Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/04/2001 10:52 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 193(JUD)
"An Act relating to the primary election and to the nomination
of candidates for the general election; and providing for an
effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COHGILL, JR. shared that he has been following
this bill since it was heard in the House State Affairs Committee,
which he chairs. He pointed out the most substantive change made to
the governor's original version of the bill is the insertion of "to
vote the party's ballot if the voter is permitted by the party's
bylaws" in Section 3, Subsection b on page 2, line 21 of the
committee substitute. He expressed this, "is really getting to the
heart of the issue."
Representative Coghill informed that the legislation requires that
each political party have a primary election ballot. He compared
the Senate Judiciary committee substitute to the House State
Affairs committee substitute and alluded to differences regarding
the inclusion of nonpartisan and undeclared party candidates.
Representative Coghill relayed that the issue of filing petitions
was raised in the Senate Judiciary Committee and pertinent language
is contained in Section 5 on beginning on page 3 of the Senate
Judiciary committee substitute. He pointed out the June 1 filing
date for candidacy and that the petition certification deadline is
the date of the primary election.
Representative Coghill expressed the reason he was presenting this
bill was due to a commitment he made to the House Judiciary
Committee chair.
Representative Coghill emphasized, "I really strongly believe…the
party should have the right to select its primary candidate through
the primary election selection process." He stated that this
committee substitute allows the political parties to chose their
candidates, and if they so choose, to invite those who are not
affiliated with their party. He said the version of the bill that
passed the House of Representative provided that the parties must
include the undeclared and nonpartisans unless that party
specifically chooses to exclude them.
Representative Coghill opined that this legislation should follow a
United States Supreme Court ruling on California Democratic Party
vs. Jones, giving the parties the right to chose whether undeclared
and nonpartisans are included. "However, I have to confess to you,"
he qualified, "that I know that my caucus, the other side of the
aisle, would much rather favor the mandated open to the 'U's and
'N's and let the parties exclude them if they so wish." He stressed
this is a policy call.
Representative Coghill again spoke to the United States Supreme
Court case, which resulted from an initiative pertaining to the
blanket primary, and where the court found that the blanket primary
is unconstitutional and "the right to association was given then,
to the parties."
Representative Coghill emphasized the Senate Finance Committee is
the last forum to determine whether the inclusion of undeclared and
nonpartisans is mandated or optional. He stated this is to
"protect the party's right to associate freely and put forth a
candidate that they so chose." He noted that the House State
Affairs committee substitute would also be acceptable because it
allows a political party to exclude.
Representative Coghill told how the political parties could be
required to submit their by-laws to the Division of Elections,
stating whether they would include the undeclared and nonpartisans.
He noted another option would be to default to exclusion unless the
political parties specified otherwise. He stressed that he wanted
the Senate Finance Committee to make this determination because he
understood that a closed ballot is "a major policy call in the
State of Alaska."
Representative Coghill commented that the blanket primary system
has not worked well for the political party system. He summarized,
"should we allow the parties to chose their own candidates?" He
pointed out that undeclared and nonpartisan comprise a large
portion of voters in the state. This legislation, he stated, would
require these voters to make a choice as to whether they wish to be
"involved in the party or lobby the party to allow them to vote on
their primary ballot." He remarked, "I think that's right. I think
that's proper."
Senator Wilken asked if the Senate Judiciary committee substitute
excludes undeclared and nonpartisan unless specifically allowed in
the political party's by-laws, and that a draft committee
substitute, prepared by the testifier, includes undeclared and
nonpartisan unless specifically excluded in the party's by-laws.
Representative Coghill affirmed.
Senator Wilken established that the draft committee substitute
contains similar language as the House State Affairs committee
substitute, which passed the House of Representatives.
Representative Coghill reaffirmed and noted the draft committee
substitute contains language from the Senate Judiciary committee
substitute pertaining to petitions for candidacy.
Senator Ward asked if a party could restrict a member of another
party from voting its ballot.
Representative Coghill affirmed.
Senator Hoffman asked how voters registered as undeclared or
nonpartisan would vote in the primary if the political parties
decided to exclude them. He predicted some would become angry if
they could not participate in the primary election.
Representative Coghill agreed and said this is a policy call. He
noted that undeclared and nonpartisan voters have had the
opportunity to choose candidates from political parties without
joining that party. He read from the Supreme Court ruling "the
voters desire to participate does not become more weighty simply
because the state supports it." He continued reading, "the voter
who feels himself disenfranchised should simply join the party that
may put him to a hard choice but it is not a state-imposed
restriction upon his freedom, of association that is… Whereas
compelling party members to accept the selection of nominees is a
state-imposed restriction upon theirs."
Senator Olson asked about instances where several candidates from
one party have filed, but few, if any have filed for another party.
He asked if there is a mechanism to address this.
Representative Coghill replied, "That's what the general election
process is all about." He stated that one party should have the
right to select from several candidates of its party even if there
are no other candidates outside that party
AVRUM GROSS testified in Juneau as chair of "a taskforce to rewrite
the state's primary laws after it became clear that the existing
law was unconstitutional." He listed the taskforce membership as
including all the former lieutenant governors of the state, both
Republican and Democrat, and two former Attorneys General. He
described the taskforce's charge to draft legislation addressing
the matter.
Mr. Gross detailed the issues was because Alaska had a blanket
primary, which he defined as one ballot containing all candidates
from all political parties and thus allowing voters to select a
candidate from any party for each office regardless of the voter's
party affiliation. He noted that the U.S. Supreme Court, in
California Democratic Party versus Jones, ruled that a party could
chose to restrict the people who could vote for its candidates in
the primary election. He informed there has to be a mechanism
whereby the state recognized the desire of the parties to limit the
people who could participate in selecting its candidates.
Mr. Gross relayed that the taskforce heard testimony from the
political parties, then drafted a law that was "as close to the
existing law as we could" and yet incorporate the Supreme Court
decision. The resulting legislation, he said, proposes a "modified
blanket primary law", which provides that a ballot lists all the
candidates from all the parties and was available to any voter
unless a party decided in its by-laws that it did not wish certain
people to participate in the selection of that party's candidates.
Mr. Gross detailed the taskforce's recommendation to have ballots
that contain the candidates from all parties not excluded by a
specific political party. He gave an example, saying if the
Democratic Party determined that members of the Republican Party
should not vote for their candidates, no Democratic candidates
would appear on the ballot available for Republican voters.
However, he continued, candidates from other political parties that
have not made such a decision with regard to the Republican Party,
would appear on the ballot available to Republican voters in
addition to the Republican candidates. He explained that all
ballots would contain candidates from all parties except for
ballots available to a party in which another party has determined
should not be allowed to vote for its candidates. In this manner,
he said, candidates from some parties could appear on more than one
ballot.
Mr. Gross surmised that this method recognizes the Supreme Court
case, by allowing parties to limit the people who vote for its
candidates. However, he pointed out, this does not prohibit people
from voting for candidates of different parties in some races if
that party allowed them to. He emphasized this retains the blanket
primary.
Mr. Gross expressed the taskforce's intent to encourage the maximum
amount of public participation in the primary election process to
the extent that parties do not prohibit it. He shared the
taskforce's understanding that the more races a voter is allowed to
participate in, the more encouraged they would be to vote in the
primary election.
Mr. Gross told the Committee that the version of the bill passed by
the House of Representatives is no longer a blanket primary.
Instead, he stated, the House State Affairs committee substitute
establishes a set of closed primaries, each party having its own
ballot. He pointed out that the only voters who can receive a
ballot are members of the political party or those who that party
has determined are allowed that ballot. He stressed that this
method does not allow nonpartisan and undeclared voters to
participate in different primary races. He explained that the only
candidates a nonpartisan or undeclared voter can chose are from the
one party included on the ballot. He added that this applies to all
races.
Mr. Gross noted the governor had no input in the original
legislation other than introducing what the taskforce drafted to
the legislature. He stated, "We thought a closed primary system
would really shut down the process and not encourage people to
participate." He remarked that even with the current blanket
primary system, voter participation has reduced and as a result,
"we were fundamentally opposed-and I mean Republicans and Democrats
alike on this commission, this isn't a partisan effort- to setting
up a closed primary. That was the universal view of the
commission."
Mr. Gross asserted the House State Affairs committee substitute is
a "seriously restricted bill. It changes the primary system of
Alaska radically." He stated it is, "giving parties control over
the system; control not mandated by the Supreme Court." In
addition, he said, "This is a totally different concept." He
expressed that besides affecting voter participation, "in the end
the state sets up the process by which candidates are nominated for
the general election. If the state sets it up, it should allow, it
seems to me, the maximum number of citizens to participate in that
process." He remarked that the committee substitute instead
minimizes citizen participation by discouraging their participation
in the primary system. He stated, "You can do this in the name of
partisan politics if you want, but at the same time, the voters
don't have any other way to make their views known."
Mr. Gross pointed out that over sixty percent of the voters in
Alaska are not registered to a political party. He stressed that
the task force objected to a primary system directed only for
political parties, and that encourages voters to join parties they
otherwise do not want to join.
Senator Austerman referenced language inserted to Section 6, on
page 4, line 31 and page 5, lines 1 and 2 of the Senate Judiciary
committee substitute. This language reads as follows.
(17) if the candidacy is for the office of the
governor, the name of the candidate for lieutenant governor
running jointly with the candidate for governor.
New Text Underlined
Senator Austerman asked the witness to comment on this language.
Mr. Gross replied that the taskforce never addressed this matter.
Representative Coghill noted this was not included in earlier
versions of the bill and that he had no knowledge of any
discussions on the matter. He explained the language relates to
provisions for a candidate seeking nomination by petition and
stipulates that a gubernatorial and lieutenant governor candidate
are listed together on a filing petition.
Senator Ward asked if undeclared and nonpartisan voter could vote
any ballot under this bill.
Representative Coghill responded that the parties would chose which
voters could receive a ballot containing that party's candidates.
Senator Wilken asked which version of the bill Mr. Gross supports.
Mr. Gross responded he supports the original bill that was
introduced by the governor in the House of Representatives, which
he pointed out is completely different than any version here.
Co-Chair Kelly ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|