Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
05/11/2023 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB4 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 4-ELECTIONS: REPEAL RANKED CHOICE VOTING
1:58:02 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 4, "An Act relating to elections."
1:58:30 PM
CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on HB 4.
1:59:20 PM
JOHN SONIN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
He opined that the partisanship provoked by the bill was
destroying e pluribus unum; further, that the belief that "my
way is the only way" was harmful. He stressed his opposition to
HB 4, claiming that it was intended to galvanize "the zealotry
in one mind."
2:01:15 PM
JULI LUCKY, Executive Director, Alaskans for Better Elections,
testified in opposition to HB 4. She conveyed that the current
election system prioritized voter values, including voter power,
choice, competition, and accountability. She highlighted the
reduction of the spoiler effect and reiterated her opposition to
HB 4.
2:02:39 PM
DELAYNA WEST, representing self, testified in support of HB 4.
She shared her belief that [Alaskans] were not fully informed of
what Ballot Measure 2 [Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and
Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020)] entailed, adding that
voters were "tricked, lied to, and cheated." She requested that
the legislature repeal ranked choice voting (RCV).
2:03:32 PM
MIKE JONES, representing self, testified in support of HB 4. He
argued that Ballot Measure 2 contained two distinct and
unrelated issues: RCV and dark money. He said it was easy to
see how someone could have voted for the proposition out of
concern for dark money without realizing the unintended
consequences of RCV. He believed that the implementation of RCV
had created doubts in the honesty and transparency of the
election process and urged the legislature to eliminate RCV and
restore trust in elections.
2:04:45 PM
BRENDA EDENS, representing self, testified in support of HB 4.
She opined that RCV was not the will of the majority of
Alaskans. She recounted her experience attending public
meetings that educated people on RCV. She shared her belief
that RCV added significant confusion and multiplied suspicion in
people's mind. She added that voting for one person seemed to
be simple and fair.
2:05:39 PM
EILEEN BECKER, representing self, testified in support of HB 4.
She recounted her experience working for the petition drive,
adding that she observed confusion, avoidance, and a
"ridiculous" outcome. She shared her belief that the bill would
bring back the true intent of voting.
2:06:54 PM
PAM BRODIE, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
She shared her experience as an election worker in 2020,
acknowledging that there were more spoiled ballots than ever;
however, there was no problem correcting them. She stated that
RCV was passed by voters and should only be repealed by a vote
of the people.
2:08:44 PM
DONNA STEINFORT, representing self, Testified in opposition to
HB 4. She found that as a long-time election official, once
people understood the RCV system, they generally liked it. She
said RCV forced candidates to speak to the issues and their
action plan rather than sending out misleading and false
statements about their opponents. Further, RCV reduced the
"stranglehold" of political parties on the election process, she
said, and urged a "no" vote on HB 4.
2:10:29 PM
MICAH FRY, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
He challenged the "one vote on person" defenders, pointing out
that the "one vote one person" system was used to establish RCV.
He advised making the repeal of RCV a ballot measure, suggesting
that Alaskans would reject it outright.
2:12:06 PM
DIANA CARBONELL, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 4. She shared her experience as a poll worker and stated her
belief that no one was disenfranchised by RCV. She expressed
her irritation by the bill sponsor's assertion that HB 4 was the
will of the people.
2:13:01 PM
SUE BURNSTIN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She shared her belief that the "nay sayers" were unhappy
with the outcome of the election, which was no excuse for
opposing open, free-choice voting, she said.
2:14:15 PM
PATRICK CAMPAIGN, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 4 and stated his belief that the bill sought to retract the
will of the people. He reported that RCV saved "multiple
thousands of dollars" in public funds for runoff elections and
repeated voting experiences, which disillusioned much of the
population. He stated that RCV made people feel that their vote
mattered while helping the candidates themselves.
2:15:32 PM
LIZ VASQUEZ, representing self, testified in support of HB 4.
She expressed her belief that RCV was not the will of the people
because it was advertised as the elimination of dark money.
Additionally, she highlighted the outside money that was used to
support the initiative.
2:16:54 PM
SANTA CLAUS, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
Prior to RCV, he said, the republican and democratic parties
monopolized elections and controlled the primaries. He pointed
out that there were no runoff election expenses with RCV, adding
that it reduced partisanship, encouraged more candidates to run,
improved voter turnout, and took power away from special
interests.
2:18:16 PM
JAMES BRADY, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
He shared his belief that RCV was working in Alaska and
nationally. He said it moved Alaska away from polarizing
politics, which resulted in gridlock and allowed politicians to
more effectively work across party lines. He asserted that RCV
better represents the will of voters and gave him a voice in the
outcome of elections. He shared his experience as a poll
worker.
2:20:24 PM
CATHERINE SCHULTZ, representing self, testified in support of HB
4. She said history showed that the will of the people was
sometimes "inappropriate," adding that [RCV] was one such
example. She shared her belief that the legislature was
responsible for making good choices on behalf of the people and
encouraged support for the bill.
2:21:27 PM
ERIC ZUBER, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4,
which he characterized as a "power play" by politicians to
revoke the will of the people. RCV allowed people to vote for
who they want, he said, rather than voting against someone they
don't want.
2:22:42 PM
CYTHIA WARBELOW-TACK, representing self, testified in opposition
to HB 4, noting that 68 percent of the verbal testimony given so
far had been against the bill. She conveyed that a majority of
Alaskans voted RCV into law, adding that a vote for the bill
would be a "blatant violation" of the trust given to legislators
to carry out the voters' will. She said RCV allowed her to vote
for who she wants and found the argument that Alaskans were
incapable of understanding RCV to be disrespectful.
KASEY ADERHOLD, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She said RCV was adopted after being approved by a majority
of Alaskan voters in 2020. Adopting RCV gave voters more voice
and allowed them to confidentially vote for their top choice
candidate. She cautioned representatives not to override the
voice of Alaskans who voted to adopt RCV, the same system that
resulted in the fair election of each member of the committee.
2:25:29 PM
MARY WALKER, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
With so many pressing matters to attend to, she said she didn't
understand why the House was spending time and effort to repeal
a measure that the majority of Alaskans voted for.
2:26:07 PM
SALLY RUE, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
She shared her belief that the implementation of RCV was
successful and challenged the idea that there was rampant
confusion amongst voters. She said RCV provided the opportunity
to elect leaders that were representative and who could work
together for the good of the majority. She urged the
legislature to respect the will of voters and to see how RCV
worked through several election cycles before making radical
changes.
2:27:30 PM
JANICE BANTA, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She said she voted in favor of RCV because it ensures that
candidates were elected with a true majority of voters. She
added that RCV was a fair process that promoted outcomes that
appeal more broadly to the general public. She urged the
legislature to withdraw the bill and focus on more pressing
needs, such as education and outmigration.
2:28:25 PM
COLLEEN BRIDGE, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. As an unaffiliated voter, she shared her irritation with the
closed primary system, which prevented her from voting for the
best candidate, she said, regardless of political party.
2:30:01 PM
HEATHER GOCTSHALL, representing self, testified in support of HB
4. She stated that RCV disenfranchised voters, especially
historically marginalized groups in Alaska. Further, she
asserted that the RCV algorithm could not be audited and
required an elongated period for results. She opined that RCV
and open primaries did not represent the will of the people.
2:31:24 PM
JONATHAN CARROL, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 4. As a registered republican, he said he observed how the
prior voting system affected the people he loved and caused them
to go into a "ditch." Alternatively, RCV encouraged people to
"go towards loving people" and brought the best out of
candidates. He requested that the committee oppose the bill.
2:32:36 PM
DEBRA NANCE, representing self, testified in support of HB 4.
She shared her belief that Ballot Measure 2 was deceptive and
caused many people to vote incorrectly; further, that RCV was
confusing, underhanded, and wrong. She added that the more she
learned about RCV, the more she opposed it.
2:33:36 PM
ERIK HENDERSON, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He stated that RCV allowed him to vote for his preferred
candidate without compromising, adding that [RCV] should only be
repealed by a vote of the people.
2:34:24 PM
ART WARBELOW, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He said the RCV initiative was passed by a majority of
Alaskans and should not be overruled by the legislature. He
challenged the notion that people didn't understand what they
were voting for [in Ballot Measure 2] by pointing out that he
hadn't heard any testifiers that voted for RCV who were in
agreement. He urged [the legislature] to cripple the power of
parties who were willing to overrule the voice Alaskans.
2:35:38 PM
ALEX KOPLIN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
He expressed his support for RCV and open primaries, adding that
more choices and more opportunities created a better form of
government. He added that the repeal of RCV should be done
through a ballot initiative.
2:36:51 PM
EARL WILLIAMS JR., representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 4 and in favor of RCV.
2:37:17 PM
SANDRA MIEROP, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She conveyed that at first, she was skeptical of RCV;
however, after learning about it, she could not think of any
negative aspects. She said RCV focuses on the candidate, not
the political party; further, it eliminates runoff elections and
saves both taxpayers and voters money.
2:38:30 PM
ERIN MCKITTRICK, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 4. She pointed out that many of the arguments centered
around the bill focused on Alaskans being stupid or confused.
She shared her belief that Alaskans were smart, independent
minded people, and mostly unaffiliated with any political party,
who knew what they were voting for when they passed the RCV
initiative. Further, she argued that Alaskans knew who they
were voting for when they used the RCV system to elect
candidates across the political spectrum and knew what [the
legislature] was trying to do by overturning the will of the
people.
2:39:17 PM
DEBBIE MCKAY, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She stated her belief that RCV worked well in the last
election and that the Division of Elections (DOE) did a good job
explaining how the new system works. She expressed her support
for open primaries and urged the legislature to respect the
voters' will.
2:40:08 PM
ALLEN STRAH, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
He opined that repealing RCV would do nothing but undermine the
will of the voters and erode confidence in the legislature. He
shared his belief that "sore losers" of the last election would
"beat a drum" to try to repeal RCV. He said RCV was the fairest
method and urged the legislature to reject HB 4.
2:41:10 PM
BERT HOUGHTALING, representing self, testified in support of HB
4. He shared his belief that Ballot Measure 2 should have been
a one-subject ballot measure. He expressed frustration with the
judicial branch and the outcome of the last election. He urged
the legislature to repeal RCV and bring Alaska back to an
accountable electoral method.
2:42:26 PM
TERESA WROBEL, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She said RCV was approved by a majority of Alaskans, and
shared her belief that it was wrong to pursue a legislative
change to a voter approved initiative so quickly. Additionally,
she spoke in support of open primaries. She urged the
legislature to reject the bill.
2:43:39 PM
IRENE BORTNICK, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She asserted that RCV and open primaries were popular in
Alaska, adding that other states looking to adopt these policies
were using Alaska as a guide. She reported that RCV worked
particularly well in Alaska because a large portion of the
electorate identified as independent. She concluded by
emphasizing the Alaskans voted in favor of RCV.
2:44:26 PM
PETER MCKAY, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
He said RCV restored his faith in elections and gave the power
of choice back to the people. He said HB 4 would undo the
choice of the people and should not be considered.
2:45:13 PM
JEANNIE KIRKLAND, representing self, testified in support of HB
4. She expressed her frustration with the last election,
stating that RCV was not a representation of the people.
2:45:51 PM
RICARDA LEDMAN, representing self, Testified in opposition to HB
4. She said RCV allowed her to look beyond party affiliation
and find candidates that exemplified her values. She reported
that Canada had been using RCV successfully for years, adding
that both democrats and republicans could gather around RCV.
2:47:04 PM
DEBRA RUDIS, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
She shared her belief that the explanations of RCV were clear
and well presented. She requested that the legislature respect
the will of Alaskan voters.
2:47:46 PM
CHARLIE STEWART, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 4. He shared his belief that it was in poor taste to repeal
the will of voters so quickly, especially when the legislature
had not accomplished a balanced budget or increased revenues to
fund education.
2:48:27 PM
CHERYL KAJDAN, representing self, testified in support of HB 4.
She opined that the will of the people was subverted in the
election of [RCV]. She asserted that RCV suppressed voters and
disenfranchised the elderly.
2:49:51 PM
JERRY FOGG, representing self, testified in support of HB 4. He
spoke in favor of "one person one vote" and urged the
legislature to repeal RCV.
2:50:37 PM
CHAIR VANCE, after ascertaining there was no one else who wished
to testify, closed public testimony on HB 4.
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 4 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 4 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFSH 5/11/2023 1:00:00 PM HFSH 5/12/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/11/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB 4 - v.A.PDF |
HFSH 5/11/2023 1:00:00 PM HFSH 5/12/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/10/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/11/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB 4 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFSH 5/11/2023 1:00:00 PM HFSH 5/12/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/10/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/11/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB 4 - Maine Policy Institute Study on RCV.pdf |
HJUD 5/11/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/12/2023 1:00:00 PM HSTA 5/2/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB 4 - AK Chamber Dittman Poll Page.pdf |
HJUD 5/11/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/12/2023 1:00:00 PM HSTA 5/2/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |