Legislature(1999 - 2000)
05/14/1999 02:15 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 141
An Act providing for preferential voting in state and
local elections.
Work draft #1-LS0669\S, Kurtz, 4/19/99 was adopted on
4/20/99.
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with Amendment 1(copy
on file).
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT explained
Amendment 1. Amendment 1 would insert on line 8, page 2 one"
and delete "candidates" and insert "one candidate for each
office." The amendment clarifies that only one write in
candidate per election can be marked as a preference.
Current law only allows for one write in candidate. The
amendment allows one write in candidate to be included in
the voter's preference.
Representative J. Davies stated that the sentence is
confusing. Co-Chair Therriault clarified that his motion
would be conceptual and that the drafter could further
clarify the language.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy on
file.) Mr. Tibbles explained that the amendment came as a
request from the sponsor Representative Kott. Amendment 2
would delete "first choice" on page 3, line 3. He explained
that the language "first choice" would cause problems on the
second and subsequent round of tabulation.
GAIL FENUMIAI, ELECTION PROGRAM SPECIALIST, DIVISION OF
ELECTION, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR provided
information on HB 141. She clarified that after the first
round elimination the next candidate that intention would be
that the next candidate to be eliminated would be the
candidate with the fewest votes, not the first choice least
votes. She explained that after the first round, the
candidate with the fewest first choice votes would have
their second choice votes redistributed to the other
candidates. If no candidate receives a majority then the
candidate, in the remaining pool, that has the least number
of votes would be eliminated and their second choice votes
would be redistributed.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if the language would be
clarified by the addition of "that tabulation". Ms. Fenumiai
responded that "accumulative" could be added.
Representative J. Davies summarized that the second choice
becomes a first choice. Ms. Fenumiai observed that if there
were five candidates and candidate number five had the least
first choice votes then they would be eliminated and their
second choice votes would be redistributed to candidates
two, three and four. The candidate with the least remaining
votes of these candidates would next be eliminated and their
votes redistributed.
Representative J. Davies recommended the addition of
"retabulated" or some other modifier.
KELLY SULLIVAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KOTT provided
information on behalf of the sponsor. She noted that the
sponsor supports the deletion of "first choice" on the
advice of the Division.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to AMEND Amendment 2 by
adding, "retabulated" before "first choice". "First choice"
would remain in the legislation. There being NO OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was adopted as
amended. The new language read: "If no candidate receives a
majority of the retabulated votes, then the remaining
candidate with the fewest retabulated first choice votes
shall be declared defeated."
Representative J. Davies provided members with Amendment 3
(copy on file). Amendment 3 would add "for the offices of
President and Vice-President of the United States." He noted
that an Electoral College is used in the primary elections
for President and Vice-President of the United States. Ms.
Sullivan explained that the language was added to clarify
that the preferential vote would be used for all elections.
Representative J. Davies maintained that the system for
selecting the President and Vice-President should be a
nationally consistent process. Representative G. Davis
pointed out that the legislation pertains to the popular
vote not the Electoral College.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Williams
OPPOSED: G. Davis, Austerman, Bunde, Mulder, Therriault
Representatives Foster, Kohring, and Moses were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-5).
Mr. Tibbles reviewed the fiscal note. He noted that the cost
for the election is every other year and is not needed in
the first year. The fiscal note reflects $175 thousand
dollars for software redesign.
Ms. Fenuumiai responded that the fiscal note is inadequate
to allow the Division to implement the legislation
effectively. She added that the estimation for the software
redesign was based on the first draft of the legislation,
which did not contain the complex primary accounting
mechanism. She did not think that the funding would be
sufficient to get the programming enhanced. The remaining
reduced amounts in subsequent years are not adequate.
(Tape Change, HFC 99 - 139, Side 2)
Representative J. Davies questioned why second choice votes
are not counted. Co-Chair Therriault stressed that there
would be no reason to switch to a person's second choice
while their first choice is in the running. Representative
J. Davies expressed further concerns with the legislation.
He emphasized that it is difficult to anticipate the
consequences of the system. He recommended that the
legislation be held and discussed over the interim. He
expressed concern that a person could get elected that had
fewer first choice votes than another candidate did. He
maintained that the issue is the number of registered voters
that do not vote.
Representative Austerman felt that the legislation should be
in the form of a resolution. He emphasized that there should
be a vote of the people.
Representative Grussendorf spoke against moving the
legislation. He pointed out that no other state has
implemented the system for their elected officials. The
system is only being used by the New York School Board,
which is trying "to get out from under it."
Representative Williams noted that the Division of
Elections' fiscal note was reduced from $1.8 million dollars
to $175 thousand dollars. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out
that approximately $1 million dollars was included in the
Division's fiscal note for new Accu-Vote machines for every
voting location. The House Finance Committee fiscal note
does not fund this request. Representative Williams noted
the need to reduce additional spending.
Co-Chair Mulder recommended that the legislation be held for
further view.
Representative G. Davis asked for more information regarding
software needs. Ms. Fenumiai clarified that the current
system that is responsible for tabulating ballots cannot
accommodate the preferential voting system without
substantial modification.
HB 141 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|