comments and asked whether he does or does not support the bill. MR. LYNCH said he does not support the bill. 1:10:15 PM GEORGE PIERCE said he represents the community of Kasilof, and noted that legislators have more important things to do than waste time with this legislation. He stressed that he does not like the effective date in the explanation of changes and it needs to be changed from 2020 to 2018. That's a (indisc.) funding everything that goes on in this state, he said. In the event people want to do this, they need to step up to the plate and spend their money instead of the state's money, and it's not the legislature's responsibility to continue the funding. He asked that adjustments be made to this bill. 1:11:31 PM EUGENE CARL HABERMAN, Unincorporated Area of the Matanuska- Susitna Borough, said he represents himself, noting that he follows the public process, and the public process (audio difficulties) decision made by the governing body (audio difficulties) the public interest. He commented that some legislators are aware that he has observed local and state elections, and offered "deep concern" because he was not going to be appointed by a party, and his ability to observe a state election was denied. Yet, he related, a member of a given party can be appointed and observe. He referred to the 2012 election in Anchorage when he was denied his right to observe the state election, and commented that the ability to observe an election is key to ensuring an election is valid. He added that the more complex and complicated issues should require more notice to the public with more opportunities for the public to be heard. He then referenced HB 200, and commented that there had been changes in the schedules as to when this bill would be before the committee, and that moving the schedule around ensures the public would not be heard. He stressed that if any legislator expects to hear from the public on any legislation, a fair schedule and opportunity is necessary for the public to speak to any bill and be heard. 1:15:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD thanked Mr. Haberman for attending meetings and paying attention, and then explained that many bills are in play and acknowledged that public testimony did get switched. She described it as disingenuous to the public to change their opportunity to speak to a bill around to different times, and asked that he forward his written testimony to Chair Claman's office. CHAIR CLAMAN advised Mr. Haberman that he could email his testimony to his office and he would distribute it to the members of the House Judiciary Standing Committee. 1:16:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that Mr. Haberman described this current proposal as lacking in transparency and that it lacks the ability to verify what happens after an election. He asked that Mr. Haberman recommend a good fix because he was trying to understand Mr. Haberman's exact problem. MR. HABERMAN reiterated the situation he spoke of initially regarding not being appointed by a party and being denied his right. 1:18:13 PM CHAIR CLAMAN explained to Mr. Haberman that Representative Eastman had requested a specific amendment to change the bill to the manner in which Mr. Haberman believed would be satisfactory, but Mr. Haberman had not answered that question, and asked that Mr. Haberman answer Representative Eastman's question. MR. HABERMAN said the process should not be limited in the way the bill is written because it has the appearance of self- interest by giving [a watcher] to a local party whether democrat or republican, rather than having a neutral observer such as himself. 1:18:51 PM KEN JACOBUS, Attorney, Kenneth P Jacobus Law Office, after being advised by Chair Claman that his emails were received, said he would not take time to discuss the content of those two emails. He then described this as the "jungle primary" similar to a "demolition derby" because everyone crashes into everyone else and the last two candidates standing are on the general election ballot. He then speculated that the minor parties in Alaska were not available to testify today because they were unaware of the meeting, and noted that those minor parties will be destroyed by the "jungle primary." He pointed out there has never been a top two election for state or federal office in California or Washington in which a major party was able to qualify for the general election ballot unless there was only one candidate of a major party running for that office. The minor parties, he warned, would never be able to meet the 3 percent requirement to retain qualified party status. In addition, political science research and experience demonstrates that the system in California and Washington does not (audio difficulties) polarization, (audio difficulties) officeholders, and depresses voter turnout. The article by Richard Winger, he had submitted demonstrated that the depression of voter turnout had been taking place in California since the adoption of the jungle primary. [Mr. Jacobus offered examples fraught with audio difficulties.] In the event there was a jungle primary with an extreme left and an extreme right candidate, and two centrist's candidates, it works. In the event there were many candidates, the extreme candidates would win the primary, the centrists wouldn't because they would split the "mish-mash" in the center. The jungle primary is simply a bad idea, he described, and then asked that the committee receive input from the minor parties "because they are the ones that are going to be killed by this." 1:23:06 PM ANDREW SINCLAIR, Clinical Assistant Professor, New York University Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, said he works on issues of public policy and quantitative research methodology in the United States and Great Britain. In 2015, he co-authored "Nonpartisan Primary Election Reform Mitigating Mischief," published through the Cambridge University Press, which focused on the nonpartisan "top two primary" in California. He said he holds a Ph.D., in Social Science from the California Institute of Technology, and a B.A. in mathematics. MR. SINCLAIR advised that California used a nonpartisan primary election rule during the years 2012, 2014, and 2016, which was enough information to report something about it, but there was still considerable disagreement among political scientists as to what to look at, and what to make of the new rules. California's version of the top two is fairly simple, and described that the two candidates with the most votes advance to the general election, and voters can choose any candidate in the primary. He explained that this version was also used in Washington, and a few other places with similar rules, and approximately 15 percent of the time, two candidates from the same party face each other in the general election. Although, he commented, most of the time the general elections are similar to what would be seen under the old system. From his own research, he said, it appears the general elections between candidates of the same party are more competitive, and those more competitive elections do happen in the very places where you would typically see uncompetitive elections. People may take participation and moderation under consideration, except it is a little less clear how the top two primary works in California and how that experience would translate to Alaska. He noted that his team looked for evidence regarding disadvantaged people, minorities, and other unrepresented groups, and they did not see any compelling evidence in his 2015 book. Most of what happens, he explained, appears to happen through pairing candidates in a different manner, rather than vastly changing the way voters behave in a primary. In general, he said they found that voters still pick the candidate they know something about and they like the most, rather than behaving in some promulgated strategic way. Overall, they found that some voters like the new rules and other do not, but many voters echo the uncertainty of political scientists about exactly what to expect. Any reform comes with some advantages and disadvantages, and he pointed out that his job is only to assess how, and not to make recommendations so he wouldn't make recommendations one way or the other. 1:26:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Mr. Sinclair had observed any change before and after California adopted the top two primary system. He pointed out that California, on the whole, leans left so for districts of either political character solidly democratic or solidly republican, whether he observed there was a race to the ideological extremes prior to, and after, the adoption of the top two primary system. MR. SINCLAIR responded there is a lot of academic interest in changes in ideology, and current research suggested that democrats in the legislature may have moderated slightly without a huge changes on the republican side. He offered that he performed a study in a very republican district, California Assembly District 5, represented by Assemblyman Frank Bigelow wherein the 2012 election was between two republican candidates in the general election. During the campaign Assemblyman Bigelow declined to sign the "No Tax Increase Pledge" and the other candidate did sign the pledge, and yet, Assemblyman Bigelow still won the election, "which is likely a different outcome than would have been obtained under the other rule." 1:27:46 PM CHAIR CLAMAN referred to prior testimony indicating that the top two primary system in California actually showed a reduction in voter participation, and asked Mr. Sinclair's perspective as to what effect it had on voter participation. MR. SINCLAIR answered that it is important to keep voter participation in context such that, California has been experiencing declining voter participation over time. MR. SINCLAIR, in response to Chair Claman, agreed that voter participation is declining in California as it is in other states in the country. He said he hesitates to make a strong claim as to how this would translate to Alaska simply because the scale of politics in California is very different. He pointed out that statewide office in Alaska is roughly equivalent to a single California state senate seat by population, so the campaign technologies are very different. He related that in the work he has performed, there is preliminary evidence that Alaska may see a "very, very, small decrease" in participation when there are two candidates of the same party. Except, he stated, that is still ongoing research and it is hard to establish the factual of what would happen if using the old system given the decline in participation across the country. 1:29:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she assumed that when discussing voter participation decline it was for the general election, and she then asked about voter participation regarding primary elections. MR. SINCLAIR responded that he was most familiar with the California patterns in 2012, 2014, which was actually quite different, and so it worked differently in the 2012 presidential year. He explained that the way voter choice works in presidential years might be quite different than in non- presidential years, but he said he hesitates to make "too big of claims" as to the voter participation side and especially translating that into the Alaska experience. Although, he commented, the differences were not nearly as large as he expected, one way or the other. 1:30:31 PM JASON OLSON, Director, National Organizing for Open Primaries, explained that his organization is a non-profit national nonpartisan organization with the singular mission of ensuring that no American citizen was required to join a political party in order to vote in a primary. While offering background, he explained that he founded a group of independent voters in California that partnered with a coalition led by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to bring a top two open primary to California, as well as reform the districting process. Restoring Alaska's open primary is worth the support of the Alaska State Legislature because its citizens, together with those in California, and Washington State, had their open primary stolen by a "terrible court decision" in 2000. In that case, he explained, the California Democratic Party sued the State of California as the State of California had adopted Alaska's open primary system in 1996, and the plaintiff's sued in order to close the primary elections. He described that in one of the "worst Supreme Court decisions" in a generation, the court sided with the political establishment of both parties against each citizens' basic freedom to vote for the elected representative of their choice. This decision, despite the fact that primary elections are taxpayer funded, run by government employees, and conducted on publically owned voting machines. Therefore, Alaska, California, and Washington State, all of which have the same open primary system, were forced to return to the semi-closed primary that voters in each state had previously rejected, which is the system Alaska is using to this day. This put all of the states in a difficult position, he described, so the voters in those other states fought back and passed new open primaries through ballot initiatives, and for this they looked to Nebraska which has used the top two open primary system since 1934 for its legislative races. MR. OLSON explained that under a top two open primary, voters are free to vote for whoever they want, legislators are free to do what they think is right for their constituents rather than having to tow the party line, and most of the voters in these states absolutely love it. He offered that the impact in California has been tremendous and its legislature's approval rating has risen from a low of 14 percent before the change, back to 45 percent today. Budgets are passed on time, voter participation and registration has begun to rebound, and he agrees with Mr. Sinclair that initially it continued to decline but has rebounded over time. The voter turnout in the 2016 State of California primary election was 48 percent, and HB 200 is Alaska's chance to finally win back its open primary. He urged the committee to support this legislation. 1:34:31 PM CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 200. CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Reinbold, advised the bill would be held in committee today with amendments due by 5:00 p.m. this afternoon, and the bill would be heard and moved out of committee during tomorrow's hearing. 1:35:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to a 3/18/2008, Legislative Research Report prepared for former Representative Max Gruenberg [located in the committee packets] who had requested documents pertinent to the U.S. Supreme Court's consideration of consolidated cases wherein representatives of Washington's republican, democratic, and libertarian parties challenged the modified blanket primary, claiming that the law, on its face, violate a party's associated rights. She encouraged the committee to read the report, and noted that in California and Washington this has been challenged "and has headed up to the Supreme Court." Representative Reinbold then paraphrased from page 7 of the decision attached to the report, as follows: CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE ALITO joins, concurring. I share JUSTICE SCALIA's concern that permitting a candidate to identify his political party preference on an official election ballot -- regardless of whether the candidate is endorsed by the party or is even a member -- may effectively force parties to accept candidates they do not want, amounting to forced association of the First Amendment. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the issue of a violation of First Amendment rights of political parties is serious and there is opposition in the democratic and republican parties. She noted that Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Anthony Kennedy had important comments and said that one of their key points was that this impairs the parties' advocacy of its standard bearer for their candidate. She paraphrased the decision, page 9, 4th paragraph, as follows: Among the First Amendment rights that political parties possess is the right to associate with the persons whom they choose and refrain from associating with the person they reject. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD advised she does not support HB 200. 1:37:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Representative Reinbold to confirm that she was reading from a "Dissent Opinion" as opposed to the majority opinion which is actually the law of the land. CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Reinbold to cite the decision she was reading. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD advised that it was a Washington case and a California case, and paraphrased from the [consolidated] decision as follows: WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE, PETITIONER 06-730 v. WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY, ET AL. WASHINGTON, ET AL., PETITIONERS 06-730 v. WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY, ET AL. (2008 U.S. LEXIS 2707) REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that the second one was the one in California, and she spoke to the concurrence and the dissent. 1:37:29 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked that Representative Reinbold pass the papers to him so he could cite the decision for the record. He then commented that only the [consolidated] Washington State Grange and Washington State Republican Party cases under 2008 U.S. LEXIS 2707, were cited. CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Reinbold, advised that there may be other cases cited within the decision but she was quoting from only the one case. 1:39:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the document "Explanation of Changes - Version O to CS Version U" Section 12, Criminalization of Ballot Marking, and commented that it was a good change as it is important there are clean applications allowing the voters to make their choice without having those choices made for them in advance. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the issue of the top two primary system, and noted that the City of Anchorage decided to go away from the 50 percent model to the 45 [percent model], and asked whether Representative LeDoux had taken that into consideration. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she could not follow his question, and noted that Anchorage has a 45 percent model and if a person receives 45 percent [of the votes] there is not a run-off for the mayoral position. She questioned whether his suggestion was that if one candidate received 45 percent in a primary election, it canceled out the general election. 1:41:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he was looking at the fact that the bill opens up changing the primary and general elections and how they are all working, and of the various options out there that is certainly one option. He opined that Anchorage is the only place that has tried it, and asked whether Representative LeDoux had compared that process when drafting this bill. CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that Representative Eastman was getting some of the details of the Anchorage election system confused with the state system. Anchorage, many years ago, adopted a nonpartisan election and; therefore, parties are never listed, and only the mayoral election allows a run-off, and that is only if someone doesn't prevail by a certain percentage of the votes. At the assembly level, he explained, there has never been that 45 percent requirement, and in recent years it has been a plurality. He described Senator Lisa Murkowski's write-in campaign as a perfect example on the state level and, including the gubernatorial election, plurality prevails in all of the state general elections. He noted that he, too, was a bit confused by Representative Eastman's question. 1:42:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that she was unclear as to whether Representative Eastman was referring to a candidate who received 45 percent of the votes in a primary would then not move on into the general election, or whether it was the idea that a person would need to collect 45 percent in the general election. She expressed that she was hopeful the language was clear and in the event it was not, she would bring forth an amendment clarifying there would be only two candidates actually on the ballot, and the candidate with 50 percent plus one vote would win the election, except in the case of a write-in candidate. She pointed out that the intention of this bill in the general election is whoever wins the plurality of the votes. 1:44:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD acknowledged that Chair Claman had cited the decision within the 3/18/2008 Legislative Research Report, and cited three cases within that decision. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that he had submitted a request for an amendment a while ago and still had not received the amendment, and was unsure it would be submitted timely. CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Eastman and his timely efforts with Legislative Legal and Research Services to draft his amendment, answered that he would certainly consider the circumstances. He commented that, according to his staff, Representative LeDoux had already drafted an amendment on the same topic as Representative Eastman. CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Kopp, advised there would be an opportunity for committee members to comment on HB 200. 1:46:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD complained about the difficulty in turning in timely amendments. CHAIR CLAMAN noted to Representative Reinbold that during the hearing last night he had advised amendments to this bill would be due at 5:00 tonight. He stressed that throughout this session, he has consistently given appropriate deadlines for amendments in this committee. 1:47:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that things are happening quickly and, as Chair Claman knows in being a member of the minority last year, many times the minority's requests are rolled to the bottom at Legislative Legal and Research Services. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that Legislative Legal and Research Services is a nonpartisan agency and it does not roll minority bills, amendments, or questions, to the bottom of the pile. She said that an attack on Legislative Legal and Research Services by suggesting it is anything other than nonpartisan was not appropriate. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP agreed that Legislative Legal and Research Services is nonpartisan, but it only has a finite amount of human resources, and it had put out a detailed memorandum advising of its priorities and the minority was at the bottom. He reiterated that resources are limited and that Legislative Legal and Research Services is nonpartisan. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX requested a copy of the memorandum. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said "It was a zero attack on leg legal at all," because she was attacking the process.