Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/18/1997 09:13 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 112 AMEND DEFINITION OF "POLITICAL PARTY"
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY testified on behalf of the bill.
Testimony was heard via teleconference from DONNA
GILBERT, ROYCE CHAPMAN, MIKE PRAX, KEN JACOBUS, DIANA
BUFFINGTON and JAMES BALDWIN. SENATOR ADAMS MOVED
Amendment #1. COCHAIR SHARP objected. Amendment #1
FAILED by a 1 to 5 vote. SENATOR PHILLIPS MOVED CSHB
112(FIN) from committee with individual recommendations
and accompanying fiscal notes. SENATOR ADAMS objected.
The MOTION CARRIED by a 5 to 1 vote and CSHB 112(FIN)
was REPORTED OUT with a previous zero fiscal note from
the Department of Revenue and a fiscal note from the
Division of Elections (59.6).
HB 112 AMEND DEFINITION OF "POLITICAL PARTY"
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY testified on behalf of the bill. He
explained that the bill addressed the fact that since 1970
the state had not elected a governor by majority vote. The
legislation would encourage that possibility by providing
additional means for a group of political active people to
qualify as a party. It did not reduce anything in current
statute but added to it as a supplemental way to qualify by
providing that a party with a certain number of registered
voters would not have to run a candidate but could still
maintain its party status.
SENATOR ADAMS asked about the three percent qualification.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that a party must have
registered voters equal to three percent of the votes cast
for governor in the preceding election. In response to a
question from SENATOR PHILLIPS, REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY
explained that current law requires a party had to run a
candidate and the candidate had to receive three percent of
the vote. HB 112 would change it so that it would allow
party status to vest based on registered voters.
The following testimony was heard via teleconference:
Fairbanks:
DONNA GILBERT testified in support of the bill. She
believed it was important, noting that governors had been
elected with as little as 38.9 percent of the vote, which
didn't allow for the majority to be represented. She
supported giving political parties a choice as to whether or
not they wanted to run a candidate in a statewide election.
She described the services provided by political parties and
described the effect of the bill.
ROYCE CHAPMAN spoke in support of HB 112. He believed it
would go a long way in helping every Alaskan to take part in
the political process. He did not believe it would limit
new or small parties. They would not be required to
concentrate on raising large sums of money just to be listed
on the ballot of a statewide race.
MIKE PRAX also supported the legislation. It not only
offered the opportunity to have the governor elected by a
majority, it also gave other philosophical groups the
opportunity to be recognized as a political party. Smaller
parties provided a valuable service.
Anchorage:
KEN JACOBUS testified in favor of HB 112 for reasons already
stated by others testifying. It made ballot access easier
which was important to encourage people to participate in
politics. Parties should not be forced to spend a lot of
money on a race they cannot win in order to maintain their
party status.
Kodiak:
DIANA BUFFINGTON, District Chair, Republican Party,
supported HB 112. She stated it allowed minor political
parties to become known and get their views out. It would
make it easier to get into the political process. She urged
the committee's support.
SENATOR ADAMS asked to hear from the Department of Law
concerning the legislation. He noted that he would be
offering an amendment to page 1, lines 10 and 12 that would
delete "preceding" and provide an effective date following
the 1998 election. His reasoning was related to fairness to
other organizations with regard to changing the law.
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Department of
Law, opposed the legislation. He stated that there was a
matter that involved the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, that being ballot access and freedom of
political association. Courts require that the state show a
compelling governmental interest in support of a statute
that would affect ballot access. If there were some
disparate effect on political parties, there should be some
showing that this was the least restrictive means available
to establish a goal. He stated there was a disparate
treatment of now recognized political parties in the state
because of the way the numbers break out for registered
party members. The AIP's could sit out the next election
while the Greens, if they could not muster additional voters
to register their affiliation would not be able to sit out
to retain their recognized party status. If the goal was to
provide easier ballot access, it seemed to be at variance
with the goal of majority vote, because it would mean they
would not have a candidate on the ballot. The rationale of
easier ballot access did not seem to hold up and he believed
there was some other purpose for the legislation.
MR. BALDWIN continued by stating that if the idea was to
allow new political parties to form, there were other
impediments that needed consideration. Campaign finance
laws enacted last year had a different definition of
political party. It had to meet the three percent rule or
be recognized in the last five general elections. A newly
registered party would not be able to qualify under those
laws. He believed the legislation had "lawsuit written all
over it." He respected the sponsor's position but stated
there needs to be a much better case presented. He spoke
briefly of other alternatives available.
In response to a question from COCHAIR SHARP, MR. BALDWIN
stated it was much more difficult to get people to register
political affiliation than to get them to vote on a
confidential ballot.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if there had been any written opinion
from the attorney general's office regarding the
constitutionality of last year's campaign finance reform
act. MR. BALDWIN clarified that there was not an issue of
constitutionality, but a difference in definition. He
restated the qualification for a political party under that
act. Brief discussion ensued concerning constitutionality.
SENATOR ADAMS MOVED Amendment #1. COCHAIR SHARP objected.
SENATOR ADAMS reiterated his position that the amendment
provided an opportunity for political associations to put
their parties forward to give the people a choice. He
believed it was an equal and fair consideration for other
political groups, pointing out the legislation only
benefited one group.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
IN FAVOR: Adams
OPPOSED: Phillips, Donley, Torgerson, Parnell, Sharp
Amendment #1 FAILED by a 1 to 5 vote.
General discussion followed regarding the bill. SENATOR
DONLEY and COCHAIR SHARP spoke in support. REPRESENTATIVE
VEZEY noted a copy of a letter from Richard Winger in
members' files that pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court
that upheld a Louisiana law that required a party to have
five percent of registered voters or receive five percent of
the vote in an election. He stated HB 112 was well under
that threshold.
SENATOR ADAMS commented that the bill created limitations on
the rights of political associations. He stated that in the
next election the AIP would sit out the election while the
Green Party would have to put forth a candidate. He
believed it was politically motivated and opposed the
underlying tone of the legislation.
SENATOR PHILLIPS MOVED CSHB 112(FIN) from committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
SENATOR ADAMS objected.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Donley, Torgerson, Parnell, Phillips, Sharp
OPPOSED: Adams
The MOTION CARRIED by a 5 to 1 vote and CSHB 112(FIN) was
REPORTED OUT with a previous zero fiscal note from the
Department of Revenue and a fiscal note from the Division of
Elections (59.6).
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|