Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/23/2017 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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| Commissioner, Department of Public Safety | |
| Alaska Public Offices Commission | |
| HB175 | |
| HB143 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 175 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 175-US PRESIDENT ELECT. COMPACT: POPULAR VOTE
3:34:57 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 175, "An Act ratifying an interstate
compact to elect the President and Vice-President of the United
States by national popular vote; and making related changes to
statutes applicable to the selection by voters of electors for
candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States
and to the duties of those electors."
3:35:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZACH FANSLER, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 175, expressed his belief that HB 175, the
National Popular Vote bill, offers an opportunity for discussion
on the meaning of a vote and on having one's vote count. He
stated that HB 175 would give Alaska more attention on the
national level, not just regarding media coverage [in a
political campaign] but on a campaign's organization and focus
on issues relevant to Alaska. He maintained that National
Popular Vote would increase the attention paid to all 50 states
rather than just the "swing" states. He explained that HB 175
would preserve Alaska's right to determine how its electoral
votes are allocated, and Alaska could withdraw from the [U.S.
Presidential Election Compact] at any time. He asserted that
[National Popular Vote] would be a good way to increase
investment in the state and to have Alaska's issues be heard.
He asserted that it is important for a "sitting" President to
continue to be engaged with Alaska, and National Popular Vote
would encourage that.
3:40:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the United States was the only
country with a democracy using the Electoral College.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER replied that he is not aware of another
country that does so but would provide that information.
3:40:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP opined that National Popular Vote would do
exactly the opposite of "making our voices heard." He expressed
his belief that Alaska's delegates should vote according to the
vote of the majority of the state and not according to the
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact ("the compact"). He
asserted that he has issues with the concept of National Popular
Vote and asked how Alaska's voices would be heard [under
National Popular Vote].
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER expressed his belief that winning the
presidential election by popular vote introduces a 50-state
campaign as opposed to a 12-state, 8-state, or 4-state campaign
as currently occurs. He maintained that under this system, a
presidential candidate would talk to small states about issues
important to them, because he/she would need to "cobble
together" the small states to achieve the popular vote majority.
He added that this system would also increase voter turnout,
which is typically very low. He stated that a voter who is not
aligned politically with the majority of his/her state may feel
as if his/her vote does not count. He asserted that with
National Popular Vote, all voters are "on a level playing
field," and each vote would matter a great deal.
3:44:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked for an explanation of the compact and
the threshold needed to make it "functional."
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER responded that states have already joined
the pact, and if HB 175 were passed, Alaska would join the pact.
He said that the pact takes effect when there are 270 electoral
votes represented by the states in the pact. He conjectured
that once enough states have signed on to the pact to break the
270-electoral vote threshold, there will be momentum for the
other states to join. He conceded that some states may wish to
preserve the system as is. He maintained that in either case,
it is an important discussion.
3:46:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that his constituents have indicated
to him that National Popular Vote is bad for Alaska. He opined
that it is bad for Alaska because under National Popular Vote
the current President would not have been elected, which would
have been bad for Alaska. He emphasized the importance of
states' rights and every state having the same number of U.S.
Senators irrespective of population. He suggested that Alaska
would be "lost in the noise" when included with large states
such as California, New York, Florida, and Texas. He asserted
that Alaska has three electoral votes under a "winner-take-all"
system, which makes Alaska a part of the election process under
an established constitutional process.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER responded that National Popular Vote in
no way affects representation in Congress or allocation of U.S.
Senators. He relayed that he was hesitant to introduce HB 175,
because he did not want it to be viewed as a partisan bill. He
asserted that HB 175 was not intended to be a response to the
recent presidential election. He said that HB 175 has been
introduced and heard multiple times; there is no intent to add
to the current "charged" political climate through the proposed
legislation. He asserted that the positive aspect of the
compact is that it does allow Alaska to retain its rights as a
state; Alaska may determine whether to join the compact and may
withdraw from the compact later upon deciding that it is not
best for Alaska.
3:51:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why states would join a compact to
change the electoral process rather than changing the process
through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER agreed that there could be a
constitutional amendment to change the electoral process;
however, it would be difficult and may turn out to be
undesirable. He maintained that the proposed legislation
provides Alaska the flexibility to revert to the Electoral
College system if it wishes, without going through the lengthy
repeal process.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if there have been any compacts that
effectively repealed a provision of the U.S.
Constitution and if there are any legal opinions to support
repealing a provision of the U.S. Constitution in this way.
3:54:41 PM
JOHN KOZA, Chair, National Popular Vote, stated that the U.S.
Constitution does not contain the winner-take-all rule, but in
Article II, gives the state the exclusive power to decide how to
award its electoral votes. He relayed that the Constitutional
Convention never debated the winner-take-all rule that exists in
Alaska and 47 other states. He said only three states used the
rule in the first presidential election in 1789, and all three
repealed it by 1800. He mentioned that the rule became
prominent by 1880 - long after the U.S. Constitution was
written, and the Founding Fathers had died. He stated that the
method by which a state awards its electoral votes can be
changed without a constitutional amendment for the simple reason
that all the states that currently have the winner-take-all rule
adopted it without a federal constitutional amendment.
3:56:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed her belief that the Founding
Fathers considered this same issue when they stated that a pure
democracy is dangerous, and the United States was to be a
representational republic. She asked Representative Fansler,
"How do you think it's different now than what our Founding
Fathers envisioned?"
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER stated his belief that the
representational form of government cited by the Founding
Fathers refers to the way the U.S. Congress is configured. He
offered that when the Founding Fathers spoke in opposition to a
pure democracy, they were referring to their opposition to a
vote taken on every issue and not to the Electoral College. He
maintained that the most dramatic changes since the time of the
Founding Fathers have been the ease of travel and communication.
He opined that recognition of the limitations of the times was
part of the reason for the Electoral College. He relayed that
the electoral system has changed over time; it is an evolving
system; and National Popular Vote represents another step in
that evolution. He asserted that there are many ways the
electoral system could evolve; currently not all states follow
the winner-take-all rule; and the beauty of the system is that
it allows the wide latitude for state power.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed her belief that the statement
of the Founding Fathers, which she cited, speaks to the
Electoral College as a way of equalizing the vote between a
sparsely populated state and a heavily populated state. She
opined that National Popular Vote would be terrible for Alaska
and goes against the idea of equal representation.
4:00:32 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 175.
4:01:00 PM
BARRY DONNELLAN testified that he supports the Electoral
College, and he believes the Electoral College was originally
conceived to give states of small population a say in the
election of the President. He mentioned that the four most
populous states - New York, California, Texas, and Florida -
could control the outcome of the election, and Alaska would have
no "practical say in the matter." He offered that the Electoral
College provides a "safety valve" against people of the United
States "doing something really stupid," such as electing a
charismatic candidate promising a million dollars to everyone.
He maintained that in that case, the Electoral College could
overrule the vote. He opined that the proposed legislation
would emasculate this safety valve. He stated his belief that
HB 175 is a bad idea, and if it passes, Alaska should save money
and opt out of federal elections.
4:03:19 PM
ROBIN SMITH testified that James Madison acknowledged that
although the election of the President and Vice President by
popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get a
consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the
South. She relayed that the Electoral College was created
partly to resolve the problem of counting slaves in the
population of a state. She opined that the Electoral College is
an archaic system; when the U.S. educates and encourages
democracy in other countries, it never recommends the creation
of an electoral college. She asserted that just as the United
States has "grown" to embrace the logic that all races and women
have a right to vote, it is time to end the Electoral College
process.
MS. SMITH mentioned that a 2007 poll found that 72 percent of
Americans support replacing the Electoral College with a "direct
election": 78 percent of Democrats; 60 percent of Republicans;
and 73 percent of independent voters. She said that Gallop
polls dating back to 1944 have shown that a consistent majority
of the public supports a direct vote; however, support decreased
significantly in the poll conducted a few weeks after the 2016
election. She attested that these results should be ignored
because it had become a partisan issue. She said that history
tells us that Americans want [a direct vote].
MS. SMITH stated that [a popular vote] equalizes voting power.
She maintained that she resents that the votes of some people
count more than her vote. She said that currently only two
states have their Electoral College cast votes proportionally,
and Alaska is not one of them. She attested that her vote is
not important, because she is in the minority; because the
Republican presidential candidate will get Alaska's vote, she
has no reason to vote. She maintained that [a popular vote]
would increase voter participation. She encouraged the
committee to support HB 175.
4:06:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP mentioned that Ms. Smith spoke to her
support of the popular vote but not to joining the compact as
prescribed in HB 175. He suggested that in the event of Alaska
joining the compact, Ms. Smith's voice still would not be heard,
and Alaska would be giving up its rights. He maintained that
the proposed legislation would not attain the popular vote that
she supports.
MS. SMITH said that she disagrees. She offered that since she
is a Democrat in a Republican state, her vote currently does not
count. She suggested that the concept behind the proposed
legislation is not just for Alaska to join the compact but to
get all the states to join the compact, which would be easier
than amending the U.S. Constitution.
4:08:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX gave the following scenario: Alaska
joined the compact; the popular vote went for the Republican
[presidential] candidate; that candidate got at least 270
electoral votes; and Ms. Smith voted for the Democratic
candidate. She said, "I don't understand why you would feel
like your vote would count then."
MS. SMITH stated that the goal is for all states to join the
compact, and as a result, whomever got the popular vote would be
elected President. She said that her vote would be counted in
as far as the Electoral College vote would reflect the popular
vote.
4:09:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed his belief that when HB 175 was
presented, it was not explained thoroughly enough for the public
to understand what the compact does and how it, in effect,
becomes a de facto popular vote. He suggested that some people
feel that their votes do not count because currently the popular
vote is irrelevant and does not determine who becomes President.
The President is determined by who get the most electoral votes.
He said that if enough states join the compact so that the
combined electoral votes equal 270 or more, then all the states
in the compact would cast their electoral votes for the
candidate winning the popular vote. The candidate would be
elected by electoral votes, but those votes would be "triggered"
by the popular vote. He asserted that for Ms. Smith, the
compact would allow her vote to be counted through the results
of the popular vote. He mentioned that until the 270-electoral
vote threshold is reached through states joining the compact,
the compact is meaningless.
4:12:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH commented that under the Electoral College,
all votes are counted, and they do count.
4:12:57 PM
RICHARD EMANUEL testified that he understands that the Electoral
College gives the small states a marginal advantage over
representation strictly by population. He said that the role of
the Electoral College is to vote for "wise electors" to provide
a "safety valve" against an unwise choice by the voters. He
asserted that the Electoral College does not function this way.
He stated that currently 24 states place limits on the ability
of electors to vote their consciences; they are threatened with
fines or criminal penalties if they vote against the party that
put them on the ballot. He expressed his belief that the
"safety valve" function does not work anymore.
MR. EMANUEL said that it is undeniable that presidential
elections currently focus on swing states at the expense of most
Americans. He mentioned that he has never seen a presidential
candidate campaign in Alaska except for a stop in Anchorage or
Juneau to claim that he/she campaigned in all 50 states. He
attested that even the larger states tend to be ignored if they
are solidly "red" or solidly "blue." He stated that under the
proposed legislation, every vote will be equal no matter where a
person lives. He asserted that his vote, cast in Alaska, would
count the same as a vote cast in Florida, Ohio, Iowa, or
California.
MR. EMANUAL attested that every other election in America is
determined by popular vote; mayors, assembly members, the
governor, and legislators are all elected by popular vote. He
asked, "Why should our President be elected by any other means?
What's wrong with democracy? Why shouldn't our President be
elected by a purely democratic system that counts every person's
vote as equal to every other person's, regardless of where they
live?"
MR. EMANUAL asserted that the proposed legislation does not
represent a red or blue issue. He said if some individual lives
in a solidly red state, such as Alaska, or in a solidly blue
state, such as California, that individual will be given short
shrift by presidential campaigns. He mentioned that the
attention given to California - a blue state - was
overwhelmingly for fundraising. He maintained that the vote of
a "red" voter in California did not count. All [California's]
electors cast their votes for a candidate other than the one
those red voters supported. He asserted that an Alaskan who
supports a Republican [presidential] candidate may feel that the
Electoral College functions in his/her favor, but he attested
that politics runs in cycles and past performance is not a
guarantee for future results. He claimed that one should not
oppose HB 175 based on the politics of today.
4:16:35 PM
PAM TESCHE testified that HB 175 is good for Alaskans and
joining a compact with other states would be good for the
country. She stated that the Electoral College was introduced
because of equity issues. She added that she now believes that
with better transportation and communication of ideas, the
equity is now skewed, and the country should move to a "higher
level of experiencing our elections." She asserted that she
would like to see Alaska compete for votes on an honest level.
4:19:26 PM
CARLA STACY testified that she supports Alaska joining the
National Popular Vote compact. She said that there are ten
other states that have joined the compact for a combined total
of 165 electoral votes. She expressed her belief that the
intent of the compact is geared toward one person, one vote.
She stated that James Madison, a Founding Father of the U.S.
Constitution, said that the people at large were the fittest to
choose an executive and that he was never in favor of the
Electoral College. She attested that the Electoral College
system was a compromise to give the slave-owning states more
influence by counting a slave as three-fifths of a person in the
population count. She said, "The Electoral College really did
work for them, but it doesn't work for us anymore." She
maintained that the 200,000 registered voters of that day were
very different from the 200 million voters of today.
MS. STACY stated that Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist
Papers that the U.S. Constitution is designed to ensure the
office of President never falls to the lot of any man who is not
eminently endowed with the requisite qualifications. She opined
that the Electoral College failed the country in [the election
of] 2016 and four previous times. She maintained that the
popular vote should dictate who will be President with one
person, one vote.
4:21:56 PM
BETH FREAD testified that she believes that the Electoral
College was formed so that the votes of small states will be
counted. She stated that she does not support Alaska joining
the compact or eliminating the Electoral College. She
maintained that the present system gives Alaska power and a real
voice. She added that she does not believe that her vote would
count more in a popular vote system. She urged the committee
not to support HB 175.
4:25:08 PM
MIKE COONS testified that the "interstate compact" that would be
ratified by HB 175 is in violation of Article I, Section 10,
Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. He relayed that this clause
states in part, "No state shall, without the consent of
Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with any other
state." He stated that he knows the Democratic Party is not
above disregarding the law and believes that the (indisc.) in
the living, breathing [U.S.] Constitution. He added that even
if this terrible piece of legislation was to pass, the U.S.
Congress would not allow the result [of the proposed
legislation] because of Article I, Section 10, Clause 3. He
asserted that the Electoral College is in the Twelfth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution, and although the Democrats like to
violate the U.S. Constitution as it suits them, to change the
Twelfth Amendment does still require the use of Article V of the
U.S. Constitution, which the proposed legislation clearly does
not. He said [changing the U.S. Constitution] would require the
Democratic members who supported the change to persuade the U.S.
Congress to pass an amendment and to persuade 38 individual
states to ratify it. He opined that the Democratic Party does
not believe it must follow the U.S. Constitution or the law,
(indisc.) by the many violations of law (indisc.) the Democratic
Party and its anarchist supporters have performed since
President Donald Trump was lawfully elected, within the confines
of the U.S. Constitution. He urged committee members to uphold
their oaths of office and vote "no" on HB 175.
4:28:42 PM
PAUL KENDALL testified that due to the potential for fraud [in
the presidential election], [a state] must be vigilant. He
suggested that Alaska have "credit card-like" voting, which
would be as simple as buying something in a store. He
maintained that because the voter fraud potential for the 2018
election is huge, each voter will need to be validated. He
expressed his belief that all political candidates should sign
affidavits of "promise and performances." He suggested that
each candidate answer 100 questions from the community so that
the public can discern who is lying. He maintained that
Governor Bill Walker betrayed Alaskans after his election. Mr.
Kendall shared concerns related to various other issues.
4:31:53 PM
ALEX KOPLIN, Kenai Peninsula Votes, testified that he represents
Kenai Peninsula Votes, a non-partisan organization that strives
to increase voter participation. He maintained that HB 175
would support the idea that Alaskans' votes do count in national
elections and would encourage more people to vote. He asserted
that the proposed legislation would allow candidates to be more
transparent and to become more familiar with all 50 states and
their issues. He opined that the National Popular Vote movement
in Alaska is a "positive direction" for the state.
4:32:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked Mr. Koplin if he was aware that the
objective of HB 175 is for Alaska to cast its electoral votes
according to the [national] popular vote.
MR. KOPLIN answered that he is aware of that but believes that
Alaska has many disenfranchised voters, who are not energized to
vote. He mentioned that Alaska has good voter turnout - about
60 percent voted in the last election. He maintained that more
voters are needed to make the election process effective.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked Mr. Koplin if he read HB 175.
MR. KOPLIN responded yes. He said he has looked at the proposed
legislation, the sectional analysis, and the legal opinion. He
asserted that there would be no extra cost to the state. He
opined that there is validity in the arguments presented
regarding Article I of the U.S. Constitution, but he maintained
that the electoral system is antiquated, and more people need to
be involved in the election process. He said that regardless of
partisan politics, he supports legislation that encourages more
voter participation.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he is troubled by a compact in
which all the state's electoral votes are awarded to the
presidential candidate who wins the popular vote nationally. He
asserted that the popular vote in Alaska could be overwhelmingly
for another candidate. He asked if that scenario concerned Mr.
Koplin.
MR. KOPLIN asserted that he is more in favor of a constitutional
amendment. He offered that using the popular vote to determine
the President and the Vice President would be a significant
stride forward. He added that he didn't know if the compact
would accomplish that but believes that it is "leaning toward
that direction."
4:36:38 PM
EILEEN BECKER testified that she believes enacting HB 175 for a
trial period would create a mess. She expressed her belief that
under the proposed legislation, Alaska would give up all its
sovereign rights. She maintained that the election process is a
"very involved statewide activity." She stated that [ten states
and the District of Columbia] have joined the compact,
representing a total of 165 electoral votes. She asserted that
as more people learn about this compact, they will realize the
mess that it will create nationwide. She offered that several
populous states would control the election and Alaska would be
"nothing." She stated that Alaska needs to "keep" its three
[electoral] votes in tact; the National Popular Vote is
unneeded; and it is a nationwide effort supported by Democratic
legislatures. She said that the Electoral College has worked
for over two [centuries] and will continue to do so. She opined
that this effort is motivated by Democrats' hatred for President
Donald Trump.
4:39:09 PM
JANET GOEHRINGER testified that the Founding Fathers established
the U.S. Constitution and set the guidelines for the governance
of the country for the benefit of all Americans. She stated
that the guidelines of the Electoral College ensure fair
elections. She relayed that she is against the National Popular
Vote. She maintained that it is an effort by Democrats to win
the election through the popular vote, since large areas of the
country are liberal. She said that she is a conservative; she
does not want what liberals want; and through the Electoral
College, the country got what it needed, which was President
Donald Trump. She urged the committee not to pass HB 175.
4:40:35 PM
KESHA ETZWILER testified that she vehemently opposes HB 175.
She stated, "The Electoral College has been woven into the
fabric of this country for a reason, and our votes do count."
She maintained that the country's forefathers designed the
election process to ensure that certain states, populations, and
policies don't dictate to the rest of the country. She asserted
that HB 175 is a "knee jerk" reaction to an outcome of an
election that dissatisfied some people. She maintained that
initially electors were harassed to cast their votes for the
popular vote, and now compacts are being made instead of "doing
the work" it takes to amend the U.S. Constitution.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS mentioned that he introduced legislation
identical to HB 175 last year, which was before the 2016
election. He suggested that there may be some motivation for
the proposed legislation independent of the outcome of the
recent election.
4:42:08 PM
BRANDY SUPER testified that she is opposed to HB 175. She
maintained that the idea that Alaskan voices would be heard by
changing the election process is a fallacy. She asserted that
under National Popular Vote, the small, rural states such as
Pennsylvania and Alaska would "lose their voices" and the larger
states such as Hawaii, California, and New York would have
"bigger" voices. She stated that she is disappointed that HB
175 was introduced.
4:43:31 PM
MARIANNE SCHLEGELMILCH expressed her belief that the proposed
legislation represents a partisan issue being spearheaded by the
losing party in the last presidential election. She stated that
she opposes all attempts to alter or bypass the U.S.
Constitution, including the attempt to "work around the
Electoral College," which has served the country well for 200
years. She opined that the popular vote is subject to
manipulation and corrupt intervention. She expressed her belief
that HB 175 is intended to bypass "our wisely written" U.S.
Constitution and should not be considered. She concluded that
Alaska should not join the compact.
4:44:31 PM
AMY BOLLENBACH testified that the first election in which she
voted was the [1960] election between Richard Nixon and John F.
Kennedy. She stated that there was electoral fraud in Chicago
in that election. She mentioned that she had voted for Nixon,
and she was bothered by the disagreement between the popular
vote and the Electoral College vote. She stated that in every
civil government election besides the federal election, the
majority wins. She said that when she taught parliamentary
procedure to seventh graders, her students would not have
accepted it if she had told them that only two or three of the
best students would be allowed to vote. She relayed that she
supports HB 175, and the purpose of the proposed legislation is
to allow the popular vote of the nation to decide who will be
President.
4:47:13 PM
PAMELA HALL testified that she is opposed to HB 175. She stated
that without the Electoral College, Alaskan voters would not be
counted. She asserted that the big population states should not
elect the President, and Alaska would lose its "voice." She
maintained that currently there is a great deal of voter fraud,
and Alaska has nothing in common with the states that have
joined the compact. She stated that she has no idea "why we
would give up our vote and let them be deciding these things for
us." She opined that the Alaska politicians need to "get back
to doing the business of this state and quit worrying about what
is happening in California, New York, et cetera."
4:48:25 PM
SARAH VANCE testified that she is opposed to HB 175 because it
is unconstitutional and because it is "mired in confusion." She
maintained that it is not "good government" to pass a bill that
is unclear on how it would be executed. She expressed her
belief that Alaska needs to stand on its own, it does have a
voice, and its voice counts. She said she supports a more
accountable media - one that announces the winner of the
presidential election after Alaska voters cast their votes. She
maintained that investors in Alaska are looking for stability,
and although it was said that HB 175 proposes flexibility, she
maintained it would create instability. She said that the
ability of Alaska to withdraw from the compact at any time would
create confusion with the voters and would demonstrate that
Alaska is "double-minded" in government and state operations.
She asserted that would be a bad message for investors who are
looking to do business in Alaska. She opined that the compact
would not give Alaska more attention during the presidential
campaign; Alaska would be grouped with other states and lose its
voice. She asserted that Alaska currently is "noticed" and has
a voice.
4:50:28 PM
IAN SMITH, Young Democrats House District 30, testified that
many people conclude that the current electoral system is good
because it benefits them now. He expressed his belief that "all
men are created equal," and an Alaskan should not have three
times as much voting power as a Californian.
4:51:53 PM
MALENA MARVIN testified that the National Popular Vote movement
is a bipartisan movement. She mentioned that Newt Gingrich was
one of the original supporters of the concept, and he said,
"America would be better served with a presidential election
process that treated all citizens across the country equally.
The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner
consistent with the [U.S.] Constitution and with our fundamental
democratic principles." She stated that she agrees with his
statement; she is a patriot who loves and believes in America;
and she believes in a one-person, one-vote democracy. She
maintained that the public needs to separate the process from
their party affiliation. She relayed that President Donald
Trump is on record as supporting National Popular Vote, and in
2012, he said that the Electoral College is a disaster for
democracy. She related that when asked about this after the
election, he said, "I'm not going to change my mind just because
I won," and he added that he thinks that the current system
gives the American voters the impression that the system is
rigged, which is not good for anyone.
MS. MARVIN relayed that spending time [in the lower 48] for
medical reasons this winter caused her to think about her vote
being worth less if she moved from Alaska for any reason. She
maintained it would not be right. She noted that the National
Popular Vote movement was not started in response to any
presidential election but was started quite some time ago. She
added that [ten states and the District of Columbia] have passed
National Popular Vote legislation, including four small states,
representing 165 electoral votes or 61 percent of the number
required for winning the election. She expressed her belief
that this total will be achieved, and Alaska could choose to be
a part of the movement or "left out in the cold." She stated
that she supports HB 175, and she supports candidates
campaigning in all 50 states.
4:55:19 PM
PATRICK RACE reiterated that President Trump has opposed the
Electoral College. Mr. Race encouraged the enthusiastic
supporters of the President to follow the lead of the President
on this issue. Mr. Race explained that the electoral vote of a
state reflects the popular vote; however, an Electoral College
member can "follow his conscience" and vote differently than the
popular vote. He relayed an incident regarding an Electoral
College member in Colorado named Michael Baca: Mr. Baca
organized a group of "Hamilton electors" to find a "compromise
candidate." He was obligated to vote for presidential candidate
Hillary Clinton because she won the popular vote in Colorado,
but he cast his electoral vote for presidential candidate John
Kasich. Mr. Baca consequently was removed from the Colorado
Electoral College; his vote was rescinded; and he was replaced
by someone who would vote for Hillary Clinton. Mr. Race opined
that the system is broken and needs to be addressed. He stated
his belief that the Electoral College has many problems, some of
which have been cited in the hearing.
MR. RACE maintained that the Electoral College was not created
to overcome the rural urban divide, as has been stated, because
at that time in history, "rural" and "urban" were not clear
concepts; New York City had 25,000 people. He declared that the
proposed legislation does not represent a new, partisan effort,
since National Popular Vote was introduced by Senate Bill 39 in
the Twenty-Seventh Alaska State Legislature, 2011-2012 - well
before the 2016 election. He stated that a 1968 Gallup Poll
revealed that 80 percent of the nation supported abolishing the
Electoral College. He urged the committee not to consider the
proposed legislation a partisan effort but to assess whether the
Electoral College is functioning as it was intended.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the incident regarding Mr. Baca.
He asked if an Electoral College member could still vote his/her
conscience if in a state that joined the compact. He suggested
that maybe the Electoral College member should be obligated to
vote as the popular vote dictated.
MR. RACE stated that the proposed legislation uses the concept
of "bound" Electoral College members to carry out its goal of
enforcing National Popular Vote. He asserted that through the
proposed legislation, the idea of bound Electoral College
members would be tested. He stated that if committee members
believe that Electoral College members should not be bound, they
should support HB 175, because it would test this practice. He
mentioned that Electoral College members are given the name of
only one candidate; a member could cross that name out and vote
his/her conscience as Mr. Baca did. Mr. Race said that Mr. Baca
may be fined or imprisoned because there are laws in place that
obligate Electoral College members to follow the will of the
voters in a state. He stated that through National Popular
Vote, the Electoral College member would be obligated to vote
for the winner of the popular vote. He stated that the question
is whether a state can "bind" an elector. He opined that if a
state cannot bind an elector, that is a win; if it can bind an
elector, then it can bind that elector to vote for the popular
vote.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that if you cannot bind an elector,
then the compact is worthless. He said that the compact is
based on the electors being obliged to vote for the winner of
the popular vote.
MR. RACE responded that currently a state can bind its electors.
He suggested that someone opposing the National Popular Vote
movement would most likely contest it based on the idea that
electors cannot be obligated to vote a certain way. If that
attack were successful, it would "blow up" the idea of binding
Electoral College members. Mr. Race opined that binding
Electoral College members is a travesty. He cited the writings
of Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers, which states
that the Electoral College was created to protect the country
from electing a populist who is skilled in the low arts of
popular intrigue. He relayed that the Founding Fathers were
terrified when embarking on the experiment [of democracy]; it
gave much power to the people. He said the Founding Fathers
wanted a layer of protection. He attested that the Electoral
College members were to consider the vote of the people, ensure
the selection was acceptable, and cast their votes accordingly.
The electors acted as a failsafe in case a really "bad"
candidate won the popular vote.
5:03:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP agreed that currently the electors are
bound, but they are bound to vote according to the results of
the popular vote in a state. He asked if Mr. Race felt it was
appropriate that electors be bound according to the results of
the popular vote nationally, regardless of how the people of the
state vote.
MR. RACE responded that Representative Knopp is asking a
fundamental question: Do you want to have every citizen vote
for the President, or do you want a small collection of state
representatives to vote for the President?
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP suggested that Alaskans would not be
represented if the electors voted for a different candidate than
chosen by the majority of Alaskan voters. He stated that he
does not disagree with the statement made about the popular
vote, but he believes that the National Popular Vote compact
would not support representation.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH cited Article 1, Section 10, of the U.S.
Constitution, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,
lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of
Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,
or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually
invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
He stated that he did not believe that casting Alaska's
Electoral College votes for the candidate who won the national
popular vote, regardless of who won Alaska's popular vote, was
an improvement.
MR. RACE responded that the fundamental question is: Do you
want every vote to count in the election for President, or do
you want this "funky" Electoral College system to be the vote
that is used to determine the President? He added that most
Alaskan voters are independent, non-partisan voters. He asked,
"Who votes for the Electoral College, if an independent or non-
partisan is ... elected president in Alaska? How does that work
under your system?"
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH responded that the number of electoral
votes is prescribed by the U.S. Constitution as are the number
of elected representatives a state has in Congress. He conceded
that representation is disproportionate; Alaska gets way more
votes [per population] than other states. He offered that this
system is in the State of Alaska's collective interest, and
votes are cast as winner-takes-all.
MR. RACE offered that if a non-partisan candidate won Alaska's
votes, he does not know who would cast the Electoral College
votes on behalf of the non-partisan candidate. He asked, "How
does the Electoral College serve the majority of Alaska voters?"
5:07:59 PM
MARGO WARING testified that she believes in democracy and that
the country has been moving toward increased democracy. She
cited passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution on
women's suffrage as an example. She mentioned that in 1963,
Senators were elected by legislatures. In 1964, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds v. Sims to have one person, one
vote. She opined that is what is needed to elect a President -
one person, one vote. She maintained that the only way to
achieve that is to count every vote and to have every vote count
equally.
MS. WARING stated that great discrepancies between the popular
vote and the Electoral College vote - as has been experienced by
the country in five elections - only engenders questions about
"the legitimacy of our President and the legitimacy of our
democracy, and distrust for government.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his belief that the direct
election of U.S. Senators came about through the 17th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution in the early 1700s.
MS. WARING stated her understanding that in the Reynolds v. Sims
ruling of 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court made the statement that
the election of U.S. Senators had to be by direct popular vote.
5:10:57 PM
JUDY ANDREE, League of Women Voters (LWV) of Alaska, testified
that the League of Women Voters of the United States, under
which state leagues preside, supports the use of the popular
vote in the election of the President and the Vice-President.
She maintained that the league made the decision to support it
in 1970 after two years of studying the pros and the cons of the
issue. She stated that two of the "misaligned" elections
mentioned by Ms. Waring occurred in the last eight elections.
She added that there is a trend toward "non-landslide" election
results and suggested that there will be more elections in the
future in which the popular vote does not match the Electoral
College vote. She reiterated that such results bring to
question the legitimacy of the person elected. She mentioned
that in the last election, 48.8 percent of the votes in Alaska
stopped at the state line and "no longer existed for any
meaningful purpose." She concluded that all the [state] LWVs
encourage passage of HB 175.
5:14:14 PM
BEN MUSE testified that he supports a system in which all votes
count equally. He maintained that American democracy has been
changing over the years; the Electoral College is not what is
was in 1790 and doesn't function the way it was anticipated by
Mr. Hamilton. He mentioned that there have been many other
changes in the direction of more democracy: there are no
property qualifications for being eligible to vote; women can
vote; and there are more elaborate primary systems with more
individual input for selection of candidates. He reiterated
that earlier in the country's history, U.S. Senators were
elected by state legislators and not by popular vote. He
asserted that he does not see a strong benefit for Alaska, as a
small state, under the existing Electoral College. Alaska has
three out of a total of 535 electoral votes, or one-half of one
percent. He suggested that the small states together constitute
about eight percent of the Electoral College votes, and those
small states differ from each other greatly in interests,
industry, and politics.
5:17:06 PM
ALAN DAVIS testified that currently his vote does not count
because when two-thirds of the population vote Republican, his
vote as a Democrat is disregarded by the Electoral College. He
maintained that the Electoral College disenfranchises him, and
it disenfranchised the majority of the voters in the country in
the last election. He expressed his belief that it is wrong.
He asserted that a constitutional amendment to the U.S.
Constitution will not occur because the two major political
parties have a vested interest in keeping the current system;
they only must concentrate on a small number of states rather
than conducting a true nationwide campaign. He stated that
Alaska has the indignity of the election being called before its
election polls are closed. He maintained that National Popular
Vote would allow his vote to be tallied and to influence the
election, which currently does not occur.
5:19:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that the United States has the
steadiest, longest standing political system in the world. She
asked why Mr. Davis would want to destabilize that system.
MR. DAVIS responded that it is already destabilized; the
Electoral College overrode the popular vote in the last
election. He maintained that "fixing" that problem is not
destabilizing the country. He asserted that the current system
is destabilizing the country, encouraging people not to vote
because they know their vote does not count.
5:20:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked how the proposed legislation fixes
the problem. He said that under National Popular Vote, Mr.
Davis's vote would count if he votes in the majority. He asked,
"If you do not vote in the majority, how does your vote count?"
MR. DAVIS responded that his vote would be part of the tally of
votes. He stated that currently it is not.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP suggested that Mr. Davis's vote is counted
in the state vote.
MR. DAVIS answered, "I don't care about the state election.
We're talking about a national election. My vote goes into a
particular category in the national vote."
5:21:02 PM
KARLA HART testified that Alaska has only three electoral votes
regardless of the voter participation. She suggested that under
National Popular Vote, Alaska's vote would be more significant
in a close election and Alaskans would feel that their votes
meant more; therefore, there would be a positive effect on a
"get out the vote" campaign.
5:22:57 PM
WILLIAM DEATON testified that he opposes HB 175 because he
believes the Electoral College works and people who testified
that their votes don't count are misinformed about how it works.
He stated that the popular vote in Alaska determines the
electors. He added that people who testify that their votes do
not count are doing so because they are Democrats. He stated
that those people could move to a Democratic state if they want
their votes to go to a Democrat but that their votes still go to
a Democrat even in Alaska. He maintained that under National
Popular Vote, Alaska's electors may have to vote differently
from Alaska's popular vote. He opined that this is wrong. He
asserted that HB 175 is a very bad bill, and he urged the
committee not to vote it out of committee.
5:25:14 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, after ascertaining that there was no one
else who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 175.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 175 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 143 Sponsor Statement 3.1.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB0143A 3.1.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143 Fiscal Note 3.22.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143-Dan Fauske 2016 3.1.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143-Dan Fauske Bio April 2015 3.1.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| Chapter 35.40 Statutes 3.1.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143-Support-Rose 3.1.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143-Support-Welterlen 3.1.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143-Support-Tracey 3.1.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB143-Support-Urbina.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143-Support-Bitney 3.1.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143-Support-Curzie 3.1.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 175 Letters of Opposition 3.22.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB 175 Letters of Support 3.22.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB175 Letter of Support Kevin Powers 3.23.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/23/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |