Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/10/2017 01:00 PM House 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 | |
| HB200 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 208 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 10, 2017
4:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Zach Fansler, Vice Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative David Eastman
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Lora Reinbold
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)
Representative Louise Stutes (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 200
"An Act establishing a top two nonpartisan open primary election
system for elective state executive and state and national
legislative offices; repealing the special runoff election for
the office of United States senator or United States
representative; changing appointment procedures relating to
precinct watchers and members of precinct election boards,
election district absentee and questioned ballot counting
boards, and the Alaska Public Offices Commission; requiring
certain written notices to appear in election pamphlets and
polling places; relating to declarations of candidacy and
letters of intent; and amending the definition of 'political
party.'"
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 208
"An Act relating to trusts and powers of appointment; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 200
SHORT TITLE: NONPARTISAN OPEN PRIMARY ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LEDOUX
03/29/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/17 (H) JUD, STA
04/10/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
COURTNEY ENRIGHT, Staff
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the presentation of HB 200, offered
a brief sectional analysis and answered questions.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, answered
questions.
JOSE BAHNKE, Director
Division of Elections
Lieutenant Governor's Office
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, answered
questions.
LIBBY BAKALAR, Assistant Attorney General
Transportation Section
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 200, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
4:06:08 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. Representatives Fansler, LeDoux,
Eastman, Reinbold, Kopp and Claman were present at the call to
order. Representative Kreiss-Tomkins arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 200-NONPARTISAN OPEN PRIMARY ELECTIONS
4:06:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 200, "An Act establishing a top two nonpartisan
open primary election system for elective state executive and
state and national legislative offices; repealing the special
runoff election for the office of United States senator or
United States representative; changing appointment procedures
relating to precinct watchers and members of precinct election
boards, election district absentee and questioned ballot
counting boards, and the Alaska Public Offices Commission;
requiring certain written notices to appear in election
pamphlets and polling places; relating to declarations of
candidacy and letters of intent; and amending the definition of
'political party.'"
4:07:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX advised that she and her staff would
present HB 200 today and advised that she is pleased to bring
forward the "Top Two Nonpartisan Primary" bill because this idea
takes the State of Alaska out of the business of running
primaries for private political parties. She explained that
rather than a party nomination process which serves to nominate
candidates for each party, it would serve as a winnowing process
wherein the candidates, in the primary, are narrowed down to the
top two vote receivers. She explained that while walking door-
to-door and speaking with her constituents, she consistently
heard complaints regarding the semi-closed primary system in
place in Alaska. The State of Alaska benefited from open
primaries from 1946 until 2000, when the United States Supreme
Court ruled under California Democratic Party v. Jones, [530 US
567 (2000)] that private parties could not be forced to open up
their primaries, and this bill brings the will of the people
back to a more open primary system, she explained.
4:09:38 PM
COURTNEY ENRIGHT, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska
State Legislature, advised she would focus on the bill's
highlights, noted four substantive changes, and paraphrased as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 8. Establishes a top two nonpartisan open
primary that allows any voter regardless of party
affiliation, to vote for any candidate, regardless of
party affiliation.
Section 21. The primary election does not serve to
determine the political party nominee, but rather
serves as a winnowing process. Note, however, that
nothing in this bill prohibits political parties from
establishing an alternative nominating process (i.e.
conventions, preferential poll, etc.).
4:10:33 PM
MS. ENRIGHT offered that under current statute, Alaska's
primaries serve as a nominating process for political parties,
and this section is a key change to the current primary system.
Section 9. Candidates may list either their party of
affiliation or may opt to be listed as nonpartisan or
undeclared. However, note that this does not give a
candidate the option to list their party affiliation
as a different political group or party than the one
they are currently registered as. For example, under
HB 200 a Republican could not be listed as Democrat or
Green Party candidate on the ballot.
Section 6. Eliminates the requirement for a
nominating petition for nonpartisan or unaffiliated
candidates. Under HB 200 no candidate is "nominated"
through the primary election.
Presently, in the Alaska State Legislature Statues, we
provide that all nonpartisan candidates have to
collect a certain number of signatures as all
candidates would be running, effectively, not to be
nominated in this process. Every candidate would
apply to be on the primary the same way. So, it would
eliminate that nominating petition piece.
4:12:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER referred to Sec. 6, and surmised that in
a general election there would never be more than two names on
the ballot for any state office.
MS. ENRIGHT answered that he was mostly correct and explained
that there is a provision regarding a general election wherein a
candidate could still elect to be a write-in candidate. There
would only be two names on the ballot, except technically
speaking, there could be a third candidate as a write-in, she
said.
4:12:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked that Ms. Enright explain the
history of the primary system, its purpose, and when it became
part of the election process.
MS. ENRIGHT explained that in 1945, during Alaska's Territorial
Days, Alaska implemented a ballot initiative for open primaries,
and unfortunately, was unable to locate information regarding
the system prior to 1945. She offered that in reviewing the
federal election process, it appears that primaries in different
capacities existed during the second national presidential
election.
4:13:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER offered a scenario of a candidate coming
from an area that was heavily one party or the other, and asked
whether the bill adds a second layer wherein one person wins the
primary with no one running from the other party, that person
wins unless there is a write-in candidate. Suddenly, HB 200
adds a second bite of the apple and he paraphrased that it reads
"Now we get to go at this again for another -- another four
months -- or, three."
MS. ENRIGHT responded that from a strictly statutory
perspective, currently all candidates participate unless they
are nonpartisan in both the primary and the general elections.
There is not an additional layer added in terms of the actual
application, she explained, and deferred to Representative
LeDoux regarding Representative Fansler's specific scenario.
4:15:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX explained that everyone still runs in the
general election and what this does, in general, is that more
people vote in the general election than in the primary
election. She acknowledged, that for a specific candidate it
may be inconvenient to have to run in the general election when
that candidate believed everything was completed in the primary.
She offered her belief that from the perspective of governing
and the philosophy of having people buy into who is their
representative, to have someone picked by a majority of the
voters in the general election where the vast majority of people
vote, outweighs that inconvenience compared to a great governing
principle.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER requested statistics of other
jurisdictions operating in the same manner as the bill, whether
there are any trends wherein it encourages more participation in
the elections, whether it drives voter turnout for primaries,
and whether more candidates generally run for offices. He noted
that his requested information could wait until the next bill
hearing.
4:17:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that during the last few years in
Alaska there has been a high percentage of candidates who [win]
the primary and end up not running in the general election for
whatever reason.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Representative Eastman said that
candidates withdraw after winning the primary.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that candidates do withdraw, and
offered a scenario wherein someone withdraws or is coerced into
withdrawing after the primary election, and asked what happens
in that situation under this bill.
MS. ENRIGHT differed to Alpheus Bullard, Legislative Legal and
Research Services.
4:19:16 PM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal
and Research Services, answered that, currently, if someone
withdraws after the primary election, there is a petition
process wherein the party can have that candidate replaced.
That process is eliminated in this bill because only the two
most successful candidates for each office can appear on the
general election ballot. In the event a candidate were to
withdraw, there would still be the potential for someone to run
as the write-in against that candidate, he explained.
4:20:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that in other parts of the
world a candidate could be the subject of coercion and pressure
to withdraw because if the person withdraws the other person
wins and there is no one to "take up the banner." He said he
was hopeful that type of situation was taken into account and
the state doesn't end up in a situation where there is greater
incentive to put pressure on a person's opponent to resign
because now it would be easier to get them to resign. Whereas,
currently in the party system, he said, "you talk to somebody,
they resign, the parties replaces them with somebody else, you -
- I mean, you still have to run against them. It's not really
an incentive for you," and questioned the impact of the bill in
that regard.
4:21:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP surmised that all candidates for a specific
race will be compete in an open primary, and that a person could
self-designate their own party without any party endorsement, or
support. He asked whether he understood the bill correctly.
MS. ENRIGHT replied that he was correct to an extent, for
example, under this bill, the Division of Elections would
prohibit someone who is, for example, a democrat from saying
they are a republican, but it wouldn't prohibit that person from
saying they were nonpartisan. The person can either choose the
party they are registered or affiliated with, or they can choose
to be nonpartisan, she said.
4:22:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered that it would "kill the purpose" of
members of a party to vote in a primary as far as a process of
identifying a person's specific candidate to advance to a
general election. On the face of it, he noted, it appears the
purpose of the bill is to ..., and if that is the purpose,
whether the sponsor's office had heard from the various parties
because much of the bill changes the entire foundation of the
current election process.
4:23:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that the committee heard loud
and clear from Tuckerman Babcok in a press interview that the
Republican Party does not support HB 200, and she was unaware
whether Mr. Babcok bothered to forward a letter. She opined
that she had not heard officially from the Democratic Party, and
that she unsure whether the Democratic Party liked this bill any
more than the Republican Party. She pointed out that this bill
is open for public testimony, and all entities have the option
to submit letters.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she believed former
Representative Max Gruenberg was working on a bill similar to HB
200, and it was her understanding that both parties were opposed
this bill.
4:24:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered a scenario wherein candidates
running for governor and lieutenant governor support each other,
except the governor receives fewer votes than their opponent.
Under this bill, the other gubernatorial candidate has the
"option to grab" that lieutenant governor candidate and bring
them onto the ticket, and whether the lieutenant governor
candidate has the option to decline to be chosen.
MS. ENRIGHT answered, not in the statute, it could possibly fall
under regulation, or possibly something the sponsor could
consider as an alternative approach. She offered that "In the
current manner it's written -- statute -- the gubernatorial
candidate with the highest number of votes gets to select."
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the current statute is such that if
gubernatorial candidate "Smith" had been campaigning with
candidate "A" for lieutenant governor, and in the actual
election, gubernatorial candidate "Jones" wins the gubernatorial
election and candidate "A" wins the lieutenant governor's
election. Under current statute, "they are lumped together,
it's not like on the presidential election where you get to
choose your vice-president there, that's who they get and they
could always resign and then somebody else get picked." He
noted that in that sense, it would be the same as the process is
today. Under current statute, there is a separate campaign for
lieutenant governor, a separate campaign for governor, and the
governor lives with whoever the party picked for lieutenant
governor.
4:26:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that the difference is where both
the governor and lieutenant candidate make it through the
winnowing process and both are on the general election ballot.
The bill gives the person with even just one more vote the
opportunity to reach down and choose which lieutenant governor
candidate they are going to run with, so there is a multi-
ballot, except now they are obliged to run against each other.
4:27:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned that comment "running against
each other," and explained it will be the top two gubernatorial
candidates, and it's not that the candidate coming second gets
to be lieutenant governor. She explained the process as
follows: there is an open primary for governor, and an open
primary for lieutenant governor; whoever comes in first as
governor in the gubernatorial primary gets to choose which one
of the top two candidates they want as lieutenant governor.
Actually, she described, it offers the governor slightly more
choice than currently, and acknowledged that she struggled with
this and would prefer that no one ran as lieutenant governor and
the governor could simply choose their lieutenant governor
candidate, such as in the national presidential elections.
Except, she remarked, Legislative Legal and Research Services
pointed out that the constitution requires that the election for
lieutenant governor be performed in the same manner as governor.
4:28:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that the restraints of the
constitution puts a wrinkle in this arrangement such that there
is almost a perverse incentive for a person to choose the
opponent's former running mate as lieutenant governor, thereby,
forcing that team to run against each other.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that Representative Eastman
described the current problem because a gubernatorial candidate
could end up with a lieutenant governor they don't like or get
along with, which has actually happened in this state. She
remarked that the current system is not exactly perfect.
4:29:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to Representative Eastman's
scenario as to what would happen if someone resigned after the
open primary and asked whether he had heard correctly, that the
other candidate would basically win the election by default.
MS. ENRIGHT answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP then offered a scenario that one of the top
two vote getters, for whatever reason, was unable to serve in
public office, currently the party can get together and come up
with another nominee. This language appears to be a deficit in
its current structure, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed with Representative Kopp's concern,
and pointed out that that is the wonderful thing about the
committee process. She remarked that she will discuss the issue
with Legislative Legal and Research Services whether the person
with third place votes could advance to second place.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that if he was a member of the other
party, he would be concerned that someone, such as himself,
would move out of their district and into the other party's
district, become an independent candidate, and compete in an
open primary. There is professional honesty and courtesy in
knowing that "we're tied to a set of beliefs and a platform" and
can agree to disagree on issues. Although, he pointed out,
erasing all distinction becomes a lethal threat to the integrity
of the process, and integrity is lost when the candidate can
self-identify with the intent of winning a seat and deceiving
voters.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that under the current system,
someone who affiliated with one party all of their lives can
self-identify as an independent and win the election as an
independent. In addition, she said, the considerations
[Representative Kopp] set forth are part of the current system
because someone who has been a member of one party all of their
lives, with a stroke of the pen, can become a member of another
party.
4:33:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP argued there were huge differences because
in an open primary a person can hide behind the enormous
obfuscation of multiple people running and it's hard to hit one
bee in a beehive. There may be a good turnout, but the chances
of surviving on bad behavior go up enormously in that type of
environment. He referred to the primary system with multiple
party candidates, and said that people are more focused, the
candidate is more accountable, and if he was a voter, he would
want the primary system.
4:34:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER noted concern in situations where three
people run, and there is a hypothetical 34 percent vote
candidate, 33 percent vote candidate, and 32 percent vote
candidate split. The 34 percent vote candidate, and the 33
percent vote candidate go on, they then make a collusion to drop
someone out and the 32 percent vote candidate can't get up into
it. He said he was interested in the possibility of the third
place candidate moving up into position. He then referred to
Representative Kopp's scenario, and offered the scenario wherein
both the first and second place candidates became incapacitated,
and questioned whether it suddenly became a large write-in
campaign with no power to get any names on the ballot.
MS. ENRIGHT answered that Representative Fansler had found an
oversight in the bill because there must be a process to replace
candidates if they drop out before the general election.
4:36:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER opined that the bill "takes a way a
little of the parties' powers" because it would no longer
orchestrate a closed primary, essentially, for a party. In the
event the goal is strip these powers away from parties, he asked
whether thought had been given to having people run with no
party affiliation with everyone just a name on a list, as in a
municipality election.
MS. ENRIGHT responded that in 1936, by ballot initiative, the
State of Nebraska put in place a nonpartisan primary system and
the system runs all candidates without party affiliation on its
ballot. She offered that consideration was given to that issue,
and as to the final decision, she deferred to Representative
LeDoux.
4:37:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX answered that consideration was given to
that issue and it appeared to be too big of a jump because this
bill, in and of itself, was a big enough step. She asked Ms.
Enright whether or not, within the State of Nebraska, its
governor runs in the open primary as a nonpartisan, or whether
it solely refers to the state's legislature.
MS. ENRIGHT advised that she would have to double-check, but as
she recalled it was all state candidates, and not federal
candidates.
4:38:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER further requested information as to the
current system, and asked the thresholds for multiple parties,
whether every party receives a primary, whether an independent
or the Alaska Constitution Party receives a primary put on by
the state.
MS. ENRIGHT deferred to Jose Bahnke, Division of Elections.
4:39:47 PM
JOSE BAHNKE, Director, Division of Elections, Lieutenant
Governor's Office, advised that currently, in the state's
primary, the Independent Party and Democratic Party can all run
on one ballot. She explained that for the purpose of conducting
a primary, the Division of Elections produces "three separate
ballots" as follows: republican ballot, is for republicans,
undeclared, and nonpartisans; the democratic ballot, is for
democrats, Alaska Independents, the Green party, and anyone can
select that ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER questioned that, for instance, if he was
a member of the Green party and wanted to get on the general
election ballot, would he run in the primary election against
the democrat on their ballot, or how would he get his name on
the ballot, otherwise.
MS. BAHNKE deferred to Libby Bakalar, Department of Law.
4:41:41 PM
LIBBY BAKALAR, Assistant Attorney General, Transportation
Section, Department of Law, asked that Representative Fansler to
repeat his question
CHAIR CLAMAN restated Representative Fansler's question and
asked that in the event a candidate was in the Green party and
was on the open primary ballot, what happens next.
MS. BAKALAR offered her understanding that there is the "R
Ballot" for the Republican Party; the "ADL Ballot" is the Alaska
Democratic and Libertarian Party ballot; and the "Combined
Ballot" is the Alaska Independent, Democratic, Libertarian Party
ballot. They are essentially, she explained, separate primaries
on one piece of paper, it is not that the libertarian and the
democrat are running against each other on that combined ballot,
the libertarian runs against whatever other libertarian
candidates are on that ballot, and the democrat runs against
other democrats on the ballot. Those then proceed to the
general election, and oftentimes are uncontested races. She
noted that she was unaware whether the Green Party had party
status at the moment, because parties lose and gain party status
depending upon the amount of votes it gains in the previous
election. Essentially, she explained, it is not one party
pitted against another on that ADL Combined Ballot, but rather
they are separate primary races of parties that chose to
associate, and under their bylaws chose to appear on a joint
ballot together.
4:43:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER noted that that was his understanding,
and there are mechanisms in place that essentially say that "if
you are a recognized party that you can even go into the ballot
system at all." In other words, he explained, if he goes out
and creates the Representative Fansler Party, he can't get on
the ballots because he has to be a recognized political party.
MS. BAKALAR agreed, and she noted that currently there are two
routes to the general election ballot in Alaska, the primary
system, and the petition nominating system for independent
candidates. When affiliated with a political party, the person
has the party apparatus behind them to advance from the primary
to the general election, and in the event a person is a sole
candidate, they go through the nominating petition process. The
political party status is a creature of statute and certain
criteria must be met to become a political party or a political
group, and it depends on the modicum of public support accorded
to each of those entities by statute. She further explained
that some of the smaller political parties may gain or lose
political party status over time depending upon votes secured in
prior elections. Whereas, the more established parties do not
gain or lose status regularly, she said.
4:45:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER surmised that currently, the general
election ballot could have a republican, democrat, libertarian,
or anyone with a petition, on the ballot. Under this new
method, there could only be, for instance, republicans,
democrats, and libertarians, and he asked whether two out of
those three parties and the independent candidate can still do
the petition process to get on the ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX shook her head no.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER surmised there could be ten names on the
primary election ballot down to just two names in the general
election ballot.
MS. BAKALAR opined that he was correct as the system envisioned
by this bill, Top Two Primary was, in theory, held to be
constitutional by the United States Supreme Court under
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party,
552 US 442 (2008). She offered her belief that Representative
Fansler's characterization of how that would look is correct,
there would no longer be this distinction in the way those two
parallel routes to the ballot are envisioned under current law,
between independent candidates and party candidates,
4:46:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX advised that she, and all republican
legislators, received a fascinating memorandum today from a
gentleman involved in the Republican Party advising that the
party is looking into nominating its candidates through a state
convention, and requested feedback. She referred to the idea of
any party choosing its candidates through a convention process,
and asked how that would gel with current statute relating to
primaries.
MS. BAKALAR referred to AS 15.25.010, Provision For Primary
Election, which read as follows:
Candidates for the elective state executive and state
and national legislative offices shall be nominated in
a primary election by direct vote of the people in the
manner prescribed by this chapter. The director shall
prepare and provide a primary election ballot for each
political party. A voter registered as affiliated with
a political party may vote that party's ballot. A
voter registered as nonpartisan or undeclared rather
than as affiliated with a particular political party
may vote the political party ballot of the voter's
choice unless prohibited from doing so under AS
15.25.014 . A voter registered as affiliated with a
political party may not vote the ballot of a different
political party unless permitted to do so under AS
15.25.014 .
MS. BAKALAR opined that that system would require a statutory
amendment because the statute currently reads that the state
holds a primary election.
4:48:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to earlier comments
regarding the State of Nebraska, and advised the committee that
all of its statewide offices are still party specific. He
commented that a scenario exists wherein there are lifelong
nonaffiliated or nonpartisan people who feel the call to serve,
get to the state level and realize that only dogs, generally
speaking, that hunt are the Democratic or Republican Parties.
Therefore, even though a person doesn't strongly feel an
affiliation, they kind of have to get pigeon holed into one or
the other [party] even if that isn't quite square with the
person's self-identity. He asked the sponsor's staff to
research information regarding a scenario wherein the two
leading candidates somehow are incapacitated, and to include how
that scenario would be handled in the states of California and
Washington. He referred to Nick Begich's 1992 airplane crash,
and noted that it wasn't as though he was replace on the ballot.
4:51:20 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN offered his understanding that the constitution
requires a separate election for the lieutenant governor, at
least at the primary level. Although, he said, assuming a third
party had not made it into the top two names moving forward,
what happens under the bill when the top two primary candidates
are both from the same party.
MS. ENRIGHT replied that under HB 200 and the open primary, they
would not necessarily be running with members of the same party.
She explained, it would be irrelevant as to what party they were
affiliated because their moving forward was irrelevant to their
party status, rather, it would be the number of votes received.
Therefore, in the scenario where two republicans move forward
and there is a democrat and republican for lieutenant governor,
one of those candidates for governor would be running with a
democrat, she said.
4:53:00 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that under the bill, the governor is
essentially left with whoever receives the most votes for
lieutenant governor. He offered a scenario of a gubernatorial
race in which there was one democrat and one republican, and the
top two in the lieutenant governor's race was one democrat and
one republican. In the event the voters so chose, under the
bill, people could vote for a democratic governor and a
republican lieutenant governor.
MS. ENRIGHT asked Chair Claman to clarify whether he was
speaking as to whether they are elected separately because they
do run together on the ticket in the general election. She
answered that in the event the republican governor that moved
forward chose to run with the democratic lieutenant governor, it
was possible they could be elected with separate parties.
4:54:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that if there are two republican
candidates that make it out of the primary, such as with Senator
Lisa Murkowski's election, when looking at the number of votes
it may have been Joe Miller and Lisa Murkowski as top two coming
out of the primary, and then they would have another battle
against each other in the general election. He offered that in
this scenario two republicans are the top vote getters in the
lieutenant governor's race and that candidates for governor
choose from those two who they want to be their lieutenant
governor. Today, he commented, that is a choice made by the
voters, whereas, under this scenario, the candidate would just
get to say that they choose candidate A or B.
MS. ENRIGHT answered that Chair Claman's statement was accurate.
4:55:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN disagreed that the statement was entirely
accurate because he was unsure it was always the people choosing
as sometimes the candidates themselves choose. He referred to
recent history and said he wanted to incorporate those types of
situations into the conversation, where there is a change in the
pairing coming out of the primary election.
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that those situations occur when someone
resigns from the voters' choice. Under current law, for
example, the current governor selected a person to be his
lieutenant governor candidate, that person stepped down and
someone took their place, and the democratic candidate for
governor elected not to stay on the ballot and the party didn't
replace them.
There certainly have been times when someone withdrew, but he
opined that when the voters choose who they want for lieutenant
governor, that's the person who goes with the republican, and
that's the person who goes with the democratic candidate. In
the event "they could convince" that person to step down, the
party would have the ability to nominate another candidate. In
theory, he said, as of today absent a resignation, the voter's
get to foist upon their party's candidate the lieutenant
governor they choose, and historically there have been changes
after the primary, but that's different.
4:58:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that she supports Representative
Kopp's position with regard to the clearer choice as it does
cause a candidate to grill down and work hard to win over the
hearts and minds of their constituents, and that the primary
election is an important process. She referred to
Representative LeDoux's comment that "with the stroke of a pen
you can change your party," and asked Representative LeDoux why
it is okay for a person, at a stroke of a pen, to change their
party affiliation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX advised Representative Reinbold that under
current law, a person can switched their party affiliation. She
stressed that she will not speak to Representative Reinbold's
question because that is not her bill.
CHAIR CLAMAN added that when she was married, by the stroke of a
pen she was allowed to change her name, so too can a person
change their party affiliation.
5:00:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that people work hard in
creating platforms in the different parties and candidates need
to support those platforms. She offered that she received
information from the National Conference of State Legislatures
(NCSL) through Legislative Legal and Research Services regarding
the Top Two Primary, and paraphrased as follows: "The top two
format uses a common ballot listing all candidates on the same
ballot, advocates for the top two primary argue that it
increases the likelihood of moderate candidates advancing to the
general election ballot. Opponents of the Top Two Primary
maintain that it reduces voter choice by making it possible that
two candidates of the same party may face off in the general
election. They also contend that it is tilted against minor
parties who will face slim odds of earning one of only two spots
on the general election ballot. And, it does say that there's
several states that use these, California, Louisiana, Nebraska,
and Washington."
5:02:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that he finds it "American"
that any person, at any time, can be humble and recognize they
may have been part of the wrong party, found a better party, or
decided not to be a member of any party. President Ronald
Regan, for example, was a member of the Democratic Party, and he
switched that, and most republicans don't hold that against him,
he said.
5:03:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER thanked Representative LeDoux for
bringing this bill forward as he has a similar election style
bill, and finds this to be an excellent discussion so that
society continues to have these discussions to determine what
does not work and what does work. He expressed that he is now,
more than ever, worried about the governor/lieutenant governor
situation where candidates were vehemently opposed to each other
and work to compromise the campaigns. He offered a situation
wherein someone became incapacitated and now the governor did
not have that person on the ballot with no avenue to obtain
another candidate. He requested information regarding the
states that have enacted Top Two Primary, whether any have the
same constitutional requirement as Alaska, and whether they run
everything as a ticket at the primary level.
MS. ENRIGHT advised that none of those states have Alaska's
constitutional provision.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER surmised that they all run as a ticket at
the primary level.
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that that creates this unique situation
in Alaska.
5:04:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to adopt CSHB 200, Version 30-
LS0038\U, Bullard, 4/917, as the working document. There being
no objection, Version U was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD requested public testimony notice, and
asked that the committee slowly move through the bill section-
by-section.
5:06:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that he expects public hearing testimony to
take place on Wednesday, [April 12, 2017], on CSHB 200.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that she welcomes moving through
this bill thoroughly, which is the purpose of these committee
hearings. The concern expressed regarding what avenue to take
in the event a candidate becomes incapacitated is an excellent
point that was probably not considered because the other states
adopting Top Two Primary, have gone through the initiative
process but, she pointed out, the initiative process does not
vet bills.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the provision regarding "a
vacancy in office after the election" specifying that the
parties can dictate who is replaced in the event of a vacancy of
a legislator or other official. Under this bill, he commented
there is now a situation "for you to have a personal
registration with one party, but refer something -- you know,
refer to something else, nonpartisan or something, on the
ballot. Which of the two is going -- you know, is going to be
controlling when it comes time to replace a -- deceased
legislator and why."
[HB 200 was held over.]
5:09:09 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:09 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB200 Draft Proposed CS ver U 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Sponsor Statement 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Explanation of Changes ver U 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Sectional Analysis ver O 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Bill Highlights 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Supporting Document-Washington Supreme Court Ruling 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Supporting Document-Letters 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Additional Document-Top Two Primaries Nationally 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Additional Document-Legal Opinion 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB200 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HB 200 |
| HB208 ver A 4.10.17.PDF |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Sponsor Statement 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Sectional Analysis ver A 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 PowerPoint Sectional 4.10.17.pptx |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Decanting Matrix 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Decanting Rankings 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Trust Estate Glossary 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Letter Peak Trust Company 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Letter Manley & Brautigam 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Letter ABA 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Letter Northern Law Group 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Fiscal Note LAW-CIV 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |