Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
03/13/2023 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
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 | |
| SB61 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 61 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 61-US PRESIDENT ELECT. POPULAR VOTE COMPACT
1:32:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 61
"An Act relating to an interstate compact to elect the President
and Vice-President of the United States by national popular
vote; and relating to the selection of electors for candidates
for President and Vice-President of the United States and to the
duties of those electors."
1:32:57 PM
Senator Bill Wielechowski, District K, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of SB 61, paraphrased the sponsor
statement.
Senate Bill 61 will give every Alaskan voter a
meaningful vote in presidential elections by entering
the National Popular Vote agreement with other states
to guarantee the presidency to the candidate who
receives the most votes nationwide.
SB 61 would have Alaska join the 15 other states and
the District of Columbia that have already joined the
agreement. Together these states have 195 electoral
votes. Once states totaling a majority of the
Electoral College (currently 270 votes) join the
agreement, these states will begin to award their
electoral votes to the presidential ticket that
receives the most votes nationwide. Until this
threshold is reached, Alaska will continue to allocate
its electoral votes to the winner of the statewide
vote.
Under the current system presidential candidates do
little to campaign for Alaskan votes, and they do not
need to develop positions on or even learn about
issues unique to Alaska. The last time a major
presidential candidate came to Alaska to campaign for
general election votes was John F. Kennedy in 1960.
It is not only Alaskan voters who are ignored in
presidential elections almost all serious
campaigning happens in only 12 states. The entire
Pacific Coast includes non-competitive states meaning
presidential candidates do not have to address
concerns that Alaska shares with other West Coast
states like Pacific fisheries management. Under the
National Popular Vote system, savvy presidential
campaigns will fight for every persuadable vote, no
matter where they are located, and develop messages
addressing concerns of all regions.
The National Popular Vote agreement will not give any
political party an advantage. An analysis by well-
known statistician Nate Silver found that "there's
almost no correlation between which party has the
Electoral College advantage in one election and which
has it four years later."
Passing SB 61 will help ensure that all American votes
truly are equal, and that Alaskans' concerns must be
taken seriously by presidential candidates.
1:36:40 PM
DAVID DUNSMORE, Staff, Senator Bill Wielechowski, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided the sectional analysis for
SB 61 on behalf of the sponsor.
Section 1 is a conforming section that references
Section 2.
Section 2 establishes that the statute for deciding
tied elections do not apply the presidential electors
when the National Popular Vote provisions are in
effect.
Section 3 is a conforming section that references
Section 4.
Section 4 establishes that Alaska's ranked choice
voting system will be used for calculating the popular
vote totals.
Section 5 is a conforming section that references
Section 6.
Section 6 establishes that, when the National Popular
Vote provisions are in effect, Alaska's presidential
electors shall be awarded the winner of the nation-
wide popular vote.
Section 7 is a conforming section that references
Section 8.
Section 8 requires that, when the National Popular
vote provisions are in effect, electors shall be
required to vote for the presidential and vice-
presidential candidates who won the nation-wide
popular vote.
Section 9 enacts the Agreement Among the States to
Elect the President by National Popular Vote.
• New AS 15.30.104 is the language of the
Agreement:
Article I states that any state and the
District of Columbia may join the
agreement.
Article II requires each state to conduct
a statewide popular vote election for
president and vice-president.
Article III adopts procedures for awarding
electors to the winner of the nation-wide
popular vote.
Article IV states that the Agreement takes
effect when states representing the
majority of the electoral votes have
joined the Agreement. It also establishes
procedures for states to leave the
Agreement.
Article V defines terms used in the
Agreement.
• New AS 15.30.106 establishes that the director
of the Division of Election is considered the
chief election official" for purposes of the
Agreement.
• New AS 15.30.108 establishes that when the
agreement is in effect, it shall take
precedence over any conflicting language in
statute or regulation
1:39:53 PM
SENATOR KIEHL shared that he lacked a solid position on the
issue of a national popular vote. He understood that the
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact served as an equalizer
for states during election campaigns. He classified Alaska as a
rural state but noted that approximately 80 percent of Americans
live in urban areas. He assumed that Americans in rural areas
would be primary targets for presidential campaigns.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted the concern that large cities like
New York or Los Angeles would control a nationwide popular vote
for president. Under the National Popular Vote agreement, every
vote would be equal throughout the entire United States. A vote
cast in a city would be equal to a vote cast in a small town. He
spoke to the argument that Americans would turn the presidential
election results over to Los Angeles. He argued that Los Angeles
does not control the outcome of statewide elections in
California, evidenced by multiple gubernatorial candidates
elected without winning Los Angeles.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI opined that the misconception about big
cities stems from the myth that big cities account for a greater
fraction of the United States population. He clarified that 85
percent of the United States population lives in communities
with fewer than 365 thousand people. He spoke about the issue of
the 13 small states with 3 or fewer electoral votes that are
disadvantaged during the current process of awarding electoral
votes. He continued to explain that closely divided battleground
states are typically evenly split. He noted frequent comparisons
between small Republican states like Alaska and Wyoming to
Hawaii and New Hampshire, which typically vote Democrat.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI furthered that the smaller states are often
ignored because they are not closely divided battleground
states. He informed the committee that the 12 small non-
battleground states have approximately the same population as
the closely divided battleground state of Ohio. He added that
the 12 small states have 40 electoral votes, more than double
Ohio's 18 electoral votes. He noted that Ohio received 73 of the
253 post-convention campaign events in 2012, while the 12 non-
battleground states received none. He added that the current
state by state, winner-takes-all system shifts power from voters
in the small and medium sized states to voters in a handful of
big, closely divided battleground states. The legislation allows
for equalization of every vote, as intended by the Constitution.
1:44:32 PM
SENATOR KIEHL commented that the number of campaign visits was a
proxy for attention to issues. He recalled that Maine has
battleground Electoral College votes. He asked about Maine's
proportion of campaign visits.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI responded that Maine received three visits
in 2016 and two visits in 2020, while Alaska received none. He
acknowledged that Maine received attention, as politically
divided states do.
CHAIR CLAMAN queried the number of states who passed the
National Popular Vote provision.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI replied that 270 electoral votes are
required for the provision to pass. He stated that the provision
has 195 electoral votes from legislation currently enacted in 15
states. He listed the states: Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, California, Illinois and
New York. He cited instances where one legislative body passed
similar legislation, but the other did not. He added that the
compact was endorsed by the Arizona House of Representatives.
1:47:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN moved to invited testimony.
1:48:38 PM
DR. JOHN KOZA, Chairman, National Popular Vote; Author, Every
Vote Equal, Los Altos, California, informed the committee of the
shortcomings in the current presidential election system. The
shortcomings stem from the winner-take-all laws, which Alaska
and 48 other states passed. The states award all electoral votes
to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in the state.
The effect of the winner-take-all laws is that some states are
ignored during the presidential election campaign. He stated
that a presidential candidate will not visit a state that is
united in its party voting record.
DR. KOZA explained that presidential campaigns were limited to
12 battleground states comprising approximately 30 percent of
the country's population. He pointed out that all of the small
states were excluded with the exception of New Hampshire. He
added that one congressional district in Maine received campaign
attention. He added that nearly all western states are excluded
from campaigning. He noted that most of the heartland, southern,
rural, and northeastern states are ignored in the presidential
campaign. The exclusion of states remains the largest problem
with the current system.
DR. KOZA continued that Alaska has two extra electoral votes
because of the state's two senators. He countered that the eight
smallest states with three electoral votes, like Alaska received
one general election campaign visit. He added that Wisconsin
received 58 visits over the four election time period. Wisconsin
has ten electoral votes. He pointed out that the winner-take-all
rule led to election results hinging on a few states. The result
of the process is unnecessary controversy and post-election
disputes.
1:54:02 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on SB 61.
1:54:17 PM
KARLA HART, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of the SB 61. She stated that she is not an expert on
the issue but testifies as an American who believes the US
should have one-person-one-vote.
1:54:54 PM
SANTA CLAUS, representing self, North Pole, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 61. He endorsed the National Popular Vote
Interstate Compact. The compact ensures that the candidate for
president who receives the most popular votes wins the election.
He noted that the Electoral College electors would not be able
to override the popular vote under the interstate compact.
1:57:43 PM
JOHN CRAWFORD, representing self, Grant, Michigan, testified in
opposition to SB 61. He remarked that the bill before the
committee impacts Michigan too. He stated that he is a retired
citizen who has focused on the issue for approximately 12 years.
He opined that the issue of electing the president is one of
intentional assignment. He opined that the assignment rests with
the states utilizing electors. He revealed that the states
counterbalanced the federal government. He opined that the state
legislatures should think like sovereign states.
2:00:27 PM
TRENT ENGLAND, Executive Director, Save Our States, Oklahoma
City, testified in opposition to SB 61. He opposes the issue
because the initial intent of the country's founders was for the
state to elect the president by use of electors. He stated that
the system was well-designed for federal elections. He opined
that the Electoral College balances political power throughout
the country. He stated that the compact was poorly drafted and
illegal. He pointed out the attempt to use rank choice voting
adjusted totals as part of the national election result totals.
He argued that the proposed legislation violates Alaska's
constitution, which prevents anyone from voting in Alaska's
elections after conviction for serious crimes. He added that
other states allow all felons to vote. He pointed out that some
states allow felons to vote from prison. Under the proposed
legislation, the prisoners from other states would be voting in
Alaska's election for presidential electors. He stressed that
the compact violates the Alaska constitution compact laws and
the Electoral College clauses.
2:03:03 PM
TARA ROSS, representing self, Texas, testified in opposition to
SB 61. She stated that the proposed legislation effectively
eliminates the Electoral College. She opined that the current
election process combines federalist and democratic principles.
She pointed out that the compact is easy to join and unjoin as
opposed to a constitutional amendment, which would provide a
permanent solution.
2:05:36 PM
SEAN PARNELL, Member, People for Opportunity, Virginia,
testified in opposition to SB 61. He stated a weakness in the
compact existed in the absence of a national vote tally used to
determine the winner under the compact. He echoed that ranked
choice voting creates additional issues for the proposed
compact. He anticipated a situation where the compact would not
deliver a clear and conclusive winner because of the difficulty
in calculating all votes across all states. He stated that
better alternatives exist for the national popular vote issue.
2:08:09 PM
JASPER HENDRICKS, Democrats for the Electoral College,
Nashville, Tennessee testified in opposition to SB 61. He shared
that he served as a presidential elector in Virginia in 2016. He
understood concerns about the presidential election process. He
opined that the solution was not the National Popular Vote
Interstate Compact. He opined that the compact would complicate
current issues while creating new ones. He remarked that the
compact attempts to circumvent the constitutional amendment
process. He opined that the Democratic Party was stronger with a
diverse coalition across the entire nation.
2:09:56 PM
VIKKI JO KENNEDY, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 61. She reported that she represents a group of
fed-up grannies. She opined that elections are confusing. She
understood that the value of the Electoral College was outdated.
She reported losing friends over her choices of presidential
candidates. She stated support for ranked choice voting.
2:12:47 PM
ALEX KOPLIN, League of Women Voters of Alaska, Homer, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 61.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the committee received a letter from
Mr. Koplin. He asked if there were other remarks to add to the
letter of support.
MR. KOPLIN commented on the prior testimony. He appreciated the
conversation about the national compact and the Electoral
College. He spoke about younger voters who are encouraged to
vote when in reality, a vote in the presidential election holds
less value than a vote in other races. He opined that the
Electoral College process was antiquated. He stated that the
president of the United States should be elected by popular
vote.
2:15:43 PM
CHRISTOPHER PEARSON, National Popular Vote, Burlington, Vermont,
testified in support of SB 61. He pointed out that he was a
former state senator and representative in Vermont. He opined
that the national popular vote option provides a simple
solution. He argued that ranked choice voting was compatible
with the national popular vote. He argued that the Electoral
Count Act of 2022 reaffirmed that federal law requires each
state to issue an official national popular vote count six days
before the Electoral College meets. The federal law requires
states to transmit the Certificates of Ascertainment for public
review. The excuses from prior testifiers do not measure up to
scrutiny. He added that voter turnout was depressed in non-
battleground states. He opined that SB 61 would provide a boost
to democracy.
2:18:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed public testimony on SB 61 and announced he
would hold the bill in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 61 Version B 2.7.2023.PDF |
SJUD 3/13/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Sponsor Statement version B 2.1.2023.pdf |
SJUD 3/13/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Sectional Analysis version B 2.1.2023.pdf |
SJUD 3/13/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Research - NPV One-Pager 1.3.2022.pdf |
SJUD 3/13/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Supporting Document - Letters Received as of 3.13.2023.pdf |
SJUD 3/13/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Supporting Testimony - Received as of 3.13.2023.pdf |
SJUD 3/13/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Opposing Testimony - Received as of 3.13.2023.pdf |
SJUD 3/13/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 3.10.2023.pdf |
SJUD 3/13/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |