Legislature(2011 - 2012)SENATE FINANCE 532
01/25/2012 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB39 | |
| HB121 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 39
"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."
9:03:27 AM
LISA WEISSLER, STAFF, SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, explained SB
39. She referred to the Sponsor Statement (copy on file).
She stated that the bedrock rule in elections was that the
person with the most votes wins, but that was not always
the case under the current election system. She stated that
the United States Constitution directed each state to
appoint a number of electors equal to the state's number of
senators and representatives. In Alaska, that was three
electors. She stated that the constitution allowed the
states to determine how the electors would be appointed.
Co-Chair Hoffman remarked that there was a belief that the
bill would eliminate the Electoral College. He wondered if
that was true. Ms. Weissler replied that SB 39 would not
eliminate the Electoral College.
Co-Chair Hoffman wondered how many people in Alaska support
SB 39. Ms. Weissler agreed to provide that information.
Senator Olson queried the similarity between a bill that
was introduced a few years prior and SB 39. Ms. Weissler
replied that they were very similar.
9:09:46 AM
LAURA BROD, FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE, MINNESOTA,
testified in support of SB 39. She communicated that she
was involved in similar legislation as a state
representative in Minnesota. She stated that SB 39 would
guarantee the presidency of the United States to the
candidate who received the most votes in the entire United
States. The bill ensured that every vote, in every state,
would matter in every presidential election. She explained
that the bill had been enacted by nine jurisdictions that
possessed 132 electoral votes - 49 percent of the 270
necessary to activate it (VT, MD, WA, IL, NJ, DC, MA CA,
and HI). She furthered that the bill had passed 31
legislative chambers in 21 jurisdictions (AR, CA, CO, DT,
DC, DE, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MI, NV, NJ, DM, NY, NC, OR, RI,
VT, and WA). In a recent 47 to 13 vote, in the republican-
controlled New York Senate, republicans supported the bill
21 to 11, and democrats supported in 26 to 2. The bill had
been endorsed by 2,124 state legislators.
Ms. Brod stated that the shortcomings of the currents
system stemmed from the state winner-take-all statutes,
which award all of a state's electoral votes to the
candidate who received the most popular votes in each
state. The sinner-take-all rule had permitted candidates to
win the presidency without winning the most popular votes
nationwide in 4 of our 56 elections. A shift of 60,000
votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected Kerry despite
Bush's nationwide lead of 3 million. She explained that
another shortcoming of the winner-take-all rule was that
presidential candidates had no reason to pay attention to
the concerns of voters in states where they are comfortably
ahead or hopelessly behind. In 2004 and 2008, candidates
concentrated two-thirds of their visits and ad money in the
post-convention campaign in just six closely divided
battleground states, with 98 percent going to just 15
states. She stressed that two thirds of the states were
ignored.
Ms. Brod declared that Article II, Section 1 of the United
States Constitution gave the states exclusive control over
the manner of awarding their electoral votes: "Each state
shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof
may direct, a number of electors…" The winner-take-all rule
was not in the constitution. It was used by only three
states in the nation's first election in 1789. She stressed
that Maine and Nebraska's awarding of electoral votes by
district was a reminder that states control the process.
Ms. Brod noted that under SB 39, all the electoral votes
from the enacting states would be awarded to the
presidential candidate who received the most popular votes
in all fifty states and DC. The bill would take effect only
when enacted by states possessing a majority of the
electoral votes. She explained that SB 39 would preserve
the Electoral College and state control of elections.
9:14:34 AM
Ms. Brod noted that there was not much campaign money spent
in the state, but Alaskans contributed money to campaigns
that was never spent in the state by the candidates. She
continued to express that a national popular vote would
require the candidates to wait for the polls to return,
before a president is determined.
Co-Chair Hoffman queried the views of the citizens of
Alaskans pertaining to SB 39. Ms. Brod stated that about 70
percent believed that a National Popular Vote was in the
best interest of them and Alaska.
Co-Chair Hoffman wondered why Alaskans supported the bill.
Ms. Brod replied that individuals did not want to vote,
because they felt that their votes did not matter. She also
stated that some Alaskans felt that the candidates were not
focusing on the issues that Alaskans cared about.
Co-Chair Hoffman noted that the 2004 election would have
allowed John Kerry to win the popular vote. He wondered if
the bill would favor one party more than the other. Ms.
Brod replied that SB 39 would not favor one party more than
the other.
9:24:09 AM
Senator McGuire wondered how the compact would be enforced
and executed. She also queried the possibility of a
constitutional challenge. Ms. Brod replied that she did
expect litigation regarding this legislation. She explained
a case from 1893, which determined that the awarding of
electors was specifically a state's right. She noted that
interstate compacts were tools used by legislators, but SB
39 was a non-typical way to develop a compact. She stated
that the compact would allow the states to retain the
authority for elections. The states would certify the total
votes, as designed and determined by Alaska.
Senator Thomas wondered how the electoral votes in Alaska
would be determined. Ms. Brod replied that the compact
would allow for Alaska to take all of the votes in Alaska,
and determine which candidate won Alaska for each
candidate. She furthered that the totals for each candidate
would be based on the total national vote from each state,
and the electors would base their vote on the national
popular vote.
9:32:35 AM
Senator Olson wondered how voter fraud would be dealt with,
and incomplete numbers of votes. He added the computers
were a dominant part of elections in rural Alaska, and
might not work as well in those areas. Ms. Brod replied
that the rural voters would be heard under this
legislature. She stressed that each state could determine
voter fraud laws. She felt that voter fraud would decrease
under SB 39.
Senator Egan noted some occurrences when the members of the
Electoral College did not vote for the candidate that was
expected. Ms. Brod replied that there were eleven cases in
history when and elector did not vote they direction that
was expected. She stressed that it was the state's right to
determine how to deal with "faithless" electors.
Senator Egan queried how much of the United States
population lived in the top 50 largest cities in the US.
Ms. Brod agreed to provide that information.
9:40:28 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman noted the positive reasons for SB 39:
campaign dollars spent in the state, the presidential win
would not be declared until the polls in the western United
States were closed, and Alaskan issues would be addressed
during the presidential campaign. He queried some potential
drawbacks to changing the current system. Ms. Brod replied
that she could not think of any drawbacks to changing the
system. She stressed that a national popular vote was in
the best interest of the country.
JUDY ANDREE, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, JUNEAU (via
teleconference), testified in support of SB 39. She felt
that the legislation was a bi-partisan effort. She stressed
the importance of the Electoral College, but pointed out
that the Electoral College had evolved to support a
partisan system. She felt that individuals must be counted
at the national level.
9:46:53 AM
DR. CAROLYN BROWN, JUNEAU (via teleconference), spoke in
strong support of SB 39. She shared that the states had the
right under the US Constitution, to determine how the
electors would consider the vote.
RANDY S. GRIFFIN, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified
against SB 39. He felt that Alaska had more representation
than Alaskans deserved. He felt that Alaska was given more
power per person. He stressed that Alaskans would lose that
power. He liked the electoral system, because it would
accentuate the state's boundaries. He felt that the states
would be considered "little nations."
9:52:25 AM
MARGO WARING, JUNEAU, testified in support of SB 39. She
expressed that the history of voting in the country was not
positive.
RUTH DANNER, JUNEAU, spoke in support of SB 39. She stated
that Alaskans raise $1.6 million for presidential
elections, and the money was spent elsewhere in the
country.
BARRY FADEM, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, testified in
support of SB 39. He pointed out that Alaska had no clout
under the current system.
Co-Chair Stedman noted the one zero fiscal not form the
Division of Elections.
SB 39 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.