Legislature(2023 - 2024)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/25/2023 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| Consideration of Governor Appointees | |
| 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
4:10:17 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting and 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."
He noted that this was the first hearing.
4:10:36 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI, District K, sponsor of SB 61, stated that
the National Popular Vote Bill would guarantee the presidency to
the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all states.
He continued to introduce the legislation, speaking to the
following 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 the 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.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI briefly addressed some misconceptions about
the constitutionality of the bill. He quoted the US Constitution
that says each state shall appoint its electors based on
direction from the legislature. SB 61 does not do away with the
Electoral College system. Rather, the state would enter into a
contract to change the way Electoral College votes are cast to a
system where the winner of the national popular vote gets the
Electoral College votes. He said it's also a misconception that
the winner take all system of awarding Electoral College is in
the US Constitution. Just three states used it in the first
presidential election in 1789 and all three repealed that
provision by 1800. It was after almost all the founding fathers
were deceased that a majority of states adopted the winner takes
all system of awarding Electoral College votes. It wasn't until
50 years after that that all states adopted the winner takes all
system.
The story continues to 1969 when Maine changed to a district
system to award its Electoral votes and Nebraska followed suit
in 1992. This is a reminder that states have the flexibility to
decide how their Electoral College votes will be cast.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI highlighted the following data. Since 2008,
22 states have had no presidential campaign events, 9 states
have had one campaign event, and 95 of the 1,164 campaign events
occurred in just 14 states. Just 14 states received 98 percent
of the general election campaign events in 2008, 12 states
received 100 percent of the general election campaign events in
2012, 12 states received 94 percent of the general election
campaign events in 2016, and 12 states received 96 percent of
the general election campaign events in 2020. The vast majority
of political campaign events occur in just a small number of
states. In 2012, for example, candidate Obama conducted campaign
events in just 8 states after his nomination and candidate
Romney conducted campaign events in 10 states after his
nomination. Two-thirds of the presidential post-convention
campaign events occurred in just 4 states. Only 3 of the 25
smallest states received any attention after the 2012
conventions.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI disputed the claim that small states are
ignored because of their size, pointing out that they're ignored
because they're not closely divided politically. He said a vote
for president in Wyoming and Alaska is equal to a vote in
California and New York. They're all politically irrelevant
because the outcomes are clear before the vote is taken. By
contrast, SB 61 will force candidates to solicit votes in all
the states in the country.
4:16:15 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that it's also a myth that the
National Popular Vote will advantage large cities. In fact,
large cities don't even control the elections in their state. He
listed successful candidates for governor of California going
back to Ronald Reagan who lost in Los Angeles but won the race.
Importantly, 85 percent of the population of the US live in
places that have populations of fewer than 365,000 people. It is
in those communities that presidential candidates will be forced
to campaign to win the election.
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked Mr. Dunsmore to present the sectional
analysis.
4:18:19 PM
DAVID DUNSMORE, Staff, Senator Bill Wielechowski, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented 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 does not apply to 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 nationwide
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 nationwide 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:
o Article I states that any state and the
District of Columbia may join the agreement.
o Article II requires each state to conduct a
statewide popular vote election for president
and vice president.
o Article III adopts procedures for awarding
electors to the winner of the nationwide
popular vote.
o 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.
o 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.
4:20:53 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked if there were other obligations that the
state would find difficult to comply with.
MR. DUNSMORE said not to his knowledge. The Division of
Elections acknowledged the bill would not have a fiscal impact
on the state and submitted a zero fiscal note. The state will do
basic arithmetic on the certified results from all 50 states and
the District of Columbia and award electors to the winner of the
popular vote.
4:22:08 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI read a brief biography to introduce Dr. John Koza
who was an invited testifier.
4:23:18 PM
DR. JOHN KOZA, Chair, National Popular Vote; Author, Every Vote
Equal, Los Altos, California, testified by invitation in support
of SB 61, which would guarantee the presidency to the candidate
with the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of
Columbia. He informed the committee of the shortcomings in the
current presidential election system. They stem from the winner
take all laws that 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 last four elections. Wisconsin has
ten electoral votes. He pointed out that the winner-take-all
rule led to election results hinging on a few states.
The major problem with the current system is that three out of
four states are irrelevant to candidates thinking about getting
elected or reelected as president. A related problem is that the
current system threatens democracy. Winner takes all laws are
the cause of the problem and the reason that a national popular
vote would be better.
DR. KOZA recapped the sponsor's explanation of the Interstate
Compact and agreed that SB 61 does not abolish the Electoral
College. It changes the method by which states select their
presidential electors, guaranteeing that the Electoral College
represents the majority of the voters in the country. He
disputed the claim that the bill conflicts with Ranked-Choice
Voting. The bill designates the final count as Alaska's official
count on the Certificate of Attainment that shows the state's
votes for president and choice of presidential electors. He
noted that opponents of the compact have falsely claimed that it
allows election officials in other states to judge Alaska's vote
counts. The compact specifically requires all states belonging
to the compact to treat Alaska's determination of the
presidential vote count as final.
4:31:27 PM
DR. KOZA also disputed the claim that rural areas would be
ignored under a national popular vote. The evidence shows that
every vote is equal in the battleground states where
presidential candidates actually campaign. The winner is the
candidate with the most votes. He cited the example from
Pennsylvania which was the battleground state in 2020 that
received the most visits. When every vote is equal a candidate
can't ignore any area. He said another myth is that small states
are Republican. Of the 14 states that have three and four
electoral votes, seven are Republican and seven are Democratic.
He dispelled other myths including the claim that California
will dominate elections. It is one-eighth of the country by
population but there is an equally loyal group of Republican
states that balances California.
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked if there were questions for Dr. Koza.
4:35:39 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN asked what outcomes he sees should the bill
pass.
DR. KOZA said you'll see that candidates have to campaign in
every state because a campaign that neglects a state would be
giving up votes. Small states would necessarily get the same
attention as the current battleground states. Turnout would also
rise because voters are more likely to vote when their vote has
been solicited.
SENATOR BJORKMAN asked if the idea is that presidential
candidates would try to run up their margins in safe states.
DR. KOZA said there aren't safe states in the National Popular
Vote. Every voter counts and every vote is equal. Every
candidate certainly will cater to favorable geographic and
demographic groups, but that balances out so that every part of
a state gets equal attention based on population.
4:40:21 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI opened public testimony on SB 61.
4:40:40 PM
SAUL ANUZIS, representing self, Washington, DC, testified in
support of SB 61. He stated that he comes from a partisan
perspective and he wanted to dispel the notion that the bill is
partisan. He believes that the bill is a bipartisan approach to
a nonpartisan problem. His objective is to ensure that every
voter in every state is politically relevant in every election.
He cited examples that illustrate that the bill would provide
American reform that ensures that every state becomes a
battleground state and every voter is politically relevant.
4:43:52 PM
MICHAEL OWENS, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 61. He opined that the bill is aligned with
Ranked-Choice Voting and that it's bad for Alaska. The Electoral
College has served the country well as evidenced in 2016 when it
saved the country. SB 61 seeks to change what's worked so well
for so long and he doesn't understand why anybody would support
that.
4:46:16 PM
JUDY ANDREE, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 61. She opined that the Electoral College provides
a two-tiered system where everyone votes and then many votes are
left at the state line. She believes that every vote should be
equally powerful. She also pointed out that in recent years the
Electoral College has become a national security issue that's
made possible by modern technology that the founding fathers
could not have predicted. She said it's imperative to adhere to
the basic tenants of democracy while being flexible enough to
correct problems that weaken democracy. The Electoral College
may have been suitable in 1784 but America's purpose should be
to build a more perfect union by keeping the notion of that
perfection as the guiding star.
4:48:20 PM
ALEX KOPLIN, representing self, Homer, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 61. He said what he likes about SB 61 is that when
he casts his vote for president, it goes to that candidate.
Under the current system, his vote only counts if his candidate
wins the election in Alaska. Otherwise, his vote doesn't matter.
All three of Alaska's electoral votes go to the winner in the
state, regardless of the popular vote. This gives states more
power than individual voters when picking a president. If SB 61
were to pass, the winner of the popular vote would receive
Alaska's three electoral votes. It makes sense that every voter
should count. The people should decide who should be president,
not the states.
4:50:57 PM
KASSIE ANDREWS, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, stated
opposition to SB 61. She argued that the Electoral College
preserves the constitutional checks and balances to power that
the founders intended. Every four years it provides a state-by-
state snapshot of the trends and political thought in the
country. She opined that switching to the National Popular Vote
would leave small states out in the cold while presidential
candidates would be focused on states like California and Texas.
She described the National Popular Vote as an end run around the
amendment process of the US Constitution.
4:52:29 PM
KEN HUCKEBA, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, stated that he
vehemently disagrees with SB 61. He continued that there's a
reason the US has a representative republic and not a democracy.
True populism can be dangerous, particularly now when large
amounts of money can manipulate an election. He cited the
Bolshevik Revolution as evidence. The Electoral College was
established to prevent such things. If it's abandoned in favor
of the National Popular Vote, elections will be swamped with
candidates from every ideological group.
4:54:32 PM
KEN GRIFFIN, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, stated
opposition to SB 61 as a citizen of Alaska. He maintained that
the biggest problem with elections is fraud. He mentioned the
use of the World Wide Web to access information and posited that
the idea that citizens aren't informed or that candidates aren't
campaigning in Alaska is ridiculous. He said Trump never came to
Alaska but he learned everything he needed to know about him as
a citizen. He opined that the bill goes around the rules without
going through the established process that has kept this country
safe.
4:56:41 PM
SEAN PARNELL, Save our State Action, Virginia, stated opposition
to SB 61 and noted that he submitted written testimony to each
of the committee members. He said the greatest defect in the
compact is that there isn't an official national vote count that
is reliably accurate and conclusive. He maintained that vote
counts from other states might not be accurate and that ranked-
choice voting will create additional issues because the compact
doesn't stipulate that other states must use the number on the
Certificate of Ascertainment. States can add phantom votes that
other states would have to accept as valid. Finally, millions of
votes could be excluded from the national vote if a state's
election practices do not conform to the compact definition of a
statewide popular election. He offered to send the California
2016 Certificate of Ascertainment which clearly shows an extra
4.2 million votes for Donald Trump and the New York 2008-2020
ascertainment certificates that show hundreds of thousands of
missing votes. He concluded by saying that the winner takes all
process can be fixed while keeping Alaskans in charge of
Alaska's electoral votes. Such changes could be in place for the
2024 election cycle.
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked him to send the letter he mentioned to
[email protected] and he would distribute it to
members.
5:02:11 PM
PAT REDMOND, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, stated
support for SB 61 and the national popular vote. She's been
following the issue for 20-25 years and she believes it is a
better way to ensure that every vote counts. She expressed
optimism about moving forward into a new era of voting.
5:03:48 PM
KARLA HART, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 61. She stated that she'd been following the
national popular vote concept for a long time. Dr. Koza, the
League of Women Voters, and the sponsor have spoken well to it.
She encouraged the committee to keep the bill moving forward.
5:04:44 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI closed public testimony on SB 61 and held the
bill in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 61 Version B.pdf |
SSTA 4/25/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SSTA 4/25/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SSTA 4/25/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Research NPV One-Pager.pdf |
SSTA 4/25/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Letter of Support League of Women Voters of Alaska.pdf |
SSTA 4/25/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 3.10.2023.pdf |
SSTA 4/25/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| Commissioner of Corrections Appointment - Jennifer Winkelman Resume 2.10.2023.pdf |
SSTA 4/25/2023 3:30:00 PM |
Governor's appointee Department of Corrections Commissioner |
| 3.8.23 Eric Feige APOC Resume_Redacted.pdf |
SSTA 4/25/2023 3:30:00 PM |
Governor's Appointee Alaska Public Offices Commission appointee |