Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
05/02/2023 03:00 PM House 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 | |
| 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
[Contains discussion of HB 1]
3:08:28 PM
CHAIR SHAW announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 4, "An Act relating to elections."
3:09:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH VANCE, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
HB 4, as the prime sponsor. She asserted that the number one
issue that has been raised by Alaskans is to repeal ranked
choice voting (RCV). She argued that this issue has risen above
the conversations concerning the base student allocation (BSA)
and the permanent fund dividend (PFD). She proceeded to
paraphrase the sponsor statement [included in the committee
packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 4 repeals rank choice voting and open
primaries, returning the election process to the way
Alaskans voted prior to Ballot Measure 2 of 2020
except for areas in statute the courts have found
unconstitutional. This bill attempts to remedy the
constitutional issues by providing for combined open
primaries and omitting the requirement that party
nominees be registered as a member of that party.
The ballot measure that transformed Alaska's election
system in 2020 passed by a narrow margin of less than
1 percent. The campaign led Alaskans to believe the
ballot measure would do away with "dark money" only
and that it would give them "more options" in voting.
Most Alaskan's did not know that it would upend our
way of voting that has always been one person equals
one vote. Many voters have expressed buyer's remorse
since passage. In fact, recent polling shows that that
majority of Alaskans strongly agree to repeal rank
choice voting.
This bill allows combined open primaries when two
parties request jointly, and implements court
decisions in State v. Democratic Party, from 2018
holding that requirement that candidates register with
a party when seeking party nomination violates
parties' free speech associational rights and State v.
Green Party of Alaska in 2005 holding that prohibition
on parties combining primary ballots under the system
established in AS 15.25.010, 15.25.014, and 15.25.060
is unconstitutional.
House Bill 4 seeks to implement the will of Alaskans
by returning us to the historical and trusted election
process where one person equals one vote.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE reported that 1 in 8 rural Alaskans'
ballots were rejected in the special congressional primary of
2022, with up to 17 percent being rejected because of a lack of
signature or identifier. She expressed the opinion that RCV has
added more complications to an already disenfranchised voting
population. She referenced studies that show jurisdictions with
higher proportions of older voters were more likely to report
ballot marking mistakes, increasing the potential for a rejected
ballot. Furthermore, Fair Vote, a proponent of RCV, found that
the prevalence of ranking three candidates has been lowest among
African Americans, Latinos, voters with less education, and
those whose first language is not English. She purported that
RCV has failed to increase voter turnout or provide more options
to voters as promised. Instead, it has increased voter
confusion and disenfranchisement, and this has caused the lowest
voter turnout in decades. She urged the legislature to return
to the trusted process of "one person equals one vote." She
concluded by sharing a quote from a report, titled "A False
Majority," by the Maine Heritage Policy Center [included in the
committee packet].
3:17:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG questioned the difference between HB 4
and HB 1.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE responded that there is one small
difference on page 33 of the bill. She deferred to her staff
for an explanation.
3:17:29 PM
JAKE ALMEIDA, Staff, Representative Sarah Vance, on behalf of
Representative Vance, prime sponsor of HB 4, referenced the
repealer section of the bill, Section 62. He indicated that AS
15.13.070(g) would be enacted with HB 4, whereas the statute was
excluded from HB 1.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG asked whether HB 1 was being "pulled"
by the bill sponsor. She pointed out that HB 1 has been heard
in committee, and many of the same talking points have been
shared. She asked why two identical bills were being heard by
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE responded that both bills were pre-filed,
and she added that she and Representative George Rauscher,
[prime sponsor of HB 1], decided to "see which one rose to the
top." She explained that the repealer included in HB 4 and
excluded from HB 1 concerns campaign contributions for joint
governor and lieutenant governor races.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG opined that the chair has decided to
hear HB 4, as opposed to amending HB 1.
3:19:32 PM
CHAIR SHAW opened invited testimony.
3:20:00 PM
JULI LUCKY, Executive Director, Alaskans for Better Elections,
gave invited testimony in opposition to HB 4. She said the core
principles of RCV empower voters to choose their
representatives, remove barriers for candidates to run for
office, and require candidates to have majority support to win.
She asserted that, in addition to representing their values,
voters want legislators who work together to solve the problems,
regardless of party affiliation. She expressed the opinion that
voters want competition for their vote and the freedom to
support their favorite candidate without splitting the vote and
contributing to their least favorite candidate. Further, voters
want to empower legislators to work on their behalf and make
tough decisions in the best interest of communities. She said
that the current election system [RCV] prioritizes these values:
voter choice, competition, and accountability. She continued
that a nonpartisan primary reduces barriers to entry and allows
a more diverse candidate pool to run, as it puts all candidates
and voters on an even playing field. She asserted that
competition has been increased by having the top four vote
getters, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the general
election. She noted that, while competition is good for
democracy, having more candidates to choose from could lead to a
"spoiler effect." She purported that the three come-from-behind
races in Alaska's November election demonstrated how the RCV
system allowed for more competition while removing the spoiler
effect. She added that requiring candidates to earn broad
support directly from their constituents increases
accountability and rewards legislators who put their
constituents first. She stated that Alaskans for Better
Elections supports reinstating reasonable campaign contribution
limits and opposes the repeal of AS 15.13.070(g) in Section 62
of the proposed bill. For these reasons, she stated her
opposition to the proposed legislation.
3:23:19 PM
NICK MURRAY, Director of Policy, Maine Policy Institute, gave
invited testimony in support of HB 4. He reported that Maine
Policy Institute has studied RCV since it was passed in 2016 and
has advised policy groups across the nation. He opined that
repealing RCV would save Alaskans an "immense headache" over
time. He stated that election data and academic analysis shows
that more voters were disenfranchised under RCV in comparison to
simple plurality voting. He stated that opposition to RCV
across the nation and across the political spectrum is primarily
due to exhausted or discarded ballots. He cited a report
submitted by Nolan McCarty, a professor of politics and public
affairs at Princeton University, which included data from 98 RCV
races. He reported that 11 percent of ballots were discarded on
average in RCV elections, and this has decreased voter
confidence in the election system. The report has found that a
higher rate of exhausted ballots correlates to electorates with
more senior citizen populations and non-college educated voters;
additionally, 60 percent of the RCV races had less than 50
percent of the votes cast for that office. He cited academic
research out of San Francisco that found minority, elderly, and
less educated voters to be disenfranchised by the RCV system;
further, it has increased disparities in election turnout. He
stated that the research suggests the higher complexity of RCV
presents barriers to participants, which decreases turnout and
raises the probability of errors. In closing, he argued that
RCV has resulted in more exhausted ballots and, therefore, less
participation due to the complexity of the system.
3:29:42 PM
CHAIR SHAW opened public testimony on HB 4.
3:30:43 PM
KRISTY KISSINGER-TOTTEN, representing self, testified in
opposition to HB 4 and expressed her support for RCV and open
primaries. She said RCV gives voice to the people and helps
elect leaders who have the strongest support; furthermore, RCV
allows multiple candidates from one party to run. She expressed
the opinion that RCV helps restrict undue influence from
powerful party politics and puts candidates on an equal
platform, while removing the fear of a third candidate splitting
the vote. She opined that HB 4 would be an attempt to subvert
the will of the people, and she emphasized that RCV must remain.
3:32:45 PM
CRYSTAL JOHNSTON, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 4. She likened RCV to buying candy from a store, indicating
that more options, like candidates, is better. She reiterated
her support for RCV.
3:33:51 PM
CLAUDIA CRISS, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She opined that the 2022 [midterm] election outcome would
have been different had RCV not been instated. She expressed
opposition to closed primaries, as this allows committees of
people to select candidates based on political affiliation.
3:34:42 PM
JAMES CRISS, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4,
expressing support for RCV. He reported that Alaska has the
highest percentage of unaffiliated and nonpartisan voters of any
state, with 57.7 percent of registered voters identifying as
such. He stated that RCV gives the majority of Alaskan voters a
choice in who represents them. He opined that RCV is straight
forward, easy to understand, and offers a meaningful way to
participate in government.
3:36:09 PM
GEORGE WOODS, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He opined that RCV represents the will of the people, adding
that its use would become more accepted as it grows more
familiar. He suggested that the repeal effort is motivated by
candidates who would blame the voting system rather than their
own lack of appeal. He shared his belief that it is laudable
that Alaska was leading the way in this "experiment in
Democracy."
3:37:23 PM
JAN CAROLYN HARDY, State President, American Federation of
State, County, and Municipal Employees, testified in opposition
to HB 4. She read the following prepared remarks:
In 2020 Citizens of the State of Alaska voted on a
Citizens' Initiative to change our system of election
from party-based ballots to Rank Choice Voting (RCV.)
The Alaska Legislature is convened to represent the
Will of the People and to enact legislation to benefit
all Alaskans.
HB 4 seeks to recant the Will of the People in favor
of the discontents in and out of power. HB 4 has been
introduced to appease the discontents who did not win
the most recent State and Federal elections and those
who are fearful that RCV will lift the thumb on 'fair
and free' elections. Those who support HB 4 and other
similar legislation designed to curtail Democracy
would do better to earn their keep by presenting
policies created to benefit the People of Alaska and
not by building an insulating fortress around
themselves.
HB 4 is a bad bill. It is an undemocratic bill. How
dare the authors of this inflammatory legislation
elevate themselves above the Will of the People!
3:39:11 PM
BILL WISE, representing self, testified in support of HB 4. He
highlighted the public's distrust in the electoral process and
urged support for HB 4 to renew integrity in the system and
remove "opaqueness."
3:41:25 PM
MUKHYA KHALSA, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She expressed support for RCV, adding that this has been the
first time she has felt her vote truly counted. She explained
that RCV has allowed her to vote for the candidate she wanted to
win.
3:43:06 PM
HARI DEV SINGH KHALSA, representing self, testified in
opposition to HB 4, characterizing the bill as voter
suppression. He pointed out that a majority of Alaskans have
already voted for RCV.
3:44:38 PM
ROBERT WELTON, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He pointed out that a majority of Alaskans voted for RCV and
open primaries in the 2020 election; furthermore, he opined that
Make American Great Again (MAGA) extremists are attempting to
repeal it with the proposed legislation, which he described as a
"bad" bill. He expressed the belief that RCV is working, and he
gave the example of moderates who could "reach across the aisle"
in the elections for U.S. Representative Mary Peltola and U.S.
Senator Lisa Murkowski. Furthermore, he opined that RCV makes
the state legislature a more functional body, citing Senator
Cathy Giessel's reelection. He emphasized that repealing RCV
behind the "closed doors" of the legislature would be the wrong
way to fix the problem.
3:46:55 PM
EMILY KANE, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4,
adding that she has found great value in RCV. She pointed out
that Alaskans voted to engage in open primaries and RCV in 2020
[Ballot Measure 2 - Top-Four Ranked Choice Voting and Campaign
Finance Laws Initiative (2020)]. She argued that RCV was
created by the popular vote to make campaigning more civil and
to elect leaders who are more representative of the population.
She pointed out that the overwhelming majority of those in favor
of RCV include the independent and undeclared voters, in
addition to the younger demographic who would be leading society
in the years ahead. She referenced the language on page 12,
lines 12-31, of the bill, which indicate that open primaries
would be abolished should HB 4 pass. She stated that voting for
a political party, as opposed to voting for a person, undermines
the responsibilities and the credibility of the candidates, and
it forces voters to choose an ideology.
3:49:29 PM
JAMES ALDRIDGE, representing self, testified in "adamant"
opposition to HB 4. He contended that the numbers shared by the
bill sponsor were "fluff," as 99.8 percent of voters had
correctly filled out the ballots. He emphasized that the
majority of Alaskans voted for RCV, and for this reason it
should not be abandoned.
3:50:40 PM
THERESE LEWANDOWSKI, representing self, testified in opposition
to HB 4. She read the following written remarks [copy included
in the committee packet]:
I am against this bill.
Open Primaries provide Alaskan citizens of all or no
political affiliation to vote their choice based on
the candidate's qualifications and not on their
political party. It eliminates multiple ballots which
is always confusing for the voter.
Ranked Choice Voting allows a similar choice - to vote
for the candidate, the person. It encourages voters to
ask questions and research the candidate and not rely
on a political party to think for them. It then allows
a voter to choose 4, if they wish, and rank them in
order of preference!
How often I have wished I could do that election after
election.
This gives the voter much more say in electing our
politicians. And it makes candidates prove up on why
they are running and what they can actually offer
citizens of this state.
Lastly - the majority voted this into statute in 2020.
Legislators repealing it through a bill is like taking
their voting power away from them.
3:52:23 PM
JOE NELSON, Chairman, Sealaska, testified in opposition to HB 4,
explaining that RCV was initiated to remedy the partisan issues
across the country. He opined that RCV has been working. He
pointed out that Native Alaskan's [political] affiliation falls
across the spectrum, and he expressed the hope that "common
sense would prevail" so all voices would be heard.
3:54:17 PM
PAT RACE, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
He informed the committee that he is a volunteer board member
for Alaskans for Better Elections. He discussed party
representation, indicating that because the majority of
legislators are members of either the democratic or republican
party, they are not representative of most Alaskans. He
expressed the belief that it would be wrong to repeal RCV so
soon after Alaskans voted on the issue, and he argued that there
is no need to rush this issue. He encouraged the legislature to
set HB 4 aside in exchange for discussing real problems in the
state.
3:56:47 PM
SALLY GATES, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
She pointed out that the majority of Alaskan voters had voted
for RCV in 2020, and now, less than three years later, members
of this legislature are trying to cast aside the will of Alaskan
voters. She expressed the opinion that this is anti-democratic.
She noted that she, along with many Alaskans, are not affiliated
with one particular party. She said that closing primaries and
eliminating RCV would drastically reduce the options for voters.
She encouraged legislators to vote "no" on the bill.
3:58:07 PM
MICKEY BARKER, representing self, testified in support of HB 4.
He expressed the opinion that a slim majority of Alaskans voted
for RCV, as outside money had pushed propaganda and promoted
lies in regard to RCV. He discussed the disenfranchisement of
voters and numerous ballots that were thrown out.
4:00:06 PM
DONNA GOLDSMITH, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 4. She conveyed that in 2020 over half of registered voters
voted for Ballot Measure 2, which has allowed every vote to
count, regardless of political affiliation. She urged the
legislature to listen to the will of the people who wanted to
change a system because it was not inclusive of a variety of
political affiliations and values. She indicated that the
repeal of RCV would disempower voters. She encouraged a "no"
vote on HB 4.
4:02:28 PM
DAVID KASSER, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He stated that RCV has allowed moderate ideologies to be
discussed, requiring voters to understand the complexities of
each candidate. He argued that this makes for better, more
informed voters. He urged the committee to "kill" HB 4.
4:03:38 PM
ODETTE EDGAR, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She summarized her experience with RCV, noting that the
ballot box machines had rejected erroneous ballots, but allowed
voters to fix it on the spot. She emphasized her trust in the
election system.
4:06:03 PM
LAURA STATS, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
She urged the committee to postpone or reconsider taking action
on RCV so soon after it was voted in by the citizenry. She
argued that postponing this would allow more time for people to
learn the process. She continued that it is too soon to
"kibosh" the will of the people. She said that she voted for
RCV, expressing the belief that it is a way to move away from
extremism, which is "tearing the fabric of the nation apart."
4:08:04 PM
PATTY ITCHOAK, representing self, testified in support of HB 4.
She opined that only one candidate from each political party
should be on the ballot. She argued that RCV essentially
dilutes the vote count, which is discouraging her from voting in
the future. She referenced the low voter turnout in the [2020]
election. She reiterated her support for the repeal of RCV.
4:09:22 PM
ZACHARY MACINTYRE, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 4. He explained that he, like many Alaskans, never fit into
one established political box. He stated that RCV has allowed
him to vote outside these boxes. He added that RCV is the
strongest defense against extremism.
4:11:10 PM
MARK DESINGER, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He explained that RCV produces a winner with the most
support across the entire electorate. He continued that RCV
reduces exhausted votes, adding that even if his first-choice
candidate may not have won, all his votes have counted. He
continued to explain that RCV has allowed him to vote for,
rather than against, a candidate, and it allows him to vote his
preference rather than vote for someone who would be the most
electable. He stated that RCV would lessen the cost to the
state, as it would eliminate the need for run-off elections.
4:13:49 PM
JEFFREY BARNHART, representing self, testified in support of HB
4. He expressed the opinion that Ballot Measure 2, which
combined the establishment of an RCV system and the elimination
of dark money, was an attempt to deliberately fool or mislead
voters. He shared his belief that most voters were voting on
the initiative to eliminate dark money rather than RCV. He
stated that many Alaskan voters have been disenfranchised by the
RCV system, which he described as confusing and unfair. He
encouraged a return to the traditional voting system.
4:15:39 PM
JANET MORRISON, representing self, testified in support of HB 4.
She shared that in her experience as a poll worker, people were
confused by RCV. She questioned what happened to mistaken
question ballots, absentee ballots, and absentee in-person
ballots. She shared a personal anecdote.
4:17:43 PM
JAMES HARPRING, representing self, testified in support of HB 4.
He asserted that the RCV initiative was funded with out-of-state
"black money." He expressed his support for the repeal of RCV
and a return to the traditional voting system.
4:19:56 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:19 p.m. to 4:21 p.m.
4:21:21 PM
CATHERINE MCCARTHY, representing self, testified in opposition
to HB 4. She shared that she felt liberated by RCV, as she was
no longer "forced" to deal with a closed primary system. She
urged the committee to oppose the proposed legislation.
4:23:10 PM
JUNE ROTHMAN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He thanked the Division of Elections staff for implementing
RCV and launching a "tremendous" educational campaign. He said
he took exception to the implication that Alaskans were less
capable than Australians or Irish, who have been using RCV
successfully for many decades. He expressed the belief that RCV
is a tremendous asset for the state. He asked the legislature
not to abandon RCV, or to discount the lessons that have yet to
be learned.
4:25:44 PM
COLLEEN FORD, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She argued that RCV and open primaries must be preserved, as
this allows independence from the two major political parties.
She opined that Alaskans have never fit comfortably within the
two-party system and shared her belief that the repeal of RCV
would bring the state back to "political colonization."
4:26:38 PM
MIKE MILLIGAN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He expressed support for RCV because it has given him more
power as a voter, at the expense of political parties, which he
likened to limited liability corporations. He opined that the
bill would return power to the political parties. He asked the
committee not to advance HB 4.
4:29:02 PM
JANET JAHNSAN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She characterized the proposed legislation as disrespectful
to all the voters who voted in favor of RCV. She urged the
committee to listen to the overwhelming support for RCV that was
voiced today. Furthermore, she expressed support for open
primaries, which have allowed all options to be considered. She
encouraged the committee to oppose HB 4.
4:30:21 PM
ERIC JORDAN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
He expressed the understanding that the partisan party primaries
often favor the most extreme candidates, and this often leads to
a choice between the "lesser of two evils." He expressed strong
support for RCV and opposition to HB 4.
4:31:55 PM
LUIN MCCABE, representing self, testified in support of HB 4.
She pointed out that RCV was one of three subjects on Ballot
Measure 2, which was sold on the promise of eliminating dark
money. She expressed the understanding that millions of dollars
in out-of-state money had flooded into Alaska in support of RCV
during the 2020 campaign season. She questioned why out-of-
state interests had wanted influence in Alaska elections and why
citizens were deceived with false advertising. She asserted
that RCV allows for multiple selections, which diminishes the
notion of "one vote per person." Further, she indicated that
the complexity of RCV has eliminated the possibility of hand
counts. She shared a personal anecdote.
4:34:31 PM
KELLY FISHLER, representing self, testified in support of HB 4,
describing RCV as too complicated and complex. She said she
wanted her vote to count. She opined that RCV favored "middle
of the road" candidates who were not as well liked as the
election results would indicate. Further, she suggested that
the additional information on the RCV ballots has resulted in
more exhausted ballots. She suggested that low voter turnout
was an indication that RCV is not working.
4:36:26 PM
GRIFFIN PLUSH, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He discussed voter turnout, claiming that it was the highest
it had been since 2014 for the regular primary election. For
the regular general election, voter turnout was comparable to
previous midterm general elections, he asserted. He expressed
the belief that Alaskans are capable of learning and adjusting
to the new system and need time to do so. He referenced
exhausted ballots, explaining that some people made the choice
not to mark all three categories. Concerning exhausted ballots,
he cautioned against assuming that people do not know what they
are doing. He addressed the "spoiler effect," indicating that
RCV has allowed candidates to run with less institutional
support.
4:39:22 PM
DEBBIE GOZDOR, representing self, testified in support of HB 4.
She said she found RCV confusing and expressed her frustration
with the system. She urged the committee to support the
proposed legislation.
4:41:26 PM
ROBERT HOCKEMA, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He responded to the claim that exhausted ballots were
discarded from the final total, which he described as
misleading. He explained the RCV process in detail, indicating
that many individuals intentionally had chosen not to vote
second, third, and fourth options because the first choice was
the only candidate that satisfied their (indisc.). He explained
that this process is referred to as "ballot exhaustion" and
likened it to a runoff election. He pointed out that like
runoff elections, RCV involved multiple rounds of voting that
some choose not to participate in. He reminded members that the
2022 midterm had the lowest voter turnout across the entire
nation since 2014. He urged the committee to oppose the bill.
4:44:09 PM
DONNA STEINFORT, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 4. She noted her frustration with the closed primary system,
as it did not allow her to vote for the candidate of her choice.
As an elected official, she found that voters generally liked
RCV once they understood the system. RCV forced candidates to
speak to the issues, she said, and reduced the "stranglehold" of
political parties on the election process. Further, she argued
that she was given a greater voice by ranking candidates. She
urged a "no" vote on HB 4.
4:45:49 PM
MARK SPRINGER, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He expressed the opinion that Alaskans deserve to be
represented by the "best and brightest," and RCV has magnified
the ability to represent the necessary leaders to progress into
the twenty-first century. He argued that running for office is
a "pay to play" proposition, as party loyalty finishes ahead of
the candidates' willingness to serve the state. He expressed
the belief that RCV has alleviated this by loosening the "iron
first grip" parties have sought to impose on candidates and
election office holders, giving all Alaskans an opportunity and
a voice.
4:47:47 PM
MIKE GRUNST, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
He expressed the opinion that RCV is the best method to equalize
the election field and allow voters to have their voices heard.
Furthermore, he argued that RCV has taken the power away from
the parties, and this has made candidates appeal to a wider
selection of Alaskans, not just the extremes on either end of
the political spectrum. As an Alaskan, he expressed exhaustion
at having to vote against candidates. He stated that RCV has
allowed him to choose the best candidate to represent him. He
discussed the cost saving aspect of RCV, as it has eliminated
the need for expensive runoff elections. He emphasized that RCV
is simple, easy to use, effective, and fiscally responsible.
4:50:46 PM
LIBBY DALTON, representing self, testified in support of HB 4.
She pointed out that the RCV initiative had narrowly passed and
asserted that the measure had been financed by dark money in an
effort to reelect U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski. She discussed
Scott Kendall's role in the initiative and claimed that Alaskans
were blatantly deceived. She urged support for the bill and a
return to the traditional system.
4:53:59 PM
BRONSON FRYE, President, Building and Construction Trade Council
of Southcentral Alaska, testified in opposition to HB 4, stating
that he trusts Alaskans to know what is best for the state. He
pointed out that RCV has been explicitly and directly approved
by Alaskan voters, and he characterized the bill as a
disrespectful attempt by politicians to overturn the will of the
people. He described the bill sponsor's claim that HB 4 would
be "upholding the will of the voters" as disingenuous when
Alaskans voted for RCV in 2020. He urged legislators to "quit
lying" to their constituents.
4:55:54 PM
BARBARA TYNDALL, representing self, testified in support of HB
4. As an election official, she recounted the confusion,
frustration, and anger she witnessed at the ballot box during
the most recent election. She discussed the audit of Ballot
Measure 2 and claimed that Alaskans did not truly vote in favor
of the initiative, which was funded by dark money. She
discussed low voter turnout and urged the committee to pass the
bill.
4:58:07 PM
CHAIR SHAW, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony. He announced that
HB 4 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| HB 4 - Fiscal Note - GOV - 2,500.0.pdf |
HJUD 5/12/2023 1:00:00 PM HSTA 5/2/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB 4 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 5/12/2023 1:00:00 PM HSTA 5/2/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB 4 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 5/2/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB 4 - v.A.PDF |
HJUD 5/12/2023 1:00:00 PM HSTA 5/2/2023 3:00:00 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 - Emailed Public Comment - As of 05-02 - Support.pdf |
HSTA 5/2/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |